Shut Up and Pat the Sheep

Jerry Agar, who hosts a local phone-in radio show, wanted to discuss the curious incident of a British transsexual ( who was born a he but now self-identifies as a she, even though "her" male paraphernalia remains intact) who was put into a male prison when s/he overstayed her visa. The trans person was visiting her Canadian girlfriend, a CFB (chick from birth), thereby making her Brit main squeeze--stay with me here because it gets kind of complicated--a transsexual lesbian with original male equipment; well, I guess it saves on those pricey strap-on bills.

Anyhoo, Jerry was told that there was no problem discussing the matter (free speech being enshrined in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms). The caveat, of course: no "hate speech" was permitted. And in the minds of our kooky "human rights" officials and "human rights" codes which might as well be writ in stone, calling a pre-op transsexual a "he" when that individual self-identifies as a "she" (or vice versa--a "she" when that trans person identifies as a "he") falls under the rubric of "hate." Given that, Agar notes that there's no such thing as free speech--and no way to have a conversation on the subject--because the "human rights" apparatchiks have already ruled that there's only one acceptable way to think and/or talk about such things. Thus, observes Agar, there is no real discussion. There is only Orwellian "Newspeak":

Newstalk1010 Brand Manager Mike Bendixen clarified that for radio and TV, the rule is that so long as the conversation is not hateful, it is acceptable. 

Unfortunately, however, we have seen people brought before human rights inquiries because someone else’s feelings were hurt. 

We’ve seen human rights commissions force women to accept males in locker rooms and bathrooms, regardless of how that impacts women. 

Newspeak in this case demands we show deference to an individual who is biologically male, because “she” has a right to be there, despite having male genitalia... 

Transgendered people do not deserve to be mocked. Many of us lack understanding of why they feel the way they do. 

But that doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t be able to have an intelligent conversation about our understanding of the relevant issues, without a referee declaring our thoughts out of bounds. 

Newspeak is not free speech. It is not free at all. It is totalitarian.

Of course it is. And, really, isn't that the discussion we should be having? A chat about how it isn't really about "hate speech" at all, "hate speech" merely being the peg on which it's hung. How at bottom it's all about power and domination and the desire--the will--to control. How this lupine totalitarianism is disguised (albeit not particularly well) as a sweet, fleecy, adorable and supposedly innocuous creature--the little lamb that ameliorates or spares "hurt feelings."

Hold your tongue; pat the sheep; lose your freedom. As the "human rights"/anti-"hate speech" control freaks know, it's as simple as that.



Pat the "sheep"--at your own risk!