Playing the Indian Card

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women




Last post I dealt with friend Xerxes’s charge that Canada was a “white supremacist nation.” But I left out his main point, which was, inevitably, Canada’s relations with its “First Nations” and/or indigenous people. His comment was ultimately prompted by the recent report of the Commission on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women.

He laments, as so many do, including the recent Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the supposed historical attempt to assimilate Indians into the Canadian mainstream. That, supposedly, is the root of all aboriginal problems, and amounts, says this latest commission report, to “genocide.” Xerxes was dutifully agreeing.

In fact, however, the problem with government policies towards Canada’s Indians has always been the opposite. The problem is segregation, never an attempt, to use Xerxes’s term, to “homogenize.”
This is obvious: who else since the fall of old apartheid-regime South Africa is kept apart, as if quarantined, on “reserves”? Other, perhaps, than wild animals.

And yet this apartheid approach is just what our government commissions are aggressively pushing for more of. We are headed with all deliberate speed downhill.

Nor is this previous or present segregation primarily the fault of the elected Canadian government or the “white man.” The Canadian government or “the white man” cannot unilaterally abrogate the treaties. And the Indian leadership insists they remain. Forever.

It is obvious too that, contrary to the familiar talking point, the old Indian residential schools were never an attempt to either erase Indian culture or assimilate Indians. Self-evidently, the way to do that would not be to segregate Indians in their own schools, with a separate curriculum. Ask Martin Luther King Jr. It would be to send them to the same schools as other Canadians. Captain Richard H. Pratt, the founder of the American residential school system, himself pointed this out: “Indian schools,” he warned, “are … well calculated to keep the Indians intact as Indians.” The Indian residential schools systematically preserved a distinct Indian culture, although not the authentic Indian culture, for whatever it might have been worth. They deliberately taught students only the skills they supposedly needed so long as they stayed on the reserves, and discouraged any ambitions to assimilate. Egerton Ryerson wrote, in advising the Canadian system, “such institutions should not give instruction in ‘white man's trades,’ but should concentrate instead on ‘common school learnings and the acquisition of agricultural skills and knowledge’.”

“It would be not merely useless,” wrote another bureaucrat of the day, “but mischievous, to try to give a taste for the town life of the Palefaces to those who are destined to go back to the wigwam, to travel on snow shoes, and to use no other implement than the fishing net and the gun.”
And so the schools, although apparently with good if paternalistic intentions, deliberately kept Indians from assimilation and held them on the reserves.

Xerxes quotes a familiar figure: a supposed 50% death rate among residential school pupils. This shocking number has entered the popular consciousness. It seems to have been simply invented by one author, Thomas King, who gave no source. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission could not come up with a figure higher than 2%, despite their best efforts; they were mandated from the start to make the residential schools out to be as bad as possible. This was worse than the general Canadian population at the time—tuberculosis was the problem—but still better than on the reserves the schools took them from. The schools were their best chance of treatment.

Along with many others, including many Indians, Xerxes quite rightly blames the Indian Act: “The Indian Act, despite several amendments, still treats Indigenous people as semi-competent children, who need wiser adults to make decisions on their behalf.”

But the Canadian government has wanted to ditch the Indian Act for generations. Ask Jean Chretien about his 1969 “White Paper.” Even when the Act was passed, and the original treaties signed, the government’s intent was that the need for special treatment for Indians would only last for a generation or so. You cannot, at the same time, as Xerxes does here, blame the government for wanting to assimilate, and for not wanting to assimilate. That is simply, and obviously, scapegoating the government and the “white man.”

 The problem is that, by framing it as treaties, they left it up to the Indians; or rather, to a bureaucracy the Act and the treaties set up, both Indian and non-Indian. They were determined from the start not to force the Indians into anything. They foolishly did not foresee the iron determination of any bureaucracy, once established, whether Indian or “white,” to self-perpetuate, and never surrender power once acquired. And in this case, the bureaucracy was, by treaty, allowed to write their own ticket, outside the usual democratic control.

This has been demonstrably to the detriment of ordinary Indians, and ridiculously expensive to Canada in general, but to the ongoing profit of Indian and no doubt also federal government bureaucrats. It is the reserve system and the Indian Act that keeps Indians in a state of permanent wardship, as though not responsible adults. And it is the “Indian leadership,” a system set up by the treaties and by the federal bureaucracy, that demands it.

The best way to foster and perpetuate that cycle of dependency is to continue to blame everything on the “white man” and the government.  It is always up to the white man and the government to do more for the Indians. And everything they do is wrong. This assumes and demands Indian helplessness. It assumes government and “white” omniscience.

The perils faced by young indigenous women, the supposed subject of this latest of endless Royal Commissions, are obviously the direct result of the failure or incapacity of the Indian family. It is because they have no functioning family that these adolescent girls are vagrants on the highways and sometimes in the cities. Often they are fleeing abuse. So too the high incarceration rate among indigenous young men, who most often commit the violence: these are abandoned, derelict, abused, or fleeing kids; kids with no effective adult supervision or guidance. The two problems are the same problem.

And the root of the problem is that the Indian family often does not function. This may have been an existing problem in Indian culture, before the treaties or the Indian Act, but it can only have been exacerbated by the passing of all responsibility, authority, initiative, and income from the individual and the family unit to the band council and the government.

The residential aspect of the residential schools was an extremely well-meaning attempt to solve this problem. Over 50% of the attendees were there because they had no other functioning or viable home. The schools were orphanages. The “Sixties scoop” was another good-faith attempt.
For both of these attempts to help, the schools and the adoption program, the government and the “white man” is now scapegoated.

They will be scapegoated again for whatever they do now.

In the meantime, these kids are trapped. It is for many a vicious spiral, ending in suicide, drug dependency, or death by violence. And it cannot be broken out of as long as the solution must come from government and the “white man.” Government and dependency has been the problem, not the solution.

Doubling down on that, as these commissions are forever doing, demanding more government and more aid from the evil “white man,” will make it worse. Indians must be treated as equals, and that means Indians must take matters into their own hands.

Passing more powers and money to “band leadership,” as these commissions demand, is the worst of it. The “band leadership,” a concept alien to Indian culture, has done more than anything to crush individual initiative. And it is further removed from any democratic control than is the government bureaucracy. Band leaderships are usually now nominally elected. But a democracy cannot function when the government controls all income, and owns everything. They can buy votes, and any opposition can be crushed or driven out before it can organize. It does not work in the Third World, it did not work in Eastern Europe, and it cannot work on the shores of Hudson Bay.

For more, see my book Playing the Indian Card. Available from Amazon and Smashwords, and soon from other outlets.


Monday, June 17, 2019

Canada as a White Supremacist Nation



Japanese-Canadians heading for internment.

My portside pal Xerxes has declared Canada a “white supremacist” nation.

I doubt there can be more than perhaps a few hundred white supremacists in Canada. I suspect “white supremacy” has not been a living ideology anywhere in North America since the 1960s at the latest. Perhaps a little later in parts of Africa. All the sudden talk of “white supremacists” over just the last two years is reminiscent of the McCarthyite “communists in the State Department” scares in the 1950s, but ratcheted up exponentially. Mass hysteria.

Where is it coming from? No doubt, from the impulse to shout “Shut up!” at things you do not want to hear. All expressions of dissent from the general public are suddenly “white supremacy.” In the US, just voting for Trump makes you a “white supremacist.”

To call Canada a “white supremacist nation” is out of contact with objective reality. Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore, stand apart as the handful of non-ethnically-based nations in the world. Everywhere else, nationality is based largely on shared genetics. And Canada is not even tarnished, like America, by slavery or Indian Wars or forced relocation of any aboriginal people. If Canada is “supremacist,” there is no such thing as a non-supremacist country. Making the term meaningless.

Xerxes, in making his charge, does cite a few specific examples of “white supremacy.” First, the old head tax on Chinese immigration. It is worth noting that this is the only example in Canadian history of discrimination in immigration based on country of origin.

But this was, in its day, a “progressive” measure. It was Canadian labour, naturally enough, who demanded it. They saw the Chinese as unfair competition for jobs; a Chinese man whose family stayed home could accept a job at what would not be a living wage for a Canadian man with a local family to support. One can understand their concern, and, right or wrong, it was not “racist.”

It should perhaps also be noted that the first restrictions on Chinese immigration were at the insistence of the Chinese government—who saw human capital as their chief resource. And for centuries China of course simply did not allow foreigners to immigrate into China.

Xerxes then cites Canada turning away Jewish refugees before the Second World War.

This seems misplaced as a supposed example of “white supremacy.” When did Jews stop being “white”? When did they become “white” again?

In any case, although the government’s actions seem callous now that we see what Hitler then did, it should be remembered that Canada was at the time in the middle of the Great Depression. Virtually no immigration was allowed in those conditions; Jews were not singled out. Again, the exclusion was in the interests of labour, not racism.

Xerxes then cites the internment of Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War. Here, he does seem to have an example of real racial discrimination. “Enemy aliens” were interned as a matter of course, in Canada as in other countries; but the Japanese interned were often Canadian citizens. Their loyalty was not trusted; German-Canadians and Italian-Canadians were not subject to the same treatment. Still, it all happened in a state of war emergency, when jumping at shadows seems relatively understandable; it might have been safer than leaving them at risk from possible lynch mobs; and in 1988, the Mulroney government issued both an apology and financial compensation.

If that’s the worst that can be said of Canadian racism, it is time Canadians were proud of this heritage.



Saturday, June 15, 2019

The Culture Wars Hit Home


All images returned by Googling "gay pride parade Toronto." Some were too graphic to be used.

More madness, this time close to home.

Fr. Robert Chisholm, the pastor of St. Gregory’s Catholic Church in Picton, Ontario, recently included a brief note in the church bulletin that Catholics should avoid Gay Pride Events:

“A reminder that Catholics and all other Christians should not attend LGBTQ2 ‘Pride Month’ events held this month. They promote a culture and encourage activities that are contrary to Christian faith and morals. This is especially harmful to children because it could lead them away from God's revealed Truth. Even in ‘The County’ there are Pride flags and banners flying courtesy of the Government. Think.........these are your tax dollars at work!”

Now there are apparently pickets in front of the church, and local Catholics have been pulling their children out of the parochial school. Teachers are passing out gay pride flags and banners to their charges in opposition. CBC quotes one local businessman (who says he is Catholic, but also that he does not attend church) saying “This is just one man with one deranged view.” The CBC offers this as the voice of the local Catholic lay community. 



The offending bulletin has now been pulled down from the parish web site. Michael Mulhall, the new archbishop of Kingston, has issued a statement:

“I did not sanction this message, and it does not reflect the spirit of accompanying charity and compassion that should always characterize our faith. The archdiocese has spoken with the pastor of the parish. He regrets any hurt his inappropriate comments have caused.”

Problem: Fr. Chisholm was doing his duty, of reminding his parishioners of Catholic doctrine. What he put in the bulletin was almost word-for-word what has been said recently by Bishop Tobin of Providence, RI.



Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2357:

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Surely attending a Gay Pride event suggests approval? 



And note, tolerance is a very different matter from approval.

What exactly is a Gay Pride event about? There seem to be only two possibilities: either it is celebrating the fact of being attracted to members of the same sex; or it is celebrating, as Fr. Chisholm says, “a culture,” the gay lifestyle, which is to say, having sexual relations with members of the same sex.

If it is the former, “Gay Pride” is at best an expression of unearned pride—one of the Seven Deadly Sins. If you were, as they say, “born this way,” or otherwise have no choice, you cannot take credit for it either. A “Gay Pride” parade is no more moral, simply on this basis, than an “Aryan Pride” parade. 



If it is the latter, a celebration of sexual acts, it is also an endorsement of a second deadly sin, lust.

Even if you ignore the homosexual aspect, this is a celebration of sex outside of marriage. It does not sound a lot better if you refer to it as “Fornication Pride Month” or the “Casual Sex Pride Parade.” The events often feature nudity, to an extent that would cause scandal if done by heterosexuals.

“Gay Pride” parades also often feature deliberate and open mocking of religion: men dressed up as nuns, for example. 



I can understand, even sympathize, with Archbishop Mulhall for caving in, and throwing a loyal priest to the lynch mob. Nevertheless, it is an abdication of his most basic responsibility as a shepherd. It amounts to a scandal. For in doing so, he has also abandoned a large flock to prowling wolves in a moment of need.

It is probably important, given the general prejudice against Catholicism that this incident displays, to point out that homosexuals have never had a better friend than the Catholic Church. Look down the list of famous homosexual writers and artists: Oscar Wilde; Tennessee Williams; W.H. Auden; Evelyn Waugh; Gerard Manley Hopkins; Andy Warhol; Milo Yiannopoulis today. All died devout Christians; all but Auden Catholic.

To suggest that the Catholic Church is not welcoming to “gays” is absurd. The Catholic Church is their natural home.

What is not welcoming to gays is “Gay Pride” events. They are simply general invitations to sin of various kinds.

LifeSite News has stated a petition in defense of Fr. Chisholm. You can sign here.


Friday, June 14, 2019

Wild in the Streets in Hong Kong






The current situation in Hong Kong seems another example of the world gone mad.

When the Arab Spring protests arose, it was unpredictable. Governments were only engaged in oppression as usual. Yet this outburst looks provoked. Anyone could have seen the Hong Kong general public would be outraged by the new extradition measure.

But then, equally mad is China’s recent rattling of sabres over the South China Sea.

China has been steadily rising in both economic and in military power. And so the calculation should be simple: war is against her interests. Given only peace, she holds a winning hand. And war tomorrow is likely to be more successful than war today, on into the indefinite future. Accordingly, the sensible strategy would have been to keep smiling at everybody, bowing nicely, and looking as non-threatening as possible.



There can really be only one explanation for the Chinese government’s current conduct; and it is the same that explains Justin Trudeau’s recent conduct, or that of high-tech firms like Google.

The Chinese leadership knows something that convinces them that, in fact, for them, the future will not be better than the past. If they delay their drive for regional hegemony, they will soon be in a worse, not a better, position for war. And, if they do not brave these mass protests in Hong Kong today, protests in the foreseeable future will be far worse. They feel they will need this draconian weapon they are now demanding.

The Chinese government expects collapse.


Is Trudeau Panicking?


Standing tall.
In another sign of our fractious times, Colby Cosh has declared in the National Post that Justin Trudeau is “losing his marbles”; that he is “paranoid and unhinged.”

Unfortunately, I fear Cosh is right; and such things, impolite and ad hominem as they seem, may actually need to be said.

What prompts this for Cosh is Trudeau’s response to a recent letter signed by six premiers, warning that his proposed Bill C-48, effectively prohibiting new pipeline construction, will damage national unity. The Senate apparently agrees with them, and, in bipartisan consensus, has called for significant amendments to the bill.

Instead of any hint of compromise, Trudeau has declared that, by warning of threats to national unity, the premiers are threatening national unity. The Senate is threatening national unity.

It seems a classic example of hysterical denial. The polls, not incidentally, show that the premiers are exactly right. There will be hell to pay in terms of popular sentiment in the West for separation if the bill goes through. It seems even the nation is threatening national unity. Trudeau is simply in full denial of objective reality, and he is “projecting” his faults on others.

Cosh does not mention it, but it seems to me the current Liberal push to reintroduce section 13 to the Human Rights code, criminalizing “hate speech,” is similarly hysterical. The obvious suspicion is that the real aim is to criminalize dissent. It is the typical response of those in full denial to any criticism: “Shut up! Just shut up! Shut up or I will hit you.”

So was Trudeau’s heavy-handed treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott. A sensible man, it seems to me, would not have pushed it to the point at which Wilson-Raybould and Philpott would resign from cabinet. It looks as though the game was never worth the candle. There seem to be a series of points at which Trudeau might have defused the crisis, and instead chose to “act tough.” He kept doubling down.

So too with Trudeau’s frequent condemnation of other governments on the international stage. He has burned up a lot of Canada’s good will elsewhere by acting as if Canada were some world power, with the right to comment on internal affairs anywhere. Why, other than to feel important?

It is perhaps as Aeschylus says of Zeus in Prometheus Bound: “his rule is always harsh whose rule is new.” That is, more broadly, repressive, arrogant, and inflexible reactions are signs of a fear of loss of control. Trudeau was from the start underqualified for his position. Panic is probably his instinctive reaction. To steady himself, he probably leaned on a few trusted advisors. He lost those advisors in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. It forced them to take the blame and resign. Now he truly has no idea what to do, and so his reaction is to cover this by acting tough. He is no doubt doomed now no matter what, in the next election. The danger is that he can smash an awful lot of china before then.

It seems to me that something like the same dynamic must also be behind the current censorship crackdown in and by social media. Google, Twitter, Facebook, and the rest seem to be acting directly against their own interests, and acting at the same time abruptly and erratically. Their recent response to Vox demands to censor Steven Crowder seemed flip back and forth hour by hour, as if they were unsure what to do. They are since resisting giving reasons for their decisions.

They have to somehow know they are doomed. They must be hearing footsteps. And this is after all altogether likely. High-tech businesses are intrinsically vulnerable to sudden fall, as technology moves on. Facebook should know; they suddenly and swiftly rose by imitating and knocking off MySpace. Google should know. They largely achieved their rise to dominance by knocking Microsoft off their pedestal. They must now see some new technology coming down the pike that makes their business model unsustainable. Some technology that they cannot co-opt by either purchase or imitation. They are flailing about in panic as a result. They feel the instinctive need to control the flow of information, because the information to come is soon not going to be to their advantage.

“Shut up! Just shut up! Shut up or I will hit you.”

More generally, this explains the hysterics on the left, which is to say, in the party of the professions. The professions as a whole are in trouble, and they know it. They are technically obsolete, in many cases—as we have surely already seen with journalism. And they are going to kick and scream and clutch the carpet, like Trudeau is, and stuff any silverware in their pockets, as they are dragged by divine Providence out the door. I’m afraid they may spill blood.

We live in what the Chinese might say are interesting times.


Thursday, June 13, 2019

The Coventry Welcome



St. Michael's (Anglican) Cathedral, Coventry.

On the doors of England’s Coventry Cathedral, I am told, there is a sign or poster that reads:

“We extend a special welcome to those who are single, married, divorced, widowed, straight, gay, confused, well-heeled, or down at heel. We especially welcome wailing babies and excited toddlers.

“We welcome you whether you can sing like Pavarotti or just growl quietly to yourself. You’re welcome here if you’re ‘just browsing,’ just woken up, or just got out of prison. We don’t care if you’re more Christian than the Archbishop of Canterbury, or haven’t been to church since Christmas ten years ago.

“We extend a special welcome to those who are over 60 but not grown up yet, and to teenagers who are growing up too fast. We welcome keep-fit mums, football dads, starving artists, tree-huggers, latte-sippers, vegetarians, and junk-food eaters. We welcome those who are in recovery or still addicted. We welcome you if you’re having problems, are down in the dumps, or don’t like ‘organized religion.’

“We offer a welcome to those who think the earth is flat, work too hard, don’t work, can’t spell, or are here because granny is visiting and wanted to come to the Cathedral.

“We welcome those who are inked, pierced, both, or neither. We offer a special welcome to those who could use a prayer right now, had religion shoved down their throat as kids, or got lost on the ring road and wound up here by mistake. We welcome pilgrims, tourists, seekers, doubters -- and you!”

This represents the common modern sentiment: that the Church is for everyone.

Yet this is actually not the Gospel message. It is not what Jesus said. He divided mankind into sheep and goats, or wheat and chaff, and welcomed only the sheep. The rest, he said, quite literally, could go to Hell. He defined his flock in the Beatitudes, as “the little people,” the burdened, the suffering, and followed this up with an equally clear definition of those he did not want: the scribes and Pharisees. When some of them came to see John baptize, arguably the first Christian service, John basically told them to get lost: “You bunch of snakes! Who warned you to run from the coming judgment?”

Who were the scribes and Pharisees? Most literally, the intelligentsia, the educated professional class: the lawyers, journalists, accountants, teachers, professors, ministers.

It is perhaps worth noting here that, contrary to Marxist theory, this professional class, this clerisy, has always been the ruling class.

And the priests? That’s not clear. Properly, the priests of that day were the Sadducees. While Jesus’s relations with them were also difficult, he did not single them out in the same way. The phrase was “Pharisees,” or “scribes and Pharisees.” He might have added Sadducees, and generally did not. Whether or not the Sadducees of Judea can be equated with the Christian priesthood, they were not so condemned.

Instead, it was the professional “clerisy.”

I think we can also assume Jesus’s condemnation did not apply to an entire class as class; that would be arbitrary. There are some good Pharisees in the Bible. Some think St. Paul was a Pharisee in this sense. What Jesus was condemning seems rather to have been the pervasive attitude among such ruling groups that they are better than the “little people,” the laity, the Trump voters and the rednecks, the ordinary folks, and had the moral authority to tell them what to do: the self-righteous. “Pharisee” means literally “set apart, separated.” More or less, “elite.” This attitude no doubt is concentrated in the professional classes, but narcissism of a similar sort can of course appear elsewhere.

My portside buddy Xerxes proposes his own list of undesirables who should not be allowed in the cathedral--not, at least, without changing their views: “racists, misogynists, white supremacists, anti-gays, anti-Muslims, anti-immigrants.”

All of these things are indeed no doubt sinful, gravely sinful if indulged in with full understanding, since they violate human equality, and so the Golden Rule. But they are not the sins Jesus considered deal-breakers. Sin per se is after all no reason to bar anyone from the church. As Jesus said, he came for sinners, not the righteous.

And from either a Christian or human rights perspective, Xerxes’s list is incomplete. It condemns misogynists, but not misandrists; white supremacists, but not black supremacists, brown supremacists, Amerindian supremacists, or Asian supremacists. Anti-gays, but not anti-heterosexuals. Anti-Muslims, but not Muslims who might be anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, or antisemitic. Anti-immigrants, but not “anti-natives” who condemn or scorn their host culture.

Instead of opposing discrimination, this list, and any similar list, is discriminating.

And looks very much like the sort of list the Pharisees might impose on the great unwashed. Hypocritically; or as we more commonly call it nowadays, as “virtue signaling.”


Wednesday, June 12, 2019

Ora Pro Nobis






We are currently, I believe, living in a world gone mad. Because of the power of social media, the ruling class, the clerisy, feels deeply threatened. As a result, they are acting hysterically. The signs are multiplying and growing more obvious. YouTube actually seems to be committing public suicide. The New York Times has just run a story suggesting that all right-wing commentary is brainwashing. A group calling itself “Super Happy Fun America” has proposed holding a “Straight Pride March” in Boston, and this is somehow seen by many media sources as an existential threat.

The rulers are terrified of the people.

We can only hope the collapse of the ancien regime is without serious violence. At this point, it is hard to see what restraints on their actions the left-elite acknowledges. Postmodernism is, in the end, a systematic rejection of all restraints. The outcome, I think, is not in doubt, but getting to it may be terrible. Totalitarian government in America, or in Britain or Canada, suddenly looks like a possibility.

Mother Mary, pray for us.


Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Want to Really Combat Hate Speech? Here's How





Pope Francis has called for more civility in social media. A helpful, if not an urgent, reminder.

Steve Crowder has been “demonetized” by YouTube for supposedly “harassing” another commentator, Carlos Maza, in responding critically to videos the latter posted. Crowder used the terms “lispy queer” and “Mexican.” He also sells a t-shirt that reads “Socialism is for f-gs.” With a picture of a fig where the letter is missing.

But is this harassment? All the terms quoted above were said in a humorous tone. Crowder is a comedian. He refers to members of his crew, with apparent affection, as “half-Asian X” and “not-gay Y.” Maza is indeed a “queer,” a term preferred by homosexuals themselves, and publicly bills himself as “gay.” He does have a lisp. Is it, therefore, harassment to say so? Is it insulting to call someone a Mexican?

Nothing Crowder said is actually pejorative. They were statements of fact. To make them pejorative, you have to impute motive. This is not legitimate. Allow it, and there are no boundaries.

By contrast, how about these phrases, commonly allowed on YouTube and throughout the media:

“toxic masculinity”

“too much testosterone”

“testosterone-fueled”

“mansplain”

“male privilege”

“white privilege”

“If you are not a woman, you have no right to an opinion on…”

“too male”

“too white”

These are seen everywhere daily. These are, in contrast to anything Crowder said, clearly intended to insult, to demean, to exclude, and/or to promote hate.

And notice how easy it would be for YouTube to set up one of Google’s vaunted algorithms to catch them.

Censorship is wrongheaded. It is a fundamental error, and a fundamental violation of human rights, to try to enforce manners by law. But if we are to censor “harassment,” at a minimum, it must be actual harassment, and not just an alibi for censoring opinions with which we disagree—and cannot rationally counter.

Which is clearly the case with Crowder.