Commentary
A recent confrontation outside the Chinese consulate in Toronto raises a question that goes well beyond one protest: Whose rules govern political expression on Canadian soil?
In a video circulated online, a man wearing a jacket bearing the Chinese flag is seen tearing down Falun Gong materials displayed on a public sidewalk. He tells demonstrators that their display is illegal, describes the ground as “Chinese territory,” and accuses them of “national splittism”—language Beijing commonly uses against those it considers threats to national unity.
The identity and affiliations of the man have not been publicly established, and there is no verified evidence that he is a consular official or acted under official direction. But no such connection needs to be assumed to understand why the incident should concern Canadians. On a Toronto street, the political language of an authoritarian government was invoked to intimidate people exercising freedoms protected in Canada. The message was simple: Some views should not be expressed, even here.
This is how transnational repression enters ordinary life. It may involve surveillance at a public rally, an online threat, pressure on relatives abroad or uncertainty about whether exercising a freedom in Canada will create consequences elsewhere.
Taiwan offers a broader illustration of how political pressure can operate across borders. It has faced disinformation, economic pressure, cyberattacks, and political intimidation from Beijing, while Taiwanese citizens travelling in China must contend with broadly defined national security offences that can expose them to questioning, detention, or restrictions on their freedom.
China’s new Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress brings these concerns into sharper focus. It advances a state-defined conception of common Chinese identity and extends legal responsibility to organizations and individuals outside China for certain conduct deemed to undermine “ethnic unity” or promote “separatism.” For diaspora communities with ties to Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, the implication is troubling: Political expression lawful in Canada could nevertheless carry consequences elsewhere.
Speaking in Taiwan recently, former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland called the law’s extraterritorial provisions “particularly sinister” and urged democracies to oppose them publicly.
The pattern is not limited to legislation. Beijing has repeatedly distorted U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2758—which neither mentions Taiwan nor determines Taiwan’s status—to argue that Canada’s engagement with Taiwan violates its own One China Policy. That interpretation has been firmly rejected by Canada’s Parliament.
Whether Beijing is seeking to dictate Canada’s “One China Policy” or intimidate diaspora communities on Canadian soil, the underlying problem is the same: an attempt to extend Beijing’s political and legal agenda beyond China’s borders. Canada is a sovereign country. Political restrictions imposed elsewhere should not determine its policies or the freedoms exercised within its borders.
Sadly, a foreign law does not need to secure a single conviction in Canada to have an effect here. If it persuades people to lower their voices, avoid a demonstration, or refrain from expressing a lawful opinion, coercion has already crossed the border.
A person living in Toronto, Ottawa, or Vancouver may be entirely free under Canadian law to criticize a foreign government, join a demonstration, or advocate a political cause. But that freedom means less if exercising it creates fear about travelling abroad, consequences for relatives, or other forms of retaliation.
Seen in this light, the confrontation on a Toronto sidewalk was about more than one protest. Whatever the identity or motivation of the individual involved, it raised a larger question: whether political restrictions imposed by an authoritarian state can follow people into a democracy.
The principle should be clear. No foreign political doctrine or legal claim should determine the boundaries of lawful expression in Canada. The laws that govern peaceful expression here are Canadian laws, and the freedoms they protect must remain Canadian freedoms, regardless of who finds their exercise objectionable elsewhere.
Ambassador Harry Ho-jen Tseng, Ph.D., is the representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
English (US) · 
Turkish (TR) · 