After Section 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And So It Begins

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

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.

CBC Neutral on Obama

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

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.

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!

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.