The answer is this: When we originally argued this case in the Supreme Court of Canada, the court relied upon the existence of those defences to uphold the constitutionality of the hate propaganda sections.
I have some concerns about how the religious defence is being interpreted because it's over-interpreted in such a way that people think it gives a defence to religious expression when it doesn't, based upon the words “in good faith”. I'm very sympathetic to your position that the defence should be omitted and that wilful promotion of hatred should remain constitutional, notwithstanding its omission. However, I'm concerned it would reopen the constitutionality of the provision.
It's with some reluctance that I respectfully disagree with removing the section, though I'm very sympathetic to why it should be removed, in your view.