This week's exhibit in the Not Getting It category is George Jonas.
Mr. Jonas is working himself into a lather over Human Rights Commissions, and like certain other journalists I have trashed before, such as Ezra Levant and Nigel Hannaford, however he achieves a new level of asinine stupidity with the following assertion:
Human rights laws and tribunals are based on the notion that being hired, promoted, serviced and esteemed is a human right. It isn’t. Being hired, promoted, serviced and esteemed is a human ambition. It’s a justifiable ambition, but still just an ambition.
Wrong. Just plain wrong. Statements like this come out of the world of shallow thinking and jingoism.
To illustrate: A Canadian Jew who won’t hire a Canadian German or Muslim is a fool. There’s only one fool worse: a “human rights” commissar who would force him.
Where individuals exercise lawful choices, human rights are protected. People’s motives are their own business. Most people aren’t morons. When left to their own devices in a free society, most will select whom to hire, promote, service, or esteem on the basis of enlightened self-interest, not prejudice.
There's a problem here, and Mr. Jonas is trying very hard not to mention it - it's called discrimination. Human Rights laws are built quite specifically to work against the kind of conscious, systemic discrimination that he's referencing indirectly.
I don't care if someone won't hire a given person. However, I do care if the reason that they won't is because of some pithy reason such as their ancestry or as Chris Kempling did, discriminate by denying service to someone BASED his moral objections to their sexual identity.
I do not necessarily think that all human rights complaints are necessarily valid, but I do believe that there is a concept of due process that is applicable. The Human Rights Commissions provide an entry point into that due process in much the same way that law enforcement agencies such as the police provide when a criminal matter needs to be addressed.
As for the National Post itself, they should be ashamed (along with the rest of the CanWest chain) for repeatedly publishing such amazingly stupid columns that keep repeating the same idiotic talking points. It merely serves to demonstrate that they are becoming a mouthpiece for wingnut propaganda machines, rather than acting as legitimate journalists should.
7 comments:
You are right, much as I hate to say it. The column was crap. OK, in fairness, did you object to Michael Byers' column in the Star last week where he called Canada a "rogue state?" Or do you object only to conservative hosers?
Since the Star isn't one of my regular reads, I can't say I was aware of it.
I'm an equal opportunity writer - I'll slam nutbars of any stripe ... just lately the ones that label themselves "conservative" have been providing so much fodder...
Having looked at the Byers column, he was apparently reflecting something that had been said to him:
"So, how does it feel to be the citizen of a rogue state?"
The British professor asking the question was serious.
We were in Cambridge, England, ...
From there he launches into a critique of how Harper's foreign policy apes BushCo.
While I would agree that the phrase "rogue state" is certainly over the top, it is important to note that it is being applied towards Canada by others, and Byers is arguing that Canada should be taking steps to correct that image on the world stage.
{Not entirely invalid, especially given the dubious successes of the Bush approach to things on the world stage}
Byers agrees with the fellow who said this to him. The whole column is outrageously over the top. He's far more of a nutbar than Jonas...
While Levant does indeed qualify much along the lines you suggest, to lump that venerable gentleman Jonas in with him is just vile.
If I am a racist or bigot who acts on my right to dissociate from any individual for that reason by, for instance, not purchasing his or her labour, and that individual is in fact a world beater, I am the loser. The market and society will sort me out later. My loss. Somebody else's gain.
That is all Jonas is saying, and it is the key to social progress.
It would appear that the National Post is adding credence to my personal and biased opinion that the paper should have been titled 'The Fascist Post', an opinion I've held for several years.
E.
Anonymous@10:35:
The whole column is outrageously over the top. He's far more of a nutbar than Jonas...
Byers also takes the time to substantiate the plethora of incidents where PMSH has blithely aped his confederate in the White House, incidents which contribute to the tarring brush used.
He then goes on to point out why he thinks Harper's approach to foreign policy is dead wrong - and his criticisms.
I'd suggest taking a long look at how the UK's credibility suffered on the world stage while Blair was busy playing "Bush's Poodle".
Anon@12:30:
While Levant does indeed qualify much along the lines you suggest, to lump that venerable gentleman Jonas in with him is just vile.
There are those who would also call Hannaford venerable - I trashed him for the same stupidity. However, when they parrot the same crappy talking point that Levant does, they lower themselves to his level.
Venerable does not mean infallible.
Post a Comment