I dont care, you have something to say, say it, nobody should have authority over what you can or can not say.
That’s why i call myself a Free Speech Fundamentalist and not a “Cafeteria Free Speechelist” 
Why?
This guy should just claim that his anti-Semitic beliefs are part of his religious faith. If he’s prosecuted for it, then the Canadian government is guilty of genocide by its own definition of the term.
On the other hand, if the government decides that “imprisonment” doesn’t qualify as “genocide,” then after this guy serves his sentence, by adjusting his message only slightly he can legally advocate that the Jews all be imprisoned.
He is only representative of himself.(and maybe Palin). Blaming the Jews is wrong.
Seems like the guy defending his being in a fight by saying “it’s not my fault ,he kept hitting me in the fist with his face”.
A bit of a pedantic hijack:
If you are an atheist, then you have at least one belief: Atheism. To believe not-X is as much of a belief as believing in X. Also I’d bet that you have plenty of beliefs about morality, the social good or harm religion causes, the historical origins of religion and other things, all of which are strongly informed by your atheism. To give one example I’ve seen on this board, “As an atheist I believe this life is the only one we have therefore I’d say I value life more strongly than a theist.”
IANAL but I am almost positive that if charges were brought on the basis of hate propaganda against atheists it would proceed in the same way as if it had been hate propaganda against a particular religion.
I think there would be even a stronger possibility that a case to read protection for atheists into the provisions against religious discrimination in the Charter of Rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the provincial human rights code would succeed. In fact, I’d be surprised if they even had to argue to set that precedent.
because.
No, seriously, because, to me, certain rights are unalienable, between them freedom of speech, freedom of thought and internet access (still working on that last one)
}
Umm, but then not believing in elves makes you a believer in aElfism?, if so, i am an aElfist, aGodzilist, aPerpetualMotionist, aAtlantisist, etc, etc.
Not sure if i am an aSantaClausist though, those gifts have to come from somewhere.
It seems to me that lack of belief in something can not called a belief in not-something without making the word “belief” meaningless.
You’re wrong. Now, shut up. 
Actually, I agree with you in theory. I believe that Hate Speech should only be a crime when it passes the line to conspiracy; that is, “Go blow up that building full of Others because they are evil.” Ahenaskew, as far as I know, did not cross that line.
However, I also believe that people should be informed, think, use some logic, show some compassion, and not be damned fools who allow those in power to use the politics of division against them. (Ahenaskew appears to not know that line even exists.)
People seem to be losing the ability to do that. People seem to me to being increasingly willing to believe that groups have certain innate characteristics, and to put the worst interpretation on sub-cultural differences.
I am not just talking about sexism, racism, and political parties; people, even here, seem determined to view any difference in opinion or even point of view as justification for aggression, and even violence. Perhaps I grew up in a weird little backwater of tolerance, but things seem much worse in the past quarter century or so.
So, while it might seem that accusing some looney old man who spent more of his life working, and working for others (if not Others), than reading a bit of history and actually thinking, of a crime for his ignorance is unwarranted, we may need to draw a new line.
The question is, can our leaders be better trusted not to abuse power, than we can be not to abuse freedom?
Quite likely, although if he were a member of a larger religion with anti-Semitic beliefs, that would take care of that. Technically I suppose that such a “religion” would have to be recognized as such by the Canadian government in order for that defense to work, but that shouldn’t be too difficult. Hell, most stripes of Christianity would probably fill the bill.
Of course it is. The question here is, “Should it be illegal to be wrong?”
Actually I think it’s more like a guy defending some other guy being in a fight with that argument. Defending Hitler’s genocide does not actually kill any more Jews.
come! come see the violence inherent in the system!!!.
Of course not believing in Elves is a belief. Same with Godzilla or Santa Claus. Why wouldn’t they be? The statement “I don’t believe in X” is equivalent to the statement “I believe X does not exist.” Not believing in Elves is much less controversial than not believing in God, as almost no one does believe in elves, so we don’t use a special word for it, but yes you are an a-elfist. Though I’d call it aneraidism to keep the languages consistent.
I can somewhat comprehend (but not condone) the extreme “hate speech” laws that exist in places like Germany, which suffered so much due to Nazism. There’s far less excuse for Canada to get into the act. Unfortunately, contempt for free speech has precedents in earlier cases like this one:
“And don’t forget that no less an authority than Canada’s own Louise Arbour, former UN high comissioner of human rights, wrote in response to a complaint about the publication of those famous Danish cartoons “I find alarming any behaviours that disregard the beliefs of others. This kind of thing is unacceptable.” And remember that when the cartoon controversy exploded into violence, Ms. Arbour’s office stated that the UN “deplored” the publication of the cartoons and was “equally concerned” by the threats and bloodshed that followed. Got that? Publishing cartoons that offend a religion is an offence on par with riot and murder.”
Note that the linked column discusses a U.N. General Assembly vote calling on all nations to alter their laws and constitutions to prohibit “defamation of religion”*. Where does this craziness end?
*note that this proposal and at least one earlier resolution of this type was passed by the U.N. over the negative votes of countries like Canada, the U.S. and the U.K.
Technically, that would be ‘aggression’.
Not sure if he’s the right age, but was Ahenakew by any chance raised in a Catholic residential school?
Hey, the Jews shouldn’t have assassinated Archduke Ferdinand at Pearl Harbor if they didn’t want to be accused of starting WWII.
You are wrong, but continuing to argue this is more of a hijack than we should be getting into. I think we should continue this in another thread. In fact we can probably find several on the exact same subject. The I can say, you are wrong see post 58 why, and you can say, but post 58 didn’t take into account those items in post 63 – whaddya say to that?, and I can say Post 79 back at ya. 
If the jews had organized armies and defeated Hitler ,WW2 would have not happened. It is their fault.
And gonzomax was never allowed to visit Canada again. The End.
“Hate speech” laws terrify the fuck out of me.