...Of course, being antiwar is much more politically correct than opposing abortion. Nowhere is that more evident than on university campuses where antiwar groups are chic and pro-life groups are persona non grata.
So it should come as little surprise that in the aftermath of two tragedies, only one political viewpoint is being marginalized.
We've seen this tragedy-as-a-censorship-excuse approach before in the case of Stephen Boissoin, the Red Deer pastor censored by an Alberta human rights panel for a letter he wrote to a Red Deer newspaper.
While in my view the letter was both inflammatory and absurd in its characterization of the gay rights movement, it certainly did not advocate violence against anyone.
Yet the panel chair who pronounced guilt on Boissoin specifically cited the assault of a gay teenager, claiming that the letter was likely to increase hatred of gays and therefore more likely to increase the "threat level."
Of course, by railing against the ridiculous censors in Human Rights Wonderland, is it possible that I and others could be making it more likely one of them will be assaulted or worse?
The slippery slope becomes obvious: criticism leads to hatred and, well, hatred leads to violence, so the criticism needs to go.
There are times when political rhetoric crosses the line to incitement.
In the U. S., a radical Internet talk-show host has been charged after urging listeners to "take up arms" and singling out two specific Connecticut lawmakers whose home addresses he had promised to release.
In fact, the host's website also described the murder of Tiller as a "righteous act."
I'm sure many others believe the same thing, and I don't doubt that those who provide abortions are concerned about their safety. It's akin to the extreme rhetoric from groups like PETA--I'm sure the danger facing animal researchers is comparable to that facing abortion providers.
If someone is shouting "Abortion is murder!" or "Meat is murder!", then the answer is not to silence them but to counter them and show where and how they're wrong. While zealous activists should not be forced to reign in their inflammatory rhetoric, it may be in their best interests to do so--if indeed winning hearts and minds is the objective.
That's especially true for pro-life groups: there are those who would like to see all pro-lifers excluded from the public debate and those who liken abortion to the Holocaust are not doing their movement any favours.
Of course, you should be free to believe whatever you want to believe. Short of advocating violent or illegal action, you should be able to state it, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment