Unions, Productivity, and the Automakers Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

(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

(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

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

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

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

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?

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...

... 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?

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

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

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

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

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.