Current Temperature
14.2°C
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
You must be logged in to post a comment.