Jonathan Van Maren:

In a truly absurd story that serves as a microcosm of the battle over Canada’s soul, the Christian Heritage Party (CHP) is facing off with the City of Hamilton … over an ad that depicts a smiling young woman, and the dictionary definition: “Woman: An Adult Female.”

The ad was submitted by CHP Hamilton in January 2023 to Outfront Media (the City’s agent) as part of a bus shelter campaign. The ads were rejected. CHP’s requests for an explanation were ignored; after legal counsel sent a letter to the City of Hamilton in March 2023 to ask for the legal basis of Outfront Media’s decision, it was finally sent a five-page letter detailing the city’s review decision in July.

According to C. Kirk Boggs, the city’s lawyer, the ad was rejected after the city consulted with “local members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, academic literature,” and the Hamilton Police Service, and claimed that there have been several “hate crimes” against trans-identifying people over the past several years. They did not explain why stating the dictionary definition of “woman” could constitute “hatred” or how CHP sharing its political views in an advertisement constituted “discrimination.”

Trans activist Jelena Vermilion, however, told the CBC that the ad implies that trans-identifying men are “sub-human, are not adults. It infantilizes them (and) suggests that their identity is a façade.” CHP challenged the city’s decision in court, but an Ontario court upheld that decision last November. Vermilion was pleased with the victory, stating that it is a “perfect example for other municipalities that we shouldn’t be bullied by litigation into submitting.”

Consider that fact carefully: A Canadian judge upheld the decision of a major Canadian city that the dictionary definition of “woman” constitutes a threat to the safety of people who identify as LGBT.

The Christian Heritage Party is currently requesting leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. CHP’s legal counsel, Lia Milousis of The Acacia Group, is arguing that the Divisional Court’s decision was flawed; that OutFront’s rejection of the ad was based on a faulty application of the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, which does not apply to political advertising; and that OutFront’s initial rejection of the ad and the City of Hamilton’s subsequent affirmation of that rejection were separate decisions with differing motivations. In other words, the city realized OutFront’s error and tried to pivot by retroactively justifying the decision based on new alleged issues.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the case. As Milousis noted, the Divisional Court “references none of the leading case law on freedom of speech, or freedom of religion. None. It’s hard to imagine how a Divisional Court can make an accurate decision such as this—in which the political speech of a political party is violated by censoring a political ad—without considering any of the leading case law on section 2(b) on freedom expression.” Indeed, considering the content of the ad, it appears that it was rejected merely on the say-so of activists pushing gender ideology, and nothing more.

The precedent set by this decision—that displaying the dictionary definition of “woman” in public can be interpreted as potentially harmful to those who identify as LGBT—is stunning, despite the frequently dry legalese. The Divisional Court appears to consider an “inclusive” environment for the beliefs of LGBT-identifying people to be more important than the political expression of a political party seeking to share its political platform on a current subject of public debate in anticipation of an election year.

The fact that calling a woman “an adult female” is considered dangerous and discriminatory speech should be a loud wakeup call to Canadians that highlights where our culture is headed—and how thoroughly speech will be repressed if this legal trend is not stopped. LGBT activists wish to suppress any form of speech that contradicts their worldview, even if it is a direct quotation from a dictionary that merely provides a consensus definition. We cannot have a debate if we cannot define our terms, and that appears to be the point.

The Christian Heritage Party’s battle is on behalf of every Canadian who believes that we should be able to debate issues openly; every Canadian who values freedom of speech; and every Canadian who believes in freedom of religion. To carry on this fight, CHP is currently fundraising for the legal fees, and I encourage all those who believe this case to be important to visit its website at chp.ca and make a donation to help it push back against the rapid erosion of our most fundamental freedoms.