Dear editor:

When is an expert an expert? It depends on the context.

Suppose Richard Harley (the author of “Is it hateful? Experts talk about 'traditional marriage' sign”) had a severe toothache. Would we expect that he would consult a dentist rather than an oil field worker who is an expert in drilling? The answer is self-evident. Yet on a legal issue he did not consult a lawyer.

Under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms one finds that “Everyone has the following freedom: … (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression…”

The right is fundamental to a functioning free and democratic society. It is not an absolute right. It does not protect “hate speech.”

There is even an offence under the Criminal Code that catches hate speech, a section recently used successfully against the owner and the editor of a small  newspaper in Toronto.

But for hate speech to be a crime, it is narrowly construed. It does not catch hurtful (a Lake Report editorial used both terms “hateful” and “hurtful” interchangeably), intolerant, or blasphemous speech or jokes in bad taste.

Even one of the non-legal experts noted: “Roback said while he's not a legal expert, Koller's sign likely doesn't meet the criteria for hate speech.”

I expect better from The Lake Report, the best community paper in NOTL.

Ron Fritz

Queenston