Orwell was just a copycat. From the 1936 Stalin Constitution:

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:
freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
[end of quote]

Guess who decided what was in “the interests of the working people”?

Helpful indeed, albeit only in illuminating your own biases and proving false your laughable assertions about the house writing style at Overlawyered.

Finally, Eric, relentless self-promotion and snide, patronizing remarks about others’ purporte “empty blog re-posting of other sources’ articles” or “snarky add-on comments” and another country’s purportedly “stuck in the 1700s” Constitution are particularly unbecoming when they originate from somebody who finds it necessary to end his own blog posts with a conspicuous disclaimer proclaiming his own lack of experience and judgment in relevant matters.

Section 1 of the Charter states that it “…guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it only to such reasonable limits prescribed guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

How Orwellian! Maybe you can borrow a few slogans from 1984 such as Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength. They certainly would fit right in with your “fantastic” country. Too bad that Canadians are so delicate that they need the government to shield them from “hate” speech.

From a human rights perspective, the SCC says speech that creates ‘disdain’ for designated groups is ok. Speech that creates ‘enmity’ crosses the line.

Enmity – The state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something

Disdain – The feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one’s consideration or respect; contempt.

Seems like to fine a distinction to know what is constitutionally protected speech and what runs afoul of the law.

There is verbiage that confines hate speech to true crime. In practice hate speech is said by people you don’t like. The anti-defamation work by our Jewish friends in the United States handles hate speech and actions in thoughtful ways without using directly the police powers of the State.

Earlier jurisprudence like R vKeegstra can be helpful in understanding the definitions of these kinds of terms, and what the courts look for in a practical sense. Generally, my understanding is that the actions have to be public (not between two private individuals), have to go beyond ridicule to vilification and have the real potential to push others into taking actions that would violate the target individual or group’s own rights in some way (the court talks about a spectrum moving from discrimination to state action like deportation).

While I applaud the goal of protecting those vulnerable in our society from the harmful actions of others, it seems there are some practical limitations in determining what is hateful.

Looking at paragraph 41 words that create “disdain” for a targeted group are ok, but words that create “enmity and extreme ill will” cross the line. In practical terms, what’s the difference?

The first comment, posted above by William just adds more evidence to show that you clearly don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. Perhaps with how overlawyered you are down in the good ol’ land-o-the-free, standards for lawyers are falling, but let me still suggest that if you could possibly find the time to tear yourself away from your empty blog re-posting of other sources’ articles, without the addition of any of your own research or knowledge to back up your snarky add-on comments, you should try reading the actual decision: http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do

If that fails, you can just take my word for it (especially you, William) that the complex jurisprudence and constitutional interpretation that forms the basis for Canada’s hate speech does not, in fact, regard your silly and flippant examples as hate speech.

Maybe you’d even find my own article on the matter helpful: http://ericvallillee.ca/2013/02/canadas-hate-speech-policy-upheld-by-the-supreme-court/