Of mice and cheese

Vincent J. Curtis

2 July 2016

The Hamilton Spectator published two editorials today, the gist of which was to endorse progressivist measures.  The acts may not be progressive in totality.  The means may not be progressive, but the means aim at progressive ends; and that must make them good, right?

The first editorial endorsed the action of the new Mayor of London to ban certain ads, and was entitled, "A step toward better body acceptance."  The second editorial was a reprint from the Toronto Star, entitled, "Ottawa should name offshore tax cheats."  That sounds reasonable, until you learn in the details that the offenders aren't guilty of cheating, or anything else at all.  Except for having a different opinion from a civil servant over the interpretation of tax law, and who were not charged or convicted of anything.

Mouse traps work because the mouse notices the cheese but not the trap.  Two (!) editorials published in Saturday’s Spectator provide examples of progressive mice seeing cheese but failing to observe the trap.

The editorial endorsed the Mayor of London’s decision to ban ads that promote “unrealistic expectations” of bodies.  This aim is cheese for progressives.  The progressive banned list includes body shaming, self-image, and the like.

The trap progressives miss is that the Mayor of London proclaimed himself as having the power to censor advertising material.   Advertising is a form of speech, and a minor politician just grabbed the power to censor speech within his domain in accordance with his personal standards.  Those standards just happen in this case to coincide with the aims of progressives, but what will they do when they don’t?  Write an editorial denouncing the power-grab?  Hopefully, that won’t be censored.

The second trap was of the mouse’s own making.  The Toronto Star would love to publish the names of “offshore tax cheats.”  The term “offshore tax cheats” is the cheese.  The trap is that the cheaters are not really cheats.  They are people with whom the CRA struck a deal, and so the cheaters were never convicted of anything.  And the reason a deal was struck was that the CRA wasn’t sure of a conviction before a judge.  A deal, then, is just that – a business deal, not a crime.

The Star wants the CRA to help them blacken the name of someone who struck an agreement with the CRA over the administration of tax law.  Thus we give to a civil servant the power to destroy the reputation of the person he is negotiating with, or simply chooses to disagree with.  I can understand why a gossip sheet might like the idea, but not responsible people.

These instances show why the government should have less power, not more.  But progressives love to tell others what to do, and government has the power to tell people what to do.  That is why progressives want bigger government, regardless of peril.

-30-