Sunday, January 27, 2008

The Banality of Evil, Ezra Levant, The Alberta Human Rights Commission, and unh.... Iowahawk???

A political correctness tribunal called "The Alberta Human Rights Commission" has made the mistake of hauling in a blogger named Ezra Levant. Click here for my bewildered ravings about an organization like the Alberta HRC existing in the 21st century.
Levant's crime?
Speaking against Islam.

Criticizing The Religion of Peace carries the death penalty in some places, but Ezra Levant obviously doesn't regret his actions. But the bureaucratic twit who is presiding over Levant's hearing definitely regrets coming to work the day of Levant's hearing.

Iowahawk has done a great service to humanity by linking video excerpts from the hearings (already on YouTube) and other info on Levant. If you watch one of the videos, you're going to watch all the others. And then Iowahawk asks himself...."What is the bureaucratic twit writing on her legal pad?" It's the best satire of this century.

One of the many people who've linked to the Iowahawk posting made reference to "The Banality of Evil".

Here's a concise definition of the concept, from Information Clearinghouse:

The concept of the banality of evil came into prominence following the publication of Hannah Arendt's 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which was based on the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem. Arendt's thesis was that people who carry out unspeakable crimes, like Eichmann, a top administrator in the machinery of the Nazi death camps, may not be crazy fanatics at all, but rather ordinary individuals who simply accept the premises of their state and participate in any ongoing enterprise with the energy of good bureaucrats.
Is the woman in the videos a Nazi? A crazy fanatic? Of course not. Is she "evil", based on the definition above? You decide.

But is she "a rather ordinary individual who simply accepts the premises of her state and participates in the enterprise with the energy of a good bureaucrat?" In other words, is she just doing her job?

Absolutely.

2 comments:

subadei said...

Any analysis of this woman would be complete conjecture. Which is fine as conjecture leads to diverse discussion.

I don't think she's evil and I wouldn't use the "banality of evil" to define her as I doubt she's simply resigned to perform like a good bureaucrat. I'd say she's got a dog in this hunt and is an ardent supporter of the multi-culturalist fallacy that seems to confuse tolerance with appeasement and likely rejects the term "social assimilation" as racist, jingoistic or ethnocentric when in fact it's a paramount factor in a successful multi-cultural society.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Yep, just like all others who "may not be crazy fanatics at all, but rather ordinary individuals who simply accept the premises of their state and participate in any ongoing enterprise with the energy of good bureaucrats."

And I wish I'd had you with me about a year ago when a friend of mine went nuts on me after I suggested that Immigration isn't a problem as long as everyone eventually assimilates.

Good comment, Sooby. But you gotta admit - anyone who contributes to the erosion of Free Speech Rights in the name of P.C. is banal. Where's the line between dumb and evil?