Notes from Barry Neufeld’s hate-speech hearing at the BC Human Rights Tribunal: Day 2

Is Neufeld’s ongoing discriminatory speech offensive free speech or does it violate the Human Rights Code?

The B.C. Teachers Federation (BCTF) filed a complaint against Barry Neufeld back in 2023 with the BC Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) alleging that he engaged in speech that is likely to expose people to hatred or contempt on the gasis of gender identity or expression and sexual orientation.

That hearing began in November 24, ran into December and after adjournment continued on Feb. 24, 2025. I was not present on day one of the BCHRT hearing last year, but I did dial in to listen on day two on Nov. 26, 2024. I also listened in on Dec. 4, 5, 6 and am listening in again today (Feb. 24, 2025).

As most people know by now, Neufeld is Chilliwack's infamous homophobe who has been posting offensive screeds against the LGBTQ community since he first lost his mind in 2017 with a horrible Facebook post. 

In short: The BCHRT is adjudicating whether Barry's anti-LGBTQ comments hate speech or free speech?

Day 2 – Nov. 26, 2024:

To start this day was former BCTF president Glen Hansman questioned by BCTF counsel and then cross-examined by Neufeld's lawyer James Kitchen.

It started with Hansman giving some of the history of the implementation of SOGI-123 across B.C. from his time in a role in that anti-homophobia capacity with the Vancouver school board up until the BC Liberal government's putting SOGI 123 in place under several education ministers ending with Mike Bernier.

Hansman explained a crucial point intentionally overlooked by people such as Neufeld and Heather Maahs and people who stand on street corners screaming their ignorance, namely that SOGI 123 is NOT curriculum. It is not social studies or math or history, it is a program to help acceptance and inclusiveness in schools using resources that teachers can go to as needed to help let students know that people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer exist. 

"They exist," as Hansman succinctly pointed out in response to repeated harassing questioning from Kitchen. "They are here."

Pejorative or descriptive?

Kitchen started his cross-examination seemingly attempting to draw a distinction between transphobia and homophobia, and to get Hansman to give his definitions for what Hansman agreed is "imprecise terminology."

He then moved to try to get Hansman to admit calling someone a homophobe means they are using a pejorative rather than a descriptive term. Hansman didn't bite, because that is simply not true. To my mind, if you are being homophobic and someone says you are being homophobic that might seem pejorative but only because being homophobic makes you an asshole. It's also true. It's no different than if you call a person who puts a kitten in a ziploc bag an animal abuser. It's not a nice thinag to say, but it's true.

False equivalency falls short

Kitchen then worked to get Hansman to admit that criticizing someone's beliefs is not necessarily criticizing that person. If you point out the things said in Leviticus are almost all patently ridiculous, that doesn't make you anti-semitic, Kitchen stated.

But then Kitchen posited: "The goal of [SOGI and other policies] is meant to oppose any criticism of LGBT beliefs."

"What do you mean by beliefs?" Hansman responded.

The lawyer then gave several examples of comments asking if they were anti-LGBT, such as "it is sinful for men to have sex with men." Hansman said that probably, but that it depended on context.

Kitchen then went on, to the point of belligerence, to get Hansman to peel back the detailed layers of gender and sex and transgenderism.

What I saw Kitchen as trying to do was to get Hansman to admit that the reality underlying the acceptance of transgender people is a "belief" system that is equivalent to Barry Neufeld's belief that trans people don't exist. Transgenderism is a religion, is his point.

Kitchen was getting very frustrated because Hansman wouldn't answer the questions the way he wanted the argument to go.

"There are students enrolled in public schools who are transgender and non-binary," Hansman said. "Likewise there are employees in school districts who are trans and non-binary and gay and lesbian."

Kitchen wanted him to admit there are people who were assigned the gender of male at birth who identify as girls, the definition of transgender. Hansman wouldn't bite, an the line of questioning appears to be to set up the false equivalency that a trans person's identity as recognized in the human rights code and in the school act and in BCTF policy is a made-up belief equivalent to Barry Neufeld's rejection of the existence of trans people because of his made-up belief in his interpretation of the Orthodox Christian interpretation of certain parts of tracts of writings from more than 2,000 years ago and included in the Bible. 

My take is that if you don't believe that trans people exist and that anyone who talks about the existence of trans people should be in jail, as Barry Neufeld does, that is far from equivalent to the "belief" of trans and non-trans people that they do in fact exist.

This all seemed like semantics but the attempted rhetorical devices used by Kitchen were not tricking Hansman nor were they tricking BCTF counsel or the adjudicators hearing the case. 

Everything but Kitchen's sink

Neufeld's lawyer James Kitchen appeared to be suffering from a case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome as he made spurious and far-fetched arguments. Not only did the tribunal members patiently listen to him as one might listen to someone in a straight jacket, but Kitchen then repeatedly turned condescending as he talked over tribunal members.

"You keep asking me and I keep trying to help you understand. I’m trying to help you.”

He later interrupted tribunal members so frequently that I suspect he would have been held in contempt of court if he was in an actual court.

Kitchen ended his cross-examination of Glen Hansman by pondering why the BCTF didn't also go after "journalists" Tanya Gaw (a far-right activist with Action4Canada) or Drea Humphrey (fake reporter for far right website Rebel News [who also wrote a hit piece on me]) said much worse things. 

My response to that would have been: How about because they are two nutters screeching conspiracy theories online and Barry Neufeld was an elected school board trustee?

I won't post the name of the first teacher on the stand that day because even though I don't think he is subject to the publication ban, but I'm not 100 per cent. He recounted a story about helping his wife on a Sunday one day during the municipal election. He and his wife is also a teacher were going into her elementary school to help her for an hour or so she could prepare for Monday's school day.

When they were done, they came out and found a Barry Neufeld election flyer on their car claiming only he would protect the innocence of children. 

"It was ironic seeing that my wife was in on a weekend working hard doing her best to meet the needs of her students, yet she finds herself and all teachers being criticized by this election material."

Overall, Kitchen tried to equate Barry Neufeld’s beliefs (e.g. the world is 6,000 years old - his example), which are based on his understanding of his Orthodox Christian church’s leaders’ interpretations of what they read in ancient, translated texts, with the fact that trans people exist and there are more than two genders.

-30-

Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social