Article content continued

But it upheld the controversial legal concept of speech that is “likely to expose” certain groups to hatred.

The Saskatchewan law, which is similar to others in Alberta, B.C., the Northwest Territories and federally, “appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings,” wrote Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein for the court.

“Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect,” the judges decided.

The judges reinstated Mr. Whatcott’s conviction by a hate speech tribunal in the case of two anti-gay fliers he distributed, but overturned it in the case of two others.

I have to follow Christ first. What I have said is true. There’s not a sentence that I retract, so likely future fliers will be more of the same

As advice to future hate tribunals, the judges offered three main pieces of guidance.

First, these laws must be applied objectively, which is difficult in the case of subjective emotion, though not impossible, the judges ruled. The key is to focus on the effects of hate speech, not the intent of the speaker.

Second, hate must be understood to be the extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification,” but nothing less.

“This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects,” they wrote.