Comments on the Court of Appeals disgraceful decision on Section 13 - Internet Censorship
Jay Currie sums up the Court of Appeals ruling on Internet censorship in one word: IDIOTS
Even Section 13's penalty section, under which hate propagandists can be fined $10,000, was found by the court to be "a reasonable means of imposing financial accountability for the damage caused by the vilification of targeted groups and of deterring the communication of hate speech in order to decrease discrimination against them."
The penalty section was a key reason the law was once judged unconstitutional, on the grounds that such quasi-criminal punishment invalidates the remedial purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Now, however, both Section 13 and its penalty provisions are on solid legal footing. national post
S. 13 is a long time dying.
Repealed it has been but the ninnies on the Federal Court of Appeal are happy to pretend that its penalty clause is not a penalty at all. Rather it is "a reasonable means of imposting financial accountability". Ah, got it. Nothing more reasonable than fining someone. For, after all, there is no evidence at all that any financial harm was done to the complainant. What is basis for the assessment then?
Well, the ninnies are more than willing to provide the answer: "deterring the communication of hate speech".
Now, wiser folk than I will think that is not a penalty. Just as they will believe a fine for speeding intended to deter speeding is not a penalty. Because they will be able to discern a difference.
Small Dead Animals writes: Free Marc Lemire!
Free Marc Lemire!
Like the Norwegian Blue parrot, Section 13 is just resting. Like the Black Knight, its repeal by Parliament is just a flesh wound. Though it has been hoisted on the cross, its supporters may still, like Brian, always look on the bright side of life. Section 13 might be doomed, but it is good law. So sayeth the courts.
Be very, very afraid.
In a classically liberal culture, where persons are respected and therefore protected from their governments, where citizen-sovereigns do not alienate their rights to believe, reason and communicate with their fellows to their government-manager-servants, Sec 13 would never have been written. Sec 13 and this appeals court ruling represent a triumph of those who would elevate the group over the individual.
How can one's group be more important, more valuable than oneself? From whence does that additional value arise?
unbelievable that this still has legs - this monstrosity is still bumping around beating on a drum.
Makes my stomach churn ....
The "Franken-speech" law is resurrected for one final haunting, but I don't think it's Halloween yet.
Why you weenies only 'approved speech' as determined by your betters is really FREE.
POPPYCOCK and BALDERDASH from start to finish...they are afraid of a FREE citizenry!
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
The article points out that the judgment against Lemire "in effect  prohibits him from violating a law that does not exist anymore, at least as of June", and that "being ordered, on pain of criminal contempt charges, not to violate a law that does not exist is a strange fate". Indeed. Once the law is gone, it can't possibly be violated, so an injunction becomes null and void.
If we had a proper constitution and charter of rights, there would be no more than ONE piece of legislation against "hate speech", if there were any at all. Anything else is double jeopardy, which should be contrary to fundamental legal rights. This includes federal vs. provincial division of powers.
The Supreme Court should have made this ruling in Whatcott at the very least. Instead, it concocts preposterous notions of what Charter rights mean as in the untenable Insite decision of 2011, as it flushes our genuine rights down the toilet. The Charter of Rights should be redesigned from scratch. I've given my own suggestions in this space more than once already.
When leftists who promote hatred against businessmen and the productive in general are held to the same standards as alleged "racists", then maybe we can conclude the "hate speech" laws aren't a transparent attempt to silence non-leftists.
From the National Post's comment section:
Freedom of speech is a universal and inalienable human right. The Federal Court of Appealing made the wrong judgement.