So here’s what we’re up against:
a delusional, misinformed (possibly lying) dork who makes his very cushy living sucking the government teat, pronouncing that we need to outlaw hatred.
Screw you, bub.
No hating child molesters? Rapists? Tyrants? The 9/11 terrorists? That guy in the Apple ads?
What’s the point of living?
Oh wait, that IS the point: perpetuating the Trudeaupian dytopia that pays this guy’s very generous salary, benefits and retirement package. A job in which he and his friends get to post “hate speech” on the internet — but the rest of us don’t…
Read More...At another point in the debate, I tried to show the absurdity of banning any hateful words through a law that doesn’t permit legal defences like truth, fair comment or even common sense. I pointed out that Fine himself had given an interview with the National Post in which he read out a bigoted remark, namely: “a n*gger will try to kill you just for a slice of pizza or a piece of chicken … By Aryan standards, negroes are dangerous animals”.
Fine read that to show the kind of hate the CHRC wants to fight. But that explanation, which is reasonable, is not a legal defence. I jokingly said to Fine that, since he uttered a comment that is “likely” to expose someone to “hatred or contempt”, I should file a section 13 complaint against him. I said it unseriously — I was pointing out the ridiculously arbitrary and overreaching nature of the law. But — and I’ll want to check this again on CPAC — he actually looked ashen when I said it, as if he agreed with me that he had broken the law, and was ashamed of it.
