Political Correctness in Russia

Sun Feb 22 06:20:21 UTC 2009

Please accept my apologies for the poor formatting in the previous version 
of this comment.

I would beg the indulgence of  SEELANGS for reopening this thread.

 Recently there were hearings on the role of the Human Rights Commission in
 the Province of Ontario.  One of the better Canadian bloggers wrote the
 enclosed piece (see below), to which the following comment  (by "Krazy") 
was
 appended.

 If you are on SEELANGS, Krazy, pozdravljaju, gratulacje, congratulations! 
I  hope this issue gets more play in Russia, and is discussed in as many
 classes as possible.  After all, in  a world where a Russian President can 
lecture the US government on socialism
 http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/putin_warns_us_to_eschew_socia.html, I suppose anything's possible these days. Krazy said:     ...      I love this piece. If you don't mind I'm going to incorporate it intomy cross cultural communications class on racism at the university here in Russia. Of course giving credit where credit is due. http://www.dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11065:impractical-and-immoral&catid=42:politics#comments      Impractical and Immoral      Written by Publius      Thursday, 19 February 2009 20:25      Name the only major columnist in the English speaking world to have quoted John Locke this week?  Give up?  It's Mark Steyn.  Native Torontonian, and right-winger par excellent, came to Queen's Park totestify before a legislative committee examining the province's Human Rights' tribunals.  Gotta love anyone who quotes the father of Classical Liberalism when talking to Canadian politicians.  In his coverage of the S!
 teyn's appearance Rick McGinnis - gotta love anyone who puts a picture of William Powell on his blog's header - made the following observation:>>        Di Novo is the next to have the floor, and uses the sort of> rhetorical trick that I associate with university debating clubs - asking> Steyn if, in his idea of free speech without government oversight, itwould> be protected expression for someone to put up a sign stating "No Jews Need> Apply." Steyn immediately takes issue with the precedent she's invoking,> arguing that the historical incident of this sort of discrimination -> against Jews and Irish - was far less frequent than we presume.>>        I think he's making a mistake. Arguing the historical veracity of> the situation she's evoking doesn't matter in the mainstream worldview -if> it happened just once, it's a crime against someone's human rights, a> concept that, since it's understood to be universal (look at the title of> the UN declaration), implies a crime aga!
 inst us all. It might be absurd,but> it seems like a waste of breath, 

especially since what Di Novo is playingis> basically a game of reverse devil's advocate, trying to get Steyn to say> that he thinks it would be acceptable free speech for someone to post sucha> sign - a quote that would make a tasty sound bite with which to hammer> Steyn's position. Thankfully, Steyn manages to avoid providing her withsuch> an easy weapon, but by taking issue with her use of historical precedents,> he takes the debate off topic.>>        It would have been better to point out that, whatever someonewrites> on a sign in the hope of restricting applicants in accordance with theirown> bigotry, there should be strong but simply-worded laws in place to dealwith> the problem, which don't stray into the vague and legally questionablerealm> of human rights tribunals, so open to abuse and ideological and social> gerrymandering.>>>>      I have to differ with Rick's otherwise excellent coverage of the> proceedings.  There should be absolutely no laws preventing people!
  from> putting up signs saying no Jews / Irish / Blacks - or even Portuguese> bloggers with history degrees - need apply. Rather than questioning the> historical accuracy of Di Novo's comments, or conceding to her thatfreedom> of expression should be regulated - just regulated in a more clear cut and> objective manner - would be to challenge her directly.  Had Old Publiusbeen> invited to testify - fat chance - this is how he would have responded.>>        In a free society people have a right to be foolish, wise, narrow> minded or enlightened.  Curtailing their right to speech does not change> their mind, it simply drives their views underground.  You're trying toset> up a duality here.  That between fighting racism and preserving freedom> their needs to be compromise.  So these commissions are that compromise,> whatever the details involved in how they are run.  I'll put to you thatif> you're really, and truly, interested in fighting the type of mentalitythat> puts up sign!
 s saying "No Irish Need Apply" the last thing you should do is> preven

t them from putting up those sides.  You don't fight racism bybanning> racist speech.>>>        These Human Rights Commissions - a darkly ironic name at best - are> based upon a very great conceit:  That you can force people to think asyou> choose them to think.  They are defended as institutions that prevent> discriminaton.  They do nothing of the sort.  Hauling a few bigoted> landlords or employers before these commissions, and more recently hapless> fools trying to criticize gay marriage by quoting from scripture - surely> something that should bother an ordained minister such as yourself - does> precious little to help the lot of the marginalized.>>>        Only the ignorant or clumsy bigot is ever caught by these types of> laws.  If someone doesn't want to hire Irish or Jewish workers, they can> find other excuses.  No doubt, you'll reply that we can pass more laws to> prevent that.  Have employers complete yet more reams of government> paperwork to ensure they behave a!
 s you wish.  If you carry this to its> logical conclusion you have a totalitarian state, where any bureaucrat can> question your motives or intentions. The slippery slope maybe a cliche,but> like most cliches it's also the truth.  Had the Davis government foreseen> how these commissions' remits would have expanded thirty years ago, they> probably wouldn't have been created.>>>        The essence of being human is free will.  Force and mind are> opposites.  No matter how right you are, you cannot force someone to agree> with you.  You may compel outward conformity, but the second your head is> turned the heart and mind's true intentions will reveal themselves.  Ifthe> goal is to fight racism, then let the racists speak freely.  The best> disinfectant is sunlight, another cliche and fundamental truth.>>>        Perhaps you're afraid that if we don't have these commissions, then> once again we'll see the No Irish Need Apply Signs.  Perhaps a few, not> many.  Why?  Because raci!
 sm is an anathema to most Canadians.  Any> shopkeeper who placed such 

a sign in their window would open themselves to> public humiliation and boycott.  Much more quickly than any government> agency could act, the market would have spoken.  Either the sign will come> down or the shopkeeper would finds himself in another line of work.  Havea> little faith - to pardon the expression - and believe that the people of> Canada are grown-up enough to choose for themselves.  And decent enough to> choose wisely and justly.>>>>        There is this strange paranoia among those in government,especially> on the Left, that unless men are regulated to within an inch of theirlives> they will run riot.  It is only by the grace of the politician and the> bureaucrat that we live in relative harmony.  This is another conceit.> Societies determined governments, not the other way around, andindividuals> compose a society.>>>        If you had had these commissions a century ago, and there were> similar institutions in the English speaking world then - recall the Lo!
 rd> Chamberlain - they would NOT have opposed the anti-Jewish or anti-Irish> bigotry of their times.  Governments are no wiser or morally superior tothe> societies they emerge from.  The only reason we have these commissions is> because of the well meaning, but misguided attitudes of many Canadians.> Because they find racism so appalling they applaud efforts to stamp itout,> not paying close attention to the subversion of their traditional rights> undertaken in their name.>>>        The Human Rights Commissions are immoral because they deny us our> inalienable rights, they are impractical because they fail to accomplish> what they set out to do.  They are impractical because they are immoral.> One day, perhaps in the distant future, statists such as yourself will> understand that decency, justice and compassion cannot be brought forth at> the point of a gun.  That freedom is both the moral and the practical.>>>>        The Gods of the Copybook Headings>>>>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------