Comartin's questions

Moon is shining. Intead of engaging in his anti-Ezra and anti-Steyn sniping, he's actually using his time before Parliament's committee to talk about the law and how to improve it. Good for him.

He makes an excellent argument that I haven't heard yet, but that I agree with: that, in some ways, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal already tests for hateful "intent" in their rulings. That's actually somewhat true, though it's not required in the law. Moon wants that to be formally recognized, to protect honest belief and honest intent -- to protect people who think they're speaking the truth.

In other words, Moon wants to end the blurry, anything-goes approach in human rights "juridsprudence".

Freiman pipes up with a fistful of falsehoods. He claims it would be "impossible" to prove intent on the part of any hatemongers. But that's not accurate. The Criminal Code provision requires intent to be proved; and it has been used successfully, from time to time. And, of course, every other provision in the Criminal Code requires "mens rea" -- latin for a "guilty mind", or "mental element" to convict. For Freiman to say that it's impossible to convict someone in Canada if you have to read their mind is foolish for a lawyer to say: a hundred people a day are convicted in Canada when judges determine what they were thinking.