Did you bother to read the article or did you just assume anything Atwood wrote would not be relevant. It is not pushing victimhood to state that procedures that protect the rights of an accused person are fundamental in a free society. Which is her basic argument regarding how UBC acted.
Thank you for redirecting me back to the article.
Your opinion was correct.
Liberals are now adopting the same tactics as Islam.
* Accusation of heresy is sufficient to lynch someone.
Just as Muslim mobs will form to murder someone once they’re called a blasphemer.
* That words equal violence.
That criticism of the ideology OR one of its members is equal to violence, so you can justify killing the critic.
* That society should have a tiered moral structure based on group identity.
Your rights are defined by group membership, and groups have different rights. The only difference is that Muslims consider women x 0.5 while liberals say women are x2 and atheists and homosexuals are x0 in Shariah law while they are x10 in liberals’ system.
* That the central ideology should be the basis of law as a matter of faith.
Liberals invest social justice, the political ideology, with religious levels of fervor while seeking to have it written into law as Canadians did bill C-16 on sexual identity and the U.S. does on “civil rights”. Islam uniquely mandates a government set up to privileges Islam.
Ironically, liberals’ social justice system also privileges Islam, because they classify it as an oppressed class to be elevated in the name of fairness ... and Muslims go along with liberals today because both agree on that point.
Liberals’ mistake in this regard is failing to understand that Muslims, unlike weak Christians of the past century, won’t assimilate into liberal secular culture. Liberals think they are gaining allies who will convert to liberalism when “educated”, instead of realizing they are importing a people whose meme is far better reinforced (including demographically) and willing to abide for now until they could dominate.