Everyone from Crazy Pammy to the gang at Big Boy Jammies are outraged at suggestions that a "Code of Conduct" created by the town council of Herouxville, Quebec might possibly be racist.
For, you see, as we have learned repeatedly from our wise right-wing crankocrats, there is no such thing as racism -- or, if it does exist, it is reserved for minority groups to deploy against majorities out of their endless reserve of sour grapes. There are jokes, and misunderstandings, and bold stands against political correctness; there are brave men, like Burt Prelutsky, who speak truth to power about the self-created problems of black people. But there is no such thing as racism. That's just a word used by liberals to make conservatives look bad.
Sure, some might question the adoption of such a Code of Conduct in a town where no immigrants live. Some might wonder why it's necessary to ban immigrants from burning women to death with acid or burning them to death in a fire, when laws against this sort of thing presumably already exist in Canada. Some might even wonder why the city council seems to find it necessary to speak out against activities that are not taking place anywhere in the country. But this is just a group of decent small-town folk saying what they believe in, that's all! And to speak out against their behavior, to call it racist -- that's the same as saying you APPROVE of burning women to death with acid!
Why, it would be no different than if a town full of Christians posted a notice saying that in their town, the kidnapping, ritual consumption and murder of Christian babies was forbidden. Or if a town full of white people passed a resolution that under no circumstances were people allowed to loaf around on street corners blaring their boom boxes and refusing to provide for their many illegitimate children. Or if a town full of westerners placed an item in the town charter expressly forbidding the eating of dog, the binding of feet or the use of water torture. What's racist about that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"Women should be able to show their faces in public"? What does that even mean? Are they saying that they do not have a law demanding that women wear face coverings, or that they do have a law prohibiting women from wearing face coverings? Or are they trying to get around the whole question of legality by saying "we don't like people who wear face coverings"? I suppose safe money is on the latter. But of course it's not xenophobic! ::sigh::
Post a Comment