There’s so much hatred in the air right now.
In a society that prides itself on diversity and inclusivity, the surge of hate speech and discriminatory speech, particularly anti-SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) rhetoric, presents a concerning paradox.
The incitement to discriminate against individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity is not only a blatant violation of human rights but also harbours destructive consequences for the perpetrators themselves. This article discusses the nuances of hate speech and discriminatory speech in British Columbia, emphasizing the legal and self-inflicted harm that those who engage in such rhetoric risk, and gives three examples of hate speech and discriminatory speech occuring in British Columbia.
Table of Content
- Table of Content
- Understanding Hate Speech and Discriminatory Speech in B.C.
- The Self-Destructive Path of Inciting Discrimination
- Three Concrete Examples of Hate Speech and Discriminatory Speech
- When Is There a Valid Defense Against Accusation of Hate Speech in Canada?
- Hate speech encourages hate-motivated crime
- Conclusion
Understanding Hate Speech and Discriminatory Speech in B.C.
Hate speech can manifest in various forms, including but not limited to racism, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia. It typically involves the use of extreme language aimed at delegitimizing and dehumanizing a targeted group. This might include describing group members as genetically inferior, attributing crimes or diseases to them, or engaging in other forms of derogatory language that incite strong negative reactions.
Under the jurisdiction of B.C.’s Human Rights Code and Canada’s Criminal Code, hate speech is characterized by three primary components:
- Public expression targeting individuals with protected characteristics like race, religion, or sexual orientation.
- Utilization of extreme language expressing hatred towards the targeted group based on their protected characteristics.
- Likely exposure of the targeted group to detestation and vilification.
While similar, discriminatory speech differs slightly as it focuses on creating negative distinctions and consequences for the targeted group, which can be manifested in various public expressions like articles, flyers, or speeches.
The office of the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner has stated that it recognizes that while many speeches are hurtful and offensive, not all fall under the classification of hate speech. Nevertheless, the repercussions of engaging in both hate and discriminatory speech are significant, affecting not only the victims but also the perpetrators themselves.
The Self-Destructive Path of Inciting Discrimination
Psychological Repercussions
Individuals who involve themselves in the propagation of hate speech often face severe psychological and social repercussions and put themselves at risk of far-reaching legal consequences. They may find themselves trapped in a cycle of self-loathing and justification, experiencing heightened levels of stress and anxiety.
Social Isolation
Social repercussions are profound, as these individuals limit their growth opportunities by isolating themselves from diverse groups. Moreover, they risk social ostracization as communities become increasingly intolerant of discriminatory behaviour.
Economic Consequences
From an economic perspective, individuals known for engaging in discriminatory acts may face difficulties securing jobs, particularly in organizations that prioritize diversity and inclusivity. They might also face legal repercussions that could significantly impair their financial stability.
Legal Implications
Engaging in hate speech can lead to severe legal consequences. In B.C., the Human Rights Code and Canada’s Criminal Code govern hate speech, with the latter referring to it as public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred. Depending on the nature of the crime, individuals may face fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions, further emphasizing the self-destructive path they embark upon.
Another consequence of targeting persons with hate speech is that conduct begins to come under scrutiny. Persons engaged in hateful conduct will have difficulty justifying their actions to law enforcement. When it comes to Criminal and Civil Law, pattern of behaviour can be aa significant factor and a number of people who gained a high public profile by inciting hatred have discovered too late that the law does not agree with them.
Bill Whatcott, Chris Elston, ex-School Trustee Barry Neufeld, Meghan Murphy, Monique LaGrange, and Kristopher Kamienik (aka Kristpher Maya) all found themselves on the wrong side of Justice or law enforcement as a result of their incitement of hatred and engaging in the spreading of politicized hate propaganda.
Some Concrete Examples of Hate Speech and Discriminatory Speech
The “1 Million March 4 Children” on Wednesday, September 2023 is organized by Canadian Muslim activist Kamel El-Cheikh. The Anti-Hate Network has been warning Canadians about this new hate group:
“Numerous demonstrations are planned to occur under the “1 Million March 4 Children” banner at legislatures, city halls, and school board offices across the country on September 20th. These demonstrations seek to eliminate Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) curriculum and policies from Canadian schools. Here is what we know so far
These protests are supported by a big tent of far-right and conspiratorial groups, including Christian Nationalists, COVID-19 conspiracy theorists, sovereign citizens, and anti-public education activists.
– Canada Anti-Hate Network
There are at least two “brands” involved in the planned events for September 20th.onsors, and local contact names.”
Advertisement for 1 Million Person March
ourduty.group text citing Twitter (now X.com). 1MillionMarch group @1MillionMarchCA
“Parents have had enough of gender ideology and the overt sexualized materials in Canadian K-12 schools. On Wednesday September 20th, Canadian Parents, groups and citizens across the country will be raising a collective voice to send the essential message, ‘Leave Our Kids Alone’. Join us in protecting ALL children from Gender Ideology. Please join your fellow Canadians, regardless of race, religion or political leaning to make our collective voice heard on Wednesday September 20th. You can download and share the images below to help spread the word.”
In dissecting the given statement, we observe a clear rhetoric against the inclusion of gender ideology discussions in the Canadian educational syllabus, which potentially fosters an environment of discrimination and hate speech.
The use of phrases like “overt sexualized materials” is an exaggeration intended to provoke strong reactions, potentially framing the educational material as harmful or inappropriate without providing concrete evidence to substantiate the claim.
This kind of message creates a discriminatory narrative that might marginalize and stigmatize transgender individuals or those who identify outside the binary gender norms.
This specific message attempts to imply without clearly stating it that discussions on the existance and of diversity of gender is harmful and an affront to ‘ALL’ children. This in itself is a sweeping generalization that doesn’t take into account the diverse perspectives and experiences of Canadian families and students.
The plea to “Leave Our Kids Alone” is a denial or minimization of the experiences and identities of students who find solace and understanding through gender education, thereby undermining their right to education that is inclusive and representative of their identity. It also implies that sexual orientation or gender identity are harmful phenomena rather than a natural part of diversity and explicitly-protected personal characteristics.
Furthermore, the call to action encourages others to join in this movement, spreading a message that encourages discrimination based on gender identity, a characteristic protected under the B.C. Human Rights Code in the same way that that are explicitly protected in exactly the same way as religion, ethnicity, place of origin are, to name just three.
It is worth noting that, while the statement calls for unity “regardless of race, religion or political leaning”, it conspicuously omits a call for unity across varied gender identities and expressions, which is intended to further isolate and target individuals and groups who benefit from or support gender ideology education.
If this campaign were to incite actions that create negative consequences for those targeted, it might fall under the purview of discriminatory speech as per the guidelines outlined by B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner. Consequently, the campaign would not only foster division but might also contravene the principles of respect and inclusivity advocated by Canadian laws and policies on hate and discriminatory speech.
Interestingly, if this publication was to result in a breach of the peace or worse, the authors of the publication could find themselves accountable under section 319 of the Criminal Code.
SexNotGender stickers
Looking at the sticker with the hashtag #SexNotGender and the statement “Woman: fact, not feeling”, it becomes clear that this message could be seen as a clear instance of prohibited discrimination or even hate speech.
Firstly, it dismisses the experiences and identities of transgender and non-binary individuals by implying that gender is strictly determined by biological sex, not recognizing the authentic lived experiences of many individuals. This could very much be seen as fostering a negative distinction, possibly aiming to create adverse consequences for the targeted group, which matches the criteria of discriminatory speech outlined in the B.C.’s Human Rights Code.
Furthermore, the slogan “fact, not feeling” can be interpreted to belittle and dehumanize transgender people by dismissing their self-identified genders as mere “feelings” rather than legitimate identities. Such a message could arguably be fostering detestation and vilification towards transgender individuals, hence potentially crossing into the realm of hate speech as described in the Canadian criminal code.
This type of message contradicts the efforts of fostering an inclusive society that respects and validates the identities of all its members.
Billboard Chris website
More popularly known as “Billboard Chris,” Elston has traveled across his homeland of Canada, the United States and Europe having conversations while wearing billboards with messages protesting puberty blockers and gender surgeries for children.
– Fox News
Chris Elston is an insurance broker who lives in Surrey, BC and has now change his work from insurance to travelling to incide law changes that result in discrimination against Transgender persons, children and adults alike. Elston is married to a Public-School administrator who has remained publicly silent on he ideas promoted by her husband.
There are indications that the Elston household earns a significant income from Chris’s work so it is my personal view that it is not unfair to hold the equal members of that household accountable for the efforts Chris Elston is the face of considering both benefit materially from the endeavour and neither party has take a position decrying the positions of the other.
Looking at the website he hosts under his monicker “Billboard Chris”, we see the markers of hate speech and discriminatory publication. All taken together, the text of the Billengages deeply in misinformation and propagates potentially harmful narratives about gender identity and the transgender community. Let’s dissect the potential implications and misinformation here.
Firstly, the passage categorically denies the validity of gender dysphoria, classifying it under “gender ideology,” which it labels as a “pseudo-religious movement”. This is not only scientifically inaccurate, but it also dismisses the lived experiences of countless individuals globally. Scientific research and medical consensus affirm that gender dysphoria is a real and serious condition, and treatment can be necessary and life-saving.
Furthermore, the text portrays puberty blockers in an extremely negative light, making several incorrect claims. It’s important to note that medical professionals do not prescribe these treatments lightly, and comprehensive assessments are conducted before proceeding. Moreover, while it claims that puberty blockers bring “grave physical consequences” and no psychological benefit, A number of studies1,2 have shown that these treatments can have significant positive effects on the mental health of transgender youth.
It is s significant to mention that in BC like in nearly all advanced democracies, the Mature Minor doctrine applies. Under the doctrine, minors can consent to medical treatments if they are deemed to have the maturity to understand the implications of the proposed treatment, irrespective of their parents’ views.
This law is meant to protect the rights and well-being of minors. In BC, the legislation is within the Infants Act.
The message contained in the text of Chris Elson can be seen as propagating prohibited discrimination by fostering harmful and incorrect narratives about gender identity and medical interventions for transgender individuals. This type of speech can potentially escalate into hate speech, as it may incite discrimination against, and the marginalization of, transgender and gender-diverse individuals. It appears to be a clear attempt to undermine the credibility and rights of transgender individuals, thereby possibly contributing to a hostile environment for this community.
Finally, Elston has also been extensively promoting the denial of medically-necessary care to children who need it to help them address gender dysphoria. He does this not only by denying the existence of a widely recognized condition and by denying that best practices and standards of care exist and are widely supported to address this condition. For children who are transgender and experience gender dysphoria and ask to transition medically, the standards of care include eventually prescribing puberty blockers.
Elston’s message that “children can not consent to puberty blockers”. Because children are able to consent to medical care if they meet the mature-minor test for informed consent, this statement can be interpreted at stating that either the care is too consequential for such a child to understand its consequences or that puberty blockers must not be given to children at all since a third party can not consent to the medical care a person is competent to consent for on their own.
Such a call is inherently discriminatory on the basis of gender identity or expression because it specifically targets care only transgender children would consent for.
Children in Canada can consent to any medical care when they meet the criteria for competence to give informed consent. This includes consenting to abortion, birth control prescription, surgery, vaccination, and transfusion – as well as medically-assisted transition.
Yet Elston insists that a competent child is incapable not of consenting to medical care that only transgender people ask for. Such discriminatory speech urges people to discriminate on explicitly-prohibited grounds, which is explicitly prohibited by section 7 of the BC Human Rights Code.
Chris Elston does not stop there, however. He is engaged in political debate and actively works in the United States to undermine Transgeder rights there in a way that is inconsistent with Canadian law.
Alabama attorney general’s office argued that gender transition treatments are not “deeply rooted in our history or traditions,” and thus, the state has the authority to ban them.
Elston says he hopes they will, “Tens of thousands of children are having their bodies irreversibly harmed. Girls as young as 12 have had their breasts cut off. Boys’ future adult sexual function is being destroyed, and these children will never be able to have families of their own. What child can possibly give informed consent to this?”
Alabama Today, November 30, 2022
When Is There a Valid Defense Against Accusation of Hate Speech in Canada?
In Canada, there are specific rules to handle cases of hate speech while still respecting people’s right to free speech. According to B.C.’s Human Rights Code, if someone makes a valid complaint about hate speech or discriminatory remarks, the person who made those remarks can argue that they were private or meant to be private. Interestingly, whether or not they intended their words to be hateful doesn’t really matter according to this code.
When looking at the broader Canadian laws, under the Criminal Code, people who are accused of willingly spreading hatred have a few defenses they can use. They can show that what they said was true, or that they were expressing a religious belief sincerely held. They can also argue if they were discussing a topic of public interest and believed their statements were true, or were genuinely trying to point out hateful statements in order to get them removed. Apart from these, they can use any other general defenses available to anyone who’s been accused of a crime.
Under B.C.’s Human Rights Code
If a complainant proves that the speech is hate speech or discriminatory speech under the Human Rights Code, the respondent (the person(s) against whom a complaint is made) could say that the communication was private, or intended to be private. Whether someone intends their speech to be hateful or not is irrelevant.
Under the Criminal Code
People accused under the Criminal Code of wilfully promoting hatred can defend themselves by proving that the statements they made were either:
- true
- an honestly held religious belief
- part of a discussion about a subject of general public interest and that they reasonably believed was true
- an honest attempt to point out that the statements tend to promote hate so they can be removed
People accused of either public incitement of hatred or willful promotion of hatred under the Criminal Code also can defend themselves through general defenses available to anyone accused of a crime.
British Columbia’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner – Hate Speech Q&A
Hate speech encourages hate-motivated crime
The correlation between hate speech and subsequent hate crimes is not merely speculative but grounded in comprehensive research and data.
A 2020 study3, “Planting Hate Speech to Harvest Hatred: How Does Political Hate Speech Fuel Hate Crimes in Turkey?”, examined the connection between escalating hate propaganda and a surge in violence against specific groups in Turkey. It reveals that incendiary remarks from high-profile individuals often fuel a rise in hate crimes against depicted foes. The research advocates for global entities and governments to counteract hate propaganda by promoting critical engagement with political discourse, thereby preventing an increase in violence and prejudice against marginalized groups.
Additionally, the Library of Parliament of Canada Research Publication report titled “Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada4” underscores the link between hate speech and the escalation in hate crimes, attributing increased susceptibility to the normalization and amplification of hate speech, especially on online platforms . This increasing normalization not only engenders a society tolerant of discrimination but can actively foster environments where hate crimes become more prevalent, indicating a pressing need to address and curb hate speech at its roots to prevent potential criminal activities driven by bias and prejudice.
Conclusion
In B.C. and all over Canada, it’s really important for us to protect everyone being accepted and included, regardless of their personal characteristics – including their sexual orientation or gender identity. When people or organizations spread harmful and discriminatory messages, especially those that are against SOGI principles, it doesn’t just hurt others – it harms the people saying those things too and can result in severe penalties to the perpetrators and the people they fool into taking action.
I hope that by realizing the bigger negative impact that hate speech can have on us all, people will choose not to engage in it, but to helping create a more welcoming and united Canada instead.
For further information on prohibited discrimination under the BC Human Rights Code or hate speech under the Criminal Code of Canada with a B.C. – specific eye, visit website of BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, the Hate Crimes In BC website and refer to the BC Prosecution Service Policy Manual, Hate Crimes.
Cited Academic Publications
(apologies about the formatting of citations. The issue is being worked on. To get back to the citing link, please click on the return arrow for the corresponding citation number)
- 1. Turban, J. L., King, D., Carswell, J. M., & Keuroghlian, A. S. (2020). Pubertal Suppression for Transgender Youth and Risk of Suicidal Ideation. Pediatrics, 145(2), e20191725
- 2. Nolan BJ, Zwickl S, Locke P, Zajac JD, Cheung AS. Early Access to Testosterone Therapy in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adults Seeking Masculinization: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(9):e2331919. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.31919
- 3. Perry et al., 2020, Planting Hate Speech to Harvest Hatred: How Does Political Hate Speech Fuel Hate Crimes in Turkey?, International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 9(4), pp. 195-211. doi: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v9i4.1514
- 4. Walker, J, Legal and Social Affairs Division, Library of Parliament, Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada
Background Paper
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201825E
Morgane Oger 
Leave a comment