WARNING CANADIANS: WATCH WHAT YOU SAY OR POST ONLINE

I’m seriously concerned about where Canada is heading, and I think Canadians need to start paying attention to how all these pieces are coming together.

This isn’t about something that might begin someday.

Canada already has criminal hate-speech laws. Police already investigate communications, including online communications, when they believe they may cross into criminal hate or other offences. The RCMP itself publishes an investigator’s guide explaining how police investigate hate crimes and incidents.

And now we’re building even more specialized machinery around it.

In April 2026, Ontario’s Legislature passed a motion calling for the establishment of a specialized Hate Crime Prosecutions Unit.

Supporters say specialized Crown prosecutors will provide expertise for complicated hate-motivated cases and better protect targeted communities.

But I’m asking a different question:

WHO GETS TO DEFINE HATE?

Because whoever controls that definition holds enormous power.

Think about it.

Speeding is measurable. If the speed limit is 100 km/h and you’re doing 130, there’s little debate about what happened.

Words aren’t that simple.

Political arguments aren’t that simple.

Religious beliefs aren’t that simple.

What one person considers offensive, another considers legitimate criticism.

What happens when somebody strongly criticizes immigration policy?

What about criticizing Christianity, Islam or Judaism?

What about criticizing Israel or another foreign government?

What about gender policies?

What about quoting religious scripture?

What about criticizing government policies, politicians or political movements?

Under Canadian law today, simply offending somebody or expressing a controversial political opinion does not automatically make it criminal hate speech.

That distinction matters.

The Criminal Code sets specific thresholds. Section 319 includes public incitement of hatred and the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. The law also contains specific defences for the wilful-promotion offence, including truth, certain good-faith religious arguments and certain public-interest discussions.

But here’s something Canadians should understand:

The criminal penalties are real.

Public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred can each carry a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment when prosecuted by indictment.

And Canada has recently gone even further in defining hatred in federal law. In June 2026, stronger federal hate-crime legislation became law, defining hatred as an emotion of an “intense and extreme nature” associated with vilification and detestation. The government says this reflects the standard Canadian courts were already applying.

So yes, there is a legal definition.

But that doesn’t end my concern.

Because laws change.

Governments change.

Definitions can change.

Enforcement priorities can change.

And institutions created by one government are inherited by the next.

That’s why I’m looking at the whole picture, instead of each development separately.

We already have hate-speech offences.

We already have police investigating allegations involving communications.

We already have the possibility of criminal prosecution and imprisonment when the legal threshold is crossed.

Now Ontario is specializing prosecutors to handle hate-crime cases.

That’s where 1984 starts coming into my mind.

I’m not saying Canada literally became George Orwell’s 1984 overnight.

I’m saying people should remember how government power grows.

A law here.

A new definition there.

A specialized unit.

Another enforcement tool.

Another amendment.

Every individual step can be presented as reasonable and necessary.

Then five, ten or twenty years later, Canadians could find themselves living under a system very different from the one they originally agreed to.

And there’s another consequence that concerns me almost as much as prosecution:

SELF-CENSORSHIP.

Government doesn’t have to put millions of people in jail to change how millions of people speak.

If Canadians become afraid to discuss immigration, religion, gender, war, protests, vaccines or government policy because they’re wondering whether somebody will report their Facebook post, people will start policing their own words.

That’s when free expression begins disappearing without anybody officially announcing that free expression has been taken away.

Today you may completely agree with the government about what constitutes unacceptable speech.

But governments don’t last forever.

Political power changes hands.

So ask yourself a very simple question:

Would you still support giving government that power if your biggest political opponent controlled it tomorrow?

That’s the test we should apply to every government power.

Real threats should be prosecuted.

Violence should be prosecuted.

Genuine criminal hatred that meets the legal standard should be dealt with according to law.

But Canadians must defend lawful freedom of expression just as fiercely.

Because freedom of expression was never meant only to protect popular opinions.

It’s most important when somebody says something controversial, offensive or unpopular while remaining within the law.

So I’m watching this very closely.

Watch the laws.

Watch the definitions.

Watch the institutions being built around them.

Watch what happens to the line between offensive speech and criminal speech.

And never stop asking the most important question:

WHO GETS TO DEFINE HATE, AND WHO WATCHES THE PEOPLE WITH THE POWER TO DEFINE IT?

Because whoever controls the boundaries of acceptable language can hold tremendous power over everyone else.