More on the Whatcott decision and the fact that truth is no defense

Truth, freedom of speech go hand in hand says The Sun's Alan Shanoff:

Civil defamation laws, which protect harm to reputation, allow a defence of truth. Criminal charges involving publication also allow truth as a defence. Truth is a defence to a criminal charge of willfully promoting hatred against any group distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. An essential element of the criminal charge of defamatory libel requires an accused to publish a statement “he knows to be false”.

But in the recent William Whatcott decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has declared that truth is not a viable defence to a hate speech charge under human rights legislation. It’s a ruling that has many puzzled. After all, freedom of expression is a constitutionally protected right in Canada and should only be restricted as minimally as possible to meet a pressing and substantial concern.

So how can we justify prohibiting a defence of truth?

Why does the court fear the truth?

The Supreme Court’s justification for allowing this remarkable bit of state censorship is simply put that “even truthful statements may be expressed in language or context that exposes a vulnerable group to hatred.” Thus we have elevated the right of a vulnerable group to be free from expressions of hatred to be paramount to the ability to speak the truth.
Our highest court has affirmed Canada as a country where accurate statements of fact may result in human rights complaints, expensive and lengthy hearings and imposition of significant financial penalties whenever a vulnerable group has been or is likely to have been exposed to hatred. All this, with no legal or financial exposure to the person or persons filing the human rights complaint.