Erosion of our rights is a betrayal of those Canadians who died to protect our freedoms

Remembrance transcends ritual commemoration; it demands active reclamation of the democratic legacy.

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack.

As the chill of November settles over Ottawa the solemn rituals of this week’s Remembrance Day ceremonies are now etched into our collective memory—a moment to salute the valour of those who ventured into the inferno of global conflicts. From the blood-soaked trenches of Europe, to the beaches of Normandy, the frozen hills of Korea, and the dusty trails of Afghanistan, Canadian service men and women laid down their lives not for glory, but for the sake of “freedom” and “democracy”, or so they were told.

In total since World War One, over 113,000 Canadians perished, their ultimate sacrifice helping to forge a Canada where citizens’ voices could speak out and dissent, where people could gather without fear of reprisal, and political leaders could be held accountable for their actions. These warriors did not storm foreign shores merely to repel invaders. They battled to enshrine a birthright of freedom from tyranny, equality under the law, and governance by the consent of the people, free from the shadows of authoritarianism.

However, as the wreaths are removed from cenotaphs and as the red poppies are put away for another year, a disquieting question lingers, what endures of their legacy when the very foundations freedom, democracy and human rights they bled to secure are being slowly dismantled bit by bit? In the years since those cataclysmic struggles, Canada has morphed into a nation where safeguards against governmental overreach now yield to the imperatives of “security”, and to ideological fervour.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the aspirational 1982 compact born from decades of constitutional struggles, now faces insidious encroachments. Nominally a society that embraces freedom and civil liberties, Canada now grapples with a creeping curtailment of personal freedoms, masked as bulwarks against terrorism, crime and societal harmony. If the ghosts of Vimy Ridge, Dieppe, or Kandahar could peer through the mist of time, they might recoil at the sight of a democracy seemingly adrift, where the clamour of protest is muffled because it bothers certai n communities, where expressions of dissent are branded as dangerous, and where elected official’s voices are reduced to mere echoes of their political masters.

Consider the legislation coming out of Parliament, cloaked in the garb of safety and security. The Strong Borders Act (Bill C-2), unveiled in June, promises to fortify our borders against shadowy transnational threats. At first glance, it evokes the steadfast resolve of those sent off to distant lands to defend Canadian values. Yet, within its pages lies a network of provisions that erode the bedrock of privacy and mobility enshrined in the Charter of Rights, ones that empower Canadian Border Service officials with sweeping authority to scrutinize digital footprints and personal data, often without judicial approval or oversight, under the flimsy veil of “reasonable suspicion. Critics from more than 300 advocacy organizations, representing refugee networks to digital rights sentinels, decry it as a Trojan horse for unchecked surveillance which could threaten human rights, refugee and migrant rights, and the privacy of all Canadians. This legislation is no mere bureaucratic tweak but rather a concession of the freedoms that Canadians fought to defend from the spectre of authoritarian ideologies.

No less alarming is Bill C-8, the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act. Framed as a bulwark against threats to vulnerable infrastructure—from power grids, to telecommunications infrastructure, to financial institutions—it compels companies under federal jurisdiction to undertake exhaustive audits of their vulnerabilities, with regulators able to dictate the removal of suspect technologies or the overhaul of protocols. While the spectre of cyber incursions is a real threat, with this legislation the federal government tilts perilously close towards a scenario where the Charter’s protections against unreasonable searches and protections of personal security—Sections 7 and 8—are ignored in the name of advancing national priorities and strengthening Canada’s economic resilience. In an era where data and technology is critical to economic success, such overreach risks transforming the open and free spaces where Canadians live their lives into places of constant surveillance, much like it is in present day China.

This escalation of restrictions extends to municipal governance in several jurisdictions across Canada, where officials, reacting to persistent protests against the genocide in Gaza, have instituted “bubble zone” bylaws that impose spatial buffers around key civic institutions. In Toronto, a city characterized by its pluralism and diversity, the city council approved a regulation establishing 50-meter exclusion zones around places of worship, educational facilities, and childcare centres, prohibiting assemblies deemed “disruptive” on the basis of subjective reports of discomfort. Initially conceived as a protective measure for entities affected by intense demonstrations—many of which have condemned Israel for committing horrific atrocities—the policy has evolved into a broader mechanism of control, targeting non-violent gatherings under the rationale of “protecting” citizens. Violations incur penalties of up to $5,000, administered by municipal enforcement officers with police support, even though law enforcement authorities maintain that existing legislation is adequate.

Similar measures have emerged in the cities of Vaughan and Brampton, north of Toronto, and Ottawa is developing its own framework. This creates a fragmented landscape of censorship of political activism that undermines the Canadian Charter of Rights’ protections under Sections 2(b) and 2(c), which cover freedom of expression and assembly. Advocates for civil liberties caution that these bylaws impose a deterrent effect on legitimate and legal protest, especially among underrepresented groups advocating for global justice, thereby converting historically inclusive public spaces into government controlled no go zones.

Exacerbating these trends is the gradual institutional adoption of broadened criteria for identifying prejudice, specifically the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which has been integrated into governmental policy since its federal acceptance in 2019 and subsequent provincial implementations through 2025. Jurisdictions including Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec have codified the definition, presenting it as an instrument to combat rising intolerance. However, its non-binding examples—some of which equate specific criticisms of Israeli state policy with antisemitic intent—risk conflating political analysis and criticism with ethnic and racial animus, thereby capturing human-rights advocacy concerning the Levant within the scope of prohibited speech. Progressive Jewish organizations, like Independent Jewish Voices, and allied civil-society coalitions contend that the definition is being weaponized to suppress substantive and legitimate debate while insulating those who support the suppression of legal free speech contested from scrutiny, thus eroding the freedoms that Allied forces sought to secure during the Second World War. In a society that embraces multicultural integration, such instruments threaten to undermine social cohesion by elevating one interpretive framework above rights guaranteed under the Charter.

Provincial governments, ostensibly custodians of regional autonomy, have increasingly invoked the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause (Section 33) to suspend Charter protections for disadvantaged populations. Quebec’s 2019 secularism law, reaffirmed in 2024, prohibits public-sector employees from displaying religious symbols, thereby overriding guarantees of religious freedom and equality. Saskatchewan’s 2023 requirement for parental consent in cases of gender-identity disclosure by minors, alongside Alberta’s 2025 legislation enabling teacher dismissals during labour disputes, both deploy the clause to preempt Charter challenges. Ontario’s adjustments to electoral boundaries and New Brunswick’s language-policy directives similarly shield contentious measures from judicial review.

Originally conceived in 1982 as a limited override to be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances, to balance parliamentary sovereignty with rights adjudication, the clause has been activated six times by five provinces since 2019, diminishing the Charter’s normative authority and enabling majority governments to violate constitutional rights under the guise of democratic prerogative. The framers of Canada’s constitutional order, informed by the injustices of wartime internment and the use of the War Measures Act during the FLQ Crisis in Quebec, intended the mechanism as an exceptional safeguard. Its contemporary proliferation signals a regression toward discretionary governance in which fundamental rights are sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

At the core of this democratic deficit lies Parliament, the institution designed to translate popular sovereignty into accountable administration. In principle, it functions as the primary arena for executive oversight, where rank-and-file legislators interrogate policy, compel evidence, and, if necessary, withdraw confidence to precipitate governmental collapse. The 1873 Pacific Scandal, in which parliamentary censure over railway corruption toppled Sir John A. Macdonald’s administration, exemplifies an era when Members of Parliament were able to exercise independent judgment unconstrained by party directives. By contrast, the contemporary House of Commons, comprising 343 members following the 2025 redistribution, operates within a rigid disciplinary party structure that prioritizes caucus cohesion and party loyalty over constituent representation. Informal yet coercive party protocols brand nonconformists as outliers and even traitors, and consign them to irrelevance. In the recent federal election the prime minister sustained a narrow electoral plurality, retains exclusive authority over cabinet formation, committee placements, and ancillary benefits such as international travel or remunerated parliamentary roles. Policy direction largely originates not from elected colleagues but from an insulated “palace guard” within the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office—apparatchiks whose primary allegiance is to the executive. Empirical analyses reveals that members adhere to the party line in 99.6 percent of recorded votes, rendering their contributions perfunctory.

This structural weakness arises from the imperatives of minority or slim-majority governance and a leader-centred political approach, where the leader tolerates no internal dissent that might jeopardize legislative stability. Career advancement—parliamentary secretaryships, committee chairmanships, or cabinet portfolios—function as an incentive for compliance, while resistance invites sanction. Consequently, the House of Commons, intended to constrain executive overreach, has devolved into a compliant assembly where rigorous examination atrophies and democratic accountability is limited. Without a credible check on prime ministerial authority, the system ceases to embody representative democracy as was originally intended.

The Canadian combatants who fell at Juno Beach, Kapyong, or Panjwai did not sacrifice themselves for this faded silhouette of self-governance. They confronted totalitarian regimes to defend a society where freedom and democracy is the norm, where dissent is a catalyst for reform rather than repression, and where elected officials serve the public rather than entrenched elites. Their legacy is undermined not by external adversaries but by internal erosion—federal surveillance regimes that intrude upon personal autonomy, municipal ordinances that stifle public expression, provincial suspensions of constitutional rights, and legislatures shackled by partisan discipline.

Reforms of the inadequacies of society requires deliberate intervention. Legislation should mandate conscience votes on ethical issues and insulate committee assignments from leadership discretion. Judicial oversight of Section 33 invocations before they are implemented should become the norm, restricting its use to genuine existential emergencies. Bubble-zone bylaws and the IHRA definition’s overboard applications should be rescinded to restore unencumbered forums for critique. Border-security and cybersecurity initiatives must incorporate robust transparency and warrant requirements. Most critically, statutory reforms should affirm that Members of Parliament owe their primary duty to constituents, not party hierarchies.

Remembrance transcends ritual commemoration; it demands active reclamation of the democratic legacy. We honour the fallen not through ephemeral tributes but by reinvigorating the liberties they secured. Only through such renewal can their sacrifice resonate as the foundation of an enduring, resilient Canada. In their memory, we are compelled to act, before the principles they defended dissolve into oblivion.

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Are we living in a post-human rights world?

Western hypocrisy around human rights extends beyond doing nothing to halt Israel’s genocide in Gaza. They’ve also done little to stop atrocities against the Rohingya, Uyghurs, Darfuris and others.

 

By Fareed Khan 
  
The world seems to be heading towards a precipice, towards a dangerous descent into a reality where human rights are no longer a universal guarantee but a privilege for the select few. The infrastructure of human rights, painstakingly built after the horrors of World War II, is under relentless assault—both at home and abroad. Our political leaders, entrusted with safeguarding these sacred principles, are complicit in their erosion, either through inaction, selective outrage, or outright suppression.

 

The hypocrisy of Western nations, the very architects of the post-war international legal order, is glaring. From being complicit in the ongoing genocide in Gaza to the silencing of dissent in democratic countries like the United States, the evidence is unmistakable. We are perilously close to a post-human rights world, and the vast majority of the public don't even realize the danger this poses. If we fail to defend the domestic and international human rights framework now, we risk a future where no one’s rights are secure, and the term will become meaningless in international law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, was a beacon of hope, a promise that the atrocities of global conflict and the Holocaust would never be repeated. Eleanor Roosevelt, a champion of this cause, declared, “People who continue to be denied the respect to which they are entitled as human beings will not acquiesce forever in such denial." And we see that today in the oppression of Palestinians by Israel, of Uyghurs by China, of the Rohingya by Myanmar, of Muslims by India, of illegal migrants by the US, and the violation of the rights of people who are LGBTQ2 by Russia. Every assault against the fundamental rights of minority populations is an assault on the human rights of all people, wherever they may be.

Western nations, which claim to uphold the international legal order, display a galling double standard on how they address the matter of violating fundamental rights. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the West mobilized swiftly, condemning Vladimir Putin’s war crimes, talking about how the rights of Ukrainians were violated, and even invoking the term “genocide” to describe Russian actions. Billions of dollars in economic aid and military assistance flowed to Ukraine, a testament to the West’s capacity to act when it feels its interests are under threat. But when Israel’s 20-month campaign of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians in Gaza unfolded—killing over 63,000 to date, displacing millions, and destroying an entire society—the response is tepid political platitudes and empty calls for restraint. There have been no broad sanctions against Israel as punishment for its crimes, no arms embargoes, no accountability compared to the West’s reaction to Russia’s war in Ukraine. This selective defence of human rights exposes a chilling truth: for the West, some lives are of lesser value, particularly if they happen to be brown or black, and especially if they are Muslim.

Western hypocrisy around human rights extends beyond Palestine. The Rohingya, the Uyghurs, the Kashmiris under Indian rule, and the Darfuris in Sudan face persecution, violence, and erasure, yet Western capitals remain largely silent. Where is the political will to address these crises? As Nelson Mandela once said, “To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.” By ignoring these atrocities, Western leaders are not just failing to act—they are denying the humanity of millions. The Centre for Civil and Political Rights notes a “degradation in cooperation” with UN Treaty Bodies, with states like Sri Lanka, Somalia, and Haiti skipping scheduled human rights reviews, and others, like Burundi, openly defying scrutiny. This disengagement signals a broader contempt for the mechanisms designed to protect human rights globally.

 

Closer to home, the democratic West is no bastion of freedom either. In the United States, the Trump administration has targeted pro-Palestinian protesters with chilling precision. There is the case of Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, a legal resident of the US married to an American, who was whisked off by Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE) agents to a Louisiana prison, and held for months without being allowed easy access to his lawyer. And then there is the case of Turkish graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk at Tufts University, who was arrested by masked Department of Homeland Security agents and sent to the same Louisiana prison as Khalil. Their “crimes” were that Khalil was a leading voice in anti-genocide protests at Columbia, while Öztürk co-wrote an op-ed in her campus newspaper about Israel committing genocide in Gaza. Hundreds of protesters opposing the Gaza genocide across the US have faced arbitrary arrests and jail time, their right to free speech trampled under the very questionable justification of “national security.”

Meanwhile in Canada, the passage in Parliament of Bill C-5 (“Building Canada Act”) grants the federal government sweeping powers to fast-track infrastructure projects, and ignore Indigenous treaty rights despite widespread opposition from first nations. Indigenous leaders have vowed that major civil unrest by Indigenous people will occur if their views are ignored and their rights violated when the federal and provincial governments move forward on major projects.

Across the Atlantic, Germany has banned the display of the Palestinian flag, while France has moved to suppress pro-Palestinian protests, effectively criminalizing solidarity with a people enduring genocide. These actions are not isolated but reflect a broader surge in authoritarian politics in Western democracies, reminiscent of the 1930s when fascist ideologies stifled dissent, marginalized minorities, and fuelled racist and political violence.

This suppression of free expression extends beyond governments. In the US, Canada and parts of Europe employers are disciplining or even firing workers who publicly criticize Israel’s genocidal crimes. In Canada, major news outlets—CBC, CTV, Global, National Post, and the Globe and Mail—consistently frame stories about Israel and Palestine through an anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel lens, perpetuating racism and curbing the rights of Palestinians to be heard, and tell stories of their persecution.

Compounding this crisis is the severe defunding of UN human rights mechanisms. Critical UN agencies, vital for protecting millions of vulnerable people worldwide, face crippling budget shortfalls due to funding cuts from the United States and other nations. The UN Human Rights Committee, responsible for monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has had to scale back its work, including indefinitely postponing Canada’s first review in a decade. At a time when state-sanctioned violence, inequality, and repression are escalating, weakening these institutions undermines accountability, enables further persecution of minorities, and destabilizes societies.

This assault on human rights is not just an international failure—it’s a domestic concern in the West as well. The rise of fascist elements in the West, often cloaked in populist rhetoric, threatens the rights of anyone who doesn’t conform to the dominant majority. In the US (with its MAGA cult), Canada, and Europe, we are seeing a growing intolerance for dissent, particularly when it challenges powerful interests. The suppression of pro-Palestinian voices, being pushed by Zionist groups and their allies, the erosion of Indigenous rights, and the targeting of minority communities signals a dangerous trend. Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” So if we allow these violations to persist unchecked, we pave the way for a world where no one’s rights are safe.

Politicians and the public must wake up and smell the coffee. The global human rights infrastructure is not a luxury we can ignore, it’s the bedrock of a just society and it is under assault like never before. By comparison nations have no qualms about funnelling tens of billions of dollars into military budgets, yet they balk at funding the UN’s human rights mechanisms adequately, which cost a fraction of those sums.

This is not a question of resources but of priorities. The CCPR Centre’s 2023 Annual Report highlights the increasing hostility toward human rights defenders, with some states obstructing dialogue and withdrawing from reviews altogether. Western leaders claiming to defend human rights, but only selectively, enables this backsliding. Canada, the US, and European democracies which repeatedly claim to be upholders of human rights must reinvest in the UN, strengthen treaty bodies, and hold all states—friends and foes alike—accountable for their obligations under international law.

What kind of world awaits us if the powerful and privileged disregard human rights? The result would be a dystopian nightmare. In a world without human rights, dissent against governments and elites would be criminalized, and free speech would be reserved for those aligned with ruling powers, echoing eras when such rights were nonexistent. Protesters, like Palestinian solidarity activists in the US, could face mass detentions without due process, reminiscent of how political dissenters were dealt with in the former Soviet Union. In Canada, Indigenous communities might see their lands exploited for mega-projects without consultation, their treaty rights violated and reduced to hollow words in historical documents. Across Europe, minority groups—whether ethnic, religious, or political—could face unchecked discrimination, their voices stifled by state-sanctioned bans. Globally, atrocities in places like the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Myanmar, or Sudan would multiply, with no international body empowered to take action. The powerless would be left defenceless, their suffering ignored by a world indifferent to their humanity.

This is not exaggeration—it’s a warning of what lies ahead if the silent majority remains passive. Without a robust human rights enforcement framework, the rule of law collapses, replaced by the dominance of powerful and wealthy elites who would be free to violate human rights if it served their interests. Palestinians, Rohingya, Uyghurs, and others would not be the only victims. Everyone, everywhere, would be vulnerable to unchecked authority and power.

Power itself does not always corrupt, but the fear of losing it often does, as seen in nations like China, Russia, North Korea, and El Salvador. The refusal of Western leaders to punish human rights abusing allies like Israel or challenge powerful domestic lobbies that support it, erodes the very principles they claim to champion.

The time for empty promises about upholding human rights is over. Leaders must act decisively, equipping international human rights organizations and UN bodies with the resources to enforce global standards consistently, while safeguarding freedom of expression home by upholding the principles of national foundational documents like Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we fail to protect the human rights framework we have now, we risk waking up to a world where those rights have been severely weakened or eliminated. The future of our fundamental human rights is in our hands. It is within our power to protect the rights we take for granted or let governments and powerful interests destroy them bit by bit, and return to a darker era, before the concept of human rights existed.

  
© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Bigotry and human rights violations by Quebec are constitutional according to province’s highest court ruling on “secularism” law

The decision about Quebec’s secularism law should scare all Canadians about human rights protections in this country.  It is very likely to be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for a final ruling, and if they agree with the Quebec Appeals Court that the Quebec law is constitutional it would mean that the concept of human rights in this country will become meaningless. 

 

By Fareed Khan

 

In a unanimous decision by Quebec’s highest court on the province’s controversial Bill 21 “secularism” law released on February 29th the judges sided with the provincial government and decided that it is within its constitutional rights to implement policies and laws that violate human rights, and (by extension) promote racism and bigotry against religious minorities.

 

 

The court was ruling on a challenge to the law launched by a number of civil liberties and Muslim organizations under Section 2(a) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The law was implemented by Quebec’s CAQ government in 2019, which invoked the Constitution’s “notwistanding” clause (Section 33) to override Charter rights and the case has been working its way through the court since the Charter challenge was launched later the same year.

 

In issuing the decision the judges on Quebec’s Court of Appeal seem to be saying that the fundamental human rights of the communities primarily affected by the law, who are mainly racialized religious communities, do not matter, and that the bigotry and racism that the law enables is acceptable.  With this decision members of Quebec’s Muslim, Sikh and Jewish communities who wear clothing that is intrinsic to the practice of their faith have been told that they are second class citizens and lesser human beings because of their religious beliefs.  While the law affects people of all faiths a 2019 poll revealed that the law was founded on the basis of anti-Muslim prejudice in Quebec.

The court’s decision is a very dangerous and fascistic approach to human rights in Quebec because it now gives free reign to the government to violate the fundamental rights of any individual or community if it is to their political advantage.  Such court rulings are more in line with authoritarian, far right regimes in other countries than those of an advanced democracy like Canada.

 

While Premier Francois Legault’s government is the primary villain in this situation they have also been enabled by the federal government which declined to intervene immediately after the law was instituted in 2019 by referring the law directly to the Supreme Court.  Had the government of Justin Trudeau taken that action it would have expedited a ruling on the law at Canada’s highest court, and Quebec’s racialized religious minorities would not have had to live under the tyranny of a government which finds it acceptable to violate religious freedoms.

 

The federal government’s failure to take action has allowed Quebec to destroy the lives of observant Muslims, Sikhs and Jews in Quebec who have been unable to fulfill career ambitions in their home province by working in those fields restricted to them under Bill 21.  For more than four and a half years Quebec has violated the rights of these religious communities, and the Trudeau government has been complicit in these rights violations by refusing to take action to defend the rights of Canadians.

 

Quebecers who wanted to work in certain public sector jobs – teachers, police officers, crown attorneys, and others – have had to leave the province to pursue a living because Justin Trudeau was more concerned about votes in Quebec than he was about the fundamental rights of Canadians.  He was not alone in this laissez-faire approach to criticizing the Quebec law as the leaders of other federalist parties said the issue was within Quebec’s purview, while the nationalist Bloc Quebecois and the far right People’s Party of Canada said that the federal government should stay out of Quebec’s business.

 

 

Since being elected in 2015 Trudeau and his ministers have talked repeatedly about their support of the Charter and the rights of Canadians and their opposition to racism.  But it appears these statements were all political theater because the federal government has shown repeatedly that it cares more about the public relations benefits of making such statements rather than about defending the human rights of racialized minorities, whether at home or abroad.  A government that truly cared about defending the human rights of Canadians would have referred the Quebec law to the Supreme Court in 2019 when it came into force regardless of the political consequences, or it could have used its powers under the “disallowance” clause of the Constitution (Section 90).

 

 

The Quebec court’s decision also raises concerns about the integrity of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Since it came into force the “notwithstanding” clause has been used 26 times by provincial governments (primarily Quebec) to override Charter rights.  When it was implemented more than 40 years ago the Charter was seen as a shield to protect the rights of Canadians from the whims of politicians.  But as we have seen in Quebec, Saskatchewan, Ontario and other provinces over more than 40 years provincial governments are now more than willing to use this provision to violate Charter rights for the sake of political expediency regardless of who suffers as a result.  It begs the question, what is the point of having guaranteed rights under Canada’s Constitution when they can be ignored by governments and politicians whenever it suits them.

 

The decision about Quebec’s secularism law should scare all Canadians about human rights protections in this country.  It is very likely to be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for a final ruling, and if they agree with the Quebec Appeals Court that the Quebec law is constitutional it would mean that the concept of human rights in this country will become meaningless.  This would make Canada no different than authoritarian states where political leaders violate their citizens’ rights at will.  People across Canada should be deeply concerned about what is down the road, and remain vigilant about protecting fundamental rights, which are slowly being chipped away by the actions of some provincial governments.  Otherwise we will lose them and human rights and civil liberties in Canada will return to the era before the Charter when the decision about whether Canadians had rights were in the hands of very flawed politicians and the interests they serve.

 

Fareed Khan is a human rights activist and founder of Canadians United Against Hate.

 

© 2024 The View From Here.  © 2024 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

The fundamental rights of people who are LGBTQ2 are under assault like never before. How did it come to this?

The September 20th protest organizers and their allies and those that supported these protests are trying to eliminate the presence of those who are LGBTQ2 from schools and from the public space . . . This hateful agenda is being supported by some conservative politicians who are using hate to further their political ambitions and agendas.

 

By Fareed Khan

 

How did it come to this?

 

How is it that in the second decade of the 21st Century Canadians are protesting the rights of those who are LGBTQ2, trying to push back those hard won rights, and trying to erase the visibility of people who are transgender from the public sphere and from schools in particular?  Did we not already deal with the fight for equal rights for those who are LGBTQ2 in the 1990s and then revisit and win similar battles in the 2000s when it came to equality of marriage?

 

 

Recent heightened aggression and outright narratives of hate targeting the LGBTQ2 community are deeply troubling and dangerous, not just to that community but to Canadian society at large.  It is up to governments and Canadians at large to ensure that the hateful societal and social media narratives that led to Canadian Muslims being murdered in hate-motivated crimes over the last several years does not get repeated with the LGBTQ2 community.

 

The recent surge in hate targeted at this community started with protests opposing men dressed in drag doing “Drag Story Time” events at libraries and schools.  However, the people protesting these events are clearly ignorant of the long history of drag entertainment in our society.  Drag performances, whether men dressing as women or women dressing as men, has been around since the era of black and white films, and even earlier in some instances.  During Shakespeare’s lifetime and beyond men dressed as women to play female roles in the public performance of plays.  It was not unusual and it certainly was not condemned.

 

Robin Williams, Barbra Streisand, Dustin Hoffman, Julie Andrews, Eddie Murphy and Eddie Redmayne, are only some of the high profile actors who have played roles of the opposite gender in entertainment coming out of Hollywood, and their films were watched by tens of millions of people (including children), unlike local Drag Story Time events.  Oscar winner Tom Hanks got his big break playing a cross dressing character in the TV series Bosom Buddies which ran for two seasons in the 1980s.  The CBC comedy series The Kids in the Hall ran for six seasons from 1989 to 1995, and at least one of the characters dressed in drag for practically every episode, without outraged people picketing the CBC for its "perversity".  In fact, the films Tootsie starring Dustin Hoffman and Victor, Victoria starring Julie Andrews were nominated for Academy Awards.  And it would be remiss not to mention that The Rocky Horror Picture Show, starring a young Susan Sarandon and Tim Curry in the title role, became a cult classic.  The movie played at midnight every Friday at the Roxy Theater in Toronto's east end from 1976 to 1983, with similar runs in theaters in New York City and other cities across the US.  Many people who showed up to these screenings dressed as characters from the show, including many who came in drag as Tim Curry's character.  In none of the instances mentioned was there the degree of venom and hate directed at those involved in the production of these films or TV shows as Canadians have seen over the past year towards local Drag Story Time events, or towards the LGBTQ2 community.

But for some reason Drag Story Time, and then subsequently any LGBTQ2 event where children are present (like pride parades), have become a “child safety” issue, an idea imported from far right and fascist political and religious movements in the US.

 

The claim that protesting drag or LGBTQ2 events, or removing any mention of the reality of sexual and gender diverse communities from school teaching materials is about “protecting children” from “depravity”, or preventing “sexual indoctrination”, is laughable and dangerous.  It is no different than historical narratives that painted Jews, Black men in the US south during the Jim Crow era, and gay men as a threat to babies, white girls and children respectively.  Such hate motivated narratives resulted in the brutal beatings and murders of people from these communities.  What better way to isolate a minority community and portray them as a threat than to dehumanize and demonize them, and propagate the fiction that they are “predators” who target children?  If we want to see examples of indoctrinating children just look at children who mimic the prejudices and bigotry of their parents.  That sort of hate is learned behaviour.  During the protests there were multiple incidents of children shouting hateful slurs targeting people who were gay, lesbian and transgender, as well as incidents of children being told by parents to stomp on and tear up pride flags.

 

Parents who are protesting about “parental rights” also need to understanding that their rights as parents do not supersede the basic human rights of people (and kids in particular) who are gay, lesbian, queer, or transgender to live in peace and equality under the law.  These parents do not get to overturn the use of government approved academic studies and materials used by teachers to make students aware of the reality of sexual and gender diverse communities, and to create safe spaces.  In fact, “parental rights” are not party of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and since there is no such thing those throwing around that term need to get educated about what human rights are, and why children’s rights (particularly if those children are part of a minority community) must be protected.

 

For those who agreed with the ideology underpinning the “march for children” protests, or oppose the very concept of an LGBTQ2 community, they need lessons about why children who are LGBTQ2 need to feel included in school activities, need to be seen as normal by other kids, need to be protected, and need to have a safe space in their schools.  Canadians or our governments would never accept such narratives if they were targeted Black people, Muslims, Jews, or other racialized communities.  So why is there not an aggressive push back against the people pushing dangerous narratives against the LGBTQ2 community?

 

The parents who joined these protests, especially those who came from racialized and religious minority communities, need to be aggressively educated about what the concept of human rights truly is, and that just as kids need to learn about the reality and history of Indigenous people, Black people, Muslims, Jews and other minority communities in our society, they also need to learn about the reality of those who are LGBTQ2, and the historic persecution they have faced.  In addition, these parents need to shed their ignorance and prejudice and learn that this community has a right to equality under the law just as they do, and that the rights of people who are part of this community must be protected and defended without exception the same way we would defend the rights of other communities being attacked, and their right to be visible in public spaces.

 

For those who cannot do that the least they can do is not add to the ecosystem of hate through their support of anyone, especially right wing politicians, who are playing with a ticking time bomb by supporting, endorsing or pushing hateful and ignorant anti-LGBTQ2 narratives.  It is the only way that we can prevent the fabric of our diverse and pluralistic society from being shredded, and from letting a hateful minority change Canada for the worse.

 

Finally, for those of any faith who use their faith’s teachings and scriptures to justify their view that “God is against this”, how would they know since they are not God?  Religious teachings have been twisted and misinterpreted by very flawed human beings with their own prejudices and agendas for centuries.  People of all faiths who believe in the existence of a supreme deity have to accept that like all humans anyone who identifies as LGBTQ2 was created by God.  And if they accept the idea that their God is a perfect being then how can anything He created be imperfect?

 

The LGBTQ2 community is under assault by hateful elements of society. The September 20th protest organizers, their allies and supporters are trying to eliminate the presence of those who are LGBTQ2 from schools and from the public space, and take back their fundamental human rights protections.  This hateful agenda is being supported by some conservative politicians who are using hate to further their political ambitions and agendas, and they must be opposed at every turn.

 

Those who oppose hate and believe in the sanctity of one’s fundamental Charter rights have to stand with those who are LGBTQ2 and prevent Canada from becoming like the state of Florida, where the government approved a “don’t say gay” law, which essentially criminalized teaching kids about the reality of the sexual and gender diverse community.

 

If Canadians want to avoid this country becoming like some US states where demonizing and vilifying the human rights of people who are LGBTQ2 is becoming more frequent, then those who call themselves human rights defenders have to be vocal, visible, and actively oppose those voices, including conservative politicians and provincial governments, that are are openly or quietly supporting and enabling this hate movement.

 

If we want to protect our diverse, inclusive and pluralistic society it is as simple as that and it is up to the silent majority of Canadians to make it happen.

 

© 2023 The View From Here.  © 2023 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.