Freedom of Expression in the Legislature

In the fall of 2023, the Ontario Legislature voted to censure Sarah Jama, the elected Member of Provincial Parliament for Hamilton Mountain. Under the terms of the censure motion, Jama would not be allowed to speak in the Legislature until she made a formal apology to the Legislature and deleted certain social media posts related to the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel and the Israeli military response.

Jama’s first post, issued just days after the attack, called for an immediate cease-fire in the conflict, failing to mention the actions of Hamas and characterizing Israel as a settler-colonial state that engaged in apartheid toward its Palestinian population. The post garnered considerable negative media attention, particularly its failure to mention Israeli victims, and some decried it as being antisemitic. Although Jama refused to delete the post, she apologized in subsequent posts for not mentioning the initial attacks and condemned Hamas’ actions while also criticizing Israel’s attack on Gaza.

Those calling for her censure believed that her remarks placed the Legislature in disrepute and that a serious response was required. Her words were seen as hurtful, particularly to Ontario’s Jewish community, and unacceptable coming from an elected representative. They argued that that inaction on the part of the Legislature would have only added to the harm.

Others pointed out that even though many disagreed with her views, her position reflected one held by many Ontarians.

The Jama censure raises a more fundamental issue. If members of the Legislature disagreed with Jama, should they have used the Legislature as a forum to debate her ideas and respond with counterarguments instead of censuring her? There is also the question of her representative function. By depriving her of the opportunity to speak in the legislature, residents of the constituency that elected Jama are not fully represented at Queen’s Park. Was the Ontario Legislature right to deny Jama the right to participate in its discussions?

Discussion Questions

Further Reading

• Hon. Paul Calandra, remarks in the Ontario Legislature on the Censure of Sarah Jama MPP on October 18, 2023
• “Chris Selley: It’s up to Voters to Discipline Sarah Jama, Not the Ontario Legislature” by Chris Selley (2023)
• “Sarah Jama’s Censure: Making People Feel Uncomfortable Is Part of the Job” by Ali N. Nadiya (2023)

Bibliography

Milloy, John. 2023. “Case 8: Freedom of Expression in the Legislature.” In Ethics Bowl Canada 2023-2024 National Case Set, edited by Ethics Bowl Canada Case Development Committee. n.p.: Ethics Bowl Canada. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IYW9BoZuJckjpj74ku24pLJgmTCj9h10/view.

Nadiya, Ali N. 2023. “Sarah Jama’s Censure: Making People Feel Uncomfortable Is Part of the Job.” The Conversation, November 6, 2023. https://theconversation.com/sarah-jamas-censure-making-people-feel-uncomfortable-is-part-of-the-job-216704.

Ontario. Legislative Assembly Debates, 18 October 2023 (Hon. Paul Calandra). https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/house-documents/parliament-43/session-1/2023-10-18/hansard#P220_12108.

Selley, Chris. 2023. “Chris Selley: It’s up to Voters to Discipline Sarah Jama, Not the Ontario Legislature.” National Post, October 25, 2023. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-up-to-voters-discipline-sarah-jama-not-ontario-legislature.

Attribution

Unless otherwise noted, “Freedom of Expression in the Legislature” by John Milloy (2023) [and the Ethics Bowl Canada Case Development Committee], via Ethics Bowl Canada, is used and adapted under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

The Ethics Bowl Canada Case Development committee gives permission to third parties to use the Case Sets it has developed between September 2021 and March 2024 under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. The Committee also asks that users notify Ethics Bowl Canada of their use of the case sets, especially if they are adapting or remixing it. This can be done by sending an email to contact@ethicsbowl.ca.