You can't call an abortion "murder" or a doctor who performs abortion "a murderer". At least, you can't without it being considered "hate speech".
Canadian Christians have been jailed for standing near an abortuary and speaking out against abortion. And not for calling the woman in question a murderer, but simply for speaking words of life to her and encouraging her to reconsider her decision.
Which brings us to PETA.
PETA is now referring to the killing of an animal for meat as murder. Presumably, those who eat meat are murderers, or, in the case of western society, guilty of hiring contract killers.
How likely is it that the State will condemn PETA for calling meat-eaters murderers? How likely is it that the government will pass a law requiring PETA to either stop saying this, or, barring that, require PETA to stay at least 200 yards (or metres) away from a restaurant, abattoir, or any other place where meat is either produced or consumed?
The answer of course, is zero.
The reason is this: PETA may call others murderers for eating meat, but it's not going to "stick"; it's not going to bother anyone unduly, because the accusation has no foundation in reason or fact.
Not so with abortion. The response of the pro-choice crowd towards the accusation of murder is fierce precisely because it has some basis in fact -- abortion is the willful, intentional destruction of a human life.
The same with homosexuality. If someone were to suggest that heterosexuality was intrinsically unnatural or disordered, it is unlikely this person would be hauled before some HRC and slapped, fined and humiliated for discriminatory hate speech. Why? Because it is understood that the accusation has no basis in fact. It is precisely because there are rational reasons for viewing homosexual behavior as unnatural and disordered that the opposition is so fierce and the demands for speech suppression so acute.
Something to chew on.
No comments:
Post a Comment