The Truth Is That Canada's Supreme Court Really Messed Up By Placing Inane Limits on--and Even Criminalizing--the Truth
One aspect of the Supreme Court of Canada's Whatcott ruling that's as disturbing as it is risible is its idea that speaking the truth is unlawful if done in a "hateful" way. Unfortunately the court doesn't—because it can't—explain what that means and how it might work in the real world. For example, should I happen to express some obvious truths—that Islam is supersessionist, triumphalist religion; that sharia law oppresses women and non-Muslims and imposes barbaric, draconian punishments for breaches of law—but do so without raising my voice and in a nicey-nicey way, will I be let off the hook for "hate speech"? Is it simply a matter of style over substance—don't go on any high decibel Charles McVety-style rants and one need never worry about being charged with a "hate" crime? If so, who is to decide at precisely which point the style and tone of truthful utterances are a tad too angry, a wee bit too overwrought, and therefore veer into "hateful" territory? Because the way it has tended to work even prior to the SCC's befuddled decision is that the Imam Steve Rockwells and Zafar Bangashes of the land can rant and scream to their heart's desire, while the Steyns and Levants are almost invariably chided by "human rights" bullies for their excessively loud, belligerent and irreverent "tone."
The truth is that, unless truth itself and not the manner in which it's expressed is protected, you may as well admit that the truth is toast. And if that's the case, you can pretty much write off democracy and freedom, too. The truth is this is quite possibly the stupidest Supreme Court decision ever; it is certain to be its most damaging one.
3 comments:
But Scaramouche, wasn't the real point of the Whatcott ruling to make toast of the truth? By hedging speech with all those caveats about "tone," the HRCs are given carte blanche to rule as arbitrarily as they want to, precisely because judging the tone of someone's speech is such a squishy-soft endeavor. Your Supremes strike me not as stupid, but as unprincipled: they want the likes of Mr. Whatcott to be muzzled by their ideological congruous demi-colleagues in the HRCs, so they provided them with a case-law nail on which to hang whatever arbitrary ruling they want to make against politically incorrect types.
No, they are stupid. They have bought into the "human rights"/victim group bollocks, which is of Marxist origin, and which has so undermined our body politic lo these past few decades. In fact, they do indeed stand by principles. Alas, they happen to be imbecilic, destructive ones.
I propose a compromise: The Whatcott ruling shows that the Supreme Court of Canada is callously indifferent to principles of both common law and equity established at least as far back as the courts of Henry II. (In passing, lest the good blog-readers of Canada take my remarks as anti-Canadian xenophobia by a Yank, I readily, if sadly, admit that an alarming portion of our own federal judiciary south of the 49th parallel think as your Supremes do . . . and we are one Obamite U. S. Supreme Court appointment away from getting a slew of rulings similar to the Whatcott decision.)
Post a Comment