I wrote this week about an article in Philadelphia Magazine by a Robert Huber, who shared with the audience his white perspective on race relations in Philadelphia. As I pointed out, I don’t think Philly is unique, because left-liberal attitudes and policies have poisoned attitudes toward race in America for decades.  But it looks like you better not utter such politically incorrect thoughts in Philadelphia out loud, lest the mayor sic the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission on you. It looks like Mark Steyn’s experience in Canada crossing the “hate speech” barrier is not limited to our neighbors to the north. George Parry in Philly.com writes about this, and it really leaves one mystified to the evil that is modern liberalism, and I don’t use the word “evil” lightly. Here are the first paragraphs of the piece, but please read it all:

You have to admire the nerve of Robert Huber, the intrepid writer who dared to present a white perspective on Philadelphia race relations in this month’s issue of Philadelphia Magazine. His article, “Being White in Philadelphia,” explores white Philadelphians’ attitudes about black residents and crime, asking what, if anything, they are allowed to say about these subjects in public.

Apparently they’d better not say anything. At least that’s the position taken by Mayor Nutter, who, having lost a battle with his inner Mussolini, has directed the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission to investigate and “rebuke” Huber and the magazine for raising these issues. It seems some views are just too awful to appear in print.

You may recall the Human Relations Commission from its last major quest for justice, l’Affaire Bifteck de Fromage, in which it pilloried the late Joey Vento for posting a sign at his sandwich shop telling customers to order in English. For this exercise of Vento’s First Amendment right to free expression, the commission launched the Mother of All Rebukathons, subjecting him to hearings, a fine, and an official, Red Guard-style denunciation. You would have thought Vento had turned fire hoses on his non-English-speaking customers.

As best as I can tell, the Human Relations Commission exists to ensure that no one says or does anything that might intentionally or unintentionally upset or offend any member of a racial, ethnic, sexual, religious, or cultural minority. But is the eradication of hurt feelings a legitimate function of government in a free society? Should the commission and Nutter be in the business of retaliating against those who express controversial ideas?

I wish those were rhetorical questions, but in our day the fevered and paranoid progressive mind thinks they are actually valid questions!