Some persons may get a chuckle out of the term. But Political
Correctness is an implacable force that we must come to terms with, or
else accept the reality that our First Amendment freedoms may become
irrevocably lost.
Political Correctness has its roots in Cultural
Marxism. Cultural Marxists know that
democratic capitalism cannot be overthrown by external force. So they
seek to undermine Western society like a cancer attacking from within.
The politically-correct view all of history through the prism of power.
For example, radical feminism teaches that in the past, men had all the
power. That made men the unrelenting oppressors of women. So now men are
obliged to make up for their past transgressions.
Experience proves that Political Correctness is difficult to counter
because it is always justified by sentimental appeals to fairness and
sensitivity.
The purveyors of PC began 20 years ago by discouraging the use of
demeaning stereotypes and epithets directed against any racial, ethnic,
or gender group. Who could argue with that?
An exception was made, however, for males, who were considered fair game
for the crudest forms of denunciation.
Soon, campus speech codes began to sprout. In the workplace, speech
codes became subsumed under the rubric of sexual harassment. If a boss
called his secretary "honey" or a doctor referred to a patient as
"dear," that could get him into trouble.
The next step in the unfolding PC campaign was the passage of hate
speech legislation.
In 1999, the National Organization of Women and other groups unveiled
the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which aimed to expand the scope of the
existing hate crime laws to include gender and sexual orientation. When
it floundered in committee, they changed the name of the bill to the
benign-sounding Local Law Enforcement Act - the LLEA.
Just last week, five years of hard work paid off. The Senate approved
the LLEA by a 65-33
vote. If the
House of Representatives approves the bill and President Bush signs off,
the LLEA soon will become the law of the land.
So what would happen if someone writes a book that portrays a protected
group in a negative light? Could that be construed as a hate crime?
Actually, I didn't make that example up.
On June 10, legendary actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted in France
and fined $6,000. Her
offense? Including passages in her best-selling book, A Cry in the
Silence, about the growing Islamic influence in Europe. The sections in
question allegedly incited racial hatred against Moslems. However, a
review of the passages in question reveals them to be provocative, but
certainly not hateful.
Or what would happen if a person did a critique of feminist ideology -
not attacking feminists as a group, just analyzing their philosophy?
Could that get a person into hot water?
Again, that is not a hypothetical question.
Because just last year, the Canadian government published
a report
entitled "School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculist
Discourse".
The report concluded, "We also recommend that consideration be given to
whether legal action can be taken under section 319 of the Criminal
Code."
And what is section 319 of the Criminal Code? Why, that's the Canadian
hate crimes law.
And what are the crimes of the accused? According to the indictment in
the Executive Summary, "The results of our analysis of the masculist
discourse reveal an ideology that aims to challenge the gains made by
women and discredit feminism."
Exactly who are the perpetrators of this ideological crime? The report
lists persons like Christina Hoff Sommers, author of the expose, Who
Stole Feminism? Accusing a woman of being hateful to other women -
apparently the irony of that was lost to authors of the report.
And if you've been following the story about the
Affirmative
Action Bake Sales on college campuses, you know
that the move to ban certain forms of political expression has gained a
solid foothold in the United States, as well.
First Cultural Marxism. Then Political Correctness. And now the LLEA.
Take me to my grave, but I'm going to stoutly resist anybody telling me
what I can say and what I can think.
