I had thought that three of the things that were important ideas in Canadian jurisprudence were: 1) That citizens had a right to free speech, 2) that the government in all its forms has a prescribed amount of power, with well delineated limits on where that power stops, and 3) that it was very important for the justice system to operate in a way in which not only is justice done, but in which it is seen to be done.
And yet, in one fell swoop, the RCMP in Calgary have me wondering just how important each of those things are.
So let’s review: we do have a notion of limits on government power–the whole point of the Charter is to enshrine that is top-level law, although admittedly it does it with a couple of aircraft-carrier sized holes in it.
We do definitely have freedom of speech, specifically outlined as a fundamental freedom in section 2b:
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
It’s hard to see how any kind of libel law can be used to protect a government from the free expression of thought, belief, or opinion of its citizens, given that clause. The Charter won’t protect me from charges of libelling you, but it should protect me from charges in any case where the subject of libel is the government, or an agent of the government.
Of course, there are those big holes I mentioned, and I guess it’s possible the Crown could argue that this is one of those cases that fall through the holes, but I’d rather hope not. (In fact, I am very mildly optimistic that with decent defense counsel, this could actually be a case that gets rid of the ludicrous Defamatory Libel laws all together–and hell, throw in Blasphemous Libel too, since it’s even sillier.)
The Crown should really not be making the case at all, though, because there is also the question of the appearance of justice being done. No matter how you slice it, having the police charge someone with criminal libel for criticizing the police–even if it’s the RCMP making the charges and the Calgary policy being criticized–is going to make the legal system look bad. It looks like a criminal conspiracy on the part of law enforcement, and even if it isn’t the authorities should be aware how it looks, and the effect that will have on public respect for authority. (That’s not just my opinion–quite a lot of law, including some pretty serious Supreme Court decisions, holds that police need to stay very far away from any conduct that might “bring the administration of justice into disrepute”.)
Posting critical comments about Calgary officers on a personal website goes beyond free speech, the police chief says.
That’s from the same Herald story where the slant is that police feel the guy pushed free speech too far. Nice of them to decide for us. I didn’t know they actually had that power.
One wonders what Chief Hanson thinks free speech is, if it doesn’t include making critical comments about the police? Surely there’s someone in the Justice system who could point out to him that he’s not the arbiter of the limits of free speech, and that he should, you know, try not to sound like the Gestapo when talking to the national media.
Are there no grown-ups in law enforcement in Calgary? In the RCMP? Was there no better, more mature way to resolve this issue than issuing criminal charges under a “shouldn’t even still be on the books” law? A solution that didn’t make the federal police look like thugs willing to do anything to scare people into line, one that didn’t make the local police look dirty, and the entire justice system look like a cover-up?
