Last week I returned to Calgary from the United Kingdom fresh off an interview with the U.K. Free Speech Union where I discussed my new book on the future of cancel culture and free speech. One of the first local news stories I encountered upon my return featured Edmonton Police Service (EPS) facing criticism from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and her government for the EPS’s recent campaign urging Edmontonians to report hate crimes as well as “hate incidents” to the police. Among the “hateful” things the EPS was asking Edmontonians to report were “offensive jokes,” a category since removed from the EPS’s statement.
Smith gave the EPS a public dressing-down, writing on X that “Free Speech is a foundational Alberta value.” She went on to say that Albertans “don’t believe in policing unpopular or religious-based statements,” noting that this is a slippery slope that other countries have gone down.
Of course, there were those who jumped to the EPS’s defence with the same old arguments we typically hear in these cases. Alberta’s Liberal-appointed Senator, Kris Wells, was one of the first out of the gate, posting furiously on X:
Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom to hate.
Hate speech is never free and should always be held to the highest consequences.
Don’t minimize. Educate. Hate has no place in Alberta or Canada.
Apart from Senator Wells’ hyperbolic diatribe showing up the poor caliber of those admitted to the Canadian Senate, it is helpful to understand how anti-hate rhetoric has allowed the EPS to confuse “hate incidents” with hate crimes, thereby undermining free speech for all Albertans.
Originally, the EPS reporting system did not include “hate incidents.” These were added to their online reporting portal for hate crimes in June 2023. That they decided, inappropriately in my view, to extend the reporting of hate crime to mere “incidents” that constitute free speech, is rather disturbing. But there are reasons why the EPS has ended up here.
First, our public discussion of free speech and “hate speech” involves a fundamental confusion as to the status of these two terms. As Smith stated, free speech is a foundational right in liberal democracies. The reason for this is that the notion of “free speech” places the emphasis on the noun “speech.”
In its most basic sense, speech is about discussion, argument, persuasion and reason. By putting the adjective “free” before “speech,” we publicly confirm that we believe in speech and seek to make it as extensive as possible, even when that speech offends or discomforts individuals or groups. We tend to limit it only when it explicitly leads to violence or is defamatory.
By contrast, when we use the phrase “hate speech,” we place the emphasis on the adjective “hate.” Unlike free speech, which is a foundational concept built around public engagement, “hate speech” is an aberration that has no interest in discussion, argument, persuasion or reason. With the phrase “hate speech” the adjective swallows the notion of speech, and in our rush to ban “hate speech” we recklessly undermine free speech as well.
As with Senator’s Wells’ heated assertions, lacking as they are in any sense of discussion or public debate, we have allowed the idea of “hate speech,” something we dislike, to become the foundational equivalent of the free speech we allegedly admire. This leads to the slippery slope mentioned by Smith. It is, unfortunately, a slope the EPS decided to slide down.
This brings me to my second point. The EPS explicitly cited “offensive jokes” in their list of “hate incidents.” This takes me back to the United Kingdom. In September 2025, London Metropolitan Police arrested comedian Graham Linehan at Heathrow Airport as he was returning from Arizona. His alleged crime was posts he made about trans individuals on X. On the basis of these satirical posts, the police accused him of “inciting violence.”
For their troubles, the London Metropolitan Police found themselves in the dock. Linehan brought a lawsuit against the police, supported by the U.K. Free Speech Union. Linehan won and received an initial apology from the London police in May, 2026, followed by a payment of £25,000 and a second apology.
The point is not only that the EPS is on shaky legal ground when it includes offensive jokes among its rambling list of “hate incidents.” Rather, the Linehan case reminds us that comedy and satire are among the most potent and indispensable forms of free speech. Historically, they have been used by the lone critic to mock the power of the establishment.
Finally, on a personal note, when I served briefly as chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission in 2022, a case came before me in which I had to decide if a complaint should move to a hearing. The complaint involved the mother of a disabled woman who was challenging her banishment from municipal facilities on the basis of non-compliance with COVID restrictions. Typically, public health concerns take precedence in law, but in this case, I found that the complaint was credible and that the alleged good of public safety did not simply negate the rights of the individual. I ended my written decision stating: “While it is clearly important to ensure public health measures are upheld and public safety protected; these protections must be balanced with the right of individuals as secured by the Alberta Human Rights Act.”
If I were still chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission today, I would have done the same. I would have written an open letter to the EPS reminding them that free speech is foundational to our liberal democracy, that hate speech must be criminal in order to be prosecuted and that human rights exist to promote the flourishing and freedom of the individual, not to protect the sensitivities of the baying mob or those in authority.
National Post
Collin May is a Calgary lawyer, former chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, and the recent author of: From Cancel Culture to Incarceration Culture: Prosecutorial Democracy and the Future of Cancellation.
This content is reserved for subscribers.
