Lorne Grabher had the plate for nearly 30 years until the province revoked it in 2016 after a woman complained that it promoted hatred toward women<\/h2>\n\n\n\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com\/2018\/07\/1114_na_grabher.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=780\")
Lorne Grabher displays his personalized licence plate in Dartmouth, N.S. on March 24, 2017.Andrew Vaughan\/The Canadian Press\/File<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nThe Canadian Press<\/a>Keith Doucette<\/p>\n\n\n\nJanuary 31, 2020
11:28 AM EST<\/p>\n\n\n\n
HALIFAX \u2014 A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge has dismissed a claim by a man who says the province infringed on his freedom of expression when it revoked a licence plate personalized with his surname \u2014 Grabher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Nova Scotia plate Lorne Grabher had for nearly 30 years was revoked in 2016 by the province\u2019s Registrar of Motor Vehicles after the agency received a complaint from a woman who said it promoted hatred toward women.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a 50-page decision released Friday, Justice Darlene Jamieson said there is no constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression in a government-owned, personalized licence plate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The judge said licence plates are not \u201cpublic spaces\u201d with a history of free expression, adding she doesn\u2019t believe people expect unlimited access to free expression on them. The fact the government has allowed limited access to the space does not make it a public space, she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- How court battle over ‘Grabher’ licence plate mirrors wider societal <\/a><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
However Jamieson said her ruling should not be taken to imply there is anything wrong with Grabher\u2019s name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis decision is not about whether Mr. Grabher\u2019s surname is offensive \u2014 it is not,\u201d she wrote. \u201cThe decision is not intended in any way to diminish the importance of Mr. Grabher\u2019s surname or the pride that Mr. Grabher and his family take and should take in their name and heritage.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Jamieson said the registrar recalled the plate because the seven letters \u201cGRABHER\u201d could be interpreted as a socially unacceptable statement without the benefit of further context that license plates can\u2019t provide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe primary function of a licence plate is not expression but is identification and regulation of vehicle ownership,\u201d Jamieson wrote. \u201cA licence plate by its very nature is a private government space.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Jamieson said Grabher failed to establish that the registrar\u2019s decision limited his equality rights and concluded its decision to revoke the plate was justified under provincial motor vehicle regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What is the rationale for giving a bureaucrat the authority to take away the expression of somebody’s last name <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/s0.wp.com\/wp-content\/themes\/vip\/postmedia-theme-npfp\/images\/twitter_solo.svg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nUnder the regulations, the registrar can refuse to issue personalized licence plates if the proposed combination of characters expresses or implies a word, phrase or idea that could be considered offensive or not in good taste.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Nova Scotia decision follows one in Manitoba last October when Queen\u2019s Bench Justice Sheldon Lanchberry ruled it was reasonable for Manitoba Public Insurance to revoke a Star Trek fan\u2019s ASIMIL8 plate after receiving a complaint that it was offensive to Indigenous people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lanchberry ruled it was reasonable to take back Nick Troller\u2019s plate, because the word is connected to the Indigenous experience and government policies of forced assimilation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Grabher declined to comment Friday when contacted by The Canadian Press, but his lawyer said the court ruling would be reviewed before deciding on a possible appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI think that there are a number of problematic aspects to it,\u201d said Jay Cameron of the Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He pointed to part of the Manitoba ruling in which the judge found that in permitting limited expression on personalized plates, the regulator had authorized a new location where free expression is entitled to protection \u2014 a finding Jamieson noted and disagreed with in her ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cameron also noted that Jamieson \u201cbasically ignored\u201d the fact that Grabher had been issued the plate for nearly 30 years without objections being raised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhat is the rationale for giving a bureaucrat the authority to take away the expression of somebody\u2019s last name, when for 27 years it hasn\u2019t caused a problem before?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Free Speech is a great ideal, but not in Canada. Our social justice warrior courts trample on our real rights all the time. A triggered feminist managed to squelch this man’s right to free expression.https:\/\/nationalpost.com\/news\/nova-scotia-court-says-mans-rights-not-infringed-when-grabher-plate-was-revoked Man’s rights weren’t violated when … Continue reading
The Canadian Press<\/a>Keith Doucette<\/p>\n\n\n\n January 31, 2020 HALIFAX \u2014 A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge has dismissed a claim by a man who says the province infringed on his freedom of expression when it revoked a licence plate personalized with his surname \u2014 Grabher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Nova Scotia plate Lorne Grabher had for nearly 30 years was revoked in 2016 by the province\u2019s Registrar of Motor Vehicles after the agency received a complaint from a woman who said it promoted hatred toward women.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a 50-page decision released Friday, Justice Darlene Jamieson said there is no constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression in a government-owned, personalized licence plate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judge said licence plates are not \u201cpublic spaces\u201d with a history of free expression, adding she doesn\u2019t believe people expect unlimited access to free expression on them. The fact the government has allowed limited access to the space does not make it a public space, she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However Jamieson said her ruling should not be taken to imply there is anything wrong with Grabher\u2019s name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis decision is not about whether Mr. Grabher\u2019s surname is offensive \u2014 it is not,\u201d she wrote. \u201cThe decision is not intended in any way to diminish the importance of Mr. Grabher\u2019s surname or the pride that Mr. Grabher and his family take and should take in their name and heritage.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jamieson said the registrar recalled the plate because the seven letters \u201cGRABHER\u201d could be interpreted as a socially unacceptable statement without the benefit of further context that license plates can\u2019t provide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe primary function of a licence plate is not expression but is identification and regulation of vehicle ownership,\u201d Jamieson wrote. \u201cA licence plate by its very nature is a private government space.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jamieson said Grabher failed to establish that the registrar\u2019s decision limited his equality rights and concluded its decision to revoke the plate was justified under provincial motor vehicle regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is the rationale for giving a bureaucrat the authority to take away the expression of somebody’s last name <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Under the regulations, the registrar can refuse to issue personalized licence plates if the proposed combination of characters expresses or implies a word, phrase or idea that could be considered offensive or not in good taste.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Nova Scotia decision follows one in Manitoba last October when Queen\u2019s Bench Justice Sheldon Lanchberry ruled it was reasonable for Manitoba Public Insurance to revoke a Star Trek fan\u2019s ASIMIL8 plate after receiving a complaint that it was offensive to Indigenous people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lanchberry ruled it was reasonable to take back Nick Troller\u2019s plate, because the word is connected to the Indigenous experience and government policies of forced assimilation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Grabher declined to comment Friday when contacted by The Canadian Press, but his lawyer said the court ruling would be reviewed before deciding on a possible appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI think that there are a number of problematic aspects to it,\u201d said Jay Cameron of the Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He pointed to part of the Manitoba ruling in which the judge found that in permitting limited expression on personalized plates, the regulator had authorized a new location where free expression is entitled to protection \u2014 a finding Jamieson noted and disagreed with in her ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cameron also noted that Jamieson \u201cbasically ignored\u201d the fact that Grabher had been issued the plate for nearly 30 years without objections being raised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat is the rationale for giving a bureaucrat the authority to take away the expression of somebody\u2019s last name, when for 27 years it hasn\u2019t caused a problem before?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Free Speech is a great ideal, but not in Canada. Our social justice warrior courts trample on our real rights all the time. A triggered feminist managed to squelch this man’s right to free expression.https:\/\/nationalpost.com\/news\/nova-scotia-court-says-mans-rights-not-infringed-when-grabher-plate-was-revoked Man’s rights weren’t violated when … Continue reading
11:28 AM EST<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n