No, I'm just struck by the wording of Hall's directive to the media:
In a wide-ranging interview this week about the upcoming changes to her commission's mandate, she stood firmly by her position that media have a responsibility to put their writings through a "human rights filter" before publication, and said the commission is keen to call out those who do not, jurisdiction be damned.
That phrase - "human rights filter" - really sounds unpleasant. I suppose she's really only arguing for what some would call reasonable caution and restraint. But to me, it sounds like she's talking about something more far-ranging. Media companies in Canada probably never spent time worrying about any "filters" other than accuracy and interest - that is, until the Maclean's case blew up. Now, all of a sudden, media are supposed to be subject to this new "filter," the nature of which seems to shift from one day to the next? How is anyone to publish anything controversial?
