I absolutely agree. LGB&Ts and other minority groups fought hard for free speech and other civil rights because we were effectively cut of from the public square. Trying to censor the right cuts the legs out from under us, an especially dangerous move today given the climate down south and the tendency for America's culture wars to spill over our border.
Moreover, it is dumb strategy. The overt bigotry of the Westboro Baptist Church which picketed our funerals with signs saying "God Hates F*gs" was more effective in raising public sympathy for us than most protests. It's far better to let normie Canadians hear and be repulsed by guys like Feucht than to turn them into free speech martyrs.
It has to be said that those two singers are not a good comparison.
While it is tempting to look for comparable examples from the left and right to established a common principle, there’s a major difference that needs to be acknowledged first.
Kneecap promotes Hamas, an active group of rapists, kidnappers, and murderers. Not hypothetical statements. This is promotion of a group that actively rapes, kills and kidnaps.
Feucht promotes ideas that many find offensive or hurtful. He does not promote people who actually rape murder, or kidnap gay people.
That is a fundamental difference.
Whatever you think of Feucht, (and it’s normal to be put off by people promoting terrible ideas), everyone should be able to recognize the fundamental difference and assess the situation with that fundamental difference in mind.
It's the difference between "honking is violence" and "fiery but mostly peaceful protests". You always win if you get to move the goalposts on a moment to moment basis.
And this case is even more insidious than the insane Ward case (and good grief, how close did the SCC come to totally botching that one with only a 5-to-4 split!) given that this is one of prior restraint. Every time you turn around in this Country you see one gross example of government or judicial over reach after another (cough, Toronto bike lanes, cough).
Ha I posted about the Toronto bike lanes too. To be clear: I use those bike lanes all the time. I strongly support them and argue vociferously to convert car lanes to bike lanes, even when friends and family can get really angry and passionate against bike lanes. I am a monthly donor to Cycle Toronto.
But … I don’t want to win like this. Not with that kind of shoddy, cynical judicial overreach and weaponization of the courts. It’s just corrosive to our polity and makes yet another part of life that should be just a neutral function into a battleground.
People like me should have to win the hard way — convince a majority of fellow citizens to vote for a government that wants to put in bike lanes.
And the 5-4 split in Ward was with Russell Brown on the court. He's gone now. If the case was heard today, it's quite likely it would've gone the other way and Ward's comedy routine would now be against the law.
Yeah, I hesitate to pass judgment on events that do not get a full hearing but it sure seems like he was shafted - obviously, to the Country's detriment.
"They don't ban hate speech, they ban speech they hate" Elon Musk. Seems what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. Identity politics, DEI dogma, two tier policing, and the erosion of the rule of Law from the Courts Party, which has lost it's moral sense of duty, but has the power to sit in judgement. All bode ill for the future of the western "democracies." We are living in the era of "managed democracy" when Woke addled brains of the ruling classes rule the roost. Free speech is the bedrock of democracy. Seems we as an "Enlightened Society" have not the stomach to stay the course as the elite bend and twist the direction of "political progress" in the Leftist direction, on this highway to "1984 Hell." If we carry on along this path, western culture, democracy, and freedom of speech will be destroyed from the forces within, as has occurred before and demolished previous "civilizations." So very sad to witness. 😵💫
People don’t realize that if you weaponize things that should be neutral, like the courts or the Parks Canada events team, that at some point your opponents will have those weapons in their hands and will use them against you.
I’d ask those in favour of cancelling these events: what happens if a future Max Bernier-led government directs Parks Canada to not issue any permits to any band that supports immigration, or something like that? Will you not then regret having turned what should be a neutral public service into yet another battleground?
The US is way further down this road of decay than we are, so you see things like Texas gerrymandering districts to give Republicans more seats. Right now the Dems consider themselves too honourable to do that, but at some point they’ll have to pick up that weapon or they’ll just cease to exist as a political force.
It’s a multipolar trap: once a tactic exists, you have to use it or you’ll always lose. It’s better for the country to just not let the tactic exist in the first place. Unfortunately for the country, apparently anti-LGBTQ hate speech is such an existential threat that it’s worth turning our institutions and basic civil services into a venue for total war.
A good parallel example is bike lanes. I’m a strong supporter of the Toronto bike lanes; I think they’re good for climate change and I use them personally all the time. But I don’t want to win like we did with that court case yesterday. A constitutional right to bike lanes, meaning the elected government can’t set transportation policy?! Come on. And what happens when the Court at some point in the future is packed with judges by a pro-car government? Hey, we started it by making the Court another venue for total war.
I don’t want Canada to go down the US route on this stuff. It’s tearing them apart; it could easily do the same for us.
Wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, BUT gerrymandering is as old as dirt, and the Democrats are not pure enough to not engage in wholesale when given the chance. So let's not pretend they're innocent, when it comes to engage in questionable practices.
Your point about hyper-politicized precedents becoming weapons that might fall into opponents' hands helps explain why the modern Canadian left goes totally apoplectic about the idea of Conservatives ever gaining power.
They realize they are the assholes, and are terrified at the retribution they imagine will come if their enemies ever take over the institutions they have corrupted and weaponized.
Hey if cyclists were subject only to the grace that our legislators and courts have shown to lawful gun owners, their sport would be restricted to tightly fenced-in tracks and every six months or so the faster looking bike models will be arbitrarily banned without legal recourse or any due process owed, and the owner forced to store them under lock and key for the indefinite future.
I would appear that the constitution exists to serve the ideology and vote harvesting of judges and politicians. Canada has become a country where emergency measures can be used to address illegal parking and freedom of expression can be suppressed on concerns for crowd control.
So a bigot wants to hold some concerts. Let him. This is a great example of the Streisand Effect. He has much more free publcity than possible to pay for.
I wish free speech was more valued in this country than it is.
Can’t stand Trumpers like this one. However you are correct, in that it was the most stupid of choices to ban this guy. Especially from a church. What are these folks thinking? All they have done is to make a martyr out of this person. The answer to this is obvious. But it is not about banning performers.
Agree. If we start deeming things we find offensive as things to be banned that is a problem. It is isn’t against the law to name call, insult or offend someone or a body of people. By no means do I support him but it is ironic that he’s said that he’s being persecuted because he’s espousing Christian beliefs whereas if he were spouting left wing views he’s be ok - which is kind of true. And every group seeking to ban him, basically says he promotes views they don’t support. This is a really slippery slope, especially when people supporting free speech then get accused of actually supporting what he says!
Agree 100% with the article and Allan Stratton’s point. But I also think banning this particular performer is an anti MAGA -Trump - America reaction of the brainless kind demonstrated by Doug Ford’s strutting banty rooster combative pronouncements which do little to help efforts to improve tariff negotiations. Duplessis’s anti JW legislation was rightly quashed by Canadian courts (in the pre “notwithstanding clause” days when the court’s jurisdiction was still respected by Quebec). Would have been nice to see similar efforts to censure Duplessis’ rampant anti-semitism, but at the time the latter was a bedrock Quebec and Canadian value IMHO.
I am torn it is clearly unconstitutional but allowing Feucht to say/sing whatever he wants creates a precedent for allowing anti-Semitic music groups like Kneecap, etc. to rile up a crowd of thousands into a Nuremberg-rally frenzy of wanting to kill people like me. It is especially unsettling given the current government has little real interest of will-power to combat anti-Semitism and growing hatred of Jews.
Overall, the least bad of both worlds is that you apply the rules equally. That means that kneecap at their current level of escalation can't be constitutionally banned, and we should respect that. Jews are being attacked for reasons very much tied with a loss of respect for the norms and values of civilization. Upholding the constitution is one of the most important places to say, no, not here. It's not the easy choice, it's the right one.
I get what you're saying but I guess I have a different calculus as a member of the group who will suffer. I also think saying awful things in a church basement is a far cry from a festival crowd at Glastonbury etc calling for people like me to be killed.
I'm also an M.O.T. (and definitely not an anti-Zionist one).
I think Bob Vylan and Kneecap are - thus far - different cases. The first group stepped over a clear incitement line. Kneecap so far have been more, let's say, discreet and clever.
I do think that actions like Kneecap contribute to the atmosphere that as a whole makes it not just more emotionally challenging for Jews but in aggregate, threatens their livelihoods and even their wellbeing and lives. But I don't see a way not to set an unhealthy precedent if you were to start a process to criminalize the level they are currently at. Something like the fact that the police need to get mobsters with RICO laws and proper procedures rather than just sending the army into their gathering places to mow them down, as destructive as the mobsters might be in the meantime.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how the Canadian constitution specifically would have dealt with those Glastonbury situations. I do know that breaking norms and is a race to the bottom, potentially a really dangerous one - probably especially for Jews - and adding to that process should be closer to a last resort than a first one.
Agreed, we are on a slippery slope here and our politicians seem to quake at the possibility that some fringe group will criticize them so ... they cancel the show on some made up pretext. As Sean pointed out, if he had been a drag artist there would have been no concerns but being a Christian - well we just can't have that can we. Burn churches - not a problem, chant 'death to Canada/Israel' - knock your self out but talk about love, family values, marriage between a man and woman, well we just can't have that nonsense here can we?!
There is a real issue here with city administrators and councils deciding what the 'community standard' is for speech, song, gatherings and so forth. Christians will poke fun at their religion, laugh at others who poke fun, and will also tolerate being 'cancelled' for their beliefs. One of these days we are going to have to stand up and demand our rights and freedoms - hopefully before it is too late.
Rampant hatred of Jews is not seen as much of a problem in our political establishment, yet all of their antennas seem to be on the watch for any alleged criticism of most of those who spew it in various venues, not just our streets.
Canadian progressives continually hide behind the narratives of “inclusion” “safe spaces” and “equity” but in actual practice the collective is very intolerant of other viewpoints. Rather than have good public debates that air out disagreements, progressives use bully pulpit tactics to cancel and stigmatize people.
Public officials who have shut down free speech is quite a list to behold. Especially outrageous are those in universities who have become ensnared in progressive animosity that cancels presentations by lecturers. Goodness knows, young people today need exposure to new ideas and the opportunity to refute Groupthink.
I agree wholeheartedly with the author's viewpoint on this issue. However, the seeds of this drive to cancel or censor people due to “health and safety” concerns or so-called “community standards” were sown during the recent pandemic years. This is not an aberration, this is the continuation of a trend. During that time, highly credentialed scientists, researchers, and medical professionals were unjustly censored, de-licensed, fired from their positions, and generally vilified for speaking out in any way contrary to the government's edicts and positions. Ordinary people like myself were castigated with something that approaches hate speech by the Prime Minister himself for choosing not to get a very dubious “vaccine”. Two people who organized a protest are now subject to a political show trial worthy of the USSR. Where were all the major publications and smaller publications like this one at that time, or even now? Why did they not speak out? Even to this day there is an extreme aversion to presenting the viewpoints of the cancelled professionals – despite the fact that their assertions have been shown to be largely correct. If you're wondering why we're sliding down this slippery slope, I point you back to those years and the unchallenged censorship of that era.
I absolutely agree. LGB&Ts and other minority groups fought hard for free speech and other civil rights because we were effectively cut of from the public square. Trying to censor the right cuts the legs out from under us, an especially dangerous move today given the climate down south and the tendency for America's culture wars to spill over our border.
Moreover, it is dumb strategy. The overt bigotry of the Westboro Baptist Church which picketed our funerals with signs saying "God Hates F*gs" was more effective in raising public sympathy for us than most protests. It's far better to let normie Canadians hear and be repulsed by guys like Feucht than to turn them into free speech martyrs.
It has to be said that those two singers are not a good comparison.
While it is tempting to look for comparable examples from the left and right to established a common principle, there’s a major difference that needs to be acknowledged first.
Kneecap promotes Hamas, an active group of rapists, kidnappers, and murderers. Not hypothetical statements. This is promotion of a group that actively rapes, kills and kidnaps.
Feucht promotes ideas that many find offensive or hurtful. He does not promote people who actually rape murder, or kidnap gay people.
That is a fundamental difference.
Whatever you think of Feucht, (and it’s normal to be put off by people promoting terrible ideas), everyone should be able to recognize the fundamental difference and assess the situation with that fundamental difference in mind.
It's the difference between "honking is violence" and "fiery but mostly peaceful protests". You always win if you get to move the goalposts on a moment to moment basis.
Indeed.
Bang on!
And this case is even more insidious than the insane Ward case (and good grief, how close did the SCC come to totally botching that one with only a 5-to-4 split!) given that this is one of prior restraint. Every time you turn around in this Country you see one gross example of government or judicial over reach after another (cough, Toronto bike lanes, cough).
Ha I posted about the Toronto bike lanes too. To be clear: I use those bike lanes all the time. I strongly support them and argue vociferously to convert car lanes to bike lanes, even when friends and family can get really angry and passionate against bike lanes. I am a monthly donor to Cycle Toronto.
But … I don’t want to win like this. Not with that kind of shoddy, cynical judicial overreach and weaponization of the courts. It’s just corrosive to our polity and makes yet another part of life that should be just a neutral function into a battleground.
People like me should have to win the hard way — convince a majority of fellow citizens to vote for a government that wants to put in bike lanes.
Big kudos to you for speaking for doing things the right way.
And the 5-4 split in Ward was with Russell Brown on the court. He's gone now. If the case was heard today, it's quite likely it would've gone the other way and Ward's comedy routine would now be against the law.
Yeah, I hesitate to pass judgment on events that do not get a full hearing but it sure seems like he was shafted - obviously, to the Country's detriment.
"They don't ban hate speech, they ban speech they hate" Elon Musk. Seems what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. Identity politics, DEI dogma, two tier policing, and the erosion of the rule of Law from the Courts Party, which has lost it's moral sense of duty, but has the power to sit in judgement. All bode ill for the future of the western "democracies." We are living in the era of "managed democracy" when Woke addled brains of the ruling classes rule the roost. Free speech is the bedrock of democracy. Seems we as an "Enlightened Society" have not the stomach to stay the course as the elite bend and twist the direction of "political progress" in the Leftist direction, on this highway to "1984 Hell." If we carry on along this path, western culture, democracy, and freedom of speech will be destroyed from the forces within, as has occurred before and demolished previous "civilizations." So very sad to witness. 😵💫
People don’t realize that if you weaponize things that should be neutral, like the courts or the Parks Canada events team, that at some point your opponents will have those weapons in their hands and will use them against you.
I’d ask those in favour of cancelling these events: what happens if a future Max Bernier-led government directs Parks Canada to not issue any permits to any band that supports immigration, or something like that? Will you not then regret having turned what should be a neutral public service into yet another battleground?
The US is way further down this road of decay than we are, so you see things like Texas gerrymandering districts to give Republicans more seats. Right now the Dems consider themselves too honourable to do that, but at some point they’ll have to pick up that weapon or they’ll just cease to exist as a political force.
It’s a multipolar trap: once a tactic exists, you have to use it or you’ll always lose. It’s better for the country to just not let the tactic exist in the first place. Unfortunately for the country, apparently anti-LGBTQ hate speech is such an existential threat that it’s worth turning our institutions and basic civil services into a venue for total war.
A good parallel example is bike lanes. I’m a strong supporter of the Toronto bike lanes; I think they’re good for climate change and I use them personally all the time. But I don’t want to win like we did with that court case yesterday. A constitutional right to bike lanes, meaning the elected government can’t set transportation policy?! Come on. And what happens when the Court at some point in the future is packed with judges by a pro-car government? Hey, we started it by making the Court another venue for total war.
I don’t want Canada to go down the US route on this stuff. It’s tearing them apart; it could easily do the same for us.
Canada is already torn apart, and is being held together by very tenuous strings of habit, and perhaps practicality.
Wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, BUT gerrymandering is as old as dirt, and the Democrats are not pure enough to not engage in wholesale when given the chance. So let's not pretend they're innocent, when it comes to engage in questionable practices.
Your point about hyper-politicized precedents becoming weapons that might fall into opponents' hands helps explain why the modern Canadian left goes totally apoplectic about the idea of Conservatives ever gaining power.
They realize they are the assholes, and are terrified at the retribution they imagine will come if their enemies ever take over the institutions they have corrupted and weaponized.
Hey if cyclists were subject only to the grace that our legislators and courts have shown to lawful gun owners, their sport would be restricted to tightly fenced-in tracks and every six months or so the faster looking bike models will be arbitrarily banned without legal recourse or any due process owed, and the owner forced to store them under lock and key for the indefinite future.
Completely agree. It’s not something I’d choose to attend, but feeling offended isn’t grounds to stifle free speech.
I would appear that the constitution exists to serve the ideology and vote harvesting of judges and politicians. Canada has become a country where emergency measures can be used to address illegal parking and freedom of expression can be suppressed on concerns for crowd control.
So a bigot wants to hold some concerts. Let him. This is a great example of the Streisand Effect. He has much more free publcity than possible to pay for.
I wish free speech was more valued in this country than it is.
Can’t stand Trumpers like this one. However you are correct, in that it was the most stupid of choices to ban this guy. Especially from a church. What are these folks thinking? All they have done is to make a martyr out of this person. The answer to this is obvious. But it is not about banning performers.
Agree. If we start deeming things we find offensive as things to be banned that is a problem. It is isn’t against the law to name call, insult or offend someone or a body of people. By no means do I support him but it is ironic that he’s said that he’s being persecuted because he’s espousing Christian beliefs whereas if he were spouting left wing views he’s be ok - which is kind of true. And every group seeking to ban him, basically says he promotes views they don’t support. This is a really slippery slope, especially when people supporting free speech then get accused of actually supporting what he says!
Agree 100% with the article and Allan Stratton’s point. But I also think banning this particular performer is an anti MAGA -Trump - America reaction of the brainless kind demonstrated by Doug Ford’s strutting banty rooster combative pronouncements which do little to help efforts to improve tariff negotiations. Duplessis’s anti JW legislation was rightly quashed by Canadian courts (in the pre “notwithstanding clause” days when the court’s jurisdiction was still respected by Quebec). Would have been nice to see similar efforts to censure Duplessis’ rampant anti-semitism, but at the time the latter was a bedrock Quebec and Canadian value IMHO.
I am torn it is clearly unconstitutional but allowing Feucht to say/sing whatever he wants creates a precedent for allowing anti-Semitic music groups like Kneecap, etc. to rile up a crowd of thousands into a Nuremberg-rally frenzy of wanting to kill people like me. It is especially unsettling given the current government has little real interest of will-power to combat anti-Semitism and growing hatred of Jews.
Overall, the least bad of both worlds is that you apply the rules equally. That means that kneecap at their current level of escalation can't be constitutionally banned, and we should respect that. Jews are being attacked for reasons very much tied with a loss of respect for the norms and values of civilization. Upholding the constitution is one of the most important places to say, no, not here. It's not the easy choice, it's the right one.
I get what you're saying but I guess I have a different calculus as a member of the group who will suffer. I also think saying awful things in a church basement is a far cry from a festival crowd at Glastonbury etc calling for people like me to be killed.
I'm also an M.O.T. (and definitely not an anti-Zionist one).
I think Bob Vylan and Kneecap are - thus far - different cases. The first group stepped over a clear incitement line. Kneecap so far have been more, let's say, discreet and clever.
I do think that actions like Kneecap contribute to the atmosphere that as a whole makes it not just more emotionally challenging for Jews but in aggregate, threatens their livelihoods and even their wellbeing and lives. But I don't see a way not to set an unhealthy precedent if you were to start a process to criminalize the level they are currently at. Something like the fact that the police need to get mobsters with RICO laws and proper procedures rather than just sending the army into their gathering places to mow them down, as destructive as the mobsters might be in the meantime.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how the Canadian constitution specifically would have dealt with those Glastonbury situations. I do know that breaking norms and is a race to the bottom, potentially a really dangerous one - probably especially for Jews - and adding to that process should be closer to a last resort than a first one.
Agreed, we are on a slippery slope here and our politicians seem to quake at the possibility that some fringe group will criticize them so ... they cancel the show on some made up pretext. As Sean pointed out, if he had been a drag artist there would have been no concerns but being a Christian - well we just can't have that can we. Burn churches - not a problem, chant 'death to Canada/Israel' - knock your self out but talk about love, family values, marriage between a man and woman, well we just can't have that nonsense here can we?!
There is a real issue here with city administrators and councils deciding what the 'community standard' is for speech, song, gatherings and so forth. Christians will poke fun at their religion, laugh at others who poke fun, and will also tolerate being 'cancelled' for their beliefs. One of these days we are going to have to stand up and demand our rights and freedoms - hopefully before it is too late.
Rampant hatred of Jews is not seen as much of a problem in our political establishment, yet all of their antennas seem to be on the watch for any alleged criticism of most of those who spew it in various venues, not just our streets.
As we have seen.
Canadian progressives continually hide behind the narratives of “inclusion” “safe spaces” and “equity” but in actual practice the collective is very intolerant of other viewpoints. Rather than have good public debates that air out disagreements, progressives use bully pulpit tactics to cancel and stigmatize people.
Public officials who have shut down free speech is quite a list to behold. Especially outrageous are those in universities who have become ensnared in progressive animosity that cancels presentations by lecturers. Goodness knows, young people today need exposure to new ideas and the opportunity to refute Groupthink.
I agree wholeheartedly with the author's viewpoint on this issue. However, the seeds of this drive to cancel or censor people due to “health and safety” concerns or so-called “community standards” were sown during the recent pandemic years. This is not an aberration, this is the continuation of a trend. During that time, highly credentialed scientists, researchers, and medical professionals were unjustly censored, de-licensed, fired from their positions, and generally vilified for speaking out in any way contrary to the government's edicts and positions. Ordinary people like myself were castigated with something that approaches hate speech by the Prime Minister himself for choosing not to get a very dubious “vaccine”. Two people who organized a protest are now subject to a political show trial worthy of the USSR. Where were all the major publications and smaller publications like this one at that time, or even now? Why did they not speak out? Even to this day there is an extreme aversion to presenting the viewpoints of the cancelled professionals – despite the fact that their assertions have been shown to be largely correct. If you're wondering why we're sliding down this slippery slope, I point you back to those years and the unchallenged censorship of that era.
Wokeistani Banana Republic of Canada.