Gray was critical of the CHRC’s procedures, and the effect its proceedings can have of “chilling” public discussion of important policy issues.Unlike the complainer who got all expenses paid by taxpayers, the CHP had to spend $50,000 to defend themselves. That money became a de-facto fine for not being politically correct enough in the first place; for daring to defend their point of view in a manner that eventually led to a "human rights" complaint, no matter how groundless or unfounded the complaint was.
“But the CHRC’s method of operation is both slipshod and unjust. The complainant bore no costs at all for filing a frivolous and groundless complaint; as Ezra Levant has said, ‘The process is the punishment’–whether the respondent is innocent or guilty.
“The idea of protecting people and groups from ‘hate speech’ that incites to violence is still sound,” Gray said. “But such incitement is already a criminal offence, and the defense against it belongs in criminal court, where the normal rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence apply. In a real court, these ridiculous charges would never have been admitted.”
So, even though the party ended up being acquitted, the ordeal itself sends a clear message to Canadians, warning them to avoid discussing issues which the governing elite and the special interest groups have designated "controversial". And, as long as Canada's "human rights" committees have the power to review "hate speech" complaints, the malicious practice of "chilling" public discussion on important social issues will continue.
That's why I say - it almost looks like a small victory, but it's not a real victory yet. There will be no real victory until the section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is repealed.