“I’ve always called myself a libertarian although most people don’t know what that means. To me it means that
I believe in liberty, I believe in freedom and I’ve spent three years talking about my commitment to free speech,
freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, economic freedom. And you don’t throw your
values overboard just because you have a couple of candidates who cause you political trouble. That’s
expedient. I’m not an expedient person. I’m a principled person and it seems to me that it would have been
wrong for me to all of the sudden become intolerant of the different viewpoints of some of my religious
I think Smith is confused about libertarian principles here. Libertarianism opposes GOVERNMENT restrictions on free-speech. That doesn't mean that a private organization like a political party has to remain neutral on every statement made by its members.
If Hunsperger had said "I think Danielle Smith is a twit who will ruin Alberta if elected", I'm sure Smith would have publically criticized that statement, even though, as a libertarian, she would still defend his right to make it without being harassed by the government.
Now, there is a legitimate argument to be made that Hunsperger's comments weren't about government policy, but about his own religious beliefs, and therefore a party leader has no business commenting on them. But that argument has nothing to do with libertarianism. Smith may have been right, as party leader, to refraining from condemning his statements, but even if she HAD condemned them, it would not have been a violation of his right to free speech.