John Carpay is the President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

Why does the Smith government continue to condone innocent Albertans being prosecuted just for expressing their opinions? Alberta’s Human Rights Commission is currently prosecuting Leduc business owner and former municipal candidate Karen Richert over her online comments about a “family-friendly” drag show promoted by a local dance studio. Ms. Richert simply argued that children should not be exposed to such performances. (It’s worth noting that the Commission is advancing this complaint even though it was filed after the strict one-year statutory deadline that is supposed to be enforced.)

A similar case involves Benita Pedersen, a Westlock DJ, children’s entertainer, event coordinator, and workshop facilitator. After learning that the Town of Westlock planned to paint a rainbow crosswalk featuring colours associated with progressive pride and transgender inclusion, she created and distributed a flyer encouraging residents to contact their elected officials and oppose the project. In her own words, “When I composed the flyer, one of my objectives was to warn parents about the potential consequences of children pursuing the pathway of transgenderism.”

It is easy to blame complainants for using state power to silence speech they disagree with. Local resident Laurie Hodge, then a private citizen and now a member of Westlock Town Council, filed a human rights complaint alleging that Ms. Pedersen’s flyer violates Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. This section expressly prohibits any “statement” or “publication” that “indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate” against people based on gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics.

With a two-week hearing before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal scheduled for September 2026, the elephant in the waiting room is that Danielle Smith’s government has the power to stop this state-sponsored censorship of Albertans’ speech, simply by repealing Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act.

It’s not clear that Ms. Pedersen or Ms. Richert would be found guilty of wrongdoing and subject to punishment, but that misses the point. The process is the punishment. The woke ideologues who run Alberta’s Human Rights Commission detest criticism of transgender ideology and use their power to prosecute sincere, well-meaning citizens like Benita Pedersen and Karen Richert, who publicly disagree with rainbow ideology.

I was moved by a letter in support of Benita Pedersen from Daniel Gooch of Ottawa, a gay man who lived through the fight for equal rights for gay Canadians. Mr. Gooch wrote that disagreement on issues like Pride crosswalks “should never expose someone to legal sanction or public condemnation.”

He continued, “I remember when the central goal of the movement was straightforward: to be treated equally under the law and to be left alone to live our lives. That meant no discrimination in employment, housing, or public services … It was not about compelling agreement or demanding public displays of endorsement … Today, there are no meaningful legal barriers facing gay people. But with that success has come a shift in direction that many of us who are gay did not ask for and do not recognize as speaking for us.”

Mr. Gooch rightly notes there is no single, unified set of views among gay Canadians. Self-appointed activists who claim to speak for the entire community are not doing so. He argues that Ms. Pedersen’s opposition to a Pride crosswalk “is not an attack on anyone’s personal rights or freedoms.”

Whether public infrastructure should be used to promote specific causes or identities, he says, “is a legitimate subject for public debate. Reasonable people can disagree on it. Treating that disagreement as something that warrants a human rights complaint sets a troubling precedent.”

Mr. Gooch concludes, “When individuals like Ms. Pedersen express a dissenting view, they are not opposing the existence or dignity of others. They are participating in a conversation about how society organizes itself and what role public institutions should play. That conversation must remain open. It cannot function if disagreement is treated as wrongdoing … Protecting the space for open and respectful disagreement is not a threat to a free society. It is one of its foundations.”

I agree entirely with Mr. Gooch. 

No Albertan should have to live in fear of being dragged before a human rights tribunal simply for speaking their mind. Premier Smith’s government should introduce legislation to repeal Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, and all MLAs of all parties should support this effort to restore free speech in Alberta.

Repealing Section 3 would also be a good opportunity for Alberta to distinguish itself from BC, where the Human Rights Tribunal generated outrage across Canada for ordering former Chilliwack School Board Trustee Barry Neufeld to pay $750,000 to an unknown number of unidentified LGBTQ teachers who disagreed with his opinion that children should not be exposed to transgender ideology.

Without Section 3, Alberta’s Act would continue to prohibit discrimination in employment, tenancy, the provision of goods and services, and other dimensions of life. After Section 3 has been repealed, citizens like Benita Pedersen and Karen Richert, and all Albertans, can speak freely, without facing the risk of a human rights prosecution.

John Carpay is the President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca), which provides funding to the lawyers representing Benita Pedersen and Karen Richert.