The Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Canada, Shane Parker, issued a statement opposing amendments to Bill C-9, a proposed “Hate Speech” bill. The amendments would strike language exempting “in good faith” statements and “religious text” from the bill’s ministrations.

And I agree! Yes, I actually agree with an Anglican Church of Canada Archbishop on something, namely that “good faith” statements and the teaching of “religious text” should be exempt from governmental glare when it comes to so-called “hate speech” not to mention most other areas.

And the Archbishop is quite liberal, it is safe to say, as most certainly is the Anglican Church of Canada. So when the Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Canada says you are going too Marxist . . . .

So, yes, the Liberal government of Canada is attempting an awful and rather totalitarian thing. That much is obvious. But there is something else that is rather obvious but might not be at first glance.

The Anglican Church of Canada has long leaned — more like toppled over — to the Left. I would call it the Liberal Party at prayer, except Canadian Liberals don’t pray much. So — because of the secularization of Canada and of the Liberal Party and of Anglican Church of Canada itself — it has become the Church of Almost Nobody at prayer (which, statistically, is turning out to be the case and quickly).

But I’ve distracted myself from my point as I often do. You know one is easily distracted if one easily distracts himself.

Back to my point, note that the Archbishop supports the “hate speech” bill as a whole. He himself states, “We support initiatives, such as Bill C-9, intended to address the growing number of incidents of hate-motivated speech and conduct, especially including antisemitism, Islamophobia and the incitement of hatred towards any other identifiable or vulnerable groups and persons.”

So “hatred towards any other identifiable or vulnerable groups and persons” should be proscribed. That’s a lot of anti-hate! So if I hate, say, cannibal gypsy pygmies — and if they exist, I probably do — I better watch out and do so only on this side of the northern border.

But His Grace the Archbishop should have been watching out as well. For the nature of “anti-hate” campaigners is that their jihad against hate trumps everything. (Oh, did I commit a hate by using the term “jihad”? Well, isn’t that awful.) Around the world they have demonstrated that they care not one whit for Free Speech or for Freedom of Religion that in any way promotes what they dub “hate.”

A suspicious person, with significant trust issues, might even conclude that “anti-hate” campaigners are really totalitarian thought police.

Have I mentioned that I am a suspicious person with significant trust issues?

I distracted myself again. I was saying that in light of how anti-hate campaigners have acted in the past, the Archbishop should surely had known they would insist on controlling all speech, no matter how religious or in good faith it might be. “Anti-hate” campaigns tend to go only in one direction, in crushing the freedoms of hateful haters who do not toe the line of Holy Multiculturalism. One could conclude the “anti-hate” cabal themselves are quite hateful. They hate those who are unprotected by and unimpressed with multiculturalism and its strictures.

So the plaintive protest of the Archbishop reminds of that joke about those who vote for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party and then become quite shocked when after the election, leopards proceed to eat people’s faces. The naïveté is endearing.

Now I probably just committed a hate against leopards as well. But most of us would rather our faces not be eaten by leopards nor our freedoms of speech and religion taken by “anti-hate” totalitarians. So it would be wise not to trust anti-hate campaigners and politicians, nor bishops fooled by the same.