City by the Bay’s Politicians Preach Tolerance but Won’t Tolerate Dissent
By Selwyn Duke
It cannot be a coincidence that those who preach tolerance the most are
often the most intolerable. On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors voted to condemn talk show host Michael Savage for “hate
speech” after a failed attempt to do so in August. Just for the
record, there is no discernable correlation between hate and hate
speech, except that when leftists hate you, they will accuse you of it.
It is precisely for this reason that Savage’s comments are not really
germane to the issue at hand. To be sure, it’s not even correct to say
they “inspired” this maelstrom, as the true impetus behind it is a
leftist dogmatism that cannot abide rightist dynamism. And if Savage’s
comments embodied anything, it was the latter. Here is what he said,
as I related it in my first piece on this matter:
“On his July 5 broadcast Savage quipped, ‘I would say, let them fast
until they starve to death, then that solves the problem.’”
It was a joke . . . much like the San Francisco supervisors. Only, a funny one with a foundation in reality.
The supervisors’ action was a resolution and not a law, which makes it
symbolic. Mostly, though, it was symbolic of the supervisors’
hypocrisy. So let’s examine these inquisitors, these people who preach
free love but project free hate.
Gerardo “The US should not have a military” Sandoval (yes, he actually
said that), the man who introduced the resolution, stated in August,
“The intolerant and racist comments of Michael Savage demand a strong condemnation.”
Then, in the resolution it states,
“WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco values the dignity of
all its residents, regardless of immigration status, and makes every
affirmative effort to ensure that all San Franciscans live in safety,
free from discrimination . . .”
I wonder, does this include people such as Michael Savage? After all,
not only have they imperiled him through their rabble-rousing, they
also discriminated against him in issuing this condemnation. Moreover,
they don’t seem very tolerant, either; that is, not when the term is
correctly understood. But since I suspect that the supervisors’
dictionaries may be gratuitously abridged – or perhaps don’t include
many English words – allow me to clarify.
Contrary to the consensus in San Francisco, the word “discriminate”
does not mean acting upon bias against that which leftists hold dear;
rather, it simply means to choose one or some from among many.
The word “tolerance” is more darkly understood. The object of
tolerance is always something you perceive as a negative; for
instance, you’re not tolerant of a fine car or delectable meal – you
relish those things. You would, though, have to tolerate a cold or bad
weather, as you would perceive these to be negatives. That is, unless
you’re a masochist, in which case you might have helped elect the San
Francisco supervisors.
What this means is that if you like illegal aliens or homosexuals,
you’re not tolerant of them – you like them. It then follows that only
someone who perceives them (or their behaviors) as negatives would be
capable of tolerating them.
With this understanding of the lexicon of the left, let’s now examine
the oh-so-tolerant and nondiscriminatory San Francisco Board of
Supervisors.
They certainly could demonstrate tolerance with respect to Michael
Savage, as they view his beliefs as a negative. But don’t hold your
breath waiting. Savage is in good company, though, since the
supervisors have a history of flaunting their tolerance. In 2006, a
Christian youth group named "Teen Mania" held a rally in San Francisco,
prompting the supervisors to rally against them. As writer Beth
Anderson put it:
. . . the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution
condemning the event as an ‘act of provocation’ by a group they stated
is ‘anti-gay and anti-choice’ whose goal was to ‘negatively influence
the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.’
(Emphasis added.)
Continuing the theme of anti-Christian activism, the supervisors also
condemned a Christian advertising campaign titled “Truth in Love,”
which sent the message that homosexuals could change their
inclinations. The board not only stated that those expressing such
ideas were complicit in “hate crimes,” it even went so far as to issue
a resolution asking TV stations not to run the ad.
And what is with all this condemnation anyway? After all, it seems
that the only line of Scripture leftists know – and they use it
liberally – is “Do not judge lest you be judged”; yet, not only do they
judge, they issue official condemnations!
Then, if you want to know exactly how much the supervisors eschew
discrimination, just ask the Boy Scouts. This great American youth
organization was banned from public schools by these politicians.
But not all the supervisors’ judgments lead to condemnations and bans.
For example, they passed a law granting city employees up to 50,000
dollars of the taxpayers’ money for sex-change operations. I guess
this isn’t surprising, as many of the supervisors act like capons.
In a similar vein, the board passed a law prohibiting job
discrimination against cross-dressers and transsexuals, thereby showing
no tolerance for an employer’s moral right to run his business in
accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.
Of course, it’s not as if the supervisors squelch all liberty, perish
the thought. An advertisement was recently released for the Folsom
Street Fair (which is funded through the city’s hotel tax), which, as
CNSNews.com puts it:
“. . . depicts the Last Supper as a sadomasochism party . . .” and “. .
. replaces Jesus and his apostles with scantily leather-clad men and
women sitting at a table adorned with sex toys.”
The capons and clucking hens on the board had nothing to say about
that. I suppose, though, they’re tolerant of such things. Oh, I
forgot, they cannot be.
They like them.
Although it’s easy to make sport of the senseless, there is a serious
issue here. The City by the Bay is on the cutting edge of societal
devolution. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ use of government
muscle to enforce a leftist orthodoxy has become the standard of the
fascist left in much of the western world. As I have documented
before, in places such as Europe, Canada and Australia, this practice
has spawned “hate speech laws,” Orwellian legislation that has already
been used to punish those who dare utter politically incorrect
sentiments.
In our nation, the left’s intolerance first translated into the soft
tyranny of speech codes on college campuses, sensitivity training in
corporations, and self-censorship by the media and others. Now we’re
seeing a transitional phase. It involves accustoming people to both
government interference in matters of political and social discourse
and the concept that “hate speech” – an illegitimate designation – is
so damaging to society that it must not be protected free speech. And
once this thoroughly imbues our national psyche, enacting hate speech
laws will just be a formality.
This is why this issue matters: The actions of the supervisors are a
portent of things to come. As Michael Savage said, “This is a dry run
against free speech in America.” But it’s not the first, and it won’t be the last.
And if you think that is bad, just wait until practice is over.
That is a negative if I’ve ever seen one. And it’s not one we should tolerate for a moment.
selwynduke.com 
Leave a reply to Eric Startt Cancel reply