I realize that a lot of people will look at the title of this post and think that its writer is either a fanatic or a nut case, but the idea that we enjoy the right to free speech in Canada is laughable. Sure, it exists in our so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but reading the fine print reveals that it is trumped by the right not to be offended, at least if your views are on the left side of the political spectrum.
You can say any hateful thing you want to about Christians or whites or men . . . but express a view that is critical of Muslims or francophones or the gay agenda and you can be arrested – literally.
Bill Whatcott and Peter LaBarbera had just that happen to them in Regina the other day for expressing contrary views about homosexuality on a university campus, and because of that, we should all be very, very afraid.
The politically correct justification for their arrest is that they were promoting “hate”, which is itself contestable, but again, it’s not the “hate” that can run you afoul of the law, it is whom you direct it towards. There has never been a human rights case where people were found guilty of promoting “hate” towards Christians and there never will be, not because it doesn’t exist but because Christians are an acceptable de facto target for “hate”. Human rights commissions went ape-shit over the Danish cartoons because someone dared to put a likeness of Mohammed in an editorial cartoon, but a statue of the Virgin Mary covered in feces? No problem. You see, it’s not THAT you “hate”; it’s WHAT you hate that gets you into trouble.
And that attitude permeates society. I know, as a retired teacher, that if a student expresses contrary view on immigration, multiculturalism or (today’s topic) homosexuality, the full force of the educational establishment will fall on them. I have seen them forced to attend indoctrination sessions regarding homosexuality. It’s almost funny that they call them “sensitivity” training sessions when the participants have no choice but to attend – how “sensitive” is that. Broadcasters and other public figures have been put in the same situation, the details are too well known to bother writing about them here.
I remember when I was a kid, the universal view was that there was something “wrong” with homosexuals, that it was an illness. Now, the accepted official view (though not universally held) is that there is something wrong with those who disapprove of homosexuality, and that THAT is an illness – they even have a name for it: homophobia. (Note: to be critical is not to be phobic, so the term is not even logical.)
That stunning reversal is not something to be celebrated; it is an example of twin failures, both of them wearing the same label: intolerance.
Why can’t we be truly tolerant?
There will always be friction between various groups and some degree of intolerance is unavoidable, although it would seem that those who most vociferously promote tolerance are, ironically, the least tolerant of all.
I can live with disapproval. If you don’t like my religion (a view I used to hold), I think you should be allowed to say so – but I want to know why my religion is the only one that can be criticized with impunity. I could say something similar about the other the other ways in which we group ourselves. If you don’t like white people or men or people who wear glasses, well, you got me three more times, but that’s okay. On a good day, I don’t mind, but even on a bad day, I wouldn’t want you to be arrested for it.