Anti-Wokeness, Hate Speech, and Rights Discourse Uphold the Status Quo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent rise of anti-wokeness in Canada upholds and nourishes systemic oppression, while the radical roots of wokeness and legal rights discourse have been co-opted. Canada, a settler colonial state, relies on liberal values, including the rhetoric of multiculturalism and free speech, to uphold systems of power. Using critical race theory as a framework, we examine how rights discourse is not legally protected and contributes to the growth of hate speech and related hate crimes in Canada. As articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not protect public dissemination of hate under freedom of expression. Hateful discourse is not simply offensive; it has harmful material impacts, and this position is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott decision. Considering the role of anti-wokeness in the continued oppression of marginalized groups, we conclude by offering several recommendations for law and education to address this growing issue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".