Aloud in the Street

Take Up Our Quarrel With the Foe

2009-11-11T08:58:00.008-06:00

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

2009-10-06T22:02:00.007-05:00

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

2009-09-18T20:22:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-30T22:58:00.008-05:00

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:

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

2009-05-19T22:49:00.001-05:00

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

2009-03-19T22:41:00.001-05:00

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

2009-02-12T22:13:00.001-06:00

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.

And So It Begins

2009-01-24T17:05:00.001-06:00

Less than a week into his term as President, Barack Obama has come out in full support of the abortion industry. While calling for "common ground" in the debate, he praised the Roe vs. Wade decision on its 36th anniversary, and signed an executive order revoking the Mexico City Policy, allowing US funds to be used by overseas organizations involved in abortion or its promotion.

I am amazed at the number of Christians who aligned themselves with Obama during the election campaign. From my vantage point, it seems many still do. During the election campaign, one commentator pointed out the bizarre fact that there were a fair number of people who supported Obama but actually hoped that he wouldn't keep his promises. Hope and change for them meant that they hoped Obama would change his own policies. Perhaps many of these Christians fall in this category.

But the fact is, Obama's legacy should have spoken for itself. At one point on the campaign trail, Obama indicated that he wouldn't want his daughters punished with pregnancy and motherhood if they made a mistake.

Then there was the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill. Obama insisted on amendments to the bill to align it to a very similar federal bill. Even the large pro-abortion group NARAL did not ultimately oppose the federal bill. But when the bill, amendments included, came up in Illinois, Obama voted against it. These were two of many more clear indications of Obama's position on abortion. He was very much beyond the mainstream on the issue.

I have heard of far-left supporters of Obama who are already feeling disenfranchised by the fact that Obama is carrying on with some Bush-era policies and personnel. There were clear signs that he shared (some of) their views. Their hope for change has been disappointed.

Christians have no such excuse. Obama is keeping his promises on the abortion issue. If we are surprised, it is due to naivety or ignorance. In any case we should do away with the idea that this is a man with whom we can or should align ourselves.

Christ Jesus told Pontius Pilate:

You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.(John 19:11)

Paul exhorted Timothy:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.(1 Timothy 2:1-2)

And David showed restraint out of respect for God when he had two chances to kill a man bent on his death, but who was also the king.

We must likewise show respect for those God has put in authority. We must pray for them, perhaps especially when their actions show them to be ungodly. Yet there is no contradiction when we speak of a loyal opposition. We should not ignore or hide from the truth. Our prophetic task with respect to those in authority, as was Elijah's, is sometimes to respectfully and boldly oppose them.

Breitbart: Hollywood Celebrities Not Citizens, But Serfs

2009-01-21T19:31:00.000-06:00

Andrew Breitbart rightly takes Hollywood celebrities to task for their on-again-off-again take on patriotism and citizenship, after several of them put out a celebrity-filled "Presidential Pledge" video. I Pledge to Ridicule Celebrities Who Refuse to Recognize We Are At War With People Who Want to Kill Them, Too:

This video illustrates that the current celebrity class are not citizens but serfs. They need a leader to put their minds in the right place to do the right thing. They are not heroic individualists seeking to extend America’s promise but conformists who chose to sit out and complain during the tough years in order to ensure their guy got in the next go-around.

Read the whole article. Breitbart's final sentiment is not the right approach, but his criticism are bang-on.

Another Political Union

2009-01-12T22:40:00.004-06:00

Some time before Sunday, all of Canada's postal workers sat down and, after careful debate, hammered out a mutually agreeable and acceptable statement regarding the crisis in Israel and Gaza. Wait. No they didn't. Maybe they took a vote? I doubt it.

On behalf of the 56,000 members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, I am writing to demand that the Canadian government condemn the military assault on the people of Gaza that the state of Israel commenced on December 26th, 2008.

That's right. Denis Lemelin, National President of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), took it upon himself to speak on behalf of 56,000 union members. Guess what? They all agree that

Israel's largely pinpoint destruction of Hamas weapons and strongholds is a "military assault on the people of Gaza"
Israel was the party that started the fight "on December 26, 2008"
Israel's operations are a "siege on Gaza"
"the root cause of the violence" is "Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories"
Israel's current actions are totally out of proportion with any notion of self-defense."

(Incidentally, the CUPW president fails to write the name 'Hamas' even once in his letter. Even if he had, I'm sure his spell-checker would have corrected it to 'oppressed freedom-fighters'. You can read the full letter here.)

This is the consensus of 56,000 out of 56,000 Canadian postal workers. Or that is what Mr. Lemelin would have us believe. Perhaps it's a healthy 42,000 out of 56,000. Three out of four is a solid majority. Perhaps it's 40,000. Perhaps it's 28,001 - a slight 50-percent-plus-one majority, but a majority nonetheless. Perhaps it's 14,000 of 56,000. (One can only hope.)

But what does it matter?

Last month I wrote about how today's unions have long lost sight of their original cause and purpose. One aspect of this overreach was political action:

Today's unions are political. It can be argued that it is for the good of the workers to support a political party that is likely to be sympathetic to union demands. But do political contributions represent the diversity of political support among the union members? And what can be said, for instance, of the CAW boss Buzz Hargrove's official letter to Prime Minister Harper taking a political stand during the Israel-Lebanon crisis of 2006? Did his recommendations represent the majority view of union members? Even if it did, what business is it of CAW's to make political pronouncements?

Regardless of what numerator you throw on top of 56,000, by what authority does the CUPW or its executive "demand [emphasis mine -ed.] that the Canadian government condemn the military assault on the people of Gaza"? What business does it have to "strongly urge the Canadian government to condemn the serious violations of humanitarian and international law by the state of Israel"?

It's bad enough that the CUPW pretends to speak on behalf of all its members on controversial political issues. But it says something about the audacity of today's unions when they are happy to abuse their power and influence in domains in which they have no business.

Emerson: New York Times a Foreign Agent for Hamas

2009-01-06T21:51:00.000-06:00

Steve Emerson pulls no punches in this indictment of the New York Times, which is no longer even pretending to be fair and balanced. The Hamas propaganda machine is world-class, but who even needs it when the world's biggest newsrooms are cheerleading for you? Emerson: Why Does The New York Times Love Hamas?

In the past week, the Fourth Estate’s Hamas cheerleaders have stripped away any pretense of being honest or neutral, with The New York Times continuing to take the side of the terrorist group in one of the most shameful journalistic episodes I have ever seen. In following The Times' coverage for the past six months and checking external sources of information, one can see a clear pattern of propagandistic reporting favoring Hamas that selectively suppressed or willfully misrepresented information.

Meanwhile, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have realized that if the truth is going to get out, it's not going to be the mainstream media's fault. So it is using the power of the internet to counter the anti-Israel spin. The IDF's website features official statistics and releases, and many YouTube videos showing Hamas firing rockets from hospitals, mosques, and schools.

Glick: The Real War Crimes

2009-01-05T20:15:00.000-06:00

Here's an entirely different take on the Hamas-Israeli war from Caroline Glick. As a matter of fact, it's a breath of fresh air when compared with the anti-Israel mainstream media. A Mideast Glick Check:

What is interesting about this latest round of fighting is that the world paid little attention to what was going on when it was only Hamas attacking Israel. People only started paying attention when Israel’s government said enough is enough and started defending its territory and citizens.

Elsewhere, Ezra Levant tackles our national and local media -The Canadian Left vs. Israel:

But I do not want the Conservatives to have a monopoly on pro-Israel sentiments. I think every Canadian party ought to be pro-Israel, because Israel mirrors our own democratic, liberal values in a very undemocratic, illiberal part of the world. Their fight against Islamic terrorism predates ours; they're merely the front line. We could be in the same violent mess as them in 20 years -- and Europe could be in 10 years.

CBC Neutral on Obama

2009-01-05T19:54:00.001-06:00

Yeah right. Down at CBC Radio 2, they're positively giddy about his president-electness.

“One of the best way to know Canada is through the depth and breadth of our artistic expression,” says Denise Donlon, Executive Director, CBC Radio. “We're excited about the new President and we want him to be excited about us, so we're asking our audience to help compile the list of our most definitive Canadian songs!”

They devoted a lot of the day to this "Obama-rama" (their word). But I'm sure they'll do a Bush Farewell Extravaganza too, right?

Rumours of Racism's Death are Greatly Exaggerated

2009-01-03T12:23:00.002-06:00

Shortly after the U.S. federal election in November, I wrote:

But it's the old race card in a new suit, another "heads I win, tails you lose" tactic. If Obama wins, race is not an issue - it's about the merits of his person and position, and the lack thereof in the case of his opponent. If he loses, it's because of race - not about merits.

Over at Uncommon Knowledge - where Peter Robinson conducts very interesting interviews - I stumbled across an interview with Shelby Steele, where he explains the reason for Obama's popular appeal:

But there is an inherent contradiction in all of this when whites, especially today's younger generation, proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation.

Everywhere I went on my book tour with regard to this book, young people would come up, "We're beyond your generation. We're going to vote for Obama," and so forth. "Don't you think that we, we grew up differently than you did." No, you didn't. You did not. You are now obsessed with race. Race is the only thing that's driving your interest in Barack Obama. You couldn't even tell me what his policies are. You're never critical to him in any way. If you were free of race, you would not judge him culturally. You would judge him politically. You'd look at his position on social security, on all these mundane, boilerplate issues that presidents actually have to deal with, his economic policies. You never want to see that. You are consumed by race.

The whole thing is worth watching, but this exchange begins at 15:35.

Unions, Productivity, and the Automakers Crisis

2008-12-27T15:36:00.001-06:00

Workers' unions came about because of terrible working conditions and employers who mistreated their employees. Employers were abusing their power and their workers. Unions have been responsible, at least in part, for improving working standards and conditions.

But the pendulum has long since swung to the other side. It is now the unions that are abusing their power and the workers they claim to represent. There are many things that can be said about the actions and effects of today's unions, but let the following non-exhaustive list suffice:

Today's unions do not balance the needs of workers with the needs of employers and managers. Workers are best served when they are fairly treated and compensated, but also when such treatment and compensation does not threaten the profitability and stability of their jobs and livelihood - the company for which they work. Many recent union "wins" are thus actually losses. Unions are too opposed to management and ownership to seek the common good.
Today's unions make financial sense for those at the top, but not necessarily for those at the bottom. Union bosses are very well compensated, but does the average worker recover the losses incurred after strike pay runs out during a lengthy strike?
Today's unions are political. It can be argued that it is for the good of the workers to support a political party that is likely to be sympathetic to union demands. But do political contributions represent the diversity of political support among the union members? And what can be said, for instance, of the CAW boss Buzz Hargrove's official letter to Prime Minister Harper taking a political stand during the Israel-Lebanon crisis of 2006? Did his recommendations represent the majority view of union members? Even if it did, what business is it of CAW's to make political pronouncements?
Today's unions actually discourage creativity, efficiency, productivity.

This last one likely has a lot more to do with today's Big Three auto crisis than any one is letting on. It's a systemic problem, and any real solution to the automaker crisis must deal with it. More in this great read at Pajamas Media - Rand Simberg: Detroit’s Downturn: It’s the Productivity, Stupid. Here's an excerpt, but read the whole thing - there are some mind-boggling and telling examples of the union mentality.

But almost all of the discussion, when it comes to UAW culpability, has been on wages. The even larger issue, though, is the elephant in the room that seemingly no one discusses, even when given a political opportunity... And it’s not like people are unaware of it, at least people familiar with the industry. The issue isn’t wages — though those are a problem — so much as work rules. UAW work rules, which have evolved over the many decades since the passage of the Wagner Act, are the biggest reason that General Motors is uncompetitive with its non-union American counterparts.

What are work rules? They are agreements negotiated in the contract between management and the union covering how the employees are to be classified, how many breaks they get, how much time off they get, who can do which jobs, how discipline is to be enforced, etc. The goal of the rules is not to enhance productivity or production quality. It is to provide opportunities for featherbedding, increase numbers of (overpaid) jobs for union workers, and minimize how much they have to actually work. This is important because it’s at least in theory possible that the industry could be making money even at current wages, if they could be provided with the flexibility to increase worker productivity.

Fighting the War on Life Issues

2008-12-08T21:22:00.000-06:00

At a recent Campaign Life Coalition luncheon, Former Liberal MP Tom Wappel - well-known for his pro-life stance - took the Roman Catholic Church to task for its lack of support for him and others fighting the war on the life issues. But his criticism was constructive and offered 13 specific recommendations to give that support.

These are suggestions from someone who spent 20 years in federal parliament, who was a member of the Pro-Life Caucus, who understands the fight from that perspective. So these recommendations are instructive for all who want to return to a respect for life. From LifeSiteNews, Tom Wappel's 13 Recommendations for Catholic Clergy and Bishops:

Number 13 - Engage the congregation to think about there [sic] faith... how can you speak in favor of the freedom to "choose" for example, or same-sex marriage or some type of euthanasia?

Number 12 - have educational meetings at the Church, I would recommend, once a month. Invite speakers on issues such as abortion, marriage, euthanasia, and publicize it well.

Number 11 - invite the local Member of Parliament, the local Member of Provincial Parliament and the councillor to these meetings.

Number 10 - Encourage the Catholic Women's League and the Knights of Columbus, if you have them in your parish, to seek meetings with the local MP's about the life issues and have them report back on those meetings.

Number 9 - Encourage parishioners to be engaged in public policy debate. Encourage them to write to their representatives when they run across issues that they feel strongly about - express their opinions.

Number 8 - Talk to the principals and staff, if you are allowed to do so, at all the Catholic schools in your parish and walk them through the issues - as you do the parishioners.

Number 7 - engage with the students at all levels about the life issues. It is never too young, in my opinion, to talk about a respect for life.

Number 6 - encourage your fellow priests and pastors of other denominations,

Number 5 - encourage and, indeed, insist that the Bishops institute these kinds of practices nation-wide in an organized manner...

Number 4 - ... the CCCB should meet with the representatives of the Parliamentary pro-life caucus,

Number 3 - provide your parishioners, at all times, and in particular during an election campaign, with specific sources where they can accumulate information about candidates.

Number 2 - Advise parishioners on the exact positions of the candidates on the life issues.

Number 1 - ...the entire congregation [should] pray to God that God would rekindle the fire of faith of those whose faith has been extinguished, stoke the smoldering embers of faith of those who are losing their faith and fan the flames of those whose faith is strong...

The Bush Legacy

2008-12-01T21:31:00.000-06:00

I've argued often that history will judge George W. Bush much kindlier than current popular opinion. The typical rap is that he is an unintelligent, far-right ultraconservative, selfish theocon. These allegations are nearly all false, and are less supported by knowledge and fact than by emotions and intense ideological opposition. Bush is well-read and his Texas drawl hides his intelligence. He is not far-right or very conservative - in fact, his big-government approach was disappointingly centrist. His demeanour betrays self-confidence, but not selfishness. And he is less theocon than say, George Washington, or any of the Fathers of the U.S. Constitution - read a few of Bill Federer's American Minute pieces for a picture of this. But these things will come out with time.

However, as Victor David Hanson writes at the corner, it's not taking much time at all: Bush Through the Obama Prism.

Obama's victory (predicated on painting Bush as a Hoover/Nixon redux), more so even than perhaps a John McCain's, may do more for Bush's reputation that anyone ever imagined. And the Mumbai mess (over there, not here) will only empasize all this, as an array of old 9/11-era experts who used to warn us about radical Islam, then, in the subsequent respite at home, screamed that Bush fabricated a war against terror against bogeymen, and now in their third manifestation are paraded once more out to warn us about?—why, yes, radical Islam!

A Chilling Display of Tolerance

2008-11-10T22:10:00.000-06:00

Despite overwhelmingly supporting Barack Obama in last week's election, Californians also voted 'Yes' on Proposition 8, a measure legally defining marriage in California as "marriage between a man and a woman."

The gay lobby has framed its fight in terms of victimhood, equal rights, and tolerance. But they've always been about bullying - shouting down their opponents and using the race and bigotry cards. And, of course, the battering ram of judicial activism, quite unlike the democratic process used by Yes on 8.

That's at the best of times. Here's what happens when democracy gets in the way of their plan: Crazy lefties attack old lady at No on 8 protest.

Thoughts on the US Presidential Election

2008-11-06T19:57:00.004-06:00

A few thoughts on the US presidential election won by Barack Obama. There was no shortage of platitude or inflated rhetoric with regard to Obama the candidate. His election has occasion for yet more sensationalism. I find much of it disappointing, and worse, dishonest.

Exhibit A is the issue of race and racism. Racism has been declared dead or at least dying, the media tells us, now that a black man is to be the President of the United States. But it's the old race card in a new suit, another "heads I win, tails you lose" tactic. If Obama wins, race is not an issue - it's about the merits of his person and position, and the lack thereof in the case of his opponent. If he loses, it's because of race - not about merits. So race was very much a part of the campaign and the election - the trump card of race was ready for use if it was needed. More on this from Mark Levin at the Corner:

Let's not fool ourselves. If Barack Obama had been a conservative Republican (a la Lynn Swann, Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell) the response to his election would not the same as it is today. Before the election, the liberal and media commentariat were putting out different arguments for an Obama election — including that this was not an election about race if he won or it was an election about race if he lost. But now that he has won, I am hearing this is victory against racism. But I didn't think modern America racist. Of course, there are individuals and pockets that are. But that's different. I don't remember the same tests, such as they are, being applied to the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. I understand that's different than a national election. However, it simply cannot be denied that there is a double standard as applies to liberals and conservatives regardless of race or gender. Indeed, if Hillary Clinton had been elected president, we would be hearing similar words of celebration; but if Sarah Palin had been elected vice president, we would be hearing very nasty things, as we have since she was nominated.

Exhibit B is the deconstruction of the two campaigns: Obama's campaign was brilliant and largely free of mistakes, while McCain's campaign was weak and error-ridden. I concur that McCain did not run a strong campaign, and that there were too many mistakes. But I find statements about Obama's brilliant win somewhat dishonest. McCain needed a strong campaign to win. First, he was running for the same party as Bush. But he was up against another, much larger, obstacle that Obama did not have to face. Mark Hemingway, also at the Corner:

I have next to nothing good to say about how the media (on the whole) conducted themselves in this campaign. I don't think my complaints here should take away from Obama's victory, as the Republicans made more than few mistakes and the loss is theirs and theirs alone. Still, it's hard not to see how the press completely ablated any and all professional standards in one clumsy attempt after another to destroy McCain and Palin. Meanwhile, when they weren't cheerleading for Obama they were actively ignoring even the most damning criticisms of their preferred candidate.

The frantic searching for any kind of ammo against Palin was one thing. But when the media is more interested in investigating 15 minutes of fame called Joe the Plumber than a candidate for President of the United States, its praise of said candidate's campaign rings hollow. There were plenty of things worthy of investigation with regard to Obama. They did not matter because the media refused to acknowledge them. McCain had pretty good results for a mediocre campaign. With the media running cover for him, Obama neither ran nor needed to run a strong campaign.

Socialism is No Joke

2008-10-30T19:32:00.001-05:00

At a recent rally, Obama served up this joke in response to the McCain campaign's charges that he is socialist:

McCain has “called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,” Obama said. “I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”

But this is not a throw-away joke; it's actually quite revealling, as John Hood posts at The Corner:

Ha ha.

Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.

Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).

Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.

The Case Against Obama

2008-10-25T11:21:00.000-05:00

It's safe to say that the welfare of the United States affects the welfare of Canada, and thus the upcoming Presidential election is important to us. Who should we like to see win the election? Generally, conservative Christians tend to the Republican party and its candidates. So what is the case for John McCain? What is the case against Barack Obama? Is there a case for Barack Obama? Is there a case against John McCain?

I support the Republican ticket, but John McCain does not get my wholehearted support. He likes to define himself as a non-partisan maverick. The trouble, in my mind, is that McCain's non-partisan and maverick actions have often been departures from conservative principles. For instance, he is not strong on border security and immigration; he has advocated limiting legitimate free speech; he has not shown himself to be a fighter for smaller government. These are the wrong things on which to be agreeing with the average Democrat. McCain is, however, solid on one issue - and it is a big issue: foreign policy and the military. That is a large plus, also for Canada.

But my reluctant support for McCain is cemented by one thing - the alternative is much, much worse. Obama comes off as a great communicator, a down-to-earth friend of the average American, a thoughtful, progressive leader. That is without a doubt the way he has been presented to us by the mainstream media. But before you cast your vote, whether literal or figurative, read The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama.

Perhaps if Barack Obama had taken more time to build his resumé – especially with executive experience – he might have made a more compelling candidate, and might have demonstrated at least a little of the moderation he has claimed. Instead, Democrats want America to support at once the most radical and least qualified candidate for President in at least a century. They have tried to conceal this with the complicity of a pom-pom-waving national media that has shown much more interest in the political background of a plumber from Ohio than in a major-party candidate for President.

Follow the link for much detail, including several supporting moving clips. It's well worth the read.

Card: It's About the Truth

2008-10-21T21:01:00.001-05:00

Orson Scott Card, a Greensboro, North Carolina journalist and Democrat will not make a lot of friends with it, but his comment on the mainstream media's coverage of the U.S. Presidential election is nevertheless right on the money and well worth the read: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

CRTC Seeks More Power

2008-10-21T20:43:00.001-05:00

The CRTC is well-known to Canadian Christians. It is not a fond acquaintance. For years the CRTC has done its best to keep Christian programming off Canadian radio and TV, or at least to limit it as much as possible. Numerous applications for Christian-only radio stations and TV channels have been denied for various dubious reasons. Recently, as LifeSiteNews reported, the CRTC denied two applications for Christian radio stations in Ottawa, while approving a TV channel that promised to promote the Canadian pornography industry. This is nothing new for Christians or conservatives, such as those who had to fight to get the CRTC to allow the FOX News channel in Canada, even though it had in principle accepted Al Jazeera TV's application.

The CRTC's position and power are incredible. The Commission (where have we heard that word before?) is essentially promoting some things and censoring - in the true sense of the word - others. Between one Commission and the other, the government now decides what "free" Canadians are allowed to watch, here, say, and write. Now this is not all bad. Pornography, among other things, should be kept off of our TVs. It is a matter of decency. Libel must be prosecuted in the courts. It is a matter of protecting reputations. But censoring political commentary or religious broadcasting is a whole other matter. It is an assault on freedom.

Christians have recently taken to the Internet, where they are free from our eye- ear- and mouth-keepers over at the CRTC. There, radio is uncensored and freely accessible. It's no wonder the CRTC is trying to get its fingers on the Internet, too - see their notice. David Warren points out that the CRTC was not directed by Parliament to do so. No, this Commission, just like the HRC, feels quite comfortable expanding its jurisdiction as it sees fit, unaccountable to those it purports to serve.

That this announcement was made by the CRTC, rather than by Parliament, is an indication of the degree to which the CRTC is a law unto itself.

In the time-honoured, mealy-mouthed way, the CRTC will soon be explaining that its intentions are innocent, that it is merely trying to keep up with the convergence of broadcast and Internet technologies. Only a naive fool will believe that. The regulator has created a strict broadcasting environment in which Christian and all other views that do not conform to political correctness are effectively kept under siege. The left hungers for the ability to create a similar tightly regulated environment on the Internet, to bring the free reporting and opinions of bloggers and other citizen-journalists under its ideological jackboot.

But, just like with the HRCs, the Commission is not solely at fault. Whether it recognizes them or not, it has masters in Parliament, and it is these elected - and to that extent, accountable - representatives that have both the power and responsibility to liberate Canadians again. Their failure to do so is not the CRTC's fault. Both must be held accountable. For Parliament, it would mean functioning as designed. For the CRTC, it would mean a radical overhaul.

Global Warming, Except for the Warming Part

2008-10-20T20:35:00.001-05:00

Still believe that man-made C0₂ is sending the planet to dangerous levels of heat? Well, more and more people - yes, scientists too - are stepping aboard the Global Warming Deniers bandwagon. Lorne Gunter outlines the growing chorus of dissent:

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

An Army to be Proud Of

2008-10-02T20:55:00.000-05:00

How is the Canadian army doing in Afghanistan? If you only get news from the mainstream media, you would be likely to think our boys are fighting for no good reason, losing a hopeless battle, they're demoralized, and ready to come home. Here's a dispatch by Michael Yon - directly from the battlefront - which bypasses the ideological filter of the mainstream media to give a picture of the true situation on the ground there: Where Eagles Dare. See also the update to this dispatch.

After seven years, the war in Afghanistan has morphed from a breathtaking expedition of a handful of special operators—often on horseback—to a sort of lethal day-to-day business. Morale is high among American, Aussie, British and Canadian soldiers...

The Canadians have an excellent reputation among British and American forces, and so the Canucks were tasked to clear the road for the convoy. This was a chain of many links: if the Canadians failed, the mission would fail.

And yes, our boys find time to play a little hockey out there.

Update: Your Tax Dollars at Work

2008-10-02T20:14:00.000-05:00

There are some weak justifications, but, to CBC's credit, they are not standing behind Heather Mallick's terrible column regarding Sarah Palin. Via NoApologies.ca: CBC apologizes for foul Mallick rant.

Artists as Entrepreneurs?

2008-09-23T22:08:00.006-05:00

I just saw a clip of NDP leader Jack Layton's campaign stop in Quebec today, where he promised increased funding for the arts. He said that Conservative cuts to arts funding are preventing artists from making a living. But it was interesting to me that he said he considers artists entrepreneurs.

My concept of entrepreneur must be different than Layton's. A quick search for definitions of entrepreneur backs me up. Here's a representative definition:

Entrepreneur: [an] individual who starts an enterprise with its associated risks and responsibilities.

If no one finds an entrepreneur's product or business venture useful or worthy of investment, it fails. If someone values it enough, it will be profitable.

It is the entrepreneur who runs the risk that his product or business venture will not be profitable. It is not the business of the government to bail out private products and ventures that are not profitable on their own.

I agree that artists should be like entrepreneurs - let the free market support or reject them. I think the demand for good art will always be there. I'll privately support such art as I like. But if artists can't survive without government funding - my taxes - propping them up, maybe that says something about the demand for their art.

Mr. Layton, if artists really are entrepreneurs, then the Conservatives are the ones who have this one right.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

2008-09-18T18:44:00.006-05:00

More evidence of the CBC's far-left bias showing through: Columnist's labeling Palin backers 'White Trash' spurs review at Canadian TV:

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is reviewing complaints from both Americans and Canadians about a Web site columnist who recently described Sarah Palin’s supporters as “white trash,” compared the vice presidential candidate to a “porn actress” and called her daughter’s boyfriend a “redneck” and “ratboy.”

The incendiary column by Toronto-based writer Heather Mallick appeared on the CBC News site on Sept. 5, after the close of the Republican National Convention. On the same day, Britain’s Guardian newspaper published another column by Mallick in which she trashed Palin’s home state of Alaska as a “frontier state full of drunks and crazy people.”

Several years ago, Coach's Corner was put on a 6-second delay because of a perceived slur against French Canadians and Europeans by Don Cherry. His offense was declaring that the majority of hockey players wearing visors on their helmets are French Canadian or European. A Winnipeg lawyer did the math and found this statement to be factual, but it was still much too offensive for the CBC.

So you can imagine how the CBC dealt with Heather Mallick after she posted the article on a CBC website almost two weeks ago. Wrong. The CBC is still proudly displaying the article on its website. Watch the CBC twist itself into logical pretzels defending Mallick.

Meanwhile, will Stephen Harper continue to sign her paycheque? Will taxpayers' money continue to be spent on hopelessly mediocre programming and one-sided journalism?

Natural CO2 Emissions Bad, Toxic Mercury Emissions Great

2008-08-18T18:55:00.000-05:00

Let's get this straight: CO₂, a naturally occurring gas on which all kinds of plant life depend, is dangerous to the planet at marginally higher levels. But CFL bulbs, which contain extremely high levels of toxic mercury - proven to be very dangerous, particularly to young children - are the environmentally responsible choice. It doesn't take a global warming "scientist" to figure out that there's something wrong with this picture: 1 broken bulb pushes contamination to 300 times EPA limits.

The results were stunning: Breaking a single compact fluorescent bulb on the floor can spike mercury vapor levels in a room – particularly at a child's height – to over 300 times the EPA's standard accepted safety level.

Furthermore, for days after a CFL has been broken, vacuuming or simply crawling across a carpeted floor where the bulb was broken can cause mercury vapor levels to shoot back upwards of 100 times the accepted level of safety.

On the Bookshelf: The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics

2008-08-04T11:42:00.004-05:00

I've updated the On the Bookshelf linked list (on the right menu). The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics includes Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, A Grief Observed, and The Abolition of Man. I am midway through Mere Christianity, and it is already worth the price. Anyone who considers Christianity to be irrational or unreasonable will be forced to reconsider. Lewis treats the deep questions of life in a logical and systematic way, with helpful and colourful analogies.

Civilizational Collapse

2008-08-04T11:40:00.002-05:00

I'm slowly making my way through the series The Christians (it's On the Bookshelf on the right side of the blog). It's a fascinating read, full of details and illustrations. The end of Volume I was particularly interesting in its chronicle of the fall of Jerusalem.

As Volume II takes up the threat against the Roman empire from the barbarians, it describes the state of Roman civilization:

Centuries earlier, the citizen-militia had been replaced by a professional army, increasingly recruited outside the Italian heartland. Then the very success of the empire, bringing with it a flood of cheap imports like Egyptian grain, had eviscerated the dutiful citizen farmers and artisans. Some rose into the bureaucratic ranks, the patricians and the equites (knights) growing obscenely wealthy in the imperial service. But many Roman citizens simply lived off the free grain ration and lolled at the public baths or the games.

"The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else," lamented the dyspeptic poet Juvenal, "now disturb themselves no more, and long eagerly for just two things - bread and circuses!" And their supposed betters, the gentry, were if anything worse. As the wealth and personal retinue of noble Romans burgeoned, so did their sloth, luxury, and licentiousness. Too many young aristocrats preferred fine wines and witty mistresses to forced marches and camp life. Too many young wives preferred to have lovers rather than children - birth control, abortion, and the exposure (abandonment in open fields) of infants were commonplace. The latest celebrity actor and the all star gladiator were far more entertaining than strategy and politics. Ease and indolence do not make for big families, and by the mid-second century the workforce had shrunk, and the government had to conscript labor to transport essential supplies into the city.

This list could very well describe much of the Western world, particularly Europe.

The citizen-militia... replaced by a professional army... It is striking that more and more people in Western society are unwilling to fight - verbally or militarily - for the civilization on which they depend for peace and freedom.
flood of cheap imports... eviscerated dutiful citizen farmers and artisans... Many Western manufacturers have been forced either to fold or to import due to the cheap labour and goods from overseas (e.g. from China).
Some rose into the bureaucratic ranks... The bureaucratic class has ballooned in the West, often in inverse proportion to the quality of service provided.
Many... simply lived off the free grain ration... Many citizens of Western countries - including many immigrants - feed at the public trough of welfare and social services, unwilling to be bothered with productive and constructive contribution to the public on which they depend. Mark Steyn calls them welfare junkies.
As wealth and personal retinue... burgeoned, so did... sloth, luxury, and licentiousness... Ditto for the West.
Lovers rather than children... birth control, abortion, the exposure were commonplace...The sexual revolution has made sex a god and end in itself. The products of sex - children - are seen as little more than side-effects of an otherwise good drug. Birth control is expected. Abortion is accepted. Exposure is uncommon literally, but many children are quite unwanted and are left to virtually fend for themselves in terms of love and companionship, though they are showered with things they ultimately care less about, such as money and toys.
The latest celebrity actor and the all-star gladiator were far more entertaining than strategy and politics. Put "athlete" in place of "gladiator" and you may as well be describing Western society.
Lack of big families, shrinking of the workforce... A family with four children is considered large and inconvenient, not to mention quite environmentally irresponsible. The workforce is shrinking. Here in Canada, we will soon run into the problem of greater benefits and pensions for more and more retirees with fewer and fewer workers to support them. It is a question of demographics, a topic Steyn has treated at length in America Alone.

In Rome, we saw an empire and civilization at the verge of defeat. But it was not the Barbarians who overthrew the empire. As the saying goes, civilizations die not from murder, but from suicide. The Roman empire was in decline before the Barbarians arrived. The West is in a frightfully similar situation.

After these paragraphs, The Christians continues to describe the growth of the unquenchable religion called Christianity. In fact, the despair and hopelessness of Roman society seems to have made it a mission field ripe for harvest. Perhaps that is the silver lining for the West, too. When African Christians are calling the West to repentance, you know the tides have turned - the West is now the mission field. Maybe that will be its saving grace. Perhaps for a few righteous in the West, God will spare our civilization (Genesis 18:16-33).

Et tu, LGF?

2008-07-25T21:40:00.004-05:00

The first blog I read with any regularity was Little Green Footballs (LGF). Its creator, Charles Johnson, was moved by the events of 9/11 and began blogging on world and political issues. He has been very watchful of the slow creep of Islam into the Western world, as well as the unwillingness of many politicians to deal with it honestly. He also has been very critical of the bias of mainstream media, which, as Joseph Farah points out, is hardly mainstream. Particularly when these two issues met, for example, in the Lebanon-Israel crisis, LGF was a very worthwhile read.

So it was very disappointing to me to see Johnson's recent attacks on creation and defenders of a young earth. In fact, it seems that this has become somewhat of a regular theme on the blog. Thankfully, someone is putting up a fight.

Creation Ministries International, another great read which I recently added to my list of RSS feeds, refutes claims from two of the LGF posts, and has much more great content.

LGF: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
CMI: Little Green Footballs dredges '15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense'

LGF: Hitchens: The Blind Salamander
CMI: Christopher Hitchens - blind to salamander reality

Tony Snow

2008-07-17T22:42:00.004-05:00

I remember Tony Snow only as the voice of the U.S. government under Bush. He apparently had quite the prolific career before that. He passed away last week at the age of 51 after a second battle against colon cancer, leaving his wife and three children behind. Many flattering obituaries have been given. By all accounts he was a happy, humble, family-oriented, God-fearing man. Here's what President Bush said at the funeral today:

Archbishop Wuerl, Father O'Connell, Mr. Vice President, members of the Cabinet and my administration, members of Congress, distinguished guests; most importantly, the Snow family, Jill, Robbie, Kendall, Kristi and Jim, and other family members; former colleagues of Tony. Laura and I are privileged to join you today to pay our final respects to a cherished friend.

Tony Snow was a man of uncommon decency and compassion. He was a devoted husband, a proud and loving father, an adoring son, a beloved colleague, and a wonderful role model and friend.

In a life that was far too brief, he amassed a rare record of accomplishment. He applied his gifted mind to many fields: as a columnist, newspaper editor, TV anchor, radio host, and musician. He had the sometimes challenging distinction of working for two Presidents named Bush. As a speechwriter in my Dad's administration, Tony tried to translate the President's policies into English. (Laughter.) As a spokesman in my administration, Tony tried to translate my English into English. (Laughter.)

Tony always gave me good and candid advice. He was a man of profound substance who loved ideas, held strong beliefs, and reveled in defending them. He took very seriously his duty to inform the public about what its government was doing during historic times for our nation.

In the White House briefing room, Tony worked to build a relationship of candor and trust with the press corps. On his first day at the podium, he told the gathered reporters this: "One of the reasons I took this job is not only because I believe in the President, but because, believe it or not, I want to work with you." Tony was the first working journalist to serve as the White House Press Secretary for nearly 30 years. He knew the job of a reporter was rigorous. He admired the profession -- and always treated it with respect. And the presence of so many members of the Fourth Estate here today attests to the admiration and respect that he earned.

Of course, Tony's adjustment from commentator to spokesman was not seamless. Ann Compton of ABC recently recalled that when you asked Tony a question, he would sometimes get going, and she would have to stop him and say: "Tony, wait, I asked what the President thought." (Laughter.)

Tony brought a fierce and challenging intellect to his duties. And he displayed an engaging wit. When a reporter asked a rather labored question about Congress, Tony did not answer it. The persistent reporter pressed him: "Are you going to just evade that question?" With a smile, Tony quipped: "No, I'm going to laugh at it." (Laughter.)

I believe the reason Tony was so good at his job is that he looked at the world in a joyful way. He was a proud patriot who believed in America's goodness, and an optimist who knew America's possibilities. He believed strongly in the wisdom of the American people. And throughout his career, he took a special pride in being a vigorous and unapologetic defender of our men and women in uniform. He supported their missions, saw honor in their achievements, and found every possible opportunity to highlight their character and courage.

Tony Snow, the professional, is a hard act to follow. Tony Snow, the man, is simply irreplaceable. Everyone who worked with him quickly grew to love him. We will always remember his wry sense of humor and abundant goodness. We'll also remember he was just a lot of fun. After all, he played six different musical instruments and was a proud member of a band called Beats Working. He may be one of the few people in history to have jammed on the South Lawn of the White House and with Jethro Tull. (Laughter.)

We remember Tony's thoughtfulness. No matter how busy he was, this was a man who put others first. He would go out of his way to ask about people's families. He would check in with friends whenever he heard they were ill. He'd reach out to others, sometimes strangers, who were struggling with cancer. Even when he was going through difficult chemotherapy sessions, he sent inspirational e-mails to a friend whose son was suffering from a serious illness.

We remember Tony's resilient spirit. When he received a second diagnosis of cancer, he did not turn to despair. He saw it as another challenge to tackle. He found comfort in the prayers he received from millions of Americans. As he told the graduates here at Catholic University last year, "Never underestimate the power of other people's love and prayer. They have incredible power. It's as if I've been carried on the shoulders of an entire army. And they made me weightless."

Most of all, we remember Tony's love of his family. There was no doubt for Tony Snow that his family was first. When Jill reached a milestone birthday, Tony had a huge celebration. He later said that he and Jill danced that night as if they were teenagers. He said he was the most fortunate man in the world to have shared love like that. So, today, Jill, our hearts are with you, and we thank you for giving Tony such a special life.

For Robbie, Kendall, and Kristi, you are in our thoughts and prayers, as well. We thank you for sharing your dad with us. He talked about you all the time. He wanted nothing more than your happiness and success. You know, I used to call Tony on the weekends to get his advice. And invariably, I found him with you on the soccer field, or at a swim meet, or helping with your homework. He loved you a lot. Today I hope you know that we loved him a lot, too.

I know it's hard to make sense of today. It is impossible to fully comprehend why such a good and vital man was taken from us so soon. But these are the great mysteries of life -- and Tony knew as well as anyone that they're not ours to unveil.

The day Tony was born was also the day that many of his fellow Catholics pay tribute to Saint Justin. Justin was also a gifted thinker and writer, and a powerful witness for the Christian faith. Because of his beliefs, he suffered many times of trial, and in the year 165 A.D. he was arrested. Before he received a sentence of death, he was asked: "If you are killed, do you suppose you will go to heaven?" Justin replied: "I do not suppose it, but I know and am fully persuaded of it."

Tony Snow knew that, as well. That brought him great peace. When talking about the struggle he waged so admirably, he said that no matter how bad times may sometimes seem, "God doesn't promise tomorrow, he does promise eternity."

And so today we send this man of faith and character and joy on his final journey. Tony Snow has left the City of Washington for the City of God. May he find eternal rest in the arms of his Savior. And may the Author of all creation watch over his family and all those who loved him, admired him, and will always cherish his memory.

The Dawkins Lennox Debate - Part 3 of 3

2008-07-09T23:09:00.001-05:00

(Continued from Part 1 and Part 2.)

The fifth thesis of the debate was "One does not need God to be good or evil". Dawkins's initial argument for this thesis is useless. First, he makes the absurd statement one's morals are likely to be "hideous" if they are based on the Bible. Then he sets up two straw men as the two possible reasons - in his mind - that one would need God to be moral: one needs a book to define morality, and one is afraid of God or wants to "suck up" to Him. Dawkins brilliantly demolishes these straw men, but neither represents the biblical position. True, God speaks through his word, and those who do evil should fear him. However, as Lennox points out, morality only has foundation in the holiness and justice of God. He is the absolute and only possible standard for morality.

Dawkins's second argument is that we are all moral in and of ourselves, to one degree or another. We all have an idea of what is right and wrong - he attributes this partly to a vague theory on early human relationships - which he fails to discuss further - as well as to what he calls a "shifting moral zeitgeist" - which he fails to define, other than to emphatically declare that it does not come from religion. Biblical Christians somewhat agree with this second part. The 17th-century Canons of Dort devotes an article to this concept:

To be sure, there is left in man after the fall, some light of nature, whereby he retains some notions about God, about natural things, and about the difference between what is honourable and shameful, and shows some regard for virtue and outward order. But so far is he from arriving at the saving knowledge of God and true conversion through this light of nature that he does not even use it properly in natural and civil matters. Rather, whatever this light may be, man wholly pollutes it in various ways and suppresses it by his wickedness. In doing so, he renders himself without excuse before God. (Chapter III/IV, Article 4)

The first sentence of this article clearly defines Dawkins's "moral zeitgeist", and the rest aptly show why it is "shifting." Lennox didn't need to do much heavy lifting to rebut this thesis.

The sixth and final thesis was "Christian claims about the person of Jesus are not true; his alleged miracles violate the laws of nature." This thesis did not get a full treatment due to time constraints. However, Dawkins's position is outlined in his defense of the second thesis, where he indicated that few "sophisticated" theologians actually believe that miracles literally happened, but that the average "unsophisticated" churchgoer clings to them. As I noted with regard to that thesis, insofar as this is the case, it is an indictment of the churches of which such churchgoers are members. But it is also an indictment of many theologians who are too "sophisticated" to believe what the Bible says. Dawkins is rightly critical of both groups.

Nevertheless, truly biblical Christians - "sophisticated" or otherwise - believe that miracles literally happened; moreover, they do not cling to the miracles themselves. When Nicodemus the Pharisee witnessed Jesus' miracles, he did not cling to them. Rather, he rightly observed that they were signs:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." (John 3:1)

A sign points to something, and its value and meaning are determined by that to which it points. For Nicodemus, Jesus' miracles signified that he had "come from God." Likewise, Jesus' disciples wondered about his power over storms:

A squall came down on the lake, so that the boat was being swamped, and they were in great danger. The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Master, Master, we're going to drown!"

He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. "Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples.

In fear and amazement they asked one another, "Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him." (Luke 8:23-25)

So, miracles are not to be clung to of themselves; further, they declare that Jesus has power over nature - that is, he is supernatural. Lennox says, "The laws of nature are not violated; the God who controls them is free to introduce events outside of them."

Attacks on the veracity of miracles are not a small matter. As Lennox indicates, the resurrection of Jesus - a supernatural event - is at the heart of the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul states:

If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith... If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. (1 Corinthians 15:14-19)

The debate was very interesting. Both men argued passionately, but it strikes me that Lennox's position is saturated with stability, justice, and hope, while Dawkins's is devoid of them. It is the difference between the "life under the sun" described in Ecclesiastes, and life according to the Maker's instructions.

The Dawkins Lennox Debate - Part 2 of 3

2008-06-27T19:39:00.001-05:00

(Continued from Part 1.)

The third thesis in the God Delusion Debate was "Design is dead; otherwise one must explain, who designed the designer?" Dawkins takes the argument here from what happened once life existed to where life came from in the first place. He acknowledges that the existence of God is technically not disprovable, but he thinks it is very improbable. He acknowledges that no explanation is entirely satisfying for him, but the Anthropic Principle coupled with the idea of a multiverse will do for now, and once he's cleared that hurdle, evolution explains the rest.

In my estimation, Dawkins does not really defend the last part of the thesis - why it's necessary to explain who designed the Designer. He only really indicates that he feels it's not satisfactory to "invoke God". As Lennox points out, the entire "Who made God?" argument turns on the premise that God is created. To accept the argument is to accept this premise. But no one believes in created gods. God certainly makes no such claim for himself; nor does Jesus, who shocked the Jewish leaders by claiming to be eternal:

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
At this, they picked up stones to stone him...(John 8:57-59)

Dawkins argues that "you can't evade the issue by saying 'God was always there' - you still need an explanation." But God's eternity is not an evasion, it is the explanation. Dawkins is frustrated by this argument, but he doesn't really come up with a reason for this besides the fact that he doesn't find it satisfying. Of course, he should not find his own "interim" solution satisfying either - as Lennox hints, it still does not explain the origin of the matter and energy itself.

The fourth thesis was "Christianity is dangerous." Dawkins is careful to assure us that he doesn't believe that all religion is bad, or that all religious people are bad. He rightly points out that there is a convention in our society that religion is to be respected and not to be questioned. He declares it an evil that children are taught not to question their faith or seek justification for it. Dawkins wants each child to be given the gift of skepticism. Finally, he postulates that when some of these children eventually do evil things, it is the fact that they do not feel the need to question or justify their actions that allows them to do them. Thus he declares that there is a logical path from religion to evil acts.

For the most part, biblical Christians agree - we are called to be thinking, discerning people; as mentioned with regard to the first thesis, God does not call us to scientific incuriosity either. Lennox strongly declares that Christ's teachings do not allow for the evils Dawkins listed. He also gives several plausible examples of a logical path from atheism to evil acts. Dawkins has a double standard for people who do evil - if they are not atheists, it is because of their religion; if they are atheists, it is not.

What follows is an interesting little exchange on Lennox's thesis that atheism is a religion in its own right. Dawkins defines atheism as not believing in a God, and compares this with Lennox's "atheism" with regard to Zeus. So he claims to be religiously neutral. But humans can not exist in an ideological vacuum. To say that one does not believe in God is not to say that one believes in nothing. It is to say that one does believe that God does not exist, and this belief has consequences; it will affect how one thinks, and, inevitably, what one says and does. For this reason, atheism must be seen for what it is: a worldview, an ideology, a religion.

(See also: Part 3).

The Dawkins Lennox Debate - Part 1 of 3

2008-06-21T21:08:00.005-05:00

In October 2007, the Fixed Point Foundation hosted a debate between evolutionary philosopher Prof. Richard Dawkins and Christian scientist and apologist Dr. John Lennox on the topic of "The God Delusion" (a reference to the title of the latest book from Dawkins). The debate can be seen at dawkinslennoxdebate.com and is worthwhile to view.

The debate was civil yet lively, serious but not humourless, and detailed but understandable. Dawkins comes across as eminently thoughtful, reasonable, and scholarly. He is well spoken, and is able to clearly verbalize his argument. Lennox is friendly, forceful, and logical, as one would expect a mathematician to be. He also injected a bit of humour into the debate.

The debate itself can only loosely be called such. Summaries of six theses from The God Delusion were chosen and introduced by the moderator. Dawkins was to elaborate on and give his reasoning for them, after which Lennox was to respond, before the moderator moved to the next thesis. This gave no opportunity for Dawkins to rebut Lennox's arguments, or for any debate in the true sense. It is clear that both Dawkins and Lennox wanted and tried to move to a back-and-forth free debate format, which they managed to do several times. This format held back the possibility of a true debate. Nevertheless, both men were able to clearly articulate and argue their positions.

The first thesis was "Faith is blind; science is evidence-based. Faith teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding." Dawkins's position is that faith removes the need for evidence or the desire to understand. His argument also implies that faith is not evidence-based and science is not blind. Dawkins's premise is that faith is defined as belief of something for which we have no evidence. The writer to the Hebrews wrote:

Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)

But it is false to equate what we do not see with what we do not have evidence for. The Bible certainly does not say that we have no evidence for what we believe. Yet, we must be clear that, though the evidence is consistent with our faith, it is not evidence on which we base our faith.

Dawkins asserts that faith teaches satisfaction with not understanding. This is true to this extent, that there are some things which Christians do not need to understand, and which we therefore do and should not pursue (Deuteronomy 29:29). But this satisfaction with not understanding is absolutely not true with regard to scientific curiosity; this is abundantly clear from the example of the many early Christians who were ground-breaking scientists. God and His Word do not call Christians to scientific incuriosity.

The second thesis was "Science supports atheism, not Christianity." There are two points here on which biblical Christians agree with Dawkins: first, "a universe with a God would be a very different kind of universe from a universe without a God"; second, science and religion are not non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). To his credit, though other evolutionists warm him it is damaging to their case, Dawkins unequivocally states that evolution led him to atheism. He also acknowledges that the study of science came out of the Christian faith.

But on this point Dawkins also makes a strong statement:

It becomes even more glaring where you talk about miracles... However much sophisticated theologians may profess their non-belief in miracles, the plain fact is, that the ordinary person in the pew - the ordinary unsophisticated church-goer - believes deeply in miracles, and it's largely miracles that persuade that person into the church in the first place.

Leaving the reality and nature of miracles for later discussion, I think it is an exaggeration to imply, first, that ordinary church-goers are unsophisticated, and second, that it is miracles that draw these people into the church. But if this is true for the average church-goer, it is an indictment on their churches. Churches that teach biblical Christianity teach their members to be personally well-versed in the Scriptures, and there is thus no room for spiritual illiteracy that would have them holding on to mere miracles instead of the gospel to which they point. These are the same Christians who are likely to be, as Lennox put it with reference to the first thesis, "guilty of a lazy God-of-the-gaps kind of solution - I can't understand it, therefore God did it, and of course, God disappears as the gaps close."

Lennox makes some very strong arguments in rebuttal, particularly that one can't even begin scientific study without believing that it is bound by law and order.

(See also: Part 2 and Part 3.)

A Musical Interlude

2008-06-17T20:57:00.003-05:00

I'm working on an arrangement of J. S. Bach's Praeludium II (BWV 847), from the Well-Tempered Clavier Book II. Here's a great arrangement of the same for Chapman stick.

My Own Hate Crime

2008-06-12T21:35:00.002-05:00

I'm jumping on the bandwagon à la Ezra Levant. As a show of support for Stephen Boissoin, as well as defiance of a kangaroo court ruling, I also hereby publish what the Alberta HRC has declared hateful. At The World Truths, Boissoin himself gives the letter some context (see the second comment).

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.

My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."

The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.

Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.

Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.

Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?

Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn't rooted in protecting homosexuals from "gay bashing." The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.

Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.

If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It's time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

Rev. Stephen Boissoin

Dear Mr. Blaikie

2008-06-11T21:57:00.001-05:00

Dear Mr. Blaikie,

I would like to thank you for your work in parliament, even though we disagree on many issues.

I write to you to voice my concern regarding the Human Rights Acts in Canada and the Commissions that enforce them. From a purely practical perspective, the commissions have clearly demonstrated that they are out of line. The March 25 hearings of the federal Commission and the recent tribunal investigation of Maclean's highlight the fact that these commissions, though not dealing with actual criminal actions, are nevertheless more powerful and less limited than real courts and investigators. It is unconstitutional and in total disregard of the rights and freedoms of our legal heritage that non-crimes can be investigated and prosecuted with looser limits on search and seizure and with looser (if any) rules of evidence and procedure than actual crimes can be. This is not even to discuss the total one-sidedness of Commission proceedings.

The possibility - as in the cases of Levant, Steyn, and even Lemire - that my political thoughts could subject me to prosecution, even though they are not criminal, is despicable in a liberal democracy. The possibility - as in the cases of Brockie, Owens, and Boissoin - that my bona fide religious convictions are subject to the approval of the government or its agent, even though they are not criminal, is frightening.

Your website has a link to an October 2007 article in the United Church Observer. In the interview, you state that your opinion that secular fundamentalists are misguided in wanting to "rule out religious talk in the public domain", while religious fundamentalists need to be "challenged about how to speak about political matters from a faith point of view". In general, I agree with this sentiment. But I submit to you that it is neither the right nor the responsibility of the government to censor or to sit in judgment of either political or religious public discourse.

I urge you, with many other constituents and Canadians, to support Dr. Keith Martin's efforts to repeal subsection 13(1) of the Human Rights Act, and further, to encourage the government to consider scrapping the Commissions and Tribunals altogether.

I eagerly await your response. Thank you.

Freedom vs. Happiness?

2008-06-09T21:57:00.001-05:00

Lorne Gunter: Freedom isn't failing us — we're unhappy because we're no longer free. A great read that puts the smaller battles into perspective.
Both groups (and Prof. Gorton, too) make a common mistake, though: They equate choice with freedom. The two are not one and the same.

It's entirely likely that as the range of our choices has expanded in the past five decades, along with our ability to afford those choices, we have become less politically happy because our core freedoms have been undermined by a growing, rapacious state...

... Some of these may be good ideas on their own, but it is the added element of state compulsion that makes doing the sensible thing a freedom-robbing affront.
The way I see it, we have to take yet another step back. Gunter quotes Benjamin Disraeli as having said that "an Englishman did not need a lot of laws because he was prepared to do the proper thing of his own accord." I think this is instructive in another sense than Gunter takes from it.

Freedom is not itself an end; it is a means to an end. If we don't understand what freedom is for, why should we be concerned about giving it up? I wonder whether people are so quick to allow themselves to be put under the dominion of the state because they are incapable of handling freedom. Could it be that the citizen's apathetic shirking of responsibility is the most to blame for the state's gathering of more and more power?

The Apostle Paul wrote:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. (Galatians 5:1)

But that is not the end of the story.

You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. (vs. 13)

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. (vs. 16-18)

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.(vs. 22-23)

Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars...

2008-06-09T21:25:00.001-05:00

... And "gender equality" is a black hole. I was about to link to a great column by Lorne Gunter, when I came across this nail-on-the-head offering from Karen Selick about Stephane Dion's promise, if elected, to create a "Commissioner of Gender Equality."

But, as Selick points out, no matter how hard the social engineers try, they just can't convince women to act or think like men, something for which most of us are quite thankful.

The authors acknowledge that Canada already provides what they call "formal equality," or equality of opportunity. In other words, our laws treat men and women equally. But equal treatment, they claim, has not turned out to yield "the expected results."

That depends, I venture to suggest, on what results you expected. If you expected women en masse to behave exactly like men en masse merely because there were no legal obstacles to their doing so, then of course you would be disappointed. The biological differences between men and women make such an expectation ridiculous. There is ample scientific evidence of differences between male and female brains that accounts for the tendency of men to excel in — and therefore cluster in — certain occupations, while women excel in and cluster in others.

I wonder with Selick whether there would be "equal opportunity" for the position of "Commissioner of Gender Equality."

Both "gender" and "equality" are very loaded words in our culture. Whenever I hear them together, I'm reminded of a book by Elizabeth Elliot called The Mark of a Man. In her discussion of biblical masculinity and femininity, she begins by describing the ways in which men and women are equal. For instance, they are equal in being created in the image of God; in being called to serve Him faithfully; they are equal in being given the grace of salvation. But it's a pretty short list.

Then Elliot describes the many ways in which men and women are different, especially from a biblical perspective. We are so different that she speaks of a "glorious inequality," one in which we serve God and each other best. Selick aptly describes the practical and logical fallacies of the feminist ideology; Elliot shows that we are best off when we follow the Maker's instructions.

What's that Sucking Sound?

2008-06-05T23:02:00.001-05:00

Maclean's Magazine is on trial this week before British Columbia's Human Rights Tribunal. Coverage of the proceedings can be found at Andrew Coyne's blog. The complaint centers around an issue of Maclean's that discussed the future of the West in relation to Islam and Muslims. At the heart of the complaint is the work of Mark Steyn, in particular his book, America Alone.

Opponents have declared that Steyn's book is "Islamophobic", an attack on Muslims, an attempt to portray all Muslims as terrorists. But the book is not firstly about Muslims or Islam. The key point of Steyn's thesis is that many Western nations have become cultural, moral, and demographic vacuums. European nations, as well as Canada, are unwilling to defend the fundamental values and freedoms in and for which they were constituted. They are committing societal suicide. Thus, America Alone is first an indictment of the West.

Steyn reasons this way: The West does not have a strong cultural will or demographic strength and longevity. This creates a vacuum. What fills the vacuum? The easy answer is radical Islam, which has both demographics and cultural will aplenty.

I agree with Steyn's assessment of the West's predicament. But the root of the problem is deeper, as Steyn hints with many references to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a mindset that is part of a larger worldview - that of moral relativism. In this worldview, there are no absolutes; thus, no basic standards by which to judge anything; thus, no judgments. It is moral relativism that simultaneously causes the West's general reluctance to confront real enemies, and inability to defend its own freedoms and interests.

The issue of freedom of speech and the HRCs is far from unrelated. When there are no absolutes, what is your standard for testing people's thoughts, words, actions? In our times that standard has become feelings. If thoughts, words, or actions cause feelings to be hurt - or, in the case of Canadian Human Rights Acts, if they can potentially remotely possibly cause feelings to be hurt - then forget about truth, fair comment, and other inconveniences; these must be stopped.

The same vacuum that is giving the upper hand of the future to radical Islam is blinding many Canadians to the HRCs' egregious assault on real human rights that are based on timeless absolutes. That sucking sound? That's the vacuum created by a lack of absolutes.

The CPAC Debate

2008-06-05T18:43:00.000-05:00

Ezra Levant and Concerned Citizen discuss the panel discussion on the HRCs at the Canadian Association of Journalists conference in Edmonton. I was able to watch all 80 minutes, but Levant also has a few shorter clips of the action.

Ian Fine was pretty brilliant in the way he avoided questions - I don't know why parliament did this or that, We just apply the law. His attempts to appear reasonable - We understand that there is concern, We appreciate that there is another take on the issue, the Supreme Court and Parliament agreed that we needed more protection against hate [italics are my paraphrases], etc. - were severely undermined by his statement of support for more laws against hate.

The big catch to me is that it is not enough just to look at a law and ask what is wrong with it in a legal sense, i.e. the letter of the law. The law, in this case the Human Rights Act, also has to be examined in a practical sense - that is, how the law is being used. In the case of Human Rights Acts, the law is being used in a way that was never intended, which the Supreme Court in the Taylor case did not anticipate - very much against the spirit of the law. When the law is used to prosecute political discourse and victim-less non-crimes, you know there is a problem with it.

The other thing is this idea that hatred needs to be stamped out by the government. This is a way of thinking that is very common, but diametrically opposed to the way our Dominion was conceived. That is the key point, that - as Levant and Martin argued - ideas should be tested, evaluated, and tossed out or retained in the court of public opinion, not by the government. When people seek to have arguments silenced, it is an indication that they have no defense against the arguments.

On Free Speech and Censorship

2008-05-29T21:37:00.001-05:00

Army to Remove Memorial Sign and Crosses From Chapel in Kosovo Camp

Army officials say they are only following regulations, but their plans to remove a memorial to a U.S. chaplain at a camp in Kosovo have shocked and saddened his widow.

Elizabeth Oglesby said she was "a little bit sad" when FOXNews.com told her a sign honoring her late husband, Army Chaplain (Lt. Col.) Gordon Oglesby, would be removed from the North Chapel at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo.

The sign, as well as three crosses, are being removed to put the chapel in line with Army regulations, said Lt. Col. William D. Jenkins of the 35th Infantry Division's Kosovo Force 9...

...Army regulations prohibit chapels from being "named for any person, living or dead, or designated by a name or term suggesting any distinctive faith group," Jenkins said.

"This is not a new regulation and exists to protect the free exercise of religion of all soldiers," Jenkins said.

But this post isn't about a U.S. Army chapel or chaplain.

Google has made news in pro-life circles about its refusal to display anti-abortion ads, at least under some circumstances where pro-abortion ads are not subject to the same ruling.

"For many people, Google is the doorway to the Internet," Christian Institute spokesman Mike Judge told the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail. "If there is to be a free exchange of ideas then Google cannot give special free speech rights to secular groups whilst censoring religious views."

This post isn't about Google or abortion either.

The Conservative government's Bill C-10 had many in the film industry up in arms in March. The bill would deny tax credits to films produced in Canada that include graphic sex or violence.

Liberal Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette said she's concerned that the bill could allow the tax system to be used as a "de facto censor of film and video production..."

NDP Leader Jack Layton accused the government of deliberately burying the part of the bill that allows government to withhold funding from films that it considered distasteful.

"It strikes at the heart of free speech for people trying to produce films," Layton said.

As you can imagine, this post isn't about film tax credits either.

This post is about censorship and free speech. The above three news items are not. What they have in common is a misconception about what free speech and censorship are about.

How, pray tell, was any soldier's free exercise of religion threatened or hindered by the crosses or the sign? It wasn't, of course - it's politically correct hypersensitivity to assert otherwise.

For the record, I am sympathetic to the pro-life Christian Institute, and I support challenging Google's decision. But Google's refusal to run its ad is not an attack on freedom of speech. The Christian Institute is free to run its ad in many other formats and places. Google can't take that away from them, and it certainly isn't by way of rejecting the ad.

Similarly, Bill C-10 is not censorship. Censorship is preventing the film from being produced; lack of a tax credit is not truly such a prevention. That the film needs a tax credit to be viable indicates not a lack of government support, but a lack of financial backing, which the government is not preventing them from obtaining.

This brings us full circle to the 4 Osgoode Hall Law students who have been decrying Maclean's censorship as an attack on free speech. The number of times they have been published making these claims should be enough to prove that they are quite free to speak.

Private organizations - Google included - should be allowed to make private decisions on the content and extension of their services. (This is not to say that they should not be challenged on bad decisions.) This is the very stand taken by Maclean's in its HRC case.

But governments are quite another thing. While Bill C-10 is not censorship, the film tax credit business is, in my opinion, not something the government should be in to start with. In this sense, I agree with Matthew Johnston's argument to this effect at the Western Standard blog.

Report Followup & Credits

2008-04-28T21:37:00.002-05:00

Welcome, ARPA Canada readers!

I have made several small changes to the original report on the HRCs. The substance of the report remains the same.

Much of the information in this report has been gleaned from Ezra Levant's blog: ezralevant.com. Follow the link for more detail, insightful analysis, and regular updates on the HRC issue.

Report on HRCs

2008-04-26T17:19:00.009-05:00

On February 15, 2006, a complaint was filed with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against Western Standard magazine. The complainant, the leader of a Muslim mosque, alleged that Western Standard's decision to publish the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, exposed him and his family to hate, discrimination and violence. Ezra Levant, the publisher of the magazine, was called to appear before an investigator. As Levant, a lawyer by trade, prepared for the investigation, he realized that something was terribly wrong.

Original Intent of Human Rights Commissions in Canada

Every Canadian province and territory has a Human Rights Commission (HRC) and/or Tribunal as defined by a Human Rights Act. There is also a federal HRC. HRCs were originally created to arbitrate disputes about housing, employment, and similar matters, in which a complainant felt he had been discriminated against on the basis of race or sex, and did not have the means to pursue the complaint legally. The HRC would investigate the complaint at no charge, with the power to reverse an employment or housing decision, or to order financial compensation.

The Substance of Law: Free Speech and Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act

The Canada Human Rights Act includes Section 13 of which subsection 1 prohibits communication of anything likely to expose a person protected from discrimination to hatred or contempt. Under Section 13 – and its counterparts in provincial Human Rights Acts – HRCs across Canada have clamped down on hate speech from various sources. But what is included in the concept of hate speech?

The answer may surprise unsuspecting Christians. In 2001, the Saskatchewan HRC ruled that an ad – four Bible verses relating to homosexuality, and a crossed-out circle with two men holding hands – placed in the Saskatoon Pheonix by Hugh Owens incited hatred against homosexuals. Both Owens and the Pheonix were ordered to pay a fine of $1,500 to each of the three complainants. In June 2002, Pastor Stephen Boissoin wrote a passionate letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate denouncing the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle in schools. Boissoin was found to be in violation of the Alberta Human Rights Act in December 2007. In this same month, Maclean's magazine was notified that it was facing complaints with three Human Rights Commissions in Canada due to an issue of the magazine dealing with the threat of radical Islam. The Christian Heritage Party also currently faces complaints before three HRCs.

Respondents in these and other cases have argued that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication...” and that the complaints against them thus amount to censorship and an attack on their fundamental freedoms. But numerous rulings by the HRCs have argued that hatred can not be justified by hiding behind such freedoms.

Many commentators have pointed out that the legal language of the Human Rights Act is vague, so that nearly anything can be considered to pass the test of “likely to expose to hatred or contempt.” Intentions do not matter. The truthfulness of the statement does not matter. The forum for the communication – political dialogue or news reporting included – does not matter. What matters is that the complainant feels that he was “exposed to hatred or contempt”. In Boissoin's case, the report that a homosexual teenager was beaten two weeks after his letter was published was proof enough that his letter was likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt. The panelist who ruled on the case declared that a direct link between the two events did not need to be established. Thus, complainants can in effect be punished for pre-crimes – before any actual crime might take place.

There are reasonable limits on freedom of speech, including fraud, forgery, copyright violation, and defamation, but HRCs have gone far beyond this. They have declared that the “human right” not to be exposed to hatred trumps Charter freedoms of religion, thought and expression. Indeed, this new right not to be offended flies in the face of 800 years of British common law, 250 years of Canadian common law, the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights.

Some have argued that the only reform needed to the HRCs is the removal of Section 13 from the Canada Human Rights Act. There is indeed a problem with the substance of the law, but there is another aspect of the HRCs that is equally problematic: the rule of law.

The Rule of Law: Systemic Problems with Human Rights Commissions

Investigations under sections other than Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, while not as blatantly in conflict with inalienable rights, are nevertheless in conflict with the checks and balances of the legal system. The Constitution deliberately separates the powers of the legislature, courts, and police. Each of these powers is also bound with checks and balances to prevent corruption and ensure equality under the law. In this system, every party has the same benefit and burden under law. But the HRCs are quite different.

By design, complainants to HRCs are not responsible for the legal cost of their complaints – it is covered by taxpayers – whereas respondents must foot the entire bill for their defense. Cases can drag on for years, making the process the more burdensome. The defendant can not apply for dismisal of nuisance lawsuits. Many HRC employees do not have legal training, not least in constitutional law.

The powers of the commissions are frightening. In Levant's case, the investigator had the power to examine his office at any time, without a search warrant. With a court order – of which Levant would not necessarily be notified – the investigator could go to his home. Any documents or computers could be seized. Commissions also hold similar powers over other persons related to the case who refuse to answer questions.

If a Human Rights Tribunal rules against a defendant, it can order the defendant to pay a fine. It can order the defendant to apologize – saying words he doesn't mean. The Alberta HRC even banned Stephen Boissoin from ever publicly expressing anything against homosexuals and homosexuality. At least 35 defendants are under lifetime gag orders. Section 14 of the Canada Human Rights Act also forbids criticism of the complainant after the process is finished.

Investigators and tribunals are not subject to normal legal rules of evidence and procedure or the “burden of proof”. The concept of double jeopardy does not exist – Maclean's magazine faces identical complaints before three different HRCs. Trials can drag on for years – the Boissoin complaint took 5 years to conclude. Members of the defendant's legal counsel and advisors can be limited or barred at the wish of commissions. And Human Rights Acts do not apply to all citizens equally – Natives are exempted from the entire Canada Human Rights Act.

These systemic problems with the HRCs are the more highlighted when the powers and procedures of the HRCs are compared with real courts and investigators. In real courts, each party pays for its own legal fees. If the case is ruled frivolous, the plaintiff may even be responsible for the defendant's legal fees. Investigators and judges are trained in law. Investigators can not search and sieze without a court-approved warrant. Courts can not impose unusual punishments such as forced apologies or lifetime publication bans. Complainants are not immune to criticism. There are strict rules of evidence and procedure, and failing to observe them can result in a mistrial or the case being thrown out of court. Defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty and have the Charter right to a speedy trial. And the laws, rules, and procedures apply equally to everyone.

Clearly HRCs are kangaroo courts, weighted in the favour of the complainants, which can sidestep the checks and balances of the legal system. A ruling in favour of the defendant is no consolation; the process – years' worth of time and legal fees – is the punishment. On the other hand, the HRCs are ripe for abuse. They are a no-cost alternative for complainants who do not want the hassle of the real court system with its balanced, deliberate, and structured approach, or whose case is not strong enough for such courts. In the end, taxpayers are left with their legal bill.

If censorship and a profoundly unbalanced and unchecked system were not enough, the HRCs have overstepped their mandate and become corrupt.

Corruption at the Human Rights Commissions

One example of the corruption of the HRCs is the new “human rights” that they have in effect created by their rulings. The Ontario HRC is considering a complaint against a restaurant owner who tried to stop a man with a medical marijuana permit from smoking it in the entrance to his restaurant. The HRC will decide, in effect, whether the man has a right to smoke pot in the entrance of someone's restaurant. Other "human rights" the HRCs have in effect granted include: the right of Ontario transexuals to not be denied labiaplasty surgery from surgeons who aren't qualified to perform this surgery; the right of male Alberta salon students not to be teased by their female classmates; the right to work in Ontario restaurant kitchens while infected with Hepatitis; the right of B.C. transit workers to miss work 118 days of the year; the right to have manic episodes from bipolar disorder while testing artillery in Ontario; the right of Albertans still living with their mothers to receive government rent subsidies; the right of B.C. McDonald's workers not to wash their hands; the right of Newfoundlanders to be compensated for Newfoundland Employment Insurance by the Northwest Territories Worker's Compensation Board. It is clear that the HRCs have moved on from upholding human rights of citizens according to the law. They are now in the business of legislating new “human rights”.

The corruption goes deeper, and no statistic is as evidentiary as the fact that the federal Human Rights Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate for Section 13 complaints. Not a single defendant under this section has been cleared. But another statistic is equally curious: 26 – nearly 50% - of federal Section 13 complaints have been filed by the same person, Richard Warman, a former employee of the federal HRC. Warman has been awarded at least $ 45,000 in fines as a result of these complaints since 2003, even though he was not the allegedly offended party in many of the complaints.

One of Warman's victims is Mark Lemire, moderator of FreedomSite, an alleged white supermacist internet forum. Lemire decided to fight back against Warman and the HRC, and in the process uncovered apparent abuses of the law and questionable investigational procedures. As a result, a hearing was held on March 25, 2008 at which Lemire's legal team was allowed to cross examine HRC staff on these procedures. The hearing itself demonstrated that the HRC sees itself above the law. After spending thousands of dollars on the investigation, the Tribunal declared that to save money, no legal transcript would be taken of the hearing. The Tribunal chairman allowed continual dilatory objections from HRC lawyers, allowed many answers of “I don't know” under oath, limited the examination time of intervenors, and continually tried to bring the hearing to an end.

Nevertheless, several damning details about the operation of HRC investigators emerged from the hearing and the examinations which preceeded it. Incredibly, HRC employees signed up to Lemire's internet forum and posted hateful messages, ostensibly to use as evidence or to incite the forum participants. They used a private citizen's wireless network without her permission in an attempt to hide this. They monitored other forums in anticipation of complaints against them. Commission investigators also colluded with police forces in order to use powers of police that were not available to them.

Richard Warman filed the complaint against Lemire while he was still employed by the HRC, trained the investigator of his complaint, remained in regular contact with her, instructed her to slow the investigation down and to withhold this information from Lemire, and urged that the complaint go to the Human Rights Tribunal. He also went to HRC offices and was allowed access to some of the information regarding his complaint, as well as the HRC pseudonym and password.

The HRCs, with laws allowing them to censor free thought and speech, and unconstitutional systems and procedures, have now become corrupt - a law unto themselves, and are out of control.

Movement to Fix the Human Rights Commission Problem

Until recently, the overwhelming majority of victims of the HRC process were poor or working class, unrepresented by lawyers, and thus practically unable to fight back. With Lemire's challenge of the HRCs, that tide began to turn.

When Levant was called before an investigator for a hearing in January, he served notice to the Alberta HRC that he would be recording the hearing on video. He then posted those videos on the Internet, where they had over 400,000 views. The videos, along with Levant's spirited defense, highlighted the problem with the commissions. His case got widespread coverage on Internet blogs.

The case broke into the mainstream print media with the complaints against Maclean's. Newspapers and political organizations across the country published opinions and releases against the HRCs – particularly its actions under Section 13. Even Alan Borovoy, who originally helped to found the HRCs, has been outspoken in declaring that the HRCs have overstepped their mandate. The media – although too silent on the issue in general – have helped to denormalize the HRCs and have set the stage for legislative action.

The issue also made its way into Parliament. At the end of January, liberal MP Keith Martin introduced a motion in the House of Commons to delete subsection 13(1) from the Canada Human Rights Act. Concerned citizens have contacted their MPs and Rob Nicholson, the Justice minister responsible for the Commissions, to press the legislators to act.

Conclusion

The HRCs are clearly a threat to the liberty of Canadians of all kinds. Currently, staffed with liberal activists, they are a particular threat to conservatives and Christians. Moreover, the setup of the HRCs is such that they attract frivolous complaints and are ripe for abuse, both from within and without.

The constitutional rights and body of law are enough to protect Canadians from unlawful discrimination. They deliberately do not include freedom from having one's feelings hurt. There is no need for further legislation. The checks and balance of the legal system are enough to ensure that justice is done according to the law. There is no need for a parallel quasi-judicial body. In fact, supplemental “human rights” legislation and quasi-judicial bodies are a threat to the freedoms protected by their constitutional counterparts.

The HRCs need to be permanently disbanded and the Acts that created them need to be repealed. Canadians of all kinds should put pressure on their representatives in provincial and federal parliament to see that this is done.

Steyn: "Reductio ad Hitlerum"

2008-04-24T21:53:00.000-05:00

I'm still working on a report on the Human Rights Commissions. In the meanwhile, the self-destruction over at the HRCs is ongoing, and Mark Steyn is only happy to help them out:

I don't have as low an opinion of Canadians as Barbara Hall and Jennifer Lynch do. I don't believe your liberty is the conditional discretionary gift of hack bureaucrats advised by Marxist theorists. You defeat bad ideas — whether Nazism, Marxism, jihadism, Steynism or Trudeaupian pseudo-"human rights" mumbo-jumbo — in the bracing air and light of day, in vigorous open debate, not in the fetid corridors of power policed by ahistorical nitwits.

And, in case you weren't convinced, another ridiculous ruling.

Another Look at that Forest

2008-04-14T10:25:00.002-05:00

In a previous post, I noted that HRCs and their victims are trees in a bigger forest. In that context, I noted the plight of Chris Kempling, whom several organizations have tried to silence, without the help of the HRCs. Here's another tree that indicates the scope and implication of the bigger forest: BBC chief: Reporting on Islam is over-cautious out of fear of offending Muslims.

Speaking at Westminster Cathedral Mr Thompson, a practising Catholic, said there was “a growing nervousness about discussion about Islam and its relationship to the traditions and values of British and Western society as a whole”.

Many news organizations, pundits, and thinktanks are not going to wait until they have to face a commission or are sued before they begin to censor themselves. Maclean's and Western Standard have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves - without having been found guilty. If reporting of legitimate news items (e.g. Danish cartoons) or publishing of political opinion (e.g. threat of radical Islam) are not protected by law and (real) courts, we will find ourselves wondering what news stories haven't been reported and what insights have been suppressed. Of course, the enemies of free speech are quite satisfied when people pre-emptively censor themselves - it is a step toward owning and controlling all speech. This is the reason that HRCs and the other aspects and implications of their bigger context are so dangerous.

On the Bookshelf Update

2008-04-11T22:36:00.002-05:00

I've added Standing On Guard For Thee by Michael Wagner to my 'On the Bookshelf' list (right). I hope to post a review when I've finished it.

HRCs Are Just Trees in a Forest

2008-04-11T22:34:00.002-05:00

The HRCs are a legitimate threat to the quality of the public discourse and the freedom of citizens with politically incorrect opinions. They have done significant damage to such citizens and deserve the intense scrutiny they are receiving. But HRCs are just trees in the forest of the war to censor of such opinions. There are victims for whom the HRCs cannot take credit.

One such victim is Chris Kempling. A summary of his incredible story is here, from a column in the National Post.

I find it disconcerting that my professional body wishes to sanction me for my political involvement, for conduct in a completely different profession servicing my own faith community and for opinions published in other provinces or countries. This action has potentially alarming consequences, not only for Canadian teachers, but for all regulated professions (social workers, psychologists, nurses, etc.), for whom such cases end up establishing legal precedents.

Also note, per our previous post, that Kempling can easily demonstrate that he is not 'homophobic', by virtue of the rational, well-researched defense of his position, and his befriending of several homosexuals. But in the world of politically correct censorship, the truth is no defense.

Disproving Phobia

2008-04-11T22:05:00.003-05:00

Yesterday I commented on the Ontario HRC's ridiculous argument against 'Islamophobia'. Al Siebring at NoApologies also picked up on it as well, and takes issue with the insinuation that he is irrational. In his argument, he focuses on another made-up word: 'homophobia'. (Incidentally, this is well-accepted in the wonderful world of leftist liberalism as another form of racism.) Translated literally, 'homophobia' must mean 'irrational fear of same', in which case the 'irrational' part is certainly self-evident. However, it's supposed to mean 'irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals' and it's meant to paint anyone with serious questions or reservations about homosexuality as irrational. Proving that your reservations are rational, however easy, is beside the point. He who defines the terms, wins; if you have to prove that you are rational, you are already starting on the defensive.

But the other part of that definition is the word fear. Not many 'homophobes' are legitimately afraid of homosexuals. Siebring states:

I happen to hold to a traditional view of sexuality, and I equally know that there’s not a single shred of “phobia” in my heart on this. I have known homosexuals. I have worked with them. I have befriended them; had them over to my house. Like my other friends, I have disagreed with them at times about various issues, and I’ve told them so. But I’ve never been scared of them.

The best argument against being labeled 'homophobic' is not semantic, but practical. Befriending homosexuals and inviting them into one's house is strong evidence against homophobia just as being a racecar driver is strong evidence against amaxophobia (fear of riding in a car). Christians should feel uncomfortable with the homosexual lifestyle - it is contrary to the created order - and should not hide it or apologize for it. But this needs to be balanced with the same friendship, love, and compassion that Christ gave to sinners of all kinds.

Not Guilty, But Guilty Nonetheless

2008-04-10T19:30:00.004-05:00

I'm working on preparing a report on the whole Human Rights Commission fiasco here in Canada. It's a big enough task to review the last three or so months worth of news on the issue, without more news breaking every day. Case in point: the Ontario Human Rights Commission today formally announced that it will not proceed with the complaint against Maclean's Magazine. A few thoughts on the statement:

The Ontario Commission decided not to proceed with the complaints because it lacks legal jurisdiction to do so under the Ontario Code. The Commission has found that the content of the magazine and Maclean’s refusal to provide the complainants with space in the magazine for a rebuttal, are not goods or services within the meaning of the Code. The Commission has also found that s. 13(1) of the Code, which prohibits displaying or publishing a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other similar representation with the intent to infringe human rights or to incite others to do so, cannot be interpreted to include the content of the magazine article in issue.

Given the lengths HRCs go to in order to bolster their cases, and given other remoreless over-reaching, this is remarkable restraint. On the other hand, given the intense scrutiny the HRCs are facing, it could just as easily be cowardice.

Racism exists in the media and the media has a significant role to play in either combating societal racism or refraining from communicating and reproducing it. Islamophobia is a form of racism that includes stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards Muslims and the viewing of Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.

Giving the made-up word 'Islamophobia' the benefit of the doubt, we can assume it to mean 'irrational fear of Islam'. No matter how you define Islam, it is not a race. Even its adherents, Muslims, are not a race. But I guess it's true because the HRCs say so.

Semantics aside, let me get this straight: racism includes viewing Muslims as a greater threat to society? Unless Muslims - or, more probably, the HRCs - own racism, we should be able to substitute Christians for Muslims. Oh, wait. It's well accepted that those scary Christians are a greater threat to society, and that's not racism.

The press release associated with the statement includes this gem:

While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean’s article and others like them, as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes. Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.

At least this time the HRC makes an attempt to identify some actual races in connection with 'Islamophobia'. You see, you don't need to be a race to be a victim of racism - you just need the HRC to declare you to be 'racialized'.

Semantics again aside, read between the lines. The Ontario Human Rights Act does not give the HRC jurisdiction over magazine content, but in the end the HRC still claims jurisdiction - "the Commission strongly condemns... the Maclean's article..." Guilty until proven innocent. More at SteynOnline.

Ignite Our Culture Conference Recap (Part 3 of 3)

2008-04-08T19:34:00.001-05:00

Continuing Saturday's proceedings, Stephen Pidgeon spoke about the distinct nature of God-given rights in contrast to government privileges. Fundamentally, he said, a government can not grant a right - it can only grant a privilege. Human rights are superior to the authority of government, because God has declared his sovereignty over governments. But governments give privileges - "rights" above those of others - that are inferior to the authority of the state, but superior to those without the privileges. He suggested that the privileged group in Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act (CHRA) is actually government broadcasters, who by virtue of Section 13.2 are exempt of its rules. He explained the difference between the legal terms mala in se - crimes based on good versus evil (a moral foundation) - and mala prohibita - acts that are not inherently evil, but are contrary to legislated policy (e.g. traffic laws). The CHRA is in fact not a rights act at all, since its moral foundation is not defined, but rather a government privilege.

After Ron Gray - also under investigation by the HRCs - addressed the conference on the topic of the evolution of politically-correct speech, Al Siebring tackled the issue of media bias. Siebring argued, partially from experience as a journalist, that there is generally not a direct attempt by journalists to "get Christians". Rather, he argued, the bias is in the enterprise itself. The mainstream media is rooted in a particular worldview, and in a particular vision of the purpose of the press, one taken - out of context - from Finley Peter Dunne:

Th newspaper... comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable...

Thus the mainstream media has historically seen itself to be in opposition to "the comfortable", that is, the predominant establishment. For years, that has been the Christian foundation underlying Canadian society - biblical morality and absolute Truth. According to Siebring, this is the bias that is inherent in the enterprise.

Notably, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily fame uses this same quote in his argument that the government is "the comfortable" and that therefore the role of the free press is to be a government watchdog. In Siebring's view, the role of the free press is to speak the truth, whether that be the truth about the government, or about anything else. This understanding matches what Wagner noted about the purpose of freedom of speech, and it seems right to me. Telling the truth about Planned Parenthood, or the UN, or climate change should certainly be a part of the role of the free press. For Christians, of course, we have the added biblical directive to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

Tristan Emmanuel had the last word, a treatment of the concept of hate. As with other debates, it is important to define the terms, and Emmanuel did this by consulting Scripture. Psalm 5:4-6 reads:

You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil;
with you the wicked cannot dwell.
The arrogant cannot stand in your presence;
you hate all who do wrong.

Thus God is the moral authority on what is lawful versus unlawful hate. Emmanuel also noted the inconsistency of moral relativists - they hold that there is (absolutely) no absolute truth, and yet use absolute terms to condemn hate and certain opinions.

After the audience members had the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers, the conference was wrapped up. The conference was a great way to be reminded of the fundamental issues and concepts regarding freedom of speech and human rights. Time and again, it was noted that unless you have absolute moral grounding, you have no foundation to condemn or censor speech, to restrict rights or grant privileges. Once you subscribe to moral relativism or post-modernism, you begin to build your ideas and arguments on the shaky foundation of feelings and actualization. My favourite speech was Pidgeon's on rights and privileges, one that hit this point home. It served to underline the fact that Western law and society have a moral basis and foundation that is outside the realm of men. And it clearly showed the foolishness of starting from other so-called foundations.

Ignite Our Culture Conference Recap (Part 2 of 3)

2008-04-07T22:35:00.001-05:00

Saturday's conference was opened by Rev. Schouten of the Canadian Reformed Church at Aldergrove, BC. He noted that a large number of Christians seem to be unwilling to stand up for the Truth and for our God-given rights. He suggested that perhaps this is because we have become too comfortable with ourselves and with society - that we have silenced the prophets ourselves by being unwilling to be confronted with the uncomfortable truth about our own lives. He too challenged the attendees to be steadfast in prayer and action.

Michael Wagner took the podium to discuss whether there are legitimate restrictions to freedom of speech. One of his opening points was on the question of censorship: is censorship - state limitation of the communication of ideas - a good or bad thing? Wagner submitted to the audience that censorship itself is neither good nor bad; the question should be: what kind of censorship is good, and what kind is bad? He also rebutted the recent complaints of supporters of film makers that government plans to discontinue funding for Canadian-made films amount to censorship. Not funding something does not mean one is preventing communication.

Wagner proceeded to list several examples of good censorship, such as defamation - whether spoken (slander) or written (libel) - and communication that is subversive to the political order. Finally, he described how the language and philosophy of freedom of communication have changed. The original philosophy - freedom of speech and freedom of the press - was purposeful: to give citizens information to make informed decisions, and to support a search for truth. Of course, in the framework of moral relativism, the concept of truth - and this purpose by extension - have been eliminated. The language has also changed; many people now speak of the vague concept of freedom of expression - a concept that lends itself much more easily to feelings than morals.

Connie Fournier then told her story. She and her husband Mark are the creators and moderators of the largest forum for conservatives in Canada, FreeDominion.ca. They were subject to an investigation at the hands of the so-called Canadian Human Rights Commission. The cause for complaint was not even something hosted at the site - the offensive material was posted elsewhere, and a link to it was posted on the forum. This complaint was eventually dropped, but the process - enormous losses of time and legal fees - was punishment enough. To protect the participants in the forum - the move does not protect the Fourniers - they recently sold the forum to a company in Panama whose corporate mission is:

To buy websites from individuals and corporations living in countries where free speech is under attack, and protect those websites from being shut down or seized by oppressive governments.

It is a telling sign of the state of liberal democracy in Canada.

Ignite Our Culture Conference Recap (Part 1 of 3)

2008-04-07T22:15:00.003-05:00

The ECP Centre's Ignite Our Culture conference in Langley, BC took place on March 28-29. Its focus was on freedom of speech and human rights. The speakers were Tristan Emmanuel and Al Siebring from NoApologies.ca; historian Michael Wagner, author of Standing on Guard for Thee; Ron Gray, national leader of the Christian Heritage Party; Connie Fournier, creator and moderator of FreeDominion.ca; and Stephen Pidgeon, an attorney and expert on human rights and religious freedom.

Wagner began Friday's Townhall session with a survey of the history of the involvement of Canadian Christians in media. He noted that Christians have had to struggle to get access to radio and TV stations. This struggle was most often against the CRTC. The CRTC stated that proposals for religious stations had to have "balanced programming", i.e. they had to include programs for other religions. Other questionable organizations and programming were given the green light, with no such requirements. One of the more telling examples was the success of Playboy TV's application, while applications for Christian-only stations were being denied. Wagner concluded by noting that the struggle has shown the achievement of Christian activism. In this light, the unregulated new media - internet news, blogs, etc. - are an exciting development and opportunity for our cause.

Emmanuel asked the question: Does God desire our freedom? He proceeded to argue from Scripture that, indeed, He does. He challenged the audience to have that same desire and to be active in the struggle that is upon us.

ECP Ignite our Culture Western Conference

2008-03-25T21:58:00.001-05:00

I'll be attending the ECP Centre's Ignite our Culture Conference in Langley, BC this weekend. The theme is "New Media and a Christian Perspective on Free Speech". I'll post comments on the conference proceedings here as I find opportunity.

At the heart of this issue in our culture is the concept of human rights. Here's a primer on the biblical basis of human rights courtesy of Michael Wagner at NoApologies.ca:

Under the law, then, a man has a ‘right’ to his life, his limbs, his liberty and his property simply because it is wrong to take them from him except in just punishment for breaking that same law. The law is a closed circle, a complete fence. Within it men are free and have innumerable ‘rights’ if one wants to think of them that way. But these rights appear from the wrongs specified by [God’s] law...

Far Beyond Moral Equivalence

2008-03-20T22:18:00.002-05:00

Jihad Watch reports on a recent episode of one of the Law and Order shows: Law and Order shills for Islam. In summary, the episode is about a Christian woman stoned to death for having a Muslim boyfriend.

We need not mention that God does not call for the stoning of adulterers - or, as Robert Spencer points out, that Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery (John 8).

Spencer observes:

And the subtext of it all, of course, is that those who oppose the global jihad and Islamic supremacism are just another flavor of fanatic, not someone who actually cares about preserving Western (and other non-Muslim) culture and civilization, and safeguarding the equality of dignity and rights of all people. Nope. The two sides are completely equivalent and interchangeable.

Spencer is right that those who oppose the advance of Islamism in the West are painted as fanatics in their own right. But the writers are far beyond moral equivalence here. In fact, the two sides are not being treated equivalently and interchangeably. If that were so, the writers for Law and Order would just flip a coin to determine who would be carrying out the stoning - "Will it be the Christians or the Muslims throwing rocks this time?"

But we are quite unlikely to see an episode telling the story of a Muslim father who kills his daughters because they are dating non-Muslims - even though this very thing has happened and can't even be considered anomalous anymore in the West, including Canada. And we are quite likely to continue to see Christians being painted as dangerous fanatics - even though this depiction is contrary to the theology and practice of the vast majority of Christians.

There are two sides to the coin that is being flipped by writers such as those for Law and Order: on the one hand you have their unwillingness to confront - much less portray - the crimes against Muslim women and non-Muslims that actually happen, continually; on the other hand you have their willingness - even eagerness - to denigrate Christians and Christianity by imagining things that do not happen.

These are the actions of a suicidal society: attacking the values that established it, and submitting to the values that threaten to destroy it.

The 'Secular' State of Egypt

2008-02-09T16:42:00.000-06:00

Via Little Green Footballs, here's a three-part video report on the plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt: Treatment of Christians in Egypt. Yes, that Egypt - the one that claims to be secular; the one that claims to uphold freedom of religion; the one to whom the US gives more than $2 million in foreign aid annually.

For more of what's really going on in Egypt, see these LGF posts:
'No Compulsion in Islam' | Egyptian Blogger Quits

Private Member's Motion M-446

2008-02-01T20:27:00.000-06:00

The title of my last post - regarding Keith Martin's Private Member's Motion to delete subsection 13(1) from the Canada Human Rights Act - ended with a question mark. To be clear, I think it is great news. But I deliberately wanted to indicate some uncertainty about this development. There are uncertainties: on one hand, this is not a sure thing - it is only the beginning of the process; on the other hand, I wondered, if the resulting bill were to be passed, what consequences it would have for provincial HRCs as well as pending and past cases.

One question I haven't heard asked is why subsections (2) and (3) are not included in this motion. Since they both refer back to subsection (1) are they automatically deleted as well?

But there's another question that's nagging me: What is Martin's motivation? Many bloggers have encouraged readers to write a note of thanks and/or encouragement to Martin for taking the initiative on this important matter. But I'm not so sure. My approval is partly dependent on his motivation. I'd be delighted to know that Martin is an advocate and defender of freedom and that this motion is solely an outworking of that conviction. But as the saying goes, if it seems to good to be true, it probably is. I can't help but think that Martin is doing this for some political gain. If so, the means does not justify the end, and, though I support the means, I won't thank him for using it for his political gain. At NoApologies.ca, Al Siebring asks some of the same questions.

Nevertheless, all Canadians should write to their MPs in support of this motion. NoApologies and Pundita have some great summary material to help us get started.

A Step in the Right Direction?

2008-01-31T21:23:00.000-06:00

Ezra Levant broke news today that Keith Martin, Liberal MP for Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca (Victoria), gave notice of his Private Member's motion, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act.

It's curious and somewhat disappointing that a Liberal beat the Conservatives to the punch, but as Levant notes, it is also quite advantageous. It's not the ideal - the entire Human Rights Commission provision has to go. But it is a promising step in the right direction. A few questions come to mind:

This is a motion in Parliament. What implications would the carrying of the motion have for provincial Human Rights Acts and Commissions?
What would happen to pending subsection 13 cases?
What recourse would others have who have lost subsection 13 cases?

In the meanwhile, a few more columns have appeared in the Canadian mainstream media against the HRCs. Among the best is another one from Rex Murphy:

Mostly I fear, if the HRCs are tied up, Canadians will be reading, unguided, what they choose to read, deciding for themselves what they like and what they don't, will discard a book or pass it to a friend, like a column or curse one - lit only by the light of their own reason. The horror! Before we know it, we'll have an unstoppable epidemic of free speech, free thought, and freedom of the press.

Section 13

2008-01-21T18:42:00.000-06:00

The hate crimes complaints against Steyn and Levant are Section 13 complaints, referring to Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Recent damning evidence has surfaced against current and former HRC investigators of Section 13 complaints. See comments on this development from Levant and Steyn.

Meanwhile, the Pundita blog has done some thorough analysis of Section 13, and by extension the state of human rights and liberal democracy in Canada. Pundita also recommends going after the commissions directly rather than waiting for the legislature do it.

Closed Circuit

2008-01-18T22:10:00.000-06:00

An amazing story from NoApologies.ca: an assistant to a Federal Conservative MP recently sent colleagues an email that included the following:

I am wondering if someone might be aware of an issue with the Canadian Human Rights Commission??? I have received a few emails from constituents complaining about the HRC and I don't know whether this is just a blanket complaint or whether HRC was recently in the news....?

The cases against Western Standard and Maclean's are among the hottest stories on the entire North American blog circuit - never mind the Canadian conservative blog circuit. How can a Federal Conservative MP's assistant be oblivious to them? As I mentioned earlier, the mainstream media - who should be very interested in these cases - is also far behind on this scoop. Levant makes the same observation.

What consequence does this lack of press have? What has the average Canadian heard of this issue? And how does that translate into public pressure on legislators? As Al Siebring points out, it can't just stay on the blog circuit. Private support for beleaguered publishers must translate into public support before legislators can effectively take action.

Shackling the Citizen

2008-01-14T19:14:00.000-06:00

The blog circuit is buzzing with Ezra Levant's video coverage of his appearance at the Alberta HRC. As he reports at ezralevant.com, his videos have been viewed over 200,000 times. They have also been featured on high-profile blogs such as Little Green Footballs. A study in contrast - and dare I say, evidence of their growing irrelevance - is the mainstream media's lack of coverage of the proceedings. One exception is this offering from columnist Lorne Gunter via the National Post, in which he indicates that the shackling of the free press is a symptom of a larger problem:

Gone is the robust belief held by our ancestors for 800 years that the citizen is sovereign, that he is free to do as he wishes unless the state can show unambiguously that there is an overriding need to limit his liberty temporarily. It has been replaced by the continental notion that nothing is allowed unless it is expressly permitted by the state. The belief that the citizen owes the government an explanation of his actions, not the other way around, has gripped our politicians, bureaucrats, judges and professors.

Shackling the Press: Part II

2008-01-12T10:44:00.000-06:00

The complaints against Maclean's magazine and Mark Steyn are just a few of several notable cases currently before the HRCs. In another strikingly similar case, a magazine - the now-defunct Western Standard - and its editor - Ezra Levant - are being investigated for being offensive.

I am being interrogated for the political crime of publishing the Danish cartoons in the Western Standard nearly two years ago. As a lawyer, I've been in different courts and tribunals, but I've never experienced a kangaroo court first-hand. I will have a more comprehensive report later today.

Of particular interest is his thorough and no-holds-barred response to the complaint against the magazine:

This is a nuisance suit that serves an illiberal agenda, and should the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC) not dismiss it forthwith, the AHRCC itself will become a party to it.

Levant's opening statement at the interrogation had the same tone:

It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats “the commission” or “the hrc”, since to call the commission a “human rights commission” is to destroy the meaning of those words. I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me.

Levant, Steyn, and others in their position have been advised not to make their situations worse by attacking the HRCs. But Levant and Steyn are taking the right stance - they have no illusions about the fairness of the HRCs. They are hoping to bring their trials outside of the commissions and into the court of public opinion, since the most important aspect of these complaints is the legitimacy of the commissions themselves. And it is the commissions who are now being put on trial in the court of public opinion.

Update: Levant has posted videos of portions of his interrogation on YouTube. He details the circumstances and considerations of his decision to do so:

But my lawyer and I insisted that we be permitted to record the interrogation, for use when we appeal the commission's decision to a real court. The officer allowed the video camera, but asked that we keep the recording confidential. But, over a year ago, our lawyer served notice on the commission that we reserved the right to publish any communications to or from the commission whatsoever, and that they should govern themselves accordingly. It's not surprising that a censor like the commission would want to do its censorship in the dark.

First, footage of Levant's opening statement:

Second, his strong response to the absurd query of what his intent was in publishing the cartoons. As Mark Steyn writes:

How did it come about in one of the oldest settled democracies in the world that government agencies were given powers to require a "free" press to justify the "intent" behind a particular article?

Update: Levant indicates that he will upload about ten videos to YouTube. You can see them at his website, with relevant commentary.

Update: Shackling the Press

2008-01-01T16:37:00.000-06:00

In my previous post on the Human Rights Commission complaints against Maclean's magazine, I noted that the travesty is not the complaints themselves. Free people should be free to complain. The travesty is that the HRCs have agreed to hear the complaints. Mark Steyn agrees:

What's offensive is not the accusations of Dr Elmasry and his pals, but the willingness of Canada's pseudo-courts to take them seriously. So I couldn't care less about the verdict - except insofar as an acquittal would be more likely to bolster the cause of those who think it's entirely reasonable for the state to serve as editor-in-chief of privately owned magazines. As David Warren put it, the punishment is not the verdict but the process.

Maclean's is now in the unenviable position that anything it does to comply with the HRCs in fact legitimizes them.

Good News from Iraq

2007-12-20T21:32:00.000-06:00

Judging by the mainstream media's coverage of the war in Iraq, you would think that the whole struggle there is in a fatal downward spiral. But Michael Yon has posted a comprehensive report by Barry R. McCaffrey, a retired US Army General, whose tone is not one of despair, but of optimism.

The senior leaders of AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] have become walking dead men because of the enormous number of civilian intelligence tips coming directly to US Forces. US and Brit Special Operations Forces are deadly against AQI leadership. Essentially AQI has been driven out of Baghdad and is now trying to reconstitute their capabilities.

Read more at michaelyon-online.com. I'm not sure I can agree with this conclusion, though:

Clearly we must continue the current sensible approach by Secretary of State Rice to open dialog with Syria, Turkey, and the Iranians...

The commitment to dialogue on the part of Rice - and President Bush - comes hand in hand with an inexplicable ignorance or denial of the reality of the Islamism that drives Syria and Iran. And these states are only happy to engage in toothless dialogue.

Shackling the Press

2007-12-19T23:29:00.000-06:00

No sooner has Mark Steyn revealed the newly-enshrined right not to be offended than the Canadian Islamic Congress has given a case in point: it has filed a complaint against Maclean's Magazine with three Human Rights Commissions regarding an article by Steyn called 'The Future Belongs to Islam'. Read the complaints at Steyn's website. There are just so many things wrong with this. First, regarding Human Rights Commissions:

HRCs are not bound to rigorous standards of evidence and procedure.
HRCs are given power to force compliance and levy fines.
HRC employees need not have legal training, and appointments are often political in nature.
HRCs are balanced heavily in favour of the complainants, who are not responsible for the legal fees and paperwork that can tie up or cripple the party being investigated.
By contrast, the complainants can avoid legal fees, time in court, and have the benefit of a lower standard of legal procedure - this makes it an easy system to abuse.
HRCs in Canada have done more stripping of human rights (especially those of freedom of speech and freedom of religion) than upholding them - without the checks and balances of standard legal procedure, the HRCs have given favour to certain rights (or even perceived rights) at the expense of other constitutionally enshrined rights.

Regarding this particular case:

Why three complaints? The main complainant is filing several complaints in the hopes that one will stick. Even if 2 of 3 complaints are unsuccessful, he is victorious.
The main complainant on all three complaints, Mohamed Elmasry, is a professor of computer engineering at the University of Waterloo. That's in Ontario. So I can buy a complaint with the Ontario HRC or the federal HRC. But how can he file a complaint with the HRC in British Columbia? And how can that commission justify hearing the case? What jurisdiction can it possibly have?
The simplest action for the complainants would be to respond in kind: publish a rebuttal in another paper or magazine. Doubtless there is no shortage of media outfits that sympathize with them and would be glad to be the vehicle for such a rebuttal. The fact that the complainants have chosen the HRCs betrays their disinterest in open and frank debate. Instead, they want to silence detractors. If the complainants are so sure of their position, why not silence them with an unrebuttable rebuttal?
The complainants are using deceptive - no, outright false - claims.
One of the quotes listed as a grievance is not even Steyn's - it is directly from a Muslim leader!
This is a bold and direct attack on the freedoms of thought, speech and press, and it is obviously so. It is a travesty that HRCs have even considered hearing these complaints.

Any member of the free press that thinks government control (by HRCs or another arm) will not restrict their journalistic freedom is naive. These complaints are very dangerous in that they could very well be a precedent in that direction. This is the very reason for the First Amendment to the US Constitution with regard to the freedom of the press. Yet, aside from some notable exceptions, the mainstream media, whose future is at stake with Maclean's, has been remarkably silent on the issue.

These complaints have heightened the debate about HRCs, but not enough that Canadians will demand that they be shut down. If the HRCs realize the danger of ruling in favour of the complainants and fail to do so, Maclean's will be off the hook, but so will the HRCs. The best possible outcome may just be that Maclean's loses its fight initially, but is supported by the anger of the free press and freedom-loving Canadians and fights the HRCs off for good.

Culture of Victimhood

2007-12-02T22:35:00.000-06:00

Western culture has become a culture of victimhood. Many people see themselves as victims of injustice and insensitivity - they've been wronged or offended by someone. Many even claim to find the remnants of Christian culture oppressive. But it is all a strategy for selfish gain or to shut down debate. Is it any wonder that our enemies are using the same tactics against us? Mark Steyn hits the nail on the head again:

But the point is that the right not to be offended is now the most sacred right in the world. The right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement, all are as nothing compared with the universal right to freedom from offense.

Infidel: Conclusion II

2007-12-02T16:40:00.000-06:00

To conclude the review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Infidel, we've answered some of Hirsi Ali's objections to Islam. (See our initial conclusion here.) For her, some of these objections also apply to the Christian faith. This has led her to secular humanism, a religion in its own right. But it is also a dead-end street that threatens the Western world just like Islamism.

Our last thought on this comes courtesy of Mark Steyn, from his great book America Alone (see the link "On the Bookshelf" to the right):

In 2006, a dozen intellectuals published a manifesto against Islamism and in the defense of "secular values for all." The signatories included Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch parliamentarian; Irshad Manji, the Canadian writer; and Salman Rushdie, the British novelist. All three are brave figures and important allies in the campaign against the Islamist tide. But they're making a mistake: secular humanism is an insufficient rallying cry. As another Canadian, Kathy Shaidle, wrote in response: It is secularism itself which is part of the problem, not the solution, since secularism is precisely what created the Euro spiritual/moral vacuum into which Islamism has rushed headlong."

None of the Above

2007-11-29T21:56:00.000-06:00

Keeping tabs on the upcoming US elections, which will affect Canada and the rest of the world, it's hard to know who to root for. But I'm not alone - Mark Steyn also laments the lack of a conservative candidate.

As it is, the present field poses difficulties for almost every faction of the GOP base. Rudy Giuliani was a brilliant can-do executive who transformed the fortunes of what was supposedly one of the most ungovernable cities in the nation but on guns, abortion and almost every other social issue he's anathema to much of the party. Ron Huckabee is an impeccable social conservative but fiscally speaking favors big-government solutions with big-government price tags. Ron Paul has a long track record of sustained philosophically coherent support for small government but he's running as a neo-isolationist on war and foreign policy. John McCain believes in assertive American global leadership but he believes just as strongly in constitutional abominations like McCain-Feingold.

More at the New York Sun.

Departments of Uneducation

2007-11-28T18:55:00.000-06:00

From Michelle Malkin, an investigation into Everyday Mathematics. This is a method of teaching math that deliberately avoids rote and repetition in teaching the basic skills of arithmetic. The knock on the traditional methods of education is that students learn methods but fail to understand the mathematical concepts behind them. For proponents, the means apparently justify the end; that end is the realization by many parents that their children are not grasping simple mathematical concepts and operations.

I have firsthand experience of this educational philosophy. During my studies for my B.Ed., I came across it time and time again. After our first class, one of my Teaching Math profs had the majority of prospective math teachers in the room in disbelief. It was not much better at the end of the course. What this educational theory is getting at is that direct instruction and repetition is bad. You have to create learning opportunities for students to discover learning. So, repeated testing of multiplication tables, for instance, has died out.

Guess what? Students are missing it. They can't tell in a split second what 7 x 9 is. The premise of the theory is that rote and repetition does not foster understanding. But are you better off knowing that 9 packs of gum at $7 apiece will cost you $63, or why the math works out that way? In the end, the goal is that the student knows both, but the point is we don't want students - or anyone - to have to think about the mathematical realities behind the gum purchase in order to make that calculation.

It is in subjects like math and (some) sciences that we notice the disconnect between the reality of simple, hard facts and this need to find a convoluted way to learn (or teach) them. But it's not just about math. This educational theory has invaded most subjects. For instance, the reluctance to promote memorization of reading, spelling and grammar skills has contributed to a generation of students who are barely literate.

At its basic, it is a war between practical reality and theoretical fantasy. I have been a student under the educational theory of constructivism, and it is no fun. Instead of the practical skills for mastery and proficiency in teaching, I received a large dose of theoretical ideas that helped me little in the classroom setting. And that is the problem - students are losing out. Instead of a proven method with the goal of excellency, Departments of Education have embraced a soft, fuzzy method. It is a vote for mediocrity.

A Musical Interlude

2007-11-26T18:35:00.000-06:00

This had my mom and me laughing ourselves to tears yesterday. This is how music-making is supposed to feel - some parts of it require a lot of work, but the whole endeavour is a pile of fun. There's more at YouTube.

Isn't it ironic?

2007-11-21T19:22:00.000-06:00

From Fox News (read Fox Sports), this non-news story: NFL, Giants Stadium in Hot Water for Breast-Baring Ritual Among Fans. Male fans have apparently made a ritual out of yelling at women to lift their shirts. In its comprehensive coverage, Fox News trots out an expert on who-knows-what for a statement:

Feminist writer Naomi Wolf lambasted the "Girls Gone Wild" types of stadium shenanigans as "barbaric" and "reprehensible," and said the practice could lead to sexual violence.

"This is a sign of the degradation of public morality in America," the "Beauty Myth" author fumed during a FOX News Channel panel discussion. "I don’t want my daughter to be exposed to this."

Wolf is fuming for good reason, and her observations hit the nail on the head. It's a "barbaric" and "reprehensible" practice, and "a sign of the degradation of public morality." But this is not some unexplainable phenomenon. Let's look at what these males and females have been told over and over by the feminist agenda as they were growing up.

Males, you're a bunch of dummies who can't be expected to keep your sexual urges in check.

Females, your sexuality is your power as a free woman - your body is yours to do what you want with.

This kind of behaviour is a result (at least in part) of the free sexuality preached by feminists. Wolf can not stomach the logical result of her own faith. Let's not even go into the irony of a feminist worrying about public morality.

Infidel: On Women

2007-11-03T18:29:00.000-05:00

Hirsi Ali hates and fights against the oppression of women in Islam. Based on the Qur'an, a woman's life in Islamic society is owned and directed by her husband or, if she is unmarried, her father, brothers, or the next closest male relatives. Beatings have precedence in the Qur'an, so she may be subject to physical abuse. Contact with men from outside her family is not allowed. It is forbidden and dangerous to be in public without the escort of a male family member. Men and women are not considered to be equal in the eyes of Allah.

Ah, yes - equality. A word so twisted by people in order to shut down debate that it is misunderstood. The fact is that women and men are not equal, just like apples and oranges are not equal - they're different. That's not to say that there are no aspects of equality; Apples and oranges are equal with respect to their being fruit. The questions are: How different? Different In what ways? How equal? Equal in what ways?

With regard to creation and salvation, there is no difference between man and woman.

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)

With respect to almost everything else, man and woman are unequal. This is not a surprise to anyone. In many ways, they're aliens to each other, from different planets - as the saying goes, Men are from Mars, women from Venus. Man and woman are physiologically, psychologically, and socially very different. The Bible also says that they were created with different roles:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24)

So one is a leader, the other a responder. This does not make one superior and the other inferior. There is no room in the Bible for a male superiority complex. How is a man to relate to his wife? The very next verse says:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her... In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. (Ephesians 5:25, 28)

The relationship is exemplified by Christ - "love your wives just as Christ loved the church" - and is characterized by sacrifice - "and gave himself up for her". Not domination, but sacrifice. A biblical burden is here placed on man - to follow the example of Christ, the leader of the church. And his relationship with the church is one of love, service, and sacrifice. There is no room for selfishness or abuse.

In addition, the Bible describes women as active in the home, the church, and in society. She is not hidden. Proverbs 31 describes "the wife of noble character". Among her many good attributes and actions is this:

She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. (Proverbs 31:16)

She is active in commerce as well. Of course, this is kept in balance with her other responsibilities:

She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls... She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. (Proverbs 31:15, 27)

And this is the rub for Hirsi Ali and others who subscribe to the feminist philosophy. They don't want to accept the biblical roles. Yet, this is the way God created it, and he saw that it was very good (Genesis 1:31). As Proverbs 31 shows, this arrangement is to the praise of God, to the benefit of man, woman, and children, and to the benefit of society.

Just a Harmless Kids' Book

2007-10-22T21:13:00.000-05:00

J.K. Rowling, author of the very popular and successful Harry Potter series of books, announced Friday that master wizard Albus Dumbledore, a prominent character in the series, is gay, FoxNews.com reports in this article.

Many people will shrug their shoulders and say, "Why is this even news?" Many more will say, "It's just a harmless kids' book. We're talking about a fictional character here!" Indeed, if some far-right extremist fundamentalist Christian would dare to mention it, he or she would be accused of making mountains out of molehills, looking for fights to pick.

But those homophobes are too late. Those comfortable with promotion of homosexual behaviour beat them to the mountain-making. In case we were naive enough to think that this is an inconsequential fictional event, they make it quite clear:

"Jo Rowling calling any Harry Potter character gay would make wonderful strides in tolerance toward homosexuality," Melissa Anelli, Webmaster of the fan site http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org, told The Associated Press. "By dubbing someone so respected, so talented and so kind, as someone who just happens to be also homosexual, she's reinforcing the idea that a person's gayness is not something of which they should be ashamed."

The fact that these advances of the homosexual agenda are taking place in a book for children don't make them insignificant; they are by that fact the more insidious. I can not comment on Rowling's motivation, but it certainly can't hurt to have this influential lobby line up behind her new book.

Infidel: On Submission

2007-10-18T21:48:00.000-05:00

Islam means "submission", and Hirsi Ali's experience of Islam was one marked by submission in many aspects of life. In the first place, this submission refers to the relation of the individual Muslim to Allah.

In Islam, unlike in Christianity and Judaism, the relationship of the individual to God is one of total submission, slave to master. To Muslims, worship of God means total obedience to Allah's rules and total abstinence from the thoughts and deeds that He has declared forbidden in the Quran. (p. 313)

"Unlike in Christianity"? No way - the God of the Bible also requires no less than total submission and total obedience:

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7)

Do not be stiff-necked, as your fathers were; submit to the LORD. Come to the sanctuary, which he has consecrated forever. Serve the LORD your God, so that his fierce anger will turn away from you. (2 Chronicles 30:8)

You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 18:4)

But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. (Romans 6:22)

The relationship between God and the individual is indeed one of master and slave. So what's the difference? It is at the same time a relationship of mutual love, even between a Father and His children.

Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. (Exodus 19:5)

Love the LORD your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always. (Deuteronomy 11:1)

The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing. (Zephaniah 3:17)

If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matthew 7:11)

This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven...' (Matthew 6:9)

How is this possible? Jesus says:

I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. (John 8:34)

One is either a slave to sin, or a slave to God. God's slaves have to keep his entire law. But no mere man can:

There is no one righteous, not even one. (Romans 3:10)

Who could fully submit to and obey the laws of the almighty God in our place? And who could pay the penalty for our sins and earn his love for us? Jesus Christ, the Son of God born as man:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. (John 6:38)

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9)

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

So there is no tension between an almighty, holy, demanding God, and a loving, forgiving, and merciful Father. And there is no tension between loving and serving Him.

Infidel: Conclusion

2007-10-17T18:51:00.000-05:00

In the end, Hirsi Ali's legitimate questioning and objections with regard to her experience of Islam lead her too far to the other side. She hated the oppression of women in Islam, so she embraced feminist philosophies. She took her experience of Islam to be indicative of a problem with all organized religions, and thus embraced a supposed non-religious view a la Freud et al. And this overreaction brought her further from the truth.

But there are answers to her questions. There is truth; there are absolutes. They are from one Source, and one Source only. That Source is perfect, consistent and true. He is more powerful, more mighty, more holy than Allah in all the glory she previously attributed to him. And His Word allays all the fears and silences all the objections raised by Hirsi Ali with regard to Islam and organized religion in general. I hope to work this out in a series of blogs on what the Bible has to say about a few of these fears and objections.

Infidel: On Religion

2007-10-16T19:30:00.000-05:00

Hirsi Ali's many nagging questions about the truth of Islam eventually led her to atheism. It's interesting that as she describes giving up on religion, she makes this statement:

From now on I could step firmly on the ground that was under my feet and navigate based on my own reason and self-respect. My moral compass was within myself, not in the pages of some sacred book. (p. 281)

Hirsi Ali, like everyone else, can not go into some sort of religious vacuum. We can't empty ourselves of religion. Humans come with a sense of morality, eternity, and the existence of God built in. God's Word says:

He has also set eternity in the hearts of men. (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

So Hirsi Ali is not really giving up on religion; in the place of one god, she sets up another. Where she once worshipped at the altar of Allah, she now worships at the altar of earthly reason and "self-respect". She closed the Qur'an - "some sacred book", only to open Spinoza, Locke, Kant, Mill, Voltaire, Russell, and Popper - the Qur'ans of humanism. She professes the ridiculously oxymoronic creed of relativism: "There are no absolutes." And so the religious vacuum is filled.

Infidel: Logical Disconnect

2007-10-15T18:23:00.000-05:00

While working for a think tank of the Dutch Labor Party, Hirsi Ali delved into the patterns of immigration, integration and assimilation in Holland. She recognized a real problem with the way the Muslim immigrants were withdrawing themselves into closed communities and disproportionately taxing the welfare system and committing crime. And she noticed that this pattern of living was being propogated by independent Muslim schools. And so she suggested abolishing Article 23 of the Dutch Constitution, which permits faith-based schools (p. 280).

This is a clear example of Hirsi Ali throwing out the baby with the bath water. Were all faith-based schools guilty of the same things? This seems also to be a point of inconsistency in Hirsi Ali's logic. Much of her research indicated that there was a particular problem with Islam and Muslims. She acknowledged this fact. She passionately wanted to show that the Muslim situation was different than others. Yet, in the case of faith-based schools, she attributes the particular problems of Muslim schools to all other faith-based schools by seeking to abolish the provision under which they were established.

Infidel: On 9/11

2007-10-14T19:30:00.000-05:00

All of Hirsi Ali's questions regarding Islam came to a head after 9/11. She read many articles, watched many TV commentaries, searched the Internet regarding the attacks. She writes of her surprise at the naivety of much of the commentary:

[Analyists' articles were] about Islam being a religion of peace and tolerance, not the slightest bit violent. These were fairy tales, nothing to do with the real world I knew. (p. 270)

Were the 9/11 attacks carried out because poverty was pushing people to terrorism?

But Africa is the poorest continent, I knew, and poverty doesn't cause terrorism; truly poor people can't look further than their next meal. (p. 270)

Had the attacks brought to light a wave of Islamophobia in Holland?

None of this pseudointellectualizing had anything to do with reality. (p. 270)

Were the attacks carried out because of America's "blind" support of Israel?

This was belief, I thought. Not frustration, not poverty, colonialism, or Israel: it was about religious belief, a one-way ticket to Heaven. (p. 270)

Hirsi Ali's conclusion:

...most people think that Islam is about peace. It is from these people, honest and kind, that the fallacy has arisen that Islam is peaceful and tolerant. But I could no longer avoid seeing the totalitarianism, the pure moral framework that is Islam. It regulates every detail of life and subjugates free will. True Islam, as a rigid belief system and a moral framework, leads to cruelty. The inhuman act of those nineteen hijackers was the logical outcome of this detailed system for regulating human behavior. (p. 272)

Leaving aside the question of free will, it is clear who this enemy of Western society is. President Bush knew America was at war after 9/11, but to this day it seems he doesn't really understand who this enemy is - he still refuses to believe that this is about Islam and Islamic society.

Infidel: On leadership

2007-10-14T12:39:00.000-05:00

In one of her discussions about the structure of Dutch culture, in stark contrast to the cultures of the African cultures in which she grew up, Hirsi Ali describes the family life of some dear friends who took her in. Among the first things she noticed:

Johanna's husband, Maarten, was not the boss of the household. The two of them talked things over together; they asked each other's advice... And Maarten helped with the housework. (p. 219)

This is a typical error in today's society. Either you're the head of the household, or you work cooperatively and jointly in running a household. It bears noting that Hirsi Ali makes this observation in contrast to the family and culture in which she was raised. There, being a leader meant doing things the things you wanted the way you wanted. But we need not and should not make leadership and cooperation mutually exclusive. A boss who seeks advice from his employees is no less a leader. In the same way, one can be the head of a family and at the same time be cooperative and self-sacrificing.

It is true that many husbands and fathers have used their headship for evil. But we cannot discard headship for that reason. Christian men are called to be heads of their families and leaders in their church communities. This is both a privilege and a great responsibility. God's Word says:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (Eph. 5:25-27)

Christ's headship is not characterized by his power, authority, needs, wants, desires. It is characterized by giving up of oneself - it is first about service. That's the real way of headship and leadership. What a tremendous example we men have to live up to.

Infidel: On Structure

2007-10-14T12:03:00.000-05:00

In the second half of her book Infidel, Hirsi Ali relates her experiences in Holland after having fled there to avoid an arranged marriage with a Somali Canadian. Her initial experience of Dutch culture was one of amazement and fascination. It was so unlike the cultures of the African countries in which she had lived.

One of the biggest differences she noticed was that Dutch culture was structured. If you put your garbage out on a particular morning, the government would come and pick it up (p. 189). Buildings and streets were clean. You could walk alone on the street and be safe. Traffic was controlled (p. 185). Policemen were not oppressors or demanders of bribes (p. 190). Buses were scheduled and punctual (p. 191). Men did not go crazy if women were not covered from head to toe (p. 195-196). Disadvantaged people were taken care of (p. 199). Family life was deliberately structured (p. 219).

All these things in Dutch culture are the outworkings not of Dutch culture per se, but of Christian culture. God is a God of order. The principles of cleanliness, order, service, self-control, and charity are all prescribed by God. These principles are written all over the laws God gave the Israelites through Moses. The laws of Western society are for the most part based on these same principles, and many constitutions still point back to the Word of God as their basis.

Ultimately, Hirsi Ali was not observing the difference between Somali or Kenyan or Saudi culture and Dutch or English or American culture, or even between Islamic culture and Christian culture, but between God's prescribed way and the self-serving way of fallen human nature.

Infidel: Wimpy Misogynism

2007-09-24T18:10:00.000-05:00

The reason the new, pure Islam of the Muslim Brothehood requires absolute separation of men and women, and hiding women in the anonymous hijab? The men are scared of the women!

From Infidel:

As women, we were immensely powerful, Sister Aziza explained. The way Allah had created us, our hair, our nails, our heels, our neck, and ankles - every little curve in our body was arousing. If a woman aroused a man who was not her husband, she was sinning doubly in God's eyes, by leading the man into temptation and evil thoughts to match her own. Only the robe worn by the wives of the Prophet could prevent us from arousing men and leading society into fitna, uncontrollable confusion and social chaos.

The woman's form created to be arousing to a man? Check.
Deliberately leading men into temptation is sin? With you so far.
Wearing the hijab and social chaos are mutually exclusive? Whoa! Stop right there!

Women are so powerful that they must be covered up, and men are so weak that they can't be trusted to be responsible for their thoughts and actions. Going to this extreme is an easy way for men to avoid the nuisance of personal morality and responsibility. That said, I'm not sure the pendulum hasn't swung too far the other way in the Western world.

Redefining the Family?

2007-09-13T22:14:00.001-05:00

Front page news in the Globe and Mail this morning: Canadians Redefining the Family. The article of course, reported some of the statistics from the latest Canadian census. Special attention was paid to the falling rates of married couples, young women with kids, number of kids per family, etc.

The family being the basic unit of society and civilization, it is proper to be concerned with its health and status. But the Globe and Mail's primary interest isn't how the size of families or the number of single-parent families have changed. It deliberately ties the phrase "redefining the family" to stats on same-sex "marriages" and couples. It wants its readers to consider a same-sex couple a family. The Globe and Mail wants you to know that the debate is over, and you might as well shut up and get used to it. Same-sex "families" are here to stay.

Here follows the first paragraph under the headline of a similar story on the Globe and Mail website:

The redefinition of family continues apace in Canada, with the latest household figures from the 2006 census showing a significant increase in the number of same-sex couples and a first-ever count of same-sex marriages.

Four of the article's first five paragraphs are about same-sex couples. For the Globe and Mail, this is the most important aspect of the census.

A family is a family, and regardless of what Canadians do, they cannot change its definition. But the Globe and Mail is trying anyway, by implicitly and explicitly equating same-sex households with families. And it just can't resist shilling for them at every little opportunity.

Infidel: African Political Systems in the 70s

2007-09-11T22:22:00.000-05:00

I'm doing a second reading of Infidel, Hirsi Ali's memoir.

Largely due to her father's involvement in the resistance against the Somali leader Siad Barré, Hirsi Ali was moved from country to country. She was born in Somalia, lived in Mecca and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, and then briefly in Ethiopia before moving to Kenya.

Right before she discusses the move to Kenya, she offers this gem of a reflection on the political systems she had lived under:

That is how, by the time I turned ten, I had lived through three different political systems, all of them failures. The police state in Mogadishu rationed people into hunger and bombed them into obedience. Islamic law in Saudi Arabia treated half its citizens like animals, with no rights or recourse, disposing of women without regard. And the old Somali rule of the clan, which saved you when you needed refuge, so easily broke down into suspicion, conspiracy, and revenge. (p.60)

No wonder she can not subscribe to the PC relativist notion that all civilizations and political systems are equal.

A Musical Interlude

2007-08-28T21:59:00.000-05:00

Apparently I am late in jumping onto the McKee YouTube bandwagon, but better late than never. Use the menu in the YouTube viewer to see a lot of other cool songs. Presenting finger-picking virtuoso Andy McKee.

The Phobia Fallacy

2007-08-21T15:15:00.000-05:00

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is outspoken against abuses in the Islamic world. The most obvious of these are abuse against women, adulterers, and of course, homosexuals. So she often comes to their defense. This is good. We cannot consent to the killing of homosexuals for being homosexual. But this should also not preclude vigorous debate about homosexuality.

In the interview discussed earlier, Hirsi Ali rejects the term Islamophobia because Islam is not an inherent trait, as race and sex are, for instance. Critiquing an idea or practice is not necessarily an act of phobia. (Even hatred of an idea or practice is not de facto phobia.) This is a sound argument. The term Islamophobia is very new, created and used deliberately to shut down critical debate about Islam by putting it on the same level as racism. Redefining the debate is a favourite tactic for those who don't have the facts on their side.

Those who created the term Islamophobia were merely copying those who created the term homophobia. This term, while older, is still a relatively young term, created for the very same reasons, with great success. It makes the assumption that homosexuality is an inherent trait, and therefore is off-limits for critical debate. Homosexual activists have been quick to label detractors racists. The problem is that they do so with impunity, even though it is absurd to equate inclinations or behaviour with race.

So we hear Hirsi Ali making the same error with regard to homophobia as she is refuting in regard to Islamophobia. To her credit, the error is not due to obviously faulty logic, but to a false premise. Her logic is sound; if homosexuality is an innate trait, determined by one's genes, then sexual orientation could legitimately be considered to be on the same plane as sex and race. It is her premise regarding sexual orientation - "It's something you can't do anything about" - that is fallacious. Homosexuals are not born that way. There is no gay gene. Thus homophobia joins Islamophobia in the dictionary of deceptive nonentities, and we should strive for vigorous debate about the health and effects of both Islamic society and homosexual behaviour.

The Qur'an

2007-08-18T10:38:00.000-05:00

One of the main themes in Infidel is Hirsi Ali's struggle to distinguish between Islamic practice and what it actually says in the Qur'an (or Koran), the holy book of Islam. Her conclusion is that some of the worst abuses she witnessed and underwent had legitimate basis in the Qur'an.

I've been following a series on Hot Air called Blogging the Qur'an, by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. It details what is actually written in the Qur'an, as well as how certain passages are interpreted and practiced. Well worth the read.

Infidel

2007-08-11T09:27:00.001-05:00

I'm currently reading Infidel, a book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In a nutshell, she was born a Somali Muslim, fled to the Netherlands, and became an MP in Dutch parliament. Currently, she is living under guard in the US due to death threats. All this because she dares to tackle the tough issues of Muslim assimilation (or lack thereof) and the plight of Muslim women.

I hope to interact with several parts of this book in the near future. As a primer, check out this video I first saw at Little Green Footballs, one of my favourite blogs.

The video gives an idea of Hirsi Ali's quiet, confident disposition. It's easier to be that way when you have the facts on your side. A lesson in contrast is Avi Lewis, who needs to be loud and obnoxious to get his point across. To be clear, Lewis is Canadian, as I am. This interview - if it can be called that - is from the CBC, the Canadian equivalent of the BBC. Lewis more directly states his views than most CBC journalists - and Canadian journalists, for that matter - but he says what most of them are thinking.

It's worth hearing twice, and it's too easy to demolish Lewis's objections, especially since Hirsi Ali does it first. But here's a good analysis from Dennis Prager: Part 1 | Part 2

As with Infidel, I take issue with some of things she says, and I'll tackle those later.

Worldviews

2007-08-09T21:45:00.000-05:00

Worldviews? They're all the rage - everyone's got one. But many people won't admit it.

I will: I have a worldview. My life - how I think about things, what I do, what I say - is guided by this worldview. I am biased. I will not - I can not - claim to be neutral. Often, people or organizations (especially news organizations) claim to be unbiased and neutral. No one is; I am not, you are not. Every person acts from some conviction, from some impetus.

The common statement "I am not religious" really is a false statement. Allow me to demonstrate. I do not believe in chance. Don't let the negative construction of this sentence fool you - this is a statement of what I do believe: I believe that there is no such thing as pure chance. So when an atheist says "I don't believe in God", he is making a statement of belief: "I believe that God does not exist; I believe that life originates from _____." What he believes on this matter will affect how he thinks and inevitably, what he says and does. In this sense he is religious.

Yes, I have a worldview. I believe that the Judeo-Christian heritage from which Canada and America were established are immensely important and should be protected. I believe that government should be small and accountable. I believe that individual citizens have and must use freedom and civic duty. I can be categorized as a social conservative. This is not because I like other people who are also social conservatives; this is because I think the values of social conservatism largely mesh with my worldview. I am not tied to this label and category. I diverge from from any system of thought where its value or outworking diverges from my worldview.

I think, talk, act - and yes, write - from my worldview. It is important to acknowledge this fact right up front.

Aloud in the Street

2007-08-09T20:32:00.000-05:00

Welcome to Aloud in the Street. The name of this blog is taken from Proverbs 1:20:

Wisdom calls aloud in the street,
she raises her voice in the public squares. (NIV)

While this is blog is my humble attempt at calling aloud in the street, I make no claims to my own wisdom. There is one true wisdom:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7 NIV)

Alas, I am that fool often. That is why I do not claim that the words and thoughts I express in this blog are wisdom. That is why I need a lens through which to evaluate my ideas and others' ideas. That lens is the Truth: the Word of God, the Holy Bible.