Sunday, August 9, 2009


“Realist” replied to my account of the Courtenay incident of alleged “racism” when three thugs attacked a black man because, it was assumed, it was motivated by racism, even though they assaulted a white man following the incident. (cf. “Bogeyman of Racism a Useful Decoy for the Growth Lobby”.) He stated,

“….about the subsequent attack on the Caucasian man….I could not find it in a Google search, probably because no one wanted to publish something that will put out the fire. The media loves sensationalism and pushing people's emotional buttons too much.

What constitutes a "hate crime"? Isn't all violent crime hateful, no matter who the victim is? The punishment should be based on the violence level of the crime; the victim's skin colour, orientation, religion, gender and age is irrelevant. All people deserve the same protection from violence”.

EXACTLY, Realist. As I put it a couple of years ago, in “So What if I’m a Racist?”

“In Canada of late there seems to be a great pre-occupation not with an idea or an action but the alleged motivation behind it. The hate-crimes laws are a case in point. Their logic confounds me. Someone hits me over the head and leaves me with a concussion because he thinks I have a wallet full of cash, and the judge gives him a year. If the same thug hits me over the head and leaves me with a concussion because he thinks I’m gay the judge gives him a much heavier penalty. Whatever the moron’s motives, my medical condition is the same.”

In “So What if I Hate Mushrooms?” I made the same point:

“In a secular multicultural theocracy, only the star chamber of politically correct journalists, professors, politicians and judges are licensed to read minds and hearts. Should this kangaroo court fall into my possession, where I can nominate my own set of prosecutors, will you trust me to evaluate your motives? If not, shall we then agree to deal with the merits of our conflicting opinions, and leave mind-reading to psychics and moral judgments to an omniscient being?

Mushrooms are worthless and I hate those who eat or sell them. You object? Then deal with my assertion and not my confession. Whether I love, hate or am indifferent toward anything or anybody is quite beside the point in discussing the merits of a public policy option.”

But the CBC mentality is such that if “hate” can be attributed to a set of ideas that the politically correct find odious, then it should be proscribed. On “The Debaters” on CBC Radio August 2/09, a debater who argued that blogs were not a benefit to society because so many were filled with hate won both the decision of the CBC moderator and the majority of applause in the audience. The fact that there are 100 million blogs in the world and that the fringe that he mentioned was a rather insignificant strand of opinion did not dampen the zeal and frenzy to censor or control the internet. You can bet that John Stuart Mill’s classic book “On Liberty” was not on any reading list at journalism school. Given the uncritical way that such thinking is accepted it is only a matter of time before views outside the mainstream will be denied a mike in the media. We have a limited window of opportunity to get our message out. Soon I think, it will be closed, north and south of the border. What an irony it will be if Russia becomes the last bastion of free speech.

Tim Murray,

August 2/09

No comments: