Why This Website Was Created

Hello to everyone.

http://www.canucklaw.ca is a new site, still in its infancy.

The purpose of this website is to create a larger discussion on laws and policies that go on throughout the world. While Canadian law is a personal interest, there is so much more to be looked at and contrasted.

**This site is different from most because comparing and contrasting laws and legal systems from different regions is the main point of it.**

Certainly, no one jurisdiction has the best answers to everything, but I believe there is something in virtually every one of them that is worth adopting, or at least worth discussing.

The site does not focus on any one area of the globe, nor any one area of law, such as (a) criminal; (b) civil; (c) family; (d) human rights; (e) international law; or (f) any others. It is meant to be very broad and to cover different areas. However, certain topics will undoubtedly grow and draw more interest than others.

While the exact nature and direction of the site is unclear, it is the hope that discussions here will influence larger discussions. With any luck, these discussions will ultimately play a role in advancing public/legal policy.

This is not to say that I want to have one set of rules or laws for everyone. I support nationalism, and reject globalism. Nations should set their own laws, and those laws should reflect the will of those people, not some world body. Still, the hope is that ideas shared will lead to broader discussion, and that people can benefit from these differences being discussed publicly.

Ideally, discussion and ideas from here will one day lead to bigger changes being implemented. Hopefully, there will be an intellectual difference made.

The site is available to anyone who wishes. All that is asked is to approach it with an open mind.

Bake my Damn Cake — Or Else — You Should Sue the State?

Jack Philips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood Colorado is the owner of the infamous “Gay Cake” refusal.

Quite simply, he refused to create a wedding cake for 2 men, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, about to marry.  He reasoned that he would have to act against his religious beliefs.

Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (similar to Privincial human rights commissions, in Canada).  It ruled against Philips, claiming religion was just an excuse to justify bigotry.

So, Philips took his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals.  The C.C.A. ruled that no religion had to be endorsed, but that service couldn’t be refused on protected grounds, such sexual orientation.

Finally, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which eventually ruled in the baker’s favour.  However, critics complain that the ruling was on overly narrow grounds and did not actually make much of a precident.  It wouldn’t address questions for florists, photographers, caterers, or others with a similar dilemma.  The Supreme Court did however find the Civil Rights Commission was overly hostile to Philips.

Some media background can be found here,
here, here, and here.

The ruling sparked mixed opinions.  Philips claims he has since had people calling to make ridiculous cakes, such as Satan cakes and cakes in the form of sex objects.

But now, Jack Philips is back in the news, and for basically the same reason: refusing to bake a cake for a transgender person named Autumn Scardina, celebrating the 7th anniversary of a gender change.

However, there is more than just a whiff of a conflict of interest here.  Scardina is a lawyer whose firm does cases of employment disputes.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has ruled that in principle this appears to be a discrimination case.  So it would seem that matters will be heading down the same road as before.

However, Philips has decided to take a new approach here: suing governor Jerry Hickenlooper and other government officials, claiming religious persecution seen .


It will be interesting to see how things play out.

Author’s Views:  To disclose outright, I believe that the baker should be able to refuse or accept any deal they want, and to accept or reject any business they want.  It would be different if it were a government agency, or a monopoly.  Several questions I must ask.

(1) As for the gay couple, why not simply find another baker?  While it may be annoying to you, why not take your money and business to someone else?

(2) If you wanted others to know about this baker, why would it be necessary to sue him or go to the Civil Rights Commission?  Was the purpose to harm his business?

(3) Part of the backlash against letting gay couples marry in 2015 was the claim (derided as paranoia) that it would lead to religious freedom being stepped on.  Does this not prove that claim right?

(4) Regarding Autumn Scardina and the transgender cake: why go to this “specific” baker, when you knew about the case?

(5) Was it an attempt to get money from him and/or to further harm his business?  Or to use your law firm to make a political point?

(6) As for both the gay cake and the trans cake: do you really want the cake for your “big day” to be made by somebody you filed a civil rights claim against?  It’s not like he cares about keeping your business.

Ontario Universities Ordered to Protect Free Speech, of Face Budget Cuts

Ontario’s new Premier, Conservative Doug Ford, ordered colleges and universities across the province to come up with free speech policies.

They have until January 1, 2019 (one semester), to comply.

This is welcome news at least in principle.   Free speech must unrestricted, otherwise it no longer is free.

The original program from TV Ontario, a publicly funded show

Audio of the infamous Shepherd/Rambukanna/Pimlott/Joel recording

Lindsay Shepherd/Dave Rubin, Decemebr 1, 2017.

It will be interesting to see the policy once it is actually fleshed out, and how the schools will deal with it.

Further, will schools still be able to censor (even if on a reduced basis) by claiming that topics are hate speech or inciting violence?

It will be of interest to read up on the Chicago Principles, aka the Chicago Statement, which serves as a model for free speech and open inquiry in the U.S.

To fully understand this proposal, some backstory and context is necessary for the readers.

One of the main incidents was in November 2017, when Wilfred Laurier University graduate student Lindsay Shepherd made international news.  The Waterloo university staff had reprimanded her for showing part of a TVO clip (which was public TV anyway).

Needless to say the incident (which was recorded), caused a backlash against WLU specifically, and universities generally.  Lindsay herself made many media appearances, and took free speech/open inquiry as a calling.

Shepherd founded the Laurier Society for Open Inquiry, L-SOI, and has deliberately sought speakers with different and controversial viewpoints.   One event was a debate on pro-choice v.s. pro-life.

However, one event was cancelled when Faith Goldy was scheduled to talk, on March 20.


As an aside, Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson (the prof referred to as ”Hitler”), both have legal claims pending against Wilfrid Laurier University, and the 3 staff members from the meeting: Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, Adria Joel.

Suppression of free speech is not at all limited to Canadian schools.    There are many examples of this happening in the U.S. as well.

(a) In 2015, Mizzou (University of Missouri), was involved in a series a race-related events.   It also involved a faculty member, Melissa Click, asking to ”get some muscle over here” to remove a journalist covering an event.

(b) In 2017, there were violent riots across Berkeley University in Berkely, California.  Berkeley holds its ”free speech week” every year.   Typically conservative and controversial speakers are invited to give new views to students.  While protests are frequent, this onethis one ended in arson, when Milo Yiannopoulis came to speak.

(c) In 2017, In Evergreen State College (in Olympia, Washington), biology professor Bret Weinstein actually caused a mob takeover of the school when he emailed that the ”day of action” was a bad policy.  This was a day where whites were to ”leave for a day”, an inversion of the ”day of absence”, where black students and faculty leave for a day.

(d) Less dramatic incidents of speakers being shouted down are  rampant throughout the news and on YouTube.  An interesting observation is that it is almost exclusively ”left-wing” protesters trying to silence ”right-wing” speakers.

Author’s Note:  This is certainly a step in the right direction.  While I certainly applaud any news the promotes and defends free speech, there are many details I would love to ask Premier Ford.  Here are a few:

(1) Will colleges/universities still be able to ban groups they do not agree with, such as men’s issues awareness, and pro-life groups?  Will they be able to weasel around this law by saying it ”protects marginalized people”?

Canadian Universities Fighting Against Free Speech and Free Association in Court

(2) Will colleges/universities still be able to ban political groups and talks it disagrees with?  One such example being University of Toronto banning the Canadian Nationalist Party, even though the founder specifically says they are not a race-based party.

U of T bars Canadian Nationalist Party from hosting rally on campus

(3) What measures will be put in place to ensure that colleges/universities can’t still suppress free speech under false claims of hate or bigotry?

(4) How will this actually be enforced?

I left university years ago.  Thankfully, as a STEM student I largely avoided this nonsense.  However, evidence of attempted suppression is everywhere.  I too despise actual hate speech and calls to violence, but false claims seem to be a convenient tactic to simply silence dissenting views from being heard. Still, this is a promising step.

Interestingly, Shepherd herself has questioned the merit and effect of “forcing” universities and colleges to adopt free speech guidelines. After all, how committed can they really be?

Chris Cuomo of CNN Defends Antifa Violence, Free Speech be Damned

(From Dan Bongino)

(NRA Review)

(From Ben Shapiro)

(From Bearing)

(From Fox News)

(Steve Cortez Calls Cuomo Out)

Yes, this is old by the time that this post goes up.  However, just putting in my 2 cents.

Chris Cuomo, a ”Journalist” working on the American station CNN, shocked the U.S. public by defending the group Antifa.

This group showed up for ”Unite the Right 2”, in Charlottesville, where white nationalists were going to march.  This was on the anniversary of the violence last year that left 1 dead, and many injured.

However, there were only about 25 white nationalists, who left quite quickly.  But there were thousands of counter-demonstraters, seemingly with no one to stop.

Without an enemy to oppose, Antifa decided to attack members of the public, including journalists.

Antifa, short for Anti-Fascist, or (anti first amendment, as it is often denegraded), is a left wing semi-organised Communist group that has a lengthy history of committing violent acts to shut down speakers they accuse of ”hate speech” or of ”endangering others”.

While Antifa is mostly known in the U.S., there are branches of it that operate in other western countries.

Yes, preventing violence …. by engaging in violence.

Of course, this makes sense because they conflate ”ideas” with actual ”violence”.  Others speaking right leaning ideas is violence apparently.

What is truly disgusting this that Cuomo, who pretends to be a journalist, has gone full blown activist by defending the group, saying that their violence is not the same — morally — as people preaching hate.

    Author’s Views
There are very disturbing facts about Cuomo’s monologue.

First: Cuomo is a journalist, at least he claims to be.  The 1st Amendment is sacrosanct in the American way of life, enshrining free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of association and assembly.  The 1st Amendment is something necessary to protect free speech and a free press.  How a journalist on a major news network shrugs that off is stunning.

Second: Cuomo doesn’t believe that people shouting hate should have the right to speak.  Certain people are disgusting, yes, but they do have the right to speak their vile garbage.  Words, unless they are: (1) threats; or (2) a call to violence are not actual violence.  Sickening, but yes, this is a defense to racist people.

Third: Cuomo, in his monologue, omits that Antifa routinely attacks people who are right leaning, though not white supremacists.   This happens to speakers such as Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopolous, Ann Coulter, and many others.  Being an outspoken conservative does not equate to being a nazi.

Fourth: Cuomo seems fairly indifferent to Antifa attacking innocent bystanders, and yes, even journalists.  Perhaps collateral damage is okay as long as the intent is good.

Fifth: Cuomo is disingenuously being selective about which violence is ”wrong”, and which is ”morally right”.  Double standards should not exist if one is morally consistent.

Sixth: Cuomo omits that Antifa has been classfied as a terrorist organization by the Department of Homeland Security.  Yes, the Feds consider them terrorists.

Seventh: Cuomo doesn’t seem to register that these ”defenders of the people” almost always conceal their faces with masks or bandannas, yet the ”bad guys” never do.  Odd.

My thought is that censorship should be a last resort, not a first.  It is very unsettling that some are completely fine with taking away people’s right to speak.  Calling someone a racist, or calling their words or ideas hate speech doesn’t make it so.   And even if it is, why start down the path of censorship?

Wise words: I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

Chris Cuomo is a disgrace to journalism.

Measured Discussion on Multiculturalism is Apparently Off-Limits

Andrew Scheer (left) and Maxime Bernier (Right)

August 13, 2018 — Maxime Bernier, a Member of Federal Parliament in Canada (and a senior member of the Conservative Party), caused a stir when he sent off 6 tweets.  He questioned to what limits the push for diversity and multiculturalism should  go in Canada.

To disclose bias right away: political correctness gets us nowhere.  Truth and open discussion are valued over censorship anytime.  And Bernier was tweeting what many people believe, specifically that there has to be some limit to the push for ”endless diversity”.

Recent ”diversity” moves include: (a) gender quotas for filling cabinet positions; (b) letting terrorists with dual citizenship keep their Canadian citizenship; (c) marching in gay pride parades while endorsing religions who want to slaughter gays; (d) calling it offensive to label honour killings as ”barbaric”; (e) Motion M-103, the anti-blasphemy legislation; (f) publicly saying that Canada has and should have no core identity; (g) altering the national anthem to make it ”gender neutral”; (h) making it mandatory for MPs to support abortion, but taking no position on sex-selective abortions, which target female babies; (i) comparing ISIS fighter to Italian, Polish and Chinese immigrants; (j) refusing to denounce religious and cultural practices which are incompatible with a free and equal society,  and so on…..

In all fairness to Bernier, he never called for anyone to be prohibited from entering the country, to be mistreated, or suggested that people are not equal.  He did question: (1) dividing Canadians into ever smaller groups and ”Balkanizing” the country; (2) accepting ideologies which are truly incompatible with Western societies; and (3) obsession with identity politics does nothing to unify a country.  All of these things seem very reasonable.

Left leaning Liberals and the NDP had a field day, calling Bernier a bigot and calling for his ouster from the parties.  That is no surprise.  Virtue signalling is how the left operates these days.

The more right leaning Canadian Nationalist Party enjoyed it as well, albeit for different reasons.  Members took it as proof that the Conservatives are too weak to stand up for a strong unified Canada. Here is an article from the Nationalist Party of Canada.

The real surprise (at least to me), was how reluctant fellow Conservatives were to support him.  They claim to be against political correctness and the silencing of open discussion, but showed true hypocracy here. The media condemned Bernier here, here, here, and here.

Outside Parliament and the mainstream media however, there has been large public support for Bernier and his having the courage to at least address a difficult topic.

It seems unlikely that Maxime will be kicked out of the party, if for no other reason than it will destroy any claim that Conservatives value free speech.  However, the damage seems to be already done.

And another observation: go to almost any ”multi-culture” city and you will find it segregated along cultural and ethnic lines.  This is not the government’s doing, but rather people doing it voluntarily.

Final Thoughts: Most don’t have a problem with people of other races, and (for to a degree) cultures living in Canada.  Where the line should be drawn is: (i) when the goal seems to actually be to break the country down; (ii) the cultures are truly incompatible; (iii) when asking valid questions becomes hate speech.

People are equal.  Ideas are not.  Ideas should be openly discussed, including ones that involve the direction the country is going.

Here is Maxime Bernier’s Twitter account, and specifically, here are the INFAMOUS 6, which caused the stir.

Update to the Story
Maxime Bernier left the Conservative Party on August 23. Bernier talked about many policy differences, while Scheer cited some personal differences. Bernier founded the (Communist sounding) People’s Party.

Canadian Universities Fighting Against Free Speech and Free Association in Court

February 28, 2018 — Universities like to champion themselves as defenders of different peoples and ideologies.

However, while the former may be true, anyone who has ever spent time at one knows that the latter is not true.

In this case, 3 Ontario post-secondary institutes were facing legal challenges.  But now a Superior Court has ruled in their favour.

They are: (1) Ryerson University for refusing to grant official status for men’s issues awareness, and both the (2) Durham College & UOIT and (3) University of Toronto Mississauga for refusing official status for pro-life groups.

Here are a few links to related media:




Student Union fees are mandatory at colleges and universities.   However, Student Unions are in effect able to force money from students whose views they censor.

There is no open to ”opt-out” if the school promotes certain views, or censors others.

A group dedicating to raising awareness to how issues such as higher suicide rates, job loss, courts that are stacked against them, and a general lack of resources for men is not openly hostile to women.  Regardless of some feminists will say, men are not the enemy.

Likewise, a group who wants to spread their views that unborn children should have rights is not an enemy to women.   Regardless of a person’s individual views on abortion, it is wrong to condemn those who take issue with the issue of stopping a potential future person.

Yet, with this February court ruling, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has said that it ”is” okay to shut down and ban student groups if their views are disliked.

Interesting observation: though probably a coincidence, it seems that those opposition to both groups are a way for some women to flex their political muscles.

Banning a men’s issues awareness group can be a way to ensure that the only issues that receive public attention are women’s concerns.

Banning a pro-life group can be a way to ensure that abortion is only looked at through the lens of the mother and her suffering, and not that of the unborn child.

However, universities are not places for free speech and open inquiry, unless the speech and inquiry are of ”approved” views.  This is to say that they are not places of free speech and open inquiry at all.

This ruling just proves it yet again.



Call Yourself a Woman, get Cheaper Auto Insurance

Car insurance rates in Canada can be very expensive, especially for men.  Provinces such as Alberta and Ontario charge men much higher rates than women, especially at a younger age.  The rationale is that statistically speaking, men get into more serious car accidents than women.

But one person (can I call her a man, or him a woman?) has come up with an interesting way to get around that.  This is the story: Here and here.

The person, known as ”David”, got his Alberta birth certificate changed from ”M” to ”F”, then got insurance as a ”woman”.  It cost about $1100 less a year doing this.

Alberta had made it easier to change the gender on documents in an effort to make the process easier for transgender individuals.  Clearly, this was not the intent of these legal reforms.

However, the LGBTQ Community has objected, claiming that this is making a mockery of the laws meant to protect them.   Some in the government have claimed that this is in fact perjury and fraud.

Curiously enough, many Canadians have been left with a sour taste given all of the SJW policies, including what is seen as excessive trans accomodation and the blurring of actual biological differences between the sexes.

Author’s Views: I have no issue with people living as the people they wish to be or feel that they are.   As long as it doesn’t infringe on myself or others, people are free to be who they are.  However, the fake outrage that is so often on the news is very offputting.

My own leanings are somewhat conservative/libertarian, and my beliefs are that people should be treated equally and fairly.  No prejudice, no special treatment.   And different rates for men and women is discrimination.

I do think it is an amusing way to combat the prejudicial practice of charging men higher rates for insurance.  A sense of 2 wrongs making a right.


Waiting to be Heard (by Amanda Knox) is Complete Nonsense

Originally published on the website: truejustice.org

This article relates to the book Amanda Knox released (ghostwritten by Linda Kuhlman), in May 2013.  Knox released this book in the Spring of 2013, after the Italian Supreme Court (1st Chambers), had annuled the appeal acquittal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

The book is completely illogical, and makes many false accusations both of justice officials, and others involved in the case



Legal Outcomes 2007-09

    • November 6, 2007—AK and RS were charged for rape and murder of MK, alongside PL, whom Knox has accused as the actual killer
    • November 9, 2007—AK/RS faced Judge Claudia Matteini, to see if they could be released conditionally (their 1st Court hearing), and to get a brief assessment of the Prosecution case.  While FoAK crow about there being no bail in Italy, this hearing seems eerily similar to a bail hearing.
    • November 30, 2007—AK/RS challenged Judge Matteini’s decisions (their 2nd Court hearing), and Judge Massimo Ricciarelli presided over a 3 Judge panel which confirmed the detention, but with Rudy Guede as the 3rd person, as opposed to PL.
    • April 1, 2008—AK/RS tried to get released again (their 3rd Court hearing on the matter), and the 5 Judge Cassation panel headed by Judge Torquato Gemelli denied the request, and even the lesser request of house arrest
    • September/October 2008—Pretrial (and Guede’s short form trial) presided over by Judge Paolo Micheli.  Judge Micheli convicted RG, and sent AK/RS to trial.
  • December 2009—AK and RS were convicted at trial by the Court of Judge Giancarlo Massei.

Legal Outcomes 2010-15

In 2010 AK/RS then chose to APPEAL those convictions and filed such an appeal.

  • October 2011—AK/RS were “acquitted” of murder by the Appellate Court headed by Hellmann and Zanetti, though the Calunnia conviction was upheld.

The Prosecution then filed a SECONDARY APPEAL to the Court of Cassation

  • March 2013—AK/RS had their “acquittal” by H/Z annulled, while the calunnia conviction was upheld, with aggravating factors added back on.

AK/RS chose to file ANOTHER APPEAL of the 2009 Trial Conviction, this time it went to Florence.  Not a new trial, but another appeal.  Knox didn’t show up.

  • January 2014—AK/RS had their 2009 conviction “confirmed” by the Court of Judge Nencini, with a small sentence increase for AK.

AK/RS then filed a SECONDARY APPEAL to the Court of Cassation.  The 5th Chambers took the case.

  • March 2015—AK/RS had their convictions thrown out by the panel of Bruno/Marasca.  However, the report released in September 2015 didn’t actually say they were innocent.  in fact, the report placed AK at the crime scene, and RS probably so.  The Court found both had lied repeatedly.
  • January 2017 — RS lost in Florence while trying to claim compensation for the 4 years he spent in jail.  The Court ruled that his repeated lying to the police was willful misconduct, and rendered him ineligible
  • July 2017 –RS lost an appeal to the Italian Supreme Court for compensation for wrongful imprisonment.  Again, his repeated lying was the issue.

The Climate Change Scam — Part 1

(A Children’s Video Explaining Photosynthesis, Peekaboo Kidz, 2015)

The “Climate Change” programs and conventions, (mostly UN sponsored) that go on are a complete scam.
-They do nothing to help the environment.
-They are based on junk science.
-They are based on predictions, not proof.
-They drain money from nations, and from their people in the name of virtue signalling.
-They are hypocritical, considering they want to “lower” carbon emissions



Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is touted as a “greenhouse gas” which contributes to all kinds of environmental disasters

***”Global warming” is a term not used as much anymore, since “climate change” is more vague, and can be more easily adapted.***

However, carbon dioxide occurs naturally, just from breathing.

The human body converts carbohydrates, fatty acids, and proteins into smaller “waste products” such as water and carbon dioxide in order to extract energy from them.

Carbon dioxide is not a “waste product” to be eliminated. It is a necessary resource plants use for photosynthesis

6 CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 6 H20 (water) + sunlight ===> C6H1206 (sugar) + 6 02 (oxygen)

While only plants engage in photosynthesis, both plants and animals respire

C6H1206 (sugar) + 6 02 (oxygen) ===> 6 CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 6 H20 (water) + usable energy

The photosynthesis and respiration cycles are not some big mystery. They have been taught in grade schools for many years. See here, see here, and see here



Climate models are not proof of anything.

The simplified explanation is that data is fed into a computer. And from there a conclusion is predicted. But it is only a guess, it is not proof of anything. The model may be validated after the fact (or more likely, debunked), but they are just predictions.

The education or experience of the people running the simulations does not change the fact that they are just guesses.

At the risk of sounding cynical, models can be easily manipulated by selecting only certain parts of data, or by what algorithm is used in the programming. Furthermore, innocent mistakes can be made simply by having incomplete data.

Current technology is not able to predict the weather (yes, a simplification) more than a week or 2 in advance. Yet these models will tell us what the temperatures or water level will be in 100 or 200 or 1000 years?



Furthermore, the United Nations holds an annual summit each fall. While exact sizes of the delegations are difficult to come by, it is fair to say that at least 10,000 people attend every year. If driving and flying contribute to “climate change”, then why is it necessary to do so on such a large scale? Here are a few numbers to ponder:

2018, coming to Katowice, Poland, 30,000 delegates are expected to attend.

2017, from Bonn, Germany, more than 30,000 people attended

2015, from Paris, France, about 40,000 people attended. Of those, at least 300 delegates were from Canada alone.

2013, from Warsaw, Poland, more than 10,000 people attended the UN Climate Change Conference.

2012, from Doha, Qatar, approximately 17,000 people attended the UN Climate Change Convention

So, what environmental benefits come from shipping tens of thousands of people around the globe every year? Are they not hypocrites for creating their own massive carbon footprints? Why not do an online or video convention, as the technology is there?



If nations do not “meet their commitment”, then they are allowed to “purchase credits”. This is absurd, as paying a body instead of money instead of taking action does nothing to help the environment.

See here, or here, for some more information.

It did make Al Gore and David Suzuki pretty rich.

The claim of global warming is also a great way to increase government coffers. See this.


To recap, the UN climate change conventions are a total scam. Here are 4 big reasons

(1) It is based on junk science. CO2 is not a pollutant, but a necessity of life.

(2) Predictions are done by computer modelling, which is guesswork, not proof.

(3) The annual conventions, which involve shipping tens of thousands of people each year, shows the conventions are hypocritical on their face.

(4) In practice, this is a way to find new taxes and fees to hit citizens with. These taxes and fees do nothing to stop climate change — junk science notwithstanding

Canada’s Bill C-16: Adding Gender Identity to Human Rights Code and Criminal Code

(Jordan Peterson before the Canadian Senate on Bill C-16)

June 19, 2017, Bill C-16 received royal assent, becoming law. In a nutshell, amended both the Canadian Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Code to include “gender identity or expression” to the books.

For the Criminal Code, it added “gender identity or expression” to the list of protected groups which violence against would be viewed as a hate crime (if that were the motivation for the offence.

For the Human Rights Code, “gender identity or expression” would be added to the list of protected grounds which discrimination against would be illegal.

In the above video, Professor Jordan Peterson (University of Toronto), claims that this bill will lead to “compelled speech”, and that the wording leaves the possibility that it will be abused. There are obvious flaws with the bill (more on that later). But here are the quotes from the HRC and CC, both before and after.



2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 2; 1996, c. 14, s. 1; 1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E); 2017, c. 3, ss. 9, 11, c. 13, s. 1.

Canadian Human Rights Act

1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)

1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:


2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)



3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.


2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

R.‍S.‍, c. C-46

Criminal Code


(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1; 2014, c. 31, s. 12.


3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

Definition of identifiable group

(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

1995, c. 22, s. 6



(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,


4 Subparagraph 718.‍2(a)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,


Now for the problems:

First, what exactly is “gender identity”? On the surface, it seems to imply transgendered/transsexual people, who are actually “transitioning” from one sex to another. However, the bill fails to define or clarify this. Is it a transitioning person? Do they have to have completed it? Is there a certain standard?

Second, what exactly is “expression”, in the context it is being used? Would drag kings/queens or performers fall into this category? Is it someone who just dresses or acts in a less than usual manner? For this to be included into human rights and criminal code legislation, the wording needs to far more clear?

Third, if a person chooses to identify as anything other than male or female, are others obligated to address them as such?

Fourth, in terms of “having their needs accommodated” (with respect to the human rights code), what does this mean? Again, without specifying whether a person is actually transgender or just doing this temporarily, how would any employer or school be expected to be able to comply? Likewise, when looking at the wording “… without being hindered in or prevented from”, this is impossible to comply with, without more information.

Fifth, and regarding the Criminal Code, this seems incredibly dangerous to add. Hate crime laws are often not a good idea (as identity seems to be more important than the actual offence). But here, adding the vague wording “gender identity or expression” as a means of increasing a sentence does not seem wise.

Sixth, will these laws stifle legitimate concern and debate on the issue of transgenderism? The health and societal considerations — not to mention high suicide rates — are of a public concern to discuss. The science of “gender dysphoria“, the underlying medical condition, is still far from settled. If open discussion and debate can be viewed as “hate speech” or as “discrimination”, will this have a chilling effect on free speech?

Seventh, and referring to the above Peterson video, is gender supposed to be viewed from a biological or sociological perspective? (See the video).

Again, if this were specifically meant to protect individuals transitioning, and/or those with gender dysphoria, it would be a lot easier to support. However, the wording seems vague, and open to misinterpretation.

The public at large seems apprehensive about these changes, and with good reason.