Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has ignited a significant debate regarding free speech principles in the province, particularly in relation to law enforcement priorities. Smith stated, “In Alberta we believe in free speech. Full stop.” This declaration came amidst a backdrop of evolving policing directives and public discourse on the boundaries of expression.
Premier Smith’s Declaration on Free Speech
Premier Smith articulated her government’s position in a video that gained traction online. The statement was reportedly a response to a video released by the Edmonton Police Service, which encouraged the public to report incidents of hate speech. Smith and Minister of Public Safety Mike Ellis publicly voiced objections to the concept of enforcing hate speech laws, especially when it might involve sentiments expressed by individuals aligned with the United Conservative Party (UCP) base.
Smith elaborated on her stance via Facebook, asserting, “Free Speech is a foundational Alberta value. We don’t believe in policing unpopular or religious-based statements even if they are controversial. That’s a slippery slope other countries have fallen into and we can’t go down that road.”
She further outlined her government’s directive: “Our Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Services, Mike Ellis, will be writing to our provincial and municipal policing providers to ensure they understand Albertans’ policing priorities should focus on violent crimes, illegal drugs, theft and vandalism… not people’s free speech.”
Minister of Public Safety’s Reinforcement
Minister Mike Ellis echoed the Premier’s sentiments through his own social media channels. He tweeted, “We are committed to supporting and respecting everyone’s right to free speech. We have duty to uphold these rights and freedoms, regardless of an individual’s religious or political beliefs.”
Ellis clarified the government’s position on hate speech while emphasizing law enforcement’s role: “Alberta’s government does not condone hate speech or violence, but we believe law enforcement should be focused on stopping violent crime, not policing opinions or ‘hurt feelings.’ Our government will be in contact with our provincial and municipal policing agencies to ensure Albertans’ policing priorities continue to be cracking down on violent crime, theft, illegal drugs and vandalism.”
Interpreting the Government’s Directive
The government’s message has been interpreted by some as a directive for law enforcement to deprioritize the investigation of hate speech. Critics suggest this approach could lead to a less safe environment for targeted groups. The Premier’s office indicated that the government’s approach involves leveraging its power of “non-enforcement” in certain areas, choosing to focus policing and prosecution priorities on other types of crime.
Premier Smith was quoted as saying, “We’ve gotta draw a line… We have to be able to toughen up!” This statement has been interpreted by some as suggesting that individuals or groups subjected to hateful rhetoric should develop greater resilience rather than expecting legal recourse.
Contrasting Stances and Past Actions
The government’s strong emphasis on free speech has drawn scrutiny, particularly in light of past actions. Critics have pointed to the UCP government’s use of the notwithstanding clause in October to end a strike involving 51,000 Alberta teachers. This action suspended teachers’ rights to free speech and freedom of association, leading to significant backlash.
Amnesty International’s English Canadian section commented at the time that the government was “attempting to silence workers exercising their rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to strike.” The legislation enacted, the Back to School Act, imposed a contract on teachers that had been rejected by a majority of them and included penalties for continued strike action.
The government’s justification for using the notwithstanding clause, according to Justice Minister Mickey Amery, was to “remove the uncertainty a court case would create,” implying a desire to avoid potential legal challenges and unfavorable outcomes.
Public and Political Reaction
The Premier’s statements have generated considerable discussion across social media and in public forums. While some Albertans may agree with a focus on violent crime over policing speech, others express concern that the government’s stance could embolden hate speech and undermine protections for vulnerable communities. The juxtaposition of the government’s current free speech advocacy with its past use of the notwithstanding clause has fueled skepticism about the consistency and depth of its commitment to fundamental rights.
The debate highlights the complex challenges in balancing freedom of expression with the need to protect individuals and groups from harassment and discrimination. As the government communicates its policing priorities, the public and various advocacy groups will likely continue to monitor how these directives are implemented and their impact on the broader social fabric of Alberta.
