Free speech is the right to say horrible things
The City of Charlottetown also cited public safety concerns in revoking its permit. Moncton did the same, saying in a statement, 'the concert would be non-compliant with the City's Code of Conduct in City Facilities' – which ironically enough prohibits discrimination based on religious belief.
In revoking the permit for the Quebec City concert, a spokesman for the city complained: 'The presence of a controversial artist was not mentioned when the contract was signed.'
Government officials cited any number of rationales for denying Mr. Feucht a public venue. But the real reason, of course, was that they did not want him to speak. There is a word for that action: censorship.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not just protect speech that government officials agree with. Rather, it is the reverse. Unpopular speech, wrong-headed speech, even speech that is despicable: that is where the Charter's protections are needed. Even for fundamentalist preachers who assail commonly held Canadian beliefs.
Robyn Urback: Did we really have to make this D-list MAGA singer famous in Canada?
Mr. Feucht, 41, has been a preacher for more than 20 years, though you may not have heard of him until very recently. He embraces the concept of Christian nationalism. 'We want God to be in control of everything,' he preached in 2023. 'We want believers to be the ones writing the laws.'
He began to attract notice during the pandemic, when he infuriated officials by holding religious gatherings in opposition to lockdown restrictions.
He has railed against abortion rights and the rights of sexual and gender minorities. He is devoted to U.S. President Donald Trump, who has praised his ministry.
Mr. Feucht drew little notice on this side of the border until he began a Canadian tour in July, with concerts mostly scheduled at public venues. Complainants demanded the permits for the concerts be cancelled or denied, citing his MAGA connections and beliefs, and federal and civic officials from Halifax to Winnipeg swiftly complied.
When an evangelical church in Montreal decided to host a concert despite it being banned, the city fined the church $2,500 for failing to obtain a permit. But as the city made clear, it was Mr. Feucht's presence that was the problem. 'This show runs counter to the values of inclusion, solidarity, and respect that are championed in Montreal,' said a spokesperson for Mayor Valérie Plante. 'Freedom of expression is one of our fundamental values, but hateful and discriminatory speech is not acceptable in Montreal.'
Senator Kristopher Wells tweeted that Mr. Feucht has 'no Charter right to have his shows hosted at public facilities, which must be safe and discrimination-free spaces that uphold community standards.'
The senator should brush up on constitutional law. The Charter does not mention 'safe and discrimination-free' public facilities or 'community standards.' It does state that: 'Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.'
Of course, the Charter lays out legal limits to those freedoms. And the Criminal Code prohibits hate speech. To our knowledge, Mr. Feucht has not said anything during his Canadian tour that rises to the level of criminal hate speech. If so, the remedy is clear: criminal charges, not prior restraint.
Nor have federal officials refused him entry to Canada on one of many the admissible grounds.
As for the 'community standards and wellbeing' that the City of Vaughan, north of Toronto, cited in rescinding Mr. Feucht's permit, we would all do well to remember that Vaughan and other communities contain houses of worship representing faiths that embrace at least some of what Mr. Feucht preaches. Popes, for example, have often spoken in Canadian public spaces despite the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church to abortion and same-sex marriage.
If anyone finds Mr. Feucht's preachings offensive, there is an excellent way to show displeasure: through legal, peaceful protest. Or by simply ignoring him.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
27 minutes ago
- CBC
Some housing projects in limbo after N.S. rejection of Halifax's regional plan, mayor says
Halifax Mayor Andy Fillmore said Tuesday that the Nova Scotia government's rejection of the city's regional plan has paused some housing projects. "We've got projects, a significant number of units that have foundations poured or floors framed up that needed the regional plan amendments in the new version of the plan to be adopted in order to finish the project," Fillmore told reporters ahead of a staff presentation on the plan. "So we have a situation of limbo." Halifax's new plan to guide growth in the region was passed by council in June and would have changed a slew of bylaws and land-use planning documents across Halifax Regional Municipality, updating the 2014 regional plan that was last amended in May. But last week, Nova Scotia Municipal Affairs Minister John Lohr rejected it, saying certain environmental rules would stall development. Thousands of units impacted During the staff presentation Tuesday evening, Halifax planning director Jacqueline Hamilton told council the province's rejection of the plan impacts thousands of housing units. Hamilton said in just one category, the delay affects 12 projects creating 2,000 housing units. "That's sort of the order of magnitude … it's in the thousands of units certainly that are impacted. That's sort of what we know today, that's the caveat. There would be folks who wouldn't even be talking to us yet that would be awaiting that. I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg." Some councillors expressed disappointment that the province rejected the regional plan, which took five years to create. 'I think the baby went out with the bathwater' "I think the baby went out with the bathwater here, very clearly, in terms of housing over the sake of setbacks around lakes and EV chargers," said Coun. Sam Austin. "We could have amended those rather than rejecting the whole thing and creating this level of chaos. I don't think this was helpful or productive." Lohr said he was specifically concerned with two items in the plan: expanding development setbacks around watercourses to 30 metres from 20 and requiring electric vehicle parking spaces in new homes and apartments. "We felt that the focus of the plan needed to be building up density and building affordability in — and those were two examples of things that were not doing that," Lohr told CBC News on Monday. Coun. Tony Mancini said he took issue with the province's objection to the 30-metre setback. "Coun. Austin and I represent the City of Lakes. As Dartmouthians, to hear that, that's just a kick in the teeth that they don't care. It's the protection of our lakes," Mancini said. "Our lakes are stressed. They're stressed because of two things: climate change, and they're stressed because of development." Fillmore said he is working with the provincial government to try to understand its objections to the plan. He's hoping council can make changes that will make the plan "palatable" to the province. Construction group wants consultation In a letter to the municipality on Aug. 5, three days before Lohr's rejection, the Construction Association of Nova Scotia raised the same issues that the minister addressed. The group told CBC News those changes could drive up housing costs and said it wants to be consulted moving forward. "It's always unfortunate when you see one government level having to kind of delve into the business of another government. Having said that, you know, the plan that was put forward really had no consultation with industry in terms of broad-based consultation," Duncan Williams, president and CEO of the association, said Monday. Williams said he doesn't necessarily object to the new regional plan, but he has questions about how it would be implemented, how appeals would be processed and how the public would be informed about cost implications of the changes. Mayor optimistic, hoping to improve regional plan "There's an opportunity here to set up a working group that has industry professionals at the table so that we could properly give input [and] guide the process. We can't continue to build plans in a vacuum. And that's really what it feels like," he said. Fillmore said he's optimistic about conversations he's had with provincial ministers about getting the regional plan approved and getting homes built. The mayor said Halifax has to be able to accommodate growth up to one million people while protecting the environment and making sure homes can be built. "The truth is, we need to be building 8,000 homes a year for the next number of years, as many as five or six years. Last year, we barely cracked 3,000," Fillmore said. He said he still believes in the regional plan, but that he's always interested in improving a plan. He said his goal is to "get it done as quickly as possible." Hamilton said staff will come back to council once they get direction from the province on next steps. Fillmore said he hopes to have a revised plan to the province before the Christmas holiday recess.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Letters to the editor, Aug. 20: ‘Complaints about the inconvenience caused by the Air Canada strike … inconvenience was the point'
Re 'Trump's Ukraine talks show how the global order is changing' (Aug. 19): Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump's art of the deal has been nowhere to be seen. To add insult to Ukraine's injury, a wanted war criminal was welcomed on U.S. soil akin to a normal head of state deserving of respect. Meanwhile, Russia continues its indiscriminate attacks against Ukraine's critical infrastructure and civilians. By bending to Mr. Trump's ill-considered manner of 'negotiating,' the West, including Canada, is debasing further its values and ceding international leadership to thugs. All this to say that power rules, not fairness and justice. That the United States is no longer a force for good in the world is depressing. As a middle power, Canada, sadly, cannot do much but watch with disgust. Stéphane Lefebvre PhD; former federal strategic and intelligence analyst; Ottawa In 1994, the Budapest Memorandum was signed. In exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, Russia, the United States and Britain provided security assurances, including promises not to use force against its sovereignty and borders. But Russia walked into Crimea in 2014 and neither the U.S. nor Britain did much. There were ongoing skirmishes in the Donbas region from 2014 to 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine again. The U.S. and Britain provided some weapons, but only ever just enough to keep the fight going. It is now two decades that tiny Ukraine has been trying to force mighty Russia to leave its territory. I feel ill when hearing about the need for Ukraine to give up territory. Why? I was not surprised Russia broke its Budapest promise, but now the U.S. has as well. Is there any paper signed by an American president that is worth anything? Marilyn Dolenko Ottawa Ukraine should reduce its dependence on Western aid and move swiftly toward self-sufficiency. Bill Browder, former major investor in Russia and longtime Kremlin critic, has urged the West to empower Ukraine by seizing frozen Russian state assets. Yet the G7, controlling about US$300-billion, has agreed only to use the interest as collateral for a US$50-billion loan. I find legal and financial objections to seizing the full assets overstated. Russia's invasion is indisputably illegal, the resulting devastation undeniable. And the financial system has already absorbed the freeze with minimal disruption. If the United States retreats, European countries should seize their $200-billion-plus share and transfer it to Ukraine with full discretion to pursue a just and lasting peace. Patrick Bendin Ottawa Re 'Path to peace?' (Letters, Aug. 19): A letter-writer concludes that reparations were not imposed on Germany after the Second World War 'to create a client state for U.S. industry and to prop up an ally in the face of the Soviet Union.' George Kennan, the U.S. diplomat and architect of postwar Soviet containment policy, recognized that the war-devastated Soviet Union posed no immediate military threat, but rather would try to take advantage of devastated Western European economies to insinuate itself into that sphere. France and Italy, for example, had large communist parties ripe for Soviet influence. Hence the Marshall Plan, perhaps the most successful U.S. foreign aid program ever implemented. In this sense, Western security considerations trumped narrow U.S. economic self-interest. Kathryn Vogel Toronto Re 'Air Canada set to resume operations after flight attendants' strike ends' (Online, Aug. 19): In response to complaints about the inconvenience caused by the Air Canada strike and at the risk of dealing in the obvious: Inconvenience was the point. Craig Sims Kingston I'm from New Waterford, a coal-mining town on Cape Breton famous for unionization and its fight for workers' rights. My grandfather was a coal miner. I was lucky: I got an education and a good job with Air Canada. Many think I live a life of luxury because I travel for a living. The reality is I've missed weddings, anniversaries and most holidays. There is higher risk of some cancers because of my work environment and a lack of sleep throwing off my circadian rhythm. I'm not asking for pity. I'm grateful to Air Canada, but it's not about me. It's about the working conditions for our entire group. We cannot sacrifice our futures for expediency. As it turns out, being miles underground or up in the air are not dissimilar. The one constant is that I'm from Cape Breton, and I vow to fight the good fight. In solidarity. Blair Boudreau Toronto Once again, Canada's unwillingness to become more globally competitive within an industry punished the Canadian consumer. If some foreign airlines were able to transport travellers within the country on at least select routes to begin with, we would have seen how quickly collective agreements could be reached in the first place. Stephen Flamer Vancouver Re 'To recognize aboriginal title is not to abolish property rights, but to uphold them' (Opinion, Aug. 16): The trial judge refused to let British Columbia argue 'bona fide purchasers for value' on behalf of third-party private landholders, whose interests were thus unfairly unrepresented at trial. The Section 35-based legal concepts of 'the honour of the Crown,' 'consult and accommodate' and the sui generis Crown fiduciary duty were only developed after Section 35 was enacted in 1982. Yet the trial judge applied them retroactively to all Crown conduct going back to 1853, a long period of Canada's development as a modern nation when these legal concepts were unheard of. The city of Richmond, B.C, puts the value of its private and public municipal infrastructure at $100-billion. There are only about 8,000 citizens of the Cowichan Nation, thus raising the prospect of each one claiming windfall compensation of more than $12-million each. The above and many other reasons compel Canada, the province and Richmond to appeal this judgment. Peter Best Sudbury Re 'A land-claims ruling shakes the foundation of property rights in B.C.' (Aug. 15): 'Indigenous groups have laid claim to vast swaths of the province, including land occupied by millions of homeowners.' No doubt similar thoughts have occurred to First Nations, which might be phrased thus: 'Settler groups have laid claim to vast swaths of the province, including land occupied by millions of people.' The sanctity of title is based on the seizing of unceded traditional territory by the Crown and Hudson's Bay Company. The foundation for property rights in British Columbia, as interpreted by settler law for less than 200 years, is indeed tenuous. I find the judge correct in her ruling. I do not support the appeal by the provincial government. Charlotte Masemann Victoria Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
How an act of defiance by Air Canada's flight attendants was a win for labour rights
Social Sharing The successful defiance of a hotly contested piece of Canada's Labour Code has boosted hope for worker rights in the country, labour advocates say. The union and its thousands of striking Air Canada flight attendants refused to go back to work after the federal government invoked the Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. As a result, Air Canada returned to the bargaining table and overnight the two parties came to a tentative agreement that the 10,500 flight attendants in the union will soon be able to vote on. "This is a big win for flight attendant that's going to force the federal government to re-evaluate how it intervenes in labour disputes going forward," said Larry Savage, a professor of labour studies at Brock University. "The ministers' back-to-work order backfired spectacularly." CBC has learned that the first year of the deal would give a 12 per cent salary bump to flight attendants in their first five years on the job and eight per cent for those with six or more years of experience. In the second year, employees would see another three per cent increase, followed by a 2.5 per cent increase the year after that. One of the biggest issues, which galvanized public sympathy, was the fact that flight attendants at Air Canada and other airlines are not paid for much of the time that they spend helping passengers while on the ground. Under the new deal, attendants would receive 50 per cent of their salary for 60 minutes of boarding and cabin secure checks for narrow body planes and 70 minutes for wide body planes. That amount would increase by five per cent every year of the agreement. Union says Air Canada expected government intervention The agreement took about seven hours but followed eight months of bargaining, says Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) national president Mark Hancock. Hancock said it had recently became clear that Air Canada was expecting the federal government to force flight attendants back to work without coming to a collective agreement, just as it had done with postal workers last fall. "We definitely noticed a change in the employer," Hancock said in a phone interview Tuesday. "We were thinking that, OK, they're probably going to bring 107." Just 12 hours into the strike that began Saturday, Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu invoked Section 107, which allows the minister to order binding arbitration and end work stoppages. The provision had seldom been used up until 2024, when the Liberals invoked it in the ports and railways strikes, then again during the Canada Post strike. What is Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code? 3 days ago When it was invoked again on the weekend, labour rights activists began worrying that the government's reliance on this action — instead of passing back-to-work legislation through Parliament — would undermine both collective bargaining and the overall right of workers to strike in this country. "It actually is corrosive to the very practice and the principle of free voluntary collective bargaining," said Chris Roberts, social and economic policy director at the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC). But this time, something different happened. On Monday, Hancock announced that striking flight attendants would remain on the picket line despite the back-to-work order by Canada's labour board, which was triggered by Hajdu's invoking of Section 107. "If it means folks like me going to jail, so be it," Hancock said in remarks that made headlines across the country. "Our members were ready for the long haul," he added Tuesday, Roberts said he was also aware that Air Canada was stalling during talks and had "instead turned its attention to urging the government to trigger 107." The labour congress's president, Bea Bruske, said she believes employers will no longer be able to expect this kind of intervention. "Employers should not ever think that government can bail them out," she said. Issue of unpaid work resonated As the threat of a strike or lockout approached, CUPE realized its members had the public's support, said Savage, the Brock University professor whose research has focused on the politics of organized labour in Canada. "There was something about these flight attendants, the particular issue that they were fighting about related to unpaid work, [that] resonated so strongly with so many," said Savage. Between that and the speed with which Hajdu invoked Section 107, Air Canada was quick to return to the table, he said. There have been other recent governments' efforts to intervene in labour disputes or limiting workers' right to strike. In Ontario, Premier Doug Ford's 2022 introduction, then repeal, of Bill 28 followed an outcry by several different unions; elsewhere, Quebec's Bill 89 is being challenged by four McGill University faculty associations. In each case, Savage says there has been public pushback to attempts by Canadian governments to overstep labour rights. "When governments stack the deck in favour of employers, unions are going to resist. Workers are going to use their leverage to insist on negotiated settlements, even if that means ignoring the law," he said.
