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…
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.
I think in that moment, I glimpsed what made Ian Fine tick: he has drunk the anti-hate industry’s Kool Aid without a drop of skepticism. I think he genuinely thought, just for a moment, that I was serious when I said he was a bad man for having said the word n*gger, even in the context of anti-racism. I think he’s been immersed in a groupthink environment, with zealots, where diversity of opinion, let alone criticism, is non-existent. I think he genuinely believes that his little anti-hate squad is saving Canada from turning into an Arctic version of Rwanda.
I think that’s why he froze up when I pressed him on Richard Warman’s online bigotry — it just didn’t compute for him; it doesn’t make sense in his unified theory of the world. I think it’s why he’s in denial about the hacking charges. I think it’s why he was silent when I pointed out that, without Warman’s serial complaints, section 13 would fall into disuse — surely a sign that Canada is not beset with the problems for which he offers himself as the solution.
I think it’s a bit of a cult over there, and for thirty years no-one has dared to question them — and the past four months has been terrible.
Remember, this is the same species of jackoffs Mark Steyn is due to face at his tribunal June 2, which takes place here:
170 – 605 Robson Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5J3
(604) 775-2000 phone
(604) 775-2020 faxBCHumanRightsTribunal@gov.bc.ca
Now if only I could think of a way to ship bile crosscountry via Canada Post…
