We vaccinated our way into this mess and we'll damn well vaccinate our way out of it. And we sure as hell won't let those misogynistic racist science-denying party-pooping anti-vaxxers get in our way. Say, have you ever noticed that those clowns take up space? We'll have to decide whether to tolerate that or not.
Vive les vaxxed libres!
Hate crime? Whaddaya mean, hate crime? You can't commit a hate crime against enemies of the State! Et l'état, c'est moi! So don't talk to me about sec. 319—to hell with sec. 319! Anyway, I'm busy. I've got truckloads of Pfizer vials to unload. And you paid for them.
“This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?”
Editorial Note
What is not in quotation marks is, well, not in quotation marks. Let's call it interpretive, on my part, but view the video for yourself. According to the The Western Standard, Maxime Bernier summed up his own interpretation in two words: "fascist psychopath."
As for sec. 319, which was not remarked on in the interview or in the reporting, but has been introduced by yours truly, here it is verbatim. Subsection 2 seems to fit well enough, and can’t be saved by 3(c) despite the low bar for “reasonable” in Blackface’s case, but subsection 6 looks like redemption, all right:
319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
o (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
o (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
· Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
o (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
o (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
· Marginal note:Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
o (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
o (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
o (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
o (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
· Marginal note:Forfeiture
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
· Marginal note:Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
· Marginal note:Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
I hope you don't mind me recounting a recent exchange. Here goes:
I had a conversation with a 2x, soon to be 3x vaxxed friend recently. It was a pleasant enough conversation and since she has been one of my few vaxxed friends with whom I can talk about covid to some rational extent I took the opportunity last night to ask her just a few questions about things she brought up: 1) you are vaxxed and protected, according to her, so what do you have to fear from the unvaxxed? 2) if you are very concerned about using prescription medication (she uses blood pressure pills including diuretic) why are you not concerned about these shots? She could not answer either question, she just spoke of 'wanting to be safe' and 'this is my decision'. Even when I asked again, 'what makes you feel unsafe around the unvaxxed' and 'why do you so very readily trust the shots', same non answer. There is a level and mix of fear and brainwashing that makes people like my friend cocoon themselves in whatever beliefs are required to protect their fragile psyches. Show them facts, truth but if it threatens their safety, they'll still be blind to it.
I don't know how to get through.
When the PM speaks hatefully as he does, it only encourages people like my friend. In these comments, I refer to 2 different people. I don't fear people like this friend, but I do fear people who have no problem wishing evil to others as I described below. What happens when the start acting on those wishes?
This is one reason why I am not completely against vaccine passports/segregation. I wonder who will get blamed for all the trouble when the vaxxed only associate among themselves; this is something I'm actually starting to see now.
I was asking myself this. Isn't he engaging in textbook hate speech? Can't a lawsuit be brought against him? This from a man who not only dressed as Blackface on a couple of occasions but was accused of sexual harassment but he's going to without evidence or logic assert unvaccinated people are racist and misogynistic? Who buys this nonsense and garbage? Sounds like projection to me. This kind of gaslighting and maniacal rhetorical hysterics is getting a little to troubling for my taste.
We can add to the 'fascist psychopath' part mentally ill. Mental illness runs in his family (I believe his mother is bi-polar) and it is sometimes genetic so it's not a stretch to presume Justin is suffering from some form of mental illness. I can't see how this kind of talk is possible otherwise - or even tolerated by Canadians. Their silence is equally disturbing but that's for another topic of discussion.