I actually agree with Professor Fehr. I think that it would be constitutional if you limited it that way. In fact, I could just refer back to, ironically, an old case, the 1988 Canadian Newspapers' case that I referred to in my...but in a different context, where there was a really specific reason for a removal of discretion, because that was the issue in that case—the discretionary nature of the ban versus mandatory. They found that when it's linked to a laudatory objective it's constitutional, so I think that limited approach that my friend is suggesting could withstand a constitutional challenge.
On October 17th, 2023. See this statement in context.