11 Comments

I have followed the Burjoski case from day one because I found her presentation valid and reasonable. She was a teacher with 20 years experience and the school board had a responsibility to listen to her concerns. Instead, Chair Piatkowski attacked her and accused her of falsehoods and spreading hate. Later, in the media, when Piatkowski was questioned about his reaction, he doubled down and became even more abusive. This was nothing short of a character assassination of a caring teacher by the Chair and the majority of the Windsor School Board.

I would like to note that Trustee Mike Ramsay also suffered greatly for his continuous support of Burjoski. The vitriol of Piatkowski and the other trustees had no limits. It's gratifying to see they have finally been held responsible for their actions. Unfortunately the punishment does not include their firing.

Expand full comment

refreshing to find an occasional rational judge

Expand full comment

Never would I have thought in all my 63 years that we would travel back in time and once again have to fight for free speech and free public debate.

Expand full comment

The Human Rights Code has been used for too long to suppress free speech. I hope this Ontario judgement will have an impact in B.C. as well. I wrote a letter to Ms. McCooey of the Cowichan Community Centre to protest her refusal to allow Meghan to speak on the grounds that to do so would contravene B.C.'s HRC. I didn't get a response.

I have been following the Burjoski case from the beginning and contributed to her legal fund.

We must all do what we can to support free speech in Canada.

Expand full comment

It is big. Every glimmer of rationality helps. But I have a question. I live in the US and am curious about the reach of rulings that occur in a particular province. Does the Ontario Superior Court ruling apply throughout Canada because it's addressing a law (the HRC) which applies throughout the country, or, as in the US, is there often a distinction between provincial and federal rulings? Will a counter suit or an appeal be forthcoming, do you think?

Expand full comment

I am presuming it is specific to Ontario but also presume it will set a precedent for other provinces? Am trying to look into this...

Expand full comment

The decision is highly persuasive for courts outside of Ontario, but those courts can still decide otherwise. Even if the HR law was federal, an Ontario court's interpretation would not bind courts in other provinces. Especially a Superior Court, which is the lowest level of authority. The higher up it travels in the judicial hierarchy, the more weight it gets, but it still isn't 'binding' on other provinces. If it makes it to the Supreme Court and in its decision it said something that was more abstract (political, philosophical), that would be highly persuasive on all courts. But the way our legal system works is that any court can distinguish the case before it from precedents if it really wants to.

Expand full comment

It feels like maybe the darkness is ending.

Expand full comment

Whether or not Burjoski eventually won her case such behavior on the part of the School Board has a wide and deep chilling effect. Board Chair Piatkowski is certainly guilty of a hate crime against women as well as damaging the right to expression.

Expand full comment

Yup. And he no doubt supports puberty blockers for children. That pretty much makes him a child abuser. WTF is going on in Windsor?

Expand full comment

The Board's action is a significant step toward 'soft' authoritarianism. Personally, I'm not a big fan of hate speech, and public institutions should punish it. Hate speech is a crime...but what is it, in fact? The Criminal Code defines it as (a) advocating violence against an identifiable group or (b) characterising an identifiable group as loathsome and sub-human to the extent that harm to them is permissible. That's hate speech (heavily paraphrased!), and if you're part of an identifiable group whose history includes repeated acts of extreme oppression--as I am--then you likely support it.

But here's the problem: the day-to-day definition of hate speech has nothing to do with the definitions in the Criminal Code. The working definition is basically "any form of expression that someone believes could hurt someone else's feelings". This could apply to anyone and everyone. Of course, not everyone fits in the "someone else" category. The hurt feelings of many individuals--heterosexuals, European descendants, Jews, and all men (as in people with dicks and balls)--don't count. We can see where this headed, and it ain't pretty: if I don't like you I can get you punished for anything you say or don't say so you better say things that I like or else...

In our legal system any law can be declared void if it is so broad that it creates an unjustifiable amount of discretion for those who apply it. The new (woke) version of hate speech is excessively broad--any expression that could hurt someone else's feelings--doesn't even require an actual victim, and it gives officials a tremendous amount of discretion to use against almost anyone they want. Even this note could be considered hate speech because it could upset someone in a group whose feelings matter (so-called bipoc and trans people). Giving institutions the power to punish people on these grounds is a step toward authoritarianism.

That an arm of the government has officially adopted and used punitively the woke definition of hate speech should scare everyone who values democracy and freedom. To empower the state to punish people for actions that might or could hurt someone else's feelings is to allow the state to punish without justification and outside the rule of law.

Expand full comment