I would just add to that last point that Justice Dickson, in that decision, had a very narrow definition of section 13. There is nothing in there to indicate that he thought Maclean's magazine, the oldest and best selling magazine in Canada, would come under section 13 for choosing to publish particular articles.
I would also add that the words you quoted—and I assume you have worse ones there—which I think were, “the Jewish lobby” and then something about Hitler, are offensive. Because I was a supporter of President Bush's foreign policy, I woke up every morning for years being accused of being part of the Jewish lobby that is “controlling” American foreign policy. Do I think I should have the right to make it illegal for someone to accuse me of being part of the Jewish lobby? No. Do I think it should be illegal to champion repellant ideas? No. Repellant ideas wither in sunlight, and you cannot have true sunlight if you accept the right of the state to regulate public discourse.
Ian Fine, the senior counsel of the CHRC, has declared that the commission is committed to the abolition of hatred—not hate crimes, not hate speech, but hate. Hate is a human emotion; it beats, to one degree or another, in every breast. It is part of what it means to be human. I sometimes get the impression from her public remarks that deep down, even Jennifer Lynch, head of the commission, harbours a teensy-weensy little bit of hatred for Ezra and me.
There is absolutely no alternative to that. To hate is to be free, and when the alternative is a coercive government bureaucracy regulating what you can say, then as Michael Ignatieff would be the first to point out, you are no longer free. I am with Mr. Ignatieff on that.