"As long as you live under my roof, you will follow my rules!"
It is a mantra that everyone - at least if you were a kid like me - heard from their parent's, over and over. It amounted to a summation of the fact that they were responsible for providing the roof and the walls, but that fairness and consideration was not a static commodity and would be doled out at their discretion. Some of us were lucky enough to get as much fairness and consideration as was possible within all circumstances. Others were not. But either way, the fact remains that they were right. They paid the bills. They made sure the TV worked and there was always food in the cupboard. They made it possible to take creature comforts for granted.
They were also expected to lead by example. In this arena, some were miserable failures and that is where we find ourselves today.
When I left the Blogging Tories, Stephen offered me an explanation of his side regarding what I had perceived as censorship of another member on the roll. His reasons for administering the blogroll with an eye to weeding out incendiary content centered around his culpability, should a lawsuit arise from something posted on a site he administers. In the political climate of this country, this is a very valid and very real concern. Why should Stephen be expected to defend his name and reputation in a litigious human rights tribunal, just because one of the BT's wants to refer to the handicapped lieutenant-governor with the comment "pimp the gimp"? Why should he be expected to continue an association with someone who's average discourse includes such language?
The short answer...he shouldn't. Stephen is free -- as we all are -- to place his associations wherever he chooses. And as host to the Blogging Tories forum, he is free to administer it in any way he sees fit. He pays the bills. He answers the door to those pesky Jehovah's Witnesses and hustles them back on their way. We, as members of the roll have no right to expect to be allowed to scream whatever we want from the upstairs window to the street below, and let him answer the door when the cops come calling. It is unfair to expect such freedom in a forum where he bears at least some small measure of the responsibility, without giving him some say in what he will bear responsibility for.
Having said all that, the reason I decided to uphold my decision to remove the blogroll from my site was due to the fact that despite these very good reasons for doing what he did, I still thought it was wrong.
I hear, by way of my friend Gerry Nicholls, and since through Richard and Kathy, that since my discussion with Stephen, he has decided to openly declare his intention to censor any discussion on the site which would leave him open to prosecution. I applaud this choice only because my main argument with the previous instance was that as a Conservative forum, meant for the proliferation of Conservative values, I was under the mistaken impression that free speech was a value held most high and that it was also something worth fighting to uphold. In that fight, sometimes the other guy lands a few punches and no one wants to be the one to catch them, but someone has to. Those of us who are willing to take the brunt of that fight don't appreciate weaker nellies who walk under the banner but duck when the fists start flying and being a member of an organization which purports to be fully engaged in that fight, but which turns out to be one of those weaker nellies, feels like a betrayal. Having an open declaration that some speech will be censored is at very least, honest, and affords the members the choice of whether they are willing to accede to those standards. Those who find these restrictions acceptable will remain Blogging Tories and thus, have no right to bitch about curtails on their freedom of expression. Those who do not are free to leave the roll as I did and be responsible for their own words, without saddling Stephen with the burden of defense.
This is the way Conservatives are supposed to do it. I'll tell you what the rules are and you can follow and stay or rebel and leave. Stephen told us what the rules are and agree or not, it is his place. Stay or leave, the choice is yours.
I missed out on the support bandwagon for the latest human rights tribunal scare tactic regarding Free Dominion, only because I had slacked off blogging for long enough that it had come and gone before I ever knew about it. Had I been aware, I would have proudly declared my support and jumped into the fray with both feet. I do not believe in conceding to secret persecutions, designed to silence unsavory opinion and shield insidious grievance mongers from criticism and oversight. I would risk impoverishment, the savaging of my reputation and even imprisonment, in order to tear down such a system. If enough of us were wiling to do the same, we would not long be forced to suffer beneath the burden of the oppressive political correctness which has laid waste to the social discourse in this country.
Stephen chooses to work within the confines of this restrictive burden, and that choice is his to make just as any blogger who does not approve of his choice, has a choice of their own to make about whether they wish to continue an association with the Blogging Tories, under these newly declared guidelines.
Say what you like about Stephen, we all owe him a debt of gratitude for launching what has become an organized and respectable forum which allows many conservative voices a larger reach, in a blogosphere which is millions strong. He stepped into a void and brought legitimacy to what was little more than a rag tag rabble of like voices, singing a similar tune. The Blogging Tories put conservative bloggers on the mainstream map, in this country. No mean feat in the Liberal wasteland it was born into. With this credit though, comes the stipulation that as the declared and recognized loudspeaker through which conservative bloggers may spread their message, the Blogging Tories roll also bears the responsibility to represent conservative values. The BT roll is the publicly recognized face of the conservative blogosphere in Canada and for those who are prone to take the forum at face value, the impression of censorship will justifiably be viewed as hypocrisy among conservatives and cause for distrust of those who purport to support free speech, but in practice tend to stifle it.
Not to mention the signal it sends to those who are itching for the chance to land that big fish through a malicious prosecution. Openly declaring that you are willing to bend and fold at the whim of a system which you find contemptuous and wrong is a betrayal that bares you as the weak elk in the herd, and those are the ones the lions pounce on first. They do so, because they never want to work too hard for it. They'd rather win the tiny battles incrementally, because they know in the longer term it will afford them more power. It also helps to foster and heighten their hubris. So when a big fish like Stephen offers his throat to the beast, it hurts us all.
That is why he is wrong. That is why he is losing the more fervent members of his roll. That is also why he will not be able to keep those malicious prosecutors at bay with such overtures of cooperation. Terrorists never respond favorably to capitulation and they do not exercise mercy to those who play nicely. Stephen should know that.
But I don't get his mail. None of us do. And we have no right to expect him to take on more risk than he is willing to, on our behalf. At least he has now been open and honest about his limitations, which is really all we can rightfully expect from him. I understand and appreciate the reasons for his choice. I simply disagree with it.
Comments