"A debate no one wants"

At least, no one at the Globe and Mail. But that covers everyone, right? Except for many of the 787 people who had left comments as of this writing....

Though we should always be free to talk about everything – the public square is, after all, the essence of democracy – some debates are healthier than others.

I thought that debate by its nature was healthy. Even if someone advocates something extremely unhealthy, like legalizing pedophilia, debate would allow for a robust assertion of the dangerous immorality of that idea. When we deem it "less healthy" even to discuss some subjects, then we are in real trouble. (And we are in real trouble.)

Mrs. P updates: over 1200 comments now. 1200 "no-ones" who don't want a debate.

I got a charge out of this paragraph:

Debating multiculturalism gives a voice to the angry, the frustrated and yes, the bigoted. It makes newer Canadians feel less welcome. It has the best walking on egg shells and the worst throwing eggs.

Throwing eggs? If only that was the "worst" thing resulting from multiculturalism. What about segregation, gang warfare, mutilation of girls, honour killing? Give me egg yolk any day.  Since when, pray tell, is it not OK to "give a voice to the angry"? Was the NYTimes happy about clerical sexual abuse? Oh wait, never mind...

But bring on the debate.

Update II: over 1500 comments/no-ones
Update III: over 2200 comments