This Substack examined how crackdowns on wrongthink in modern society are threatening freedom of expression in North America. 

I argued crackdowns on wrongthink in the last decade have made it tougher for people to be honest about their opinions, preventing ideas from being tested. 

An entire Substack can be devoted to looking at how to fight back against crackdowns on wrongthink, but I am going to offer some solutions with this story. 

North American universities can encourage wrongthink by adopting the Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression. The Chicago Statement states professors and students cannot be punished for voicing controversial ideas.

“The [INSTITUTION]’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the [INSTITUTION] community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed,” said the Chicago Statement. “It is for the individual members of the [INSTITUTION] community, not for the [INSTITUTION] as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose.”

While it is important for universities to have a free speech policy, it is meaningless if there is not a pro-free speech culture on campuses. Universities should not respond to public outrage and illiberal demands. 

North American news outlets can improve by not catering to rage. Certain news outlets are dedicated to dividing people. 

“You can do this by refusing to invest your feelings in what they post for every minute you spend on social media,” said “Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy” author Batya Ungar-Sargon. “All it takes is reminding yourself that the person they are trying to get you to hate is a human too.” 

Journalists should recognize the connection between the working class and conservatism to enhance their coverage. News outlets have lost touch with working-class people, leading to their voices being silenced. 

Politicians can promote wrongthink by embracing common humanity identity politics. Rather than demonize opponents, politicians can appeal to people’s shared morals and identities by encouraging compassion. 

Politicians should halt anti-free speech bills being worked on. Bill C-11 and the online harms bill threaten freedom of expression by holding people back from voicing their opinions. 

There are certain laws that politicians could look into repealing to bolster freedom of expression. Bill C-16 and human rights codes in general have been used to silence open debate. 

The New York Times headline “America Has a Free Speech Problem” garnered plenty of attention, which was appropriate. The New York Times has published op-eds about freedom of expression since this headline, showing more people are starting to wake up to the problem. 

If more people fight back, a New York Times headline titled “America No Longer Has a Free Speech Problem” in the near future seems realistic.

Former MonAvenir Catholic School Board (CSC) high school science teacher Chanel Pfahl said she was stressed when she received an email from the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) saying she was under investigation in March. 

“I’m a young professional,” said Pfahl. “I have my whole career in front of me.” 

Pfahl is being investigated by the OCT for remarks and postings she made opposing critical race theory in Ontario schools. Punishments range from fines, a suspension of her teaching license for up to two years, and potential revocation.

The first allegation pertains to a comment she posted about lesson plans for Black History Month in a private Facebook group for Ontario teachers in 2021. 

“Kids aren’t in school to be indoctrinated with critical race theory,” she said. “Focus on modelling kindness to everyone and speak out against any form of discrimination you see.” 

She said teachers should speak out about the discrimination brought on by anti-racist movements. 

The second allegation is she posted a YouTube video titled “Teachers presenting white privilege as fact are breaking the law, warns minister” in the same Facebook group in 2021. 

The video shows British equalities state minister Kemi Badenoch giving a speech against critical race theory in British schools. 

“We do not want to see teachers teaching their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt,” said Badenoch. “And, let me be clear, any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory as fact, or which promotes partisan political views such as defending the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views is breaking the law.”

OCT spokesperson Andrew Fifield could not provide further comment on the case. 

“By law, we are unable to comment on any individual cases nor can we confirm whether any investigation is ongoing,” said Fifield. “Matters related to professional misconduct are guided by the Ontario College of Teachers Act.”

Pfahl said this complaint has motivated her “to speak up even louder.” She said about 80 teachers have reached out to her to thank her for standing up for her beliefs. 

The Democracy Fund (TDF) has taken on her case, making submissions to the OCT about how this investigation should be closed because she has not engaged in misconduct. 

“Ms. Pfahl’s comments were neither racist nor offensive,” said TDF. “Should this matter be referred to the disciplinary committee, The Democracy Fund is prepared to represent Ms. Pfahl at a hearing.” 

Pfahl’s case is the latest among many where social justice advocates have weaponized regulatory colleges against dissidents. 

Former Waterloo Region District School Board English as a second language teacher Carolyn Burjoski was threatened with a complaint to the OCT for speaking out against sexualized books in elementary school libraries. An investigation did not proceed because Burjoski was put on medical leave and soon after retired. 

British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm is facing a disciplinary hearing with the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives for espousing her gender critical feminist beliefs. Gender critical feminists believe biological sex is real and transgender ideology is hurting women’s rights. 

All of these incidents raise questions about what can be done to stop regulatory colleges from cracking down on controversial opinions. Politicians need to become involved to ensure professionals are able to share their opinions about controversial topics, as the truth cannot be discovered when voices are silenced. 

Pfahl said she would support depoliticizing regulatory colleges. She added that she would love regulatory colleges to stay impartial when it comes to politics.

The OCT promotes social justice initiatives through advisories it puts out. People who disagree with these advisories are labelled with buzzwords. 

Politicians can become involved by mandating regulatory colleges focus on helping their professions have the necessary skills to function rather than on social justice. They should tell regulatory colleges they have no right to tell members what they think about controversial topics. 

Regulatory colleges could stop crackdowns on wrongthink by having a stronger vetting process for complaints. Frivolous complaints such as Pfahl’s should be tossed out before moving to the investigation phase. 

Politicians can change the regulations specifying what is unprofessional conduct in each regulatory college. They can codify into law that unprofessional conduct is not offering an opinion on a controversial issue outside of work hours. 

Politicians should impart that professionals should not be engaging in promoting political talking points in their workplaces. They should require professionals to focus on objective facts when on duty. 

One other idea that has been floated to solve this problem is to enshrine political belief as a protected ground of discrimination in human rights codes. People would be unable to be disciplined by regulatory colleges for their political beliefs. 

Despite being an element to a person’s identity, no human rights code in Canada offers substantial protection to people based on political beliefs. The closest example would be British Columbia, but the interpretation is narrow. 

Alberta United Conservative Party leadership candidate Danielle Smith has proposed adding political belief as a protected ground of discrimination to the Alberta Human Rights Act and having strong enforcement of it. Smith said the right to express opinions is “at the very core of what it means to be Canadian.”

Pfahl said freedom of expression is worth defending because it allows people to think. 

“Without freedom of speech, there’s no free society at all,” she said. “Freedom of speech is the basis of a democracy, and every other value follows from the freedom to express yourself.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is proposing various changes to the Internet, which could jeopardize what people see and say online. 

Trudeau has justified these Internet changes by saying online has become more dangerous in the last few years. Trudeau said governments have to enact new laws to protect people online. 

The first bill Trudeau has put forward is Bill C-11, which would expand the mandate of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC) to include the Internet. The CRTC would dictate what people are not allowed to view online. 

Bill C-11 passed through the House of Commons of Canada on June 21. The bill will be heading to the Senate, where it is expected to pass. 

Another bill being debated is an online harms act, which would revive Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 would ban people from fomenting detestation or vilification of people based on a prohibited ground of discrimination online. 

Bill C-36, the previous version of an online harms act, died on the order paper when the 2021 Canadian election was called. A new bill has not been introduced, but it is being worked on. 

Canadians risk having a less free Internet if these bills are enacted. Canadians need to speak out against these bills, as the Internet could become less open if they pass. 

These bills need to be scrapped because there is too much uncertainty with them. The wording in these bills is vague, and it could lead to too many restrictions. 

University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist said Bill C-11 includes criteria for provisions such as user-generated content and Canadian creators, but these terms lack details. Some terms such as social media are mentioned multiple times in the bill without being defined at all. 

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) warned the proposed definition of hate speech in Bill C-36 was “a vague and subjective standard.” The CCF said this broad definition of hate speech would shut down debate on controversial topics. 

These bills hand over too much power to bureaucrats. These bureaucrats lack oversight, and they could use their powers to crack on open debate. 

Bill C-11 will allow the CRTC to create new regulations, which do not have to pass through Parliament. The CRTC could be able to restrict what people see and say online without having to worry about government interference.

An online harms bill would lead to a digital safety commissioner being created, and he or she would be tasked with having platforms remove criminal content within 24 hours of being flagged. Experts have warned this digital safety commissioner could misconstrue offensive ideas as hateful and have them removed. 

Bill C-11 and an online harms bill could force people to not make certain comments due to fears of being censored. People might be less inclined to expose others to different perspectives. 

Bill C-11 has a broad scope, putting platforms such as Spotify and YouTube under CRTC control. Podcast hosts and video producers might be unable to produce content on what they want because they could worry about the CRTC cracking down on them. 

A revived Section 13 would lead to many cases like what was observed in the 2000s where people were hauled before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for being provocative. People might be unable to express their feelings about certain groups. 

Freedom of expression is the bedrock of North American democracy, and Internet regulations could curtail it. While the Internet should not be a place where people make execrable comments, people should be able to talk about if unpopular opinions have merit. 

It has been wonderful to see multiple people speak out against these bills, and I hope the Canadian government recognizes what they are doing could stifle innovation. Freedom of expression has helped logical ideas spread, and it would be shameful if they lose their reach because of Trudeau’s proposals.

North America’s political climate is unsettling.

Political candidates are being attacked for past comments they have made, and there are times when the allegations are meritless.

One candidate who knows this observation well is former Alberta United Conservative Party candidate Caylan Ford. 

Ford stepped down as a candidate over misconstrued Facebook messages shared with various news outlets. 

She was accused of holding white supremacist beliefs, and no one appeared interested in hearing her side of the story.

I wanted to give Ford the opportunity to speak about what the media failed to mention when reporting on her.

Post Millennial podcast host Angelo Isidorou has vivid memories of his experience with cancel culture. 

“As a journalist, I can tell when other journalists are doing spin,” said Isidorou. “And that’s what they were doing here.” 

Isidorou was contacted by Tyee journalist Melanie Green in 2021, saying the news outlet had asked her to write a piece about him. The story would be about Isidorou’s involvement with Vancouver political party the Non-Partisan Association (NPA), where he sat on the board. 

Green said the Tyee was aiming to portray the NPA as far right, and they had a photo of Isidorou from 2017 wearing a Make America Great Again hat while flashing the OK sign as evidence. This news outlet said this hand symbol meant white power. 

Isidorou opted not to comment because he felt uncomfortable speaking to Green. 

A few days later, the story was published. Despite being part Middle Eastern and an immigrant, Isidorou was smeared as a white supremacist over an old photo.

He said this allegation was “a lie, slanderous, and defamatory.” The mob came for him soon after, changing his life forever. 

Isidorou was forced to resign from the NPA’s board. He said he lost multiple clients at his digital marketing job, and he ended up leaving the position soon after because this incident was “something that hung over my head.” 

His podcast “Cancel This” was put on hiatus for about one month until the allegations were forgotten in the news cycle. He ended up having to move because of safety concerns. 

What amplified this incident the most was Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart branding him as a hatemonger. 

“Continuing media reports about the extreme views of Non-Partisan Association board members, including open support for hate groups, are deeply troubling and must be fully denounced and publicly condemned by NPA leaders,” said Stewart. 

Isidorou said this incident “destroyed countless opportunities” for him. The story the Tyee did is one of the first items popping up on a Google search of his name, where people could see him in a negative light. 

While Isidorou was attacked on social media, a number of people stood up for him. One of those people was his best friend Noah Alter. 

Alter wrote an op-ed in the Post Millennial defending his best friend. Isidorou has filed a defamation lawsuit against the Tyee, and Alter helped to set up a crowdfunding page.

“I don’t think Angelo was making a white power sign,” he said. 

Alter said he had never seen Isidorou act xenophobic or bigoted. According to him, Isidorou associated with a diverse group of people when he was involved with the University of British Columbia Free Speech Club. 

This incident might have harmed Isidorou’s reputation, but he is committed to fighting back. 

“If I can do anything, it’s to make a small dent in the misinformation machine,” he said. “To be the resource for people who don’t have the time to research every single little thing and to be there to ideally be a source for truth.” 

The Tyee could not be reached for comment in time for publication.

Freelance journalist Nora Loreto sent a tweet about the Humboldt Broncos bus crash that went viral. 

Loreto said that she was attempting to not become cynical over the Humboldt Broncos bus crash.

She went on to say the maleness, youthfulness, and whiteness of the victims were affecting her response.

Loreto was mobbed for this tweet.

She was intimidated, threatened, and had freelance journalism opportunities taken from her.

I spoke with Loreto about her story.

Do you ever wonder how North America’s current political climate has made it tougher for journalists to do their jobs? 

How about how the current climate about freedom of expression has reduced authenticity in journalism? 

One journalist who left the mainstream media because of the current climate about freedom of expression is former 770 CHQR host Danielle Smith. 

Smith began hosting a show at 770 CHQR in 2015.  

She left her position in 2021 because she said the mob has made talk radio less exciting.

I spoke with Smith to learn more about leaving talk radio.

The University of North Texas Student Government Association (UNTSGA) has called on university officials to ban “transphobic” clubs from campus. 

UNTSGA passed a resolution at the end of the last semester demanding the university suspend any clubs that question transgender ideology. 

This resolution came after the Young Conservatives of Texas chapter invited former Texas Republican state representative candidate Jeff Younger to campus to give a talk. Younger became a public figure because of legal battles with his ex-wife over her plan to raise their son as a girl. 

What was concerning was how the UNTSGA justified their decision. The student union said they wanted to ban clubs questioning transgender ideology because it could lead to the university becoming an unsafe space. 

There is not a week that goes by where a safe space is demanded at some North American university. These students demand they have safe spaces to allow them to cope with coming across controversial opinions.

While safe spaces come across as well intentioned, they do not work. Universities should commit to defending freedom of expression instead of catering to student sensibilities, as enlightenment is held back without it.  

The best case against safe spaces was made by “The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure” authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. Lukianoff and Haidt said safe space culture does not work because it relies on three great untruths. 

The three great untruths are what does not kill you makes you weaker, always trust your feelings, and life is a battle between good and evil people. These untruths contradict ancient philosophical wisdom and modern psychological research. 

Embracing these untruths makes students fragile, leaving them uninclined to search for the truth. Students disregard the importance of hearing different perspectives on issues.

Safe spaces lead to students self-segregating based on opinions. Harvard University law professor Cass Sunstein discovered extremism foments when people shield themselves from divergent opinions. 

Sunstein said people who stay in groups with like-minded people are more inclined to adopt extremist opinions. After all, different arguments cannot be presented.

Safe spaces promote intolerance, teaching students to despise those who they disagree with. Students cannot understand why people might disagree with them, opting to label them with buzzwords. 

Safe space culture encourages people to adopt illogical ideas. One illogical idea that has been promulgated from safe space culture is trigger warnings, which serve as verbal announcements of upsetting content covered in a lesson. 

Trigger warnings are meant to reduce trauma, but a Harvard University study discovered they do not. This study said trigger warnings might increase discomfort in people who have been through traumatic experiences. 

The study continued by saying trigger warnings increase the extent to which people see trauma as central to their identities. This belief could worsen post-traumatic stress disorder in the long term. 

Former U.S. president Barack Obama spoke about universities coddling students in 2015. Obama said going to university is about considering different perspectives. 

“The idea that you’d have somebody in government making a decision about what you should think ahead of time or what you should be taught, and if it’s not the right thought or idea or perspective or philosophy, that a person wouldn’t get funding, runs contrary to everything we believe about education,” said Obama. 

He said people learn from each other when they examine beliefs. While Obama and I disagree on a bunch of issues, we accept universities should be dedicated to the unfettered pursuit of truth.

North American universities might attempt to restrict clubs that students might find offensive.

These universities might not want students to feel emotionally unsafe.

One student who saw her club restricted is Truman State University philosophy and religion graduate Naomi Mathew.

Mathew was a member of libertarian and conservative clubs at Truman.

Despite libertarian and conservative clubs drawing ire at some universities, her conflict was over an animal rights club.

I spoke with Mathew about how the university cracked down on her club.

Universities can be hostile places for conservative students.

Conservative students might be reticent to share their beliefs, yet there are a bold few who do not fear the mob.

One student who has spoken out is University of Toronto political science graduate Arjun Singh. Singh came close to losing the David Rayside Undergraduate Scholarship because of his conservative beliefs.

Students started petitions to try to have the scholarship revoked.

Singh and I talked about what this experience was like. 

It was a New York Times headline that made an impact. 

“America Has a Free Speech Problem.” 

The New York Times Editorial Board proclaimed in March that Americans are losing the right to speak their minds without fear of being punished. 

“This social silencing, this depluralizing of America, has been evident for years, but dealing with it stirs yet more fear,” said the New York Times Editorial Board. “It feels like a third rail, dangerous.” 

The New York Times Editorial Board said Americans are concerned about freedom of expression, worrying about what they can say and where they can make these comments. They added that people should be able to share their opinions, ask questions, and make mistakes while not having to think about their livelihoods being ruined. 

While professors, pundits, and politicians had been making this observation for the last decade, it was great to see a paper of record recognize there was a problem. 

Recognize it is unacceptable that students have become reticent when it comes to sharing controversial opinions at North American universities. A study done by Heterodox Academy showed in 2020, 62% of sampled American university students agree the climate on their campus prevents people from saying what they believe. 

Recognize it is unacceptable that journalists are being chased out of news outlets across North America for daring to express unpopular opinions. Journalists such as Danielle Smith, Bari Weiss, and Paul Wells left mainstream media because they were unsatisfied with the direction it was going. 

Recognize it is unacceptable that North American governments are proposing laws designed to crack down on edgy ideas. North American governments have passed laws such as Bill C-16 that threaten freedom of expression, and similar terrible laws such as Bill C-11 are in the works. 

All of these issues revolve around the idea of wrongthink. Wrongthink consists of beliefs and opinions running contrary to the prevailing zeitgeist. 

Wrongthink is thoughtcrime, a word coined in “1984” by George Orwell. Thoughtcrime are unorthodox thoughts contradicting the tenets of Ingsoc, the dominant ideology of Oceania. 

“Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever,” wrote Orwell. “You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.” 

Wrongthink are ideas that people want to share but keep to themselves because they could be labelled offensive. It includes opinions that people have been expelled, fired, and deplatformed for. 

Wrongthink are beliefs that are provocative but have merit. They are notions on the left, centre, and right that deserve to be heard but are shut down because they challenge the status quo. 

Wrongthink does not consist of shouting fire in a crowded theatre, calling for direct violence against people, and defamation. 

While freedom of expression is a social contract between governments and citizens through constitutions, people fail to recognize there is a social contract between themselves when it comes to freedom of expression. People are free to discuss ideas with each other and learn about divergent arguments. 

This social contract allows people to be free to criticize and call out viewpoints they disagree with. However, it is put at risk when one group demands another faces punishment for their opinions. 

Most people who engage in this cancelling posit that it is intended to reduce harm to feelings. What they fail to realize is by confronting this so-called harm, they hurt open debate, which is unintellectual. 

I am working on my master’s degree in media production at Toronto Metropolitan University, and I wanted my master’s thesis to examine a prominent issue of my time. Freedom of expression seemed like an ideal fit. 

The research question for my master’s thesis is how are crackdowns on wrongthink in the modern era threatening freedom of expression in North America. Crackdowns on wrongthink throughout the last decade have harmed freedom of expression in North America by proscribing discussion of controversial issues, inhibiting ideas from being explored. 

While I am producing a research paper for my master’s thesis, this Substack will complement it. It will contain written articles and podcast interviews examining wrongthink while touching on other related issues, such as political polarization and civil liberties. 

My Substack will be divided into five parts. These five parts will examine known case studies about freedom of expression, and I will be adding my own perspective to them. 

The first part you are reading right now, which is the introduction. 

The second part will be stories about how crackdowns on wrongthink have harmed universities. 

I will examine the current media sphere and how it can be toxic for freedom of expression. 

I will cover what crackdowns on wrongthink mean for politics, before and after the ballot box. 

This Substack will conclude with me offering solutions about what can be done to fight back. 

Freedom of expression is the bedrock of North American democracies. People need to debate issues to expand their thinking. 

Former British prime minister Winston Churchill said, “A state of society where men may not speak their minds cannot long endure.” If North America loses freedom of expression, it loses itself. 

Welcome to Wrongthink.