The beginning of the end of free speech in Canada?

Although not a true class-action case, Neufeld’s case was treated as if it was, and his award is to be split amongst LGBTQ teachers of the Chilliwack Teacher’s Association who were not required to show any nexus between Neufeld’s comments and any adverse treatment they may have endured. The trend of using human rights tribunals as vehicles for class-action-type complaints has evolved under the pursuit of substantive equality. However, human rights tribunals lack the capacity, expertise, and procedures that exist in the courts that deal with true class actions. Tribunals have no certification process to provide adequate checks and balances. An extreme example of using a tribunal for a class action was First Nations Child & Family Caring Society Ltd. v. Canada, which led to an award to approximately 165,000 members of a class for an amount in the billions, and a settlement negotiated by the government for a total sum of $23.3 billion. This is a long way from where discrimination tribunal adjudication began. The BCHRT also went through some legal gymnastics to find Neufeld guilty. In a controversial preliminary ruling in his case, the provincial tribunal asserted it has the authority to hear allegations of hate speech published online, notwithstanding that telecommunication was previously considered the exclusive domain of the federal tribunal. Reasonable people can and do disagree about when speech crosses the threshold into extreme vilification or detestation—the high threshold of hate speech as defined in the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark 2013 Whatcott ruling. The problem with the Neufeld decision is that different adjudicators may have reached a different conclusion, which attests to the very subjective nature of this exercise. The issue at stake in the Neufeld decision is the effect on free speech in Canada. There is no perfect solution, but it is better to risk hurt feelings than to spiral down into a collective state of paranoia where people are afraid to voice any views on controversial subjects. We have quickly forgotten examples like the Stasi prosecuting wrong-speech in communist East Germany, where contravening any of their vague wrong-speech laws could lead to a prison sentence. What bothers many of us about the Neufeld decision is that it feels less like the protection of vulnerable persons and more like the enforcement of ideology. There are fair questions about youth transgenderism that hate speech laws will suppress. For example, why has the recorded incidence of transgender youth exploded since 2011? Why is there a noticeable correlation between youth identifying as transgender and being diagnosed with autism? People should be free to ask questions and explore for answers without fear of financial ruin for crossing a vague line. Free speech is an essential element for any free and democratic society. It acts as a pressure valve, allowing the debate of difficult questions, challenging accepted narratives, and arriving at new ideas and consensus. Stifling free speech only builds up pressure, and when people believe they are no longer at liberty to engage in free debate, society will become more and more divided, and this is when things could get explosive. The courts exist to deal with hate speech under the Criminal Code. Human rights tribunals are not properly set up to deal with hate speech. They should let the courts do their work and stay out of the business of policing free speech.