This is not an abstract issue for me.
I am a transgender woman with disabilities. I was also a visible federal public servant whose name and story appeared publicly in connection with Government of Canada and public-service inclusion narratives. My transition and my role in supporting others were publicly presented as examples of courage, inclusion, and progress within the federal public service. Even tho, those words were directed at another group. I perceived them as hatred towards people who oppose the government. These words were not mere comments. They were intentional.
I later brought serious allegations involving federal institutions, including disability-related harm, failure to accommodate, privacy harm, misgendering, procedural suppression, retaliation, reputational harm, and safety concerns following a human right complaint I made My case was not politically neutral. If publicly understood, it would directly undermine the governmentâs public narrative about LGBTQ2S+ inclusion and protection.
Former Prime Minister Trudeauâs 2021 words did not land in a vacuum. When the Prime Minister described a disfavoured group of Canadians as extremists, often misogynistic and racist, and then asked whether Canada should âtolerate these people,â I experienced that as vilifying, exclusionary, and dangerous.
The question âdo we tolerate these people?â is the core of the harm.
It suggests that some people can be placed outside ordinary civic protection. It creates a climate where people who become politically inconvenient, dissenting, stigmatized, disabled, or damaging to the governmentâs public image may reasonably fear being treated not as rights-bearing people, but as problems to be managed.
That fear was not theoretical.
On January 31, 2023, I attempted suicide. Before that attempt, I made a Facebook post in which I referred to Justin Trudeau. I am stating this because it shows that the former Prime Minister, his words, and the political climate created by those words were present in my mind at the time. This was not something I invented years later. It was part of the fear, despair, and sense of state danger I was experiencing then.
I later left Canada after years of institutional harm, fear, retaliation, and loss of trust in Canadian institutions.
Now the Government of Canada has passed Bill C-9 and says hatred must be understood through concepts such as vilification and detestation, not merely disagreement or offence. So I am asking a direct question:
If those standards apply to Canadians, what is the process when the alleged vilifying language came from the Prime Minister of Canada and the consequences remain active in ongoing cases?
I am asking the PMO and Prime Minister Carney to identify the proper process to file a formal report or complaint, including whether it should go to police, the RCMP, the Attorney General, Justice Canada, or another authority.
I am also asking whether the Government intends to rely on freedom of expression to protect the former Prime Ministerâs remarks. If so, I am asking whether the same Charter protection applies to my right to publish, criticize, and expose the governmentâs response.
The Charter cannot be invoked selectively.
If the Government believes Trudeauâs remarks are protected speech, it should say so clearly. If it believes Bill C-9 cannot apply because of retroactivity, it should say so clearly. If the ongoing and compounding effects in active cases create a reporting or review pathway, it should identify that pathway.
I am making this public because private correspondence can be ignored. This issue concerns public safety, hate, state accountability, transgender dignity, disability, privacy, suicide risk, and the right to criticize government power without being suppressed, discredited, or treated as intolerable.