I'd like to add what I think the biggest difference is, and that is that the truth is no defence. You can make a statement, every aspect of which is factually accurate, and if certain people decide they're going to be offended by it the factual accuracy is irrelevant.
In the triple jeopardy I underwent in the Maclean's case, I had quoted a Norwegian imam. I had quoted him entirely accurately. He had been quoted in Norwegian and other European newspapers. Yet because somebody took offence to it from reading my quotation in Maclean's, that became the cause for three human rights complaints.
There is something outrageous in that. Section 13 allows aggrieved people effectively to define their own reality and eliminate what ought to be the bedrock of any justice system, that truth is the ultimate defence. I think that's the worst aspect of section 13, the commission, and the tribunal.