A Nasty Little Inference In Chris Bright’s JEP Editorial

Clameur de Haro found it disturbing to see yesterday’s JEP editorial borrow an ugly argumental tactic straight out of cultural marxism’s handbook of debating methods: and hopes that it will indeed be merely borrowed – temporarily - and not become a regular feature.

Writing about the proposition on civil partnerships which was piloted, sensitively in the opinion of CdeH, through the States today by Senator Philip Ozouf, Chris Bright said much that is accurate about the need to eliminate unfair discrimination towards homosexual couples. But Mr Bright also said the following –

“….it is generally true that this proposal will not find favour with all Islanders. Like it or not, homophobic prejudice remains far from uncommon in our society……"

Thus did Mr Bright seek to insinuate that no objection to the proposal could possibly originate from anything other than homophobic prejudice – an accusation which he will, if he follows the logic of his own argument, presumably now be laying, rapidly and publicly, at the door of Senator Ian Le Marquand.

Clameur de Haro blogged recently about this typical tactic of the cultural left: it is known as “closing down the argument”, and is much used to circumvent debate and choke off the expression of a legitimate contrary view at source. My opponent, it seeks to imply, is by definition so unspeakably vile / prejudiced / homophobic / racist / whatever, that his views cannot possibly be accorded a hearing, never mind taken seriously. We see it in one of its most virulent forms in the equating of anthropogenic climate change scepticism with Holocaust denial.

There are in fact perfectly valid objections to according homosexual couples identical rights to married heterosexual couples which have nothing at all to do with prejudice, or homophobia, but much to do with the objector’s conviction that, despite the acknowledged need to eliminate as much harmful and unfair discrimination against homosexual individuals and couples as possible, society overall nevertheless benefits from a special status being reserved to the traditional heterosexual family. This view was elegantly articulated today by Senator Le Marquand, who deserves a substantial plaudit for taking the lone stand that he did, not from prejudice, but from principle.

To some who believe that the status of the traditional married heterosexual family as the bedrock of a free society is deliberately threatened – under the cloak of ending perceived discrimination - from both the state and the non-state cultural left, the wish to reserve to it alone just a few legal, civil and fiscal advantages available to no other form of union is a societal judgment, not a homophobic one. Treating non-married couples, whether homosexual or heterosexual, identically, as well as eminently fairly and justly, save for a few advantages enjoyed only by married heterosexual couples, can legitimately be argued from a standpoint which is neither prejudicial nor discriminatory.

Clameur de Haro does not necessarily adhere to the views described in the two preceding paragraphs: but he does however adhere to the view that their opinions deserve a rather more respectful critique than Mr Bright’s rather crude attempt to denigrate them as being merely rooted solely in homophobic prejudice.

CdeH can find that in the Guardian and other organs of similar ilk any day of the week – not, please, in the editorial columns of the Jersey Evening [sic] Post.

Add to del.icio.usDigg It!Stumble This