Freedom of speech has limits, especially on a public stage
By Lethbridge Herald on August 8, 2025.
Editor,
Let’s be honest—Canadians aren’t intrinsically Nice. But we do pride ourselves on being polite. Here in the Great White North, rudeness is a serious character flaw. If kindness were really our default setting, we wouldn’t have had to enshrine a Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a Constitutional obligation to make our government(s) “do the right thing.”
Which brings me to Sean Feucht. He’s an American Christian nationalist who mixes folksy guitar tunes with fire-and-brimstone fundamentalism. You might agree with his views—or not. What matters is that several Canadian public authorities have cancelled his events—some citing public safety, others recognizing his speech crosses legal lines. Unfortunately, the Alberta government couldn’t be bothered to crack open an ‘Introduction to Law’ textbook before allowing his application for the South Bandstand on the Legislature Grounds for August 22.
Here’s the issue: that bandstand belongs to us. It’s Crown land—public property held in trust by the government. The UCP is legally obligated to make sure its use doesn’t trample on our fundamental Charter rights.
Yes, the Charter protects Freedom of Religion and Expression—but here’s what the UCP is conveniently not mentioning: those freedoms aren’t absolute. Section 1 of the Charter makes that clear. Our rights and freedoms are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
And those ‘reasonable limits’ aren’t just a vague suggestion—Section 319(1)(2) of the Criminal Code firmly bans speech that publicly vilifies an identifiable group in a way likely to promote hatred.
So, is it hate speech when Sean Feucht declares, “The LGBTQ+ mafia is a cult bent on perverting and destroying the innocence of every child they can”? Agree, disagree, or just think he’s shamefully rude—it doesn’t matter. Legally, that’s not your call—or mine. Feucht’s statement meets the Criminal Code’s legal definition of hate speech.
No guesswork needed, this one’s already been tested in court. Let’s look at R. v. Keegstra, a landmark Supreme Court case. In 1984 Jim Keegstra, an Alberta high school teacher was charged for pushing anti-Semitic propaganda in his classroom. He tried to shield his contemptible views behind Freedom of Expression. The case went all the way to the top, and in 1996 the Supreme Court ruled. Canada’s Criminal hate speech laws stand as a justified limit on free expression under the Charter.
How does this apply to Feucht? Simple. The responsibility isn’t his — the burden is on the UCP to uphold the law—and that means enforcing reasonable limits on free speech in a public forum.
The Legislature is not a platform for imported hate. The UCP isn’t just greenlighting a concert—they’re ignoring their legal obligations.
Free expression ends where hate begins. That’s not opinion. That’s the law.
Hunter Tyr
Calgary
14-13
Regardless of the merits of this particular case, the real problem with restrictions on freedom of speech is the power expressed by governments in controlling freedom of speech for their own political reasons, to the point that in modern western societies many are afraid to voice their opinions or ideas in fear of reprisals. For example, in the UK , a former bastion of free speech, it is now possible to be arrested for silent vigils, or voicing non government approved speech. Here, in Canada , we have the threat of eight years in prison for truckers convicted of mischief , a misdemeanor, while murderers are caught and released. It is a slippery slope.
You appear to think the term “mischief” implies a criminal act that is not serious. In Canada criminal acts, including mischief, are classified as either summary offences or indictable offences, depending on various considerations including the degree of severity of the alleged criminal act. Also, “misdemeanor” is the term used in the US legal system for less serious criminal acts while felony is used for those that are more serious.
And BTW, this is an excellent letter. Spells out the constitutional provisions around speech well. The Keegstra case is a great example of the application of hate speech provisions.
Excellent points, Ben. This commentator’s misuse of the term misdemeanour reminds me of a comment from, I think, one of the Ottawa Blockade organizers who claimed his “1st Amendment Rights” were being violated. That was a head-shaker, but more worrisome, it demonstrated how misinformed some people are.
I emailed our council about Feucht possibally trying to book a “concert” in Lethbridge and to issue a permit to this grifter. The response I got was basically if a permit application does not break the sites rules and requirements then it’s approved. There was no mention of freedom of speech violations. Since Feucht is a far right Christian spouts anti abortion and anti gay hate I thought this would have at least been worth a “well look into it” response. This is one reason every candidate for municipal or public position should be asked for their political views as I don’t believe that those positions should be non political.
I don’t blame the city for taking a neutral tone on this, they did get raked over the coals for denying a pro-life group transit advertising based on the images.
The very type these Reform Party fools love aren’t they?