“Barrister and Solicitor”? Does that come with long trousers? You really need to quit while you’re behind.
Your original statement on “freedom of expression” at least had the merit of only being two lines of stupid. Your attempt to justify it only makes you look ten times as stupid as five times the length.
You claim that the legal right to free speech “did not exist as a legal right before 1982”. This is bollocks de facto and de jure. When you say with all the blithe insouciance of a Dalhousie Law School alumnus that any right to free speech was “only respected by convention”, my response is what do you think the entire Canadian legal inheritance is, genius? It’s “convention”. That’s what the definition of Common Law is: a body of precedent, understandings of inherent authority – ie, “convention”. (…)
And whaddaya know? Ever since we got a Trudeaupian “legal right” to it, there’s been less and less free speech than back in the bad old days when (according to you) we had no “legal right” to it at all.
As I said in my post that, for you and yours, Trudeau is Year Zero. Your response confirms it. That a Canadian lawyer is willing to argue that a long, established, settled legal inheritance means nothing unless Father Pierre writes it down in his Napeoleonic Complex Code is bleak confirmation of how thoroughly he vacuumed Canada’s past – and, in doing so, perverted the very idea of what “rights” are.
If yours is a typical Canadian lawyer’s view of the law, it certainly explains a lot. God help us all.