Thanks for posting this, this is an extremely important ruling that transcends party lines. It is the first step on a very long road to TORT reform that is desperately needed here in Canada.
I have posted this info on to Mark, my co-Blogger who has far more knowledge on this subject then I do (and because it is a hobby, sad to say)
I'm sure Mark will be writing up a hum-dinger of a Blog post.
Thanks again,
Zorph
Can we say it like it is?
Until Rafe Mair can spew like this against a Muslim and be exonerated nothing has been proven. This can just as well be construed as a victory for sexual sensitivity training as a victory for free speech.
And make no mistake, this ruling pleased all the right agendas of all the right constituencies. Until we can see this ruling demonstrated against a broad spectrum of minorities we should hold the champagne.
This is the Supreme Court offering too little too late.
Sure, let's say it like it is.
This has nothing to do with the HRCs. This is dealing with the tort of defamation. Under defamation law, established now for centuries, Mark Steyn et al. can 'defame' non-specific Muslims all they want. Any libel claim arising from such publications would be rejected the second a defence attorney asked a judge for dismissal. You can only libel an identifiable person, not a group.
I'm no fan of HRC s13, but our Charter, which tries to balance rights specified and not and grants no clear hierarchy or absolute power to them (Charter s1), allows for it.
The HRCs have a legal mandate to hear these complaints, at least initially, and can't arbitrary refuse to do so. They have to do at least some sort of review of each case.
As for this ruling - yay! Well done, Dan!
Dan Burnett did this appeal, and is the lawyer representing myself and many others in the fight against Crookes.
So far, my favourite quote from this ruling is
"It seems to me that defamation proceedings will have reached a troubling level of technicality if the protection afforded by the defence of fair comment to freedom of expression (“the very lifeblood of our freedom”) is made to depend on whether or not the speaker is prepared to swear to an honest belief in something he does not believe he ever said."
This ruling is terrible.
The supreme court of Canada just ruled it a 'fact' that a Christian woman who doesn't want her 6 year old kids taught about homosexuality is like Hitler, like the KKK and like skinheads.
It is only a free speech victory for moonbats and idiots who use the arguments of 10 year olds ('You're like Hitler!'), and it is a defeat for any person who steps into the public arena and publicly disagrees with the teaching their kids are recieving in public schools.
Sadly, I have to agree. The ruling was made against a Christian and in favour of labelling of anyone who disagrees with gay activist agendas as a "bigot". In other words, it was more likely political correctness that ruled the day, not respect for freedom of expression.
This decision would have carried more weight and credibility had it been made against one of the many strident imams who have demanded the EXECUTION of homosexuals. (By the way, do go ahead and compare those guys to Hitler any time.)
Seems like two-tier justice is popping up everywhere.
Posted at 2008-06-27 17:35:32 [PermaLink]Two tear justice? ;) Especially the croc variety...
Posted at 2008-06-28 10:12:16 [PermaLink]Paulm, the people who want to have a say about what is taught in schools can continue to have a say.
This ruling does nothing to change that, hysterical claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
While I risk pointing out the obvious, you did a fine job of exercising the right to make a childish argument when you used the terms "moonbat" and "idiot". Thank's for exercising your right to free speech, even as you criticised the ruling.
Democracy works.
We just have to let it.