Which is why I am very happy to bring you this:

EDMONTON – A Court of Queen’s Bench judge has ruled an anti-gay letter written by a former Alberta pastor in 2002 was not a hate crime and is allowed under freedom of speech.

Justice E.C. Wilson overturned a 2008 ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission that the letter by Stephen Boissoin that was published in the Red Deer Advocate broke provincial law.

At the time, the commission said it may even have played a role in the beating of a gay teenager two weeks after it was published.

The commission had ordered Boissoin to refrain from making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and to pay the complainant, former Red Deer high school teacher Darren Lund, $5,000 in damages.

Neither order can now be enforced, as Wilson declared them “unlawful or unconstitutional.”

The letter carried the headline “Homosexual agenda wicked” and suggested gays were as immoral as pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps.

Boissoin had argued he was simply commenting on government policy by criticizing homosexuality being portrayed positively in the public school curriculum.

On Thursday, Boissoin said he was thrilled with the judge’s ruling, calling it a victory for “freedom of speech and religious expression in Canada.”..

There’s an interesting dissection breakdown of the judgment here, which some of you might enjoy.  Rebekah sees the judge as having a very active sense of humour and a complete and utter contempt for the Alberta HRT ruling.  I don’t know if I would go that far but to each her own.

I can tell you that the court found that the so-called “hate speech” section of the Act is not some vague, general prohibition against speaking badly about someone but is only directed at eliminating statements which are also likely to cause others to engage in any of the discriminatory practices listed in the Act.  As opposed to speech that might lead to violence, which  is rightly governed by the criminal law power reserved solely to Canada’s federal, not provincial, governments. 

And “hate speech” is not actionable unless it actually influences someone to a hateful or discriminatory act or is likely to do so. In other words, it must be linked to actions.  It ”applies only to hateful expression that itself signals an intention to engage in discriminatory behaviour, or seeks to persuade another person to do so”.

For any so-inclined, the actual decision can be found here.

My point is simply this – as much fun as it may be to blast Canada’s human right laws sometimes, so far the system appears to be working as advertised. First, poor old Ezra Lavnt is successful in defending the hate speech complaint brought against him. As were Mark Steyn and MacLeans. And I’m pleased to report that there hasn’t been much anything heard from Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal lately, either. Which, thankd the Lord for that last one.

So now you know the rest of the story.  And like I’ve said before, don’t count us out.  It ain’t over ’til it’s over.

But one of the resolutions passed (and reportedly approved by 99% of the nearly 2,000 party members) at the party’s first national policy convention since 2003 [held in Winnipeg, hence the post title] called on the party to get behind legislation that would “remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.”

That’s right, they’re talking about getting rid of that nasty Sec. 13 in the Human Rights Act, which makes it an offence for a person to communicate telephonically or by internet “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination“.

Yeah, that one.

And, honestly, I wouldn’t shed any tears over it’s removal. It should be interesting to see what [if anything] happens next.

Apparently, some issues can actually unite, at least some, groups “from the left, right and moderate centre”. Who knew?

The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed a hate speech complaint against Maclean’s magazine on Friday in a decision the complainants blamed on “inappropriate political pressure.”

Just to be clear, that would be the complaint claiming that an article written by Mark Steyn, entitled “The Future Belongs to Islam”, made a number of statements and assertions that were likely to expose Muslims to hatred or contempt.

So, in other words, the system can and does work, as I’ve said before.

For those interested, you can find the Commission’s entire decision here, courtesy of MacLeans. As best as I can tell, a decision has not yet been rendered in the British Columbia case. You know, the one that was live blogged. So for that, we wait.

Funny, though, I almost think I know that many will be disappointed in the result, despite protesting otherwise. The last thing in the world they want to do is admit that the human rights system can and usually does often work properly. No, they want the worst possible, most outrageous, decisions. To prove their supposed point and have more ammunition in their fight to scrap the entire system. Because, just as many might argue that the Islamers complainants in the Steyn/MacLean’s complaint had their own agenda, so too do they. 

And if you don’t believe me, try googling the name “Steyn” in the blogosphere today.

Which is why I think that perhaps something else good has come out of this controversy. Apparently an independent review of the Commission’s approach to hate speech on the Internet has been launched by the Commission’s chief commissioner, Jennifer Lynch.

And I actually think that is a very good thing:

And so the debate Elmasry sparked has become less about media attitudes toward Islam and more about the balance between free speech and hate speech, and whether Canada’s federal and provincial human rights commissions can rightly weigh it.

The last time Canada’s human rights hate speech law was examined in depth was before the advent of the Internet, in a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision about the operator of a neo-Nazi phone-line. In that case, the prohibition on messages that are “likely to expose” identifiable groups to hatred or contempt was judged to be a reasonable limit on the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. But the extension of the law from telephone lines to the Internet in 2001 has resulted in a whole new ballgame.

So, let’s give it a look, says I. Give it a tweak here and there. Even overhaul the entire system if need be. So that it continues to work as advertised. Namely, to protect the rights of all Canadians not to be discriminated against on the enumerated grounds.

But those with a problem with even the concept that the government should have a role to play in protecting individuals from being discriminated against must realize that that is part and parcel of what makes us Canadian. It’s a choice we have made. No, perhaps not one that all Canadians agree with, but one that, I beleive, the majority of us still do. Which would kind of resemble a democracy, no?

Oh yeah, about that “inappropriate political pressure” comment …

Faisal Joseph, lawyer for the CIC, said the dismissal was predictable, given the political climate and the campaign against the commissions themselves.

“We are not surprised at the decision in light of the inappropriate political pressure that has been brought to bear on the commission and that has prompted the commission to set up an internal review of its procedures under (the hate speech section of the Human Rights Act),” he said.

Well, I guess that’s not surprising, I suppose. After all, they always say the best defence is a good offence.

You can read the rest of the story (including my thoughts, if you’re so inclined) here.