The Great Pumpkin

The "sneering secularists"

2008-07-17T08:54:00.003-03:00

Self-professed Aussie agnostic Gerard Henderson:

The new sectarianism is quite different from the old sectarianism. Yet it is real enough. From European settlement in 1788 until about the mid 1960s, Australia was afflicted with a prevailing distrust of Catholics - many were of Irish descent - who formed the nation's largest minority. In those days sectarianism was essentially driven by Protestants.

Not any more. As the visit of Pope Benedict demonstrates, the non-Catholic Christian churches have either been welcoming to the Pope or indifferent in his presence.

Nowadays sectarianism in Western democracies is fuelled by what Michael Burleigh terms the "sneering secularists". In his book Sacred Causes Burleigh writes that "much of the European liberal elite regard religious people as if they come from Mars" except when they advance such left-liberal fashionable causes as nuclear disarmament.

The sneering secularists in our midst oppose all the Judeo-Christian beliefs. However, Catholicism cops much of the ridicule because it is universal and the strongest of the Christian faiths. In Australia the sneering secularists - a combination of proselytising atheists and Green Left Weekly reading leftists - have indicated their opposition to the Pope on the occasion of his visit to Australia for World Youth Day. Hence the formation of the NoToPope Coalition.

So far the award for the leading sneerer goes to The Age columnist Catherine Deveny. Writing on June 18, she declared: "It's official. The Catholic Church is fully sick. And so is George Pell." Apparently this was some kind of joke. She depicted World Youth Day as a "week of prayer, trust exercises and rosary bead trading". And Deveny went on to advise that, since the Pope will be celebrating Mass at Randwick racecourse, "all the Bernadettes and Gerards will be able to chill out with The Main Dude". It is inconceivable that The Age would have run a similar article mocking Islam and slagging off all the Aishas and Muhammads.

The rest.

Telling lies won't make it so.

2008-07-17T07:53:00.006-03:00

Jessica Bruno of The Hill Times concluded a recent article with the following statement:

The Supreme Court struck down Canada's abortion law as unconstitutional in 1988, stating that a woman's right to choose was paramount.

Is that a fact? Actually, it is not. And it is illustrative of why it is so difficult to discuss abortion in Canada today. Now, I do not know if Ms. Bruno honestly believes her statement to be true, or if she is purposely obfuscating in order to preserve the "pro-choice" mythology. At the very least, she can be accused of sloppy journalism.

In his July 9th article, "It's time to talk about abortion" Andrew Coyne wrote:

How did we get here? An entire generation has grown up since the Supreme Court's January 1988 ruling in Regina v. Morgentaler. Memories grow dim, and myths abound. So it will no doubt come as a shock to many to learn, not only that Canada has no abortion law to this day, but that this was never actually decided — by anyone. That's not what the Court intended. It's not what Members of Parliament voted for. It just . . . happened.
What, first, did the Court decide? Did it establish a constitutional right to abortion? Did it find that any legal restriction on abortion was a violation of women's rights? It did not. It's difficult, indeed, to say what the Court wanted with any precision: the 5-2 decision is split into no fewer than four separate judgments. But what is clear is that no member of the Court intended theirs to be the last word on the subject. It was only the law in front of them they found unconstitutional — Section 251 of the Criminal Code, the 1969 abortion law that, liberally for its time, first set out the conditions for a lawful abortion.
What the court objected to most was the provision requiring that women obtain the assent of a three-member "therapeutic abortion committee" in an "accredited" hospital that "continuation of the pregnancy would or would be likely to endanger her life or health." As a practical matter, the court found, this often put an abortion out of reach, even where a women's life or health was in danger. Many hospitals did not have a therapeutic abortion committee. Many more were not accredited for the purpose. Committees often took their time deciding, and operated without clear guidelines, notably as to how "health" was to be interpreted.
Two members of the court found this meant the law, on its face a violation of women's constitutional right to "security of the person," did not pass the test of "fundamental justice" that might otherwise have saved it. That is, the process it told women to follow to avoid running afoul of the law was too often unavailable to them. Two other judges found the same provision, with its attendant delays and disparities, put women's health needlessly at risk, and as such did more harm to their rights than was "proportional" to the good achieved — the test under the Charter's "reasonable limits" clause. But the judges were equally clear that another law might pass constitutional muster.
Parliament had a legitimate interest, they wrote, in protecting the fetus, and was "justified in requiring a reliable, independent and medically sound opinion as to the 'life or health' of the pregnant woman." The present law was overbroad, but "it is possible that a future enactment by Parliament that would require a higher degree of danger to health in the latter months of pregnancy, as opposed to the early months" would achieve a more acceptable balancing of interests.
The one judge who came closest to an absolute defence of the right to abortion was Justice Bertha Wilson, whose reliably liberal rulings, particularly in matters of women's rights, made her a feminist icon. Yet even Judge Wilson found the state had "a perfectly valid legislative objective" in seeking to protect the fetus. She agreed with the Crown that "the situation respecting a woman's right to control her own person becomes more complex when she becomes pregnant, and some statutory control may be appropriate."
Like the other judges, Judge Wilson favoured a gestational or developmental approach, one that gives greater legal weight to the fetus as "potential life" at later stages of its development. This view, she wrote "supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and a restrictive approach in the later stages. In the early stages the woman's autonomy would be absolute . . . Her reasons for having an abortion would, however, be the proper subject of inquiry at the later stages of her pregnancy when the state's compelling interest in the protection of the foetus would justify it in prescribing conditions." The precise point at which the state's interest becomes "compelling" she left "to the informed judgment of the legislature."

Why the issue of abortion is also a free speech issue

2008-07-15T22:11:00.004-03:00

Margaret Somerville:

"Political correctness operates by shutting down non-politically-correct people's freedom of speech. Anyone who challenges the politically correct stance is, thereby, automatically labelled as intolerant, a bigot or a hatemonger. The substance of their arguments against a politically correct stance is not addressed; rather people labelled as politically incorrect are, themselves, attacked as being intolerant and hateful simply for making those arguments.
"This approach is intentionally used as a strategy to suppress strong arguments against any politically correct stance and, also, to avoid needing to deal with these arguments.
"It is important to understand the strategy employed: Speaking against abortion or same-sex marriage is not characterized as speech; rather, it is characterized as a sexist act or a discriminatory act against homosexuals, respectively, and, therefore, as, in itself, a breach of human rights or even a hate crime. Consequently, it is argued that protections of freedom of speech do not apply."

The author of the Gazette article from which this is taken says, "We need the Order of Canada." I disagree. I also consider him almost charmingly naive when he states: "It is alarming to see this syndrome infect the Order of Canada. The Order should not be a microcosm of what ails this country. It should encourage the intellectual diversity that is the strength of this or any society." Oh my. Maybe Mr. Aubin didn't get the memo.

Abolish the Order of Canada - two more voices

2008-07-15T21:55:00.003-03:00

The Canadian state is not a gigantic service club that we've all joined and pledged to advance the goals of. It's a coercive organization with a territorial monopoly. We can't just up and quit if we find the state is doing something morally repugnant. Individual recipients of the Order of Canada can resign in protest if they can't tolerate being lumped in with some new recipient, but the rest of us have no such option available to make our distaste known.

- Karen Selick

Although those in the pro-abortion crowd are often flatly inconsistent in their views, this is not the reason to withhold the Order of Canada from Henry Morgentaler. Rather, the Order of Canada should be abolished, because its only purpose is to reward those who best serve the state.

- Pierre Lemieux

But what about "comedic expressions"?

2008-07-15T21:29:00.004-03:00

Catholic News Agency:

The Brazilian Senate is considering a bill approved unanimously and without debate by the country’s House of Representatives that aims to promote homosexuality and prohibit Christian teaching on the issue, under the guise of combating discrimination.
According to the Association of the Defense of Life, the bill would make it crime punishable by five years in prison to impede expressions of “homosexual affection” in public places or private places open to the public.

It would also punish those who deny employment openly homosexual teachers in schools with up to three years imprisonment, making it impossible for Catholic or Christian schools to prevent homosexuals from joining their faculties.
The bill would also impose prison sentences on any kind of moral, ethical, philosophical or psychological expression that questions homosexual practices. In this way, “a priest, a pastor, a teacher or even an average citizen who says in a sermon, a classroom or public conversation that homosexual acts are sinful, disordered or an illness could be denounced and detained,” the association said.

Maybe someone should mail the Brazilian Senators a DVD of Guy Earle and friends - under their proposed law it could be argued that Guy would have been found guilty of impeding "expressions of “homosexual affection” in public places or private places open to the public." Now how would Rio handle that conundrum?

Tales from a rocket-protected playground

2008-07-15T08:46:00.003-03:00

About 70-94% of Sderot children now show signs of PTSD - post traumatic stress disorder.

"Living with Rockets" Blog, Jerusalem Post:

The other day in Sderot, I made an astonishing observation. I was walking from the office after a long day at work to catch some sleep when I noticed I was not walking alone. Usually the city is deadly quiet once the sun sets, as parents refuse to let children play outside in the dark. Families prefer to remain at home together after a long day of siren alerts and rocket explosions.

High school kids don't ride around as much with the music blasting and teenagers don't walk around listening to their Ipods in case the 'tzeva adom', red color alert sounds. There's not much to do at night except maybe watch a movie and hope that Hamas rocket launchers decide to go to sleep, so that those us living in Sderot can relax just a little bit.

In any case tonight I actually noticed people outside on the street. For the first time since I've come to work in Sderot in over a year, I am seeing moms walking around with their strollers and neighbors playing cards outside on the porch.

A playground is full of kids shouting and playing -- that is one sight that makes me do a double take. Playgrounds are pretty much empty here in Sderot.

Then I realized that this is the new playground that everyone is talking about -- the first playground in the world that is properly protected from rocket fire. How? There are heavy concrete tubes that kids can run to when the siren sounds for protection. Moms are finally feeling that it is safe enough to let their kids play at a playground. The kids look like they are having fun, what an ingenious idea.

I spoke to Orna Cohen, a local Sderot mom, who's pretty happy with the playground. "I can finally let my grandkids outside to play in this new playground, when they come to visit me in Sderot," says Orna. "Usually I have to keep them pent up inside the house. It's nice to have a playground like this where the kids can play somewhat at peace, but it's obviously not a solution to living with the rocket fire."

"I just want the rockets to stop for good so that we don't have to live for these little moments of quiet that are followed by terrible barrages of Kassams," says Orna.

In any case, the children of Sderot definitely deserve some kind of break. About 70-94% of Sderot children now show signs of PTSD - post traumatic stress disorder.

The rest.

He's not going to be shot at dawn - get over it.

2008-07-15T08:01:00.004-03:00

Repeat after me, "I am a grownup and take responsibility for my actions and the consequences thereof..."

U.S. army deserter Robin Long is slated to be deported back to his army base in Fort Knox, Ky., Tuesday, which would make him the first resister to the U.S. war effort in Iraq to be sent out of Canada.
Madam Justice Anne Mactavish of the Federal Court of Canada cleared the way for the deportation late Monday, dismissing a last-ditch attempt to delay the process while the 25-year-old pursued further appeals.

“I was just shocked at some things in [the] ruling,” Bob Ages, a spokesman for an informal group called Vancouver War Resisters Support Campaign, told reporters outside the courtroom. “It just flies in the face of everything that we and every Canadian know about the reality of what is going on.”

Mr. Ages said the court misunderstood the situation facing Mr. Long upon his return.
“I do not think there is any doubt someone being up in Canada, and a vocal opponent to the war, will be treated harshly by the American military … there is no question he will be court-martialed and will receive severe punishment.”
Mr. Long's deportation would be a “terrible precedent for Canada, especially given our history of providing sanctuary for war resisters, over 100,000 draft dodgers and deserters during the Vietnam era,” he said earlier to reporters.

The rest of the sob-story. (And may there be many more.)

(via Drudge)

Durban II: Trashing human rights

2008-07-14T21:43:00.003-03:00

For its leader's denial of the Holocaust and repeated calls for the destruction of Israel, Iran has also been granted a leading position on the commission.

US Rep. Ed Royce:

Seven years ago, the United Nations held a conference on racism in Durban, South Africa to address what some saw as growing trends in hate speech and discrimination. Lofty ideals aside, the conference quickly collapsed into an anti-American, anti-Israeli spectacle. As then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat delivered rants on the conspiratorial and racist goals of Israel, others handed out flyers celebrating Adolf Hitler. Having had enough, the United States rightly walked out in protest.

Today, the United Nations is gearing up for a Durban follow-up set for 2009. Like the first conference, "Durban II" would be funded through the regular U.N. budget, 22 percent of which comes from the American taxpayer. In a symbolic gesture, the United States withheld equivalent funds from the U.N. budget, and voted against its final passage.

Regardless, Durban II will proceed, and the prospects for it taking a 180-degree turn are not good. Like the first Durban conference, some of the worst human-rights violators will serve on Durban II's panel. Participating members were selected by the gravely disappointing U.N. Commission on Human Rights - the same commission that has passed light condemnations of the regimes in Burma and Sudan. Its passion is democratic Israel, which has been condemned 15 times over the past two years.

Chairing Durban II will be Libya, whose U.N. ambassador called Israel "the most terrorist regime in the world," and whose deputy likened the situation in Gaza to the Nazi concentration camps. For its leader's denial of the Holocaust and repeated calls for the destruction of Israel, Iran has also been granted a leading position on the commission. In a supporting role will be Pakistan and Egypt - each strong critics of Israel. While we can expect the same denunciations of Israel and the United States that we saw in 2001, Durban II may prove to be even more harmful.
...
Freedom of speech is already being chipped away, even in liberal Canada. Take for example the case of noted political writer Mark Steyn, who is on trial before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for violating a hate-speech law. What grievous crime did Mr. Steyn allegedly commit? Having excerpts of his best-selling book "America Alone" published in MacLean's, a prominent Canadian magazine. The Canadian Islamic Congress took offense at sections of his work, calling it "flagrantly Islamophobic." If the OIC has its way, publishing works such as Mr. Steyn's, or drawing cartoons of Mohammed, will be strictly forbidden. Durban II may be just another stepping stone towards attaining that goal.

Read the whole thing.

A tale of two hostages

2008-07-13T21:23:00.005-03:00

Caroline Glick:

Exalting at her liberation by the Colombian military last week, former hostage Ingrid Betancourt exclaimed, "This is a miracle, a miracle! We have an amazing military. I think only the Israelis can possibly pull off something like this."

Betancourt's statement made thousands of Israelis wince.
Held hostage in the Colombian jungles for six years by the narco-terror group known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, Betancourt, a dual Colombian-French citizen who was a Colombian senator and presidential candidate at the time she was abducted, obviously had not heard the news about the "new Israel."
Her statements were based on her memories of the "old Israel." She didn't know that the "new Israel" doesn't fight terrorists. The "new Israel" views fighting terrorists as an exercise in futility. Its leaders and military chiefs alike repeat endlessly the mantra that there is no military victory to be had, only a political accommodation.
She didn't know that the week before she was rescued, the "new Israel" made a deal with Hizbullah to release five senior Lebanese terrorists, an unknown number of Palestinian terrorists and hundreds of bodies of dead terrorists in exchange for the bodies of IDF reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, who were murdered by Hizbullah two years ago.
The "new Israel" is the Israel that maintains one-sided "cease-fires" with Hamas and is poised to make a deal with Hamas by which it will release up to a thousand Palestinian terrorists in exchange for IDF hostage Gilad Schalit.

No, Betancourt, was thinking of the "old Israel" - the Israel that electrified the world when it sent its commandos thousands of kilometers to free its hostages in Entebbe 32 years ago. It was that memory of Israeli heroism that doubtless gave hope to Betancourt and her fellow hostages as they languished in FARC captivity in the jungle, malnourished, ill-treated and terrorized. The Entebbe rescue allowed them to fantasize that one day, they too would be rescued and their tormentors would be brought to justice. And last week, their dreams came true.

The rest.

What struck me pertaining to Canada was this: for Betancourt "it was freedom, not life, that she held most sacred." If it were freedom, and not 'creature comforts' that we held most sacred, our country wouldn't be in the mess it's in. (Not to mention mistaking license for freedom - it's a cheap counterfeit.)

And... recent posts not picked up by the BT aggregator, which seems to have been down for a while:

The soft jihad continues...

Obscene grades

Okay, I'll concur with the "mental instability" part

"Abort this award"

Why Milton Friedman is worth 10,000 humanities professors

Why Milton Friedman is worth 10,000 humanities professors

2008-07-12T23:25:00.002-03:00

Quote of the day:

I wish some genius would contrive a system whereby Professor Lincoln and his high-minded peers could live under the economic system they say they favor, leaving the rest of us to enjoy the fruits of an economic system that actually works.

- Roger Kimball

"Abort this award"

2008-07-12T16:06:00.003-03:00

Michael Coren:

I arrived home from the United Kingdom to a thousand e-mails, a quarter of which ask me why I'm not writing about Henry Morgentaler receiving the Order of Canada.
Because, of course, he is unknown in Britain. As he should be unknown in Canada. But it's only good, noble doctors who are unknown; it's the other kind who tend to become notorious.
The arguments as to why the man should not be given such an honour and why the award itself has now been devalued to the point of being meaningless are surely self evident. As for the arguments against abortion, they are equally obvious to those with the courage to think outside of the politically correct box.
The unborn child is unique from the point of conception, with its own DNA and a genomic character that is entirely separate from any other person. A woman has the choice to do whatever she wants with a tuft of hair or an appendix, but not with a distinct person within her. The unborn child cannot survive outside of the womb, but then a fully developed newborn child similarly will die if left without care.
The word "fetus" merely means "young child" and, anyway, after three months of growth nothing new develops. At nine months the unborn child is more mature, but then a five-year-old is more mature than a two-year-old. We know instinctively that this is a child, witnessed by how we would react if we saw an obviously pregnant woman smoking or drinking. We've been programmed to think differently if we see a pregnant woman opting to end the life of her powerless child.
...

But before legal abortion, the pro-abort people say, enormous numbers of women died in backstreet procedures. Actually this is mostly propaganda. Of course such horrors occurred, but there are no reliable figures and informed sources dismiss most of these claims as nonsense.
We do, however, know just how many babies now die in front street abortions.
Even if true, they continue, only women have a right to an opinion on this issue. No. Men are fathers, men are taxpayers, men are citizens. Men also are abortionists. But surely it is the nature and quality of the argument rather than the gender of the individual that should inform our position.
Gender bias does, however, lead to far more baby girls being aborted than baby boys. Rather a bitter paradox for feminist ideology.
The Order of Canada was supposed to be a public recognition of service and devotion to Canada.
In recent years it has become a way for the liberal elites to reward their friends and those activists whose politics they support.
So in a grotesque paradox perhaps Morgentaler really does deserve the thing. Future recipients are advised to wipe the blood off first.

The rest.

Okay, I'll concur with the "mental instability" part

2008-07-12T15:42:00.003-03:00

A homosexual man upset by biblical verses condemning homosexuality as a sin has decided - in lieu of suing God or claiming damages from the Holy Spirit - instead to go after two Christian publishers for their versions of the Bible, which he says violate his constitutional rights and have caused him emotional pain and mental instability.
Bradley LaShawn Fowler of Canton, Michigan filed a suit in US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on July 7 against Zondervan Publishing House Corp. seeking $60 million. Fowler also filed another suit earlier in June seeking $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing, based in Nashville, Tennessee.

Fowler is representing himself in both cases. U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. declined Fowler's request for a court-appointed attorney to represent him in the Thomas Nelson case, saying, "The Court has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims."

Fowler, 39, blames references to homosexuality as a sin in Zondervan's Bible for his poor relationship with his family, his own periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment," and even the death of homosexual Matthew Shepard. Shepard was brutally murdered in 1998 in a crime that was widely reported as being motivated by Shepard's homosexuality, although a 2004 ABC report has since offered evidence disputing that claim.

Fowler said he was raised with a religious background that taught him homosexuality was a sinful lifestyle.

"That's why I was completely distraught after discovering the term - homosexual - was added to the bible, in 1982, and then removed, in 1994 without any consideration to the many victims who committed suicide or were murdered because of their sexual preference of homosexuality," he writes on his blog "Bradley-Almighty."

The rest.

Obscene grades

2008-07-12T12:14:00.003-03:00

Theodore Dalrymple:

The head examiner of a British school-examination board, Peter Buckroyd, whose examinations are taken by 780,000 children, recently explained to teachers why a pupil who answered the question, “Describe the room you’re in,” with “Fuck off”—an actual case, apparently—should receive a grade of 7.5 percent rather than a grade of zero. Indeed, Buckroyd went so far as to say that “it would be wicked to give it zero because it does show some very basic skills we are looking for.”

The rest.

The soft jihad continues...

2008-07-12T09:55:00.005-03:00

Via NeoConstant - Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs (h/t Blazing Cat Fur):

Harry’s Place, a UK blog dedicated to promoting the ideals of freedom and democracy, is being sued by Mohammed Sawalha, the President of the British Muslim Initiative, which has been linked to Hamas and the Islamic Brotherhood, both terrorist organizations. The blog reports that Mr. Sawalha, according to the BBC…

“master minded much of Hamas’ political and military strategy” and in London “is alleged to have directed funds, both for Hamas’ armed wing, and for spreading its missionary dawah”.

In their revelation of the impending lawsuit against them leveled by Mohammed Sawalha, they write:

Mr Sawalha claims that we have “chosen a malevolent interpretation of a meaningless word”. In fact, we did no more than translate a phrase which appeared in an Al Jazeera report of Mr Sawalha’s speech. When Al Jazeera changed that phrase from “Evil Jew” to “Jewish Lobby”, we reported that fact, along with the statement that it had been a typographical error.

Mr Sawalha has been the prime mover in a number of Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood associated projects. He is President of the British Muslim Initiative. He is the past President of the Muslim Association of Britain. He was the founder of IslamExpo, and is registered as the holder of the IslamExpo domain name. He is also a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque….

…Mr Sawalha says that the attribution of the phrase “Evil Jew” to him implies that he is “anti-semitic and hateful”. Notably, he does not take issue with our reporting of the revelation, made in a Panorama documentary in 2006, that he is a senior activist in the clerical fascist terrorist organisation, Hamas.

It looks like Harry’s Place is going up against some pretty top-notch lawyers on this one, and they’ve got guts, but as the post goes on to say:

If Mr Sawalha persists in attempting to silence us with this desperate legal suit, we will need your help.

We won’t be able to stand up to them alone.

This is why we’ve started this blogburst, to get the word out that we won’t let members of Hamas or any radical terrorist group censor us or any of our fellow bloggers.

If you’d like to add your site to the blogroll, simply email us at admin@neoconstant.com, and include your site’s URL.

Then copy and paste this entry into one of your posts. Future posts will be emailed to you. Thanks, and don’t forget to head over to Harry’s Place to show your support of their freedom of speech!

WE SUPPORT HARRY’S PLACE

A Deeper Look
A Defending Crusader
American Power
An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
Atlas Shrugs
Barbara's TCHATZKAHS
birdbrain
Blatherings
Blazing Cat Fur
Blogging for a free world
But, I Am a Liberal!
ChristmasGhost
Covenant Zone
Daimnation!
Dodgeblogium
EuropeNews
Fausta's blog
Five Feet of Fury
Freedom's Cost
Gates of Vienna
Gentile Warrior
Harry's Place
Instapundit
Klein Verzet
My Two Cents Worth
NeoConstant
No Sheeples Here
Not Ready for my Burqua
Novus Ordo Seclorum
Obi's Sister
Public Secrets
QuickRob
Sara'ts Pad, Home of the Panther
She Who Will Be Obeyed!
Shooting Star
Stubble Jumping Redneck
TexasFred
The Amboy Times
The Daily Bayonet
The Macho Response
Villagers with Torches

Technorati Tags: blogburst, censorship, hamas uk, harry's place, Islamic Terror, radical islam, soft jihad, support Harry's place, support harry's place blogburst, UK politics

Related articles...
Why Harry’s Place Deserves Our Support
Muslims can earn goodwill by helping to stop the crescent plot
Time to Strike
Sweet Nothings
In Support of 42 Days

Mr. Harper: Do we really have religious freedom in Canada?

2008-07-11T11:01:00.003-03:00

Brian F. Hubka in a letter to the editor in the Calgary Herald:

Re: "Largest mosque in Canada opened," July 6.
At the dedication of the Baitun Nur mosque on Saturday, I heard Prime Minister Stephen Harper stress the importance of freedom of religion in Canada. He noted that the Ahmadi community had known persecution elsewhere, but that had found freedom in Canada. Why had they been persecuted? Because their version of Islam had been deemed unorthodox.
In this country, people are being persecuted by human rights commissions for allegedly contravening orthodoxy regarding homosexuality and other matters. The religious freedom in Canada, which the prime minister seemed to speak of as an established fact, does not appear to be so firmly established, after all.

[source]

"Is 'settling' for a non-decision any way for a democracy to behave?"

2008-07-10T20:22:00.004-03:00

This ad is currently banned in several Canadian cities.

Andrew Coyne:

This is not about abortion. This is about democracy.
It is about how we decide things, and by what rules, and how we treat each other when we disagree. Indeed, it is about whether we are allowed to disagree; whether dissent on a contentious issue is respected, or even recognized; and whether, in the face of clear evidence over many years that an issue is not settled — that it was never settled — a democracy should be allowed at last to debate and decide it. Like a democracy.
The furor over Henry Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada, on the other hand, now that is about abortion. There may be some who object out of a disinterested concern for fairness, on the principle that an honour bestowed on behalf of all of the people of Canada should not be given to a man whose life's work is, still, so profoundly upsetting to so many Canadians. But for most people, it's about abortion. In honouring him, we are honouring it, normalizing it, stamping it with the seal of approval.
Or rather not abortion, as such, but the legal void that surrounds it, which Morgentaler did so much to bring about: the extraordinary fact that, 20 years after the Supreme Court ruling that bears his name, this country still has no abortion law of any kind. It isn't that abortion — at any stage of a pregnancy, for any reason, and at public expense — is lawful in Canada. It is merely not unlawful. When it comes to abortion, we are literally a lawless society: the only country in the developed world that does not regulate the practice in any way.
Perhaps the members of the Order's advisory council thought the continuance of this legal void, after so many years, signalled a consensus had formed in its favour. Perhaps they thought, by naming Morgentaler, they could impress one upon the country. Either way, the decision was revealing — as was the reaction. The letters pages of the country's newspapers were filled for days with passionate denunciations. Members of Parliament spoke out against it by the dozen. Several members of the Order returned their pins.
One had the distinct impression of a dam bursting. For the better part of two decades, Canadians who confess a desire for some sort of legal limits, however mild, on abortion, have been effectively silenced. They have been told that the issue is settled, that it was decided long ago, that a consensus had formed. Or else they were told it is too divisive a subject, sometimes by the same people who told them it was settled.

The rest.

"Between a rock and the hardest of places"

2008-07-10T19:53:00.003-03:00

Melanie Phillips:

The Iranian dance of death continues as time progressively runs out. Iran upped the ante today for the second day running by test-firing missiles capable of hitting not just Israel but southern Europe -- having apparently doctored the pictures of yesterday’s firing to conceal the fact that one of its missiles didn’t work (the picture above showing the photoshopping of this image is from Little Green Footballs). Israel has responded by warning it will strike Iran if it feels directly threatened and has shown off a spyplane that it says can spy on Iran. Condi Rice says America will protect its allies if Iran attacks them. Really? How? At what stage? After Tel Aviv lies in flames?
There are faint noises off from both presidential candidates. McCain says tougher sanctions are needed. Obama says more talking is needed. Every time he says this – not to mention the fact that if this man becomes US President American military power will almost certainly be neutralised – Iran draws greater strength. We’ve been talking to Iran and imposing sanctions on it for years and all that’s happened is that we have given it the one thing it needs above all else – time to build its nuclear weapons.

The fact is that even now, with some experts believing that Iran will go nuclear in under a year, this situation is still not being taken seriously. Earlier this week, it was reported that American exports to Iran actually rose more than tenfold under President Bush. So much for sanctions. The decision by the French oil company Total to postpone plans to invest in an Iranian gas project is a rare exception to the rule that nothing, not even threatened genocide, can be allowed to get in the way of making money.

War must only ever be a last resort, but on Iran the west has signally failed to take all the necessary intermediate steps that might have defanged it and thus prevent war. Indeed, even though Iran has been at war with us since 1979, attacking western interests and killing our troops in Iraq, the west has studiously refused to fight back and pretended instead that war with Iran is something that can be avoided. The fact is that Iran is waging war upon us, but we are simply refusing to defend ourselves. Far from not talking to Iran, we still have embassies and ambassadors and diplomatic contacts (and who knows what has been smuggled into the west through Iranian diplomatic bags?) even while it is blowing up coalition troops by roadside bombs. Far from treating Iran as a genocidal belligerent, we have repeatedly prostrated ourselves before it. The EU has humiliated itself by offering Iran inducements to stop enriching uranium. Why on earth should it do so, when the mere prospect that it will get nuclear weapons already has the world grovelling at its feet?

The rest.

The poseur Gravel: he does not speak in our name.

2008-07-10T14:11:00.004-03:00

Father Raymond J. de Souza:

Op-ed submissions regularly arrive at an editor's desk that, based on the merits of the arguments contained, would never see the light of day. Yet there are occasions when crackpottery is newsworthy in itself--not for the crackpot's argument, but for his identity.

That surely was the case last week in regard to the astonishing Mohamed Elmasry, who devotes his time to embarrassing his fellow Muslim Canadians in his role as president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. The Montreal Gazette provided the space in which Mr. Elmasry took up the defence of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, a man so isolated that even his fellow African dictators have distanced themselves from him. If he did not represent himself as Canada's head professional Muslim, Mr. Elmasry's celebration of Mr. Mugabe would have been too incredible to print. Indeed, Mr. Elmasry should look into filing a human rights complaint against the Gazette for publishing his column, which will certainly expose him to contempt and ridicule.

Canada's Muslims are sensible enough to find a way to confine Mr. Elmasry to the attic in due course, so I will leave him to them. We Catholics have a similar problem on our hands in one Raymond Gravel, the rookie MP for Repentigny, just outside of Montreal. He appeared in La Presse on Tuesday commenting on the Morgentaler business, marvelling at how one and the same man could be considered "the greatest humanist of the 20th century" and a "notorious criminal and assassin of children."

The rest.

UPDATE: Edward Michael George: Intellectual dishonesty or intellectual deficiency?

Sir John Marks Templeton - Requiescat in pace.

2008-07-10T12:36:00.004-03:00

Rev. Robert A. Sirico:

In 1990, I had no idea who the tall, elegant man, waiting patiently next to me in line to check out of our hotel in Antigua, Guatemala was. He turned his kindly glance in my direction and said, "Father, I deeply appreciated your speech at the conference yesterday. It is a relatively rare experience to meet a clergyman who understands economics." I thanked him and agreed, adding that I was just having some conversations with a colleague to initiate a project to remedy the problem. As he was called up to the check out desk, he turned back and said, "If you get something off the ground, please let me know if I can be of help. My name is John Templeton."

And so it was with great sadness that I learned today, some 18 years later, of the passing from this life of one of the twentieth-century's great stalwarts in the struggle for faith and liberty. Rising from a humble background in Tennessee, John Templeton graduated from Yale and Oxford universities, the latter of which he attended as a Rhodes Scholar. He went on to become one of the most-successful investors of his generation, creating wealth and generating employment for thousands of individuals. Today the very name "Templeton" remains a byword for entrepreneurship, prudent risk-taking, integrity, and innovation in the financial industry in America and around the world.

If Sir John had limited his creativity to financial innovation, he would already merit a significant mention in the history of free enterprise and free markets. But he was never content with the status quo, be it in the world of business or the life of the mind. While building one of the world's most notable investment firms, Templeton Growth Ltd, Sir John grew profoundly interested in philanthropy. In 1987, he created the John Templeton Foundation, which has since gone on to replicate Sir John's astonishing financial success in the philanthropic realm. The Templeton Foundation is one of the world's most prominent, creative, and innovative philanthropic organizations. Its interests are truly universal, ranging from sustaining on-going conversations about life's big questions to opening people's minds to the unique ability of business and free markets to alleviate poverty in a faster, more humane manner than any comparable economic system. It is a foundation made very much in Sir John's image. In 2007, Sir John was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People under the category of "Power Givers."

The rest.

Twisted reasoning

2008-07-10T07:08:00.004-03:00

An anonymous commenter on my previous post asked:

What do you call it when women use abortion as a birth control.??I think murder will do.

This type of ill-informed reasoning is deserving of its own post.

There appear to be at least two questions underlying this comment: "Is abortion murder?" and "Are women guilty of murder when they procure an abortion?" (I will also address a possible third question that may be lurking if this type of question is merely baiting by a supporter of abortion.)

First question: Is abortion murder? Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, so under this definition, given the humanity of the unborn child, yes, abortion is murder. But as Dr. Stephen Schwarz points out in his book, The Moral Question of Abortion,

[I]it is important to distinguish clearly between murder as applying to actions, and as applying to persons, making them guilty, or murderers. Thus, to say that abortion is murder is to classify the action of killing an innocent preborn child as murder, it does not make a judgment about the personal guilt on the part of the woman, the doctor, and those who assist. In saying, quite generally, that A's killing of B is murder, the action is characterized as murder - as opposed to justified killing (e.g., self-defense), or unjustified killing, which is nonetheless not murder (e.g., a soldier who kills in an unjust war). In characterizing the action as murder, the question remains whether the moral guilt of the agent is that of a murderer. It may or may not be, due to extenuating circumstances. A person who is terribly frightened may shoot someone in desperation. The act is murder, the person is less guilty than someone who kills intentionally without being frightened. Thus, two people may perform what is morally the same act (e.g., killing someone to get him out of the way), but one is more guilty than the other. The first may realize with full clarity the wrongness of the action; the second may be in a confused state of mind, half realizing it is wrong, half trying to justify to himself that it is right, or not so bad. The first may act entirely on his own initiative; the second may be under strong pressure to do the killing. Clearly such differences among agents are to be found in the practice of abortion. Therefore, to say that abortion is murder is to say that the action of killing a child in the womb is murder, just as any other intentional killing of an innocent person is murder.

More specifically,

Does a woman who has an abortion commit murder? Some women are literally coerced into their abortions and are of course entirely innocent of murder. Some women decide voluntarily and then later deeply regret their abortions, exclaiming in some cases, "I have murdered my baby!."15 They feel they have committed murder. The action is murder; were they guilty as persons? There are many factors that can mitigate or remove guilt, such as ignorance of what abortion is and altruistic motives; for example, "I would rather abort than cause my parents shame." To a large extent, women are the second victims of abortion, often pressured into it by others, wanting to keep their babies but agreeing to an abortion only because they see no realistic alternative.16

It's also important to distinguish whether or not one is talking about 'murder' in the legal or moral sense:

Whether a given act of intentionally killing an innocent person is legally murder or not depends of course on the status of the law. Where such killing is allowed under the law it is, of course, not murder in the legal sense. Thus the Nazi extermination process was not legally murder, but it was obviously murder in the sense that is really important, the moral sense. The Nazi extermination program was the mass killing of innocent persons who could not defend themselves, who were in some respects different or seen as different, in order to get them out of the way - a perfect description of abortion today.

That something is allowed by law, or even mandated by it, does not settle the moral question. Intentionally killing an innocent person, at whatever age, and in whatever location is morally an act of murder. No law can alter that fact.

A common tactic of abortion supporters is to then make the (erroneous) argument that any laws restricting abortion will make criminals out of the women who seek them &/or that in order to be consistent, pro-lifers who state that abortion is murder must criminalize such women. As Matthew Franck points out at this NRO Symposium in response to Anna Quindlen's variation on this "gotcha", this is an example of "the fallacy of complex question — treating a compound question as though it were simple." I like Dorinda Bordlee's response:

“How much jail time?” is a contrived question that is both deceptive and desperate. It is deceptive because it ignores the fact that the American pro-life movement has consistently considered the woman as the second victim of abortion. The abortion ban enacted in South Dakota, as well as the abortion bans with post-Roe activation clauses enacted in recently in Louisiana and several other states, explicitly state: “Nothing in this section may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.”

The question “How much jail time?” is also a desperate attempt to distract the public from what they have learned about the crime against humanity known as partial-birth abortion, in which a child’s brain are suctioned out while only inches from complete birth, and about the most common methods of abortion, which involve ripping the unborn child from the womb piece by piece.

A more appropriate question is: How much jail time we should impose on abortion providers who financially benefit from the plight of women who are abandoned by those who should be caring for them and their unborn children? How much jail time is appropriate for abortionists who expose women to startling increased risks of breast cancer, problems with future pregnancies, and a three to six times increased risk of suicide? How much jail time for the destroying the lives of countless women and children?

Others look at the question from a different perspective:

The crucial legal goal of the pro-life movement is not any particular set of punishments. It is that unborn children be protected in law. We could, for example, eventually secure laws that prohibited most abortions, that removed the medical licenses of doctors who committed illegal abortions, and that imposed fines on people who committed them without medical licenses. If that legal regime sufficed to protect unborn children, there would be no need to go further.

— Ramesh Ponnuru, author of The Party of Death.

I'll leave you with one other perspective from writer, Frederica Mathewes-Green:

The goal of abortion laws is to stop abortion. And the person to stop is not the woman, who may have only one abortion in her life, but the doctor who thinks it a good idea to sit on a stool all day aborting babies. End the abortion business and you end abortion. The suggestion that it’s necessary to punish post-abortion women reveals a taste for vengeance.

Post-abortion women often make the decision in anguish or under compulsion. When I was researching my book, Real Choices: Listening to Women, Looking for Alternatives to Abortion, two of the women I interviewed told me that while they were lying on the clinic table they were praying that the boyfriend would burst through the doors and say “Stop, I changed my mind.” Women don’t need punishment. They need compassion and support in processing what was a miserable and possibly coerced decision.

Both sides agree that women don’t want to have abortions. And if women are doing something 3,000 times a day that they don’t want to do, what so-called “abortion rights” has won us is not liberation.

My father once told me, "Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

2008-07-09T21:09:00.010-03:00

Well, actually, his advice was phrased a little more colourfully (and involved a skunk) but the same principle applies. Today, when I returned from the beach, I found the following comment waiting for me from an individual calling himself "Alpha Male":

Sorry hunny, I know you are mentally retarded (only way that the fact that abortion does not equal murder, can be explained)... So, next time I will take it easy on you.

I hate it when facts get in the way of what could otherwise be an entertaining conversation... Since you can not accept the facts, no need to bother.

You'll find this comment in the thread to this post: Humpty Dumpty's Canada. Said comment led to an interesting family discussion about the various kinds of ad hominem fallacies, and what the type of fallacy used actually reveals about the person using it. My 13-year-old daughter, who had been studying logical fallacies in school this past year (yes, she attends a private school), was rather astounded that someone would consider the above comment (and the same author's previous ones) "arguments." Which led to my bringing up, by means of contrast, this interesting conversation going on over at Seraphic Single's place. Colby Cosh's response to Seraphic's post was polite, respectful and on-topic, as were those of the other commenters. I especially liked Cosh's gracious closing sentence: "Thanks for writing--you've given me a lot to think about."

I've not, until now, felt the need to moderate comments, despite having previously hosted my fair share of hotly debated topics. However, in the interest of promoting real dialogue and debate, I've decided to take a page from Seraphic, Ezra Levant, Deborah Guyapong, and other bloggers I admire - comment moderation is now 'on.' However, as always, I welcome dissenting opinions. As "The Blogger's Guide to Comment Etiquette" puts it - "most bloggers welcome dissenting opinions on their blogs as long as the debate remains civil and respectful. Speak from your point of view and don’t treat others as though they are idiots because they don’t agree with you." I'm just sorry that this even had to be said.

UPDATE: Seraphic has her say at the National Post.

"Suppose they held a G-8 summit and nobody came?"

2008-07-09T14:20:00.003-03:00

David Warren:

Governments can appropriate wealth, but the notion that they can somehow create it, or even reapportion it with any degree of foresight, is one of the great stupid ideas.

Journalists -- attracted to power as the moth to the flame -- are especially susceptible to the illusion that politicians have the ability to fix things; and to the converse, equally superstitious idea, that their failure to fix connotes a bad will.

Should there be drought, the shaman commands rain. But it is not his fault if the rain does not fall. He surely wants it to fall.

Of course, eventually the rain does fall, whenupon the shaman takes the credit. But until it does, he is put to the trouble of identifying and demonizing all the mysterious forces that subvert the efficacy of his spells; and to finding the scapegoats who must atone for the rain’s failure. And if the rain takes a long time to fall, there must necessarily be a lot of scapegoats. For it’s no life being an ex-shaman.

Getting back to Toyako, Hokkaido -- the pretty little town now trampled under vast G8 entourages, plus those of 15 other sovereign nations, 10 major international organizations, and the usual welter of NGOs -- come to feed at the great portable trough, which dispenses billions.

In addition to the world food crisis, and the world oil crisis, our astral lords are tackling the perpetual African crisis, and most urgently, the imaginary global warming crisis -- which, unlike the real crises, seems to offer unlimited scope for the expansion of government bureaucracy -- which will in turn enhance the food, oil, and African crises. Notwithstanding, the climate crisis is already suffering its own crisis, as the planet’s average temperature continues to ignore predictions and fall, and the race is on to get new bureaucracies in place before the credibility of “global warming” itself collapses irretrievably.

The rest.

And as the BT aggregator didn't pick up my last two posts, here they are:

Obama Inviolate: "I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion."

"Abortion: a woman's right to capitulate."

"Abortion: a woman's right to capitulate."

2008-07-08T20:02:00.003-03:00

Frederica Mathewes-Green:

When I was in college the bumper sticker on my car read "Don't labor under a misconception--legalize abortion." I was one of a handful of feminists on my campus, back in the days when we were jeered at as "bra-burning women's libbers." As we struggled against a hazy sea of sexism, abortion rights was a visible banner, a concrete, measurable goal. Though our other foes were elusive, within the fragile boundary of our skin, at least, we would be sovereign. What could be more personal than our reproductive lives? How could any woman oppose it? I oppose it now. It has been a slow process, my path from a pro-choice to a pro-life position, and I know that an unintended pregnancy raises devastating problems. But I can no longer avoid the realization that legalizing abortion was the wrong solution; we have let in a Trojan Horse whose hidden betrayal we've just begun to see.

A woman with an unplanned pregnancy faces more than "inconvenience"; many adversities, financial and social, at school, at work, and at home confront her. Our mistake was in looking at these problems and deciding that the fault lay with the woman, that she should be the one to change. We focused on her swelling belly, not the discrimination that had made her so desperate. We advised her, "Go have this operation and you will fit right in."

What a choice we made for her. She climbs onto a clinic table and endures a violation deeper than rape--the nurse's hand is wet with her tears-- then is grateful to pay for it, grateful to be adapted to the social machine that rejected her when pregnant. And the machine grinds on, rejecting her pregnant sisters.

It is a cruel joke to call this a woman's "choice." We may choose to sacrifice our life and career plans, or choose to undergo humiliating invasive surgery and sacrifice our offspring. How fortunate we are--we have a choice! Perhaps it's time to amend the slogan--"Abortion: a woman's right to capitulate."

The rest.

Obama Inviolate: "I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion."

2008-07-07T18:25:00.002-03:00

Deal Hudson:

A few days ago, Sen. Barack Obama was asked to clarify his position on late-term abortion by Cameron Strang of Relevant magazine. The senator used this as an opportunity to deny the "email rumors floating around that somehow I'm unwilling to see doctors offer life-giving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion."

Obama's answer is quoted at length in a July 4 e-mail sent by Mark Linton, National Catholic Outreach leader of Obama for America. Linton's e-mail contains my July 2 column titled "Obama and Infanticide," with a series of purported "TRUTH" comments attached.

I am, indeed, one source of the rumor that Senator Obama calls "just false," but Jill Stanek and Terry Jeffreys have been writing about this for many months, and Bill Donohue has devoted a section of the Catholic League Web site to Obama and infanticide. As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) three years running in committee, voting "no" on it twice and "present" once. It shouldn't be any great mystery to him, or anyone, how such a "rumor" got started.

The rest.

Humpty Dumpty's Canada

2008-07-04T22:56:00.010-03:00

Here's the Policy and Procedure for Termination of Appointment to the Order Of Canada.

I found this part rather interesting:

3. The Advisory Council shall consider the termination of a person's appointment to the Order of Canada if

(a) the person has been convicted of a criminal offence; or

(b) the conduct of the person

(i) constitutes a significant departure from generally-recognized standards of public behaviour which is seen to undermine the credibility, integrity or relevance of the Order, or detracts from the original grounds upon which the appointment was based; or

(ii) has been subject to official sanction, such as a fine or a reprimand, by an adjudicating body, professional association or other organization.

Of course, there's nothing to see here about Henry on those counts - move along, serfs...

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There