Count Dankula convicted for Nazi pug antics


It’s bewildering to me that people who claim to be logical, rational, and ‘good people’ are often willing to legitimize hate speech, as long as it’s not an explicit, immediate threat of violence, ie; “I’m going to beat you to death and burn your body on a tree right now!”

I cannot emphasize enough that the original nazis didn’t begin their regime with gas ovens and mass graves; they began with malicious whispers in the ears of angry, disenfranchised people.

They began with rallies, and speeches, and marches. They began by assuming positions of power and by changing the laws to specifically benefit themselves and to hinder the ‘undesirables.’


He wasn’t found guilty of hate speech.

1 Like

bullshit. there is no argument to be made that allowing a culture of hate speech to fester will cause actual antisemetic violence to also increase? people talk about how the second amendment should have restrictions—well, the first one fucking does too.



Absolutist claims like “Jokes about hate speech are dark humour therefore by censoring them you are censoring all dark humour” or equivalent will be eaten with prejudice.

There are… other… places on the internet you are welcome to visit if you wish to share in-jokes that make light of genocide, racism, or general bigotry, or attempts to defend those actions as appropriate, even in the context of humour. Our community guidelines are clear on those points.

EDIT: More here.


In the current climate of normalisation of anti-Semitism and downplaying the costs of the fascist era in Europe, an argument can be made that this stunt could be categorised as “menacing”. As someone who values liberal democracy, I think that’s a good thing.

It’s very difficult to argue that this video was taking the piss out of the Nazis, or indeed that the idiot who made it knows anything about history. I love dark humour, but it ceases to be funny when it starts punching down.


What @Humbabella and I were considering was if he could have been convicted under Canadian law. (Just like how Americans here are considering his First Amendment rights.)

I watched one of his videos, gaaah, and it certainly was stupid and grossly offensive–which is a crime in Scotland–but probably wouldn’t be in Canada.

A similar grade offense in Canada that eventually failed after a few court fights:

Judge Wilfred Tucker of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court said Ahenakew’s remarks were “revolting, disgusting, and untrue,” but they did not constitute “promoting hatred.”


I was misled by every article (including the one linked in the tweet you provide) saying “hate crime” in the title. But based on the text of that article, it does appear to be about that “grossly offensive” provision in the Communications Act rather than hate crime laws. That’s a frustrating bit of bad reporting.


Twenty-two years ago Mark Bosnich did an alleged Basil Fawlty impression (you know the episode I’m talking about) to Tottenham Hotspur’s fans.

It did not go down well anywhere.


It’s interesting to me how the normalization of antisocial behavior is almost always framed by apologists and enablers as being “no big deal,” or “just jokes…” as if words have never planted any seeds that became conscious action.


Your idealism is adorable. Cling to it. I hope it keeps you warm at night.


The “just a joke” thing gets me the most. Don’t people realize that most of the time jokes are also the truth of the person telling the joke?


Clearly, many people don’t. Just as many don’t seem to understand the difference between ‘punching up’ and ‘punching down.’


Thank fuck comedy is subjective.

Apparently they’re going to put the dog down too.


I thought “Hate Crime” was a modifier to a sentencing. You kill your brother out of rage you get a specific sentence but you go out killing a black man they add hate crime as you are likely to do it again as it was motivated by race.

Did I miss something from this?

Is this animal endangerment with a side of dickishness?

Edit: Never mind, Not the United States so different laws.

1 Like

And yet, I know some folk who are about as hardcore lefty as you can get, and they are notorious for pretending to be ultra-Tory types for their own amusement. It’s hilarious, and it most certainly isn’t their ‘truth’.

1 Like

Which is exactly the problem with criminalizing a form of speech- That those laws will be used by the people they were intended to restrict, that they will be used to oppress the people they were intended to protect.

There is a frighteningly large segment of the population who believes that BLM is a hate group on par with the KKK- and their people, Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions, are the ones who currently have the final word on which of those two groups gets prosecuted and which gets excused. How much do you trust them?


Sometimes it really is dank humour, deeply offensive to people who have suffered greatly.

Note: This guy is no Swift.


And in Saudi Arabia you can’t insult the prophet. Is that just a different kind of law, or does Saudi Arabia not have free speech?