BlazingCatFur says that the Canadian Human Rights Commission took a pass on condemning some pretty blatant hate because they are bigots who are only interested in going after white Christians.
And he linked to a post by Mark Steyn saying it’s because they’re just scared of Muslims:
There’s no logical answer except the one we already knew – that, while the bullies of the “human rights” regime are happy to beat up penniless pastors in Alberta and while Lucy Warman, the CJC and other cardboard crusaders get their jollies hunting down every birdbrained “Nazi” posting witless drivel on unread websites from his mum’s basement, they have no desire to tangle with the most explicit and well-funded source of “intolerance” in today’s world. If the point of the Lynch mob’s draconian powers is to protect “human rights”, they’re useless: “honor killings” will become all but routine but they’ll still be obsessing about some adolescent with a swastika tattoo and second-hand jackboots.
I think you’re on to something Mark. There is a logical answer and it is bigotry – but not the way BlazingCatFur thinks. You’re almost right. The commissions act in this way because at some level the “Lynch mob’s” powers aren’t about protecting human rights.
It’s not that the CHRC is skittish about Muslims or bigoted against Christians - it’s that they are bigoted towards non-white people.
It’s that what they care about is the moral, shall we say, cleanliness of their own and it’s no skin off their back if the “other” does or says something awful enough that they would normally condemn it. The CHRC cares if there are white people, however marginalized, doing or saying things that reflect badly on white people as a group. They care if some loser wears a swastika because they are concerned with the moral reputation of white people. Some imam wrote things that make the Albertan pastor’s article look like love and daisies? So what. The CHRC doesn’t care because they don’t give a s**** about brown people. It’s no concern of theirs if racism, sexism, and homophobia are accepted or spread in “that” culture.
That’s my take, and I’ll tell you what makes me confident about it. It might make sense that the commissions were bigoted towards Boissoin but that can’t explain the Alberta government’s support for their ruling can it? The Alberta government doesn’t care about Boissoin’s rights because they care about white Alberta’s reputation. As I wrote in this post, this behavior is partially motivated by an old trick. Machiavelli had a tip for rulers – occasionally purge officials for corruption. Didn’t matter if they were particularly corrupt, in fact better if they weren’t egregious offenders because that lets the other officials know they aren’t secure. What mattered was that everybody know that the good prince was fighting corruption.
The good commissioners are fighting racism, they’re fighting homophopia, they’re fighting sexism – and they’re only doing it on behalf of their racial group. Only someone that can symbolize white racism or homophobia will do. Ezra reprinted Boissoin’s article and Ezra didn’t even go to trial. It’s because Boissoin is two things Ezra is not. Ezra doesn’t actually share Boissoin’s particular view. And Ezra isn’t white. He’s no use to white people in purging these things from their character and reputation. He cannot symbolize white homophobia.
Why Boissoin and not Ezra? Why is Richard Warman offended by white males on behalf of people he is not? It’s because Warman isn’t offended on their behalf. He’s offended on his behalf, as a white person. It’s not explicit and it’s not understood by them. I’ve said before that crediting them with understanding this motivation and acting intentionally on it would be both too cruel and too kind. White Guilt has taken an interesting turn.
It’s the racial Machiavellianism of Canada’s Human Rights Commissions.
Update - Weaknesses (apologies in advance for putting everything in quotes):
WL Mackenzie gives an alternate explanation about deconstructing the “majority culture” and entrenching a particular political group. It reminds me of that idea being artfully put by Fenris Badwulf in “No Justice For Nigoons“. I see liberal antipathy towards the “majority culture” as an expression of the “majority ethnic group” despising things that, to quote BlazingCatFur again, are associated with white hegemony. So it’s not the minority culture, it’s the majority or at least members of the majority who deconstruct not the majority culture, but things they think give the majority culture a bad rap. Again this seems best confirmed by the Alberta government’s tack with the Boissoin case. My argument in the previous post that I linked to in this one put it this way:
It has been remarked that the fact that this happened with the support of the government in conservative Alberta shows how far Canada has breached it’s commitment to freedom of speech. The truth is that this happened in Alberta precisely because it has a reputation as very conservative with the connotations of white bigotry and homophobia that go along with that. Alberta’s reputation has the most to gain through the racial Machiavellianism of a public scapegoating of an individual “white” through what amounts to a show trial in order to show that Alberta as a whole rejects the particular ill of racism or homophobia which that individual symbolizes. A reputedly conservative province in a supposedly free country has prejudiced the rights of an individual whose ideas are associated with conservativism to the extent that EGALE - a gay rights organization - has spoken out against it, saying that attacking Boissoin’s rights are ultimately a threat to all individual rights. There is little reason to think that the Stelmach government is motivated by bigotry against white Christians. Instead it is the racial Machiavellianism of our day that makes Alberta the likeliest of places for this to happen.
For some the deconstruction of the “majority culture” (the quotes? I consider it very racially chauvanist that white liberals associate Christianty with their racial group – there are reasons for that, but for God’s sake there have been Christians in Africa for over a thousand years longer than North America) is out of a desire to subsume that culture… to pull a comforting blanket of “other” cultures over white guilt – ie: the suicide of the west. Actually I mentioned a suicidal instinct and noted the aspect of the entrenchment of a political group in another post about this.
I think that what we are seeing with the Boissoin case especially comes more from a desire to protect the majority by symbolically rejecting things “associated with white hegemony”.
But the weaker point is… Why does the CJC support the HRC’s so much if this is all about white people? Doesn’t that suggest that Ezra gets a bye because – even if George Jonas was right to say in his memoir that just when Jews finally became Europeans, Europeans became the new Jews – the HRC’s are about protecting potentially vulnerable groups from the majority? It’s something I talked about again in the post I just quoted, but I also think there’s a lot of truth to that. Certainly, regardless of how effective speech restrictions might be, the CJC can reasonably fear anti-semitism from the ethnic group it came from in its worst form before. The reason it breaks down for me as the only or even primary explanation is that Ezra is in a stronger position to advance the viewpoint Boissoin was put on trial for even if he isn’t quite white and the imam who said incomparably more hateful things is also in a stronger position in advocating his views specifically as a religious figure, in a culture where he is likely to have greater sway. Recall that Boissoin prefaced his attack on what he sees as gay politics with an expression of care and concern for gay individuals. (or for him, individuals who struggle with gayness)
You could see it as a combination of the commissioners being genuinely concerned for any level of threat to gays heightened by a desire to expunge “homophobia” from “white culture” but also being so racist to “brown people” they see as being represented by the imam that threats to gays from that culture just don’t register for them – again, who cares if “that” culture is characterized by these things.
Ultimately, it’s about the politics - these contradictions are explainable only if the commissions are less concerned with threats to gay individuals (and women and “infidels”) than with threats to the reputation and political culture of the white majority.
