Thoughts About Cancel Culture

Author: Tim Platnich

Date: October 6, 2025

I suppose it is not surprising that people support cancel culture provided that, and this is a BIG proviso, the person being cancelled expresses views abhorrent to the people supporting the cancellation.

In recent days, many people have been 'cancelled' for their reactions to the murder of Charlie Kirk, most notably, perhaps, Jimmy Kimmel (albeit only for a few days).

In this post, I am only dealing with cancel culture as it relates to the expression of controversial views. I am not dealing with situations that concern physical acts like rioting, for example.

Objectively speaking, is there ever a case for someone being cancelled for expressing controversial views?

What do we mean by being 'cancelled'? Being cancelled can involve: being criminally charged; being fired from or forced out of one's job; being professionally sanctioned or losing professional accreditation; having one's reputation severely tarnished; being harassed online and, in severe cases, in person; being 'doxxed'; being prevented from speaking or performing publicly; to give a few examples.

The starting point is the fundamental right of freedom of expression which, presumably, should protect a person from government sanction when expressing controversial views. In Canada this right is set out in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a fundament right. It says: "Everyone has ... the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression ....". The right is not absolute. It can be limited by laws that "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Further, Parliament, or a provincial legislature can declare in legislation that the legislation, in whole or in part, "shall operate notwithstanding section 2 ... of this Charter". In must be kept in mind that this right, or protection is only vis-a-vis government under the Charter.

Provinces have passed human rights legislation as well. For example, in Alberta there is a Bill of Rights that protects freedom of speech and expression. Any Alberta legislation inconsistent with this right is of no force and effect to the extent of the inconsistency. Further, if a person's right is infringed, they may apply to the court for an appropriate remedy.

Again referring to Alberta, the Alberta Human Rights Act prohibits certain public expressions. For example, public expressions are prohibited which indicate discrimination or are likely to expose people to hatred or contempt based on their race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical and mental disability, age ancestry, martial status, family status, source of income or sexual orientation. Notably, political beliefs are not protected. This legislation applies to private persons not just government. As a side note, couldn't we just say generally that expressions should expose people to hatred for any reason? Why do we need to list 14 instances where exposing people to hatred is wrong? Is exposing people to hatred OK if they are not in the list?

Further, in Canada we have criminal laws that make certain expressions unlawful like, for example, inciting or promoting hatred of identifiable groups (see s. 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code) or inciting the commission of a criminal offence (s. 22). These provisions have not been, to my knowledge, successfully challenged as an infringement of section 2 of the Charter.

In the United States, the freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, using the following wording:"Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech ....". The First Amendment has also been established to apply to the legislatures of all of the States. Although the wording of the First Amendment seems absolute, case law in the US has provided some limits. See for example: Brandenburg v. Ohio; and Cox v. New Hampshire.

It appears there is no offence specifically for inciting or promoting hatred in the US. This may be the result of a more absolute protection of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. That said, inciting criminal activity or violence against a person or group may lead to criminal prosecution in the US.

In partial answer to the question about being cancelled for expressing controversial views, yes, one can be cancelled if the expression of one's views constitutes a criminal offence. Although in Canada there has been some high profile convictions for hate speech under the Criminal Code, like in R. v. Keegstra, such convictions appear to be relatively rare.

In the Canadian criminal law context, if a person has information that someone is committing a hate offence the appropriate procedure would be to report the offence to the police and let them take it from there. Killing the suspected offender is not a permitted form of self-help. In fact, self-help is generally frowned upon in Canada even if someone in breaking into your house.

Further, in Alberta, if one breaches the provisions of the Alberta Human Rights Act, one can be the subject of a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. Other provinces have similar legislation.

Let's consider the Charlie Kirk killing in the criminal law context. According to the CBC, Kirk publicly railed agains liberal views. In a news article, it lists the following examples:

• he was opposed to gun control i.e. was in support of the Second Amendment, even it meant that there would be some gun deaths in the US;

• he was not in favour of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and he said, according to the CBC, it led to a 'permanent bureaucracy meant to promote diversity, equity and inclusion;

• related to the last point, he thought Martin Luther King Jr. was 'awful' and 'not a good person';

• he argued that abortion was murder and should be illegal even in cases involving rape;

• he argued that feminism had led to a 'fertility collapse' in the West and that women should value having children; and should adopt their husband's last name when married;

• He supported Israel regarding Gaza and argued that Israel was not starving Gazans;

• he expressed views that COVID-19 was part of a conspiracy and called the virus the 'China virus'.

• CBC's words: "Kirk referred to the 'great replacement' conspiracy theory' in an instagram post.

Assuming the CBC reporting is accurate, if these things were said in Canada, can you image criminal charges being laid for hate crimes? Let's hope not, because if so, free speech is virtually dead.

Clearly these statements would not meet the US test of incitement of criminal activity or violence.

Kirk's killer made himself the law, a one-man posse or lynch mob, and executed Kirk. This is the ultimate form of cancellation. This is the generally problem with most types of cancellation. They are extra-judicial; a form of self-help. The cancelling parties act as prosecutor, judge and jury. Where someone commits a crime, or a breach of human rights legislation, their are appropriate procedures in place that assure a modicum of due process.

Regarding the Kirk matter, what has made the news in addition to the murder itself, is the reaction to this murder. Many people on and through the mainstream media and social media have celebrated Kirk's death, notwithstanding that he was murdered. Isn't there an old idiom about not 'dancing on someone's grave'? Surprisingly, to me anyway, outside of 'right-wing' media, this is not the news story at all. The news story is the cancelling of people who are doing the celebrating. Media personalities are being fired; academics are being suspended; TV shows - Jimmy Kimmel - are being taken off the air; people are being doxxed; and, it is widely reported, people are being targeted by Trump and his people. This brings us back to the subject of this post: cancel culture.

Although I find it appalling that anyone would celebrate publicly the execution of a person, in front of his wife and children and in front of thousands of other onlookers, including children, I do not support the cancelling of such persons provided that a public celebration in a particular context, does not incite hatred or violence. I have a general concern that the celebration of Kirk's killing, and the killing of the former CEO of UnitedHeathCare is creating an environment that may lead to other killings. From a legal perspective, I can't see that the line has yet been crossed to constitute an incitement, but we may be heading down that path.

Let's consider cancel culture in the context of disciplinary proceedings being brought against professionals. Many professional bodies are quasi-government bodies because they are established by legislation. Often, the legislation provides for self-regulation of the particular profession involved. For example, in Alberta, to be a lawyer, one needs to be a member of the Alberta Law Society. This organization is established under the Legal Professions Act. The governing body of the Law Society is the Benchers. The Benchers establish the regulations which govern lawyers in the Province. These regulations include codes of ethics. If a member of the public makes a complaint about a lawyer, an investigation of the complaint ensues which may result in disciplinary proceedings. Similar processes exist for other professionals like psychologists and nurses.

I will refer to two cases where complaint processes have been used in attempts to cancel professionals because of their expression of views contrary to progressive narratives. The first case regards Dr. Jordan Peterson, a psychologist. An article by Spencer Evans of Crease Harman LLP summarizes the complaint process and resulting proceedings before the College of Psychologists of Ontario and the courts of Ontario. The only point that I will make about the case is that it was clearly an instance of cancel culture. The complaints leading to the disciplinary proceedings were not by patients of Dr. Peterson. They were by activists who disagreed with the views being expressed by Dr. Peterson most of which had nothing to do with his professional standing as a psychologist. For example, leading up to the complaint, he had expressed views critical of climate change, COVID, Marxism and transgender ideology. The statement of these views, among others, were found to be, in a word, unprofessional.

Keep this case in mind when considering the cancelling of Jimmy Kimmel (and perhaps that of Stephen Colbert). I submit one cannot be a supporter of cancel culture only when one agrees with who is being cancelled!

The next case I will deal with is that of Amy Hamm. She is a nurse who was disciplined in BC by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives for her expressed views of women's rights vs. transgender ideology. She supports JK Rowling and Rowling's support of gender at birth female-only spaces including women's prisons, restrooms and change rooms and her support of gender at birth only girl and women's sports. The complaint and disciplinary proceeding are summarized in an article by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. Again, one complaint was by a social justice activist - not a patient of Amy Hamm or anyone she dealt with in her capacity as a nurse. A second complaint was anonymously submitted. She was found guilty of professional misconduct, in part due to the fact that she had identified herself as a nurse when making her statements.

In both cases, the right to freedom of expression under the Charter was to no avail. It is worrisome to me that professional organizations, established by statute, are permitted to define which views are professional and which ar not. It is more worrisome that the Charter has proved to be a useless protection of freedom of expression in these cases.

A recently published book, "The War Against Science", edited by Lawrence Krauss, documents several cases of cancellation of scientists by university administrators. One such case is that of Carole Hooven, a tenured professor of evolutionary biology at Harvard who was cancelled - forced out of her position - for expressing the scientific view that sex is binary and that the terms male and female are invaluable in scientific teaching. Those people that supported the cancelling of Dr. Hooven, were probably gob-smacked when cancellation back-fired on Harvard President, Claudine Gay, who was cancelled, ironically, for arguing that freedom of expression, depending on context, protected statements calling for genocide against Jews. Apparently, at Harvard, freedom of expression protects calling for genocide but does not protect a scientist from expressing the view that sex is binary. That sound you are hearing is me scratching my head - and getting slivers!

I subscribe to the writings of John Stuart Mill concerning free speech. Unless prohibited by valid laws (meaning laws that pass constitutional muster), free speech should prevail and those who express controversial views should be debated and not cancelled. The truth will out! It not up to cancellation lynch mobs, including professional bodies, to decide what speech is acceptable. Be wary of supporting lynch mobs because one day they may come for you!