equal worth and dignity of marginalized groups. Finally, his speech commenting on the important and protected type of expression” (Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, at para. 11, per McLachlin C.J. and Major J., dissenting in part, but not on this point; see also Able Translations Ltd. v. Express International Translations Inc., 2018 ONCA 690, 428 D.L.R. (4th) 568, at paras. 41-44 (affording expression about a person’s suitability for elected office significant protection under s. 137.1 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act)). [92] Although one’s engagement in counter-speech does not amount to “open season” on reputation (Grant, at para. 58) and speakers must always choose their words carefully (Pointes, at para. 75), on the whole, Mr. Hansman’s words were not a disproportionate or gratuitous response to Mr. Neufeld’s statements. When confronted with views a person believes to be discriminatory, individuals often use words such as “bigoted”, “intolerant”, or even sometimes “hateful”. I note that Mr. Hansman’s expression generally focused on the views that Mr. Neufeld expressed, and not who he is as a person. [93] I agree with the chambers judge that there is a great public interest in protecting Mr. Hansman’s freedom of speech on such matters. The subject matter of Mr. Hansman’s speech (commenting on the value of a government initiative, the need for safe and inclusive schools, and the fitness of a candidate for public office), the form in which it was expressed (solicited by the media to present a counter-perspective 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) fitness of an electoral candidate was political expression, which is “the single most