Thread by @ChanLPfa

Going to live tweet about the #BarryNeufeld case. Waiting to enter courthouse.

Barry’s lawyer is speaking. Idea that one can change their sex is not based in science. Barry has a right to express his opinion.

BN’s lawyer is explaining that Barry’s criticisms come from the fact that he cares about the children.

Judge says something along lines of Canadian public supports homosexuality, and BN’s comment was clearly homophobic, why are we even debating.

Lawyer says nothing BN indicated he would discriminate against kids based on sexuality.

Judge: but trustees “shouldn’t say stuff like that”.

Lawyer: pointing out that BN wasn’t attacked students, but a program (SOGI).

Lawyer says BN apologized for FB post. Said he was critical of education ressources, not individuals.

Lawyer: BN feels an agenda is hurting the kids. Even the gay kids. Puberty blockers etc carry long term implications - they cannot be ushered in this direction by teachers. He doesn’t hate kids. Accusing him of hate speech is egregious.

Lawyer: Citing stats on desistance. As inflammatory and offensive as BN’s comments may be, they are made out of concern for the kids. People should be allowed to express their views on matters on public interest.

Lawyer: BN has a valid defamation case. Needs fair access to a trial. Can’t just be dismissed because of hurt feelings.

Judge: Would you debate x claim (couldn’t hear)?

Lawyer: I would debate his right to debate the claim. Hansman crossed the line when he accused BN of inciting hatred against identifiable group.

Judge: does he ever use the term “identifiable group”?

Lawyer: no, but when you impute hate speech… Hate speech is a criminal offense. Libel laws exist to protect public debate. Hansman must be held accountable. If not, you are rewarding misconduct.

10 min break. Intervenors coming next.

First intervenor. Two reasons why LGBT youth deserve extra attention. 1) constitutional dimension - charter section 2b. One should be able to express their gender identity authentically, let’s encourage young people to “be themselves”.

2) “trans people frequently find their very existence the subject of public debate”. Nothing would be more welcome to the queer community than this court saying trans youth matter. Save young lives. Suicidality.

2nd intervenor: BC court of appeal failed to comprehensively consider impact on 2SLGBT… Now presenting selected stats on hate crimes. And gender identity is not accounted for in those stats, so hate crimes likely even higher. Alarming.

The court should assess harm. Misgendering or dead naming = detrimental.

(We are advocating that hurting feelings should be illegal even if you’re speaking truth, I guess.)

3rd intervenor: hostility and hatred…something something.

Judge cuts off and asks for definition of gender identity and sexual orientation.

Intervenor: analysis of hostility must be done, and must consider power and privilege.

(Cont.) Burden shouldn’t be on marginalized person to justify their “oppression”. Twisting story: BN is trying to silence his critics apparently. Appears to imply she is defending free speech. Lol.

4th intervenor: importance of unions. Unions challenge and work in opposition to government (apparently). He has said “union” about 25 times in 2 mins.

5th intervenor: should defend expression that protects members of vulnerable groups. Speech alleged to be defamatory was made in response to comments that would harm vulnerable group.

(Cont.) In the marketplace of ideas, protecting protected counter speech is particularly important to LGBT and trans individuals. Counter speech can be uncivil and disproportionate to the speech to which it is responding.

6th intervenor: court of appeals decision was anomalous. We should dismiss plaintiffs lawsuit, 3 reasons. 1-Being threatened with lawsuit chills speech. 2- should expect pushback for stating controversial opinions. Missed the 3rd one.

7th intervenor: plaintiff should have evidence about seriousness of harm cause. Claims of harm are not sufficient. (Oh????)

8th intervenor: expressions that advance protected groups’ interests should be given increased weight. Those groups ought to be recognized.

(Cont.) from polite to diplomatic, strong words speak up for vulnerable groups. Being called a racist, misogynist, ageist, homophobic etc might be offensive, there is no right to not be offended in Canada. We should be able to label people any of these things without worrying.

9th intervenor: defending Hansman’s right to “fair comment”. We are allowed to disagree and criticize. Expression of one’s opinions is fundamental. Burden should be on plaintiff to prove that freedom of expression of critics shouldn’t be protected.

(Cont.) Courts can’t step in every time someone is called racist or transphobic.

Woman speaking. Says BN was not silenced at all. Reading some of Hansman’s comments. Says SOGI is about creating safe and inclusive spaces.

The woman is Hansman’s lawyer.*

Hearing is over. Two lawyers shake hands. BN tries to shake hand of union’s president (Hansman is not here), but he declines.

BN’s one supporter in the court (me) is gay. How ironic. 😂

Here is Barry and his lawyer Paul Jaffe.

Impolite*