Hate crime laws have been used for years in Canada to suppress the extremely rare instances of right-wing hate you might find in Canada (when I say rare, I'm talking about maybe a couple dozen people in a country of about 30 million). The entire weight of the Canadian state is brought to bear on some losers, typically owners of 'neo-Nazi' websites containing Holocaust denial, sites seen by a handful of people at most. From a practical point of view, completely harmless ranting.
I've got nothing against hate crime laws if their application is:
- handled by the courts (and limited by the prosecutorial discretion of the attorney-general), and not the creepy 'star chamber' human rights commissions, which seem hell-bent on breaking every protection against self-incrimination normally provided to other defendants, and are so slanted in favor of prosecution that they resemble something out of the Middle Ages;
- constrained by a consideration of the supremacy of freedom of speech; and
- strictly limited to situations similar to calling 'fire' in a crowded theater, i. e., situations where the hater is calling for violence based on the hate and that violence has a likelihood of occurring as a result thereof (which excludes almost all the cases in Canada, but did happen, for example, before the violence in Rwanda).
The National Post loved hate crime laws when they were used against Holocaust revisionists. Now that they are starting to be used against the haters who talk about 'Islamofascism' - i. e., people who are engaged in Bibi Netanyahu's 'war on terror' and are using 'Islamofascism' as part of the Zionist hate war against Muslims - the Post has suddenly discovered a taste for 'free speech'.
This amazing column by Jonathan Kay (Google cached here), easily one of the worst of the Post writers, goes so far as to refer to the alleged Warman incident. This is so unexpected I can hardly believe it, and I actually wonder if Kay will be employed by the Post next week (Warman is one of the stars of the Jewish Billionaires, a Gentile who helps them hype the Holocaust in their ongoing war to steal land in the Middle East).
We can't forget that all of these incidents are about the exercise of power. Those in control of the media are using propaganda in order to fight various battles, in this case the battle to dispossess the Palestinians and others of their land. Free speech has very little to do with it. The same issue, seemingly (but not really) in reverse, is going on - again! - in Denmark with respect to the anti-Muslim cartoons, where 'free speech' is being used as an instrument of oppression by the anti-immigrant crowd. Hate crimes legislation is hardly ever used against people with power (if it is, you hear the screams of people like Kay), and freedom of speech is often just a cover for the usual abuse of power by the only people who have real freedom of speech, those who own the mass media.