I agree with Jay Currie's points on the Attorney General's memo of law in the Lemire constitutional challenge of s. 13. The fact that Lemire's arguments are mostly a rehash of what has been tried before doesn't make the challenge an abuse of process. I mean, who is the "winning party" the AG is talking about on p. 46? The government, right? Should they not be "harassed" a little with creative challenges to their laws, as Currie says?
Of course, there could still be constitutional challenges to be made... but that wouldn't solve all the problems with hate speech laws in this country.