The Red Deer Catholic Regional Schools board's decision to sanction one of its trustees for posting a controversial meme was contrasted as an emotional example of cancel culture or a fair response to policy breaches in court on Friday.
It will be up to Red Deer Court of King's Bench Justice Cheryl Arcand-Kootenay to determine if the sanctions levied against former trustee Monique LaGrange last September were reasonable given the circumstances.
Arcand-Kootenay is overseeing two judicial reviews, the first involving sanctions that barred LaGrange from board committees and representing the school division while ordering her to make a sincere public apology, take sensitivity training and cease making public statements about issues connected to the LGBTQ (2SLGBTQI+) community and the Holocaust.
LaGrange got into trouble when she posted a meme on Facebook in August 2023 featuring side-by-side photos of young Nazi supporters and a group of children with a Pride in Progress flag with the caption “brainwashing is brainwashing.”
Lawyers for the school board and LaGrange wrapped up their submissions on the first review on Friday afternoon. The second review, involving the decision to remove LaGrange from the board, will happen June 18-19.
Board lawyer Teresa Haykowsky said the board's 15-page reasons for its decision clearly shows how diligently they reviewed the implications of LaGrange's decision to post the meme that caused a furor and whether it broke the rules she was required to follow as an elected trustee.
Trustees determined LaGrange's actions breached policy and the code of conduct and imposed what they considered fitting sanctions.
Haykowsky said the board did not sanction LaGrange because they did not like her views.
"The board was guided by the policy rules to which the trustees must adhere," she said.
"This is not about being upset."
The sanctions represented the board's efforts to protect the public and address deterrence, remediation and the need for sanctions appropriate to the offence.
LaGrange's lawyer, James Kitchen, said the board's actions were a clear example of cancel culture, which he described as someone who feels hurt or offended by another demanding others be silenced with no rationale required.
"I feel these emotions, you must be quiet," her offered as an example of cancel culture.
Board decision making should not be based on peoples' hurt feelings but on something rational and real that can be articulated by the board. That is missing in the board's reasons for its decision, he argued.
Kitchen said the board dealt with LaGrange with a closed mind and failed to back up its sanctions with clear rationales.
"It was just a matter of, in what way and how much do we punish her for it," he said.
All of the sanctions are unreasonable and must be quashed, he argued.
He returned to comments he made earlier in the hearing that the sanctions were "vindictive" and "punishment for punishment's sake."
Pointing to the comment that sanctions were in part to protect the public, he asked, "What we protecting them from? An opinion?"
Having a diversity of opinions is part of a free and democratic society, he added. If it descends into hate speech, there are laws that apply.
"That makes sense. But that's not what's going on here."
LaGrange's defence is beng paid for by The Democracy Fund, which describes itself as a charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving property.