Gleanings from the blogosphere, Sep. 4

Jack at After the Future is deeply concerned about a militaristic culture that is rotting out the American soul, while defending himself from charges of being a left-wing flake.

The enemy that most threatens America is not Islamic terrorism. Terrorism is small apples in comparison to the internal threat of those who are nudging us toward becoming a militarist authoritarian state. This kind of thing doesn't happen over night. It's not something that in a society as complex as ours could happen with a sudden military coup. It's something we are drifting into. It's something for which the foundation is being laid quietly and unobtrusively justified by a rationale that is partially true--the struggles against communism or terror. It's something allowed by a nation's citizens because they are angry or frightened, and they turn to hardliner authoritarian types who present themselves as the protecting father, the strong man who will keep them safe.

Over at Donklephant, Justin proclaims the evangelicals scare him. I'm afraid I got a little provoked and called him on a few points. The whole thing smacked of bigotry to me. People came down on both sides of the issue in the comment section.

The limits of free speech

"Adolf Hitler was the living instrument of God on Earth." Bill White, Commander of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, has the legal right to say this. I find it revolting, but I defend his legal right to say it. (No, I am not going to provide any links. I will not do anything at all to direct traffic to his site. Email me if it bothers you.)

Calling Canada a terrorist state that has to go makes me just snort in derision.

But what about this?

There is no actual published threat to kill Richard Warman. He has just made it up.

This means that, when you are searching my websites and looking for it, you will not be able to find it, and I can't send you the URL to it. It does not exist.

The irony here, which no one is grasping, is that there never was any "specific threat to kill Richard Warman" -- just the recommendation that all Jews, which, one would suppose, indirectly includes him, be legally executed after a revolutionary government takes power in Canada.

What annoys him is that I put up his home address, and people who have been threatening to kill him all along apparently have picked up on it. Not my problem.

But what do I think about it if someone uses this knowledge to kill him illegaly (sic)? I wish them luck -- and its (sic) no different to say that than it is to say that you wish Saddam Hussein were killed or the president of Iran were killed or Yassir Arafat were killed, et cetera.

Richard Warman is an Ottawa lawyer who brought a successful suit against Tomasz Winnicki for refusing to stop posting nasty things about non-Caucasians online. One of White's many responses was to publish Warman's address online.

So what do you think? Is this acceptable free speech? Death threats are not legal free speech, not even in the more lenient United States, but White has equivocated around that charge. He doesn't actually string the words together in one place at one time, but his actions have effectively put Warman in danger. "Not my problem." Could somebody south of the 49th please find a way to make it his problem? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that there is a loophole here large enough to drive a truck through, if this actually constitutes legal free speech in the United States. Legislators should be taking a look at this.

Even if shutting down his websites would be akin to playing Whack-a-Mole, with new ones popping up as fast as they're shut down, I think it would be worth it. At least it would put a severe dent in his traffic. It takes search engines a while to find new sites.

Google, incidentally, provides this warning at the top of his Blogger-hosted blog:

CONTENT WARNING

Some readers of this blog have contacted Google because they believe this blog's content is hateful. In general, Google does not review nor do we endorse the content of this or any blog. For more information about this message, please consult our FAQ.

Makes you wonder why Google even bothers with the Flag function on Blogger websites, doesn't it?

Technorati tags: Richard Warman, Bill White

Homophobia is a much-abused word

Homophobia is a word that gets thrown around much, much too often. That's quite a distinction for a five-syllable word; most overused words are, like, totally, well - short.

Its various synonyms are equally overworked: gay-hating, gay-bashing and probably a few others that won't come to me now. I don't deny that homophobia exists - it does. And like any hatred of any class of people, it is repugnant to me. Where I start objecting is when the term "homophobia" enters the conversation as soon as you express any moral objections or concern about homosexuality.

This is unjust. I have real concerns about SUV's, but I don't hate the people who drive them. I'm truly not suvophobic. Hmm, maybe I am. OK, I'm not SUVodriverphobic... Neologisms are obviously not my forte.

My doctor has expressed concern about my weight - she really doesn't think it's good for me. Somehow, I've managed to accept that this is not an indication of deep, fanatical hatred on her part towards overweight people.

But far too often in discussions about homosexuality, any expression at all of the idea that it might not be normal or desirable, brands you immediately as homophobic, and you are promptly labelled, boxed, and dismissed. The person you're talking to has concluded that because he knows "A" about you, he automatically knows "B, C, D" and all the way to "Z." And what he knows about you is that you are a hate-filled, intolerant, sign-waving, unthinking fanatic.

Stop and think about it a moment. Doesn't this have all the earmarks of bigotry and prejudice? "Prejudice" means to pre-judge someone. On the basis of a shred of "evidence", the entire case is wrapped up, judged and sentence is served.

Don't try to protest. It won't work. If you try to tell people that you have homosexual acquaintances, colleagues, relatives; that you live and work with them with perfectly amiable relations; that your skin does not crawl when you see them; that you genuinely care for them but are concerned about their lifestyle - well, save your breath. You are too obviously obsessed with hatred to have the right to speak.

You are a victim of bigotry, but there is no tribunal that will accept to hear your case.

Technorati tags: Homosexuality, Bigotry, Prejudice