|McCONCHIE: And let me tell you what isn't in this [BC] statute. There are a bunch of missing words. A lack of intention to violate this provision is no defense. Truth is no defense. The fact that what you may have published is in the public interest is no defense. The fact of good faith opinion is no defense. The fact that it's a publication for a genuine academic purpose is no defense. [...] I just want to make sure that your listeners, before they call, don't misunderstand what this [BC] law says. This law says it's a violation of the law to publish the truth. This law says it's a violation of the law to publish something that's for the public benefit. This laws says it's a violation of the law to publish something that has a genuine scientific, artistic, or academic purpose. And this law removed the prior explicit protection for freedom of expression. So that's the problem with this law. It's completely unreasonable in a free and democratic society.|
LITTMAN: Mr. McConchie, if I were the lawyer for the BC Press Council, I would probably argue the same way you do, but as a good lawyer, I see you taking the worst scenario possible. I don't think the law means any of the things that you mention, and I think if we had time, we could argue it out and I could show you you are presenting a worst-case scenario to frighten people, and I don't think the law really is that.
COLLINS: If anybody frightens people, it's Mr. Littman.
McCONCHIE: I tell you what the law says. I'm telling you what the law says, Mr. Littman. I'm not inventing it. You can go and look at the law for yourself, and you won't find these defenses. And you know where you will find them? You'll find them in the Criminal Code of Canada, and you'll find them in the Australian Racial Vilification Act.