I have always had an interest in the Law and as friends will know, I have in the past exercised a judicial funtion.  So I often have a look at case law from other jurisdictions, particularly as the common law tradition allows judges in one jurisdiction to refer to judgments in other jurisdictions.  This case from Canada is rather interesting:

Osborne
(Osborne v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69)

In this case, a group of federal public servants wanted to participate in various political activities. At the time, the applicable legislation provided that a public servant was prohibited from partisan political expression and activity under threat of disciplinary action, including dismissal from employment. They challenged the legislation on the grounds that it violated their freedom of expression and of association under the Charter.

The Supreme Court held that the prohibition was not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression within the meaning of s. 1. While recognizing the legitimate objective of having an independent and impartial public service, the Court concluded that it had not been shown that the severe restriction on public servants' freedom of expression was necessary to attain that objective. The Court observed that "an absolute rule prohibiting all public participation and discussion by all public servants would prohibit activities which no sensible person in a democratic society would want to prohibit".