All Canadians should be rejoicing that the federal Liberal government’s Online Harms Act is dead. But this is no time for complacency. If Canadians wish to ensure the preservation of individual liberty and free speech, we must get back to first principles—and the medieval wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas.
This proposed legislation went much further than previous attempts to curtail the free speech rights of Canadians. Yet it represented a clear progression that began with the first hate speech laws enacted in the 1970s.
Such measures reflect what is called “legal positivism,” or the belief that rights only exist to the extent that governments grant them. From this perspective, there is no such thing as an “inalienable right.” Any government can choose to remove, whittle away, or diminish the rights of its citizens simply by lawfully creating laws that do so.
If the state alone determines the scope of rights, nothing prevents a future government from restricting speech even further by, for example, expanding the definitions of “harm” and “hate” to silence any and all dissenting voices.
Aquinas was born in Sicily in 1225, the youngest of eight children of the Count of Aquino and the Countess of Teano. At age 5, his family sent him to live and train with Benedictine monks, where he learned theology and philosophy, earning a reputation as a bright and inquisitive mind. In adulthood, he gained wide repute for his towering intellect. His teacher, St. Albert the Great, predicted that his work would “one day resound throughout the world.”
Aquinas today is best known for unifying Christian theology with the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. In his writings on natural law, he argues that state laws must align with an objective moral order that is evident in human nature and knowable through reason. From this perspective, free speech is more than just a modern legal construct. Under natural law, freedom of expression is an inalienable human right because it advances the moral good of pursuing truth and knowledge through the exchange of ideas and enables all people to become full participants in society.
Aquinas acknowledges that some limits on speech are necessary. A direct incitement to violence would be one example. But his framework rejects the notion that governments can arbitrarily restrict expression based on subjective criteria such as “offensiveness” or “social harm.”
The subjectivity of Canada’s current hate speech laws is one of their greatest and most obvious flaws. As Supreme Court Justice Beverley McLachlin noted in 1990, legal definitions of hate are inherently vague, hinging on nebulous distinctions between “dislike” and “detestation.” This ambiguity grants enormous discretion to judges and bureaucrats, leading to inconsistent rulings and politically motivated enforcement. If legal experts cannot agree on what constitutes hate speech, how can ordinary citizens navigate these laws without fear of punishment?
More broadly, legal positivism enables an ever-shifting standard of acceptability. Ideas that were mainstream a decade ago—such as opposition to gender ideology—are now branded as hate speech by some activists. This is how free societies descend into authoritarianism: not through sudden, dramatic decrees but through incremental restrictions cloaked in the language of “safety” and “social good.”
To preserve free speech, Canada must reaffirm its commitment to the principles of natural law. This means recognizing that rights exist independently of government decree and cannot be overridden by shifting social preferences. It also means resisting the urge to criminalize speech based on subjective notions of harm, and fostering a culture of open debate, where even offensive or misguided ideas can be confronted and refuted rather than suppressed.
The Online Harms Act may be dead, but the dangerous philosophy that birthed it is still very much alive. And unless we are all vigilant, next time it may succeed.