Macleans Magazine was acquitted of hate speech human rights code violation by the British Columbia Tribunal. Mark Steyn is free of the Kafkaesque prosecution. So why do I call it horrible news? Because the otherwise good result was merely a matter of proof not of constitutionally (or is it Charterly?) protected right to freedom of expression. The offended Muslims could have won had they hired a sociologist to testify about the objective hatred contained in Mark Steyn's telling the truth about Muslims, some of them at least. It's still dangerous (in a government tribunal is going to get you way) to voice an unpopular or even non politically correct opinion in Canada's loveliest province. Or so I believe after propping my eyelids open through the 37 pages of the opinion of the Tribunal
It's not all
their fault, the Tribunal is statutorily prohibited from deciding the constitutional questions. Which is precisely why the decision is a disaster. There will be no further review by a court which can decide the constitutional questions.
In a nutshell, it seems that the Canadian and Provincial governments take seriously the right not to be offended. There is no such right in Canada. They existence of such a right is anathema to the right to free expression. They cannot coexist and the ability of a tribunal to punish one for offending someone else with true facts and opinions is an unconstitutional ability which needs to be quickly taken away.
Not bloody likely.
Labels: Canadian Human Rights; Mark Steyn; Unconstitutional Tribunals