When “Free Speech” Turns Into a Threat: A Cornwall Reminder About the Line We’re Crossing

Freedom of expression matters. We rely on it to question policy, call out bad decisions, and keep power in check. But what was seen on a Cornwall street this week wasn’t healthy dissent. It was a life-sized tailgate decal showing Prime Minister Mark Carney bound and gagged in the back of a pickup truck. Not a cartoon exaggeration. A staged, life sized, photo-style image of our head of government restrained a like a kidnapping victim.

That’s not “having an opinion.” It’s a visual suggestion of violence. And pretending it’s harmless “free speech” is exactly how we keep moving the line of what’s acceptable.

Why this imagery is dangerous, even if it might squeak under the Criminal Code threshold

Canada protects expression under Section 2(b) of the Charter. But that right is subject to reasonable limits, as outlined in Section 1. The Criminal Code already carves out areas we’ve judged too harmful to tolerate.

• True threats (s.264.1) include statements or acts that a reasonable person would see as a serious expression of intent to harm.
• Counselling or advocating violence, or using imagery to intimidate, can trigger other provisions like uttering threats or criminal harassment.
• Hate propaganda laws apply to “identifiable groups” based on race, religion, sex, and other protected traits. Politicians don’t fall into that category, which is why a lot of toxic speech aimed at them stays technically legal.

A single image of a bound Prime Minister might not meet the legal definition of a threat because it doesn’t include specific words or direct calls to action. That high legal bar is intentional, so that governments can’t crack down on dissent too easily. But just because it’s not criminal doesn’t mean it’s harmless. The law only steps in after certain thresholds are crossed. Civic responsibility has to do the rest.

Normalization is how we slide from ridicule into dehumanization

Political violence doesn’t begin with action. It begins with symbols and jokes. The gallows at protests. The nooses on signs. The memes showing politicians in crosshairs or cages. These things might start off as exaggerated “jokes,” but they create an atmosphere where someone, eventually, decides to take it seriously.

We’ve already seen the results. MPs and staff across party lines have reported a sharp rise in threats and harassment in recent years. Officials now require more security at public events. Trustees, health officers, and councillors are stepping down early, citing fears for their safety. The pressure is real. We’ve seen it here, in Cornwall in 2023 when Senator Bernadette Clement was publicly targeted and demeaned by Senators Don Plett and Andrew Scheer in what many described as a clear act of political bullying. We’ve seen it when Eric Duncan’s life was threatened. Yet we shrug at something like a kidnapping-style truck decal thinking “This is fine.” It’s not.

“It’s just expression” isn’t a defence of democracy

Some people will argue that this is free speech. That if we criticize or censor this kind of thing, we’ll open the door to silencing all protest. That argument doesn’t hold up. You can criticize a leader’s policies, their character, their party’s decisions. What you cannot do is glorify violence against them and expect it to be taken as innocent.

This is not satire. It’s not thoughtful dissent. It’s not protest art. It’s intimidation. And calling it out is not censorship. It’s what communities are supposed to do when someone crosses the line. The best answer to toxic expression is often more speech. But that speech has to be clear and firm. Not vague, not passive, and not silent.

Should this be illegal?

That’s a fair question, but it’s complicated. Broad laws banning “violent political depictions” might be misused later against protestors and activists. So the better solution is to apply the laws we already have, and treat these moments as red flags.

Here’s what we can do instead.

• Enforce existing threat and harassment laws when violent imagery is used as part of stalking, targeting, or harassment.
• Treat displays like this as possible public order issues. Document them, and if they appear repeatedly or are paired with other behaviours, escalate.
• Push political parties to have internal standards. Leaders can condemn violent symbolism without silencing criticism.
• Talk about it. Educate people on how violent political imagery fuels real-world danger.
• Back up officials across the board when they’re depicted this way. You don’t have to support their politics to believe they deserve basic respect.

Local leadership matters

One Cornwall resident, Michele Allinotte, has already written a public letter to MP Eric Duncan asking him to speak out. That kind of action matters. When something like this rolls through your town, you should not look the other way. It’s especially important for elected officials to step up, not downplay it or stay silent. Because silence sends a signal too. And in a climate this volatile, it’s not the one we want to send. As someone who once sat at the receiving end of death threats, I sincerely hope Mr. Duncan unequivocally condemns this kind of imagery.

So where do we draw the line?

Here’s a pretty simple standard. Criticize their decisions. Tear apart their policies. Challenge their actions. But do not reduce them to bound bodies in the back of a truck. Because when we start seeing elected officials not as flawed humans, but as punching bags or props, we break the core idea of democracy. That core idea being that power is temporary, shared, and chosen by all of us. Not won by force. Not bound. Not silenced with tape. Let’s not wait until someone crosses from imitation into real violence before we admit there’s a problem. Let’s say it now. That’s not who we are. Not here

What do YOU think? Is this free speech or Speech inciting hatred and violence?

—————————————————–

Edit: I incorrectly initially referenced Mike Duffy in relation to the incident with Senator Clement, when, in fact, it involved Senator Don Plett and former Conservative leader Andrew Scheer. It was totally unintentional. I regret the error and want to clarify that Senator Duffy had no connection to the matter discussed. You can read the referenced article here.

I apologize for the confusion this may have caused. Accuracy and accountability are important, and I remain committed to upholding those values.