The following counter op-ed was NOT published in The Telegram (Newfoundland, CN). In fact, that newspaper did not respond to it. Pam Frampton, Outside Opinions Editor for SaltWire Network (corporate owner of The Telegram), kindly responded though not at all to the points made in it...
...............................................................
The Real Problem with “Hate”
The “hate” narrative serves an important and troubling purpose: CENSORSHIP and SELF-CENSORSHIP. What Pam Frampton fails to evoke in her op-ed, "Is there a cure for hate?," is the highly subjective nature of the very term “hate.” Canadian, American, and European governments don’t seem to comprehend that fundamental problem. For some people, truth and facts can actually constitute “hate.” Criticism of government immigration policy can be considered racist “hate.” Criticism of the Qur’an can be considered racist “hate,” even if factually critiqued. Criticism of the op-ed itself could be considered “hate.”
Evoking facts, regarding George Floyd, for example, who Frampton mentions, could be considered racist “hate.” Even placing “St.” in front of Floyd’s name could be considered racist “hate.” Merely questioning and challenging the Floyd narrative could be considered racist “hate.” Was kneeling on a resisting-arrest suspect’s neck in line with training protocols, for example? Did Floyd die from the heavy amount of drugs in his system and consequent heart failure, as noted in the autopsy, or from asphyxiation due to strangulation? Why should Floyd be anointed a hero, while many others who die or are murdered are not? Why should his family receive $25 million in taxpayer funds for Floyd’s death? Now, am I a racist filled with “hate” for simply evoking those questions?
Does not the accusation of “hate” serve to keep citizens from openly speaking or writing truth, as they perceive it? Frampton poses the question: “Can it [hate] be identified and addressed before it spreads further?” Well, governments in Canada and Europe have done that via hate-speech legislation, which serves to encourage citizens to self-muzzle and not speak truth that might counter the narrative. Declaring a person to be a hater constitutes kill the messenger in an effort to avoid his or her message—in essence, to eliminate the necessity of cogent counter-argumentation. That in itself ought to be a reason why we need to stop knee-jerk proclaiming that which we do not like as “hate.” Such assertions are intellectually lazy and facile. People need to learn to think, as opposed to echo-bellow racism, racism or sexism, sexism or simply “hate”!
Frampton notes that Izzeldin Abuelaish, medical doctor and professor of global health at the University of Toronto, instigated her op-ed and concludes with his statement that “The global community must recognize hatred as a public health issue in order to move from the management of hatred to the active prevention of its root causes through promotion, education and awareness. We must measure it and if unable to prevent it, mitigate it.”
What Abuelaish states, however, is in itself frightening: how not to think of communist re-education camps and forced groupthink, not to mention today’s Marxist cultural-race theory metastasizing in institutions of education, both higher and lower, which essentially teaches racist-hate against whites? The fundamental problem is the highly subjective nature of the term “hate,” as well as the fact that such terms serve to replace critical thinking. What might constitute “hate” for you might be facts and reality for me… and vice versa…
No comments:
Post a Comment