This repository is an open governance laboratory. The quality of its work depends on contributors being able to engage honestly, including on contested and uncomfortable policy questions.
This Code of Conduct defines what conduct is and is not acceptable in contributions, issues, pull requests, and discussions in this repository.
This repository examines governance, policy, and democratic processes. Contributors will propose, debate, and critique positions on issues that are genuinely contested — including topics that intersect with protected characteristics, social conflict, and political disagreement.
The Code of Conduct is not a mechanism for removing policy positions from debate. It governs how contributors engage, not what positions they hold.
Contributors are expected to:
- Engage with the substance of proposals and arguments, not the identity or personal characteristics of the people making them.
- State tradeoffs and objections honestly, including tradeoffs that complicate their own preferred positions.
- Accept that proposals may be declined or revised through the review process, and engage with that process rather than circumventing it.
- Attribute contributions accurately and not misrepresent the positions of other contributors.
The following conduct is not acceptable in this repository regardless of the policy position being argued:
Targeted harassment Repeated unwanted contact, personal attacks, or sustained hostile behaviour directed at a specific contributor. Disagreement with someone's policy position does not justify harassment of the person.
Hate speech in contributions Content that advocates violence against, or promotes hatred of, people on the basis of protected characteristics — including race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or national origin.
This does not prohibit:
- Policy proposals that address hate speech (see
instances/canada/manifesto/article_17_hate_speech_and_harmful_content.md) - Critical analysis of hate speech, its effects, or regulatory approaches
- Proposals that some contributors find offensive, provided they do not advocate violence or promote hatred of people as a group
Doxxing Publishing private identifying information about a contributor without their consent.
Misrepresentation of process Claiming that a proposal has been adopted, ratified, or approved when it has not passed through the documented governance process.
Deliberate disruption Sustained behaviour whose evident purpose is to prevent productive governance work rather than to engage with it.
This repository discusses hate speech as a policy subject. Discussion of what hate speech is, how it should be regulated, what its effects are, and how enforcement mechanisms should be designed is within scope and protected as policy debate.
Hate speech as conduct in contributions — content that itself advocates violence against or promotes hatred of people on the basis of protected characteristics — is not within scope and will be removed.
The distinction:
| Within scope | Not within scope |
|---|---|
| Proposing a policy on how platforms should moderate hate speech | Contributing content that itself incites hatred of a group |
| Criticising a hate speech law as too broad or too narrow | Using contribution threads to direct hatred at another contributor |
| Analysing the effects of hate speech on targeted communities | Claiming a protected group deserves harm |
| Debating where the line between offensive and harmful speech sits | Content that crosses Canada's Criminal Code ss. 318–319 threshold |
When in doubt about whether a contribution crosses this line, open a Governance Discussion issue before submitting it.
If you observe conduct that violates this Code of Conduct:
- Open a Governance Discussion issue with the title
[Conduct] Brief description of the issue. - Describe what occurred and link to the relevant content.
- A Maintainer will respond within seven days.
If the issue involves a Maintainer, address the report to another Maintainer or to all Maintainers collectively via a direct message on GitHub.
Reports are handled confidentially. The outcome of a conduct review (warning, temporary restriction, permanent ban) will be communicated to the reporter and the subject. The details of the process are not made public unless the subject consents or the matter is escalated to a formal appeal.
Maintainers may take the following actions in response to Code of Conduct violations:
| Action | When used |
|---|---|
| Warning | First instance of minor violations; ambiguous cases |
| Content removal | Contributions that contain hate speech or doxxing, regardless of other factors |
| Temporary restriction | Repeated minor violations; harassment that has not escalated |
| Permanent ban | Severe violations; sustained harassment after warning; hate speech after warning |
Enforcement decisions are recorded in the contributor's role history. They are subject to appeal through a Governance Discussion issue reviewed by a Maintainer who was not involved in the original decision.
This Code of Conduct applies to:
- All issues, pull requests, and comments in this repository
- All content contributed to the repository
- Communications in project-affiliated spaces (if any are established)
It does not apply to contributors' conduct outside these spaces, except where that conduct directly affects the safety or participation of contributors within them.
This Code of Conduct is a repository operating rule, not a manifesto article or constitutional provision. It may be amended through the standard contribution process (Governance Discussion issue → PR → Maintainer review) at any governance cycle. Amendments that weaken the hate speech or harassment protections require Governance Reviewer review before merging.