To read Des Rosiers is to learn how suffocating the ideal of liberal democracy is, how respect and advancement of individual freedom is constrictive for group rights, how liberalism in being stiflingly “monocultural” impedes equality, how in protecting individual rights liberal democracy constrains individuals wanting to be in whatever way different and be connected differently. The Confederates in the United States wanted to protect their group rights and to be different, and given Des Rosiers waxing defence of group rights over the universal claim of individual freedom that liberalism advances, I imagine, my critic would be very much at home among them as she seems to be comfortable with, or accepting of, those immigrants in Canada who insist on group rights based on multiculturalism which run counter to the value of individual freedom and gender equality. It is by such platitudes and false arguments Des Rosiers defends multiculturalism, and suggests wrongs in society that predates the making of liberal democracy would not and could not be remedied except by adopting the doctrine of official multiculturalism. She then conflates the argument for defending rights of indigenous people in liberal democracies such as Canada, or Australia, with group rights of immigrants bringing their cultural baggage from non-liberal societies to a liberal society based on individual rights and freedoms.To boil it down to its essence: those on the left believe in "group rights," which enables them to hew to the sophistries of multiculturalism; those on the right believe in the rights of the individual, and are therefore immune to the multicult cult.
Update: That Nathalie D. R. is a CIJA fave tells you practically all you need to know about the cluelessness of these Official Jews.
Post a Comment