I’ve read Canadian blogs for several years and my opinion of Red Tory is firm. Nobody has ever had such an eloquent case of severe indigestion. I once called his writing style “faux-intelligence” and I bet I will again.
But he’s right as right about the Carleton University kids who decided that Cystic Fibrosis isn’t worth fundraising for because they thought its victims were all white males.
What causes second thoughts about Red Tory supports my thoughts on the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. I think that a kind of Racial Machiavellianism is part of why and how they have been operating. Just as the Carleton kids arguably don’t value fundraising if it’s for something that only affects white males the Human Rights Commissions don’t really bother many people because the targets of their speech hearings have been white, Christian, males. But this is not just because the attitude towards white guys is negative these days. There is an element to these speech hearings for which only a white person is a suitable target – from the perspective of white Canadians as a group.
The post I link to doesn’t make my main point very well so I’ll rehash the central argument:
Ezra Levant believes that a “hate speech” complaint against him was dismissed by the CHRC because he is a Jew. He printed the same article that a white Christian named Reverend Boissoin did. Boissoin was found by the Alberta HRC and the Canadian HRC to have committed hate speech against homosexuals. Ezra was found to have done nothing worthy of a hearing because his intent was simply “furthuring the public discourse”. “Intent” is not a defense for the commissions, and obviously so because it makes no difference what your intent is when it comes to saying something that “exposes or is likely to expose” an identifiable group to contempt or hatred. So Ezra thinks that it wasn’t intent, but identity, that got him off – that the commissions are biased against white Christians. There are two things this cannot fully explain. If the CHRC is biased against not just Christians, but also Christianity, it doesn’t make sense to let Ezra off because he printed the views of a Christian. It doesn’t matter who Ezra is – by reprinting Boissoin’s article he is likely to have the same effect in promoting Boissoin’s view. It’s possible that the CHRC is just picking it’s battles here because Ezra is too big a fish for them to fry. But neither of these things explain the support of the Alberta government for the Alberta HRC’s hearing against Boissoin. You think the Alberta government doesn’t like Christians? Ah, nope. In fact you’d think whitebread, conservative Alberta would be the last place someone with a bone to pick with the “homosexual agenda” would be subject to a speech trial supported by the government that was so outside of normal standards of human rights in a western country that it was opposed by the gay rights group EGALE on the grounds that infringing on the rights of any individual is a threat to everyone’s rights.
You’d think that. And that’s what the Alberta government doesn’t like. The last thing they want is to be seen as supporting the guy that doesn’t like gays. Alberta’s image is whitebread. Cowboy hats and rednecks, and – to a lot of people – racism and homophobia. Alberta isn’t the last place this should happen. It is the likeliest of places in Canada for a white individual with negative views associated with “whiteness” to lose his freedom of speech. That person symbolizes the things that his group doesn’t want to be associated with them. That’s why Ezra isn’t what they want. He’s not one of them, so he cannot reflect on them as a group and he doesn’t actually hold the view that Reverend Boissoin does so he cannot symbolize homophobia.
Machiavelli advised rulers to purge officials for corruption to create a clean image for the government. The important thing wasn’t the level of actual wrongdoing of the official – it was the effect on public image. In Canada today it’s ok for someone to be banned from ever speaking disparagingly of homosexuals by letter to the editor, radio, and even private email. In Canada today the Alberta government supported subjecting an Albertan to a speech trial so out of the norm for individual rights that EGALE – the kind of people this Albertan has some damn strong views about – spoke out against his treatment. This man was fined for what he said, besides his court costs – which were free for the person who placed the complaint against him. This man was told to apologize, and in fact to effectively recant. These trials have a 100% conviction rate. Their targets are always white males. And that is why they’re ok. It’s something more than bias against white Christians. It is a largely unconscious purge by a racial group. The statement here is that white Canadians reject homophobia. – that the taint has been removed by this extraordinary process which in part is a kind of scapegoating which identifies the sins or source of trouble of a group with an individual and then rejects that person and what they represent. The rejection reassures members of that group that they have been cleansed of their problem and that feeling of cleansing is why it’s ok for an individual member of the group to lose out. The group feels the need to be purified, in both their image and their essence, and that is more important.
Reverend Boissoin symbolizes White Homophobia. Ezra Levant cannot symbolize either of those. In this case, that’s the real difference.