Free speech is not a decoration to hang on the wall of a democracy, it is the foundation on which everything else depends, and without it the entire structure of liberty crumbles, because the ability to debate, to dissent, and to challenge those in power requires that voices remain free even when they are unpopular, or offensive. Yet in Canada, and in the West in general, today that foundation is eroding, not in sudden collapses, but in slow, quiet cracks that spread law by law, regulation by regulation, and excuse by excuse, until the ground beneath us is far less stable than it once was.
We have already been softened up by cancel culture, which has trained people to silence themselves, not because the law demands it, but because they fear the wrath of the mob, a mob that can destroy reputations and livelihoods in an instant. The lesson is clear: say the wrong thing, or say the right thing at the wrong time, and you may find yourself: unemployed, shunned, and branded beyond redemption. That is not a culture of free expression, it is a culture of intimidation, and it is astonishing to see how many cheer the downfall of their opponents without realizing that tomorrow the same tactics will be used against them.
The mob is only the warm-up act, because the real danger comes when governments step in and decide to regulate speech under the guise of safety, fairness, or protection. Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, is a prime example, creating a new Digital Safety Commission with sweeping powers to decide what qualifies as harmful expression. On paper it speaks of noble intentions (protecting people from bullying, extremism, or incitement to self-harm) but in practice it is built on definitions so vague that almost anything could fall within its reach, and when powers are left vague, history shows us they will be expanded, stretched, and ultimately abused.
The same dynamic played out with the Online News Act, Bill C-18. Promoted to protect Canadian journalism, it instead prompted major platforms to block Canadian news altogether rather than comply, reducing access to information in the name of expanding it. This is the irony of government intervention in speech: the slogans always sound noble, the intentions are dressed in the language of protection, yet the outcome is less freedom, not more.
The logic behind these measures is dangerous, because it rests on the idea that the state has both the right and the wisdom to decide which: words, symbols, or opinions are too unsafe for the public to encounter. That is not freedom, it is conditional permission, and conditional permission is withdrawn the moment those in power decide your view crosses an invisible line.
A free society must have the courage to tolerate even the intolerable. That does not mean endorsing it, or approving of it, but it does mean protecting the right to say it, because the moment we declare that only pleasant, mainstream, or popular speech is worthy of protection, we have given up the principle itself. The measure of a democracy is not how it defends agreeable words, but how fiercely it defends the ones we despise, and on that measure, Canada is slipping badly.
Once restrictions are enacted, they rarely disappear. They harden into precedent, growing layer by layer until freedom has been boxed in from every side. That is why every limitation on expression should expire automatically after five years, forcing lawmakers to return to the public square and defend censorship openly if they want it renewed. Liberty demands constant defense, not one-time victories that gather dust while freedoms wither.
Freedom will always be messy, offensive, and sometimes ugly, but the alternative is far worse. It is velvet authoritarianism, a cage dressed up with the wallpaper of safety and fairness, where citizens are told to smile while living in echo chambers that no longer allow real debate. That is not democracy, it is submission disguised as civility.
We cannot celebrate cancel culture, nor can we accept governments deciding which ideas are too dangerous to be heard. The moment we allow that logic to take root, freedom itself begins to suffocate. The test of whether a nation is truly free is not how loudly it protects speech everyone agrees with, but whether it still has the courage to protect the words that others least want to hear.
Stay in the loop with exclusive news, stories, and insights—delivered straight to your inbox. No fluff, just real content that matters. Sign up today!
