http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeenAJx-Zjk

LawIsCool: Actually, you can go back and see that from the “getgo” we were very neutral in our approach. Articles supporting the respondents are proliferative, but for the complainants there continues to be a scarcity of information (they still don’t have a site).

There is absolutely nothing to support those who claim that they should not be able to make such complaints because it is a perfectly legitimate legal avenue. Whether it will succeed is an entirely different issue, and when we broached that subject it was in the context of intense animosity and aggression from those supporting the respondents.

If this site was a class project, that would be some project – law students from different universities collaborating together – quite impressive if we do say so ourselves. We have no idea what the complainants are doing with their case (and it’s rather irrelevant to us); again, such questions are best directed to them. Only one of our team members has direct involvement in the case.

We’re familiar with Keith Martin‘s private member bill (the private nature of it is important, as Liberals are still split on the issue), and it only confirms our second point as outlined above,

the reaction and fallout by many opposing the complaints is likely more indicative of underlying problems that do need to be addressed, rather than any general objections to free speech.

If this does go through, it would confirm a troubling pattern that the complainants themselves have pointed out:

Unfortunately, this turn of events is all too familiar to the Muslim community. Faith-based arbitration was not a “problem” until the Muslim community decided to pursue a facility already available to the Christian and Jewish communities. Similarly, funding for religious schools was not a “problem” until Ontario’s Conservative leader John Tory included Islamic schools in his funding proposal. And human rights commissions were not a “problem” until the Muslim community decided to pursue the right to respond to publications that subject identifiable communities to hatred or contempt.

The “problem” is not the human rights commissions or the human rights codes they uphold. The “problem” as some choose to see it — is that the Muslim community in Canada is actually using them for their intended purposes.

Members of the complainants’ coallition have pointed out inclusion issues for this specific community that is invariably based on racism in Canada.

Although we are not at this time part of this coallition, our direct exposure to this issue has revealed that such fears appear based on substantial grounds.

LawIsCool: The only position we have taken is the one outlined above.

Appearances of taking a “side” result from responding to an overwhelming amoung of animosity directed against anyone even daring to support the right of the complainants to seek legal remedies.

To us, that is incredibly frightening.

LawIsCool: It’s not our religious rules, or even our case. We are not the complainants. Please get that right.

Our aim is very clear, to provide legal commentary and discussion on a variety of issues, this being one of them.

The link in question is just one resource, of many, that people send us on the issue.