Canadian 2025 Election

Free Speech and the Crisis of Canadian Democracy

The recent expulsions and deportations of student protesters in the United States have ignited a profound debate on free speech and academic freedom, raising concerns not only in the U.S. but in Canada and globally. Notably, Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia University — was detained by ICE on March 8, 2025, after participating in pro-Palestinian protests. Around the same time, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish-born PhD student and Fulbright Scholar at Tufts University, was arrested en route to an iftar dinner and transferred to a Louisiana detention center despite a judge’s order to keep her in Massachusetts. Meanwhile, Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old junior at Columbia and South Korean permanent resident, was arrested during a sit-in and is now fighting deportation.

This crackdown has extended beyond students. Reports indicate that professors are also relocating abroad due to increasingly restrictive environments. For instance, CNN reported that several high-profile Yale University scholars—including Jason Stanley, Timothy Snyder, and Marci Shore—are moving to the University of Toronto, citing threats to academic freedom in the U.S. Stanley even warned that America is at risk of becoming a "fascist dictatorship." These are not isolated moves; they reflect a growing trend and a warning sign for democratic societies worldwide.

But is Canada immune to this trajectory? The answer is not so simple. In fact, Canada has its own troubling history. During the Harper administration, federal scientists were reportedly silenced and barred from speaking publicly about their research—something many believe still has lingering effects today. The CBC’s report, outlines how how political interference in science became a serious concern, underscoring that threats to academic freedom are not unique to any one ideology. Between 2006 and 2015, numerous government scientists reported being prevented from sharing climate change findings with the public or media without prior political approval. This erosion of transparency, coupled with massive cuts to environmental research and the closure of key scientific institutions, led to an outcry from the international scientific community and marked a significant breach in the principle of academic autonomy.

Since October 2023, Canadian universities and major media outlets have faced backlash for disciplining individuals over pro-Palestinian views or criticism of Israel, highlighting a troubling pattern of suppressed speech.

At CTV News and Global News, journalists were terminated after posting pro-Palestinian views online or engaging in related activism. These dismissals have been widely criticized by media rights organizations as politically motivated and indicative of a shrinking space for balanced reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In academia, multiple universities have taken disciplinary action against students and faculty. At the University of Ottawa, a medical resident was suspended over social media posts criticizing Israeli policies, sparking national backlash and a petition that garnered over 100,000 signatures. Vancouver Island University suspended two students for pro-Palestinian activism, prompting public appeals, faculty support, and widespread outcry over what many deemed unjust disciplinary action.

At York University, faculty members were suspended following participation in protests related to Israeli military funding. The suspensions led to campus-wide demonstrations defending academic freedom. Meanwhile, McGill University called for police intervention after students organized a pro-Palestinian encampment. Police used tear gas and arrested fifteen students, prompting national debate about universities’ responsibilities to uphold free expression.

These developments show a growing trend of institutions responding to controversial political speech with disciplinary measures rather than open dialogue. As tensions over global conflicts continue, these responses raise urgent questions about Canada’s commitment to upholding freedom of expression in both journalism and higher education.

As of April 1, 2025, with Canada’s federal election approaching, academic freedom and free speech are largely missing from left-leaning party platforms. The Liberal Party focuses on curbing “online harms” through the proposed Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), which would require platforms to remove harmful content and establish new enforcement bodies—yet makes no mention of protecting freedom of expression or academic freedom.

And this is where the real danger lies. When laws and policies are written with vague language—such as "combatting disinformation" or "reducing hate"—they can easily be weaponized. Critics argue that the Act's broad definitions and stringent requirements could inadvertently suppress legitimate expression. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has expressed concerns that the Act could lead to draconian rules and chilling effects on free expression, causing individuals to self-censor for fear of repercussions. They contend that the vague and broad statutory duties imposed on operators may not adequately consider users' rights to freedom of expression and privacy.​

In fact, in the recent years, hate speech laws have been cited as the most common justification for suppressing speech in various democracies. ​In Europe, countries like France and Germany have imposed broad bans on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, citing hate speech and public order concerns. Laws against hatred, offense, and insults have been significantly expanded in many democracies, leading to the suppression of protests, advocacy, and critical expression in a disproportionate and discriminatory manner.​

In the United Kingdom, authorities have restricted pro-Palestinian marches, citing public safety concerns and potential offenses under public order laws. Similarly, in Australia, police have sought to prohibit pro-Palestinian rallies, citing safety hazards and public order risks. These actions reflect a broader trend where legislation intended to combat hate speech is perceived to disproportionately suppress political expression and dissent, prompting debates about the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

​The increasing use of laws intended to combat hate speech to suppress political dissent and controversial viewpoints is a troubling global trend. Despite this, the Canadian Liberal Party has not prioritized adjusting its platform to address the potential for governmental overreach. This oversight suggests a lack of recognition that political power is transient; once expansive authorities are established, they may be misused by future administrations.​

​Unfortunately, this deficiency in safeguarding freedom of expression permeates the political left. As of April 2025, neither the New Democratic Party (NDP) nor the Green Party has articulated clear commitments to uphold free speech or academic freedom. Their platforms emphasize combating hate and disinformation, yet the broad language employed could be subject to misuse, depending on interpretation.​

​By contrast, the parties addressing free speech directly are on the political right. The Conservative Party of Canada promises to repeal legislation they consider limiting expression—including the Online Harms Act, Bill C-11, and related regulatory efforts—and to ensure academic freedom is protected from ideological interference. The People’s Party of Canada (PPC), often described as far-right, pledges to restrict the definition of hate speech in the Criminal Code to expression that explicitly advocates the use of force against identifiable groups based on protected criteria, repeal existing laws seen as curtailing online free speech, and abolish public funding to Canadian media to eliminate state influence.​

While these statements are unusually direct, they also raise critical questions. Do these policies truly protect open discourse—or do they selectively defend speech aligned with their ideology? It’s worth remembering that Donald Trump also campaigned on defending free speech, yet his administration was widely criticized for silencing dissent and targeting protest movements.​

Ultimately, freedom of speech is not a left or right issue—it is a democratic cornerstone. Yet the silence from left-leaning parties in Canada is alarming. Laws without clear protections or definitions are easily exploited, especially when political winds change. By failing to address this risk, progressive parties are empowering future governments—possibly those they most fear—to use vague legal frameworks against speech they disapprove of.

If democracy is truly what these parties champion, then protecting the right to dissent, to question, and to express unpopular views must be front and center in their platforms. Anything less invites the very authoritarianism they claim to oppose.