Monday, 17 January 2011

Response To Jim Walsh


In response to Jim Walsh's letter published today alongside my unfortunately truncated letter on the views of Bruno Walther, I should like to submit three simple points.

First, even if it could be shown that political rhetoric, such as that appearing on the Daily Kos website, could have "inspired" an apparent lunatic like Jared Loughner to commit murder, the fact would nonetheless remain unchallenged that such writers did not themselves author the crime - however much I might personally dislike them.

Secondly, such evidence simply would not justify calls for further infringements of the right to free speech, which would leave said right at the mercy of the uncertain sufferance of extremely partisan governments.

Finally, If the conjecture that Jim Walsh and other people like him are pushing has any merit, then is it not conceivable that the now infamous "10:10" video of October last year could have "inspired" crimes similar to that of Jared Loughner? That video sponsored by a left wing environmental pressure group, depicted the gratuitous murder of school children who didn't feel like taking part in the group's "voluntary" carbon reduction scheme. Why was there no such similar outrage about this from people like Bruno Walther or Jim Walsh in the pages of the Taipei Times last year?

Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.

(Sent: Monday 17th January 2011. Unpublished by the Taipei Times)

A quick postscript: here is an "illustrated primer" on the Left's own use of "hate" directed against conservative targets in the U.S. over the past decade.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:

1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.

2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.

3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.

4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.

5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.