In an age when certain groups of people refuse to use words according to their definitions, the discriminating person starts with clear definitions in order to discriminate between good and bad word usage, good and bad policy, good and bad outcomes.
: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing
The broad brush in popular culture paints a mile-wide, errant definition.
Discrimination: anything that a privileged group does to make a disadvantaged group feel uncomfortable, allowing the uncomfortable group to level charges of bigotry, _______phobia, racism, emotional assault, psychological battery, or the sense of being offended. (Definitions of ‘privileged’ and ‘disadvantaged’ are left to self-identified ‘disadvantaged’ people.) With this so-called definition, society leaves the safe harbor of equal protection of the law, sailing now for the churning waters of special classes, special crimes, special rights, and discrimination of other kinds, the quest to make courts god and conscience, adjudicating all manner of conflict, even the most trivial.
A special group of Blacks in Ferguson feel discomfort, false accusations are leveled, leading to an indictment the police are largely racist, and by extension, the entire society is likewise racist, justifying accusations of racism across the board for months, leading to violent protests, shootings, injuries, and the destruction of private property. Full investigations are conducted on every level, concluding the accusations largely false, and the only lawlessness to be found? In the special group, the disadvantaged group. At the same time, roving bands of Black Panthers, fully armed, state their intention to shoot whites indiscriminately, and there is silence. The law is not brought to bear on the Ferguson rioters or the Black Panthers. Instead, the Panthers are again ignored by the Obama Justice Department, while the rioters receive grants from the federal government. Meanwhile, George Soros, the President’s chief bundler and cheerleader, spent $33M in one year funding groups responsible for unrest in Ferguson and elsewhere. One might reasonably conclude that white people are being discriminated against, that average Ferguson citizens are being treated unfairly, and that taxpayers are also being ‘emotionally assaulted.’
The use of the false charge of ‘discrimination’ also provides useful fuel to the amnesty and open borders movement. The rule of law is overwhelmed by emotional rhetoric, demonization, false accusations and increasing lawlessness. Based on a discrimination argument, transgender inmates now receive taxpayer-funded sex change operations. Is this what Ben Franklin had in mind?
Facing increasing assault and real discrimination, people of faith, for 22 years, have sought added protection for religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Leading Democrats sponsored the federal bill in 1993, and it was signed by President Clinton. So it was with some surprise that officials in Indiana recently faced a media frenzy covering homosexual protesters objecting to the state’s version. Immediately the cry went out: Indiana is trying to legalize discrimination against homosexuals! It was and is a complete fabrication, but lacking a good crisis to exploit, one must be created.
Hence, for the 500th time during the last several years, all traditionalists and conservatives were pigeon-holed as homophobes, another battle in the never-ending culture war, one waged for no apparently reason other than the love of conflict and the hate of tradition. Much the same can be said of the phony war on women, itself sparked by explosive and false charges of gross discrimination. If you oppose killing babies in the womb, you obviously discriminate against women, another false allegation, especially when you consider pro-lifers give disproportionately to crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies.
It’s worth mentioning too that jihadists have no problem discriminating with a vengeance. However, if someone in the West suggests we have a right to self-defense in the face of Jihad, then watch as the ‘disadvantaged’ howl about profiling, racism, bigotry and Islamophobia.
Unfair treatment based solely on race, gender, national origin, disability or sexuality is indeed unfair, and unlawful. All that is ALREADY unlawful! Equally unfair, the hysteria generated by false claims of discrimination leveled against people of faith, and other traditionalists, for the sole purpose of winning a cultural and/or political war. It is a construct giving government god-like powers to pick favorites, setting the stage for a society run by the law of the jungle, not the rule of law.
I’m a Christian. It is unfair and unkind for an atheist to insult me for saying “Happy Easter!” But I’m not going to hire a lawyer to sue over it, call the cops, or organize a protest march. Only control freaks, the immature, and mentally unstable insist others agree across the board, making death threats to push for full conformity. However, if a jihadist threatens me, I’m certainly within my rights to use this as an example of discrimination. (smiley face)
Just remember, when the control freaks take over, everyone loses.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.