Rafael Zaki and the Uncomfortable Necessity of the Free Speech Debate in Canada

After six years, Rafael Zaki still hasn’t been guaranteed his Charter rights.

Zaki, a Coptic Christian, was first expelled from the University of Manitoba’s medical school in 2019, after he published an essay on Facebook comparing abortion to other human atrocities. The post, the university and 18 confidential complainants alleged, was “unprofessional,” and called into question his ability to understand his responsibilities as a doctor. After the university overturned the expulsion due to procedural errors, he was again expelled recently for the same “offence.” Zaki has once again taken his appeal to the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench once again in late March. 

The abortion debate is immaterial to this story. What matters is that Zaki was ultimately expelled from a public university because he held the “wrong” opinions.

At a boiling point for liberal democratic values both in Canada and around the world, we cannot afford to fail this Orwellian test. Zaki’s case illustrates that free speech is not as protected in Canada as most Canadians would hope. Canada must remember that free speech means free speech — even if most people, rightly or wrongly, consider one’s opinions to be unsavoury.

The University alleged that Zaki did not have the “knowledge, skills, professional behaviour, and attitudes necessary to enter the regulated practice of medicine in Canada,” which they say constitutes a requirement for enrollment. Zaki himself apologized five times to his classmates and admitted wrongdoing, though “the Progress Committee found the apology to be insincere and continue to lack empathy and self-reflection.” 

Zaki’s case goes to the heart of the Charter. The Charter’s Section 2 states that everyone has the fundamental freedom “of conscience and religion, thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.” Beyond Zaki’s right to privacy on his own private Facebook page, the University’s dismissal of Zaki, despite his efforts to accommodate, goes against these fundamental rights. 

The University may claim the dismissal had nothing to do with Zaki’s beliefs, but they cited them as the primary source of concern over ethics. The 2021 summary of the court case, in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba, itself states that “because he could not change his beliefs, he was expelled.” 

What we defend are not Zaki’s arguments; after all, we authors don’t even agree on abortion (Bouchard tends pro-choice, Frankel tends pro-life). What we defend is his right to express them without government reprisal, particularly if they have no impact on his ability to provide public services.

A private university may have the right to admit, discipline, and expel students based on its own rules and criteria. Public universities have a duty to uphold universalist standards, and therefore should not restrict access to students based on their beliefs, particularly those expressed on their own private social media accounts. If confidential complainants are allowed to have a student expelled and their career ruined over things that were said privately and indirectly, how different is that from sanctioned surveillance to a political end?

Canadian doctors, and the medical field as a whole, hold a variety of viewpoints on all topics, including abortion, as well as other medically-relevant topics. Polling since the last few decades indicates that a strong minority of doctors identify as pro-life, while even more have diverse views on abortion access. Practicing OB-GYNs have already characterized themselves as pro-life. Christian hospitals also exist, including in Canada — there are 31 faith-affiliated care centres in Manitoba alone, with varying policies surrounding abortion and other faith-sensitive care. As shown, it is possible to be a Christian, and to hold a variety of beliefs on medical care, and be a health professional, even a doctor.

Currently, under Canadian law, doctors and nurses are allowed to refuse to provide abortion care based on personal and religious reasons. This also applies to other medical practices that may interfere with religious views on life and death, for instance with the Medical Assistance in Dying program, with a 2015 survey indicating that 63% of Canadian physicians would refuse to provide MAiD. Zaki has already stated that he would provide a referral to patients so they can obtain abortion care. If already-practicing doctors can hold these beliefs, the University of Manitoba should not be allowed to pre-screen out physicians based on ideological disagreement.

The COVID pandemic was used as an opportunity to further restrict debate, particularly around lockdowns, including in the medical profession in Canada — these unjust restrictions cannot be allowed to expand further. Barring entry to a licensed profession based on unanimous doctrine, such as not allowing a Flat Earther to become an astronaut, would make sense logically. This, however, seems purely ideological, and authoritarian. 

Judicial intervention may be necessary not only to vindicate Zaki’s rights but establish safeguards that prevent future institutions from engaging in similar acts of ideological exclusion under the guise of professionalism.

At a time when authoritarianism is on the rise globally, Canada has an opportunity to act as a standard-bearer for freedom of expression. But free expression means free expression — even when the opinion being expressed is far out of line with that of the majority. Rafael Zaki’s political views should not preclude him from becoming a doctor. That is not the sort of thing that happens in a liberal democracy.