The Whatcott decision does many things at the level of "just words." For instance, the Court in Whatcott spends a great deal of time and attention giving a meaning to the word "hatred" within the law. Moreover, in terms of its implications, it endorses using the power of law to control what words people can say and write in public. Using the insights of Michel Foucault and/or other theorists from term 2, answer this question: what does the Whatcott decision reveal about how power operates in contemporary law?