By: Nastaran Roushan.
A rise in nationalist rhetoric has reshaped public discourse across the globe, including here in Canada. This has led to growing tensions in how Canadian identity is understood and expressed. While some view Canadian values through the lens of multiculturalism and collective responsibility, others have adopted more exclusionary definitions tied to race, religion, and political ideology.
This cultural divide was on full display during the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise of movements such as the “Freedom Convoy,” where symbols of white, Christian, libertarian nationalism were presented as synonymous with “true” Canadianness. These narratives stand in direct opposition to the legal and social foundation of equality, diversity, and inclusion embedded in Canadian law.
So what happens during a time, such as now, when nationalism takes on new fervour? How do we accommodate the competing narratives of nationalism while ensuring that freedom of expression is respected and that people with divergent views and diverse backgrounds are not excluded from the workplace?
First, we understand how the law governs expression in the workplace. Specifically, it is important to note that freedom of expression or political opinion is an equivocal, ill-defined right in Ontario. Private business does not have an obligation to protect freedom of expression. That obligation lies with public institutions. However, private business must be mindful of other liabilities that could arise if nationalistic sentiments are allowed in the workplace.
When nationalist sentiment seeps into the workplace, it often brings with it increased risk of discrimination, microaggressions, and exclusionary behaviour. Employers must recognize that these dynamics are not only harmful to workplace culture, but they may also expose organizations to legal liability under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Ontario Human Rights Code – which applies to private businesses – protects individuals based on a variety of enumerated, immutable characteristics (such as sex, race, religion etc). Political opinion is not one of those enumerated protected grounds. While political opinion is not an explicitly protected ground under Ontario law, it often intersects with these protected characteristics. For example, when political expression marginalizes employees based on their religion, nationality, or skin colour, it becomes a human rights issue.
Instead of a blanket policy prohibiting political opinion or expression, we encourage employers to strengthen their existing policies on discrimination and respect in the workplace. Consider including an expression or political opinion statement within those policies. It should emphasize the employer’s commitment to the Human Rights Code and the Ontario Health and Safety Act. It should discuss the delineation between acceptable and unacceptable expressions in broad terms, subject to the caveat that context will be ultimately determinative of the appropriateness of the expression. For example, the policy should be clear that the employer will not tolerate discriminatory expression under the guise of political opinion.
It is no longer sufficient for employers to rely on outdated or generic anti-harassment policies. In this social climate, employers must take proactive steps to strengthen their Respect in the Workplace, Anti-Discrimination, and Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) policies. These policies should:
- Reaffirm a clear commitment to upholding the Ontario Human Rights Code.
- Define discrimination and harassment in plain language, with examples that include current manifestations of nationalism, xenophobia, and religious intolerance.
- Clarify that expressions of political belief that demean or exclude others based on protected characteristics will not be tolerated, even if framed as personal opinion or patriotism. For example, exclusionary views on Canadian-ness – such as the perspective that individuals not born in Canada are not Canadian – are not unacceptable.
- Include reporting procedures and clear disciplinary consequences for breaches of policy.
- Provide examples that reflect present-day challenges. For instance, expressing pride in being Canadian can be acceptable; asserting that only white, Christian, or “born-in-Canada” individuals are truly Canadian is not.
Finally, employers should ensure that employees with dissenting views on nationalism or Canadian-ness are not marginalized by other employees. Individuals who are critical of Canadian laws, policies, or history should have the same privileges (and boundaries) as “nationalist” or “patriotic” employees. Freedom of expression and political opinion are not rights reserved only for those with more mainstream or popular viewpoints.
Creating Space for Dialogue Without Discrimination
Freedom of expression, while a cornerstone of democratic society, is not absolute in the workplace. Employers must draw a careful distinction between open dialogue and harmful expression. The same standards must apply to all viewpoints: expression is permitted only when it does not violate others’ rights to a safe and respectful workplace.
