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.