Parsing a Victim Impact Statement

There's a good reason why the Ceej should not attempt a take-down of Levant and/or Steyn--aside from its being on the wrong side of the free speech battle, I mean: it isn't smart enough to do so. Yesterday, as you'll recall, the Ceej issued an update of its Steyn snit. By coincidence, it came at the same time the blogosphere was abuzz with revelations about police recognizing a new "victim group"--the Nazis. Caught off guard, the Ceej honcho was heard to utter something about Nazis always being victimizers and never victims. But as Ezra Levant pointed out, a Nazi can be the victim of a crime, same as anyone else. Not to defend Nazis and their repellent ideology or anything, but to paraphrase a line re another despised individual, if you prick a Nazi--or beat him up--does he not bleed? To a Steyn-obsessed official Jew, a true believer in the multiculti cult that focuses on the group--the victim group--and not on the individual, that question is clearly irrelevent. As Steyn observes:

This is one of the most repellent aspects of Canada's "human rights" regime: Its contempt for one of the most basic principles of justice - equality before the law. At the "human rights" tribunal, your roles as victim or victimizer come pre-assigned: By definition, a woman is a victim of a man; a gay is a victim of a Christian; a Jew is a victim of a Nazi. This is mostly for the purposes of prosecuting "offensive" speech. My traffic accident comparison was intended to point out the difference between real law and "human rights" law. But, as Ezra says, Bernie Farber's moral compass has been so corroded by the whole ugly "human rights" racket he now apparently thinks that its affronts to justice should be extended to real crimes, including crimes of violence. If you get beaten up, all that counts is what identity group you belong to.

And these days, if you're a Jew, that doesn't count for very much, since authorities have tipped their hand--for those brave enough to look: If you're an alte kacher with a penchant for Third Reich graffiti wielding a scary Sharpie of doom, they'll be on your case quicker than you can sieg heil. But if you're a young buck with a marked animus toward "Zionists" wielding a sharp Janjaweed-style machete, wield away my friend. Police reasoning (at least in part): sure, a marker can hurt one's feelings, but a machete--that thing can freaking kill you!

Update: Bernie tweets re the alte kacher:

Justice though 'odd' has been served http://tinyurl.com/25ubawm

What an 'odd' way to put it. I'm pretty sure he means it's 'odd' to be prosecuting someone that age for scawling swastikas on bathroom walls; such activities are usually the work of much younger marker "artistes". What I find 'odd' is that Bernie sees this kacher as a genuine threat, and is tickled that 'justice' has put him away. But I guess if you can see that authorities are obviously unwilling to do anything about the real threats, it's comforting to see them act against the bogus ones. Delusional, but comforting.

Update: A fiery kitty has pointed out to me that the 'odd' comes from the Guelph Mercury header (the tiny url in the tweet). I still think it's 'odd' to use 'odd' in this way, though.

Update:

Here’s the poopy on “Jew-hate” today
For “haters” with something to say:
“No” to Nazi banditos
With their Sharpie graffitos.
But a sharpened machete? That’s okay.