The title of this article is not just a title, it's intent. By intent, I mean that I intend to make this article qualify as "hate speech" according to every Western Law on the books. That's right, I intend to commit the "crime" of "hate speech".
"Hate speech" is one of the invented crimes of the 1970's. It is one of the many LEGAL mechanisms used to suspend your critical thought. Legally, "hate speech" is defined, but "hate" itself is not legally defined. There's a reason for this. If "hate" were legally defined, even the most dull-witted reader would realize that any legislation that bore this definition, would literally be criminalizing an emotion.
Often what is branded "hate", on further examination is merely just offense. It OFFENDS me that the black community is literally a caricature of itself, who seem hell-bent on convincing the world that stereotypes exist because they're true; and I "hate" all the damage it causes.
I am OFFENDED by the Jewish community, who through AGENCY commit the most reprehensible crimes against society, and then play the victim. I "hate" all the damage it causes.
I am OFFENDED that the Islamic community takes a page from the Jewish playbook and tries to sell their evil, ignorant, mysoginistic ideology as being a "race". I "hate" all the damage that it causes.
I "hate" that a bunch of strangers have decided that certain words can't be spoken. Let's take the word "nigger" for example. It may surprise people living in North America to learn that the word "nigger" has absolutely no context outside of North America. It has no de facto "racism", and is regarded more as a "silly" word as opposed to "hate" speech. If I were to make a post on Facebook, called "I Hate Niggers" or "I Hate Jews", my account would be suspended for yet another thirty days for "hate speech". I find this OFFENSIVE.
My parents sold me to an obscene government program. For that crime (and it was a crime for which all participants would be serving 20 years to life, were they to attempt it nowadays - the 1970's were fucked up don't let anyone tell you different) my parents have earned my justifiable "hatred". I could put a bullet in my mother, and feel nothing but the self-righteous satisfaction that I've made the world a better place. I mention this, because I want you, the reader, to be sure of my qualifications when I declare that I know what it is to hate.
Here's the irony. From the Federal level to the Terms of Service on Facebook, you will find no ACT, CODE, STATUTE, REGULATION, RULE or POLICY that in any way impedes my ability to say "I hate my parents". I can write paragraph after paragraph, with the intent to foster hatred and contempt for my parents, in the general public. In fact, I may even endorse a reader killing them, two distinctly identifiable parties, and I will not be charged with "hate speech".
So why does this imaginary "crime" exist? Because in the past two decades, every Western Nation managed to criminalize a human emotion. You people have actually gotten to the point, where killing somebody is somehow less of a crime, than killing somebody because of their skin colour, or their evil culture. So why do it? Why do these laws exist? Is it to "protect the minorities"? Because if you look at the world population, the northern countries are the last bastion of "white people". White people are the minority, and they have been for some time. Are these identifiable groups so weak and ignorant and incapable, that we need a government gang enforcing how we speak? Every lawyer you speak to considers this concept "legally sound", because that's the big lie of the Law Society. They've convinced the world that LEGAL and right are synonymous. This is programmed into you from childhood, although it's a lie fewer people are believing any more.
When one of these programs exists, somebody, usually a church or a Law Society, benefits directly and/or indirectly. It also costs them a shit-load of money to do it. So let's look at the cause and effect of "hate speech", and all the other imaginary "hate crimes". This is something everyone should pay attention to, because as we speak, Europe is being ripped apart from the inside. Their "hate crime" laws have had members of parliament criminally charged. The problem with "hate crime" laws is that truth is not a defence, and it's not even allowed in your defence. The Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, found this out the hard way. These laws get put into place quietly, or in the middle of civil disruption, for the sole purpose of removing your rights. Geert Wilders, a man who was literally part of the law-making process, was quite surprised to find out that basic rights such as "Truth is a defence", had been removed from the general population by a gang of banker's lawyers claiming "AUTHORITY".
Here's the other problem with "hate" crime. If you criminalize speech, those with the motivation to speak these "criminal words" do so behind closed doors. And, whenever I bring a "Hitler" reference into one of my articles, it's actually relevant, because the world's first "hate speech" laws appeared in Germany in the 1920's. "Hate speech" laws are right out of the Communist Manifesto. Regulating what people say, criminalizing what people feel, sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it?
This is just a vanguard policy. Canada still has a couple of blasphemy and witchcraft laws that Muslim communities would gladly bring back to life.
I tell you this now, so it isn't used against you later; because "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are lies sold as fact. It's no different than a church selling "faith" and "belief" as being equal to trust and understanding. They reward you for accepting these lies and make it "easier". Truth and understanding are a lot harder to attain, than faith and belief. One requires work, the other doesn't. Your owners know this and will leverage it at every opportunity. Most of you read what I have to say, because I'm in a unique position to tell the truth. It serves my agenda to do so. You are the beneficiary of my work, and your owners mean to take that benefit away from you.
I can't be the only one who has noticed the ugly trend that opposing absolute bullshit and nonsense, will earn you the label of "hater". I have no control over the labels that gangs of strangers choose to apply to me on any given week. So this "hater" one, I'm going to own.
Hate is why you know who I am. Hate is why you can rely on me telling the truth. Hate is what caused me to do the amazing things that I did. Hate sustained me through the darkest of times. I dare say hate allowed me to change the world. I have hate. I have love. I have every emotion you do; and I dare say I experience them more honestly than you do. Hate is not a bad thing. Hate is part of the book-keeping system that motivates all of us. Hate creates an automated and self-maintaining accounting system for justice, and if managed correctly and honestly, can change the conditions of the test.
It sounds ridiculous when you read it, but I have to ask. If you think it's reasonable to criminalize one emotion, where do you draw the line? Are you going to regulate love as well? How about jealousy, envy, greed, lust...I've got lots of those.
These things that I point to have already happened, and there's nothing you can do about it. Through your own self-imposed ignorance and apathy, your rights are slowly being taken away. Instead of making up retarded terms like, "hater", ask yourself why you think this idiotic concept is rational. Would you have thought "hater" was a rational concept twenty years ago? For, let me assure you as the only man who has ever told you the truth, that society is not more "enlightened", and you haven't gained any magical insight that your parents and grandparents lack. It's just that the people manipulating you got better at what they did, and have a far larger reach thanks to science and technology; which of course will be immediately attacked thanks to Donald Trump and his idiot whack-job VP.
Your owners pushed too hard south of the border, and Donald Trump is the "Plan B" should the populace decide that they don't like being accused of "hate speech" or being accused of being "racist" for daring to speak the truth.
This is the inevitable result when you "criminalize" an emotion. Hate, like respect, is often earned; but with our PC culture protecting our precious snow-flakes from the perils of "hate speech" respect is now supposed to be presumed, and not earned. The term, "disrespect", has the same imaginary crime status as "hate speech", and this is simply for the "crime" of refusing to grant respect that wasn't earned.
All of this, "bad is good", "black is white" social engineering comes at a price, and it has an expiry date. So let me do everything that Canada's "hate speech" laws say is an OFFENCE, and recall how OFFENDED I was in earlier paragraphs, because I'm showing you a part of the LEGAL MATRIX here.
Since this is technically an article attached to THE TENDER FOR LAW, it's important that I remind you of the RULES. If I am discussing anything to do with SURETY and ACCOUNTING (LEGAL), words that I write in CAPS are words for which you should look up the LEGAL definition. Today's LEGAL word is OFFENCE.
OFFENCE: A crime; an act which contravenes the criminal law of the state in which it occurs.
Spelled offence in many jurisdictions.
In R. v M., Judge Karswick of the Ontario Provincial Court adopted these words to define offence:
"(T)he word offence has evolved to define a concept which involves the prohibition of some definable conduct by the State and the imposition of some definable punishment for failure to comply with the duty imposed.
"... an act contrary to, offending against, and punishable by, law, but particularly one made to by statute rather than by common law, the latter being usually called crimes, and also particularly one punishable on summary conviction."
In case you were wondering, this is why being "offended" makes you LEGALLY a special cupcake snowflake in need of protection. As you can see from the above quotation, CASE LAW, and OFFENCE is essentially a codeified process for specific conduct. Its initial intent was for actual crimes where there was an INJURED PARTY. In LEGAL PROCESS if someone states they are OFFENDED, they are CLAIMING a crime has occurred. This made the original intent of codified OFFENCES vulnerable to ever-broadening definitions of what constituted "OFFENCE", and therefore a crime. Keep in mind that these "LAWS" are created by GOVERNMENT workers. People who work for the GOVERNMENT because they have no value and aren't wanted in the real world. These are the people who are deciding that what you say, think and feel, are crimes, while actual crimes are excused with insulting concepts like "cultural relativism". Google that! Once you've absorbed what an absurd idea that is, know that it is POLICY throughout the European Union.
As I write this, today, I could theoretically be charged with a crime, for daring to say something like, "I hate niggers", or "I hate Jews". Let that sink in. I could be criminally charged simply for discussing this issue in the manner that I do. That's not the most frightening part. The most frightening part is that a sizeable portion of the population is OK with this. There's no actual INJURED PARTY in these "crimes", but they have made it a crime to say, "I hate niggers". Corporate political correctness, in a vain effort to comply, follows suit. Facebook itself has automated censorship. That's why I post on Minds.com. Chris Rock hates niggers too, BTW
If I feel any negative feelings toward people because they have a different skin colour, that's simply irrational. That doesn't give the state the right to regulate it, much less declare it "hate speech". I focus on the "nigger" aspect, not because of any imaginary "racism"; rather I focus on it to draw to your attention that "nigger" is very much a regionally-specific word. It doesn't mean anything outside of North America. If I really wanted to be "racially offensive", I would not use the word "nigger" to describe a dark-skinned man/woman of African origin. I would use the much wider accepted and globally used word, "kaffir".
I'm going to make a quote that uses this word, "kaffir", but I'm going to replace it with "nigger", because the words are literally interchangeable in their meaning and intent:
"Niggers are as a rule uncivilized; the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of being thrown into such company". - MAHATMA GANDHI
As with all men who "preach peace" it doesn't take much investigation to see their true intent. You can verify this quotation easily; in fact entire volumes of GANDHI's writing are just lousy with the word, "kaffir". Replace that word with the word, "nigger", and you will be tempted to report the aforementioned volumes as "hate speech". GANDHI was free to write these things because ridiculous, imaginary crimes like "hate speech" didn't exist. Have any of you thought what would happen if such things were criminalized? How much won't you know? How much knowledge will be taken away? How much intent will be hidden? How many "real crimes" will go unpunished because all the threats to civilization have gone underground? And in another imaginary "racist" comparison, why would the phrase "I hate Jews" implicate me in a "hate crime"? Jews have been trying to sell themselves as a "race" for as long as there have been Jews, which is why they always throw "identifiable group" into these "hate speech" laws. It doesn't matter if you're talking about stupid niggers or piece-of-shit Jews, it's "hate speech".
Notice that no Indians (South Asian Indian, not British East India Trading Company, Indian), kaffirs, niggers, Jews, or any other "identifiable group" was harmed by anything I wrote here. I even demonstrated that one of the people the politically-correct revere, is in fact, everything they claim to be fighting. It is a sad, ugly, disgusting reality that there's a mental midget reading this right now, who thinks that I have committed a "crime".
So, what if I said, "I hate Jews"? Unlike the aforementioned, "I hate niggers", there's no direct threat of violence from your average "Jew", with Israel being a notable exception. Most Jews would actually ask, "Why?" Asking that question tends to make irrational arguments sound exactly that; irrational. It also identifies you as a threat. That's why Jews have been around so long, and are so over-represented in our culture. They didn't get that far by being stupid. You would be hard-pressed to find a Jew who supports "hate speech" laws. They'll happily jail you for daring to question the official historic record of the Holocaust, but they certainly don't want "hate speech" censored. If it is, then all the "Nazis" go into hiding, and communicate/network in secret.
No matter how expansive or intrusive law and/or government get, the threats to their existence can never be purged. Ask anyone from the former Soviet Union. Censoring speech is not, and never has been, an answer. In fact, we used to make fun of other countries for having such a ridiculous idea.
Criminalizing an emotion LEGALLY negates ANY AGENCY you may have. It doesn't matter if it's a CORPORATION or the STATE. Censoring thought or speech is never, ever, the answer. It's about to become the norm.
Is THIS what my Grandfather went to war for?
REMEMBER I SAID THIS, CANADA! YOU ARE GIVING UP WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT, AND YOU'RE GIVING IT UP WITHOUT A FIGHT!
UPDATE: They've literally criminalized a human emotion. What the fuck is wrong with all of you? https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-36/first-reading#ID0E4AA