Lemire Appeal: Federal Court Fallout

We've been watching how some of folks our readers are familiar with are dealing with the failed Marc Lemire appeal. Take Lemire's former Heritage Front compatriot Louis Morin:

 

 

However it didn't take too long for Marc Lemire himself, the subject of Morin's concern, to comment on the Federal Court's ruling on his appeal himself.

Suffice it to say, he isn't dealing with it well:

Wait. What does he mean, "not written or approved" by him? It was found on Freedom-Site. Lemire runs Freedom-Site. Hell, he still has the now non-working link to the article in question on his website:

Since Lemire has never indicated that anyone else aside from himself has control over the website he created and administered, it strikes us as a bit silly that he's now claiming he didn't approve of it's inclusion on the list of "controversial columnists."

Then again, maybe the Fairness Fairy posted it?

We sort of get a kick out of his complaint about the council for the ACLC was not an African-Canadian attorney.  We hope he realizes that it is not required that an attorney must be of the same ethnicity or have the same views of his or her clients, but then we suppose Lemire himself is used to sharing common cause with his lawyers?

So, the, "pretend judges" believed that the penalty provision of Sec. 13 was unconstitutional but....

.... the REAL judges said that it was.

He should be pleased to have this clarification from the real judges as opposed to the "fake judges" who he had complained about earlier.

Right?

Don't be so sure. After all, while this government repealed the law, there's nothing to say another government couldn't reinstate it.

Or, they could give the criminal code section dealing with hate crimes some real teeth.

FYI, here's a fun link for our detractors who complain about using the courts to combat hate speech. We're thinking especially of those fine folks at Free Dominion. If these laws are good enough for Israel, maybe they're good enough for Canada too?

He could appeal to the Supreme Court, however we imagine the Whatcott decision might weigh heavily on whatever the court decides should they choose to hear the case.

But credit where credit is due. At least Lemire had something substantive to talk about relative to Paulie who simply posted a passive aggressive snark:

Well, we have two problems here. First, it wasn't the Supreme Court that ruled on the appeal. It was the Federal Court. That's actually sort of an important distinction.

Second, despite the constant complaints about how the, "truth is no defence" from the usual suspects, that's actually not really true. It's clear from the CHRT decision that it wasn't the "truth" of the statements made by convicted child porn aficionado Kevin Strom in his article. It was the leaps of logic he made based on the information and the vilification of his targets which was the problem:

 

 

 

 

Here is the rationale behind the decision:

 

 

Food for thought.