The Supreme Court affirmed unanimously, although with only six Justices and none of the two new ones, that basically some restrictions on speech are valid.
The story is here, here, and here. The reaction depends on where you stand, so see here, here, here, and here.
Basically the law is the same. The test has been switched from subjective to objective. You can say bad stuff but just not too bad.
A few thoughts:
1. Is time to start talking about repealing Section 1 of the Charter? How many times do we need to hear our self-righteous judges say "yes, this violates your rights, but ..."?
2. Do Canadians have any moral authority to criticize other illiberal countries when their governments restrict the freedoms of their citizens? After all, if six judges (or however many hear the next case) can say that something is a justified restriction on someone's freedom, what is wrong with some other unelected body saying the same?
3. Perhaps we should start electing our judges. At least that way, our judges' values will match those of our society. Then, when they rule that a retsriction is justified under Section 1, they have some moral authority to hold that.
4. The Supreme Court should have just kept the law as is. This new nuanced ruling will actually make things worse. It will encourage more litigation before the dust settles on what the new test really means.
5. Did the Supreme Court break the law by re-printing the flyers in the appendix of their decision? After all, if they upheld some of the convictions, and the new standard is an objective one, then it doesn't matter whether the reprints are in a court decision or wherever the were distributed originally.
Comments