Or so a Saskatchewan appeals court has just held with some rather stretched reasoning. Still, it is stretched in the right direction:
"The Supreme Court, in a 1990 ruling involving Jim Keegstra, an Alberta high school teacher disseminating anti-Semitic propaganda to his students, stated that though Canada's hate speech law infringed on the Charter right of free expression, it was a reasonable limit that could be justified in a free, democratic society. The high court, however, made it clear only the most extreme cases of speech fomenting hatred could be considered criminally liable. There must be active support or instigation of hatred; and perpetrators must intend, and foresee that their actions would stimulate, hatred as a certainty. Mr. Keegstra was convicted.
In Mr. Ahenakew's case, the native leader gave a 45-minute, profanity-laced speech to an assembly of native leaders in Saskatoon in December 2002, in which he blamed Jews for the Second World War. Afterwards, when a reporter for the Saskatoon StarPhoenix approached him, Mr. Ahenakew repeated his comments, among other things calling Jews a "disease."
Mr. Ahenakew was convicted of wilfully promoting hatred by a Saskatchewan provincial court judge and fined $1,000. He appealed and won a new trial, but that decision was itself appealed by the Crown, resulting in this week's ruling.
Source
An appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court might get equal justice regardless of race but the probability of the Canadian authorities prosecuting it that far seems small.
So the Saskatchewan ruling is actually a good precedent for Mark Steyn and others accused of hate speech by Muslims and homosexuals -- but they might have to go to an appeals court to win.
