|
Hugh Segal and the Phony
Charge of "Intolerance"
by Glenn Woiceshyn
Published in The Financial Post on Nov/15-17/1997.
Dear Editor,
Re: Separation of Church and State is not a Hollow Value--Hugh Segal--Nov.8-10--The
Financial Post
While I agree with Hugh Segal that church and state should be kept separate, I take
issue with his statement: "those who see the Reform party as a vehicle for intolerance
of any kind should take a hike."
Should one "tolerate" a government committed to unbridled spending, high
taxes, massive red tape, union legislation that undermines pay-for-performance, a
public education system not accountable to parents, welfare programs that reward
irresponsibility, "save-the-planet" laws divorced from economics and science,
soft treatment of vicious criminals, or special favours for "ethnic" regions?
Is it wrong to be "intolerant" of theft, rape, torture, murder, or Adolf
Hitler?
A racist (or religious fanatic) is immoral -- not because of his "intolerance"
per se, but because of the immoral standard by which he evaluates people. Leaving
aside the fact that the Reform party is quite mixed philosophically, leftists like
Mr. Segal use the phony concept "intolerance" to package together racists
with principled defenders of reason, justice and individual rights, in order to use
the former to smear the latter. This promotes moral relativism (or "tolerate"
anything except "intolerance") as the ideal, which merely serves to sedate
people into passively accepting harmful left-wing policies (some of which are racist,
such as "employment equity").
To "tolerate" or compromise with a "devil" is to strengthen and
embolden him. If anyone should "take a hike," let it be Mr. Segal and other
alleged enemies of "intolerance."
Best Premises,
Glenn Woiceshyn
© 1997 Glenn Woiceshyn. All rights reserved.
This article can be found on-line at at http://www.capitalism.org/glennw. |
|
