"It is now illegal to hold opinions that offend radical Muslim activists," and "under section 13 of the so-called 'Human Rights' code, Canadians have been prosecuted for holding personal beliefs which offend radical Muslim Imams and liberal activists."
Meanwhile law Times says appeal the Hadjis Decision. They also conclude that it is the s.54 penalty provisions, not s.13 itself, that may prove unconstitutional:
Hadjis’ conclusions about the constitutionality of s. 13(1) centres on the punitive aspects of the law. Noting the Supreme Court of Canada already dealt with the issue in 1990, he argued that what has changed since then is the imposition of a fine and the expansion of the hate-speech provisions to the Internet during revisions to the Human Rights Act in 2001.
It is that aspect that Hadjis determined to be problematic given the earlier Supreme Court decision’s focus on a conciliatory, rather than penal, approach in dealing with restrictions on free speech under the act.
...and Speechys, who once touted the "real" court system in contrast to the "kangaroo courts" of the HRTs, now want to short circuit the process. They're demanding that Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson squelch any attempt at said appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment