Should We Criminalize Indian Residential School Denialism?

🎧 Podcast Episode 177 with Candice Malcolm

This week I sat down with journalist Candice Malcolm to discuss Indian Residential School denialism and its implications for free speech, reconciliation, and Canada’s historical narrative.

Our conversation focused on NDP MP Leah Gazan's Bill C-413, which proposes criminalizing such denialism, sparking a debate over the balance between preserving historical truth and protecting freedom of expression.

What is Indian Residential School Denialism?

We explored how Indian Residential School denialism is defined as minimizing, justifying, or denying the established facts about Canada’s residential school system and its profound impacts on Indigenous communities. Critics argue that such denialism undermines reconciliation efforts, while Candice and I raised concerns about how labeling dissenting views as denialism could suppress meaningful dialogue.

It’s important to distinguish between two separate issues often conflated in this discussion. There is no dispute that Indian Residential Schools existed or that many children endured neglect and harm, as documented extensively in reports like the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission. These facts are widely accepted and remain unchallenged.

The controversy primarily revolves around claims of mass graves, such as the widely reported discovery of 215 unmarked graves in Kamloops, based on ground-penetrating radar findings announced in 2021. Since no excavations have yet been conducted to confirm these findings, and many First Nations are still deliberating on whether to proceed with excavations, skepticism and questions about the claims are understandable. However, individuals engaging in this discussion are often labeled as “denialists,” which risks stifling open inquiry and debate. Of course, such discussions should always be approached with respect and humility, ensuring they honour the lived experiences of those affected and avoid any malicious intent.

Canadian Bill C-413: A Step Toward Criminalization

Bill C-413 aims to amend Canada’s criminal code to treat Indian Residential School denialism similarly to Holocaust denial, criminalizing statements that deny the atrocities of the residential school system. Member of Parliment Leah Gazan, who introduced the bill, sees it as a step toward combating misinformation and supporting reconciliation. However, Candice and I discussed whether such a law could withstand scrutiny under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its potential impact on free speech.

Origins of the Term “Denialism”

We delved into the roots of the term “denialism,” originally used for Holocaust denial, and how it has evolved to describe dissent from mainstream narratives. Candice highlighted how the term can carry derogatory undertones that discourage legitimate debate and inquiry.

Candice Malcolm’s Perspective

Candice, founder of True North Media and author of Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us and the Truth About Residential Schools, opposes Bill C-413. She argued that criminalizing speech labeled as denialism threatens free expression and academic inquiry. Candice emphasized the complexity of historical narratives, cautioning against conflating skepticism with denialism, and critiqued the media's portrayal of residential schools as overly simplistic and sensationalized.

My Perspective

As a First Nations councillor, I brought my perspective to the discussion, acknowledging the harm caused by residential schools while raising concerns about the unintended consequences of criminalizing denialism. I worry that such legislation could deepen divisions, framing Indigenous issues as contentious rather than unifying. I also emphasized the importance of addressing contemporary challenges facing Indigenous communities, such as access to clean water and economic opportunities, rather than shifting focus toward punitive measures.

Next week, I will be speaking with the Federal Minister of Indigenous Services Canada about this issue to get her perspective.

Free Speech vs. Reconciliation

Our conversation highlighted the tension between preserving freedom of expression and fostering reconciliation. While proponents of Bill C-413 see it as essential for honoring survivors and ensuring historical accuracy, critics caution against the potential chilling effect on open dialogue. This debate reflects broader questions about how Canada reconciles with its past while protecting democratic values.

Through this discussion, Candice and I sought to explore these complex issues with nuance, acknowledging the shared goal of advancing reconciliation while considering the implications for free speech and open debate in Canada.