The Huffington Post has gone off the deep end for a long time. Of course, as the late Andrew Breitbart wrote in his book Righteous Indignation, HP was invented to pool the criminal minds of America we call the Left. Now, the online publication has allowed what is clearly a man dressed as a woman to push the idea that white men voting is a problem and it’s time to deny them the right to vote.
Shelley Garland penned a piece titled “Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?” It was published by Huffington Post South Africa and he ( I refuse to call a man a woman no matter what he dresses like or what mutilation he does to his body) claims the remedy to South Africa’s problems is to deny white men the right to vote. No, seriously, that’s what he wrote.
What’s interesting is that by the time I am writing this, the contributor has been deleted and so has the post. Here’s what the post originally looked like and here is the link where you can read the entire thing. There is a video that remains that begins by asking “What do you think White Monopoly Capital is?”
Garland writes in The Huffington Post:
Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa’s biggest cities.
If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.
…Some may argue that this is unfair. Let’s be clear, it may be unfair, but a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black, female-identifying bodies. In addition, white men should not be stripped of their other rights, and this withholding of the franchise should only be a temporary measure, as the world rights the wrongs of the past.
A withholding of the franchise from white males, along with the passing of legislation in this period to redistribute some of their assets, will also, to a degree, act as the reparations for slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, which the world is crying out for to be paid.
…Although this may seem unfair and unjust, allowing white males to continue to call the shots politically and economically, following their actions over the past 500 years, is the greater injustice.
Garland is obviously white, of course, but perhaps he is not targeting himself because he thinks he is a woman. I have business associates from South Africa. They are wonderful people. When Mandela came in, my friend was just out of the Special Forces there and he said the blacks there were terrorists and that they stole hundreds of acres from him and the white women, and many men, live in fear for their lives daily from attacks. The problem is clearly not with the white population.
However, you might ask, how did this article get posted. Well, according to Huffington Post SA:
We have done this because the blog submission from an individual who called herself Shelley Garland, who claimed to be an MA student at UCT, cannot be traced and appears not to exist.
So you just posted this person’s piece and then later went back to try and verify who they were? That’s a pretty poor excuse to get this racist, sexist, ridiculous piece out.
HPSA went on to state that they stand “aligned to the Constitutional values of South Africa, particularly the Preamble of our Constitution which states that: “We the people of South Africa believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.”
The online outlet then stated, “In addition, Huffington Post South Africa is a signatory to and supporter of the South Africa Press Code. We support free expression as limited by the following value as set out in that code.”
5. Discrimination and Hate Speech
5.1. Except where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported and it is in the public interest to do so, the media shall avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth or other status, nor shall it refer to people’s status in a prejudicial or pejorative context.
5.2. The media has the right and indeed the duty to report and comment on all matters of legitimate public interest. This right and duty must, however, be balanced against the obligation not to publish material that amounts to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
So, just who let this piece get through? Well, take a look at a photo that went viral from a recent Huffington Post editor’s meeting. There’s no men in the room!
No matter what Huffington Post South Africa says, there is no doubt that they would have absolutely no problem with denying men the right to vote, especially white men.