Three Great Things About the Dismissal of the Mark Steyn HRC Complaint
The panel has concluded that the complaints are not justified because the complainants have not established that the Article is likely to expose them to hatred or contempt on the basis of their religion. Therefore, pursuant to s. 37(1) the complaints are dismissed.
The Bunker congratulates Mr. Steyn, and are very pleased with the decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal. There are several reasons, but here are three.
1) It’s the right decision. Steyn is one of the more articulate folks making money by mining American fear and xenophobia these days (and cultivating a slightly less profitable peripheral market among weak-minded Canadians), but the Macleans article that started this whole ludicrous circus was no more than mildly racist, mock-populist taunting. It wasn’t hate literature.
2) It seems improbable, but maybe, just maybe, the hysterics who’ve been dining off their own lucrative faux-martyrdom will, mercifully, shut the fuck up about how oppressed they are. Just for a little while? Please? Give the rest of us a tiny break?
3) Sales of Kathy Shaidle’s self-published Vanity press “book” (you know, the one with the cover that looks as though it was glued together by a visually impaired eight-year old nephew with letraset and an old shoe ad?) should now, if there is a just and merciful God in heaven, tank.
We really believe in freedom of speech here at the Bunker. Unlike so many of the URQ free-speech faux-martyrs like Ezra, Shaidle et al., we show it by NOT censoring, editing, blocking or banning comments. So our congratulations to Mr. Steyn are entirely sincere. We may despise your ideas, but we’re glad the system worked and you’re still at liberty to excrete them as you see fit.
Really? We can say anything?
Poop
This is funny. Here’s a little blurb up now on Steyn’s website:
Savour that list while you can: it’s the first and only time you’ll ever see Stageleft listed in THAT company, sandwiched between Michelle Malkin and Deborah Gyapong.
Would it be cynical of me to wonder if Mr. Steyn read the headline of this post, but not the post itself? Either than, or he’s a more broad minded guy than I’ve given him credit for.
Let’s see how long “Stageleft” stays up there.
Haha, is there a link on his site?
If not, ask for one.
“Either than, or he’s a more broad minded guy than I’ve given him credit for. ”
Steyn typically links to critics, sometimes even featuring them in his infrequently-updated “Quote of the Day”. Unlike some, he actually seems to relish being criticized.
I think it’s partly a thick skin, partly him being (like you) a genuine believer in free speech, and partly a view that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
On your post. I don’t believe he’s expressing racist ideas at all. Steyn is consistent: he is concerned about the potential for radicalism from white Muslims from Albania, black Muslims from the US, Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Australian Muslims, and Uighur Muslims. I am unaware of him expressing any concern over radical Muslims from Antarctica.
You’d be on much stronger ground if you argued he ludicrously overstates the danger from radical Islam and is a poor excuse for a demographer. I’m not sure you’d be correct, but it’s a legitimate and rational argument.
“maybe, just maybe, the hysterics who’ve been dining off their own lucrative faux-martyrdom will, mercifully, shut the fuck up about how oppressed they are.”
The way I see it, having lived in some pretty grim corners of this world, the ‘hysterics’ are attacking the potential oppression of us all. I’m a Canadian of African descent. I don’t like the idea of voices being silenced by the force of the government. It’s very easy for the government to decide a certain set of ideas are ‘bad’ and have to be fought with laws, water cannons, and even guns.
“Sales of Kathy Shaidle’s self-published Vanity press “book” ”
I’ve no opinion on Kathy Shaidle’s book, not having yet read it. I suspect you haven’t, either.
“you know, the one with the cover that looks as though it was glued together by a visually impaired eight-year old nephew with letraset and an old shoe ad”
Judging a book by its cover, are we?
She’s a talented writer. Have you ever read “God rides a Yamaha” ? I disagree with at least a third of what she says (I’m sure most readers of this site disagree with 80-90% of what she says), but that was one of the proverbial “good books” one hopes to stumble across in life’s journey.
“We may despise your ideas, but we’re glad the system worked and you’re still at liberty to excrete them as you see fit. ”
Well said. Arouet would be proud.
Holmwood
“I don’t like the idea of voices being silenced by the force of the government.”
To the free-speechers’ dismay, the government is wickedly refusing to silence them. Now they’ll be playing the tired “we made them blink” card, trying to eke an each-way win out of their months of hysteria that few but other bloggers even noticed, for the most part.
[...] Hemingway, Michelle Malkin, The Weekly Standard, the Canadian Arab Federation, Jay Currie, Stage Left, Deborah Gyapong, The Western Standard, the Hyacinth Girl, and Kathy Shaidle & Pete Vere, [...]
Holmwood, don’t know if you’ve been round these parts before, but if not, welcome.
Re Steyn: political sparring aside, I’ve always enjoyed his cultural writing (mostly familiar with his Atlantic pieces), and we seem to share a taste for some second tier, lesser known authors. I suspect he’s a bit uneasy in his role as poster boy for the wacko American right, and (purely guessing) a bit embarassed by the limpet-like, disturbing attachment some of our domestic would-be Coulters seem to have formed for him.
Re racism: you are quite correct. Bad term in this context.
Re the “the potential oppression of us all” and your dislike for “the idea of voices being silenced by the force of the government”, you must be sharing our relief that that did not, in fact, occur; that, as we predicted, the complaint was found to be without merit; and that the hysterics who claimed this was a portent of Star Chambers and gulags have been proven to be just that - hysterics.
“I’ve no opinion on Kathy Shaidle’s book, not having yet read it. I suspect you haven’t, either.”
Quite right. Nor have I read the latest Ann Coulter, the latest Danielle Steele, or the latest Michael Slade. I am getting on in years, and life is short.
“Judging a book by its cover, are we?” Not entirely. Also judging a book by its author, its subject matter, and its premise. But partly, yes. Admit it: it’s an AWFUL cover.
“She’s a talented writer. Have you ever read “God rides a Yamaha” ?”
No, but I read Lobotomy Magnificat, thanks to James Bow. It’s a subject I’ve been avoiding because I promised James if he bought it for me, I’d review it, and I haven’t. I will concede that at that point she was a good poet - actually an excellent one - but painful to read, like chewing on broken shards of expensive crystal.
I also read a couple of the product descriptions that she writes these days for a living, and found them less compelling, although there was one - I believe it was for a foaming bath gel - that was stirring.
But if she was a good writer once, I’m afraid her self-described role as polemicist and hater (her description) has eclipsed what once might have talent. This week, for example, she described the Obama/McCain debate thus:
“A sinuous Barack Obama sat gracefully on his stool, like a male model (if you like him) or the snake in the garden of Eden (if you don’t). ”
Oh, my. Pity the Bulwer Lytton Award is only for fiction.
As I’ve said before, Steyn may remind me of a circus clown with a single trick up his sleeve but there is no getting around the fact that he is right on this matter, I agree with the decision, and I am glad that the complaints have been dismissed. Frankly we all saw this is the inevitable outcome to the proceedings, but it is good to see it formalized, and hopefully used as precedent for other frivolous “oh woe is me for I have been sorely offended and they must be silenced” complaints.
But this is not the end of it by any means b., there is still much gnashing of teeth and great lamenting(*) of said dismissal as a travesty of justice perpetrated by the the politically correct leftist powers that be to ensure this matter never reached a real court so that existing law could be properly struck down.
It’s to bad Harper and crew dumped the Court Challenges program, this is a perfect example of a situation where it should be available to Steyn to test the law as it is written.
(*) on inspection of the official bunker financial tome you will note that we have purchased a large blogosphere block of sack cloth and ashes shares, the value of which, even in ‘these perilous times’, is sure to turn a profit as an indispensable compliment to proper wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Actually no.
As much as I mistrust the commissions and tribunals after what I encountered while investigating them, I absolutely sympathize with Canada’s Muslim community. Once again, they were just doing what they saw everyone else doing; once again, they got screwed because the rules changed the moment they took their kick at the can.
A few months ago, my wife and I had the pleasure of hosting Syed Soharwardy for dinner as we celebrated his arrival to Northern Ontario (he was walking across Canada) and my little one’s birthday. For the most part we didn’t discuss the human rights tribunals - not because we were avoiding the topic, but because I was more interested in his walk, as well as making sure he was properly briefted about bears before going further North.
Syed politely listened. He may have thought I was exaggerating the bear threat in Northern Ontario - most non-Northerners do. But he was a polite guest, and went through the drills with me of what he should do if he encountered a bear on his walk. Good thing too. He later told me, and his communication’s director Linda confirmed in a news release, that he would experience five or six bear incidents during the Lake Superior stretch of his walk. Most of the incidents came to no harm, but on a least one occasion, it was obvious he had encountered a larger bear that was tracking him, and he knew from our conversation to get back to his RV until the bear went away.
Anyway, by the time we got around to discussing the human rights commissions and tribunals, he asked me, in all earnestness, what Muslims had done differently than any other faith or culture group that had filed complaints with the commissions. I could tell from his eyes and facial expressions, as well as the tone of his voice, that there was no bitterness or malice in asking the question - he was honestly confused by the ensuing backlash and how everything had played out.
And I couldn’t blame him, despite the fact I disagreed with his actions. He was right in two respects. First, Muslims were just doing what everyone else had done. Second, the rules changed the moment Muslims started playing.
What do I think happened? Given the decline in basement Nazis and actual hate incidents in Canada, the human rights industry needed to broaden the definition of “hate” in order to justify their continued existence and maintain their comfy lifestyle and government paychecks. So they attempted to do so on the backs of Canada’s Muslim community.
When this provoked an international backlash, which became potentially a greater threat to their lavish lifestyle, they voted with their pocketbooks. The Muslim community was cut loose, and left to fend for themselves against the backlash.
The process is the punishment, as David Warren said. Not only to Steyn and Levant and others who never should have been put through it at the personal cost of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours. But also to Canada’s Muslim community who, at the cost of their reputation, have learned a hard lesson: For the bureaucrats driving these commissions and tribunals, principles will always be segregated to the back of the bus if potential paychecks come on board.
P.S. I don’t care what stylists and grammarians say, I have a soft spot for mixing metaphors.
Pete, yours is a kinder, gentler articulation of the worldview Ezra liked to describe in more Dantean terms, with a contemptuous dismissal of the human rights commission and its staff as either unwitting dupes of an oppressive bureaucracy, or malign conspirators bent on paving the path for eventual domination by Muslims/Communists/Euroweenies/Aliens from Rigel. Nonsense. These folks are implementing a system we have asked for and legitimized, through legislation.
As chronicled elsewhere, I was investigated under an unjustified Human Rights complaint. The experience inconvenient, and cost me a bit of money. The complaint was, appropriately, dismissed. And in the end, I was glad the system was in place. It HAS been used successfully, in cases where its use was justified.
Cops are sometimes called out on domestics following an allegation of assault that turns out to have been a heated argument. Does that mean we should remove assault from the criminal code, or stop sending police in response to calls?
Mixed metaphors are welcome at Stageleft, as long as they don’t contain TOO much vermouth. We hope to leave our readership shaken AND stirred.
And since we’re chattin’ here all friendly like - dude, what is WITH that awful cover?
You can blame me for the cover. I opted not to veto it, which would have necessitated postponing a fishing trip.
I can fault your politics, but not your priorities - good call.
And since you seem to be a nice guy, I hope YOUR half of the book sells.
Thanks. I’m glad I did, since my four-year-old caught her first fish. Just a small perch - probably under a pound. But she was excited nevertheless.
Any good spots over by where you’re at?
Nothing spectacular near my home in Ottawa. But I work quite a bit in Nunavut, the new Northern Territory, and the fishing there is, in my never humble opinion, the best in the world.
There’s a spot near Baker Lake, just inland from Hudson’s Bay, where a river pools before flowing into the lake. I stood onshore for forty minutes with a borrowed, cheap rod and reel, and pulled in char and grayling without a pause. Incredible. The char were so good that we fed the grayling (a fine fish in its own right) to my host’s dog team.
[...] Three Great Things About the Dismissal of the Mark Steyn HRC [...]
holy sh*t! left-wingers who actually have a rudimentary sense of humor. i thought this was prohibited on strategic grounds - if people are allowed to laugh at your basic axioms, your grand designs are soon undermined. few things are more amusing than what passes for ratiocination on the left. the feminist movement soon realized this - hence its legendary hatred of humor. in contrast, i was directly linked to your site by steyn, who loves strife and fears no adversary. i look forward to many bellylaughs courtesy of your opinions.
cordially,
cyclops
“holy sh*t! left-wingers who actually have a rudimentary sense of humor.”
We once discussed asking new arrivals to provide a little information about themselves - age, political affiliation, intelligence, emotional state, literacy level - but Stage wisely pointed out that you can figure all that out from their first post - in this case, from the first sentence of their first post. Twenties or lower, Conservative, medium-low, a little drunk, Grade 6.
balb, although an anti-S.13 con, I demurred on the strict libertarian position on some free-speech sites and got called a liberal for my pains. Boy, did that hurt! Much prefer fascist. Anyway, I’m surprised to see you dismiss Peter’s “elitist” characterization so swiftly, because that seemed to me to be the free-speechers’ strongest and most incontrovertible argument. Steyn’s pretensions to martyrdom were, frankly, embarassing and ultimately irritating, and I was never too impressed with the “real courts have rules of evidence” stuff, but it seemed clear to me that the whole gig was part of a inter-connected, self-perpetuating circle of academics/appointees who “specialized” in human rights, which ultimately meant they were able to define what those are and make up the rules as they went along. Not unlike that imaginary code of global righteousness called international law–lots of lawyers, no judges. At the federal level, the relationship between the Commission and Tribunal had become far too cosy, and I say that as a lawyer who observed Commission counsel getting away with open defiance at one of the Lemire hearings. A judge would have creamed a Crown attorney who tried to circumvent a prior ruling like that. The Warman story is appalling to anyone with the most rudimentary appreciation of what conflict of interest means, and as for Barbara Hall, well….’nuff said. I was struck by how slow defenders like Dr. Dawg were to see that this called for more than “tweaking”. In the end, I came to see Steyn and MacLean’s as leading a populist revolt and the Commission defenders as establishment toadies trolling public washrooms for evidence of completely marginal and powerless thugs to keep the glory days alive and hold off the mob.
I also came to wonder whether there wasn’t a kind of generational split here. If your formative years were the sixites and you approach this issue through the prism of the holocaust or Jim Crow or the treatment of aboriginals, you see it quite differently than someone for whom it’s all about priggish teachers forcing you to write boilerplate essays and speeches for “Equality Day” when you know which side he/she will automatically run to in the event of actual inter-racial conflict or charges of racism.
That said, there is no doubt this has unleashed some awfully vile stuff passing as political expression and the free-speechers are naive if they continue to insist there is some absolute, easily discernible division between words and action. If the Americans want to have neo-Nazi marches through Jewish suburbs, bully for them, but we don’t and never have, and I’m out of patience with those who say that means free speech is dead in Canada, which is outrageous. Like you, I’ve wondered why Steyn has allowed himself to associate so closely with the ranters. He made his well-deserved name and fame during a climate of crisis, but now he may have succumbed to a desperate attempt to keep everyone at a fever pitch in subtler times. Sort of like listening to Churchill give his “We’ll fight on the beaches…” speech in 1951.
It’s a classic Canadian cop-out to call for a royal commission, but this might be one time we could use one.
You may be right on the generational split thing. I referred obliquely a week ago to a crisis of blogging faith, and am beginning to think that age may be at the root of it. One of the areas in which I’m sensing a growing gap is a tendency among what may be a younger group of writers to frame and argue everything in extremes, as though every talking point had to be inflated to its hyperbolic maximum.
Having worked for a mercifully brief time within the bureaucracy (a penance I think should be required of everyone before they’re permitted to work with or write about government), I understand the tendency of bureaucracies to gather, consolidate, expand and protect power - the Catholic Church, Human Rights Commissions, or the CIA. They should all be subject to rigorous oversight, frequent review, and evaluation of their outcomes against their real-world goals. In the aforementioned “real world”, no-one EVER gets it right, however, and these entities run a wobbly course, lurching towards extremes and triggering a corrective response when they approach them too closely.
There seems to be a consensus that one such response may be called for now. But one of the disservices that Steyn et al have done us in this instance is to amp up the hysteria and self-important martyrdom to the point that it’s almost impossible to actually determine whether such a consensus actually exists, or whether it’s simply a campaign to keep Ezra in the papers and Kathy selling manifestos.
Like Dawg, I’m a tweakist: before tossing something out, I like to examine the degree to which the social need an instrument was created to address still exists, to look at the effectiveness, strengths, weaknesses and actual results (intended and unintended) of the current instrument, and THEN to determine whether the instrument requires adjustment, maintenance, redesign, or the junk heap.
Strangely enough, the generational split came up in my dinner-time conversation with Syed. One of reasons he approached the commission was his concern over a certain radical element among some younger Muslims, which troubles him greatly. He also told me that he had consulted with several elders within Canada’s Jewish community before filing a complaint against Ezra. He was in no way accusatory toward these Jewish leaders, as his comment was made in the context of explaining to me that he had no anti-semitic intentions in accusing Ezra.
At which point I asked Syed: “You just explained to me how Canada’s Muslim community is experiencing a bit of a generational gap. Have you considered the possibility that other faith groups in Canada are experiencing a similar gap between generations?”
I could see the light bulb go on in his head. He’s not a stupid man. He has a doctorate in engineering if I am not mistaken. But there is often a tendency to recognize divisions in our own faith community, while assuming complete homogeny in others.
And this cuts across ideological lines as well. For example, all of my least favorite university professors were middle-aged big-city feminists. They take themselves and their ideology so seriously that I find myself too tightly-wound in their class room to learn anything.
On the other hand, I’m finishing up a fine arts degree at our local university - the newest and smallest in Ontario - where my two favorite professors are feminists in their 30’s. One is a nationally-renown eco-feminist poet, while the other heads up the local Wiccan community and has acted as the spokesperson for the local pro-choice community. As you can imagine, we have the wildest conversations in class - and even after class on occasion. These discussions are often offensive, but that’s the price of good debate.
However, they’ve actually complained to me when I’ve missed class, telling me it was a little dull and reassuring me (jokingly) that they won’t call the Human Rights Commission on me.
And none of us take ourselves and our ideology so seriously that we cannot have fun in class. For example, one of these profs helped me write an ode to Ted Nugent hunting bear in the style of Marlatt’s ecriture feminine.
But this is the type of fun and creativity we have in small rural communities that big city folk would find offensive, and could easily lead to human rights complaints.
Oh, jeez, now we have to deal with small-town chauvism as well. I’d respond to THAT at greater length, but my damned Expresso machine is in for service at the shop (sorry, at the “shoppe”), and I just can’t get in touch with my innermost feelings without it.
Two unlikely sources occured to me (unlikely as a combination, that is). One was Sandra Shamas, who joked during her last show about one of the benefits of crossing the great demi-centennial divide. You know what I like most? she said. I don’t give a fuck. All the stuff that used to get me so angry - every argument that was a life and death struggle, every battle of egos that I had to win, every election, every quiz in a magazine - you know, nowadays, I just don’t give a fuck.
I knew exactly what she meant. It’s not that you care less, or work less hard to achieve whatever social or political vision you’re committed to: but it’s somehow calmer, with less emotion - maybe just less ego - invested in each outcome. After the tenth election Your Side loses, you realize that somehow the world will continue to function - in fact, not much actually changes.
The other source that occured was dear old Screwtape, who advised his apprentice tempter to use pride to help his victim disregard sermons or advice from clergy he could dismiss as insufficiently educated, or urbane, or sophisticated. The point was wonderful one - it’s very seldom that a sermon, or political tract, or editorial, if it’s a sincere expression of a person’s heartfelt views, is utterly devoid of merit. (Which DOESN’T mean I am going to buy that damn book. But if you want to swap a copy for a commercial DVD I made about diving in the Caymans, you’re on. )
The radicalization of first and third generation immigrants of any culture is pretty common. I personally think the trend is exacerbated by the Steyns and Levants, whose Us Vs. Them bugles summon us all into camps rather than the Agora.
@balbulican - Have you ever read any of Steyn’s work? He is much more open minded than you give him credit for. He doesn’t call people with an opposing view names - though he questions their motives and thought processes at times. He truly believes in free speach and he writes what he thinks. Pay attention to those last 3 words “what he thinks.” He actually thinks about things. He actually makes reasoned (that thinking stuff again) arguments.
I don’t know if he linked knowing your view or not, but I would not be surprised to find that he did. You purport to be in favor of free speach, but act in an English Schoolboy manner to belittle anyone speaking a view that differs from yours. Come to think of it - so does Steyn - but with so much more style than this article and with so much more fact to substantiate his view.
rroe: I suggest you read a thread before commenting. You clearly didn’t. Thanks.
Of course the gold standards in humour are at Thinkgeek and XKCD.
A first, well recognized basis of humour is that it should contain an element of surprise - which, unfortunately, is simply not true with the remixed works of Henny Youngman popular at the Yuk Yuks. (Non-profit idea: We should send a phalanx of divorce lawyers to comedy clubs to help liberate the middle aged comics who haven’t enjoyed their marriages since the day after their honeymoons. It’s a public AND personal charity.)
A second, less known rule of comedy is that it has to be humorous enough to have staying power on a T-Shirt. You should be able smile on the eight or ninth viewing, because the incongruity, although learned, is unexpected enough to contain a small memory of the original thrill. (Although not enough to justify continuing remix Henny Youngman in a world containing divorce lawyers. Ba-dum-cha!)
Most people are incredibly humourless: they rarely laugh at my binary Thinkgeek t-shirt.
Would I be losing unforgiveable levels of blogcred if I admitted that I had never heard of…yes, probably. Never mind. Forget I spoke.
No, no. However, when one’s Gen-X, feminist, (with middle-aged feminist mentors of both genders), latte-swilling, big-city girl who ALSO happens to be part of a dominant culture - everyone wants to be part of the amusing (money-making!) science l33ts, these days - it is a really interesting combo of perspectives.
I’m part of groups that are disparaged as a monolith as Pete Vere says, but also part of a group where everyone attempts to laugh at our jokes - even if they’re not particularly amusing, you know, from a different context.
Geeks, as a group, have litigious folks and outlaws, pirates and hackers on the uncharted frontier, and people who will ruin your enjoyment of a movie by bringing their expertise and ideology to the table. (ie: Not by providing feminist analysis, but by providing analysis of not controlling for the gravity effect. Or, for example, I simply can’t handle the darkening the sky in The Matrix as a plot point, or the inefficiency of the lossy human body as an electrical source. I MUST MENTION IT.
John and I laugh at ourselves when we go off and rant… Like, we can suspend disbelief for any number of mythological tropes in a story, but the fact this guy’s got access to a cel network on a mountain is TOTALLY FAKE.
But there is a basic ideology at play motivating us.)
Anyway, it’s a weird place to be. I mean, even the most out there creationists TRY to play hip by co-opting the scientific dialogue and laughing like they get the joke. You know? Less likely that’s going to happen for, you know, “Manifesta”.
Arwen, no, I was quite specific in which sub-group of feminist professors I was bemoaning. As a gen-x’er and a geek, you don’t qualify. Sorry. (And neither do all boomer feminist professors - the small town ones are really cool, like feminist photographer JC Elvy who introduced me to Magnum photography. She also encouraged me to set aside my digital camera and pursue black and white film).
The difference, I find, between big cities and small towns - and I have lived in both - is that in the latter is forced to interact with people who are not like you, or become a hermit. So you learn to tolerate your differences, not take them so seriously, and accept people for who they are.
For instance, a friend of mine is a gay musician and playwrite who wants to turn Tyranny of Nice into a musical. He hates government censorship, noting that gays are traditionally the first people censored in any community, and appreciates Steyn’s work as a music critic.
I once asked him why he didn’t move to Toronto, where he would have much more opportunity to pursue his talents.
“Hell, no,” he said. “We wouldn’t be having this conversation if I was living in Toronto. I would have to be gay 24/7, and they would try and drag me into all their squabbles. There’s nothing more fractious than Toronto’s gay community.”
“Then you haven’s met Toronto’s pro-life community,” I said.
We spent the next twenty minutes commiserating about the various incidents while visiting the big city in which we had run afoul of the identity group police. It was uncanny how many of the patterns and our complaints overlapped.
Another example with the same gentleman. He suffers some serious health problems that keep him out of class for a month. Besides the fact class discussion is boring without his colorful comments, I’m worried because he’s not answer his phone or emails, and nobody knows why he’s missing.
Finally, five minutes before class, he walks through the door, comes over to my seat, explains what happens, and apologizes. I’m simultaneously relieved, because he’s safe, and annoyed, because he didn’t tell anyone why he was missing.
“You’re Catholic,” he says. “I assume you’d forgive me, or is forgiveness only something you speak about?”
“Oh just give me a big gay hug,” I said. “But no touching anything private, even though I’m glad you’re safe and feeling better.”
“One big gay hug for my favorite Catholic homophobe,” he said, before putting his arms around me and lifting me off the ground.
Our classmates laughed, the prof said she was happy to see us re-united and was looking forward to watching us go at it - especially as Oscar Wilde was the topic of today’s class. But during class break he and I both mused that our little expression of friendship probably would have been politicized into cross-accusations of intolerance and hate-mongering, had it taken place in a more populous milieu.
But there is often a tendency to recognize divisions in our own faith community, while assuming complete homogeny in others.
I was elucidating agreement with this statement, mainly, Pete - because it’s *true*. As a feminist, suddenly every crackpot who claimed that label is your mouthpiece. I’m sure it’s the same for conservatives in some contexts!
But as a GEEK, people fall all over themselves to get to know you.
Interesting etymological interpolation. Did you know (and I’m sure that erudite readers of Stageleft so) that the “geek” was once the closing act of an old-fashioned carnival side show? It was often either someone suffering from mental illness and incapable of getting other work, or a former carny who didn’t want to leave the show. They were (or played) a filthy, dung-crusted, matted-hair bearded wild man, and usually finished their act by either eating a snake or biting the head of a chicken or bat.
NOT to draw any parallels…
I have to laugh at myself as I read your posts here. I’m one of those young guys who takes things to extremes. I’m (sometimes) one of those idealogues who must (sometimes) believe in the unanimity of those of us who occupy “my” small sector of the Political landscape. I am even one of those big-city denizens who feels he has to represent his “group” 24/7. I laughed at myself as I read the thread - it was a nice experience in a strange way.