An elderly school trustee who questioned trans ideology is being subjected to a legal witch-hunt, writes Meghan Murphy for Spiked. Here’s an extract.
Under other circumstances, former school trustee Barry Neufeld may have retired as one of your curmudgeonly, albeit amusing, elderly neighbours, equipped with a brash sense of humour, a glass of wine and a cigarette. Had he not introduced himself at a recent panel event I spoke on in Victoria, British Columbia (BC) about the harms of gender-identity ideology, I would never have pegged him as a supposed hate-monger. He seemed rather jovial, in fact. Yet the Canadian media and some of Canada’s most powerful unions see things differently. They have made Neufeld their nemesis.
Neufeld is now in his seventies. His troubles began in 2017. This was when he discovered a new gender-identity curriculum for kids coming down the pike in his school district of Chilliwack, BC. This was the year that the SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) 123 programme was implemented in public schools across the province, with the aim of making classrooms more ‘inclusive’ for LGBT-identified kids. That same year, Bill C-16 was passed by the national parliament, adding ‘gender identity’ to the list of protected characteristics under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Both pieces of legislation were introduced with little public debate and most Canadians were completely unaware of what was even happening.
But Neufeld noticed and spoke out on Facebook, criticising SOGI 123 for instructing “children that gender is not biologically determined, but is a social construct”. “At the risk of being labelled a bigoted homophobe”, he wrote, “I have to say that I support traditional family values and I agree with the [American College of Paediatricians] that allowing little children to choose to change gender is nothing short of child abuse”.
After facing backlash, he apologised a couple of days later “to those who felt hurt” by his opinion. He explained that “I am critical of an educational resource, not individuals. Those who have worked with me for over 24 years know that I do believe in inclusion and a safe learning environment for all of our students.” Yet he didn’t relent, adding: “SOGI 123 resources need to be reviewed by engaging parents and teachers in conversation… before full implementation.”
This didn’t happen, of course. This is never how the trans issue has been handled by the Canadian government and its state-funded institutions. Rather, gender-identity policy and legislation have been slipped in under the radar. By the time most of the Canadian public noticed, it was far too late.
It’s no wonder Canadians were in the dark about this new ideology that had been adopted across the board. No one included them in the conversation. Those who did speak up were silenced and, if they refused to retreat to their hidey holes, they were punished brutally, libelled in the media and cancelled from public life.
Neufeld is one such example. Calls for his resignation followed the Facebook posts and, in January 2018, the Canadian Union of Public Employees filed a complaint against him with the BC Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT). Just a few days later, the BC Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) and the Chilliwack Teachers’ Association filed an almost identical complaint. These organisations claimed Neufeld had breached the human-rights code and had “created an unsafe work environment” for teachers and students on account of his words. They pointed to language Neufeld had used in his criticisms, such as “child abuse”, “evil ideology”, “biologically absurd theory” and the suggestion young people identifying as ‘trans’ might have undiagnosed autism. The complaint sought an order to stop Neufeld from speaking out as he had been, along with a fine – that BCTF president Glen Hansman hoped would go to a non-profit organisation that advocates for LGBT youth.
In response, Neufeld filed a defamation lawsuit against Hansman. But in 2019, this was rejected by the courts on account of anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) legislation, which shuts down lawsuits aimed at stopping criticism of public officials. Justice Andromache Karakatsanis rejected Neufeld’s case, finding that “Mr Hansman’s words were not a disproportionate or gratuitous response to Mr Neufeld’s statements, and there is a substantial public interest in protecting his counter-speech”.
It seems Neufeld’s ‘counter-speech’, by contrast, is consistently considered a bridge too far. In 2020, an online petition calling for his removal from office garnered more than 12,000 signatures. The fervour was reignited by his use of ‘the r-word’ to describe three staff members at the Chilliwack Progress, a local newspaper he accused of bias. The petition was unsuccessful.
In January 2021, the BCTF’s human-rights case against Neufeld was finally granted a hearing. This would include purported complaints from anonymous LGBT-identified teachers. Neufeld was not to know who exactly he’d offended, but he would be punished, nonetheless.
This should all have a familiar ring to those who have followed prime minister Justin Trudeau’s attempts to push through the Liberal Party’s Online Harms Bill, introduced to parliament earlier this year. This aims to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to qualify online ‘hate speech’ as discrimination. If passed, individuals would gain the ability to file anonymous complaints against other Canadians for engaging in speech they consider to be hateful on social media, dragging them through a human-rights tribunal similar to that Neufeld is being subjected to. If found guilty under this legislation, individuals could be fined up to $50,000 or be penalised with as much as life in prison for ‘hateful conduct’.
Already, Trudeau has managed to pass his Online Streaming Act 2023, which handed over power to a government entity, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, to determine what Canadians are permitted to see on social media – that is, what is amplified and what is censored.
A key question at stake in Neufeld’s case was whether the BCHRT should have jurisdiction over “hate speech published online” or whether such charges must remain under federal jurisdiction. In August, the tribunal issued a decision affirming its ability to hear cases about allegations of online hate speech. This essentially pre-opens the flood gates to the legislation Trudeau is working to pass, without him actually having to do so.
Neufeld is an imperfect hero, who is still embroiled in an unjust, nonsensical legal battle. He could be any of us Canadians, should we allow Trudeau to barrel forward with his attempts to silence online ‘hate speech’. If we wish to protect our own right to speak critically, or even offensively, about government policy – online or off – it is in our interest to support Neufeld. He must win his fight to speak rudely and never hold his peace.
Worth reading in full.
