Take Up Our Quarrel With the Foe

Every year in November, we hear common phrases with regard to Remembrance Day:

"Lest we forget"; "We will remember them"; "Never again".

Every year I wonder how well we as a culture and generation have thought this out.

Remember Them
Certainly, we should "remember them". The human factor can not be ignored. An astounding number of people died, were maimed, were psychologically and emotionally scarred, were bereft of husbands, fathers, sons. These were real people, the survivors of whom had to deal with the effects long after the wars were over. These were lovers and loved ones, whose bonds were destroyed or damaged. In some cases, these wounds are very fresh - Canadian soldiers have fallen even in the past weeks.

Some of these were my own ancestors: my grandparents, great-uncles. The human toll is not lost on me. I see and hear the pain when they talk about the war, fallen comrades, fallen siblings. They do not want to recall or retell these memories. But how soon we would forget, if they did not.

Lest We Forget
Yes we care about and support veterans. Yes, we sympathize with the bereaved and the grieving. But why was their sacrifice noble? Why was it necessary? Read this anecdote from the Corner by Hans von Spakovsky on the anniversary of the "fall" of the Berlin Wall. Shortly after the wall was torn down, he went from West Berlin to East Berlin:

West Berlin was full of bright colors, from shop windows and pennants flying on buildings, to the clothes worn by Berliners on the street. All of the buildings in East Berlin were gray and dirty. Some were still unoccupied and had bullet holes; they had never been repaired or renovated after the end of World War II. West Berlin was full of bright, sparkling vistas and shops filled with consumer goods of all kinds. East Berlin was dark and dingy. The few shops were empty of the everyday necessities and luxuries that give us the quality of life we enjoy. All of the differences between the liberty and prosperity of the free West and the prison conditions and poverty that characterized life behind the Iron Curtain were easy to see.

So easily we say that our fallen fought for freedom; so easily we still forget what this means. Freedom really is at stake. Freedom really is never free. Yet we acquiesce to encroachment on our real freedoms. Instead of freedom of religion, we would prefer freedom from religion. Instead of freedom of speech, we would prefer freedom from free and unregulated speech. These freedoms are the very things won for us by shed blood and sacrifice. Our fallen considered freedoms such as these worth fighting for. They still do - over in Afghanistan, soldiers from Canada, Britain, America, and other countries are doing hard work that they deem worthwhile.

Never Again
John Philpot Curran said,

"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

Or, as Thomas Jefferson famously paraphrased,

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Do we even think about the third stanza of John McCrae's famous poem?

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

There is a foe. There is a quarrel. Vigilance is necessary. If we want to retain our freedom, we have a fight on our hands. Let us not allow our hard-won freedoms to be encroached upon, denied, or abridged in ways big or small.

So let us disregard this pacifist hippie nonsense of "Why can't we all just get along?" and "no more war". If that's the message of "Never again", you can count me out. It denies and denigrates the sacrifice of those who fought for something real and worthwhile. Let us be clear: refusal to fight is no way to prevent war. It is a sure way to surrender our freedom.

The failing hands did not throw a white flag of surrender or regret. They had a foe, and they had a quarrel with the foe. They charged us to take up this quarrel, to hold the torch high, and not to break faith with them. Let us indeed do what we can to prevent full-scale war; but let us never fail to hold high the torch of freedom, at whatever cost.

Levant and Steyn Before Parliamentary Committee

Update: Welcome, SteynOnline readers!

Ezra Levant posts some great video of his and Mark Steyn's testimony before the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights, which is reviewing the Canadian Human Rights Act and particularly Section 13 of that act.

What stood out to me was a response of MP Joe Comartin (NDP, Windsor-Tecumseh, ON) to Mark Steyn. Comartin asks Levant and Steyn whether they'd be willing to appear before the committee in the future, and whether they could supply documentation for some of the allegations they had made about the actions of the CHRC. Levant agrees, and notes how surprised he was when he realized that these were not merely allegations or conspiracy theories, but that they were really happening. Steyn also indicates that he couldn't believe the actions of the CHRC and the CHRT. Then follows this exchange:

Steyn: ...I'm not going to let this go. I don't believe secret trials have any place in this country, except in the most extreme national security circumstances - and even then that's debatable. But they certainly have no place over so-called hate speech or pre-crime. It's a disgrace, it shames this country, and you as the parliamentary oversight for the commission and the tribunal should do something about that.

Comartin: Well I get to decide what we do - what I do. This is a parliamentary [sic], Mr. Steyn.

Watch the clip starting at about 4:40:



Is it me or is Comartin defensive and uncomfortable with Steyn's direct challenge to the Committee? He laughs, and then retreats to the elementary school comeback: "You're not the boss of me." It seems somewhat arrogant, even. Not, "It's our job to decide that", but "I get to decide what we do." To take another elementary school line, He's the king of the castle, and that dirty rascal Steyn shouldn't dare to suggest a course of action. To his credit he catches his ego-centric response mid-takeoff and rephrases, but I think it betrays what lies beneath. It's almost as if he knows what's right, but doesn't want to be told to do it. Would he respond the same way to a concerned constituent - who is the boss of him?

For the most part, I didn't find Comartin's questions malicious or evasive. He did toss a lame softball to the effect that allowing the publication of Mein Kampf did not prevent Hitler from carrying out the Holocaust. Steyn - and Levant, later - hit this one out of the park with ease. But he did also express a desire to hear from Levant and Steyn again. That's a good thing. The more opportunity Steyn and Levant have to shred the bad arguments for Section 13, the better.

Potato Monopoly

A fellow church member with a family farm is being told that he can only sell his potatoes through Peak of the Market, which bills itself as a "grower-owned vegetable supplier". He says "Now they're telling me I can't even sell potatoes in a shack on my own property."

A few telling parts of a Winnipeg Free Press article:

Under Manitoba regulations, all potato farmers must sell their spuds through Peak of the Market, which charges a small levy in exchange for the ability to pool, brand and market their produce.

So the Manitoba government has apparently legislated mandatory cooperation with Peak of the Market. This sounds like another Canadian Wheat Board. The over-regulation of government becomes an unjustifiable restriction on the liberty of the free citizen.

"They told me nobody is allowed to sell potatoes unless they are a registered grower through Peak of the Market."

Great strategy: force them to register in order to sell food.

Peak of the Market is planning to come up with new regulations next year to formalize the way small producers sell to farmers' markets.

So who is coming up with regulations to restrict free trade of free citizens? A non-governmental, unelected, perhaps unaccountable organization?

Small producers and organic vegetable growers have no reason to be afraid of taking their product to Peak of the Market, added Debora Durnin-Richards, the acting director of boards, commissions and legislation for Manitoba's Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives.

Let me see if I understand this: the onus is on me to provide a reason why my freedom should not be restricted? Backwards. And I should like it because Durnin-Richards says so? Even if they back off such regulation or make an exception, I suppose I should thank the government for graciously allowing me to do what I should be free to do in the first place, right?

Farmers who want to grow on a small scale and cut out the middleman have no interest in vegetable marketing boards, added the spokeswoman for Winnipeg's largest farmers' market.

This stinks of government overreach, overregulation and unjustifiable restriction of the liberty of a citizen. It also does not look good on Peak of the Market, which likes to portray itself as friendly to local farmers.

Medefind: 10 Questions

In the latest (June 2009) issue of Comment magazine from Cardus, Jedd Medefind - a former Special Assistant to George W. Bush - answers the following question from a reader:

... My friends and I often wonder how to hear over the rhetoric and angry name-calling that often surfaces in political discussions... What would you say we should think about when we want to interact with our government?

In response, Medefind lays out 10 questions he has used to guide his political choices:

1. Is my political stance a reflection of the heart of God or merely a product of my own culture?
2. Do the goals I seek to achieve flow from a vision for common grace, or merely the narrow interests of my own group?
3. Will the tactics I use make it more difficult to influence hearts and lives positively in the long run?
4. Is government really the best way to address this issue?
5. Am I willing to be unpopular?
6. Do I sincerely love my political "enemies" as Jesus taught, not just in theory but in action?
7. Am I falling off the other side of the horse?
8. Is my political stance reflected in my private choices?
9. Have I embraced disciplines that will sustain me for the long haul?
10. What is my ultimate goal?

Medefind fleshes these questions out in more detail in the magazine article. Great questions to consider for our Christian political activity.

Ezra Levant: Shakedown

I attended a fund-raiser for Rod Bruinooge's EDA at which Ezra Levant was the keynote speaker. Somehow the lady at the event registration desk mistook me for Levant. I told her that Ezra is taller than me and a much better speaker. Today the folks at Bruinooge's office were kind enough to send me this proof of the former:



I just finished reading the pictured (and signed!) copy of his new book, Shakedown. It is a great survey of the whole topic of HRCs. Levant's forceful criticism of HRC abuses and vigorous defense of basic freedoms is easy to read and contagious. A lot of the book's material is familiar to those of us who follow his blog closely. But there are several cases that never featured on the blog, and which serve to bolster the argument he has made all along. As a matter of fact, they just make one even more disgusted at the incredible corruption of the HRCs and their obvious incompatibility with democratic freedoms.

Highly recommended. This book has to be read by many Canadians. The word has to get out that the HRCs are far from the defenders of rights - quite to the contrary, they're tramplers of those rights.

Any Argument Will Do

Federal Science and Technology Minister Gary Goodyear came under attack recently when a Globe and Mail reporter suggested that he does not believe in evolution. Yes, it was an attack. In a National Post article today, David Asper writes:

A couple of days ago, federal Minister of Science and Technology Gary Goodyear gave a brief interview to a reporter from The Globe and Mail that was supposedly about reductions in funding for scientific research. However, the entire Globe story allegedly chronicling the interview actually contained only a few sentences dealing with those cuts; one in which the Minister defended the actions being taken by the government, and another whereby he suggested that there needs to be a focus on commercialization of research. The bulk of what Globe readers got was a set of sensationalized non-sequiturs under the headline "Science minister won't confirm belief in evolution."

Asper goes on to describe a pattern of attacks on Christian Conservatives.

In July, I noted that Charles Johnson, whose blog Little Green Footballs I have read and appreciated for several years, had begun to attack young-earth creationists. Since then, it has gotten worse, to the point that many of his readers have given up on him. The problem is not that he disagrees with young-earth creationists. It is the aggressive campaign to maintain the atheist/evolutionist monopoly in education. It is the tireless dredging up of misleading and false information. And, as in this case, it is the acceptance of fallacious arguments.

Johnson affirms arguments at a blog by Phil Plait as "some good points." Here is an excerpt of Plait's post that Johnson chose to highlight:

But tell me, how would you feel if the head of your federal science department told you he believes the Earth is flat? Or the Sun revolves around the Earth? Or that he thinks the sky is a great crystal sphere, and he lies awake at night worried that the Voyager probes will smash it and let all our air out?

Those beliefs have just as much basis as young Earth creationism: they are faith-based only, and have no evidence for them, and about a billion solid pieces of evidence against them.

This is a disingenuous argument that has all the impressiveness of demolishing a straw man. Plait declares that believing that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth have as much basis as young-earth creationism. But what's the difference? Science - at least as it used to be understood. It can be observed - here and now - that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun. Molecules-to-man evolution, on the other hand, can not be observed. It can not be scientifically proven. So you have to build a framework into which the evidence fits, and then believe it. Johnson's faith is as blind and his approach as religious as those religious fanatics he believes he is opposing.

I find it interesting to read all the references to "believing in evolution" and "believing in creationism". Bible-believing Christians should never accept the latter. In the Apostle's Creed, we confess that we believe "a holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." We believe these things, but we don't believe in them. We believe in God. Similarly, young-earth creationism is not a religion or an object of faith. It's a belief grounded in the Word of God, and consistent with scientific evidence.

After Section 13

Much attention has been given in Canada - and across the world - to the systemic problems with Human Rights Commissions and their outrageous decisions. In particular, the sections of the federal and provincial Human Rights Acts that deal with speech and communication "likely to expose a person or person to hatred or contempt" have come under the spotlight. Ever since Ezra Levant went public with his fight against the Alberta Human Rights Commission a little more than one year ago, a movement to abolish Section 13 and its provincial counterpart has been gaining momentum. Canada itself has been exposed to ridicule for allowing such Orwellian courts and laws to thrive in the True North strong and free.

Human Rights Acts and Commissions are certainly the most dangerous and most immediate enemies to the freedom of speech of Canadians, particularly Christian Canadians. But what would happen if the movement to abolish the Acts and/or Commissions achieved its goal? Would the problem be solved? Could Christians sit back without fear of being silenced?

Not at all. Section 13 and its administrators are but the tip of the iceberg, a symptom of a problem that is much more widespread. In Canada, freedom of speech is under attack in other ways. Another government agency, the CRTC, has long been actively preventing Christian TV and radio programs and channels from being established.

Examples abound in public schools and universities. Chris Kempling, a counsellor in the B.C. public school system was disciplined by the B.C. College of Teachers for public criticism, on his own time, of curriculum that promoted homosexual behaviour. (The B.C. College of Teachers recently withdrew a subsequent complaint.) In February 2006, the Cape Breton University Human Rights office accepted a complaint against professor David Mullan for a letter regarding homosexuality that he sent to his local Anglican archbishop and a subsequent discussion of the letter with a student. More recently, it was reported in November that Queens University in Kingston had hired several students whose role includes monitoring private conversations and intervening when issues of "social justice" are being discussed. (This program has since been dropped.) And in the last few weeks, the University of Calgary pressed charges of trespassing against pro-life students who took part in the Genocide Awareness Project. It is particularly distressing - though not altogether surprising - to see freedom of speech especially under attack at institutions that purportedly promote open dialogue and free debate.

American colleges are not much different. Many of them have "speech codes" effectively prohibiting the expression of certain opinions. But at least in the case of our neighbours to the south, the right of free speech is protected under the First Amendment.

It's not that simple. Take John McCain, who recently ran for President. McCain was a supporter of McCain/Feingold, and obviously had no qualms about limiting freedom of speech when it was politically expedient.

And what of Barack Obama, the new President? There is evidence that Obama and his campaign used legal and organizational tactics to silence his critics. It didn't take long after his inauguration for Obama to suggest that Americans should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, a popular conservative radio talk show host. And Obama's policy aligns closely with the Fairness Doctrine, which practically would give the government power to push certain broadcasters out of business.

True human rights are granted by God, and are therefore outside the jurisdiction of our governments. They are the positive aspect of the negative commandments. When God commands us not to bear false witness, he also declares the inalienable right and duty to bear true witness - to freely speak the truth. Christians are further called to speak the truth in love.

But often the truth - even when spoken in love - is confrontational and unpleasant to those who hear it. Their natural reaction is to prevent themselves from hearing it or to prevent others from speaking it. That is why we see many different efforts in our free societies to silence speech that is intolerable or inconvenient. In practice, it is often Christians who are being muzzled, and often at the hands of "human rights" Commissions. But we must fight these efforts regardless of their form or target; otherwise our freedom too will be in jeopardy. Let us encourage our society and government to uphold the God-given right and duty to speak the truth in love.