An empty classroom at a Vancouver school in March, 2020.JONATHAN HAYWARD/The Canadian Press
There was a trigger warning included in the written decision handed down by B.C.’s Human Rights Tribunal last week. A caution – just in case someone was browsing the web, looking for tiramisu recipes or articles on the Northern Cricket Frog or something, and accidentally stumbled on the case of former Chilliwack, B.C., school board trustee, Barry Neufeld, who was brought before the tribunal for his words and posts about discussions around gender identity in schools.
“We caution the reader that this decision reproduces Mr. Neufeld’s discriminatory statements. Reading them may be difficult for some readers,” the tribunal members write. The inclusion of that warning should also tell readers much of what they need to know about the tribunal’s ideological leanings, its impartiality, and its tenuous connection to the goings-on of the real world.
This case took roughly eight years (during which time, a separate defamation case brought by Mr. Neufeld against one of his critics was both opened and closed), and ended with an order for Mr. Neufeld to pay $750,000 to a cohort of teachers of a still-undetermined size. The complainants have six months to identify which educators experienced “severe” injury to their “feelings, dignity, and self-respect,” because of Mr. Neufeld’s words and thus, are entitled to a portion of his $750,000 compensatory award. (Mr. Neufeld’s lawyer has said he plans to challenge the settlement.)
This case started back in 2017, when the B.C. government introduced resources to be used in schools that foster inclusivity based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). In October of that year, Mr. Neufeld, who was an elected school trustee, made a Facebook post calling SOGI resources a “weapon of propaganda” and that “allowing little children to choose to change gender is nothing short of child abuse.”
Mr. Neufeld continued posting: including some unhinged claims, such as that he has been “thrown into the role of a prophet” forced to speak out as “society slouches toward Gomorrah;” offensive claims, including that “the trans agenda is eugenics” and that “snakes are everywhere;” and defensible arguments, including that “children should be gently encouraged to be comfortable with their own bodies, to accept their own biology.”
In early 2018, the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) and the Chilliwack Teachers’ Association (CTA) filed a joint complaint to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
The tribunal assessed 30 of Mr. Neufeld’s posts and publications, and determined that the majority were in violation of Section 13 of the B.C. Human Rights Code, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on a protected identity, and that other posts violated sections 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b), which respectively prohibit the publication of a statement that “indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons” and “is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt.”
In their decision, the members of the tribunal go to great lengths to reach the conclusion that Mr. Neufeld’s statements “caused or contributed to a poisoned workplace for LGBTQ teachers,” and leans on the elastic wording of the relevant sections of the Code (that unlawful statements only need to be “likely” to expose persons to hatred) to find Mr. Neufeld guilty. Meanwhile, much of their reasoning is incoherent: for example, the tribunal members excoriate Mr. Neufeld for, in their view, denying the existence of trans people, but at the same time includes statements from him expressly acknowledging the “small percentage of children” experiencing “genuine gender dysphoria.”
It is true that Mr. Neufeld is uncouth in much of his writing. Indeed, there is a clear difference between soberly expressing concern about the unintended effects of certain SOGI materials in schools, and doing what Mr. Neufeld did, which was rant about the “insidious new teaching” being thrust on children by a “powerful lobby group” of gay and trans people. In one particularly deranged post, he suggested the government will take children and put them in homes where they are “encouraged to explore homosexuality and gender fluidity.” But being deranged is not against the law; nor is being uncouth, or offensive, or even bigoted. The tribunal’s decision, however, which started with a trigger warning and ended with a $750,000 payout to still-unnamed individuals, reads as though it was determined to reach that conclusion anyway. And in doing so, it has made a martyr out of a less-than-ideal voice speaking to the need for critical analysis of the materials taught in schools.
It is crazy, frankly, that an arm of the government can fine someone three-quarters of a million dollars for offensive posts on Facebook. It’s an alarming decision, from a disreputable tribunal.