There is a flyer circulating among voters in Piscataway [NJ] that
uses the kind of coded anti-Muslim language that makes most of us
uneasy.
The bigger problem is that the person who funded the flyer —
powerful state Senator Bob Smith, the Middlesex Democrat — doesn’t see the
necessity to repudiate it or apologize for it.
The language used against their opponents from the Central Jersey
Progressive Democrats is unambiguous: Naming an outspoken and admired Muslim
school board member, the MCDO called the opposing slate “a radical group under
the leadership of Atif Nazir that wants to take over our township government.
We cannot let that happen.”
The Star-Ledger quoted one opponent as calling
the use of the term radical as “disgraceful” and “absolutely inappropriate.”
“You can oppose their ideas,” he said, “but to use such a term violates the
spirit of the political process.” [!!!--italics mine]
The Star-Ledger uses terms like “coded” and
“dog-whistle stuff” to tarnish the term radical. Mind you, this is the
same editorial gang that routinely labels people who oppose the Left’s climate
catastrophist agenda as “deniers” to equate dissenters with Holocaust deniers.
For some strange reason, the comments section of
the op-ed is closed on the same day it was published in the Star-Ledger print
edition, 5/27/19. So I posted the comments I would have added to the article
comments on my Facebook page. From my
Facebook Page:
‘Radical’ means fundamental, far-reaching
change. In and of itself, the term has no moral import. Good or bad, right or
wrong, depends on what a person is radical about. The Founding Fathers were
radicals: They declared that the individual is free and sovereign, not the
subject of any monarchy or other supreme ruler. Today, OAC has declared herself
a radical: She seeks to fully transform America into a socialist state. The
sect of Islam that seeks a worldwide caliphate that subjugates the individual
to totalitarian Sharia law is radical. I consider myself a radical for
Americanism in alignment with the Founders and Ayn Rand.
“Radical” is a valid term. Whitewashing language
by eliminating certain words from political flyers is the tool of people who
want to hide something, or avoid answering what another has to say. Smith’s
flyer should be challenged. But demonizing the flyer for the use of the word
“radical” without answering is cowardly. Backers of the flyer should be held
accountable for the description of the Nazir group as radical, and challenged
to back it up. It is up to the voters to decide if the description of Nazir’s
ideas as radical is valid or appropriate.
Smith and his supporters should not apologize
nor repudiate. Initiating such a debate is perfectly consistent with “the
spirit of the political process.” The Star-Ledger should apologize for
demonizing Smith as “anti-Muslim.”
Related Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment