The term “cancel culture” was coined in 2016 but the act itself, of raising awareness of an issue and mobilizing pressure to effect change, is really is far older than that. Andrew “Dice” Clay was a misogynistic creep. Did raising awareness of that fact get him “cancelled,” or did a majority of people just eventually tire of paying to see his so-called comedy?
The Dixie Chicks, after publicly stating they were embarrassed then-President George Bush was from Texas, were effectively “cancelled” for a number of years. However, is it really someone else’s fault that a bunch of Texans, and Republicans, took offence to what Natalie Maines said?
Pierre Poilievre lost his own seat in the 2025 election. Is it cancel culture if a majority of people would rather vote for someone else?
For the record, I don’t think anyone has suggested Pierre Poilievre losing his seat was a result of cancel culture — I just felt like poking fun.
“Cancel culture” occupies a strange space in political discourse because the practice is both encouraged against one’s perceived '“enemies” but also discouraged when it comes for those they like. It’s the hypocrisy two-step. I blame its lack of impact politically on the fact that a left-right political divide means politicians are only willing to be accountable to those who are speaking their language — and it’s really easy to tell who is not. If their accessible voter pool is only 50+1 per cent, or one-third in a competitive multi-party race, then that’s who they’re going to listen to. It’s also why I hate partisanship, which seems like license for bad governance, but I digress.
Amazingly, “cancel culture” reared its ugly head again in BC last week. I promise, I’m not trying to pick on the place, but you do realize how wacky it has to be there to overshadow the wacky here in Alberta, right?
The short story is that a political staffer decided to share their thoughts on social media and was fired, specifically, for the content of their post.
I was initially going to write out the details of what the former political staffer said, but the fact is that it doesn’t actually matter.
It’s such an important part of the premise that I’m going to repeat it: it doesn’t actually matter what they said.
All that matters is the party — the employer — did not want to be associated with it.
It’s not “cancel culture” when your boss fires you
No employer owes you a job (unless they signed a contract, and even then, they may have promised a job but in lieu of said job, they’ll give you severance). Some employers don’t really give a damn what your thoughts are on politically charged topics, or anything at all outside of work. I don’t even think they care if you decide to make those thoughts public; so long as their name doesn’t get brought into it. If the latter happens, they can take action if they don’t want to be associated with your opinions (with cause, or “without cause,” if proper severance is paid).
Some people, usually those who agree with the opinion-bearer, think this is unfair. They demand protection for people’s “political views” or “freedom of expression.” They call it “cancel culture”.
It’s not; it’s an employer exercising their freedom of association.
Companies have a name and a brand that they often want to protect. If your actions are criminal, or aren’t in line with how an employer wants to represent themselves (like the NFL and Eric Reid and Colin Kaepernick, or ABC and Roseanne Barr), or you’re a political staffer or elected official in a political party, the employer, or “boss”, has every right to sever their association with you.
It also doesn’t matter what the opinion is. It doesn’t have to be controversial or “wrong,” it only has to be something an employer doesn’t want to be associated with for whatever reason they decide they don’t want to be associated with it. Yes, it sucks for your freedom of expression but there are obligations and responsibilities that come with being an employee. If the employer believes your continued employment is, or could be, damaging to their reputation, they can fire you.
An employer also doesn’t have to act.
An employer can tell those waging a campaign to get someone fired to pound sand; like that BC company who decided not to fire a woman who was videotaped drunkenly demanding two young guys at another table in a Lethbridge Denny’s speak English, or Jason Kenney initially saying his staff and caucus members who disregarded public health guidance regarding Christmas travel in 2020 would not be disciplined, or Danielle Smith making excuses for Bruce McAllister telling a high school student their parents should “take (him) over (their) knee.”
Most employers don’t want you to embarrass them, or have their name tied to something they didn’t want it to be, and that line is up to them. Mr. Kenney had to reverse his decision, most likely due to internal, rather than external, pressure because the decision of a few to ignore rules their own government put in place looked bad for all of them.
The fact is that we now live in the digital age where anything you put in writing can be photographed, anything you say can be recorded, and anything you do in a public space can show up on the big screen at a Coldplay concert.
Political jobs are just different
I’m not saying that political staffers don’t have to be skilled and talented — in many cases they absolutely are — but getting an appointment as a political staffer usually happens because the person is known to either the party/official or a trusted source who recommends them. It’s why the Alberta NDP had to bring in staff from outside the province when they won the 2015 election. It’s also why the Trump Administration is full of former FOX media personalities and tech bro teens. In the former example, the NDP needed staff who had skills and experience running a government, but also of import (and inclusive of the latter), political parties want staff who adhere to the same ideology and support the goals of the party/leader.
The really smart ones consult but that’s another story.
Political staffers may be encouraged to challenge the party/leader in private, but under no circumstance do they have the latitude to do so publicly and still keep their job.
When it comes to political staffers there’s an even greater expectation that you understand you no longer have an opinion that differs from the party line; your personal opinion better be exactly what the party/leader says it is or they’re going to fire you.
It’s not “cancel culture” or a violation of their freedom of expression; if a staffer doesn’t understand that part of the job means agreeing publicly with everything the party/leader does, they’re being fired for cause.
The same goes for caucus members.
Some likely disagreed with Jason Kenney putting Todd Loewen and Drew Barnes’ privilege as caucus members to a vote when they refused to stop criticizing government mandates, or Danielle Smith’s decision to toss Scott Sinclair for saying he’d vote against the budget, and the Honourable Pete Guthrie from the UCP caucus for continually criticizing her handling of the AHS procurement scandal.
Disagreeing with them doesn’t make the leader’s decision to sever ties with them wrong, however.
In politics, it often comes down to a choice between supporting one person’s willingness to alienate a group of voters, or a group of voters alienating the party at the ballot box; anyone who doesn’t understand that has their sights set on leading the opposition, not government.
Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!
Great explanation. Somehow it seems obvious that political employees hold the party line or any employee for that matter. But, clearly not. The part so many ‘speech freelancers’ forget is responsibility for what they say as you pointed out. All in Canada are afforded freedom of expression but it also comes with responsibility and could have legal consequences.
Before walking away from the cesspool that LinkedIn has become, I was continually shocked at the political and social sewage people would post as unofficial representatives of their employers. If I was management trying to figure out who should survive the next round of layoffs, I’d peruse my employees’ LinkedIn posts.