by Guest

contribution by BenSix

Blogger Meredith Tax and activist Gita Saghal appear to believe that one shouldn’t defend a person’s rights if they’re a bastard.

With apologies to Martin Niemöller I’d like to modify his poem for the present day…

First they came for – say – David Irving and I did not speak out because the man’s the bastard.

Then they came for – for example – Geert Wilders and I did not speak out ‘cos I don’t like the guy. Then they went for Awlaki and I did not speak out because it’s terribly divisive and how could we distance ourselves from him and what about the human rights of women in the (ad nauseum)…



Now, if Obama tried to assassinate him…

See also Stephen Green, Saddam Hussein and Barry George for people who were treated quite unjustly yet gained thin support ‘cos people didn’t like ‘em.

Defending such people isn’t merely fair (what are “rights”, natural or otherwise, if they’re only applied to people we can get along with?) it’s in our interests.

Governments can play upon quite justified dislike to smuggle in its policies: accept that Obama can assassinate Awlaki, for example, and you’ve practically endorsed the formation of such a policy. People who may not be all that reputable are maligned because their less savoury aspects mean that we’ll accept the very worst from them.

See Richard Marquise’s fierce insistence that Megrahi is a liar and thus an, er – terrorist.

Finally, of course, people might decide that you, your friends and all you stand for flaunt the hallmarks of dislikeability and therefore are quite deserving of censorship, jail or even a rocket to the head.