[gnarbarian]

Here's a great example from a more liberal country. Bill c 16 was wielded in this way by her university against Shepard less than a year after being passed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Shepherd

Furthermore, her perceived infraction was as banal as presenting two sides of a debate over bill c 16 itself. The university's argument was that even presenting the opposing argument was in breech of university discrimination policies.

[paganel]

You can add Spain to the list (EU and NATO member): http://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/catalan-teac...

> The Spanish Guardia Civil has arrested a Catalan teacher for publishing hate speech on social networks, according to digital media outlet Pallars Digital.

> “Which tweets, which facebook posts, I do not know,” he tweeted after his release, adding that “the accusation is incitation of hate, I suppose hate against the Guardia Civil.”

> “No aggression against the Guardia Civil and the National Police, no violence; But let's make them realize that they are neither welcome nor loved,” Riu wrote on October 3 via his Twitter account. “Let us peacefully make life impossible until they leave Catalonia.On October 3, Riu published.” He confirmed that he has criticized the Spanish government and security forces in some of his online publications. In some cases he used obscene language, specifically against Spanish politicians, and in one Tweet he called Spanish police “orangutans.”

Arresting someone for having called the police forces “orangutans” on an online forum is very undemocratic and not ok.

[icebraining]

That's the problem with "peaceful" transitions from fascist governments, where many institutions don't even change their leadership, let alone their culture.

To be fair to Spain, though, the judge closed the case.

[notafraudster]

Bill C-16 was not wielded against her by the university -- your link demonstrates that an individual professor in the meeting mistakenly believed her conduct was against the "Canadian Human Rights Code" (not a thing that exists). That the subject of conversation that led to the meeting was Bill C-16 does not mean Bill C-16 was the authority the manager in question was using to argue her conduct violated rules. I think the principles of free inquiry are more important than Shepherd's feelings, and so correcting this misconception is important.

Subsequently, she was not punished, and after she herself made the meeting a national issue by doing a sob story tour, the university ultimately cleared her. She then sued the university for being mean to her, which is exactly what you'd expect someone whose main argument is the principles of open, uncomfortable discussion are more important than hurt feelings.

Shepherd then founded an organization on campus to promote open inquiry, and the first speaker she invited was, of course, a white supremacist who had just gotten fired for being a guest on a holocaust denial podcast. I mention this for no particular reason. If someone reading happens to infer that perhaps Shepherd's martyrdom was to a large extent inflated by Shepherd herself to raise her profile by courting controversy, I couldn't possibly be held responsible for that perception.

[gnarbarian]

Your interpretation of the situation is disingenuous and politically motivated (kinda like hate speech prosecution). Literally the first paragraph from the wiki article:

>Shepherd was reprimanded in November 2017 for having played her communications class two clips from The Agenda with Steve Paikin, a TVOntario current-affairs program, which showed a debate with Jordan Peterson, a critic of political correctness, about the compelled use of gender-neutral pronouns.[2] The context of the debate was Bill C-16, a proposal to add "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground for discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act and as an identifiable group to the Criminal Code.[4] The bill became law in June 2017.[5]

and regarding the Faith Goldy event from Shepard herself:

>Originally, this event was supposed to be a debate about immigration in Canada–but every professor I invited to debate Goldy declined. One must wonder: if her arguments are so intellectually void and unreasonable, as critics claim, why was no one willing to take on her supposedly bunk arguments about white identity? Wouldn’t it be an easy win?

>Running out of time and with no opposing speaker to represent the pro-open borders side, LSOI decided to launch the Unpopular Opinions Speaker Series, for which Goldy would be the inaugural speaker with her speech “Ethnocide: Multiculturalism and European-Canadian Identity.”

>The series would feature speakers who are strong and articulate, yet polemical—speakers who discuss subjects that most might consider taboo. A central tenet of this speaker series, we decided, would be a robust open floor Q&A session at the end, so that the presenter’s views could be directly challenged and confronted.

>I had my own questions for Goldy planned: wouldn’t a theoretical “white ethnostate” be rather dull and homogenous? Doesn’t a diversity of cultures in Canada enhance our perceptions of the world and understanding of one another?

>I never got to ask my questions.

>In fact, I never even got to hear Goldy speak a single word on her topic, as protesters pulled the fire alarm while the introductory remarks were still being made. And that was that; event over.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-i-invited-faith-goldy-to...