It Never Was About “Hate” — It Was Always Meant As a Gag on Nationalist Opinion

Federally-funded “anti-hate” group only covers hate from “extreme right,” founder says

[Cosmin Dzsurdzsa and the folks at True North may be surprised that the massively federally and BMO-funded Canadian Anti-Hate Network have had no time to denounce extremists and hateful comments from the left over the Israel-Hamas war because they were focused on the “extreme right”. We at CAFE are not surprised. The war on an emotion — hate — was never really about hate. It was about suppressing nationalist opinion and shielding Jews and privileged non-White minorities from serious criticism. The pernicious “hate law”, Sec. 318 & 319 of the Criminal Code were introduced by supposed civil libertarian Pierre Trudeau in 1971. In its sordid 52 year history, no Jew, no non-White, with the exception of Indian Chief David Ahenakew, was ever prosecuted for of convicted for hate. Thirty years of agitation by the Canadian Jewish Congress led to the stacked Cohen Commission on hate propaganda in 1965. This was a key year. In this year, dark forces were changing our immigration laws to eventually let in hordes from the Third World to replace Canada’s European founding/settler people That being the goal, they changed our flag from the Red Ensign which celebrated our European origins the the present rather vapid Pearson pennant. If you’re going to imposed the brazen flim flam of replacing the founding/settler people, you can anticipate some opposition. Hence, the speech suppressing hate” and similar provincial anti-free speech clones. Still, it’s refreshing to have Mr. Anti-hate Bernie Farber, a longtime operative of the former Canadian Jewish Congress admit that “anti-hate” is basically anti-White. — Paul Fromm

By Cosmin Dzsurdzsa – November 7, 2023 FacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsAppLinkedin

A federally-funded “anti-hate” organization says its relative silence on weeks of antisemitism has been because it only has the resources to focus on hate from the “extreme right.”

Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) founding chair Bernie Farber made the admission on X in response to a post criticizing the organization for its silence on the recent wave of antisemitism following a terrorist attack on Israelis.

“It’s been a month since the terrorist attack on Israelis. This is the first post from anti-hate since then. I know your views because I’ve grown up knowing you. But it’s not just me calling this out,” posted the user, Ariella Kimmel.  https://www.youtube.com/embed/9zsjNrOAuBk?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1

“Ariella, antihate.ca focuses on the extreme right. That is what it does. I wish we had the resources to do more. We just don’t,” replied Farber.

The organization has faced weeks of criticism for its sparse reporting on the ongoing anti-Israel protests engulfing Canada. 

Farber’s admission sparked a backlash on social media. True North’s Andrew Lawton criticized Farber’s selective focus.

“Canada’s leading anti-hate activist, Bernie Farber, says (CAHN’s) silence on a month of antisemitism has been because they only focus on the ‘extreme right.’ Thanks for admitting this is all coming from the left then, Bernie!”, posted Lawton. 

True North founder Candice Malcolm also joined in the criticism pointing to the fact that anti-Israel rallies across Canada were staged by the extreme left. 

“As Andrew Lawton points out, the boss over at ‘anti-hate’ let the cat out of the bag. The reason they’re not covering the anti-Israel hatefests throughout Canada is because those rallies are led by the Left (including Islamists) not the scary Right,” wrote Malcolm.

The accusations against CAHN come amid nationwide demonstrations by supporters of Hamas. Major anti-Israel demonstrations have been held in cities such as Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Montreal following Hamas’ attack on Israel.

Despite the rise in antisemitic incidents during these protests, CAHN has not published any reports or public comments on the threats faced by Jewish communities from the far-left specifically. 

The issue of antisemitism is not confined to Canada. In the United States, a 69-year-old Jewish man died following a confrontation with pro-Palestinian demonstrators in suburban Los Angeles. The Ventura County Sheriff’s Department is investigating the incident as a possible hate crime.

“Hate speech laws – Repeal them,” St. Mary’s Prof. Says

2015-01-09

“Hate speech laws – Repeal them,” St. Mary’s Prof. Says

One thing we should do to increase our physical safety is repeal our remaining laws against hate speech.

Isn’t that claim outlandish? It might seem obvious that if we want to protect ourselves, we should instead police expression even more vigorously than we do now, so that violent people will be less likely to see or hear something that sets them off.

Well, of course, we know that by giving in to the heckler’s veto, we simply create more hecklers, and more raucous hecklers, at that. So maybe stricter laws against expression isn’t the answer. But how could having no anti-hate laws help us?

I don’t mean to argue here for repealing our laws against the expression of hate on the grounds that they are anti-democratic, or that they deform public discourse, or that they are contrary to the ideal of the moral autonomy of the individual, though I think each of those arguments is sound. I mean to explain how the laws we currently live under, mild though some think them (though Arthur Topham or David Ahenakew would disagree), encourage the offended to take up violence.

Those who lash out physically against people who (they feel) have ridiculed or offended them are lashing out because they believe they have suffered an injustice. My argument is that laws against the expression of hate endanger us because they affirm and encourage that belief.

That is to say, countries that have laws against hate speech proclaim through their laws that some targets of expression are, indeed, victims of injustice. As victims of injustice, they are entitled to restitution through the punishment of their assailants.

The police and the courts don’t always get things right, of course. Someone has defamed you by attacking your religion, and so you complain to the officials, but the officials decide that the speech that offended you didn’t cross the line. But it did, you think; or the line wasn’t properly placed. You believe that you are a victim of injustice, an injustice, moreover, that the state refuses to rectify.

How many times was Charlie Hebdo investigated for violating France’s laws against the expression of hate? At least twice, and both times acquitted. What’s left to do but attack it yourself?

If, on the other hand, Canadians were truly to embrace freedom of expression, and get rid of our laws that censor or suppress expression, we would thereby say to the world that being mocked or ridiculed or subjected to expressions of hate is not to suffer an injustice. That you have been insulted, offended, or upset by something someone said does not make you a victim, and you are not entitled to restitution or compensation.

Repealing our laws against the expression of hate would make us safer by removing from our culture official affirmation of the thought that a person’s hurt feelings merit official concern. Removing that thought would weaken the desire to take the law into one’s own hands when the state refuses to come to one’s aid.

My argument is speculative in that it contains a premise about cause and effect for which I cannot cite adequate evidence. According to that premise, removing laws that imply that one who has been offended or demeaned can thereby be a victim of injustice will result in fewer people thinking they are victims of injustice. If that premise is true, then that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was committed in France by Frenchmen isn’t entirely a coincidence, for France has stronger laws against the expression of hate than most other European countries and enforces them regularly.

But why think that that premise is true? Empirical evidence would be needed to settle the question. All I can say in defence of it right now is that, generally, legal culture affects the mores and attitudes of the individuals who make up a society.

For reasons of safety, then (along with all the other reasons), let us not accommodate even in the slightest demands that people be silenced, no matter what they say or how hurt people are by what they say. That would take offence out of the realm of law and politics, and that would (probably, maybe) lessen the chance that the aggrieved will style themselves victims and their violence justice.

Mark Mercer is Professor of philosophy at Saint Mary’s University, Halifax. He can be reached by e-mail: mark.mercer@smu.ca