My column was not a call for the laying of 'hate speech' charges, though it expressed my curiosity (and offered my own explanation) for why the government didn't lay those charges."
Except maybe for this bit:
Not charging the handful of Muslims who are haters is like not charging the handful of Italians who are part of the Mafia -- it is a misguided act of political correctness. The majority of Muslims -- we hope -- do not support Kathrada. He should be made an example of, not have excuses made for him. Justice calls for it.
And of course that bit in the column sub-title: "Hatemongering Muslims must be prosecuted."
That bit was kind of a give away.
Ezra goes onto say:
It was a public question about why someone who called for murder -- and seems to have got it from one congregant -- wasn't even charged with real crimes.
But of course Ezra seems quite ready to let Terry Tremaine off the hook. Now it's true Mr Tremaine's position was fairly nuanced, "mass murder if necessary, but not necessarily mass murder", one might say, because he was confident he could get all non-whites to leave the country or get sterilized voluntarily.
Looks like Israel was in shit, though: "We must turn that around and say, better that the Jews and Israel be destroyed than have the world destroyed."
By the way, it is not a case of supporting all legal restrictions on speech, or none. It is that Ezra is willing to countenance using certain legal avenues (defamation law and etc.) to silence legitimate differences of opinion, and not others (HRCs).