Danielle Smith Shows Why Free Speech Is Dangerous and Necessary

Article content

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith just gave us a stark example of why free speech is both dangerous and necessary.

During a press scrum on Monday, Smith was asked about the assassination attempt on former U.S. President Donald Trump.

“The way conservative politicians have been portrayed is outrageous, and it has led to the culture that we’ve seen in the United States,” she said. “And I hope that some of the progressive politicians here will watch their language, because they talk about conservative politicians in the same way and they need to tone it down.”

Article content

Asked about examples of outrageous rhetoric, Smith said: “Have you not read the headlines about how Pierre Poilievre is being described as dangerous? How the leader of the opposition in Alberta described me as dangerous? When you start using that kind of rhetoric, it ends up creating an increased risk for all of us.”

Smith’s remarks sparked a firestorm of protest, with commentators and left-leaning voters citing examples of the inflammatory rhetoric Smith himself used.

Last winter, for example, she advised American commentator Tucker Carlson to target Steven Guilbeault. “I would like you to put Steven Guilbeault in your crosshairs,” Smith said. “He’s an environmental fanatic. He happens to be our federal environment minister.”

There was also this COVID-19 pandemic period when Smith discussed a documentary series on the rise of Adolf Hitler and compared the aggressive and forceful public and private demonization of the unvaccinated to Nazi Germany. “We have 75% of the public saying not only, ‘Hit me, but hit me harder and keep me away from these filthy unvaccinated people.’”

Article content

Article content

I note that months after making this comment, Smith rightly apologized to the Jewish community for making such a comparison.

But when asked Monday to backtrack on her fiery remarks, Smith insisted she wasn’t one to get personal, but stuck to the issues. “I always stay focused on the issues.”

Three points come to mind about Smith’s comments.

First, Smith is right that violent and angry political rhetoric can fuel physical violence. No Canadian prime minister has ever been assassinated, but threats of violence against our political leaders and public figures are common, particularly on social media. I would argue that one of Canada’s most heinous crimes – the 1992 massacre of nine miners who crossed a picket line to work at the Giant gold mine in Yellowknife – was driven by violent rhetoric, a relentless and moralizing dehumanization of the franchisees as strikebreakers who deserved to die.

A similar incendiary atmosphere surrounds Trump. In recent years, I have been shocked to hear otherwise honest friends and acquaintances openly hope for Trump’s assassination. If a politician is constantly labeled a Nazi, a fascist, or a threat to democracy, he is indeed in danger.

Article content

Second, while Smith is right to point out that offensive language can have dangerous consequences, she neglected to point out that these kinds of nasty comments directed at her opponents often come from many of her own supporters. I have seen countless examples of vile and hateful language directed at leftists.

There is no doubt that I have also engaged in personal attacks at times. I am not alone. Not everyone engages in personal attacks, but it is common. That said, heated rhetoric is not surprising given the magnitude of the stakes in public policy. The future of our families, our cities, and our country rests on our wise decisions on education, immigration, energy policy, and other major issues.

Third, and most importantly, I believe that, as painful and risky as free speech can be, unless it is met with a call for immediate physical violence against an identifiable individual or group, we will cripple our society if we ban or criminalize it. Our politics would quickly stagnate, if not collapse.

Free speech is the primary means of arriving at the best policy and the best idea. Smith’s statement on Monday, for example, led her to make a claim about political violence. Yes, there is a theoretical danger in her linking an assassination attempt to a particular group, but Smith made a valid criticism. Critics then sharply criticized her for the useful process of free speech in action.

Article content

We will never solve a critical problem if we are not able to endure difficult debates. I can assure you that it is annoying and not fun to be outrageously smeared as a Nazi or whatever, but it is a small price to pay for the right to speak freely in the hope of improving our world.

[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 favorites and subscribe to our newsletters here.

You can also support our journalism by becoming a digital subscriber. Subscribers enjoy unlimited access to the Edmonton Journal, Edmonton Sun, National Post and 13 other Canadian news sites. Support us by subscribing today: The Edmonton Journal | The Edmonton Sun.

Article content