Barrel Strength

Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

Barrel Strength - Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

The Whatcott decision

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Whatcott decision is bad in several respects. It thrusts the court into adjudicating standards which they pretend to be objective and which are intensely subjective. It puts their opinions at the centre of the question of boundaries. You will have as much freedom of speech as these people think reasonable in the circumstances. Nowhere do they sing the praises of free speech as an essential element of liberty. They decline to tolerate offensive speech in the name of social peace. They consider themselves capable of arbitrating these matters, which is bad enough, but they show no  regard to the role of the human rights tribunals who have less intelligence, good will, or benign inclination than their Lordships do.

Everyone concerned with public policy needs to consider this fact: the rulings may issue from people with several university degrees, but they are enforced by people with, at best, degrees from training colleges. The generals may issue orders but the interpretation is left to sergeants and corporals, and carried out by privates. Far better to remove the question of adjudicating claims to truth versus claims to preserving social peace from Human Rights Tribunals in the first place.

The best argument comes from Mark Steyn (of course!), He says he rejects not so much their ruling as their claim to jurisdiction over the matter. Dalwhinnie, J. concurring.

 

Bookmark and Share
  • monkey says:

    I think the point needs to be made that the SCC let the law partially stand (they struck down two parts). There is nothing stopping parliament from repealing the law. As for reasonable limits, section 1 unequovically states the Charter has reasonable limits, otherwise it is not absolute like the US constitution. While one could reasonable argue banning hate speech is not a reasonable limit, it should be noted the Oakes test is generally used in determining reasonable limits. This looks at proportionality and when the harm caused by allowing a freedom exceeds the harm caused by restricting it, then it is permissible to restrict it. One can dislike the law, but the courts job is to follow the law not make it. Due to concern that unrestricted rights could undermine many laws and programs that are popular with Canadians, this was deliberately put in for that reason.

    March 5, 2013 at 6:47 PM
  • Bill says:

    I am a Black man who is proud of my heritage, culture and language. I believe in the preservation of the mentioned attributes and I will encourage my offspring to marry within my ethnicity in order to preserve the said cultural attributes.

    I am a White man who is proud of my heritage, culture and language. I believe in the preservation of the mentioned attributes and I will encourage my offspring to marry within my ethnicity in order to preserve the said cultural attributes.

    See the difference between the two statements now? First one is perfectly acceptable in Canadian society. Second one is a crime in Canadian society.

    This doesn’t surprise me the least bit. This is Canada where we have a mandate to protect the feeling of our precious monitories.

    This process is called “Classical Social Conditioning”.

    March 5, 2013 at 8:22 PM
  • john says:

    “There is nothing stopping parliament from repealing the law….”

    OMG!!!! You mean our omniscient, infallible super beings of the court are actually going to allow those mere mortals in parliament to REPEAL A LAW!? Oh thank you dear leaders thank thank you

    March 6, 2013 at 7:30 AM
  • Dalwhinnie says:

    Nothing prevents the Supreme Court from changing laws; they do it all the time. Sometimes the decision to change the law is the best possible outcome, but most of the time their Lordships are creating new rights which impede the effective government of the country, and create the very confusion in which thrive the leftie slime at Human Rights Commissions.

    March 6, 2013 at 1:09 PM
  • Sean M says:

    Canada used to be a free country before it exchanged it’s freedom for the “Trudeau Charter” to guarantee it. The Trudeau Charter didn’t cause the loss of rights and freedoms, it guaranteed it. Trudeaus Charter transforms Canada from a country into a cult. Trudeaus Charter is a celebration of the day Canadians lost their inherent rights and freedoms and assigned them to the Government and unelected Judges to be “interpreted” and doled out as they see fit. Until Canadians realize that we don’t have to labour under the imposed ideology of Pierre Trudeau, and get rid of his Charter, it will only get worse.

    March 9, 2013 at 3:34 AM

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*