With new restrictions coming in to the country and the fourth wave hitting all over the world, there seems to be a divide amongst people. I’m noticing that it is heightened wherever I go. Vaccinated versus unvaccinated people both have their view points and in chatting with folks on both sides, the statement is the same…” where is my freedom in all of this”. The unvaccinated are feeling this way as more and more non-essential businesses and sporting venues implement proof of vaccine to enter their establishments. And some employers are now requiring all employees to be vaccinated within the next 30-60 days or it means termination of employment. For the vaccinated people, they feel that some of their freedom is being taken away with new restrictions – where governments are lax with implementing vaccine passports for non-essential businesses. The statement about, “my freedom of rights” is being said more and more. What it tells me, is that anything people feel their “freedom” in some way is in jeopardy, seems to be on a lot of people’s minds and whether that is being fueled by the media or if it’s from their experience, it deserves some time here…
I got curious as to how this has changed so much, what has escalated this feeling of division amongst people, not just with regards to the pandemic, but heightened issues that came to light in the last few years with freedom of speech and the cancel culture. One of the questions I have is where is this all leading us? Before I can attempt to find an answer to that, I need to start back at the beginning with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to understand what freedoms we are granted as Canadians.
I found a simplified document called “Freedom of Expression 101” on the Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s (CCLA) website and the following is taken from that document:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
In Canada, we have a broad definition of what is protected as “expression” under s. 2(b) of the Charter.
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927 is an important Supreme Court of Canada case that established several key principles that guide our understanding of freedom of expression in Canada.
“Expression” has both a content and a form.
- Content is the meaning that is being portrayed by any expressive activity.
- Expressive activities can come in many forms. In other words, expression isn’t just limited to the things we say; it can come in many forms, from the written word, to music, or physical gestures. Even the act of being silent can convey meaning! As long as an activity is performed to convey meaning, it can be considered expression under the Charter.
Example: I wear a rainbow pin on my jacket. Wearing this accessory is my chosen form of expression. The meaning or content I wish to convey when I wear this pin is that I support LGBTQ+ rights.
Freedom of expression is protected in our Constitution to ensure that everyone can share their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs, no matter how unpopular they may seem. Such protection is, in the words of the Charter, “fundamental” because in a free and democratic society, both individuals and communities benefit from access to a diversity of ideas and opinions.
The Irwin Toy case also identified the values underlying freedom of expression:
1) individual self-fulfillment;
2) finding the truth through the open exchange of ideas (sometimes called the “marketplace of ideas”); 3) enabling political discourse fundamental to democracy (allowing for conversations and communication about laws and government so that we can live in a democratic country in which everyone gets to participate, share information and their opinions about what the government is doing, and make choices about government and law);
This part of the explanation really got to me. As a Canadian, I may have taken a lot for granted as I hadn’t looked into this before. I was out for lunch this week with some friends/coworkers who both immigrated to Canada from countries where as women, they don’t have the freedom of expression mentioned in our Charter. We had some great discussion on some of their experiences and it really opened my eyes to how difficult it is in other parts of the world. Now reading this, I am humbled and emotional to how fortunate I am to live in Canada.
The “Freedom of Expression 101” on the CCLA website continues:
Because we give broad protection to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, in most cases where freedom of expression is at issue, the real “work” is done in the courts under s. 1 in deciding what limits on freedom of expression are reasonable (see section 1 and the Acorn Test).
The following are some general exclusions to protection under s. 2(b) of the Charter:
- conveying meaning through a violent form of expression is not protected expression under the Charter;
- threats of violence are not protected;
- The location from which a message is conveyed might also exclude it from s. 2(b) protection if it would conflict with the values underlying freedom of expression (noted above)
For example, staging a protest inside a Cabinet meeting could interfere with the way our government functions to such a degree that it prevents important political discourse from taking place, even though that same protest would likely be protected outside the Parliament building.
What about hate speech?
Legal restrictions on hate speech is a controversial topic in Canada. The question of whether there should be restrictions on hate speech presents a difficult dilemma because the answer may depend on how you define hate speech.
If we define “hate speech” too generally, then we could be in danger of silencing opinions that might be valuable to consider in a free and democratic society. For example, should there be a law that prevents you from saying that you “hate” the owner of a zoo that is cruel to animals? Could sharing this information and your feelings benefit the public?
On the other hand, if we have no protections against hateful speech, we could be exposing some individuals and vulnerable groups to real harm and discrimination. Certain types of expression can potentially dehumanize a group or encourage others to have extremely negative feelings towards members of that group. Should we have laws to protect people from these types of harms?
As of 2018, the most recent Supreme Court of Canada case on the issue of hate speech is Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11).
- The Court found that provincial rules against hate speech did limit freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter;
- It also found that those limitations were reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter;
After reading what exclusions are in place to protect people from Hate Speech, I wonder why then is cancel culture not been challenged in the same way? I took to the internet to see what I could find that would help me understand what exactly is cancel culture and has it gone too far?
Cancel culture happens when a group of people ostracize someone for doing or saying offensive things. It usually follows a pattern: 1. A well-known person gets called out on social media for their harmful acts or words. 2. People debate whether this person should have a place in the community anymore. 3. The “cancelled” person might face consequences for their actions. For some, it means an attack on free speech because it’s an attempt to silence controversial or “politically incorrect” opinions as well as making people afraid to express their views without being shamed. Others see it instead as consequence culture where it helps marginalized communities hold people accountable for causing harm and it teaches people to be more careful with their words and actions.
There have been many examples of how cancel culture has impacted people from different backgrounds such as social media influencers, Hollywood actors/actresses and a U.S President. The state of Florida passed a law in May which banned social networks from de-platforming politicians. Texas followed suite a few weeks ago. The state of Texas, wanted to ensure users were not banned due to their political viewpoints. Some examples of social media platforms banning what the state calls censoring conservative views was when Former US President Donald Trump was banned from Facebook and Twitter after a group of supporters attached the Capital in January. Texas governor Greg Abbot, said, “Social media websites have become our modern-day public square,” after he signed the bill into law on September 9th. He goes on to say, “They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely. But there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas”. Here closer to home in Canada, Don Cherry who for 30 years was a Canadian cultural icon and co-host of Coach’s Corner for Hockey Night in Canada had his reputation, career and all the good work he had done in the past erased overnight with the power of a few on social media. At one time he was voted the 7th greatest Canadian of all time and in one day that changed. Then there were other Canadians targeted like Stockwell Day, Jessica Mulroney, Jordan Peterson, Rex Murphy and let’s not forget Ezra Levant who strongly believes the organizations of Human Rights Tribunals are what’s wrong with our society with regards to having our freedoms stripped away. Levant says he was targeted for 900 days and interrogated for the publication of his cartoons he felt were his right under the Freedom of Speech. He felt the government and the Human Rights Commission had no right to target him. Bill C-16 passed by the Trudeau government has given these Human Rights Tribunals more power. Some believe these types of organizations, have supported this cancel culture we find ourselves in.
One person in particular who had a great impact on me over the years here in Alberta is Danielle Smith, a former politician, journalist and talk show host for many years, she chose earlier this year to cancel her platform that reached a very broad audience. Smith told Global News on January 11, 2021 that, “she was gravely troubled by how easily most in our society have chosen to give up on freedom. Free enterprise, freedom of religion and conscience, free assembly, freedom of movement, freedom of the press”. She went on to say that “freedom of speech is in a dire state. My entire adult life and career has been spent questioning authority and institutions and conventional wisdom. I’ve been all too aware that in many nations of the world it is against the law to speak truth to power. It can be dangerous. Sadly, in the last year I’ve noticed there are times where it has become perilous here too”. She has always prided herself on being balanced in her views and discussions and to provide the best information available from as many perspectives as possible. I have always been a fan of Danielle’s because of this. In my opinion, she isn’t one sided and always brought many sides to the story for her followers to make up their own mind. She never tried to influence, she just laid out the facts and let us decide for ourselves. She would share her experiences and why she believes what she does but her show never made me feel I had to believe what she did to listen to her regular podcasts and radio show.
I have had the pleasure to see her speak live and to meet her – she is the real deal. I was very sad when she cancelled the show as I always found her informative and it pushed me to educate myself further on whatever topics she was highlighting because of how she presented everything. Smith says that, “unfortunately over the last few years far too many topics have become unchallengeable and the mob of political correctness thinks nothing of destroying a person’s career and reputation over some perceived slight, real or imagined. I’ve found that as a result there are many topics I simply choose not to cover anymore. You rely on me to speak the truth and to give you my honest opinion. In this hyper-sensitive social media environment, I don’t believe I can do that anymore. So, it’s time for me to go. I do believe there is going to be a great reckoning in the next several years as we come to terms with what we’ve allowed social media to do to our relationships, our society, and our public discourse”.
What is worrisome for me, is that everything the charter says about protecting Canadians from freedom of thought, belief and expression, I too have seen situations where people have not been protected and nothing is done about it. I don’t know where this is going but I hope there is a shift soon as I don’t have a good feeling about the future where this is concerned otherwise.
With regards to vaccine passports, the legal information out there speaks to forced vaccination being an infringement on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but not mandatory vaccination as it still allows people not vaccinated to have essential services – it’s the non-essential services they can’t take part in. The Justice Centre in Canada, advocates for freedom in Canada’s courtrooms and to defend the constitutional freedom of Canadians through litigation and education, mention on their website that, “unless governments pass specific legislation requiring it, vaccination is a choice. At a minimum religious and medical exemptions must be honoured in accordance with various human rights codes across the country.
The CCLA website has put people in 2 camps:
1. Bring on the vaccine passport:
Those who favour mandatory vaccine passports say that everything that can be done to potentially reduce COVID19 infection, should be done. If we wear masks to keep others safe, why wouldn’t we similarly be willing to demonstrate our vaccination status? It’s been a year of extraordinary legal orders to control and monitor human behaviour, ranging from contact tracing apps, heat-mapping gathering spots, snitch lines for “covidiot” reporting and a wide range of recommendations and legal restrictions on activities. Some of these have arguably been necessary and proportionate, others not so much, and disagreement remains as to which is which. Vaccine passport proponents ground their support in the fact that fully vaccinated people are less likely to end up hospitalized even if they get infected, making large gatherings less of a public health risk.
2. Vaccine passports may do more harm than good:
Those against vaccine passports point out that proof of vaccination does not equal immunity, and they warn of discrimination and privacy invasion. The proposed passports have an explicit goal of making private decisions about our health public. Just as some communities and groups of people—Black, Indigenous, newcomers, poor, elderly—have been disproportionately impacted by the virus, so they may be particularly impacted by this very public and dispersed version of surveillance as systemic racism may influence choices of service providers and others about who to demand “proof” from, and who to deny access, particularly in the absence of a strict legal regime governing their use. For those with medical or religious grounds for being unable to get vaccinated, risks of discrimination based on who or what they are raise obvious and significant rights concerns. For those on the “no” side of the debate, vaccine passports carry risks for accessibility and equality.
Because this is such a new issue, the legal world doesn’t know just yet how to deal with this. I’m not sure if any court will want to set precedence with this as there are so many factors that could impact many things in regards to how we live – it would be difficult at this stage to know all the impacts to a decision on whether mandatory vaccinations goes against human rights legislation or if for those that are vaccinated and feel further lockdowns and restrictions trample on their rights.
With the whole vaccination debate, it’s about freedom of movement and the return to economic vibrancy. Will it be possible to have that where everyone feels they have maintained a sense of freedom? I don’t think it will be. As much as the policy makers try to be fair, one camp is going to feel a loss. Never before has our freedom been so restricted then it has by the pandemic and it seems that the only way to get back some of what we once had, may mean more policies and mechanisms required to keep the number of infections at a low level. I think we all can agree that life will never be the same, we have stepped into a new era. Just like how cancel culture changed people’s lives overnight, so did the pandemic. From everything I read on the topics of freedom, there was a theme – people have different ideas on what freedom is for them. This is obvious by the fact we have different political parties like Liberals and Conservatives. Since the meaning of Freedom is individualized, I can see why it’s difficult to to have everyone happy these days. Because of this, I believe there was always a division amongst people, but it is being amplified by social media, online news and fake news being spread by people hoping to divide us to push their own ideas and platforms ahead.
If you’ve read any of my other articles, you will see that I have no trouble talking about myself and adding in bits and pieces of my story and how I feel about certain issues. However, with this one, I found it very difficult to assert myself into the article. I wavered back and forth on whether I should weigh in with my own opinions and well, I couldn’t. All week I had restless sleeps, waking up thinking about why I wasn’t able to find my voice for this particular topic. I had a coaching call later in the week and it was all about that, finding your voice and how the only way to be authentic with others, is to tell your truth. My hesitation is that I may offend someone and then people would comment defensively or stop following or talking to me. That people pleasing aspect that lingers in the background of my decisions was holding me back. I tend to not put myself out there in situations where people can push me around either in person or in a text or a post. I was bullied as a child, I have a lot of freckles and back then, that made me a target. Now a days, girls are drawing them on with a pencil or tattooing them on as they are popular and cool, but not so when I was growing up. I also happened to have a last name that had it’s own anthem around the world…Campbell as in Campbell soup…down my leg and in my boot, you get the gist. It’s all funny when I think about it now but as a small girl with no support system, it was difficult, and I found myself not speaking up for me and my voice got quieter and quieter. Then when I became an adult, if situations arose where others were the target, I was momma bear in there like a dirty shirt sticking up for others but then in the corporate world that got me in to trouble as well. It’s taken some time to understand all of this and reconcile the inner child with the adult woman but I’m getting there. A lot of people are in the same boat as me where it’s difficult to stand up for what we believe and it’s even harder in a world of social media where if you say something in a post on Facebook and your friends don’t like it, then you get blocked or you are called all kinds of nasty things on your post in front of the world. It can be difficult. What ever happened to the saying that we can agree to disagree and still be friends. We don’t need to name call or stop talking to that person. That is elementary school behaviour but it happens. We all get triggered by what others can say, but we can choose to react in a kind way and still oppose their views. There is no real big reward in life if we don’t risk this. We don’t grow unless we share how we feel and speak our truth. Asking for what you need or sharing your opinion on a controversial topic, you can disagree with others and do it with kindness. Otherwise, I am afraid the bullies on social media will win if we don’t say anything. More people like Danielle Smith will shrink back, not shine and share their gift with us anymore. There are so many others like her that have given in. I just found my voice again last year and I can’t go back, I won’t go back – so here goes…
I have been double vaccinated and I didn’t want to have to get a vaccination either, but I did to help all of us get through this as the more people who get vaccinated the quicker we can return to a somewhat normal world. I want to have the freedom to travel, to go out without a mask and socialize in a restaurant or pub. I want to be able to do this and with the fourth wave and 30% of the population not vaccinated, I am in agreeance that there should be a vaccine passport in Alberta for non-essential services. This allows unvaccinated people to not be forced to be vaccinated however if they want to be able to go out to a restaurant, a concert or sporting event, then like the other 70%, they can decide if that is enough to put aside the value they have around this issue that is holding them back from getting vaccinated. I work with someone who is not able to have any type of vaccine injected into her otherwise she swells up like a balloon and is hospitalized and it becomes quite serious. She isn’t able at this time to get a Covid shot. However, she also doesn’t go out into public areas where there are crowds or opportunity to be at risk. That’s her world and she doesn’t then expect that those that are able to be out and about should be constrained or restricted for her. In a perfect world, there would be no pandemic and we could carry on with our values, beliefs and freedom of movement but unfortunately there is. The only way to get a handle on this pandemic and to not overburden hospitals so surgeries can continue is through more vaccinations or passports. There are people that have been waiting to have surgery to remove cancer from their body through all of this and unless they will die today, their surgery is put on hold as that is how the health system is determining who get surgery right now. And we have people picketing hospitals around the country because they want rights to non-essential services and work for their employer without getting a vaccination – this saddens me to see this going on. It is people’s right to not have the vaccine but then they should know that there will need to be restrictions from certain things, it can’t be both ways at this time. Businesses and our economy can no longer substain closures, it’s just not viable.
While most of us have felt like we no longer have much control over our lives at the moment, I want to remind you all of something Victor Frankl said in his book; Man’s Search for Meaning. The book recounts a time when he had his freedom taken from him when he was put into a concentration camp. Frankl writes, “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” Another part of the book mentions, “Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom;”
I don’t know what the next stage of this is going to look like for us, but I do know what it’s like to have an outlook of what Frankl writes about as I have had glimpses of that this last year with the inner work I have done. I know if I keep at it, the consistency will be there and if these last few years are any indication of where we are headed, I want to be prepared for that mentally.