Some thoughts on the Great Duck Hunt of 2013:
First, I’d
like to start off by saying that the remarks made by this man are disgusting,
heinous, and intolerant. No mere apology will suffice as his statement reveals
that he believes a large portion of this country to be evil, deficient,
inferior, and it leaves little doubt that he wants to tolerate them, work with
them, or ever validate their point of view. It shows his self-serving
arrogance, and his prejudiced view of those who think and believe differently than
he does. It is my firm belief that he should retire to private life where his
beliefs cannot cause further damage. This man, John Podesta should step down,
and leave his position of leadership. Podesta is an advisor for Mr. Obama, and
thus can directly impact the country. That’s a much bigger story than Phil
Robertson.
Secondly,
the United States government abandoned this citizen in his hour of need. All he
was guilty of was expressing views that weren’t popular. In their efforts to
negotiate a deal, and make peace the US left their own citizen in prison and
never lifted a finger to help this peaceful man whose daily existence is one of
fear, torture, and constant threat of death. It’s a shame John Kerry was too busy
reveling in the moment of now-worthless negotiations to help an American
Citizen who is the victim of multiple human rights violations. This imprisoned
American citizen is Saeed Adedini, a victim of Iran’s human rights policy and
American bureaucratic ineptitude. Saeed, along with Ambassador Stevens, and a
good number of other dead, injured, and forgotten are the living (or dead)
proof of an incompetent foreign policy strategy. He too is a much bigger story
than Phil Robertson. But onward. You came here for ducks and I won’t disappoint
you.
What Phil
expressed was his personal belief in a GQ
interview and following this the GLAAD organization pressured the A&E
channel to “do something” about Phil’s remarks. More or less, they wanted
Robertson punished for his statement—they wanted him punished for speaking
about his beliefs. Unfortunately, A&E did just that. What they had not
anticipated was the criticism, backlash, and the probable loss of a lucrative
show from their network. If you think Phil Robertson suffered something for his
freedom of speech, you should calculate the financial impact A&E is
suffering for their own freedom to fire him—it’s probably significant.
There is one simple fact that illustrates this
is more about freedom of speech and then it is about homosexuality. That fact
is that no less then three different and gay authors and thinkers have sided
with the idea of keeping Phil Robertson on the air, and supported his right to
express himself without fear of
repercussions. Camille Paglia a feminist lesbian author and critic, Don
Lemon, a gay CNN anchor, and Brandon Ambrosino, a gay writer for Time magazine
online have all voiced their opinions on the matter. While they don’t
appreciate his remarks each of these three people understands something the
rest of the frenzied world does not: Phil Robertson’s views are protected just
as much as their own views are protected. Tammy Bruce, the former head of the
feminist organization NOW, and self-described lesbian said, “The gay civil rights effort was about making
sure we weren't punished for being who we are. Time the left applies that same value
to others.” Our beliefs define who we are—should people be punished for that?
Doesn’t this principle go both ways then? In other words isn’t being fired for being pro-gay the same
thing as being fired for not being pro-gay?
This is why
the Phil Robertson issue really applies to everyone. Everyone enjoys freedom of
expression; that they can say things, have unique thoughts and embrace beliefs without
the fear of being oppressed or targeted.
“Well I don’t watch Duck Dynasty, I’m not gay, and I don’t
care.” You should. You have beliefs and opinions: do you like the idea of being
targeted for having them?
This entire
issue boils down to the idea of precedent. Phil Robertson’s private beliefs
cost him one of his jobs. What A&E has done is set a precedent and that precedent
is this: your irrelevant private beliefs can get you fired. Let’s personalize
that idea. What if your boss looked at your Facebook “About” page and summarily
fired you for your “Like” of some page? What if you were fired for liking the
works of Karl Marx? Or Ayn Rand? What if your boss found out you voted
Democrat, or registered Libertarian and fired you? What if your boss found out
you were pro-Israel and fired you? What if your boss found out that you gave
money to a certain organization, a certain political figure, or a certain
charity, and fired you? Then what? Do you still have “freedom of expression”?
When you have something to fear for your stance or beliefs are you really free?
It certainly doesn’t sound like it. While there may not be the proverbial
“duck-tape over the mouth” there certainly is the proverbial “gun to the head.”
This is what even these gay writers
understand—especially Camille Paglia, because she’s been on the wrong side of
“the line”. Setting this precedent means that in the right situation someone
could be targeted, harassed, or pressured because of what they believe. It’s
easy to draw a line, and declare that Phil Robertson was on the wrong side of
it. But aren’t “line drawers” always on the safe side of the lines they draw? Drawing
lines is all well and good, but those lines can be moved…and sooner or later
you find yourself on the wrong side of a line. It’s easy to ignore injustice if
you’re on the safe side of the line. But what if you are not? (Extra credit:
read Martin Niemöller’s famous statement on the subject).
This is why I wouldn’t vote to
outlaw homosexuality, socialism, etc, if given the choice—because it sets a
precedent that allows us to outlaw beliefs. Outlawing beliefs sounds great if
you are thinking about your political enemies, but it sounds awful when the law
gets around to one’s own beliefs. That Duck Dynasty is probably over doesn’t
bother me…I never watched it. What does
bother me is that our culture is setting a new norm: being yourself can cost
you something, stating your views, or even having certain views can make you a
target for more than just disagreement. It can make you a target for negative
action because you are “different”. Isn’t that what intolerance is anyways? And
isn’t it ironic that GLAAD stands behind that norm?
No comments:
Post a Comment