I am quite disappointed in the Daily 49er article titled, “MacDonald talks of imaginary fire, causes panic.” As someone who supports free speech I agree with the author’s sentiment. Professor Kevin MacDonald should not be fired simply for his beliefs and I agree that he has been attacked unfairly. However, I am disturbed that the author of this piece tries to create a distinction between the freedom of speech struggles of MacDonald and that of Dutch politician Geert Wilders when there is little difference between the persecutions of either of these men.
Much like MacDonald’s ideas about Jews, Wilders’ notions single out Muslims, allowing them to be vulnerable to scapegoating and victimization by those who agree with him. Since Wilders’ ideas are no more inherently discriminating toward Muslims than MacDonald’s ideas are toward Jews, it seems unfair to justify Wilders’ being put on trial for what he believes in yet not expecting the same for MacDonald. I could understand if maybe the author believes that Wilders has more influence because he is the leader of the “Party for Freedom” in the Netherlands, but, as was noted in the Daily 49er itself, MacDonald is seriously involved in the American Third Option party and his ideas have a strong influence on other political groups. So, I see no reason why anyone on that staff should think MacDonald’s ideas are less politically relevant than Wilders’.
blog comments powered by Disqus
As a person who cannot stand hypocrisy, I am upset that the Daily 49er opinion staff would let their own bias sway them into believing that hate speech against Muslims is more dangerous than hate speech directed at Jews.
—Charles Davidson
Long Beach Residen