attacks of the lunatic left
Who’s the lunatic?
Frankly I had never heard of Roger Scruton, but I read most of the Wikipedia article about him. And yes, I read the article you linked to.
I’m not sure what you are suggesting: Perhaps that anyone you agree with is beyond criticism? That “free” speech means that only people you agree with are “free” to speak?
The “attacks” on Scruton seem to be simply pointing out positions he has taken in the past that are a matter of record. None of his positions mentioned in the article seem particularly bizarre or extreme. It didn’t go into detail or the context of the criticisms, so I can’t comment on those. Does his opinion of homosexuality disqualify him from a post on some obscure board that issues pronouncements on domestic architecture? I would think not. However, if he despises homosexuals, and there are one or more on the board, then yes, there would be a problem. You wouldn’t want someone on any sort of board who simply despises other members on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
However, it does raise a legitimate point: Should certain past positions or actions disqualify you from some jobs and positions? I would argue that they should. For example, should Cardinal McCarrick be on a board that deals with sexual abuse? Should Harvey Weinstein keep his job in the movie industry where he can molest and/or influence the careers of young women? Should Brett Kavanaugh be allowed to have a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court despite accusations of sexual assault and despite his clear antipathy towards the Democratic Party?
There should be accountability for past words and actions, particularly if the perpetrator has not apologized for them or changed his/her views. And particularly if there are alternatives available: Why stick with Kavanaugh when there are another 20 equally conservative judges with spotless pasts available?
And yes, there is some grey area, for example in sexual abuse. You could have violent rape on one extreme and a pat on the butt on the other. And there should be a range of responses appropriate to different levels of offense.
But I’m at a loss to understand why simply pointing out someone’s positions on various subjects is considered an “attack” by “lunatics.”
