Hate doesn’t always show up in news headlines. It isn’t always boldly displayed on a North Vancouver highway overpass or shouted through megaphones. More often, it’s quieter. It’s a slur hurled from a passing car. An anonymous troll on social media. A cruel joke in a group chat. Or the silence that follows when no one speaks up.
Hate, in all its forms, is corrosive. It tells some members of our community that they don’t belong here. According to the RCMP’s latest statistics, hate has increased by 23% across B.C. between 2022 and 2023. And yes, even here in North Vancouver, that struggle continues. Many still hide their identities in public spaces out of fear. That is not acceptable. And it is not the North Vancouver I believe in.
This week, I was proud to ask the Mayor and Council in the District of North Vancouver to endorse the Anti-Hate Pledge, which aligns with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the B.C. Human Rights Code. It received unanimous support. As municipal leaders, this is not just symbolic. It is a commitment to build a community where everyone feels safe, respected, and valued, no matter who they are or whom they love.
At the end of this month, our community will mark Pride Week—a time to celebrate the 2SLGBTQIA+ members of our community. But Pride is more than parades and rainbow flags. It is rooted in struggle and resilience. It is a reminder that many people still live with fear, discrimination, and exclusion.
When we take the anti-hate pledge, we say clearly: Hate has no home here.
We send a message to those who’ve been targeted: We believe you.
We send a message to those who spread hate: We will not be silent.
We send a message to the broader community: We are building a more inclusive North Vancouver for everyone.
Anti-Hate Pledge
The District of North Vancouver recognizes that hate and discrimination continue to harm individuals and undermine community well-being.
In alignment with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and B.C.’s Human Rights Code, this pledge affirms a commitment to a safe, inclusive municipality where hate is not tolerated.
Therefore, District of North Vancouver Mayor and Council pledge to:
- Reject all forms of hate and discrimination. (Public or online messaging targeting people
on the basis of age, race, indigenous identity, ancestry, colour, place of origin, family status,
gender identity or expression, sex and sexual orientation, housing, income, marital status,
physical or mental disability, or religion);
- Promote equity, inclusion, and intersectionality in leadership.
- Advocate for education, public awareness and support systems to reduce hate-based incidents; and,
- Commit to ongoing engagement with community members to build lasting, inclusive strategies.
This pledge reinforces Charter values of equality, freedom, and multiculturalism and demonstrates proactive municipal leadership in making the District of North Vancouver a safer,
Any anti Palestinian hate should be tabulated and dealt with ASAP. I’ve noticed a lot of it in last two years here!
I hope this applies to Jewish people or are you targeting only pcertain groups?
The trouble with this pledge is that it includes numerous other points that are not truly related to “hate”.
I do not like hidden agendas in any form and an agenda that says in essence that “if you don’t agree with me that’s hate!” is not something I’m going to support.
Saying “Promote equity, inclusion, and intersectionality in leadership.” is a totally different issue from hate as it promotes some members of society above others. In Britain they talk of “Two-tier Pier” and to a large extent this proposal is “Two-tier DNV”.
I will NOT accept a pledge that essentially says “No (insert group here) need apply”.
Similarly there is no clear consensus of issues like “Sexual Identity” and there are issues related to this such as transitioning children below legal age either with or without their parents’ consent or even knowledge in some cases. The abuses related to the British Tavistock Institute are a key case in point.
Lastly I do NOT agree with “Commit to ongoing engagement with community members” since in practice this does NOT mean “with the community generally” but rather in effect that “DNV should commit to meeting with various special interest groups whether or not they are actually DNV residents” as District has done for more than 20 years to my personal knowledge – and that includes cases where community members who live in the affected areas were not notified or invited to these events. It also includes grants given to groups outside the normal DNV Financial plan with little or no specifics made available to the public as to what these funds were for.
I assure you that I have been closely watching Council affairs for 20+ years (Mayor Little will vouch for me on this point) and know whereof I speak (even though he and I may disagree on specific interpretations)
So no I will NOT be in support of Clr Pope’s proposal.
Good for Lyle to have the courage to speak out and I agree with him. Has anyone ever taken a poll on how many hateful comments are made towards those who are homeless due to mental illness, how about those who may be slow in movement due to age or physical limitations (anyone behind one of these people in a line up when YOU are in a hurry??) What about the basic freedom of speech – are parents no longer to comment on what goes on in the classrooms even though those things could go against their religious or moral beliefs? Who has the right to infringe on others on what is hate and what is not – most of these issues are just basic common sense and care about others and those who want to hate will always find a way. Every human is capable of both hate and love – how about awarding actions that show love more then focus on those who show hate?
It’s a little unclear what you’re actually worried about here… Are you arguing for unlimited freedom of speech, or are you suggesting that there isn’t ENOUGH being done to stop hate speech since it’s also being directed at seniors or the unhoused?
Anyway, freedom of speech isn’t unlimited — it stops when it crosses into hate speech. What qualifies as hate speech is clearly laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You can learn more about it there.
For example, no, parents don’t have the right to publicly make hateful comments about LGBTQ+ students just because of their personal religious beliefs — because LGBTQ+ students have the right to a hate-free education. Parents can pull their kids out of school if the curriculum doesn’t align with their values, and they can say whatever they want privately. But in civil society, we don’t leave it up to individuals to decide what’s right or wrong, hoping that humanity’s better side will win out without any consequences for those who choose to harm others.
As for your comment about awarding actions that show love: This pledge is about showing love and respect to all community members. So maybe it’s more aligned with your goals than you think? 🙂
Lyle, your concerns seem less about ‘hidden agendas’ and more about discomfort or misunderstanding with inclusion in general. Promoting equity and inclusion isn’t about creating a new ‘two-tier’ system; it’s about correcting the one that already exists, where marginalized groups have been underrepresented for generations. If you actually supported policy that addresses hatred in your community, you should want to address the system that perpetuates inequality which is the root cause of hate itself—not just bandaid solutions.
On sexual identity and transitioning youth — the consensus from major medical organizations, healthcare professionals, and trans people themselves is clear: gender-affirming care, when done responsibly, is important and often life-saving. The Tavistock example is a case that shows care must be better funded and research-supported to ensure safe, effective treatment, not that it should be banned or politicized. These should be medical decisions, not weaponized public opinion polls.
Regarding community engagement, targeting underrepresented communities isn’t the same as a catering to a special interest group. For example, the District offering a cultural or language specific community engagement opportunity isn’t serving specific goals (racialized communities are not a monolith in their goals just like white people are not), it is addressing common barriers like language or discrimination so that all people have equal access to share their goals and needs. But also, special interest groups like the Chamber of Commerce DO have catered events and opportunities all the time (even if the business owners aren’t DNV residents) but no one is calling that out as preferential treatment despite workers not having the same representation. Are you against that as well?
Finally, you say you’ve been watching Council for 20 years and the Mayor knows your name, so it’s clear you take pride in civic engagement and having one’s voice included. Why not support pathways for others to have the same opportunity? You are clearly not the demographic experiencing hatred, so maybe this isn’t a policy where your voice should be as loud as it sounds like it usually is. Give others a chance to speak who haven’t had that, and maybe you’ll learn something new.
To me, this response treating inclusion as a threat like this only proves more why this kind of pledge matters.
There are many racist people here in Canada not only at the workplace but also at the bus.I was once encountered a Chinese woman telling me there are many Filipinos here and I just ignore it.
The real haters are those who accuse people whose views they don’t agree with of hate. District councillors should should remember they serve all residents, not just those of a particular interest group.