Silence by Ideology

Silencing a Nation Part IV, The Double Standard

We’ve all heard it: “Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democracy.” But in today’s Canada, that freedom seems increasingly conditional. It’s protected - so long as you’re marching under the right banner. If you’re not? Well, brace yourself for cancellation, condemnation, or worse.

Over the past few years, a disturbing trend has emerged in how protests, speech, and political expression are treated by our government, media, and institutions. Some causes are praised. Others are punished. And when our ability to speak, gather, or disagree publicly starts depending on political alignment, we’ve got a problem much bigger than hurt feelings. We’re talking about the erosion of a free society.

Whose Voices Gets Protected?

Let’s start with what’s being protected.

The Free Palestine movement, for example, has mobilized huge numbers across Canadian cities. Many of these protests have featured inflammatory language, calls for intifada (an aggressive ‘resistance’ against Israel and those who support Israel), and openly anti-Israel chants - some even glorifying the October 7 Hamas attacks. And yet, they’ve faced relatively little resistance from law enforcement. Politicians, particularly on the progressive left, have defended the right to demonstrate, some even marching in solidarity.

Similarly, anti-pipeline protests have received overwhelming legal leeway. Activists have occupied rail lines, blocked highways, and shut down construction - some causing millions in economic damage. These actions were met not with mass arrests or police crackdowns, but with restraint and, in many cases, support from political leaders who framed these actions as expressions of Indigenous sovereignty and environmental responsibility.

Now, compare that to the Freedom Convoy of 2022.

What began as a protest against vaccine mandates and government overreach quickly turned into a media firestorm. The convoy was painted as a breeding ground for extremists and white supremacists. Despite the fact that many demonstrators were peaceful, working-class Canadians simply demanding a say in decisions affecting their lives, the government invoked the Emergencies Act - the first time it’s ever been used for public protests. Bank accounts were frozen. Protesters were arrested. The message? Dissent will be punished.

And then there’s the treatment of Pro-Israel rallies in Canada post-October 7. While Jewish Canadians mourned one of the most horrific attacks on their people in decades, vigils and gatherings were met with threats, hostility, and often little institutional support. Some university campuses warned Jewish students to stay home, not because they posed a threat - but because their very presence might provoke one.

This is not neutrality. This is ideological policing. And it’s costing us more than we realize.

Fear, Silence, and Division

Let’s be honest: it’s terrifying to live in a country where the value of your voice depends on what you’re saying.

You shouldn’t have to whisper your support for Israel in fear of being branded a racist. You shouldn’t have to lose your job because you joined a protest deemed politically incorrect by the people in power. You shouldn’t have to self-censor because the wrong opinion might get you de-platformed, ostracized, or labeled “problematic.”

And yet, this is exactly what’s happening.

This selective defense of speech is not in the spirit of liberal democracy. It’s in the spirit of authoritarianism - disguised in progressive rhetoric. It’s performative tolerance: You can say what you want… as long as we agree with it.

Even worse, this trend doesn’t just silence individuals - it fractures society. When people see their views vilified while others are celebrated for doing the same things, it breeds resentment and division. It sends the message that some voices matter more than others, and that consensus is mandatory if you want to be safe, employed, or heard.

It’s hard to build bridges when the water only flows one way.

The Human Cost

There are real people behind these stories.

Like the Jewish student in Toronto who was told to “go back to Europe” at a pro-Palestinian rally while police stood by, unmoved.

Or the indigenous elder who tried to speak out against pipeline protests on behalf of his community and was labeled a “colonial puppet” by activists who claimed to speak for him.

Or the small-town trucker who lost access to his bank account - his lifeline- for supporting a protest that, while disruptive, remained largely peaceful.

These aren’t headlines. They’re lives. They’re people caught in the crosshairs of a nation that only tolerates freedom when it’s convenient.

And while politicians talk about justice and equality, their silence - or worse, their selective outrage - tells another story.

A Two-Tiered System of Expression

What we’re witnessing in Canada isn’t just tension between political camps - it’s something far more troubling. It’s the growing sense that freedom of expression is being applied unevenly, where the protection of your right to speak seems to depend not on how you express yourself, but what you’re saying and who you’re saying it for.

We’ve all seen examples. When protests align with progressive or so-called “woke” ideology - as mentioned above - they’re largely met with tolerance and restraint, even when they become disruptive or break local bylaws. There’s often a quiet reverence extended to them, as though their cause inherently validates their actions. Law enforcement takes a step back. Politicians issue vague statements about the importance of public dialogue. Universities and public institutions waffle or outright side with the protesters, citing a “duty to uphold academic freedom” or “space for marginalized voices.”

Now compare that to demonstrations perceived as conservative or counter-narrative - also mentioned above. These are often portrayed as threats before they've even finished setting up. The assumption is that these gatherings are rooted in hatred or extremism, and therefore deserve immediate scrutiny. This doesn’t come from public consensus - it comes from the top down: from political leaders, institutions, and national media.

The problem here isn’t about liking or agreeing with a protest’s message. It’s about whether the rules that govern public expression are being applied consistently and fairly. When two equally peaceful protests are treated in opposite ways - one ignored or protected, the other vilified or criminalized - it doesn’t matter which side of the political spectrum you land on. That is a betrayal of the democratic principles we all depend on.

And what makes it even more insidious is how institutional language sanitizes the imbalance. We’re told some protests are “peaceful expressions of frustration,” while others are “public safety concerns” or “potential incitements.” That framing does all the work - one becomes noble, the other dangerous.

Let’s be honest: what we’re seeing is the creation of a two-tiered system, not just in law enforcement, but in media representation, political tolerance, and social approval. To simplify, there is the “right kind” or protester - typically progressive, aligned with social justice movements - and then there is the “wrong kind” - often working-class, perhaps religious, conservative, or simply nonconforming in the wrong way.

And when those “wrong” voices speak up, they’re not just disagreed with - they’re punished, de-platformed, ridiculed, or erased. And enforce silence is how democracy dies - not with a bang, but with a shrug and a whisper.

In a healthy democracy, you don’t have to agree with someone to defend their right to speak. That’s the entire point of freedom of expression. But if only certain voices are protected and others are penalized, what we’re left with isn’t freedom. It’s ideological gatekeeping masquerading as justice.

And it’s not only wrong - it’s dangerous.

What’s Next?

In the next instalment of this series, we’ll go deeper into what this all means for democracy in Canada - and for you.

We’ll explore why freedom of speech is not just a right to agree, but the right to dissent, and how censorship, even when wrapped in good intentions, erodes trust, destabilizes democracy, and empowers authoritarianism. We’ll unpack the importance of tolerating uncomfortable truths - and how a society that can’t do so is no longer truly free.

Most importantly, we’ll talk about what we can do about it. From staying informed and holding our elected officials accountable to supporting independent media and engaging with those we disagree with, there is a path forward. But it starts with protecting free speech - for everyone.

Stay tuned. You won’t want to miss it.

Ⓒ 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.