Silence by Defense

Welcome back! Over the past few posts, we’ve traveled a troubling path. My first instalment in this series (Silencing A Nation), ripped the lid off Bill C-63, exposing how its mission to curb hate speech and protect children threatens real free expression. In the second piece (Echoes of Control), I examined how the Liberal government’s bailouts and policies like Bill C-18 weaponize influence over the media. In the third piece (Silence by Design), I traced how Bill C-18’s news link ban backfired. And most recently, the fourth piece (Silence by Ideology), showed how free expression has become ideology-weighted. Now it’s time to step back and look at the bigger picture.

In this fifth instalment, I’m stripping back to the basics. Because free speech isn’t just about defending speech we like - it depends on defending speech we hate. Dissent isn’t a flaw in democracy; it’s its very lifeblood.

We’ll explore how our democracy is weakening, not with violence, but with fear and silence. Why protecting unpopular speech demands more courage than celebrating agreeable speech. And, what a healthy democracy actually looks like, and what we can do to protect it, together. 

Because when we start choking off the unacceptable, we begin erasing the acceptable too.

Democracy’s Breakdown

Democracy isn’t just about voting - it’s about trusting that your voice matters. That your ideas, questions, and even disagreements have a place in the public square. But lately, in Canada, that trust feels like it’s wearing thin.

It starts quietly. First with legislation like Bill C-63, which cloaks itself in the language of “safety” but gives extraordinary, subjective power to regulate what’s deemed harmful - without clear definitions or adequate oversight. Suddenly, the freedom to speak is dependent not on whether something is true, but on whether someone somewhere might find it offensive. That’s not safety. That’s censorship in disguise.

It continues with government-funded media, which creates an unavoidable perception of bias. When a government financially props up the press, criticism of that government becomes less common - and more suspicious when it does appear. And when platforms like Meta respond by banning news altogether in Canada to avoid forced compensation, the average Canadian loses a critical source of information. Journalism is being choked not just by funding, but by flawed policies intended to “save” it.

Then comes the two-tiered treatment of protests and public expression. Pipeline protests that shut down transportation routes for days are lauded as brave and righteous. But when truckers protest COVID mandates - even if you disagree with their cause - they’re vilified, surveilled, and in some cases arrested or de-banked. “Free Palestine” marches receive political nods and social celebration. “Pro-Israel” counter-protests are met with public scorn and calls for suppression. We don’t have to agree on every protest, but we must agree that the right to protest can’t depend on whether it flatters the government of the day.

Layer on top of this the creeping influence of social media algorithms, which now serve as quiet censors or unpopular views. Independent media, which rely heavily on social platforms to reach readers, are being drowned out - not by a lack of ideas, but by invisible rules that prioritize safety, “fact-checks,” and advertiser comfort over balanced discourse.

And then there’s the culture. More and more, Canadians are self-censoring. Not because they believe they’re wrong, but because they’re afraid they’ll be labeled hateful, ignorant, or dangerous. That fear isn’t paranoia - it’s a rational response to seeing others ostracized, fired, or publicly humiliated for asking the wrong question or saying the wrong thing. The erosion of free speech doesn’t need jackboots and tear gas. It just needs shame, fear, and a few loud voices policing the rest.

This is how democracy starts to break down. Not with a bang, but with a quiet compliance. With growing silence. With fewer people daring to speak, and more people policing those who do.

When citizens fear expression more than they fear injustice, we’ve already lost something vital.

What Democracy Demands

Democracy isn’t supposed to be fragile. It’s supposed to be resilient - able to withstand protest, disagreement, controversy, and criticism. In fact, it only thrives when it is challenged. But that kind of strength demands something from all of us.

It demands we tolerate the uncomfortable. Not because we enjoy it, but because growth can’t happen without friction. A democracy that only welcomes voices that align with the dominant narrative isn’t a democracy - it’s an echo chamber with a voting booth. If we only protect the right to speak when we agree with what’s being said, then we’re not defending free speech at all. We’re defending convenience.

It demands that we respect the difference between harm and offense. Real harm - violence, coercion, targeted harassment - should absolutely be condemned and addressed. But offense is subjective, and democracy cannot function if people are silenced simply for making others uncomfortable. A healthy society allows people to express ideas, even controversial ones, and then meets those ideas with debate, not censorship.

It demands a plurality of voices. That means defending the rights of independent journalists, contrarian thinkers, and yes - even the voices we find abrasive. A country where only government-approved media survive is not a country with a free press. And if the same government is deciding what qualifies as “legitimate news,” we’ve abandoned one of the most basic checks on political power.

It demands public trust - built not on polished messaging or curated consensus, but on transparency. When news outlets are funded by the same political institutions they’re supposed to scrutinize, or when social media platforms are strong-armed into promoting only certain content, the public loses trust. And when trust goes, so does civic engagement. People stop voting, stop participating, stop believing that their voice matters.

Finally, democracy demands courage. It takes courage to hear opinions that make us bristle. Courage to challenge our own beliefs. Courage to listen. And perhaps hardest of all, it takes courage to defend the speech of others - even when we wish they’d just stay quiet.

Because real democracy doesn’t require everyone to agree. It requires everyone to be heard.

So here we are, standing at a crossroads - where silence is starting to feel safer than speech, where expressing a thought comes with the risk of being cast out or torn down. It’s tempting to retreat, to let the noise win. But freedom doesn’t survive in silence. It survives in our willingness to speak - even when our voices shake - and to listen, even when it’s hard.

We are not enemies because we disagree. We become enemies when we stop believing the other is worth hearing.

The soul of a democracy lives not in its laws, but in its people - in their courage, their compassion, and their commitment to truth. If we want to protect Canada as a free and fair country, we have to protect every voice, not just the popular ones.

Coming Next: The Courage to Disagree

In the next instalment of the Silencing A Nation series, we’ll explore why free speech is more than just a civil right - it’s a cornerstone of trust, truth, and progress. We’ll look at how censorship doesn’t just silence hateful or controversial voices - it chips away at our collective ability to think critically, hold power accountable, and grow through discomfort.

Because free speech isn’t the right to agree - it’s the right to dissent. It’s the freedom to challenge, to question, to expose uncomfortable truths without fear of punishment. And when governments, corporations, or cultural movements begin to regulate what can and can’t be said, they aren’t just protecting feelings - they’re redrawing the boundaries of freedom itself.

We’ll also look at how citizens can push back. By staying informed. By holding our elected officials accountable. By supporting independent journalism. And by choosing dialogue over dogma - even when we disagree.

This fight isn’t about defending the offensive opinions - it’s about defending the right to have any opinion at all. 

Let’s make sure Canada stays a country where that right still exists.

Ⓒ July 2025. Beki Lantos. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or transmitted in any form by any means without prior written permission of the author.