Canada’s Debate

Suggesting that you read Warren Kinsella can be a liability on the blogosphere… especially if you’re trying to make it clear that you are not a member of the Liberal party. That being said, I do read him, and occasionally respond to what he has said… I also read a blogger named Robert McLelland, or rather, I should say that I used to read him.

Now, I’ve taken Robert to task repeatedly for his wildly ambitious claims about meeting our Kyoto obligations and his extremely underwhelming follow-through on those claims. I keep checking in to see if he’s made any progress, and he keeps on vindicating me with his cacophony of silence; punctuated occasionally here by his claims of ‘harangue-ment.’

Now, these two pre-eminent members of the blogging community are old rivals, with accusations and proclamations of intellectual and moral depravity being flung both ways. Despite my interest in what both had to say I had made it a point to stay out of the fray. Personal disputes between bloggers are counterproductive and frustrating, and are more often than not childish to the point of insignificance, so I figured that I should ignore the histrionics and take from each blogger what I needed to satisfy my own intellectual and literary goals… but now I’m not sure that I can.

Mr. McLelland has been accused of anti-semitism in the past, and I don’t find those claims particularly persuasive. The term “anti-semite” is an odious one that is used to end debate more than to improve it. I didn’t believe that Mr. McLelland was an anti-semite because his objections to Jewish people or groups were always political ones, and I saw little hatred or antipathy in them. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: reasonable people can look at the same set of facts and arrive at different rational conclusions; that is true of politics as it is of science or anything else. These disagreements can lead to hostility and frustration without having any component of hatred.

All that being said, a “conversation” broke out on McLelland’s little corner of Myblahg which is extremely troubling. It started off innocuously enough; he posted a rather tasteless diatribe that spoke ill of the “World Jewry.” The problem with his post is that it contained no disambiguation of his own thoughts, no condemnation or critique… and the door was open. Almost immediately a rambling, semi-coherent phillipic of the current Jewish leadership appeared; which was of course immediately condemned with an equally broad critique. Things naturally got out of hand, but I attributed it to the usual internet bickering, until I saw this.

When the State starts rounding up my Jewish neighbours, I’ll speak up.

Not me. People like Klownsella, Chernyuk and Smeagol the Jew have taught me it’s not worth getting involved. When next they come for the Jews I doubt I’ll even be able to muster up a “what a shame”.

He naturally defended these comments not as outright hatred, but rather indifference. I (unlike most of the people who objected) have no doubt that he was being truthful and genuine. That in no way lessens my concern, especially considering that the poem “First they Came for the Jews” was actually alluded to as a part of the discussion. It is a poem about indifference itself, and just how dangerous it is.

I don’t wish to rehash the concept of the banality of evil, but what is indifference if not a lack of empathy… and what is anti-semitism if not a lack of empathy for semitic people? The continuing barbarism from some Palestinians in no way ameliorates my empathy for the majority that just wants peace and a place to call home. By stating that the actions of several prominent Jewish groups has driven him to lose all empathy for the Jewish people as a whole completely undermines whatever defense McLelland may have once had against charges that he was a racist or anti-semite; and I will have nothing further to do with his writings or person. I encourage everyone else to consider his morality when they evaluate his works as well.