Good afternoon.
Emotion of an intense and extreme nature is being used as an objective test.
It is important, however, to distinguish between the test set out in Keegstra and Mugesera, which were criminal law decisions, and the test set out in Whatcott and other human rights decisions. The decision was made to rework the test in Whatcott.
Basically, the test selected was the one established in the decisions I just mentioned. It was simply adjusted to clarify that the emotion must be characterized as would reasonably be expected. That means the emotion, not of the person at the source of the content in question, but of the person on the receiving end of the content.
I think the definitions set out by the Supreme Court for the term “hatred” are very clear. It's about taking those criteria and incorporating them into the Criminal Code.
As I see it, the current provisions in Bill C‑63 set a lower standard than the test established in Mugesera.
I think it's important to be very careful because when you get into freedom of expression and freedom of religion, people have rights. The Supreme Court considered the issue very seriously and thoroughly, examining hundreds of pages of material before making the findings it did and rendering its decision.