Hate speech and freedom of religion and expression

Freedom of religion and expression is never limitless.

Although it may be obvious, human sacrifice is not allowed even in the name of religion and you cannot defend a fraudulent prospectus by claiming you have a right to free speech.

That means the question of limits on free religion and expression is always one of drawing a line.

The current case before the Supreme Court of Canada amounts to where and how to draw the line.

A human rights administrative tribunal held that some (rather nasty) pamphlets which complained about homosexual conduct amount to hate speech and punished them by fines. The question is then should such limits be imposed and should such tribunals be making such decisions?

Many of the comments on the issue are politically driven. There is a left/right divide with people deciding the issue on politics rather than substance.

Let's try to go to first principles.

We should protect minority groups from physical violence;
Hate speech can lead to physical violence (not everyone agrees but to them I mention Rwanda; and
Religion and free speech are of central importance to Canada's freedom.

We then need to balance and hate speech, where violence is reasonably likely to follow, should be proscribed.

But who is to decide the issue?

My sense is this matter is too important for administrative tribunals. It should be decided by judicial officers applying provincial legislation. The Criminal Code is too blunt a tool.

So for my thinking, hate speech should be proscribed, under provincial statute, if violence is reasonably likely. The trier of fact and law should be a Justice of the Peace (or Provincial Judge) applying the test to the level of "clear and cogent" evidence (not necessarily "proof beyond reasonable doubt").