Stop Squawking about Peter Hitchens; you’ve proven him right│ James McQuillan
It is truly incredible to see journalists from Huffington Post, among others, completely lose their minds over Peter Hitchens’ blog. Opinions are abound and articles which completely miss the point are just, infecting social media. It begs the honest question: Do you actually read his posts? Or just freak out over the title?
And no, you don’t get bonus points for cherry-picking segments of his post. You’ve all essentially proven his statements correct anyway.
So, let’s start with a little secret for those over-stimulated by trying to bury another Hitch; He’s a veteran writer and journalist. And while I disagree with him on a number of points, he’s correct about this, and he’s proven what type of person you are through your reaction.
Also, spoiler: The whole idea with his headline was to provoke you into reacting like a sensationalist without actually reading the explanations around this correlation.
“You have lots in common with Militant Islamists on this subject. They, too, believe that all men must be assumed to be slavering predators.” By engaging in condemnations of people like Fallon as equivalent to Harvey Weinstein, you’ve proven him right. And with particular individuals spouting this narrative that we should hold them all equally in contempt, I take solace in knowing that these types of people aren’t in control of the criminal justice system, or we may see the younger Hitch’s nightmare come to fruition:
“Yet on this, it turns out that you agree with them. Any male action, any form of words you choose to disapprove of can and will be presumed to be guilty because, well, men are like that. The culprit will be ruined forever.”
Much like Mark Twain in his vitriolic condemnation of journalism (oddly appropriate here), he makes the point of saying that touching a woman’s knee, not his atrocious record as Defense Minister, is what got him to vacate his office. Your priorities, not Hitchens’ rhetoric, are screwed up.
And yet, there is this desire of ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ be thrown aside for anyone facing allegations of sexual offence or misconduct, as though Hitchens was in the wrong here.
Just think about what you’re condemning here, and what you’re deciding to side against with this thinking. You’re fine with minor infractions being the same as decades-long sexual assault? If you truly think that way or persist in not bothering to read what Hitchens wrote, you’ve done one of two things:
- proven that he’s correct in equating feminists and sensationalists are Islamists; your extremist attitude here demonstrates that.
- blown this completely out of proportion, completely missing the point of what he wrote. Which again, makes you the truer fool.
“I am angered by the public denunciations now taking place, not because I believe or disbelieve them (how can we know?) but because they make trust impossible.”
In no way can we confirm or deny if such misconduct happened, but those possible victims of harassment or assault deserve protections regardless (much as the same feminists refused to do for Amber Heard). We are creating a climate upon which we allow accusations to be evidence equivalent to a week-long court case.
Have you gone completely mad? Is that not the same thing we condemn countries like Pakistan for? Is that not why we express disgust with the McCarthy Era of America?
I’m no traditionalist, I believe in equality in the democratic sense, but if your approach to carrying out justice for those victims and bearers of ‘#MeToo’, whatever gender they may be (both women and men used the hashtag – myself included), is to condemn to maximum punishment, even the most minuscule of infractions.
Then you ought to strike up a conversation with fundamentalist Islamic preachers… You have a lot to talk about.