Free Speech under Fire for Families

This insightful guest post is offered by Joseph A. Kohm, III, Esq., Regent Law 2016:

Three weeks ago, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (SCBC) found a father guilty of “family violence” for continuing to refer to his child as a girl, despite the child’s social gender identification as a boy. The court effectively put a gag order on the child’s father for using her biological gender. 

Justice Francesca Marzari called the dad’s actions “expressions of rejection of [her] gender identity.” The Court further opined that the child, AB, is “harmed by the fact that it is his own father, whom he loves, who appears to be publicly rejecting his identity, perpetuating stories that reject his identity, and exposing him to degrading and violent commentary in social media” (A.B. v. C.D. and E.F., 2019 BCSC 604, par. 72). 

This episode appears to be the latest in a disturbing political trend whereby one side labels the other side’s speech as “violent” in order to silence them and shut down moral and political discourse.  This is not helpful for a child, a family, or for those who value free speech.

The First Amendment has rebuffed many assaults in its history, but this new “speech equals violence” ideology is unprecedented in its gall, its fragility, and its double standards. As an example, in recent days merely quoting Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar for making light of the 9/11 terror attacks or her many anti-Semitic remarks has been labeled as incitement to violence.  The history here goes deeper: left leader Al Sharpton directly incited violence in 1991 during the Crown Heights riots by leading a march of protesters chanting “Death to the Jews!” He later responded to the riots by saying, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.” Twenty-eight years later, however, it seems that speech equals violence only if you are someone with conservative convictions, as demonstrated by the attack on conservative political commentator Michael Knowles at the University of Missouri-Kansas City which was largely ignored by mainstream media, or if you are a parent who recognizes a child’s biological gender, as is evident from this case of AB and her parents in British Columbia.

One could argue that Justice Marzari has hijacked this recent, trendy anti-speech ideology in order to further the LGBTQ agenda she worked to establish before being elected to the SCBC.  This style of justice, however, has fostered division rather than unity in AB’s family, and through them, has virtually forced the same effect on every family in Canada. The God-given and constitutionally protected right to free speech enables the discourse that is necessary to strengthen families.

As a natural result of this case, however, the assault on free speech by the SCBC is a direct assault on the family itself. Discerning Americans know that America can eventually face whatever Canada faces; and make no mistake, radical activists already have arguments ready for when this battle comes to the fruited plain. Those who care about the family and the survival of the First Amendment ought to be prepared as well.  America’s children and families depend on it.