Rob Wells is an anti-Christian bigot. That’s fine — Canada is a free country, and people are free to be bigots, just as long as they don’t get violent about it. Hate isn’t against the law. (Well, actually it is, under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. But no-one has ever been charged under that law for saying anything anti-Christian. It has only been used against Christians. And, while we’re on the subject, not a single Muslim has been charged under that law, either.)
Wells has filed a series of complaints with Canada’s human rights commissions, trying to bully Christians into silence. He’s sued the Christian Heritage Party. He’s sued Catholic Insight, a magazine. As usual, Wells doesn’t have to pay a penny for this persecution — the government happily provides the investigators and lawyers to do so.
Do you see, Ezra? No one will ever be charged with hate crimes against Christians or whites. It’s definitionally impossible for hate to be directed against those “Bible-thumping crackers”. Here’s what I mean.
Early this month, the BC Civil Liberties Union intervened in the MacLean’s case at the BC Human Rights Tribunal. Part of their submission was a restatement of the Collins Test. Without getting into the background, here is what the BCCLU said:
… Furthermore, the Collins test takes the following three non-exclusive factors into consideration: (1) the content of the expression (what was said?); (2) the tone (how was it said?); and (3) the vulnerability of the target group (about whom was it said?).
That last one – the ‘vulnerability’ bit, that’s telling. You see, not all groups are protected from hate speech in BC, just ‘vulnerable’ groups. Who defines which groups are vulnerable and which are not? – why of course, the BCHRT. Based on what? Lord knows. Here’s the best guess – if a group was persecuted anywhere in the world by white Christians (though not necessarily in Canada) then they are ‘vulnerable’.
In the words of the BCHRT in relation to Jewish Canadians:
that Jews are “an historically disadvantaged group that has endured persecution on the largest scale.” The existence and expression of anti-Semitism in Canada and elsewhere, both past and present, is beyond doubt.
Elsewhere in the past – in their own words.
EXIT Thingy: Ever read the Collins decision? Here’s the best quote from it: “It is, in my view, untenable to suggest that freedom is co-extensive with the absence of government. Experience shows the contrary, that freedom has often required the intervention and protection of government against private action.”
They’re saving us from ourselves!?
Filed under: Politics , Atheism, Canada, free speech, Politics, Religion
[...] ROBERT JAGO: “Free speech for thee …”.. “Do you see, Ezra? No one will ever be charged with [...]
Actually Rob if you read the definitions submitted in the OHRC review paper “white” is defined not as a “race” but as the oppressive majority culture…we assume that oppressing “culture” includes the religious dogma of Caucasoid northern European extraction. (if you think this HRC race theorizing sounds a lot like the whacky race theorizing Hitler’s eugenics “experts” did, you’d be right)
At any rate, reading between the lines in the HRC policy docs, an oppressor cannot be oppressed or discriminated against. So Christian badhing is fair game just like WASP bashing and partisan right bashing….discrimination is a one way street under the current HRC administration.
It all hinges on these commissions defining their own mission and stereotyping/defining every thing through pure marxist baffle gab and dystopian group identity politics formulated in a non objective vacuum.
The pith and substance of HRC ethos is guilt assignment by political abstractive decree.
[ deleted. over the line.]