The limits of free speech, and the power to order me to apologize

Officer McGovern asked if I thought there should be any limits to free speech under our constitution. Of course there should be, and I listed a half-dozen examples. But I drew a distinction between criminal or tortious speech and political speech. I also pointed out that free political speech isn't just protected in a liberal democracy -- it protects a liberal democracy. That's because it acts as a "safety valve" for people who want to change society. They don't have to resort to arms.

We also discussed the absurd -- and illegal -- power of the commission to "order" me to apologize for publishing the cartoons, even if I didn't feel contrite. Officer McGovern confirmed that was the remedy sought by the complainants.

At exactly one minute into this clip, I describe the Canadian legal test that governments must meet before they're allowed to override freedom of speech -- it's called the Oakes Test. Officer McGovern nods her head in agreement. But look at any -- actually, every -- human rights decision: these commissions claim that the Oakes Test doesn't apply to their censorship. See here, for example, the Boissoin case to which I referred. The panelist explicitly ruled, at paragraphs 356 and 357, that no constitutional test was needed before trumping a pastor's right to publish Christian views on homosexuality. Officer McGovern humoured me with her head-nod, but in fact the commission does not apply the Oakes Test.