Are the Dr Frankensteins to Become Protected National Treasures? By Charles Taylor (Florida)
As predicted, more bs on the corona freak-out from the professors at the universities. This time some dude is proposing that criticisms of Dr Fauci and the like be prosecuted as thought crimes, sorry, hate crimes. Well, suppose that there is “hate” involved here. So what, why should the law have ever got involved in policing an emotion, which frequently is justified, it does not come from nowhere? Is universal “love” to be made a condition of law? But to this is will be said that hate often leads to violence. That is true, but often it does not. Clearly the law should look at individual cases on their merits.
And, all this comes from the Left. If hate is to be so widely applied, if and when conservative get power, they should pay the Left back by prosecuting them for their hate, and no-one hates as much as the Left. This is where it all goes, spiralling out of control, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Finally, protecting scientists/technocrats from criticism will be counter-productive, as it would give the impression that they have something to hide. And as John Lennon once sung, everyone has something to hide, except me and my monkey.
“A professor of pediatrics and molecular virology at Baylor College of Medicine is urging that criticisms of Dr. Anthony Fauci and other government scientists be prosecuted as hate crimes.
In a July 28 paper in PLOS Biology titled “Mounting antiscience aggression in the United States,” Peter Hotez writes that a “band of ultraconservative members of the US Congress and other public officials with far-right leanings are waging organized and seemingly well-coordinated attacks against prominent US biological scientists.”
Hotez, who describes himself on Twitter as a “Vaccine Scientist-Pediatrician-Author-Combating Antiscience,” and often appears on MSNBC and CNN, adds, “In parallel, conservative news outlets repeatedly and purposefully promote disinformation designed to portray key American scientists as enemies.”
To combat what he calls “antiscience aggression,” Hotez suggests a number of ideas, including a total clamping down on alternate perspectives.
He recommends, for example, a bill called the Scientific Integrity Act of 2021 (H.R. 849), introduced in February by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY).
The legislation, he says, would serve “to protect US Government scientists from political interference, but this needs to be extended for scientists at private research universities and institutes,” he adds.
“Still another possibility is to extend federal hate-crime protections,” he advises, and then continues with what appears to be a recommendation for a blackout of views opposing his own:
As Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel once pointed out, neutrality or silence favors the oppressor. We must take steps to protect our scientists and take swift and positive action to counter the growing wave of far-right antiscience aggression. Not taking action is a tacit endorsement, and a guarantee that the integrity and productivity of science in the United States will be eroded or lose ground.”
“Baylor College of Medicine Professor Peter Hotez has published a paper suggesting it should be a “hate crime” to criticize Dr Anthony Fauci and other scientists.
Dr. Hotez, who is a frequent guest on MSNBC and CNN, lobbied for criminal punishments to be introduced in a recently published paper called Mounting Antiscience Aggression in the United States.
According to Hotez, a “band of ultraconservative members of the US Congress and other public officials with far-right leanings are waging organized and seemingly well-coordinated attacks against prominent US biological scientists.”
This is apparently emboldening “far-right extremists” who are engaging in “antiscience aggression” by questioning the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the vaccine rollout.
Hotez trots out the usual Nazi comparisons to emotionally assert, “Not taking action is a tacit endorsement, and a guarantee that the integrity and productivity of science in the United States will be eroded or lose ground.”
“We should look at expanded protection mechanisms for scientists currently targeted by far-right extremism in the United States,” he writes. “Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) has introduced a bill known as the Scientific Integrity Act of 2021 (H.R. 849) to protect US Government scientists from political interference, but this needs to be extended for scientists at private research universities and institutes. Still another possibility is to extend federal hate-crime protections.”
This is yet another transparent effort to dehumanize anti-lockdown protesters and demonize people who merely want to exercise bodily autonomy while elevating Fauci and his ilk to Pope-like status.
Science isn’t supposed to be a religious dogma that is set in stone, it’s an ever-evolving knowledge base that changes and improves thanks to dissent and skepticism.
Attorney Jonathan Turley blasted Hotez’ authoritarian nonsense in a piece published on his website.
“The federal hate crime laws focus on basis of a person’s characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. We have seen calls for adding professions like police officers, which I also opposed. As with police officers, the inclusion of such professions would have a direct and inimical impact on free speech in our society. Indeed, it would create a slippery slope as other professions demand inclusion from reporters to ministers to physicians. Hate crimes would quickly apply to a wide array of people due to their occupations.”
“What is most striking about the article of Hotez is its lack of analytical balance. He rages against the right without even acknowledging how social media companies have already enforced a massive censorship program that bars even reporting the results of public clinical trials or repeating CDC positions on vaccinations. For a year, Big Tech has been censoring those who wanted to discuss the origins of pandemic and those who suggested the lab theory were attacked as right-wing conspiracy theorists. It was not until Biden admitted that the virus may have originated in the Wuhan lab that social media suddenly changed its position. Facebook only recently announced that people on its platform will be able to discuss the origins of Covid-19 after censoring any such discussion.”
“Physicist Richard P. Feynman once said “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” Feynman’s statement captures how science depends upon constant questioning and challenging of assumptions. Yet, what is healthy debate to some is criminal dissent to others. Dr. Peter Hotez, a professor of pediatrics and molecular virology at Baylor College of Medicine is calling for federal hate-crime protections to be extended to cover criticism of Dr. Anthony Fauci and other scientists. The frequent MSNBC and CNN guest wants Congress to expand hate crimes to “scientists currently targeted by far-right extremism in the United States.”
In a July 28 paper in Plos Biology titled “Mounting Antiscience Aggression in the United States,” Hotez encourages Congress to focus on the “band of ultraconservative members of the US Congress and other public officials with far-right leanings are waging organized and seemingly well-coordinated attacks against prominent US biological scientists.”
Hotez insists that it is not enough to support such science but to criminalize attacks on their research. This suggestion is just one of a number of ideas briefly put forward to support scientists but it is the most chilling. Referring Nazi and fascist movements in history, Hotez argues that good science requires cracking down on the right. He concludes:
“As Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel once pointed out, neutrality or silence favors the oppressor. We must take steps to protect our scientists and take swift and positive action to counter the growing wave of far-right antiscience aggression. Not taking action is a tacit endorsement, and a guarantee that the integrity and productivity of science in the United States will be eroded or lose ground.”
The federal hate crime laws focus on basis of a person’s characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. We have seen calls for adding professions like police officers, which I also opposed. As with police officers, the inclusion of such professions would have a direct and inimical impact on free speech in our society. Indeed, it would create a slippery slope as other professions demand inclusion from reporters to ministers to physicians. Hate crimes would quickly apply to a wide array of people due to their occupations.
What is most striking about the article of Hotez is its lack of analytical balance. He rages against the right without even acknowledging how social media companies have already enforced a massive censorship program that bars even reporting the results of public clinical trials or repeating CDC positions on vaccinations. For a year, Big Tech has been censoring those who wanted to discuss the origins of pandemic and those who suggested the lab theory were attacked as right-wing conspiracy theorists. It was not until Biden admitted that the virus may have originated in the Wuhan lab that social media suddenly changed its position. Facebook only recently announced that people on its platform will be able to discuss the origins of Covid-19 after censoring any such discussion.
Many of us have criticized the hateful rhetoric on both sides of our politics. However, there remain important debates over not just the underlying science relation to Covid-19 but the implications for such science for public policies. Criminalizing aspects of that debate would ratchet up the threats against those with dissenting views, including some scientists. That would harm not just free speech but science in the long run.”
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001369
Comments