On not tolerating intolerance

It's the ultimate modern shibboleth. We've passed far beyond the quotation attributed (in The Friends of Voltaire, 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre) to Voltaire, that 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Now it runs 'I disapprove of what you say because it hurts my or someone else's feelings and I demand something be done to shut you up and make you pay!'.

'Hate Speech' is the new lucrative and exciting area for the state and the law(yers) in which to spread their tentacles. Saying hateful/hurtful words now appears to be a more serious crime, in terms of sentencing, than actual physical hurtful acts. Whatever happened to pointing and laughing at idiots as a way of dealing with their idiocy?

On 27 February 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court explained why expressions of intolerance are intolerable:

Hate speech is an effort to marginalize individuals based on their membership in a group. Using expression that exposes the group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimize group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group members. It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the groundwork for later, broad attacks on vulnerable groups that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, to genocide. Hate speech also impacts on a protected group’s ability to respond to the substantive ideas under debate, thereby placing a serious barrier to their full participation in our democracy. (h/t Reason)

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision that punishing a man for expressing disapproval of homosexuality is perfectly consistent with freedom of expression...subject to 'reasonable limits' upheld the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ruling against Bill Whatcott, who in 2001 and 2002 distributed flyers condemning the normalization of homosexuality in public schools. The  Tribunal ordered Whatcott to pay a $17,500 fine and to stop handing out anti-gay literature, citing a provincial law banning material that 'ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of' people based on various prohibited criteria, including sexual orientation. The Supreme Court concluded that two of Whatcott's flyers, headlined 'Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools!' and 'Sodomites in our Public Schools', were hateful enough to be banned:

Passages of these flyers combine many of the hallmarks of hatred identified in the case law. The expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that threatens the safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources in an effort to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred. The flyers also expressly call for discriminatory treatment of those of same‑sex orientation.  It was not unreasonable for the tribunal to conclude that this expression was more likely than not to expose homosexuals to hatred.

The court said prohibiting such speech 'balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings'.

But the cognitive dissonance of this apparently doesn't hurt the brains of the Court's judges as it does mine. I've met many Mr Whatcotts over the years, with sandwich boards and flyers, telling me that I'm going to Hell. Unless any of them had actually hit me with a sandwich board or tried to force feed me a flyer, it would never have occured to me to phone the police and whine about hurt feelings. Because, oddly, the Mr Whatcotts also have 'the inherent dignity owed to all human beings'. To stand outside in all weathers and risk mockery and attack means, if nothing else, that he really believes what he says.

But only selected groups get awarded the right to never be offended without recompense. In victimhood poker I hold a high value hand. But playing it would make me that most regrettable creature, a government pet. Coddled, protected, performing tricks on command or risking being put out in the back yard. Thanks, but no thanks.