Liberty lovers were given cause to celebrate this week when a Toronto judge dismissed a complaint by aboriginal activist Douglas Cardinal to block broadcast of the Cleveland Indians' name and logo by Rogers.
The ruling--handed down just three hours before first pitch at the Indians-Blue Jays game--is the most desirable outcome, but the case isn't over just yet.
In addition to Cardinal's request for an emergency injunction, which triggered Monday's hearing, the activist also filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
This could mean trouble.
Unlike courts, which generally adhere to the rule of law and judicial precedent, human rights commissions and tribunals are unconcerned with constitutional freedoms like those of association and expression.
The debate was never about whether the Cleveland Indians team bears an offensive name or mascot, but whether such a thing is against the law. It isn't--except for possibly in the make-it-up-as-you-go human rights codes.
Even though Cardinal's complaint in court was dismissed, his human rights complaint could still proceed--and likely will, if past cases are any indication.
We've seen human rights tribunals rule against freedom and with the offended class on a number of occasions--including recently when comedian Guy Earle was fined for hurting the feelings of lesbian hecklers.
Though this week's ruling is a good one, it's far too early for a victory lap.