Thank you for linking to this excellent article. It is definitely more equal than others.

I am a doubleplusungood duckspeaker, as I unbellyfeel cansoc. Will this mean a trip before the HRCs for re-education from Big Brother?

is it a hate crime to hate the Human Rights Commissions ?

Is it any wonder George Jonas understands Canadian Human Rights 'free speechers'?
He fled from a communist regime from Hungary with an advanced notion of "Communist speech" many decades ago.

While Jonas puts his usual poetic language to the issue,the fact is, what he speaks is deadly serious truth, as it currently relates to Canada.
Take heed folks, these bastard HRC's as they currently operate are a fascist arm of government right now.

In Canada, I feel like I'm in a TV series.

If you can't freely state that you hate something, then, speech is not free.

If our government asserts that the only words you are allowed to utter are those that offend no-one, then, speech is not free.

As pointed out, there is no need to protect speech that doesn't offend, that doesn't cause disagreement, that doesn't raise questions.

There is a vital need, however, to protect all of the above.

As for hate speech that results in actual violence, that's covered in Section 319 of the Criminal Code. And importantly, the code says:

"Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:

are established to be true
were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true
were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject
were expressed in good faith, it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada"

So, truth is a defense. However, in our HRC fictional world, truth isn't a defense. Furthermore, there need be No Actual Experience of Being Hated or Offended in our HRC decision. Got that? No-one actually needs to have been affected by your speech. No-one. The criterion is only that a complainant says that 'someone' at some future time 'is likely to feel hated or viewed with contempt'.

Is likely to. Not actually is.

Oh, and how one can empirically and factually link what you said or wrote to someone's claim that they 'feel offended' - well, that's another story. After all, Mr. X might very well 'feel hated' because..well, because he's done hateful things. Nothing to do with your article. Everything to do with his behaviour and his own speech.

As a rabid atheist, I find the whole thing very confusing.

I am allowed to insult Jesus, but not Mo?

I am allowed to insult RC priests, but not radical Imams?

I am allowed to go bats@#t over a guy who kills an abortion doctor, but not crazy terrorists who strap bombs to mentally retarded people?

I find the whole thing to be insane, and, therefore, I will insult any religion, any time, any place.

My original question still stands - can an atheist be considered a religious bigot when he finds that ALL religions are bizarre?

Just asking.

kingstonlad....#1...Islam IS NOT a religion.It is a murderous cult trying to bring down thinking humans. #2...Hell...I'm a Anglican...you CANNOT insult me or hurt me by saying "hateful" things,as I have faith in my religion...unlike Islamists. If your religion,whether Protestant,Catholic,or Atheist can't stand a few questions and truths,then it IS NOT a religion,but a doctrine/dogma.

Kingstonlad, to answer your questions:
yes
yes
yes
You'd probvably have to be considered an irreligious bigot :)

I hate Sushi.

Does that makes me a sushist?

Hey foobert...I hate bullshit. Am I a bullshitphobic?

A doubleplusgood column! George Jonas commits thoughtcrime as well as Mark Steyn!

I hate liberals.... is that a crime?

Freedom is the matrix in which prosperity is cultivated.

The quasi-judicial elite would deny us freedom, and thereby deny us prosperity.

I am surprised, frankly, that any leftist today could review the history of left-dominated regimes and think anything other than that the predominance of evidence demonstrates that leftist policies extinguish human activities that generate prosperity.

Addicted to entitlements to which they feel entitled, and having lost the neural connections whereby effort and risk are joined with reward, leftists will run the printing presses 24x7 to create hollow paper fiat prosperity, instead of recognizing that toil, and toil alone, is what creates wealth... the very wealth that funds their favorite social 'programs', such as free shoot-up locations, funds.

Get a grip on reality, lefties. Mom and Dad actually had to work for your allowance.

'The Just Society' - the one in which we all starve equally.

Freedom. Not just desirable. Necessary.

Only members of some satanic cult would consider committing hot chicks to a soup.

Seriously though, if a writer quotes someone in an ethnic group who says something like, ** we will multiply like mosquitoes and take over your country that way**, there is no need for CHRC intervention.

The statement comes from the *offended* group and merely suggests a simplistic idea.

If a writer dreams up that idea and wrongly states that it comes from a specific group in order to cast the group in a bad light, well then the intent could be seen as offensive.

The reputation of Macleans and writers who submit there tends to be true and honest for the most part.

The ABHRC seems to have an impossible task to prove that writer Steyn and Macleans magazine in any way intended to cultivate racial hatred.

Silly ABHRC. = TG

TG - "The ABHRC seems to have an impossible task to prove that writer Steyn and Macleans magazine in any way intended to cultivate racial hatred.

Not impossible at all. They don't have to "prove" anything, as truth is not a defence. If truth is not a defence, then no "proof" is possible, since truth is needed for a proof. All they can do is declare it so.

Reminds me of an old joke that circulated years ago about Microsoft as they continued to abuse the standards for inter-operability in their DOS:

"How many Microsoft software engineers does it take to change a lightbulb? Answer: none. Bill Gates will simply declare darkness to be the new standard."

I have the freedom to say that I do not want my children, or their children, or their grandchildren, to grow up as, or to become Muslim. I have the right to say that.

What meaning, then, from Steyn? I read the book, I read the article. The meaning I take away is, that if we wish to see our Western culture continue in future generations, we need to raise our birth rates.

No hatred, just advice.

The glass is half full. On what basis do the complainants and the extrajudicial elitists dare to tell me that my interpretation is wrong? There is no objective test. You - the complainants, the HRC - are wrong, and I am right.

*
hey... here's your "bellyfeel about crimethinkers"...

"He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free
work on county and city projects and save taxpayer's
money. Then he started chain gangs for women
so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination."

*

Ms. Lynch seems proud of being a free speecher as well as a human rightser, presumably because she considers it an achievement in doublethink, defined as holding two contradictory notions in one’s head.

That's called cognitive dissonance, a term that the lefties tend to fling about to discredit conservatives.

As usual, if you have questionable motives and can justify whatever means to a "noble" end (which of course never happens) the tactic is to accuse your opponents of doing exactly what you're trying to do.

The current MSM's lack of critical thinking sets up the ideal petri dish for this sort of nonsense.

I am reminded of my Mom telling me about an accusation from my younger brother - "Ma, he hit me back, no fair!"

Skip,

** Not impossible at all. They don't have to *prove* anything, as truth is not a defense. If truth is not a defence, then no *proof* is possible, since truth is needed for a proof. All they can do is declare it so. **
========
If this is allowed to become a standard in Canada then we have Chaos.

The same kind of Chaos the makes Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran so difficult to govern peaceably. = TG

All you need for proof in Canada is explained here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU

More to the point, I don't think anyone who has actually read Mark Steyn's book can classify it as hateful. His writing style makes a few points which are less than complimentary, but that's a far cry from hate.

A good example of Canadian lunacy are the wives of the Toronto ten who claimed to "hate Canada" and one in particular who would divorce her husband if he didn't participate in the jihad.

No, in Canada we don't go after traitors and terrorists, but we will harass authors for having an opinion.

Why are people who hate Canada being encouraged to come to this country? Why are they allowed to stay when we know how they feel about us? We need to boost the birthrate here in Canada, but we also need to stem the tide of unsuitable immigrants. Canada most certainly does not need more terrorist-sympathizing immigrants who hate our country.

in line with Patrick McGoohan.
I feel like I'm an observer of the "Green Slime" mixed with Invasion of the body snatchers, for now.

Kevin F asks,

** Why are people who hate Canada being encouraged to come to this country? Why are they allowed to stay when we know how they feel about us? **

Liberal appointed immigration officials may have preferences based on how certain groups are known to vote.

There are big populations of certain ethnic groups in South Vancouver, Surrey, Langley and Delta who unfailingly vote Liberal.

This is just a first hand observation and an opinion derived as such.

Anyone is welcome to tell me that I am flat out wrong about this, [ and explain why], but there is no grounds to call me a racist or poisonous as Ms. Eliadis may feel compelled to do. = TG

I think perhaps the best paragraph from Jonas' column is this one.

"In fairness, she isn’t alone. Propositions such as “colliding freedoms” and “competing human rights” have spawned complex schools of legal-political thought, extending across the political spectrum. The result is liberalism lobotomized. For the purpose of social engineering, we call human ambitions “human rights,” then enforce the first (“Boss, I want to be a foreman”) at the expense of the second (“Not in my shop, Miss”) to the point of absurdity until, in CHRC’s utopia, a human ambition called “Doctor, I want to be a woman” trumps a human right called “I only do necks and noses, sir.” Far fetched? There has already been an example."

Some things that are not really covered by human rights, as they are crushing someone else's rights and turning them into slaves, or in the case of Maclean's, a whole corporation is expected to be nationalized for an offense against a single complainant. Wouldn't this be a reasonable test to determine whether something should be considered a "right" or not?

Entitlements gone crazy.

The Little Red Hen is such a good story. It must have been out of print now for a very long time, but you would think that some people would still figure it out.

I had a high school teacher who told us that when we said we hated something, in our case something like geography or English Literature, it was most likely because we didn't understand it. You have to understand, however, that he was a left-wing socialist of the first order, and was therefore probably wrong about everything, but assuming he was by some stretch of the imagination right, maybe we should have a newspeak term called "Misunderstanding Crimes" for the mother-loving HRCs to kick around. That wouldn't be nearly so hateful, would it?