It’s not that they’re scared of Muslims

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.


11 Responses to “It’s not that they’re scared of Muslims”

  1. Blazingcatfur Says:

    An interesting theory and parallel to the “soft racism of low expectations”.

  2. Easy Writer Says:

    Great posting! I hadn’t thought of the CHRC in this way, but your argument is compelling and well thought out.

  3. Mark Mercer Says:

    Very good! Yours are the lines along which Norman Mailer used to think about social phenomena–or at least about the motivations of key players in key phenomena. Mailer, of course, would ultimately have linked the white censor’s concerns for the reputation of her race to sex or feelings of sexual inadequacy. (Mailer sometimes–usually–went off the deep-end. Nonetheless, I miss him and his often outrageous analyses greatly.)

  4. WL Mackenzie Redux Says:

    “The commissions act in this way because at some level the “Lynch mob’s” powers aren’t about protecting human rights.”

    Dann straight…it’s about , entrenching, protecting and enforcing the core dogma of cultural Marxism. That being; identity group politics, minority group political power struggle confrontation and deconstructing the institutions and culture of the majority in the nation they infest (maximum disruption).

    The payoff is a comfortable career agitating this socially disruptive orthodoxy and politically empowering a network of unelected cultural marxists in bureaucracy.

  5. Revnant Dream Says:

    Some very valid points made in this post.

  6. da wolfe Says:

    Thanks kindly Blaze : ) A link to soft bigotry, that is perceptive – before I saw the HRC’s like this I already thought of the way white liberals slough off racism etc. of “minorities” (a word they have given a euro-centic meaning itself) in the same way – it just doesn’t matter to them. You can say that they are simply paying attention to what they consider the dangers of the majority culture but they think – and I agree – that it’s important and good for white people that these kinds of things not be part of “white” culture. If so then having low or no expectations of people they see as others is racist to a new degree.

    … and compare me to Norman Mailer! since that suprises me I guess it doesn’t fit, my ego’s not there yet, hah. I read in Norman Podhoretz’s book Ex-Freinds that Mailer once called feminism the “seed-carrier of totalitarianism”. (ed. Bold – the guy had eggs.) But Podhoretz wrote about accusing Mailer of losing his nerve in not rejecting modern liberalism – and that is why he was an ex-freind. Are there any Mailer books you would recommend?

    The only other thing I know about Mailer was browsing Advertisments for Myself, in the spirit of which I recommend what I wrote about the coalition two and three posts ago and what I’m about to over the weekend.

    Thanks a lot for the comments!

  7. Mark Mercer Says:

    One of the things Mailer used to do (only one of them) was to expose a deep, hidden, surprising motivation behind the behaviour of a key figure in some social movement. (I write “expose,” but “posit” might be more accurate, as Mailer rarely had good empirical evidence that the figure was indeed motivated by what Mailer exposed.) Mailer is not the only writer who’s even gone in for depth-psychological explanations of social phenomena, of course, but his were usually wilder and more entertaining than most. But that’s the only point of comparison I meant to note between Mailer and your article! I don’t know how seriously we ought to take speculations about people’s deepest fears and aspirations and their connection to the policies, institutions, and the like that we live within. Perhaps such speculation can suggest avenues of political criticism that might lead to change, but I’m sceptical. Anyway, Advertisements for Myself is certainly a good place to go to find some of Mailer’s best psychological analyses of the roots of social phenomena. Most fun, though, is Prisoner of Sex. And the classic is Armies of the Night. Or maybe Miami and the Siege of Chicago. It’s all wild, some of it is pretty good, but it’s not clear whether it has any value beyond its worth as imaginative literature.

  8. The LS from SK Says:

    A really good analysis but I think it has really become a bit of a “White Man’s Guilt”.

    As Mark said “One of the things Mailer used to do (only one of them) was to expose a deep, hidden, surprising motivation behind the behaviour of a key figure in some social movement.”

    Furry Barber and other in the CJC/BB identify themselves as “Jewish” – not Canadian. A bit odd as if asked, my first response would be ‘Canadian” and not an religious nor ethnicity affiliation.

    Furry Barber always refers to relatives that died in the Holocaust – as if he is somehow doing what he is doing as an atonement for not having been there?

    The CJC “Poster Boy” “Lucy” is another matter for he has taken up the cause big time. He always claims he is from a family “…that fought the Nazis” but his motivation and parentage is suspect unless of course he was adopted after WWll which would explain the Zealotry.

    But given the numerous “puff pieces” in the Ottawa Citizen and now in the G&M regarding an up to date blow by blow insignificant “Libel” suit Warman has won over Fromm – one does need to question if there is a political motivation = a QC, Order of Canada etc?

  9. da wolfe Says:

    Oh Mailer sounds like a lot of fun. I’ll definately be dropping by some used bookstores. I think I’ll keep in mind that bit you said: “Perhaps such speculation can suggest avenues of political criticism that might lead to change, but I’m sceptical.”

    Like I say in my update, it’s pretty reasonable for the CJC and people like that to fear anti-semitism. I can see being zealous in not wanting anything like it to ever happen, actually I do feel that way because I grew up with a Bible that had a section about historical Isreal and drawings of Samson and Esther… In a way I am used to identifying almost as Jewish. That’s why it’s so infuriating that it seems like the commissions have gone from counterproductively protecting minorites to effectively promoting the reputation of the majority – and at the price of the individual rights of members of that group. I’m reading “The Origins of Totalitarianism” by Hannah Arendt – very interesting views on antisemitism and Jewish assimilation. It seems that Germans were relatively ok with Jews as long as they were expressly a minority group – when German Jews became the most assimilated in Europe people like Hitler thought it threatened their racial purity. Of course, in Canada with our ideal of a melting pot/patchwork we see people that remain separate as rejecting membership in our group. I actually felt this once and it was an incredible shock because I might always feel Jewish myself as well.

  10. Feminine empathy « The General Wolfe Says:

    […] embarasses Chuck Norris. I’m a Canadian dude, and while I know what it’s like to feel kinship with “Jews”, I feel commonality with Jewish Canadians as Canadians, and Jewish people […]

  11. Human rights commission prosecutes only Christians | BlazingCatFur Says:

    […] Wolfe feels the CHRC is “Machiavellian” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: