The Law Society of Ontario is soliciting feedback on "governance and electoral reforms.”

If you live in Ontario, listen up because this affects YOU, and there’s something you can do about it.

The board currently running the LSO ran as a slate on a pro-EDI platform in 2023. They’ve put forward a proposal that would appear to entrench their power, and reduce the likelihood that anyone who opposes their pro-EDI agenda will gain control in future elections.

A bit of history before I explain their worrisome proposal.

I love Canada but there's so much about it that's been frustrating lately. I just went to Japan for the first time and it really highlighted just how bad things have gotten here. Rather than wallowing in self-pity, I've decided to share my top 5 things we can learn from Japan. 👇 1. People still have manners. They don't talk loudly, play music in public or cut in lines. They say please & thanks. They respect personal space. They even bow to each other! These small gestures cost nothing but make life better. We used to have manners. Let's try that again!

Day 2 of U of T's motion for an injunction against @occupyuoft Yesterday we heard from U of T. Today we'll hear from the encampment's lawyers @cvangeyn & I will have a full recap on the Not Reserving Judgement YouTube tonight & podcast. Follow along live👇 youtube.com/channel/UCEMCG… Encampment lawyer starts by informing the judge that the supporters wearing keffiyehs were accosted by people in the courthouse.

At the U of T encampment injunction motion. Up first is M. Jilesen for U of T. Justice Koehnen presiding. Jilesen says the question the court must answer is do the respondents have a right to expropriate property for their use excluding the perspective for others? Follow along👇 M. Jilesen says the Charter does not apply to universities, and that the Court does not need to consider the Charter on an injunction. Jilesen says even if Charter were to apply to U of T's policies, they are justified limits on Charter rights to expression/assembly

People keep asking the @CDNConstFound: "Where's the line between legal speech and hate speech?"

The problem is, we don't exactly know.

If you can't see the line, you stay silent to avoid the fine.

That's why C-63 is such a big threat to free expression.

Allow me to explain👇 In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada said in the R v Whatcott decision that hatred is only the "most extreme manifestations" of the emotion captured by the words "detestation" and "vilification."

Only that type of speech can be outlawed without violating s 2(b) of the Charter.

Reading the new Online Harms Act. Will flag some sections that raise free expression concerns as I go. 👇

S. 55(1) would require social media companies "implement measures to mitigate ... risk users ... will be exposed to harmful content" including "content that foments hatred." S. 55(3) says the measures cannot "unreasonably" or "disproportionately" limit users' expression.

This is a concerning low bar. The Charter only allows such limits as are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Criminal hate speech laws in Canada are poorly understood.

I keep getting asked, so here's a quick primer.

Hate speech is difficult to define and risks chilling free speech. However, Parliament chose to criminalize it and the Supreme Court upheld that choice in R v Keegstra.

https://twitter.com/TorontoPolice/status/1721241512233648599

Hate speech is objectively defined so it doesn't matter whether an individual was offended.

What matters is whether "a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances surrounding the expression, would view it as exposing the protected group to hatred." (R v Whatcott)