NatPo Readers Condemn the Paper's Groveling Mea Culpa

Reader #1 writes:

I am a white male, senior, retired, heterosexual, married, parent and grandparent, person of faith. I have conservative leanings, live in Quebec as a federalist, and am not particularly environmentally minded.

I hereby give you permission to accept any ads or articles which may hurt my feelings or ruffle my feathers, and I assure you that I will neither demand nor accept an apology. I will, in fact, refuse same and will strenuously object should you decide to assuage my distress by donating your profits to any group espousing any of the above.

I take this very gracious and generous act in the spirit of free speech.

My commitment to this fundamental right is so great that I will willingly suffer the stress of reading personally upsetting articles/ads. I do hope that others who enjoy the freedom of this country could for once think of principle rather than a personal agenda.

Ronald G. Macfarlane, Chateauguay, Que.

Reader #2 writes:

I've read this "apology" several times and have gone back to study the ad from the Institute for Canadian Values - I find there is nothing offensive about it. What I do find offensive is that the National Post has found it necessary to apologize for running the ad, as imposing a curriculum dealing with sexuality and gender role on young students is also offensive. At that age, the curriculum in question is nothing more than pure indoctrination.

The Post's action is both cowardly and insulting to the intelligence of its readers. This error is compounded by the commitment to donate the proceeds from the advertisement to an organization that promotes the rights of those most likely to be offended by the ad.  

Unfortunately, this makes it clear that the Post has abandoned the principle of free speech and given in to the pressures of political correctness. That I find that most disturbing of all.

William G. Hopkins, Granton, Ont.

Me too. At least we know, though, how the Post would behave when faced, say, by a lawfare suit from some Wahhabi moneybags. Unlike Sun TV, it would, obviously and embarrassingly, cave post haste.

A society can enshrine the "right" to not be offended (a fake right, a silly right) or the right to free expression (the most crucial right of all; the right upon which all other rights depend). It cannot have both. And any society (or newspaper) that puts phony rights ahead of pivotal ones is fated--and deserves--to fail.