Juno News - October 09, 2025
Mark Carney's war on freedom of speech
Episode Stats
Words per minute
156.19382
Harmful content
Misogyny
1
sentences flagged
Hate speech
6
sentences flagged
Summary
In this week's episode of Straight Up With Mark Bertrone, host Mark B. Bertrone talks with Christine Van Gynning, the Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, about the impact of the Combating Hate Act, Bill C-19, on freedom of speech.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
And welcome to this edition of Straight Up with Mark Bertrone. I am your host. Thank you so much
00:00:09.440
for tuning in. Ontario Premier Doug Ford wants Prime Minister Carney to put his elbows back up.
00:00:15.920
He says Carney has all but surrendered to Trump. Let's listen. We have to use our strengths as
00:00:22.020
President Trump wants to destroy our auto sector, take down our steel sector, go after our
00:00:27.100
manufacturing sector. But we can't sit back and let President Trump continuously increase tariffs
00:00:32.780
and the Prime Minister's decreasing tariffs. That doesn't cut it. It doesn't cut it, says Doug.
00:00:38.660
He wants to get tough with the Americans on trade. But when he tried to retaliate last March using
00:00:45.060
energy as the club to get back at the Americans, it failed miserably. Back then, he threatened to
00:00:51.340
impose a 25% surtax on energy exports from Ontario to neighboring states. Will he revisit that
00:00:59.080
response? Earlier last March, Ford warned the U.S. governors in Michigan, Minnesota and New York
00:01:06.680
that Ontario was prepared to add a 25% surcharge to the electricity we export to their states if
00:01:12.820
the Trump tariffs were not removed. Trump responded in a hurry by upping the ante to
00:01:19.440
another 50%. Quote, colossal 50% tariff on Canada and Ford backed off. Meantime, conservative leader
00:01:28.820
Pierre Paulyet says the PM failed to protect auto sector jobs during his trade talks with Trump.
00:01:35.340
Just over an hour ago, a report came out that the U.S. Commerce Secretary said there will
00:01:41.460
be no relief for Canadian-made automobiles going into the United States. The Prime Minister
00:01:48.400
is back down on counter tariffs, back down on the DST, back down on defence. Yesterday promised
00:01:54.980
to push a trillion dollars of private sector investment out of our country. How is he going
00:01:59.860
to look those Canadian auto workers in the eye and tell them how he got nothing for them
00:02:04.200
in return? Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day in this House. When the Leader of the Opposition suggests
00:02:12.080
that standing up for the defence of this country, when the Leader of the Opposition suggests
00:02:18.380
that spending for, to defend our borders, that spending to defend our filament in NATO, that that
00:02:26.300
is backing down on defence, we will, shame, shame. Mr. Speaker, at least he finally got up.
00:02:34.200
But he didn't address the question about auto workers. As we know, Mark Carney has a strong
00:02:39.120
affinity to the traditions and laws of Britain, the UK, having served as governor of the Bank
00:02:44.260
of England. Based on his actions in Canada, some people are wondering if he is attempting
00:02:49.780
to import some of the UK's recent, frankly, draconian moves to crack down on speech in that country.
00:02:58.080
Which the government does not approve of. Christine Van Gein is the litigation director at the Canadian
00:03:03.240
Constitution Foundation, which serves as a voice for individual rights and freedoms in
00:03:08.880
Canada's courtrooms. She argues that on September the 19th, the Carney government tabled Bill C-19,
00:03:16.480
the Combating Hate Act. It makes five changes to the criminal code, each one troubling for free
00:03:23.120
expression. Welcome, Christine. Thanks so much for having me on. All right, let's talk a little bit
00:03:28.080
about what troubles you about the Combating Hate Act, the changes to it. Yeah, so if your listeners
00:03:34.640
might recall, there was a piece of legislation in the last parliament called Bill C-63, and that made
00:03:40.560
some changes to criminal law related to hate speech. And as a civil liberties organisation, we have concerns
00:03:48.400
generally about putting people in prison for their words, even if their words are horrible. And, you
00:03:55.200
know, there's all kinds of things that people might say or believe that I think are wrong. But I don't
00:03:59.520
think that the right approach is to put people in prison because of the things they say. So there are
00:04:05.920
sort of five major changes that this new bill, C-9, brings in. And so it's sort of similar to C-63,
00:04:14.640
but it's only criminal prohibitions and it deals with five really specific types of things. So the
00:04:21.840
first thing that C-9 does is it removes the requirement for the attorneys general to provide
00:04:30.080
their consent when a hate propaganda charge or a hate crime charge is laid. So under existing law,
00:04:38.000
the attorney general needs to consent to laying one of these charges because hate speech offences by
00:04:44.320
their nature are very subjective. They are vague. They are prone to misunderstanding by police,
00:04:52.240
by prosecutors and by judges. And one of the guardrails against abuse was that the attorney
00:04:57.680
general needed to consent to these charges being laid. That has been removed. This is actually a huge
00:05:04.960
issue in England. If your listeners have been tracking what's happening in that country,
00:05:09.840
because police are arresting around 30 people a day in that country for speech crimes. And one of
00:05:16.160
the big things that the police have actually said is that they are having difficulty knowing when it is
00:05:21.360
appropriate or not appropriate to lay a charge. So it was really important that we had that provision
00:05:28.160
in Canada to kind of help the police put a restraint on abusive charges. That is now being removed.
00:05:34.800
The second thing that is really major change in this bill is it criminalizes willfully promoting hatred
00:05:45.120
by displaying certain symbols in public. Now, you probably know some of the symbols that are going
00:05:51.840
to be prohibited. One of them is listed specifically. It's the swastika. And we read news reports every
00:05:58.560
single year about some weirdo, some crank who has flown a swastika flag on his front porch. And every
00:06:07.440
year when we read those reports, we're reminded that as awful as it is, a swastika is not illegal. This
0.95
00:06:14.320
change in the Bell C9 would change that. It could make the flying of that symbol alone a criminal offense.
00:06:24.640
And it also would criminalize a number of other symbols, mostly the symbols of listed terrorist
00:06:32.160
entities. And look, I am not someone who wants to defend the flying of those symbols. I think it's
00:06:38.800
repugnant. But we are actually less safe if we do not know what our fellow Canadians think. We are not
00:06:46.080
safer because people are silent about their repugnant views. It is better to see those things in plain sight.
00:06:53.040
Now, there are a few other changes, some extreme sentencing available, life imprisonment for
00:06:59.120
speech crimes, as well as what some have characterized as a bubble zone law, but it really is more like a
00:07:08.240
redundant law that would criminalize obstructing access to certain religious facilities. Obstructing access
00:07:16.640
and intimidation are already these blockades and intimidation are already criminal offenses in
00:07:22.080
Canada. So that part of the law is a little bit redundant.
00:07:26.160
I'm just wondering why the government wants to remove those guardrails around the solicitor general.
00:07:35.200
I mean, why would they do that? Do you know what the rationale for that is?
00:07:40.880
So my feeling is taken together. The purpose of all of this is to generate more charges,
00:07:47.840
more prosecutions and more convictions for unwanted speech. It's actually quite difficult under the
00:07:54.720
existing hate law prohibitions under the criminal code to obtain a conviction. They're quite rare.
00:08:01.440
Charges themselves are quite rare because of this, a journey general requirement to consent to the
00:08:05.920
charges. So we don't even see a lot of charges, let alone convictions. This is a clear indication
00:08:12.880
by this government that they want that to change.
00:08:15.920
So this was going to have, in your view and the view of others, a chilling effect on speech
00:08:20.800
altogether. Once they see more convictions around this, they're going to start to self-center,
00:08:25.520
which is not self-censor rather, which is not what we want in a country like Canada.
00:08:30.320
Yeah. I mean, I think that there will be a chilling effect, but I think more broadly,
00:08:34.160
it's just deeply illiberal to put people in jail for their views, for their opinions,
00:08:39.520
even if their opinions are offensive. If someone has a extremist view, if someone has a radical,
00:08:46.480
racist view, it's much better that we know who those people in our community are
00:08:51.440
so that we can either avoid them or we can try to explain why their views might not be right.
00:08:58.160
We can educate others about better ideas. You know, Europe has famously outlawed things like
00:09:06.960
Holocaust denial. And I have to tell you, it did not reduce Holocaust denial in Europe. It is one of
0.71
00:09:12.320
the places where those terrible ideas flourish the most. And it kind of gives the ideas a lot more power
00:09:20.880
because people who have these repugnant ideas can whisper in your ear, I can tell you what the
00:09:26.240
government doesn't want you to know and tell you in secret without the benefit of those ideas being
00:09:31.360
challenged and taken apart systematically in public. We all benefit from seeing a bad idea get torn down.
00:09:39.440
And now we're losing that collision between truth and falsehood that John Stuart Mill kind of
00:09:47.520
praised in his great work on liberty. We benefit from seeing bad ideas taken down.
00:09:55.120
Yeah. I certainly take your point about burying stuff and making it more powerful. We think we're
00:10:01.200
getting rid of it, but in fact, we're just putting it into the shadows, pushing it into the shadows
00:10:06.160
where it can fester and grow. You know what I mean? I mean, that's essentially what you're saying.
00:10:12.960
Well, also when people who have these kind of fringe or radical ideas are sort of shut off
00:10:19.920
from the rest of society, they end up only interacting with one another and that radicalizes
00:10:26.080
them further. It's better to know what people think so that we can, you know, present them with a
00:10:32.320
different viewpoint and present them with the truth. That ends up being a much better society than one that
00:10:38.400
uses censorship to have one government approved viewpoint put out there.
00:10:45.680
And I guess it opens the door to deeper levels of censorship. In other words,
00:10:52.400
if they can stop you from saying things that are obviously abhorrent, then they can gradually,
00:10:58.480
slowly, but surely expand that to include any opposition to the government. I mean, isn't that the
00:11:04.240
case? Governments, they start off with what appears to be well-intentioned policy, but over the course
00:11:12.160
of time, as they attack those who want to criticize them, you know, it's an easy step into tyranny.
00:11:22.800
Yes. So when the technical, when the government held their technical briefing about this legislation,
00:11:28.880
about C9 on the issue of the prohibition of these symbols. So only two symbols are listed in the
00:11:36.240
legislation specifically, and that's the swastika and the SS lightning bolts, the Nazi SS lightning bolts.
00:11:43.200
And the other prohibited symbols are listed by regulation in the list of prohibited terrorist entities.
00:11:50.400
Now, when that was presented in the stakeholder technical briefing, one of the first questions that
00:11:57.360
was asked was why is the Confederate flag not on that list? And look, I understand that the Confederate
00:12:03.120
flag is used by some as a hurtful symbol and a racist symbol, but it's also used by others to have
00:12:10.480
a different meaning. And I think that the idea of banning, once we start down the path of banning symbols,
00:12:18.480
it becomes quite unclear where that is going to end, because many people are offended by many different
00:12:25.040
symbols that do not offend the vast majority of people. So I'm very concerned about this, the path
00:12:32.640
that we're heading down with this prohibition on symbols. And again, it gives these symbols much more
00:12:37.600
power than they should have. Yeah. You make a great point about some people finding certain things
00:12:43.920
offensive. I mean, most of us, the vast majority of people find a swastika offensive. So that's an easy one.
0.80
00:12:51.600
But what happens if certain religious groups find the symbols that promote other religions
00:12:58.800
offensive? You know, is it possible that they could say, well, that's offensive to me? If it's offensive
00:13:04.160
to me, then there should be a law against it. Go ahead. Yeah. So right now it would only be listed
00:13:10.560
terrorist groups that would have their symbols prohibited. But my concern is sort of, where is this
00:13:17.200
going? Where is this going to end? And it's not going in a good place. I don't think it's a good
00:13:22.560
idea to ban symbols, even if we do not like those symbols. I actually think if someone in my
00:13:28.720
neighborhood is a Nazi, I definitely want to know who that person is. Yeah, I would absolutely say
0.95
00:13:34.480
that. That's yeah, you'd want to know. I don't want my child going up to sell that person girl guide
1.00
00:13:41.040
cookies. I really think it's we're we're less safe when we don't know these things.
00:13:47.440
You also make a great point in your op ed about what's happened in the UK. And wow,
00:13:53.760
has that gone downhill in a hurry? I mean, you've had hundreds of people jailed essentially for posts
00:14:00.320
that they made on Facebook. And I mean, to your point earlier, they may have been badly worded or,
00:14:05.040
you know, people say they put all sorts of things online. And here they are finding themselves behind
00:14:11.120
bars. And you can't help but think that this UK loving prime minister of ours wants to bring some
00:14:18.400
of that to Canada. Is that a fair statement? Yeah. So I mean, I have specifically talked about Mark
00:14:25.520
Kearney's love of the UK in in this op ed. I think it's an interesting kind of connection that he does
00:14:33.360
clearly have this big admiration for the United Kingdom. And look, I spell color with a U as well.
00:14:41.760
But I think that we should look to the UK as a country that on censorship is well down the wrong
00:14:51.040
path. They have been arresting. They recently arrested a sitcom writer for some jokes he posted
00:14:58.240
on Twitter about transgender individuals. They've and that's not the first time they've arrested
00:15:04.080
someone for making jokes on Twitter. There was another man in 2010, Mr. Chambers, who was arrested
00:15:10.160
for making a joke about how angry he was that his flight was canceled. He was going to blow up the
00:15:15.440
airport. He was convicted of communicating a threat. And ultimately, that was overturned. But really,
00:15:25.600
really troubling. There was a case of a teenage girl who posted an Instagram video of herself
00:15:32.080
singing some rap lyrics. She was charged under these provisions. That also ultimately was overturned.
00:15:40.880
And of course, there are, for those of you who don't know, there is this thing in England called a
00:15:46.880
non crime hate incident, where if you say or do something online, that someone doesn't like,
00:15:55.120
they can report it and they think it's directed at a marginalized community, they can report this to
00:16:02.560
the police who will come and knock at your door and put your name on a list. You will not be charged,
00:16:08.000
you might be investigated, you might need a lawyer for that. But it's not, it does not even require a
00:16:13.840
criminal offense. And your employers, many employers might have access to these lists and see if your
00:16:21.120
name is on it. And it is really, really disturbing how this has been used. It was used to go after some
00:16:28.720
teenage girls who were in an argument on Snapchat. It was used, it has been used to go after journalists.
00:16:35.760
It is just terribly abused. And the UK is a country that we got a large part of our constitutional
00:16:43.520
culture from. But they are going to a very dark place when it comes to censorship. The idea that
00:16:50.000
the police will come and knock on your door because of something mean you wrote on the internet is,
00:16:54.880
should disturb us all. That's, that's the kind of thing we expect from authoritarian states, not
00:17:00.080
from Western liberal democracies that were part of the founding of our country.
00:17:05.760
Yeah, what a great point, because that's all we heard about when people spoke about the censorship
00:17:11.040
in places like East Germany and China today, that if you said the wrong thing to the wrong person,
00:17:17.600
you'd get a knock on the door in the middle of the night in the Soviet Union or whatever,
00:17:21.360
and people would never hear from you again. And I think in the UK, the government seems to be
00:17:25.520
particularly nervous or sensitive about criticisms related to their immigration policies.
00:17:31.520
I have people have written stuff about that. You know, they could be crass, they could be insulting,
00:17:37.200
but you know, they're allowed to criticize their government's policy on anything. And yet,
00:17:41.360
here they are essentially being prosecuted for simply saying they don't like the immigration laws.
00:17:47.280
Or if they're not prosecuted, put on a list, put on a list that could affect your employment for a
00:17:54.000
very long time. And I don't think the government should be keeping lists of people with naughty
00:18:00.880
Yeah, absolutely. So what are you doing? And what's your organization doing to get this out? Besides
00:18:08.400
appearing on the show and other shows and doing other interviews, and of course, you're writing about
00:18:14.080
it? Are you speaking with government officials about the dangers of going down this road?
00:18:20.080
So we do not engage in direct lobbying, but I would love to appear at committee to give my perspective
00:18:25.200
on the problems with censorship generally, and the problems with this particular bill.
00:18:30.320
We also have been tracking some other pieces of legislation that the Kearney government has
00:18:36.720
introduced that have impacts on freedom of expression. These are the border bills and the cybersecurity
00:18:44.320
bills. Now, the border bill more relates to a problem with surveillance and infringements on
00:18:51.440
people's constitutionally protected privacy rights. And Bill C-8, which is the cybersecurity bill,
00:19:01.920
has provisions in it that are very concerning that would empower the government to revoke internet access
00:19:07.760
for certain people in certain conditions. And that one we are very troubled by because we don't know
00:19:12.880
how it might be used by either this government or by a future government. So with that particular,
00:19:18.800
with those particular pieces of legislation, we have been encouraging members of the public to write
00:19:25.040
to their members of parliament and raise their concerns about that legislation. We actually have
00:19:31.600
created an online portal where you can go to the ccf.ca slash stop bill C-2-C-8 and you can put in your postal
00:19:44.800
code. It will tell you who your MP is and help you send a letter to your MP asking for changes to that border
00:19:50.880
bill and to the cybersecurity bill. The government has already responded to some of the concerns we've
00:19:56.800
raised about the border bill. They seem to have reintroduced it again without some of the more
00:20:03.920
concerning surveillance provisions, but we still think C-2 needs to be withdrawn because it could be
00:20:10.560
resurrected. Now, with respect to the hate crimes provisions, we want to wait to see what happens with
00:20:17.360
that. We would like to see changes at committee. I'm honestly not optimistic. I think that this has
00:20:23.280
been a big priority of this government. C-63, the Trudeau version of this bill, made it very clear that
00:20:30.480
what the government wants to see is more charges, more criminal charges for speech that they don't like.
00:20:36.400
And the only thing we can do is encourage people to write to their member of parliament and speak out
00:20:42.080
and say why this is a bad idea. It's always difficult to make free speech arguments when the
00:20:48.080
speech involves something that we don't like. But those are the cases. That is the speech that gives
00:20:54.640
meaning to that right. No one is ever going to try to silence ordinary, unobjectionable speech. It's only
00:21:01.680
speech at the fringes that gives the right any meaning whatsoever.
00:21:05.280
Right. How do people support the terrific work you do over there?
00:21:09.200
You can visit the ccf.ca. You can donate to our work. We're a registered charity and all of our
00:21:16.480
litigation is funded through charitable donations. You can also sign up for our email updates at the
00:21:22.800
ccf.ca slash freedom updates. Or you can subscribe to my YouTube channel. Just look up the Canadian
0.99
00:21:29.840
Constitution Foundation on YouTube. We've got about 100,000 subscribers and I talk about interesting
00:21:35.200
developments in constitutional law to help further explore these issues and consider what we can do.
00:21:41.280
Christine Van Gein, thank you so much for coming on the show. We really do appreciate it.
00:21:45.360
And that is it for this edition of Straight Up with Mark Petroni. Appreciate you tuning in,
00:21:49.360
my friends. Let's do it again tomorrow, shall we? See you then.