Max Fawcett, National Observer: 'Anti-vaxxers are stealing our flag. Let's take it back.'
As we've seen many times over the past two years, we have a professional journalist freely using the pejorative label "anti-vaxxers" to demonize a class of Canadians who oppose policies of the government.
Not only that, he is consciously dividing Canadians into an 'us' and a 'them'. The 'us' refers to everyone like Max who enthusiastically conforms to all government COVID measures without question or complaint. Max is proclaiming that only people like himself have ownership of the national flag. Which is the same thing as saying only people like Max are Canadian. At the same time there are people who are to be viewed as a separate caste - the them in this scenario - who have stolen the flag from its rightful owners. In other words, being a Canadian and agreeing with Max Fawcett are synonymous in the mind of Max Fawcett.
It's just shameless narcissism and divisive, malicious bigotry.
But it get's worse.
Twitter user Ryan Gerritsen wrote this in response to Max's tweet:
"Max wants his flag back. Someone should tell him no one ever took it. Canadians are allowed to carry a flag because well we are all Canadians. @maxfawcett is clearly has an agenda and does not agree with once choice for bodily autonomy. Pretty disgusting."
Here was Max's reply:
Again, this guy is supposed to be a professional journalist. And yet here he is relying on a level of reasoning you would expect from a poorly educated adolescent. The only answer he has to a critique of his divisiveness and bigotry is to pronounce that people who don't agree with him are only pretending to hold their stated beliefs.
That's it. That's the extent of Max's ability to defend his views against criticism.
It get's even worse.
Look at this shameless rationalization for supporting authoritarian persecution by the state:
"You have the freedom to say no. But society has the freedom to impose a cost on that choice".
It's inconceivable that an educated adult, familiar with world history or ethics and who has thought this through to even the most basic extent would express such a sentiment. How does Max not know that telling people - You're 'free' to say no but we'll hurt you if you do - isn't "freedom"?
What is the difference between Max's attitude and every state sanctioned persecution of a class within "society" that has ever happened in history?
How is it that people like Max manage to qualify as professional journalists.. or even manage to reach adulthood for that matter... with such an absence of intellectual maturity and insight?
Comentários