This case is wrong on so many levels. One of the most offensive things is that it reveals that the Canadian government has absolutely no faith in its citizens. They think that some dolt spewing neo-Nazi filth will somehow corrupt everybody and turn them into neo-Nazi a#$holes. They think the average citizen has no common sense and no decency, and that they are so stupid they will believe anything some demagogue says.
It is a very dangerous thing when the government enforces some official view of the truth at gunpoint. It is ironic that the left is generally agnositc about questions of truth (right and wrong being archaic social constructs), and yet they want to enforce laws against some dissenters. Dissent, like all other claims, can be true or false. Someone who dissents can want something better than the status-quo; the dissenter can also want something much worse than the status-quo.
The problem is that when you have done what most leftists have done and reject truth or falsehood as a standard of value, you can only deal with people on a basis of subjectivism. Thus, the standard becomes whether or not something is offensive (usually based on who finds the matter offensive). Of course, what one finds offensive depends on one's view of what is right and wrong -- since the left cannot use "judgemental" ideas about right and wrong, they cop out and accept their feelings about what is offensive as being the universal standard of value. Depending on their feelings, one controversial idea might be deemed offensive and banned. Another equally controversial idea might be championed by the left and people who find it offensive might be censored.
Ironically, when mere offensive speech is rendered a "hate crime," this eliminates all possibility of civilized discourse -- whoever holds power can enforce his views of what is offensive on everyone else. In the unlikely event that some lunatic like Mr. Love gets into power and enforces his views, by what standard does the left expect anyone to oppose him?