But his hair plugs were so painful!

Hey friend, I fully agree with your stance. I was going through the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms and was actually surprised by how much is permitted. I always thought that Canada’s freedom of expression laws were more restrictive than other places- as I have heard of people (non-Canadians) being banned from the country based on their conduct.

Specifically, falsehoods are protected "Being content-neutral, the Charter also protects the expression of both truths and falsehoods (Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610 "

So that was disappointing. Also, there have been similar cases in the past with homophobic flyers that were deemed legal because the content did not meet the threshold to be considered hate speech.

I wonder whether it would be permissible to distribute flyers that say “stop cancer treatment for children! God doesn’t make mistakes!” Borrowing the verbiage from the flyers in the article.

I’m feeling very disappointed at the moment. I don’t disagree with the mom’s actions at all. The content was fundementally abhorrent to her beliefs (and science).

Y’all I just fell down a rabbit hole. I understood that Canada has a limited right to expression- meaning hate speech is prohibited, and checked the New Brunswick’s human rights act- gender expression and gender identity are protected classes.

BUT it seems really similar to this case: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do where the court ruled that the material was not hateful enough to be hate speech? I wonder if the best thing to do is make their own (better) flyers promoting love. It’s unfortunate- falsehoods are actually protected under freedom of expression.

I can’t imagine how devastating it must be for that mother to have to handle and disperse materials that challenge her daughter’s right to exist and live in a way that makes her feel safe. I understand the importance of freedom of expression rules, but I have a feeling that if these flyers were going out saying that children with other medical conditions shouldn’t be receiving care, or children with disabilities shouldn’t receive accomodation in the classroom, there would be more of an uproar. It’s so sad that one group of children seems to be an acceptable target.

Recency bias. Peak-end rule. Low media literacy. Take your pick.

What you don’t want to do whatever you want and pay no taxes but still want the government to supply you with infrastructure?