These days in Kanuckistan, the human rights Nazis are so desperate in trying to enforce their perverse ideologies on Canadians that they will stop at nothing to ensure they play the victim card. Even if the alleged offended group is not really that interested in pursuing complaints with their purported constitutional right not to be offended (now a universal human right, by the way), that’s not a problem at all. The speech police will step right in and do the job for them. That’s right folks, you don’t need an honest to goodness victim anymore, you can simply make one up to advance your cause. I guess you could call it “theoretical justice” – as in, we’re doing this in theory because we don’t have any real, life victims to complain.
Anyhow, back in the summer, the first bizarre instance of this occurred when the infamous Marie Ad Gentes, a wildlife biologist professor at Vanier College in Quebec was offended because Bill Whatcott had some rather unpleasant and critical things to say against…drum roll please…Islam. Don’t pretend you aren’t shocked, OK? Apparently Bill had posted some of his writings on FD (warning: graphic images in the preceding link). So Ms. Gentes figured it was time to put the smackdown on what Bill had to say by complaining against FD to the Canadian Star Chamber. In other words, no Muslim complained against Bill. A professor from Liberal U. complained against FD for allowing Bill to post something that would “offend Muslims”. Did you get that? I know, I know. You’re thinking the same thing I am: Feminism, Rainbow Power, Sharia Law – it’s all the same, isn’t it? Be that as it may, it’s still quite pathetic that our self-loathing culture feels the need to be offended for someone else that it must bring in the star chambers to adjudicate. If there’s not enough offense to be had for oneself, best be offended for the other guy. (You can read my take on that sad episode here and here. Ms Gentes eventually withdrew the complaint).
And then there is the case of the Toronto judge who banished the Christmas tree from the courthouse lobby to the broom closet back in December 2006. Justice Cohen ordered the tiny plastic tree removed, saying it was not an appropriate symbol to non-Christians. In a letter to staff, she said courthouse visitors are “confronted” with it, which makes them feel “they are not part of this institution.” (Source) The Muslim Canadian Congress says even it was dismayed by the judge’s decision. In the words of its president, “We should ban political correctness — not the Christmas tree.” (Source) So, here again was a feminist judge (big shocker again, no?) getting offended on behalf of other religious communities, who, overwhelmingly, have no problem with religious expression. But here we have the liberals strapping on their jackboots to satisfy their lusts of being offended for other people.
Finally, we have the latest incident of the “third-party offensiveness barometer” hitting a fevered pitch. This time, it’s the media being upset that white supremacists are praising Member of Parliament, Dr. Keith Martin, who, while opposing their views, supports the right of free expression and the gutting of S.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. When asked about the support of racists for his cause, he quipped: “I’m a brown guy”. In other words, if anyone is to be offended, it’s the guy who is not white – unlike the vast majority of the liberal reporters who are. But no matter. Despite Martin’s rather droll response and his apparent thicker skin against the skinheads, that’s just not good enough for the media victimoids. How can this be? How can he not be offended enough to take action? It does not compute. Victim-hood is available and he doesn’t bite! Something must be wrong with him. We must help him by being offended for him.
The offense seeking fools in our country actually point to a much deeper malaise with our culture. It is a sickness that goes far beyond wanting to be offended on someone else’s behalf. It also affects many other areas of our culture in very profound ways. The sickness is called fear. Do you ever notice that those who seek to be offended for others are the most fearful people in a society? They don’t want to have others offended (well, at least if they have been prior victims at any rate) because they fear the consequences the offense might cause. And it does not matter if the offense is rightly or wrongly made. It is the emotion which is the key and which must be avoided at all costs for them. That is a very scary situation, folks. Someone who is trying to avoid offense at ALL COSTS – including undermining something as fundamental as free speech – is merely paving the way to societal destruction and cultural suicide. There will come a time when not to offend will mean suppressing speech which MUST BE SPOKEN to ensure the survival of western civilization.
When that time comes and the price of that speech might cost us more than just reputation, possessions, or status, will we pay that price or will we cut a deal and live as slaves?
And that’s the way it is, February 3, 2008.