I don't think there's an easy answer. I think when human rights come into conflict with each other, whether they be privacy and free speech with the right to be safe, or equality rights with the right to not experience discrimination, it's a really challenging thing. I can say, for example, that the provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Act were not new provisions; they were there for quite a while. B.C. has very similar provisions in its human rights act, but B.C., of course, doesn't have the jurisdiction over federal communications and telecommunications, so these don't apply.
The key is that we can learn lessons from some of the legislative attempts, particularly in Nova Scotia, where legislation came through very quickly and likely was overly broad. Taking the time to really think through and consult on how to balance those rights is key.
When it comes to the human rights process, I think that process has built within itself the ability to balance those rights. In the human rights process, the complainant establishes a case of discrimination, and the respondent has an opportunity to justify it. That justification can involve things like their charter rights that are at stake, religious freedoms, and things like that. So it has within itself its own balancing process.
What cannot happen is this idea of just legislatively deciding that one trumps the other without any consideration of the individual situation. First of all, that really erodes women's protections, but it also sends a terrible message about how we prioritize what often is quite hateful speech over their fundamental rights.