No, not at all. As I indicated, section 13 is appallingly written. The key word in there is “likely”, “likely to expose” someone to hatred or contempt. That is not a legal concept as it's currently understood by the human rights enforcers. They have a big list of what they call jurisprudence on their website, in which they essentially now define “likely to expose” as entirely unlikely to expose. The narrow approval Justice Dickson gave to section 13 has been completely transformed. So that is why we need not just an investigation into the conduct of the commission but the abolition of section 13, because it is so poorly drafted that ambitious and opportunistic employees of the commission have been able to drive a coach and horses through the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.
On October 5th, 2009. See this statement in context.