So apparently not hiring a hair dresser/stylist/whatever who chooses not to show off her own hair is a crime...I really don't want to believe Steyn when he talks about the creep of Islam, and how our society is so concerned with protecting rights that we cave to their sensitivities without much of a thought. The court awarded the claimant $8,000 for "injury to feeling". I get my feelings injured all the time! Can I get $8,000 every time I'm turned down for something that I feel entitled to get? I didn't get the job because I didn't get a haircut or use a comb before I showed up for the interview, I felt I was being judged by the person conducting it, $8,000 please! Perhaps that's too harsh an example, but what if I were to show up to the interview in lederhosen to reflect my German heritage. Would I be able to get money for not getting the job? What about the Greeks and Italians with their traditional culture of wearing togas? What are the chances they would be offered many jobs if they showed up wearing a bed sheet? STOP JUDGING ME!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Copied from a post below:
I'm gonna weigh in on this one. Couple of qualifiers: do I support Mark Steyn's right to open his mouth and speak? Yes, even if I find his theses and conclusions intellectually shallow and bankrupt. Has this whole thing gotten out of hand (with the tribunal in B.C., etc.?) Yes. Doe el-Masry need to be careful when playing with fire as suggested by Neil MacDonald? Certainly (this dog could turn around and bite him in the ass at any time).
That being said, what would the public reaction be if Steyn characterized, for example, Jews in the manner he characterizes Muslims? (For example takes diehard JDL types and hardcore settlers in teh West Bank and amplifies their character then describes it in terms of world-wide coordinated action amongst all Jews) The answer ought to be clear as we have seen this sorit of bigoted, chauvinistic, essentially hateful expression before.
Now to make an acutal reasoned point rather than just take cheap shots: my concern (originally impressed upon me by my better half) is that the North American public suffers from a major intellectual defecit and is likely incapable of engaging in reasoned, spirited, well-researched debate with the likes of polemicists like Steyn. The fact that Maclean's still qualifies as Canada's premiere news magazine attests to this phenomenon. Canada is seriously short on public intellectuals (not that they are a be-all and end-all, some might say that this is a good thing) and I would wager that most Canadians, whereever they stand on the political spectrum, could neither provide a spirited, researched, carefully considered critique or defense of an issue as pressing and topical as the Canadian Armed Forces' mission in Afghanistan, let alone something as nebulous and nearly impossible to empirically observe as "Islam creep."
As a nation we are hideously lazy and frightfully uninformed, a fact we seem to be increasingly proud of. I question the ability of the Canadian public to challenge demagogues like Steyn, though that does not mean I believe we ought to have government organs, elected or unelected do so for us.
As i have stated before; though I disagree with those who prohibit censorship at all costs - such a view seems untenable to me - we nevertheless have to provide a reasoned and legitimate argument as to why certain pieces of literature ought to be expelled from public space. Thus, my problem with this story is not the fact that Steyn is being censored, so much as the reason he is being censored. "Insulting Islam," is not a legitimate use of censorship, for a plethora of reasons. First, what constitutes "Islam"? Here are we speaking of doctrinal beliefs, the social traditions of a particular ethnicity? I have just as much of a problem with those who use such ill defined concepts as "democracy" and "freedom" to justify military intervention. Such murky concepts become a trump card for ending debate and limiting discussion and are more a reflection of power than rational dialogue. Secondly, I have already stated my apprehension about leaving censorship issues up to the state to decide. Their historical record on such issues is worrisome. If people would like to censor, they can do so by encouraging voluntary boycotts or something of this nature. Now there is no guarantee these groups will justify their claims in any more rational a way than public institutions, but at least they do not have the coercive arm of the state at their control (here i am thinking of the recent attempts to ban Mike Myers' new film - though these people are probably ensuring a good financial showing for the film which looked like it was going to fizzle anyway.) Social censure should be the punishment for inappropriate expression of speech. If someone in my classroom denies the Holocaust and will not stop stating their opinion have they have been told to refrain, should be kicked out of the classroom.
Post a Comment