Words
I wrote to Mike Brock through Facebook, saying criticism was fine and all that, but I'm not cool with being called a Nazi. (If someone wants to finance my next trip abroad, calling me a Nazi is a good way to do it.)
He wrote this back, inter alia:
Warren, I am NOT calling you a Nazi. The entire post was tongue and cheek, from the very opening sentence to the very last sentence. It was completely satire. I am completely willing to clarify it as such...I have added clarification to the post, which makes unambiguously clear that the post is tongue-in-cheek, and clarifies my belief that I do not believe you to be a "nazi, racist or fascist".
I hope this satisfies you, as I believe the post was clearly hyperbolic satire...
I am certain that both you and I share an equal disdain for said groups.
Thanks, Mike. We do.
[Addendum: Mike had two other criticisms, expressed rather hysterically, but which deserve a response, nonetheless. He seemingly felt that I - along with certain bloggers, and certain mainstream media reporters at Canadian Press and the CBC - had (a) suggested that Keith Martin was a Nazi and (b) we had been wrong to link to a neo-Nazi web site, or mention it, when pointing out how Keith Martin was drawing unwelcome support for his private member's bill.
The last point first, because it's fair criticism. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say that I have written two books about anti-Semitism and bigotry - one focussing on the Far Left (Unholy Alliances, 1992), the other focussing on the Far Right (Web of Hate, 1994, 1996 and 2001) - and I did not hesitate, in either case, to alert my readers to instances where expressing bona fide points of view (on immigration, on anti-taxation movements, on gay rights, on the Holocaust, on free speech, on what have you) inadvertently gave encouragement to the forces of organized racism. That neo-Nazis will disproportionately benefit from the elimination of reasonable limitations on expression is, I acknowledge, no basis for clamping down on all expression. But the haters will benefit - and that, I submit, is a consequence that always needs to be considered. It is therefore fair and appropriate to draw people's attention to the fact that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are deliriously happy about Keith Martin's proposal, to me. "Rubbing people's noses in the reality of hate," I wrote in Web of Hate, is sometimes necessary. I know lots of good people get upset by that - but that ostrich-like tendency is the problem, here: too many folks in the blogosphere are forming opinions on hate propaganda, on violent pornography and other hateful expression, in the abstract.
Which sort of leads me to Mike Brock's first criticism, which is spurious. If the Canadian Press, or me, had evidence that a Member of Parliament was a National Socialist, you can rest assured that we would not hesitate to publicize that revelation. No one, least of all me, is suggesting that Keith Martin is a Nazi. Instead, I am simply saying that Keith Martin and many others seem to be recklessly indifferent to the harm that will be caused by finally doing what the neo-Nazis have agitated for, for decades. And Keith Martin and his conservative acolytes need to think about why that is so, and the consequences for all of us, and the flourishing, vibrant multicultural society that we have all built in this place.]
He wrote this back, inter alia:
Warren, I am NOT calling you a Nazi. The entire post was tongue and cheek, from the very opening sentence to the very last sentence. It was completely satire. I am completely willing to clarify it as such...I have added clarification to the post, which makes unambiguously clear that the post is tongue-in-cheek, and clarifies my belief that I do not believe you to be a "nazi, racist or fascist".
I hope this satisfies you, as I believe the post was clearly hyperbolic satire...
I am certain that both you and I share an equal disdain for said groups.
Thanks, Mike. We do.
[Addendum: Mike had two other criticisms, expressed rather hysterically, but which deserve a response, nonetheless. He seemingly felt that I - along with certain bloggers, and certain mainstream media reporters at Canadian Press and the CBC - had (a) suggested that Keith Martin was a Nazi and (b) we had been wrong to link to a neo-Nazi web site, or mention it, when pointing out how Keith Martin was drawing unwelcome support for his private member's bill.
The last point first, because it's fair criticism. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say that I have written two books about anti-Semitism and bigotry - one focussing on the Far Left (Unholy Alliances, 1992), the other focussing on the Far Right (Web of Hate, 1994, 1996 and 2001) - and I did not hesitate, in either case, to alert my readers to instances where expressing bona fide points of view (on immigration, on anti-taxation movements, on gay rights, on the Holocaust, on free speech, on what have you) inadvertently gave encouragement to the forces of organized racism. That neo-Nazis will disproportionately benefit from the elimination of reasonable limitations on expression is, I acknowledge, no basis for clamping down on all expression. But the haters will benefit - and that, I submit, is a consequence that always needs to be considered. It is therefore fair and appropriate to draw people's attention to the fact that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are deliriously happy about Keith Martin's proposal, to me. "Rubbing people's noses in the reality of hate," I wrote in Web of Hate, is sometimes necessary. I know lots of good people get upset by that - but that ostrich-like tendency is the problem, here: too many folks in the blogosphere are forming opinions on hate propaganda, on violent pornography and other hateful expression, in the abstract.
Which sort of leads me to Mike Brock's first criticism, which is spurious. If the Canadian Press, or me, had evidence that a Member of Parliament was a National Socialist, you can rest assured that we would not hesitate to publicize that revelation. No one, least of all me, is suggesting that Keith Martin is a Nazi. Instead, I am simply saying that Keith Martin and many others seem to be recklessly indifferent to the harm that will be caused by finally doing what the neo-Nazis have agitated for, for decades. And Keith Martin and his conservative acolytes need to think about why that is so, and the consequences for all of us, and the flourishing, vibrant multicultural society that we have all built in this place.]