Jump to navigation
The problem is with the law itself that defines "hate speech" in a very poor way.
The problem is what is and what isn't hate speech is subject to the politics of the day.
Back in the early part of the last century, when Jews often held important roles in revolutionary and social democratic organizations, anti-semitism was perfectly acceptable.
Today, when there is an undeclared class war waged against the global south, anti-Islamic rhetoric is acceptable as Islam is used substituted for ideological role of, say, communism.
Again, I suggest strongly to you, if Steyn's article targeted a different minority or religious group, Macleans would never have published the article, the rabid dogs of the right wing press would never have come to his defense, and a conviction would have been much more likely.