Collin May: Edmonton should not repeat U.K.’s hate speech reporting mistakes

A screenshot from an online video posted by the Edmonton Police Service that encourages citizens to report hate. Photo by Edmonton Police Service/Instagram

Article content

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.

Article content

Article content

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.

Article content

Article content

Article content

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:

Article content

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom to hate.

Article content

Hate speech is never free and should always be held to the highest consequences.

Article content

Don’t minimize. Educate. Hate has no place in Alberta or Canada.

Article content

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.

Article content

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.

Article content

Article content

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.”

Article content

Article content

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.

Article content

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.