Following Peter Brimelow’s insightful post, VDARE.com has published an analysis by Alexander Hart on the AmRen debacle. Hart raises some important questions:
[Patrick] Cannon insisted, “By no means would I be in the business of trying to violate someone’s rights.”
In my opinion, Cannon probably believes he is telling the truth. To Black Democrats, “rights” does not hard fought Anglo-Saxon liberties such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. Rather they mean special privileges given to designated victim groups, that are not afforded to Whites, much less “racists”. Not giving quotas or not enforcing hate crimes laws is a violation of “rights”—but interfering with private contracts to deny freedom of assembly is not.
Yes, hotels should have the right to deny service to who they want (although what about applying this principle consistently?). However, they should not be able to break contracts because of threats by elected officials.
The Charlotte Observer’s Fred Clasen-Kelly asked two local academics whether or not this constituted a violation of free speech.
Richard Toenjes, associate director of UNC Charlotte’s Center for Professional and Applied Ethics said, correctly:
“If the person used his or her name which would be recognized as the name of a council member, I’d say the member was functioning as a public official and hence out of line interfering with protected free speech”.
Scott Huffmon of Winthrop University was more evasive:
“Alerting the hotels and saying this isn’t good for our image is using the bully pulpit, but not necessarily unethical…If he tried to use the position to cajole, coerce or bully that would be different”.
Local news station WSOC-TV said that Cannon “feared violent opposition to the group’s presence in the Queen City” and quoted him as saying, “We’ve always been about trying to be as inclusive as we possibly can be, and I will tell you when you have extreme groups on any side coming, it should raise a red flag.
This seems to be an acknowledgement that he is not really worried about violence coming from American Renaissance attendees—given their track record, he had no reason to—but by violent left-wing protesters.
This raises the question: why doesn’t he use his “bully pulpit”, as an as an African American Democrat, to tell these left wing “anti-racist” activists to respect other’s rights?
Of course these commonsense questions are never asked by the Main Stream Media. In fact, outside of the local Charlotte media and publications like VDARE.com and AlternativeRight, absolutely no one is even mentioning the cancellation of the conference.
A commenter on one of the Charlotte Observer’s pieces said: “Sheraton must have thought this was a branch of the Tea Party when they accepted. They may be right.”
To the Left, all conservatives are racists. Look at how the $PLC moved on from focusing on allegedly violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan (if it ever did) to peaceful advocacy groups like American Renaissance (and VDARE.com) to mainstream patriotic immigration reform groups like FAIR to now attacking social conservative groups like the Family Research Council as “hate groups.” Outright censorship follows shortly behind.
Establishment conservatives who think they can ignore the repression of American Renaissance are W-R-O-N-G.
But then, they’re always wrong—how else did the left come to dominate the culture?
I doubt I’d second Hart’s admonishment to mainstream conservatives, “You better defend AmRen because you’re next!” — and I don’t just say that because I have little use for the conservative movement. Why should we conclude that the Left-liberal establishment, which most definitely does dominate the culture, would want to destroy CPAC, National Review, and Townhall.com after it’s done with AmRen? My sense is that Establishment is quite happy with an opposition that’s not particularly bright or perceptive and that essentially reaffirms all of its most fundamental assumptions and beliefs. If Kathryn Jean Lopez didn’t exist, then surely the Left would have been forced to invent her. An opposition like AmRen is dangerous because it strikes at the heart of matters; no opposition at all is dangerous because it makes people wonder. The conservative movement should rest assured; their place is secure.