David Staples: Danielle Smith going in right direction on free speech

Article content

Premier Danielle Smith is headed in the right direction on free speech, but that direction will be painful, even for her.

In seeking to crack down on the regulatory or professional bodies that would crack down on the free speech of their members, Smith is opening herself up to loud charges of hypocrisy any time she supports disciplinary action against someone who says something that is deeply unpopular to her or her government.

Article content

Nonetheless, Smith’s government is now consulting with six dozen Alberta professional regulatory bodies to ensure free speech is permitted. Some of these bodies may be going too far in limiting individual freedom of expression and imposing compulsory training beyond the scope of their professional practice, the government said in a news release.

As Smith put it, “We’re committed to standing up for Albertans’ freedom and that includes ensuring Albertans are not coerced into self-censorship because of threats from their professional regulated bodies.”

I applaud the government’s intent. Without free speech, there’s no way to test ideas and no reasonable way to question authority and powerful interest groups. Without it, we are doomed to stagnation and failure.

It’s also common sense to be tolerant of political or social commentary. If a surgeon believes the world is flat, what is that to the rest of us so long as he is brilliant at fixing injured bodies?

But free speech is a tricky matter, especially when it comes to those in power, such as provincial leaders.  For example, what if a government employee with a large social media following blasts United Conservative policy on some divisive issue (unrelated to that employee’s direct work)? Will that person be disciplined?

Article content

Article content

What if someone makes a profoundly offensive and factually incorrect comment about one side or the other in one of the world’s many angry armed conflicts? Should their regulatory body do nothing in response?

Smith herself supported the firing of Samantha Pearson, the University of Alberta sexual assault centre director, in November 2023 after Pearson signed a petition condemning Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 raid by Hamas. The petition claimed that the multiple cases of rape of Israeli women were “unverified accusations.”

After Pearson’s action, it would be reasonable for Jewish students to question if they would get a fair hearing from her. In this way, Pearson’s act was in direct conflict with her professional duties, which would justify disciplinary action. At least that’s how I saw it.

But some might suggest her action was entirely political, nothing to do with her work at the U of A, just her standing up for the people of Gaza and doubting the war-time claims of Israel (the rape cases were verified by a United Nations official months later but not when Pearson spoke out).

Article content

I put this concern about public statements on divisive overseas conflicts to Justice Minister Mickey Amery, asking him how far a regulatory action should go against a psychologist who voiced support for Hamas.

Amery came down on the side of free speech, with one or two caveats. “The freedom of expression and the ability to express one’s views, even if they’re controversial, must be upheld and protected so long as it is speech that is appropriate. And what I mean by that is that we don’t intend to allow individuals to engage in hate speech or other types of inappropriate commentary.”

Complaints against professionals should be directly related to their professional responsibilities, not about their outside opinions, Amery said.

NDP’s MLA Irfan Sabir criticized the UCP plan, saying the government is meddling with Alberta’s self-regulated professions’ ability to govern themselves.

But I suspect this tightening of their mandate will be helpful to such bodies. It will assist them in staying out of contested political issues, often a smart strategy in life.

At the same time, such moves limiting the harm that flows out of social media’s explosion of free speech is a gift to every opinionated person. Over time almost every one of us has said or will say something wrong-headed or offensive. If we’re going to discipline, cancel and /or fire everyone who does so, we’re going to be short of workers.

Article content

We need to find a way to sanely navigate this new social media mayhem.  It can be painful to read constant opinions we find offensive or disagreeable, but it’s the reality of this new system. It’s a feature, not a bug. But given our absolute need to encourage free speech if we’re going avoid stagnation, is it not best we learn to tolerate it rather than focus on stamping it out?

[email protected]

Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the news you need to know — add EdmontonJournal.com and EdmontonSun.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters.

You can also support our journalism by becoming a digital subscriber. Subscribers gain unlimited access to The Edmonton Journal, Edmonton Sun, National Post and 13 other Canadian news sites. The Edmonton Journal | The Edmonton Sun

Article content