The truth is no longer a defence

In respect of the case of Saskatchewan v. Whatcott, Justice Marshall Rothstein of the Canadian Supreme Court said this in a prepared statement on 27 February 2013:

"Not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. Truthful statements can be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech...

To the extent that truthful statements are used in a manner or context that exposes a vulnerable group to hatred, their use risks the same potential harmful effects on the vulnerable groups that false statements can provoke…

The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm…

The question courts must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred.... It is irrelevant whether the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment or other harmful conduct towards the protected group...

Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups, that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence, and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide.”

The truth is no longer a defence in the western world.

Political correctness, 'vulnerable groups' and the dictat of the Rothsteins come way before that old thing.