hate speech – Presumablyanxious not to trigger an argument about the

presumably
anxious not to trigger an argument about the constitutionality of section 10 of
pepuda, which would have hardly achieved the purpose of the case, namely to
uphold the complaint, counsel for the human rights commission disavowed
reliance on section 10 and argued that the speech fell within the scope of section
16 of the constitution and thus was not protected because of the operation of section
16(2) presumably
anxious not to trigger an argument about the constitutionality of section 10 of
pepuda, which would have hardly achieved the purpose of the case, namely to
uphold the complaint, counsel for the human rights commission disavowed
reliance on section 10 and argued that the speech fell within the scope of section
16 of the constitution and thus was not protected because of the operation of section
16(2)