The story as far as I can reconstruct it is this. On the 13th of April, the South African Huffington Post ran a blog post entitled "Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?" as an opinion piece.
As might be guessed from the title the writer suggested that it might be a good idea. The story went viral and was picked up by various right-leaning pundits as might have been expected. From the quotes appearing in a Fox News article (Linked below) it would appear that the writer thought that 20 or so years would be enough to change the world for the better.
The Huffington Posts reaction has been to delete the original opinion piece and replace it with a statement to the effect that the writer faked their identity and quoting the relevant section on discrimination from the South African Constitution (Linked below, along with an Opinion piece in response to the original article that Huffington Post left up.).
I have problems with this explanation, because from the sounds of things (And I cannot read the full article.), surely it should have been the content of the article that determines whether or not it should be published, if it was as is implied the text of the apology from the Huffington Post, this opinion piece violated racial discrimination law, why was it even run.
In addition, why was the authors credentials not checked out before publication?
Quite simply, anyone who suggests that any portion of the populace be denied the vote is wrong, to argue otherwise is to quite literally spit in the face of all the various groups who have struggled over the years to get that right.
Fox News: Huffington Post blogger suggests taking away white men's right to vote
http://ift.tt/2pnVvUz
Huffington Post: White Men And The Vote: Why We Took The Blog Down
http://ift.tt/2po0HYD
Huffington Post: (Ferial Haffajee): We Cannot Argue For The Disenfranchisement Of Anybody
http://ift.tt/2pnOvam
As might be guessed from the title the writer suggested that it might be a good idea. The story went viral and was picked up by various right-leaning pundits as might have been expected. From the quotes appearing in a Fox News article (Linked below) it would appear that the writer thought that 20 or so years would be enough to change the world for the better.
The Huffington Posts reaction has been to delete the original opinion piece and replace it with a statement to the effect that the writer faked their identity and quoting the relevant section on discrimination from the South African Constitution (Linked below, along with an Opinion piece in response to the original article that Huffington Post left up.).
I have problems with this explanation, because from the sounds of things (And I cannot read the full article.), surely it should have been the content of the article that determines whether or not it should be published, if it was as is implied the text of the apology from the Huffington Post, this opinion piece violated racial discrimination law, why was it even run.
In addition, why was the authors credentials not checked out before publication?
Quite simply, anyone who suggests that any portion of the populace be denied the vote is wrong, to argue otherwise is to quite literally spit in the face of all the various groups who have struggled over the years to get that right.
Fox News: Huffington Post blogger suggests taking away white men's right to vote
http://ift.tt/2pnVvUz
Huffington Post: White Men And The Vote: Why We Took The Blog Down
http://ift.tt/2po0HYD
Huffington Post: (Ferial Haffajee): We Cannot Argue For The Disenfranchisement Of Anybody
http://ift.tt/2pnOvam
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2prATIm
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire