Tuesday, October 4, 2011
I once stayed overnight with a friend of mine at the house of a man who is the best friend of Whatcott. His wife made us a lovely spaghetti dinner and we talked into the night. I could not imagine a more polar opposite - in terms of approach to controversial subjects - of Whatcott than this man at whose house we stayed. At one time he lived in a place that runs as a crisis pregnancy centre beside an abortion clinic, and he spent his days approaching women (broaching the dreaded "bubble zone") who were on their way in. He used no signage; he just talked with them. In the front office of this pregnancy centre the walls are plastered with photos of mothers holding their children - mothers who were on their way into the abortion clinic, when this man approached them.
This man and Whatcott are best friends. Whatcott is the kind of pro-lifer whose antics make the other pro-lifers pack up and go home. The point being, if such apparent opposites can abide each other in friendship (Whatcott has even been banned from the Free Dominion website), what is the problem of people whose main contact with Whatcott would be printed material on paper - or digital words? I do not mean what is their problem generally; I mean what is going on that they want the government to silence and punish him?
You have no right to not be offended. You have a right to debate with somebody how what they say offends you. You have a right to utilize the power of the public square to try and shun somebody, without slander.
There's a lot of things that offend me: tailgaters, tabloids, New Atheists, SpongeBob SquarePants, people who throw trash out their vehicle, well-dressed and well-nourished young males posing as beggars and asking for money...but I don't go running and whining to the government or any other legal body looking to censor others.
But you see, that's part of the homosexual agenda.