Chuck Jones, inventor of Bugs Bunny and Marvin the Martian
Ted Williams, Splendid Splinter
Abba Eban, diplomat extraordinaire
Johnny Unitas, quarterback Baltimore Colts
Thor Heyerdahl, romantic explorer
Pim Fortuyn, who saw it coming
Chaim Potok, wonderful novelist
Astrid Lindgren, creator of Pippi Longstocking
Dudley Moore, comic genius before he went to Hollywood
Alan Lomax, musicologist
Derek Bell, Chieftains’ harpist
Dave Berg, Mad Magazine cartoonist
Yousuf Karsh, world’s best portrait photographer
Leo McKern, Rumpole
Spike Milligan, Goon Show founder, author of “Puckoon”
John Thaw, Inspector Morse
Uzi Gal, inventor of fold-away submachine gun
Timoth Findley, tiresome CanLit factory
Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes, arsonist
Paul Wellstone, Minnesota Senator
Stephen Jay Gould, self-worshiping Darwinist
Milton Berle, popularizer of vulgarity and television
Philip Berrigan, tedious Jesuit
John Gotti and Joe Bonanno, Mafia thugs
Jonas Savimbi, rebel thug
Ivan Illich, counter-culture guru
Jam Master Jay, Run-DMC
Jean-Paul Riopelle, over-rated dauber
Gen. Choi Hong Hi, tae kwon do founder
Harry Hay, gay pagan Communist activist
Ann Landers, busy-body to the nation
Count down to the New Year with the amazing and industrious manual clock.
"Do the language laws in Quebec really require the hiring of a mime who doesn't speak French rather than a mime who doesn't speak English?"
-- Calvin Trillin
Clio has made the interesting conjecture that she and I might be NeoCons. I have read the article in question and, while it is true that I can recognize some areas of congruence, I believe I am something else. As much as I respect the fine work done by so-called conservatives south of the 49th, I have to bear in mind that their ancestors did a very bad thing in 1776 when they began the rebellion to tear themselves from the bosom of the greatest civilization in the history of mankind, the British Empire. Had they remained loyal a few more decades, political evolution would have produced a transatlantic English-speaking super-nation that would have kept Europe in check (no Napoleons, Bolsheviks, Nazis or postmodernists), abolished barbarity around the globe more completely and be, even now, colonizing the outer planets.
No, I cannot look to a nation of republicans and rebels for inspiration. I must look instead to the Canadian beaver (Castor canadensis) -- industrious, creative and pragmatic, yet a fierce fighter when cornered. I am a BeaverCon.
What is a BeaverCon?
A BeaverCon:
Values tradition and urges that any necessary change be like beaver love-making: slow and consensual.
Despite valuing tradition, would abolish the Canadian Senate in a split second and make the generations of superannuated Liberals who have fed at this trough pay back every penny
Despises social engineering, the Charter, and any phrase that contains the words “equity”, “diversity” or “proactive”
Thinks that Human Righs Commissions are unconstitutional and undemocratic
Likes some gun control but not too much
Likes socialized medicine but when it doesn’t deliver the goods is willing to consider reforms
Likes American super-powerdom but is willing to show them where they have crossed the line into bullying
Still believes Canada owns the Alaska Panhandle and, should the US show any weakness, would also grab back Washington and Oregon and readjust the New Brunswick border in our favour
Likes the monarchy but can’t stand the royal family (except the Queen, God bless her.)
Welcomes immigrants and refugees but only if they are of economic and social value to the country and are willing to absorb Canadian culture. All those who are unwilling to leave their ancient quarrels at the border or who think Canadians should adopt sharia, female genital mutilation and other splendid customs from Back Home are welcome to take their custom elsewhere
Loves local hockey, the CFL and curling; can’t be bothered with the NFL or the NHL until it returns to Winnipeg and Quebec City (but not Hamilton until they change the name of Copps Arena)
Knows they are called “chips” dammit, not “French fries”, and you put vinegar on them!
Realizes that the world needs more peace-making these days than peace-keeping and is willing to fund a military force that can help defend civilization and our own territory
Knows that the world will always be a dangerous place and that we can no more expect the United Nations to make it safer than we can expect local criminals to be defeated by the Debating Club
Knows who George Grant is
Believes that "O Canada" is an anthem for wusses and longs for the return of the proudly chauvinistic "The Maple Leaf Forever"
Thinks we should take St Pierre and Miquelon from the French. Who’s going to stop us? [Cue "The Maple Leaf Forever"]
News today that more Christian aid workers in a country dominated by that religion that means peace have been murdered. Three doctors working for a Baptist hospital in Yemen that provided free medical care in a country with fewer physicians than kidnappers and terrorists were shot to death on December 29. In a surprising revelation it seems that the killer was an Islamic extremist who announced he performed his act to "get close to God."
Honestly, can't these people read a calendar? The annual Christmas massacre of infidels is over for another year! If Yemeni terrorists think that these three dead are going on their score-card, they are sadly mistaken; they still trail their Philippine and Indonesian co-religionists. The whistle has blown. Wait until next December 25 or move to Iraq -- there should be plenty of action there soon. That is, if you don't mind Crusaders and Jews shooting back.
This article describes a philosophy that I suspect resonates to some degree with the Canadian critics and muses who grace these pages.
11. Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman will get back together.
12. Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck will break up.
13. Billy Bob Thornton and Angelina Jolie will get weirder and weirder.
14. Russell Crowe will get hairier and broader, and thus less like Maximus.
1. The USA will take military action against Iraq.
2. This military action will not go far enough, and will leave the same problems, if not the same players, in place.
3. Arafat will denounce terrorism while continuing to have Jews killed at every opportunity.
4. Saudi Arabia will denounce terrorism while funding Islamikaze bombers, teaching Moslem children the world over that Jews and Christians are pigs and monkeys, and being coddled by the US State Department.
5. Jean Chretien will be urged to resign by many Liberals.
6. Jean Chretien will not resign.
7. An African country that had done quite well under colonial rule will descend to genocide, civil war, fundamentalist Islam and/or vilest paganism, and exponential rises in AIDS victims.
8. An EU cabinet minister will say something sympathetic about the Holocaust and the Arab attempt to recreate same; an EU committee will denounce science, technology, industry and civilization in general; an EU directorate will be established to regulate the font with which Euro-M&Ms are printed.
9. The gun registry will eventually cost $2 billion.
10. The first implementations of the Romanow report will overrun budget projections by an order of magnitude, and will further demoralize medical personnel; all competent doctors, nurses and technicians will move south, as will all patients who can afford to.
...to be continued.
Ten Best Things Ever to Happen to Canada
(1) Paul Henderson’s goal in 8th game of Soviet series 1972
(2) Canadian troops capture Vimy Ridge 1917
(3) Banting invents insulin treatment for diabetes 1921
(4) Macdonald government buys Canadian West from HBC 1869
(5) General Middleton crushes Metis revolt at Batoche 1885
(6) Stan Rogers issues “Between the Breaks” containing “Barrett’s Privateers” 1979
(7) CPR completed 1885
(8)Wayne and Shuster debut on Ed Sullivan 1958
(9) General Brock repels Americans at Queenston Heights 1812
(10) Ben Johnson wins Olympic gold in 100 m at Seoul 1988
Thirteen Worst Things Ever to Happen to Canada
(1) Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982
(2) Trudeau omnibus legal reforms 1969
(3) Henry Morgenthaler begins open abortions in Canada 1969
(4) Introduction of GST 1993
(5) Ben Johnson caught cheating in 100 m at Seoul Olympics 1988
(6) NHL expands to American Sun Belt; deserts Winnipeg and Quebec City 1990s
(7) Influenza epidemic 1919
(8) UK sells Canada out on Alaska panhandle 1903
(9) Tainted blood scandal 1980s
(10) Regina Riot 1935
(11) Canadian troops defending Hong Kong surrender to Japanese 1941
(12) Trudeau and Jean Chretien decided not to extinguish aboriginal rights 1969
(13) This one’s for the future... Justin Trudeau
There is an interesting profile of the latest Canadian talib in the National Post. This should convince anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that unquestioning multiculturalism is a boon to terrorists and backwardness; it enables the children of the Religion of Peace to receive simultaneously the indoctrination of the madrassahs and the privileges and technology of the developed world. Omar's sister Zaynab (Arabic for "beauty") tells the reporter that, if her brother did in fact commit the acts of which he is accused, he must certainly have had a good reason. It's comforting to hear that Judeo-Christian values are so readily imparted to the Most Recent Canadians.
More interesting than what is said in this article, though, is what is not. Nowhere do the many siblings, aunts, teachers and childhood friends of the accused terrorist denounce terrorism, Omar's in particular or Islamic in general. Nowhere do they express their gratitude and pleasure at being in Canada; rather they emphasize their connection to Pakistan and Afghanistan and tribal culture, for which the family patriarch risked his life many times. Also lacking from the article is any mention of the life and family of the 28 year old American who was killed, and for whose murder Omar is being investigated. The true tragedy, all concerned multiculturalists will understand, is not that an American soldier was killed in his 20s; it is that we so persistently misunderstand the sophistication, pacifism and superior morality that is modern day Islam.
If the entrants are not limited to Canadian entrants, I respectfully submit the name of Cynthia McKinney. While voters are to be congratulated on getting her out of office, at least for the moment, Miz McKinney's utter idiocy is worthy of much commemoration. It takes a very special genius to realize that in fact Bush was in on 9/11 from the getgo, in order to increase the value of his shares.
If so, prepare to be simultaneously virtuous and humilated at this site which compares your pathetic salary to such utterly essential people as Oprah and Eminem.
Which Western statesman made the following remark which was taken to mean he was blaming the USA for being attacked by terrorists?
"And I do think that the Western world is going to be too rich in relation to the poor world. And necessarily, you know, we look upon us as being arrogant, self-satisfying, greedy, and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize that it's even more."
Larry Zolf offers a reminiscence of a long-ago Christmas in the North End of Winnipeg.
In 1940 a young English pilot in the RAF squadron my father would later serve in wrote a letter to his mother to be delivered in case he was killed in battle. His plane was shot down in the days following the reteat from Dunkirk and his commanding officer duly sent the message to the widowed woman who had just lost her only child. The officer also asked permission to have the letter published. As Canada and the West face a situation resembling Britain's in 1940 it is important to wonder if there any young men in this country today who would write inspired by similar ideas?
"History resounds with illustrious names who have given all; yet their sacrifice has resulted in the British Empire where there is a measure of peace, justice and freedom for all, and where a higher standard of civilization has evolved, and is still evolving, than anywhere else. But this is not only concerning our own land. Today we are faced with the greatest organized challenge to Christianity and civilization that the world has ever seen, and I count myself lucky and honoured to be the right age and fully trained to throw my full weight into the scale."
Sad news today. Word has reached us here on the windswept steppes of the death of the English balladeer Jake Thackeray, a fellow of infinite jest and most excellent fancy. A little quote from "Sister Josephine", the story of a police raid on a convent where the criminal Big Bad Norman has been hiding for years disguised as a nun. Wistfully, one of the sisters sings:
Admittedly her hands are big and hairy
And embellished with a curious tattoo;
Admittedly her voice is on the deep side
And she seems to shave more often than the other sisters do
Oh Sister Josephine
Founder of the convent sumo team
They're leafing through your volumes of those strange magazines
After Sister Josephine.
While you, Sister Josephine
Give a farewell whiff of Benzedrine
To the convent budgerigar.
A bloody funny nun you are.
No more will her snores echo through chapel during prayers,
Nor her lustful moaning stir the stilly nights,
No more empty bottles of altar wine come clanking from her cell,
No longer will the cloister toilet seat stand upright . . .
Oh Sister Josephine
Slipping through their fingers like margarine
Dressed only in your Y-fronts and a rosary
What a funny nun you seem to be.
R.I.P.
Well the scores have all come in now and we are in position to declare winners and losers in the annual Christmas games. Let’s take a look at the ticker:
In Pakistan it was a clear victory for Islam, the Religion of Peace. A Christmas Day grenade attack on a Protestant church in Lahore produced 3 dead girls with 12 more wounded, some seriously. No Muslims were killed, hurt or wounded. (This triumph follows a series of other resounding victories for the fearless jihad warriors of Pakistan who in the course of 2002 have also gunned down 7 Christian aid workers in Karachi, 5 worshippers in Islamabad, 6 staff members at a Christian school in Murree and 4 dead on the grounds of a Presbyterian hospital in Taxila.)
Meanwhile over on the Philippine League it was a laugher as Muslim extortionists massacred 12 employees and guards of a Calgary-based mining company. It was a shut-out performance as the Christians were all eliminated and the killers suffered no losses. Naturally there was some dissatisfaction expressed by the winning coach who regretted that all of his men returned safely and none would be enjoying the promised 72 virgins allotted to each martyr but overall he thought it was a good performance.
Now, I know there were a number of so-called commentators who were disappointed with the way the year went, especially after the golden season enjoyedby the ROP in 2001. The number of casualties inflicted by PLMs WERE lower than expected and, sure, the losses in Afghanistan and the West Bank took a lot out of the squad but look at the bright side -- the world is full of Christian churches, hospitals, schools and aid agencies and few of them are guarded. What better way to build up the confidence of jihadists than to attack only the young, weak and worshipful? With a game plan like that I anticipate 2003 will be a great come-back year for the good guys and a losing season for Crusaders and Jews everywhere. Go team!
First person to email me with the source gets mentioned in the blog. And here's a marvellous and relevant column by Mark Steyn. Merry Christmas and happy Boxing Day, whether you spend it stabbing people at sales or sleeping off turkey binges.
The final paragraph of Dylan Thomas’s wonderful “A Child’s Christmas in Wales”:
Always on Christmas night there was music. An uncle played the fiddle, a cousin sang "Cherry Ripe," and another uncle sang "Drake's Drum." It was very warm in the little house. Auntie Hannah, who had got on to the parsnip wine, sang a song about Bleeding Hearts and Death, and then another in which she said her heart was like a Bird's Nest; and then everybody laughed again; and then I went to bed. Looking through my bedroom window, out into the moonlight and the unending smoke-colored snow, I could see the lights in the windows of all the other houses on our hill and hear the music rising from them up the long, steady falling night. I turned the gas down, I got into bed. I said some words to the close and holy darkness, and then I slept.
God bless you and Merry Christmas.
Father Christmas defends himself against critics in the 1678 book "The Tryall and Examination of Father Christmas"
And first my lord, I am wronged in being indicted by a wrong name. I am corruptly called Christmas but my name is truly Christ-tide, or time. And though I generally come at a set time, yet I am with him every day that knows how to use me. My Lord, let the records be searched and you shall find that the Angels rejoiced at my coming and sang Gloria in Excelsis; the patriarchs and prophets longed to see me. The Church Fathers have sweetly embraced me, our modern divines all comfortably cherished me, O let me be not despised now that I am old. Is there not an injunction in Magna Carta that commands men to inquire for the old way, which is the good way; many good deeds do I do, O why do the people hate me? we are commanded to be given to hospitality, & this hath been my practice from my youth upward: I come to put men to mind of their redemption, to have them love one the other, to impart with something here below, that they may receive more and better things above: the wise man saith, There is a time for all things, & why not for thankfulness?
Trade and pricing controls are in many respects the way in which Canada is most backward. When it is harder to ship some goods between provinces than across an ocean, many would conclude that there is a distinct problem with Canadian law, and one that hampers the livelihoods and lifestyles of many. Admittedly, it also greatly augments the power and prosperity of many bureaucrats and administrators, but that's another topic.
David Frum has written an excellent editorial discussing this problem, and how it could be fixed. He also shows how a government empowered to suppress choice in one area will quickly move to do so in others. The fact that farmers can be jailed for selling their produce to the wrong person would make us an international laughingstock if anyone important still took Canada seriously. The sooner our government starts letting the economy grow, instead of penalizing entrepreneurs and producers, the better off all of us, from the top of society to the bottom, will be.
Christmas loopiness has produced another contender for the Equine Derriere Award, given to the most lamentable public utterance of 2002. Our nominee this time is a collective: the Edinburgh City Council which has banned video-taping Nativity plays in the schools they control. It seems that the protective tin-foil wrapping their heads was porous enough for them to hear messages beaming in from Planet Mungo, sinister voices that warned them that such videos could fall into the hands of paedophiles. To calm outraged parents who were being denied a precious record of their children's school life the Council suggested that the videos could be made professionally but with the faces of the kids digitally obliterated.
Just in time for Christmas comes news that more than a quarter of the Church of England clergy do not believe in the Virgin Birth. Some of the doubting priests asserted that the doctrine was the result of faulty translation and some claimed that it wasn't that an important an issue anyway. What is even more interesting is that these people do not want to admit their infidelity to either their congragations or their superiors. Said one anonymous Hampshire vicar: "I have a very traditional bishop and this is one of those topics I do not go public on. I need to keep the job I have got."
Whether or not the doctrine is unimportant or flawed is not really the issue; what matters is that Anglican clergy must assent to it as a condition of their employment, along with all the other claims of The Thirty-Nine Articles. Would it not be reasonable to expect that those who have come to doubt fundamental pillars of their faith, those articles in every historic Christian creed and denomination, would wish to be honest about their dissent and resign from a job which pays them to teach these beliefs? Unfortunately hypocrisy seems to go hand in hand with doubt and the Anglican Church continues to be plagued with a large body of atheist, agnostic or heterodox clergy. The former Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, was infamous for casting doubt on the literal truth of the Resurrection, describing it as "a conjuring trick with bones". Remember the outraged squawking not long ago when a vicar who openly and repeatedly denied the divinity of Christ was subjected to church discipline? He was defended by a bevy of other priests and media celebrities who announced they were shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that a clergyman was being forced to believe in something.
Of course no one in the West has to believe in anything that the Christian church asserts -- freedom of belief or unbelief is an ornament of this civilization, unlike in other less confident and more persecution-minded cultures such as Saudi Arabia or China. But clergy who value their paycheques more than their integrity must consider whether they might be in the wrong line of work. Running for political office would seem to be a more appropriate choice.
And of course, these artists are likely more talented than most of the current recipients. Unlike many, they have an excuse for screaming incoherently and flinging feces around the room.
The year 2002 was a rich one in so many ways, not least in the stampede by fools looking for a microphone. Dexter intends to reward just one of these judgement-impaired persons with the Coveted Equine Derriere Award. Readers of this blog will note the good work done by David Ahenakew in surpassing many minor contenders when he recently made his self-immolating remarks on the wisdom of Hitler's policies toward ethnic minorities. But competition is the life-blood of any society and this respected leader of Canada's First Immigrants has plenty.
Let us take as an example Senator Patty Murray of Washington who recently found time to heap praise upon a certain Mr Osama Bin Laden, social critic of no fixed abode. Mr O has become a popular figure in the Middle East, according to Senator Murray, because of his natural tendency to generosity. This worthy gentleman has been "for decades building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful." This, quoth Senator Patty, is in stark contrast to what the United States has been up to and American prestige has suffered as a result. She then went on to suggest the United States could have been viewed differently if it had done some of the same things. "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb Iraq and go to Afghanistan?" she asked her audience of high school students.
Americans are normally an easy-going people and Senator Murray must have been puzzled to learn that mean-mouthing her country while praising one of its most murderous enemies, in front of school children, could arouse a good deal of hostile comment. Undaunted the plucky daughter of a disabled veteran defended her remarks, expressing disbelief that anyone could find her speech to be more than a just a playful spur to a spirited high school debate.
In all the opprobrium that has been heaped on the head of this low-wattage legislatotrix, no one has asked the following question: how can she be so ignorant of the vast sums that the United States spends on foreign aid and nation-building in the Third World? A look at the U.S. budget reveals billions of dollars aimed at humanitarian assistance and disaster-relief, debt-reduction, development aid and food aid. Americans help to pay for medical care, infrastructure, long-term economic growth, internal security, AIDS prevention, loans to local business, child development, etc., etc., etc. Despite this outflow of wealth, America remains unpopular in some parts of the globe and Senator Murray remains clueless. How clueless? Among her legislative duties Patty sits on the Budget Committee.
Too often, liberals succeed in portraying right-to-life issues in shades of dark grey and black. If we do not succumb to their lobbying and allow a world of universal abortion on demand and euthanasia upon request, they tell us, we will see a world in which women will die from back alley abortions and the terminally ill will die screaming in pain, all to satisfy an antiquated notion of morality. With regard to euthanasia, at least, advocates would be well advised to look at the findings coming out of Scandinavia, where various forms of doctor assisted suicide have been legal for some years. The number of people whose deaths were hastened has skyrocketed, as have reports of people being put to sleep without their or their families consent. Additionally, autopsies are rarely performed after euthanasia, meaning that there is no mechanism to verify whether or not the patient was indeed on the verge of death.
Possibly the most important aspect involved in research on palliative care for the terminally ill concerns to what degree, and why, they do in fact want to die. Dr. Harvey Chochinov, a Canadian, and a religious Jew, has been doing leading work in this field for many years, and his findings are impressive, not to mention contrary to what we have been told by pro-euthanasia activists. First, he has found that the desire to die is transitory in even the most afflicted patients. During the same day patients may easily change their minds about whether they want to continue to struggle against illness. This indicates that the notion of consent to be euthanized is a dangerous and misleading one; unless the patient is monitored continuously over a long period, it is not possible to say that he has consented in the sense in which the term is usually understood.
Second, Chochinov has found that when patients are given adequate pain control, supportive counselling for themselves and their families, and care that preserves their dignity and privacy, very very few are persistent in expressing a wish to end their lives. Rather than channelling political energies and financial resources into facilitating death, we would all be better served by directing ourselves toward such excellent care for the ill and dying. Further, this approach is more consonant with Judeo-Christian values and reverence for life. Even when death is near, we must cling to life and honour it; and one of the ways in which we honour it is by comforting and tending to the dying.
Stock values of silicon companies shot higher this past week on news from Brazil that a woman's breast implants saved her life in a gun battle. Caught in a cross-fire between police and criminals the enhanced victim suffered a wound to her chest that might have proved fatal had not her inflation device slowed down the bullet.
In a completely unrelated development Mattel has announced the release of a new "Bimbo" Barbie complete with naughty lingerie.
If any further proof was needed, a perusal of the biographies of the Supreme Court Justices reveals the sad tyranny under which French-Canadians have been too long forced to suffer. Under the crushing heel of federalism, a mere 5 of the 9 current Justices are revealed to have been born in Quebec while a 6th appears to be a francophone from Acadia. This is in addition to the humiliation of having been ruled by Prime Minsters from Quebec only 33 of the past 34 years. If these facts, mes amis patriotiques, do not set your blood boiling then what will? Arise, I say, and cast off the shackles of the cruel Anglo and the shifty Allo!
There was great rejoicing in the tents of the Midianites and the Sodomites over the recent Supreme Court decision on gay teachers reading gay-friendly literature to children in kindergarten and Grade One. The justices ruled that a BC school board was wrong to ban books like "Asha's Mums" and "One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads" from the classroom for being unsuitable for 5- and 6-year-olds and offensive to religious parents. Speaking for the majority, from her accustomed perch on the nation's highest horse, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wagged a minatory finger and intoned, "Tolerance is always age-appropriate."
As a defender of traditional sexual mores I agree with the school board and yet, as a conservative who discourages judicial activism, I also find it hard to disagree with the majority decision. This seems to me to be a case of the proper interpretation of a bad law.
The law in question states that public schools in British Columbia must be run on strictly secular and non-sectarian principles. Therefore because some of the objections to these books were made on religious grounds such arguments are null and void, nugatory, and worthy of no respect in public discourse. In the least religious province in Canada, secularism is the law -- so Christian, Muslim and Buddhist parents had best learn to frame their arguments in non-religious terms or shut up and move their kids into private schooling.
However, the end of this story need not be a defeat for common sense. Surely school administrators can regroup and find non-sectarian reasons for their ban on material that proselytizes toddlers. They might take a lesson from Mr. Justice Charles Gonthier who wrote the court's minority opinion. He argued that the books in question did more than advocate tolerance, they sent the message that all relationships were morally equivalent. In a breath-taking statement of political incorrectness of the sort that could not be made by any Canadian not guaranteed job tenure for life, Gonthier said that Canadians should not be banned from expressing moral disapproval of homosexual behavior or relationships. "It is a feeble notion of pluralism," he said, "that transforms 'tolerance' into 'mandated approval or acceptance.' " One wonders how such a naive fellow made it as far as he did, not knowing the Iron Law of Social Deviancy, that when a once-forbidden act is made legal, it soon becomes compulsory.
Jews have traditionally been wary of Christians, even when they offer their hands in friendship, and with some historic justification. Centuries of blood libels and Easter pogroms are not forgotten overnight, nor should they be. At the same time, today's Christians have for the most part renounced antisemitism, and many of them go out of their way to affirm their love for and support of the Jews. This is a reality that is slow to gain hold of the collective consciousness of North American Jews, though.
Toward Tradition is a wonderful group, whose premise is that religious Jews and Christians have a great deal in common, more in fact than either group does with irreligious members of their own tribes. This is a recent publication promoting the fact that modern day Christian conservatives are in fact some of the most philosemitic members of our society. While the focus is of course upon American politics and party affiliation, Canadian Jews and Christians should pay attention. After all, when Svend Robinson is an, ahem, close personal friend of Arafat, and Chretien has to be browbeaten into renouncing Hamas, the PCs and especially the Reform/Alliance look better every day.
At least, they do when they don't wear skin tight wet suits.
According to the Jerusalem Post, Jane Fonda is in Israel right now to protest violence against women. This is an interesting choice. Those who support Palestinian statehood should consider that in PA controlled territories, as in other Arab states where democracy and liberty prevail, the leading cause of unnatural death for women of all ages is "honour killing", in which women who are no longer virgins or married women who have had sex with men other than their husbands are horribly killed. Note especially that it is irrelevant whether or not that sex was consensual.
Also noteworthy is that Israel boasts one of the world's best neurosurgeons specializing in foreign-object removal from the brain. He gained this experience operating on adult women from Arab and Beduin communities in Israel, who came to his hospital seeking help for chronic head pain. The cause turned out to be metal needles that had been pushed into the brains of the infant girls, to try and rid the family of an unwanted daughter, and had remained there for years or decades.
Of course, Fonda concerns herself primarily with the evils perpetrated by that tool of European imperialists, Israel. She's not tiring herself out, though; she found time to attend a performance of the Vagina Monologues.
Children, listen closely. Today we are going to add another name to the long list of benefactors of humanity, scientists who have boldly pushed back the frontiers of knowledge and who have sacrificed much to make the world a better place. Pasteur, Lister, Banting, Salk, and now Karl Kruszelnicki of The University of Sydney. Sing a song of Kruszelnicki, O Muses! Praise him with great praise, for he hath greatly enlarged the scope of our awareness of belly button lint. For his work he has been awarded the 2002 IgNobel Prize in Interdisciplinary Research.
It's rare that the top three items on the front page all cheer me up, but today it seems is just such a day. On the National Post website, the first three stories all bring joy to a Canadian conservative's heart.
First of all, it seems finally to be clear to someone in charge that two people sharing a rent payment and a bed is not, in fact, the same thing as marriage. While the writer generally prefers policy that elevates marriage rather than that which focusses on alternatives, this nonetheless marks a fine beginning to a renewal of a cultural commitment to marriage and marital childbearing. The language used is so lovely that I'm going to quote it outright. The Justice in question discusses the commitment made by a husband and wife, and then says that "unmarried couples do not make that same commitment and rights and duties akin to marriage should not as a result follow." Isn't that brilliant? I only hope the poor fellow doesn't find himself the target of hate crime charges, pressed by common-law couples, gays, and the United Church of Canada, who want to define the rights of marriage however they please, thank you very much.
The point is that marriage is a covenant, a sacred one to most believers in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Sanctity aside, though, contracts are commonly understood to be meaningless if they are involuntary. If the privileges and burdens of marriage are either assumed by or forced upon the unmarried, the entire nature of the covenant and society's understanding of it are changed, and decidedly for the worse. Further good news is that Justice Hereux-Dube, the lone dissenter, is retiring!
Other lovely tidings this morning are that despite the dissent of Justice Hyphen, the SCoC has ruled that welfare is not a right. The litigants were claiming that they had a right to a minimum standard of living; what they actual were suing for was the right to a minimum standard of living, free from any obligations or tasks. Further on down the page, we learn that even the lamentable Colin Powell (lamentable for his decline from a decade ago, that is - Agricola had the right idea, when the war is over, off to the fields and quiet contemplation) has agreed that Iraq is in material breach, the magic words needed to spark off a war. Given that Powell's job thus far has seemed to be Minister in Charge of Apologizing for the West, this is a great breakthrough. Combined with the news that hotel rooms in the Middle East are booked solid by war correspondents in the New Year, and that reserve units are being called up, it seems clear that at last the hemming and hawing and Continental handwringing are at an end. War is never an outcome to be celebrated, but in this case it is necessary to prevent vastly greater suffering and evil.
In the mean time, let us all enjoy this festive season, and this morning's newspaper, and take a moment to pray that the coming year brings the disarming of the wicked, strength and victory to our allies, and a steady diet of renewed moral fibre for Canada's judges.
For a number of years the world-wide Anglican communion has been debating the proper response of the church to homosexuality. Recently concern has been focussed on those who demand that homosexual relationships be accorded the same sort of sacramental blessing that has been traditionally given to heterosexual marriages. The Diocese of New Westminster and its controversial bishop Michael Ingham have decided that in 2003 they will hold church services that openly bless same-sex unions. Those interested in following the twists and turns of this debate might wish to visit the web site of St George's Church where these unions will be solemnized in he coming year. Particularly interesting are the letters of support and of anguished concern from bishops in Canada and abroad. Typical of the latter is the following document which demonstrates the difficulties of trying to be faithful to tradition and scripture and still expressing concern for the plight of gay Anglicans. If these letters are any indication the gap between the two sides of the debate, the division is too large to bridged by anything but the fuzziest of language. Schism is a far more likely outcome.
To the Diocese of Keewatin
We believe that marriage is a gift from the Creator and a means of his grace. We believe that marriage is a covenant based on love which is also a gift from the Creator We believe that marriage is a life-long union of man and woman in heart, body and mind and is intended for their mutual growth and fulfillment, physically, emotionally and spiritually. We believe that a sound marriage is the best environment for the procreation, care and upbringing of children. We believe that healthy Christian marriages are essential for healthy Christian communities. Therefore, we continue to uphold the institution of marriage as we understand it and we commit ourselves to providing consistent teaching as well as support for pre-marriage preparation, marriage and family support and counseling for reconciliation when marriages encounter difficulties.
At the same time, we recognize that there are many who for one reason or another are unable to receive and enjoy the gift of marriage. These individuals are entitled to the respect due all those made in the image of God. They are worthy of inclusion in the fellowship of the church and they are welcome at worship and are entitled to a full sacramental and pastoral ministry. We also recognize that many of these individuals live in relationships in which they find mutual love, support and encouragement. We rejoice with them, for this too is a gift from God.
While we cannot endorse the blessing of any sexual relationships outside of marriage, we commit ourselves to ongoing prayer, study and dialogue to determine under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how we can be as inclusive as possible while remaining true to the principles of scripture as we understand them. We ask all members of the Diocese of Keewatin to enter into this process of discernment in a spirit of mutual respect, compassion, and gentleness as befits the disciples of Christ.
July 12, 2002
+David: Keewatin
The Right Reverend David N. Ashdown, Bishop of Keewatin
Douglas Greig+
The Venerable Douglas Greig, Archdeacon of Southern Region
Alex Fox+
The Venerable Alex Fox, Archdeacon of Northern Ontario Region
Gordon Swanson+
The Venerable Gordon Swanson, Archdeacon of Northern Manitoba Region
Larry Beardy+
The Venerable Larry Beardy, Archdeacon of Keewatin
Of all the designs to replace the WTC, I'm partial to the one by Foster and partners, (#2) who also designed the replacement for the Reichstag. Perhaps they can become niche architects; whenever a genocidal maniac seeking to start a world war destroys a building with international importance, they'll redo it.
Is it safe to assume that three days after the batteries die, the figuring starts working again?
I concur with the judgement of my esteemed coblogger. Matas is in my experience not only a shrewd man but also a good one. It is therefore puzzling and a bit troubling that he is advancing this argument about hate crimes prosecution. Since truth is not a defence to hate crime charges, followers of the Religion of Peace have already pushed for prosecution against those who suggest that life might be nicer for those not living Islamic rule. Such reasoning is being used as we speak to shut down Concordia's Hillel, an institution which commits the grave sin of providing kosher meals and religious mentorship to Jewish students in Montreal.
Matas began his career investigating and prosecuting Nazis who had made their way to Canada. He is intimately familiar with what can happen when hatred and incitement run amok, and I assume that it is this sensitivity that leads to his current position. It is inevitable, though, that hate crime actions will never be taken against the popular and powerful. While Christians are prosecuted and persecuted for suggesting that sexual omnivorism is not appropriate, at least not in public, Liberal MPs are free to accuse people of being Klansmen (literally) without sanction.
Finally I am thoroughly convinced of the need for an objective test of damage before any hate crime charge is brought. Hurt feelings don't count; neither does stress or mental anguish, if it derives solely from the offensive speech. Should a troubled teenage member of the FSIN decide to torch a synagogue (and the only one in Saskatchewan was burned down last year, by, ahem, persons unknown) then perhaps Ahenekew should be named in a criminal charge.
It now also seems clear that Ahenekew's days as anything other than an answer to a Canadian Trivial Pursuit question are over. Perhaps he could move south and join Al Sharpton's Presidential Advisory Committee!
After you've eaten your fill of Bible Bars, you'll want to play your heart out with Biblical action figures. Try the Walks on Water Jesus, available in light- or dark-skinned models. No batteries required. (Female representation of Jesus is strictly forbidden without express written consent of the United Church of Canada.)
This is what I mean about the danger of hate speech legislation:
David Matas, senior legal counsel for B'Nai Brith Canada, wants charges laid against Ahenakew "to deter others who may wish to make such grievous statements in the future." Matas is too shrewd to suggest that Ahenakew's words would actually move Canadians to commit real acts of intolerance or violence against the nation's Jews -- he just wants the law used to suppress an opinion he finds (and quite rightly) to be offensive.
None of is born with a right to be free from hearing uncomfortable or even ugly or vile words. As a Christian I am often offended by remarks about my religion made by any number of individuals and groups. My remedy is to persuade them and the public that such words are not true or are painful to my sensibilities. I don't believe that I should have the right to have my neighbour keep silent out of fear of the police. (The situation is altered, of course, when I am denied benefits other citizens enjoy or I am threatened with damage to life, limb or property. These things the law should protect.)
For once I am happy to find myself on the same side as Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who believes that public opinion has punished Ahenakew enough and sees no useful purpose in legal action.
Let's remember that if offensiveness is only in the eye of the beholder we are all in danger of prosecution as hate criminals. We need objective standards -- the demonstration of real harm as opposed to hurt feelings -- in order to avoid the spiral of victimology.
In Ahenekew's case, he needn't have bothered. What after all has he said? He regrets having made these remarks. It seems more likely that he regrets the tumult his remarks caused, and that he regrets not having been clever enough to keep his mouth shut. He did not renounce his statements, as such; he did not deny that he believes them to be true; he did not explain why he said such absurd and evil things, as though there could be a reason acceptable to anyone with a mind and a conscience.
There is a big difference between Lott and Ahenekew. Lott made a stupid error in his choice of words in one sentence. Ahenekew gave a veritable speech spewing venom and bile. Lott's remark is open to interpretation - misinterpretation, he would argue - and Ahenekew's is not. Lott has made valuable contributions over his career in many, many ways and should not be burned at the stake for one dumb remark, which was foolish for its thoughtlessness and not innately despicable.
Ahenekew on the other hand accomplishes nothing by apologizing, since his words were quite deliberate and not open to interpretation. ("When I said Hitler was right to fry six million Jews, I was really trying to say that I support higher property taxes to further aboriginal education ..." Please. His views are about as ambiguous as a tomahawk to the head.) Unless he can provide evidence that he had a minor stroke that morning, I can imagine no explanation that would enable me to see Ahenekew as anything other than a hate-mongering racist.
But is this a surprise? A large number of self-styled aboriginal activists have far less in common with Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement than they do with proponents of South African apartheid. They do not promote equality, dignity, and the universal brotherhood of man; rather they advance an agenda in which land ownership, taxation, voting rights and law are contingent upon race and blood. Ahenekew and racial hatred are more logical and predictable by-products of this mindset than are interethnic peace and "multiculturalism".
The recent apologies issued by American politican Trent Lott and aboriginal leader David Ahenakew and the public reactions to them tell a sad tale about human nature.
Ahenakew's apology was, as these things go, the more genuine human document. He was abject; he cried; he acknowledged the pain he inflicted; he resigned; he promised to do something to make amends; and he blamed his own stubbornness for not repenting sooner. Lott's apologies centred on the misinterpretation of his remarks but what he lacked in contriteness he made up for in bulk, repeating his remarks on five occasions including an appearance on a black television network.
And what was the result of these apologies? Damn little healing and many opportunities for their enemies to repeat their sense of affrontedness in front of another reporter or tv camera. One is prompted therefore to ask the obvious question: why bother apologizing at all?
When a public figure makes a misstep, a highly-predictable drama is set in motion. One keen eye reports on the fact and spins the outrage in his particular ideological direction. Others sense blood in the water and rush toward the bleeding victim; soon the area is full of sharks and if the danger is perceived to be large enough the public figure's advisers will debate the most prudent response. If the best response is deemed to be an apology, the fanged grins of the predators grow only wider. "Too little and too late!" "He clearly doesn't realize the harm he has caused my community!" "This just shows how right we were to be aggrieved and the crying need for reparations, massive government grants and a compulsory program of sensitivity training in the public schools so that this sort of outrage never happens again." "Only when he has ritually disembowelled himself in front of a howling mob of the widows and orphans of the people he has damaged and his corpse is dragged through the streets behind a tank and set on fire in the town square will we even begin to be satisfied. Did I mention the need for reparations?"
Apology and contrition are good for the soul and should be encouraged. Nor is anything is so galling than an insincere apology or one that tries to evade real responsibility. But equally important is the need to accept an apology and this is an art that no one seems willing to cultivate. My advice to politicians in today's sad culture might well be: never complain, never explain. Suppose Trent Lott had simply said a single time to critics of his remarks at Strom Thurmond's birthday: "You think that means I'm a racist? Don't be silly." The Democrats and Jesse Jackson would have howled anyway but the fall-out would have been far less intense and of shorter duration.
How do you suppose Pierre Trudeau lasted so long? By apologizing? Hardly. Faced with a similar situation, His Supreme Arrogance would have merely curled his lip a millimetre or so, raised an imperial eyebrow ever so slightly and implied with a silent semi-shrug that the questioner was clearly a person of little consequence and his remarks too jejeune to be worth acknowledging with an audible reply. The reporter would have slunk off in shame and those around him would have again been struck dumb by the profound wisdom of the Great One. Richard Gwyn would then have gone back to the office to write an editorial apologizing for having dared to breathe the same air as the Northern Magus. Pierre Trudeau, our Great Exemplar in so many ways.
Say kids, ever felt that you wanted a tasty snack but you didn't know whether your choice was sanctioned by the Almighty? Worry no more, o sons and daughters of righteousness, for the Bible Bar is here!. Yes that's right, the only candy bar made from seven ingredients recommended by the Book of Deuteronomy. And for those with a real sweet tooth try Sacred Nectar -- made from three of God's most precious substances: Royal Jelly, Pollen and Honey. Feeling a little sluggish in the plumbing department? Then it's time for Bible Granola! It's what made Moses a regular guy.
I'm not a fan of the Order of Canada. Its prototype was the Legion d'Honneur, invented by Napoleon, and can anything good come out of France? [editor's reply: Alexandre Dumas, Brigitte Bardot, baguettes] While its ranks are filled with eminently worthy folk, there are far too many ex-politicians (Barny Danson, Barbara McDougall, and Iona Campagnola please hand in your medals on the way out) and media "personalities." (Lloyd Robertson is no doubt a fine fellow but should he be given the nation's highest civilian award for a life-time of reading from a teleprompter?) Then there is the whole category devoted to Female Nuisances: Shirley Carr, Rosemary Brown, Doris Anderson, June Calwood, Claire Culhane (anyone spot the trend here?) And continuing in a whiny mode, can you guess the name of the writer whose citation for the Order calls him "an author whose books are often considered classics"? Yes, that's right, Richard Gwyn! Author of...well, it'll come to me in a second. And while I'm on the topic of The Unworthy, why are spouses of Governors-General automatically given a membership in the Order? Gerda Hnatyshyn gets elevated to the pantheon and John Ralston Saul gets his own government web-page as the boy-toy of the current G-G! If David Ahenakew is run out of an organization whose members include the aforementioned worthies and withered sexologists like Sue Johanson or fair-weather patriots like Lennox Lewis, I'm not sure he'll consider it much of a loss.
...apart from which I concur with the dextrous Dexter. I agree that stupid, offensive and hateful remarks should not be inherently illegal. Ahenakew should not be prosecuted or jailed for his verbal diarrhea or his evil little thoughts. On the other hand he should not remain a recipient of the Order of Canada. He has the right to say what he wants without being physically harmed, jailed or otherwise punished by the government; he does not have the right to do so free from the sanction of his non-deranged compatriots.
The Order of Canada is meant to honour those who have contributed. There is further the precedent set for the revocation of the honour from those whose later behaviour indicates their unworthiness after the fact. The remedy for bad speech is not only good speech; it is also the opprobrium of others, that encourages people who might have the stupidity or nastiness in them to say such things to keep quiet.
If I thought that anyone with a modicum of influence would take Mr. Ahenekew seriously, I might suggest that other recipients of the award renounce theirs. In the circumstances, though, that would be greatly out of proportion with the significance and intent of Ahenekew's act. More important than the ramblings of an age-addled man, though, is the tacit permission to air those views at a national aboriginal conference. The organizers and those who sat by and smiled while these remarks were made have lost credibility with the rest of Canada, and this ought to be made clear to them.
While leaders of all the parties and many aboriginal groups decry these remarks, there is one other aspect that ought to be considered: by basing welfare, civil government, health and criminal justice policy on race, by encouraging the us-and-them mentality inevitable when "one drop" rules are in effect, the government of Canada has done nothing to prevent racist idiocy in aboriginals and other Canadians, and a great deal to foster it.
That David Ahenakew is a racist ass is not in dispute. That he has lost the respect of respectable folk for his comments on Jews, whites and immigrants is also not up for discussion. What is debatable is what to do about such comments and whether the surly sachem should be prosecuted for committing a hate crime, as the government of Saskatchewan has proposed to do. Premier Lorne Calvert and his Attorney-General Chris Axworthy have today set the RCMP on the trail and will ponder whether to charge Mr Ahenakew, holder of the Order of Canada and an Honourary Doctor of Laws from the University of Regina, with violating Section 319 of the Criminal Code.
As I understand Section 319 it forbids the public incitement of hatred, with four elements all having to be established to prove the accused guilty:
(1) communicating statements;
(2) in a public place;
(3) inciting hatred against an identifiable group;
(4) the likelihood that these statements will result in a breach of the peace.
At the moment it is not clear which of Mr Ahenakew’s statements were made to the meeting he was addressing and which were elicited after the meeting to a reporter but it seems clear that these remarks were hateful and aimed at an identifiable group. On the other hand it is very doubtful that they resulted in a breach of the peace. The RCMP may have more luck trying to pin Section 318 on him: advocating or promoting genocide.
Unless the authorities can make a clear case for incitement to violence I don’t see that Canadians should do other than repudiate Ahenakew's remarks. Attempting to have him stripped of his Order of Canada or throwing him in jail for offensive views puts all of our free speech in jeopardy. I am very uneasy about the whole business of hate speech and hate crimes, particularly when these accusations are far more likely to be levelled by those with a taste for publicity or lawyers on retainer for a special-interest group.
Clio will be as horrified as I was to learn that the proliferation of laws against offensive speech may have partly been the result of Canada’s signatures on more of those dreadful international treaties. In this case the culprits are the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article 4 of the latter ordains that signatory states “shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred.”
Ideas, even bad ideas, are best dealt with openly when countered with better ideas. The remedy for hate speech is more speech.
More alarming than Herr Ahenekew's bile is the distinct lack of rejection expressed by his brethren for his views. Any groups can produce one or two raving nutcases; I wouldn't generalize or extrapolate about Saskatchewan chiefs or national aboriginal views on the basis of the good Mr. A. all by himself. When others at the same conference, though, sit happily by and listen to this, and then pass up several chances to repudiate his views, the legitimacy, to say nothing of the sanity, of the whole organization must be questioned.
It seems that to earn your props as an aggrieved minority these days you must take at least a few cracks against Jews, Israel and certainly whites in general. However, if dear ol' Dave really wants to destroy the Jews, he should make them exempt from paying taxes, exempt from the law of the land, including whole swaths of the criminal code, and give the most corrupt and power-hungry among them the right to spend budgets and set policy on behalf of the whole community. This seems to be the best way to relegate an entire people to perpetual substance- and child-abuse, to say nothing of poverty. Conversely, if he wants to see aboriginals thrive and dominate the professions, he could try inculcating a reverence for sobriety, sexual continence, and education -- then they, too, could be running the world banking monopolies and controlling the Secret Government in no time at all.
Showing that race-baiting and anti-Semitic paranoia are sports that everyone can play, "respected native leader" David Ahenakew went off the deep end on Friday. Speaking at a conference to denounce government oppression, the former head of the Assembly of First Nations said the Jews started World War II and that Hitler was right to "fry" them. He went on to condemn Americans, Israelis, auditors, recent immigrants, whites, and bigotry.
Now that Al Gore has bowed out, my ideal match-up for 2004 looks more and more possible. In a perfect world, Bush would choose Condi Rice as his running mate, making the first woman and the first black VP Republican. And, in the other corner ... Hilary Clinton and Al Sharpton. Can anyone imagine a funnier and more enjoyable pairing? Would anyone but the most lunatic fringe of NOW, ACLU, PETA, Greenpeace, Nation of Islam, CAIR and so on vote for them? It would set the Democrats back 150 years. May visions of vast right-wing conspiracies and Tawana Bradley dance in all of our heads.
By naming the Honourable (snicker) Sheila Copps as the most annoying member of the House of Commons, Clio has set the bar very high. Ms Copps has managed to combine cheap shots, whining, and truculence into a very irritating package and the fact that she has done that over many years makes her a very worthy candidate for this title. On the other hand, age has diminished some of her native viciousness; she's clearly lost a step from her days in the Rat Pack when she would scramble over tables to physically confront members of the Mulroney government. And she may have been one of the few members of a Chretien cabinet to actually keep an election promise -- remember that she had vowed to resign if the GST were not abolished and, after much prodding, actually did so, only to be re-elected by the masochistic voters of Hamilton. If there were an Annoying M.P. Hall of Infame she would surely be a first-ballot inductee but is she still the worst? She does face competition.
There is for example the Honourable (chortle) Hedy Fry, she of the imaginary crosses aflame, even as she spoke, in British Columbia. There was her opposition to the war in Iraq: " In my estimation," opined this student of global history, "war has never seemed to really solve anything." [This is an often-heard judgment but one that the survivors of Belsen may not have concurred with as the British tanks rolled up in 1945. I even remember some Frenchmen thinking in 1944 that maybe negotiation hadn't been the way to remove the Wehrmacht after all.] There was her performance at the Durban Conference; her support of Kyoto; her attempts at oratory that confused plays, got the quote wrong and mangled metaphors: " If I recall Henry V, it says "Cry havoc and let fly the dogs of war". We must be careful how we let loose the dogs of war. We must be very careful that those dogs do not unleash consequences for which we are not ready." Then there is her keen insight into the origin of language: "Our challenge is to decide how we move more rapidly toward self-government for aboriginal peoples and how we ensure that their language (which is based on oral tradition) is preserved." It is a brave woman who can be so consistently stupid in her public utterances and still feel proud enough to keep them archived on the Web.
What about the Honourable (chuckle) Ethel Blondin ? She is a stout defender of the Western Arctic: "A lot of people feel that we are really backwards and primitive. But in Yellowknife, we have our own theatre where you can see "War of the Roses" and some of the latest movies." She can also clearly articulate the differences between the Dene and the southern culture in ways that really make you think: "I think the chiefs-of- councils have a very traditional mental set. There's a strong link between the land and the animals on the land and between the way that their language, culture, education, and social programs are handled. This is where the worldview separates from the native view. And this creates a dilemma when we have negotiations for land claims or for programs and services, and that is why these negotiations get bogged down sometimes. The bureaucratic mind set is very pragmatic, an out-of-sight, out-of-mind kind of thinking; whereas the native people have a really intrinsic attitude and value for things such as the land, the language, the culture, and their traditional occupations such as hunting and trapping." Her creative accounting practices, her ability to burst into tears at a moment's notice and her sense of perpetual grievance have made her one to watch by those with a taste for the pathetic.
Or what say you of Tom Wappel Member for Scarborough West who, in a moment of brain-cramp unmatched since Ethel put that fur coat on her government charge card, refused help to a blind 81-year-old war veteran because the fool had voted for another candidate? Says our Tom to the grasping old geezer: " How is it that you are writing me for my help if you did not think enough of my abilities to justify voting for me? ... I can decide who to help or not." You can't say fairer than that.
But, no. As much as these men and women have meant to the struggle to prove to the world that incompetence and narcissism are no barriers to public life, there is only one M.P. who stands head and shoulders above the rest, whose brave march into history lights a beacon of tolerance for those who will wallow with the dogs of war and unleash only darkness over the ship of state as it heads for the shoals of disaster. Yes, I refer to the Honourable Member [and when was this phrase ever more felicitous?] for Burnaby-Douglas. Nothing I could say about this exemplary human being could equal what he has to say for himself. Svend Robinson, man, politician, demi-god.
The Montreal Massacre was an horrific event and an occasion that all Canadians should remember with sadness. After Canadian women have done grieving for the 14 women killed by one nutcase, though, and a nutcase with a decidedly un-Canadian provenance at that, perhaps they might try being thankful for a few things.
Let us be thankful that we live in a country that is not - now, at least - governed by Sharia. Let us be thankful that if we are raped we can have our rapists prosecuted, and that we are not executed for failing to remain virgins. Let us be thankful that little girls can grow up to be anything they want, even the most annoying creature in Parliament. Let us be thankful that we live in such a wonderful country that even the most shrill critics of Western civilization prefer to live here than in the land of their birth, whilst continuing to attack and slander our values and way of life. Let us be thankful that the actions of that gunman will forever be remembered precisely because they were aberrant and contrary to our national character.
I may be too intimidated to bring up the Y-word in these parts, but I have sufficient courage to link to his column.
Maimonides' Eight Levels of Charity
1. Giving begrudgingly
2. Giving less than you should, but giving it cheerfully.
3. Giving after being asked
4. Giving before being asked
5. Giving when you do not know the recipient's identity, but the recipient knows your identity
6. Giving when you know the recipient's identity, but the recipient does not know your identity
7. Giving when neither party knows the other's identity
8. Enabling the recipient to become self-reliant
These are listed in increasing order of merit. It's clear that if taken seriously, this structure emphasizes the correct motivation for charity. Certainly giving can be done to flaunt wealth, to humble the recipient, or to inflate the ego of the giver; when it's done properly, none of these are the result or indeed are even possible. It's also interesting that while the English word "charity" derives from the Greek meaning "love", the closest Hebrew analogue derives from the word for "justice".
And from a similar source of wisdom, an irresistable quote: "There are very few heretics these days. You have to know a great deal to be a heretic." So much of what passes for heresy -- or for left-wing discourse -- is in fact nothing more than profound ignorance.
It is the 218th anniversary today of the death of one of my favourite folk, a man before whose altar I daily offer my admiration, my gratitude and the still-pumping heart of one of the indentured servants on my estate who has grown old and whose existence would otherwise serve no purpose. I refer, of course, to Dr Samuel Johnson, late of Lichfield and London, writer, thinker, talker; foe to hypocrisy, liberals and Americans, friend to corporal punishment, learning and prayer. Since it is Christmas I am going to quote from a sermon the Great Man wrote on the necessity of charity.
This was written over 50 years before Charles Dickens created the character of Ebenezer Scrooge but observe how closely Johnson’s description and Scrooge’s life and personality coincide:
When any man.. has learned to act only by the impulse of apparent profit, when he can look upon distress, without partaking it, and hear the cries of poverty and sickness, without a wish to relieve them; when he has so far disordered his ideas as to value wealth without regard to its end, and to amass with eagerness what is of no use in his hands; he is indeed not easily to be reclaimed; his reason, as well as his passions, is in combination against his soul, and there is little hope, that either persuasion will soften, or arguments convince him. A man, once hardened in cruelty by inveterate avarice, is scarcely to be considered as any longer human; nor is it to be hoped, that any impression can be made upon him, by methods applicable only to reasonable beings. Beneficence and compassion can be awakened in such hearts only by the operation of divine grace, and must be the effect of a miracle, like that which turned the dry rock into a springing well.
Scrooge was indeed fortunate that such a miracle, or rather a whole series of miracles, intervened and turned the dry rock of his soul into a springing well. But few of us will be frightened into a change of heart by ghostly visitations. Why therefore should we become dispensers of charity? Listen closely, because Johnson is speaking on this very subject:
The chief advantage which is received by mankind from the practice of charity, is the promotion of virtue amongst those who are most exposed to such temptations as it is not easy to surmount: temptations of which no man can say that he should be able to resist them, to estimate the force, and represent the danger.
We see every day men blessed with abundance, and revelling in delight, yet overborne by ungovernable desires of increasing their acquisitions; and breaking through the boundaries of religion, to pile heaps on heaps, and add one superfluity to another, to obtain only nominal advantages and imaginary pleasures.
For these we see friendships broken, justice violated, and nature forgotten; we see crimes committed, without the prospect of obtaining any positive pleasure, or removing any real pain. We see men toiling through meanness and guilt, to obtain that which they can enjoy only in idea, and which will supply them with nothing real which they do not already abundantly possess.
Did you get that? The chief beneficiary of charity is the giver! It saves him from becoming someone he should not want to be -- someone insensitive to what is truly important and a slave to an obsession that will bring him only meanness of spirit. We often see a character on television cry with an impassioned sneer: “I don’t need your charity!” Perhaps not. But we need to give it.
I've just started reading David Gratzer's book, Code Blue, on Canadian health care. I look forward to learning about his proposal, since he values not only excellent medical care (he's an MD) but also efficiency and universality. Castorblog will likely have a review of the book posted in a few days.
National Review, that small and uninfluential magazine that rubbed Canada's nose in our foreign policy last month, has discovered our gun control debacle. While I am unconvinced that firearms must be as widely available as they currently seem to be in the USA, it has yet to be shown that attempts to register and/or confiscate existing guns can have any effect on either gun related crime or indeed on the availability of guns in general. In fact, gun related crime and crime in general went up rather dramatically after gun control was tightened in Britain.
Particularly amusing is a quote from Sheila Fraser that I hadn't seen anywhere else. It turns out that the $2 million project did not in fact cost $1 billion; it cost more, but due to record keeping irregularities it is impossible to tell how much more.
Actually it's the Peace Loving Moslems who are angry with us. Hezbollah is apparently peeved that Canada has at long last been shamed into shutting down its, ahem, charitable wing. Perhaps in true peace loving style they can express this displeasure with threats of bombing and mayhem. That'll convince us.
A further pimple on the nose of the Canadian government is their refusal to let the Israeli version of the Red Cross raise funds -- as Hezbollah was until very recently allowed to -- because it provides ambulance services to the disputed territories. Just to be clear on this: it's only recently become objectionable to help shoot and blow up Jews living near the Jordan, but whatever you do, don't provide medical help for them. What a fine country we are.
I have a dream. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the ... No, wait a minute. That was Martin Luther King's dream. Mine is the dream where a blonde super-model and her broad-minded twin sister are doing this Balinese interpretative dance while I... No, just a second. That WAS my dream but it's not one I want to talk about in front of the children. The one I want to discuss today is the one where I wake up and everybody else in the country has come to the same conclusions that I have about judicial activism, to wit: it stinks. In my dream, I am lying in my bed surrounded by my loved ones and I cry, "Auntie Em! It was awful! There was this dreadful Charter of Rights, and the government was paying groups of deviants to challenge it and redefine our basic vales, and left-wing judges were intruding upon the power of our legislators, and MPs were spineless bottom-feeders, and the country was going down the crapper and no one noticed it except ME! Oh, Auntie Em, it was horrible!" And Auntie Em would say, "There, there child. It's all over. It was just a BAD DREAM."
And today, dear reader, for the first time in our long national nightmare, that dream of mine took a small step closer to reality. A group of lower-court judges has challenged the Supreme Court on the question of judicial activism.
In a ruling on a long-standing dispute betwen the provincial government and a union representing female health-care workers, the Newfound Court of Appeal threw down the gauntlet when they said that in interpreting the Charter their superiors had trespassed into territory that did not belong to them and that the Supreme Court did not have the right "to usurp the policy domain of the elected branches of government."
Mr. Justice William Marshall, Mr. Justice Geoffrey Steele and Mr. Justice Denis Roberts -- three names that future generations of Canadian school children will have to memorize -- laboured 23 months to produce this decision but it has the potential to have an effect that will last very much longer. Curbing the arrogance and despotism of unelected judges may be the first shot in the revolution that restores democracy and sanity to Canada.
But if we're on the subject of national self-improvement by way of American invasion, Canadian Bacon was as I recall a very amusing movie. Of course, in the mere seven years since its filming, we have made rapid progress toward American-style violent crime and political corruption, rendering many of the jokes about Canada's pacific innocence decidedly dated. I must admit, I also found Exxoneration, by Richard Rohmer, in which Canada successfully fends off American invasion, to be an entertaining read. At that time of course Star Trek was also hugely popular.
The next time somebody professes the need to remove Christmas from our vocabulary (are you listening GAP stores and school boards everywhere?) because it might offend non-Christians refer them to this statement in the Vancouver Sun. A very Merry Christmas to its author.
Now see here, Clio, I'm not saying that these rugged pastoralists of the southern Arabian peninsula aren't practitioners of the fine old art of throat slitting. They are. Yemen was once home to thriving communities of both Jews and Copts and, for reasons which I'm sure have nothing to do with adherents of the Religion of Peace, these domestic kafirs all seem to have disappeared. What I am saying is that even if the khat-fanciers get hold of a made-in-Pyongyang SCUD-C the range of the pop-gun is insufficient to trouble the sleep of those living beyond the outskirts of Mecca.
"I said, `Hey Senorita, that's astute; why don't we get together and call ourselves an institute?'" So spoke Paul Simon and, at some point, so also spoke a group of well-meaning Canadians who laboured and brought forth a new thing upon the earth called The Polaris Institute. Since their humble beginnings in 1997 they have sought "to enable citizen movements to re-skill and re-tool themselves to fight for democratic social change in an age of corporate driven globalization."
What sort of people are these Polaris folk? They are the kind of people for whom "skill" is a verb and "privateer" means someone who advocates opening a portion of the economy to competition. They worship at the shrine of Maude Barlow and ritually execrate the World Trade Organization, globalization and anything that threatens the livelihood of those in large public-sector trade unions. As the waters of change rise they cling to the old rugged cross of Big Government and assure themselves they are only doing what Tommy Douglas would have done. Well, good for them; somebody has to maintain these quaint old Canadian traditions. But should such dinosaurs be heeded when they bellow across the swamp in opposition to increased military spending?
Steven Staples, the proud holder of a B.Ed. degree from the University of New Brunswick, speaks for the Polarians in matters military. In a massive 49-page report entitled "Breaking Rank: A citizen's review of Canada's military spending" Mr Staples dismisses the suggestion that Canada's armed forces are underfunded. In one of several charts helpfully included with the report, his research makes it clear that while it is true that we spend less on our military (as a percentage of GDP) than any country in NATO except Luxembourg and Iceland we still spend more than -- follow me closely here because the math gets a little tricky -- Iceland and Luxembourg. So there.
And just supposing we were big enough fools to actually want to equip our men and women in the services, just who would really benefit from this increased spending? Why none other than those fiends in human form -- stock-holders of private corporations! These are the same devils who snatch bread from the mouths of impoverished Canadian infants and dash the medicine from the hands of our elderly. True security, says the learned Mr Staples, is not found in the military. Oh no, indeed. According to this closet Clausewitz real security is found in social programs and maintaining a positive role in world affairs.
So the next time our navy can't put a rescue helicopter in the air that actually has the ability to remain in the air, or our troops have to rent a foreign cargo plane to get to the action, or we want some reassurance that al-Qaeda won't be able to carry out its threats against our country, we can remain calm knowing that our fine health-care unions and the renown of Lester Pearson's Nobel Prize will keep us safe.
While there are indeed some of the more ferocious residents of the planet within easy reach of Yemen, a goodly share of them actually dwell in Yemen itself. Besides its abysmal record of torture and human rights violations, not enough to condemn it in the eyes of any self-respecting imperialist conservative, is the uncomfortable fact that if the Yemen government did not actively facilitate the bombing of the USS Cole, it certainly did everything it could to obfuscate and prevent the truth from coming to light.
Further, the astute observer will note that while Yemen is surrounded by violent dictatorships, the most likely target with SCUD-ing distance is Israel. Not content with making itself Judenrein in 1948, their Grand Mosque and Yemeni version of CBC routinely broadcast sermons calling for the deaths of all Jews and Christians. Rather than allow the SCUDs on their merry way to Yemen, the USA should have seized this opportunity to replace them with psychiatrists, which John Derbyshire believes is the only way sanity will ever come to the Arab world.
I must respectly beg to differ with my blog-mate Clio. I see no harm in Yemen having a few SCUDs to call their own. Their neighbours in that neck of the woods are not all harmless cheese-eaters and, in fact, the backwoods of the country itself shelter more than a few cut-throats, brigands and dacoits, toward whom one might well wish to lob a missile or two.
Indeed, I will go farther and assert Canada's need for several batteries of weapons of mass destruction. A certain power of whom I usually speak well might be less inclined to be a trade bully in matters of softwood lumber, grain and steel if they knew that with a touch of the button we could vaporize Boise, Fargo or any other American metropolitan area within reach of our cut-rate North Korean rockets. Once such an attack is made, we will, of course, surrender, throw ourselves on the mercy of our conquerors and live in swinish luxury for years on the billions in aid they will then send north. It worked for Germany, it can work for us.
Is there any valid reason for Yemen to own ballistic missiles? And what is the purpose of an arms embargo if people who shouldn't be selling weapons are allowed to send them freely to people who shouldn't be buying them? I hope the White House is calling in some pretty enormous favours for making this decision.
Outraged that a television show criticized them for awarding obscene amounts of money to litigants, two Mississippi jurors recently launched a $6 billion lawsuit. Claiming $597 million in actual damages and $5.9 billion in punitive damages Anthony Berry and Johnny Anderson said that "60 Minutes" defamed them in a segment that called their county a haven for "jackpot justice."
Doesn't something very similar occur whenever anyone criticizes the Religion of Peace as being a little on the blood-thirsty side or not quite grounded in the post-seventh-century world? Seeking to prove that theirs is a religion of profound and eternal truths and not just a creed for the intolerant or ignorant, assassins hunt down dissident authors and murder their publishers or translators. To show that the R of P is the best possible religion for women, female critics are threatened with stoning or crucifixion.
Maybe the best solution for opponents of The Religion That Must Not Be Named is to move to Jefferson County, Mississippi and then sue the sons of the desert for a few trillion.
Here it is, getting on toward evening on the wind-swept Canadian prairies and I've almost forgotten that December 10 is International Human Rights Day. Please, people, if you're oppressing someone, stop right now. Just for today, free your slaves; take a break from beating your spouse or elderly parents; unchain the child labourers; express your solidarity with the struggling working masses of whatever benighted Third World pest-hole you choose. There's always tomorrow to continue to enforce your heterosexism, or racism or ageism or speciesism or allegiance to the Patriarcho-Industrial Complex.
In an act of creativity that surely calls for a major arts prize or at least a huge government grant, a Canadian "electronic musician" has made an album out of the noises he and his partner make during sex. Aaron Funk of Winnipeg and his girlfriend Rachael Kozak recorded their love-making sessions on mini-disk; Funk later sampled the noises and turned them into "music".
"It's weird to deconstruct the sounds of sex", announced this latter-day Mozart. "It makes you conscious of a lot of stuff you'd normally ignore. I remember thinking, like, oh, that slap will make a good snare drum." Songs completed so far include Hymen Tramp Choir, Pervs, and Blood on the Rope.
There is an interesting book review in this Australian paper about two Holocaust era memoirs, one of a Jew who survived, and one of a German who later married a Jew and tells of life under Nazi rule. While the notion of Germany as a nation of innocents hypnotized by a big shiny coin is overly facile, so too is the proposition that Hitler was a "ventriloquist doll of an entire people". Nonetheless there are some fascinating points made in this review, and presumably in the books in question.
What is lacking from this field of historical analysis is a true understanding of the dynamics of Jew hatred in Germany. We await Jimmy Carter's speech in which he clarifies that one of the factors arousing animosity and leading to war in the 1930s and 40s was the continued inability of German and Polish Jews to live in peace with their pacific and gentle neighbours. Perhaps he and Arafat can co-author a study on the difficulties inherent in living with troublesome Jews nearby, and can then share the greatly tarnished Nobel Prize that they have both won.
But perhaps I'm being too harsh; maybe Carter just wants to compete in the Fiction category, as well.
Two recent bits of news from the Language Police. The first comes from Blighty where a government minister has declared that the term homosexual "wasn't the way forward in defining sexual orientation" and has instructed her department that the term should be henceforth banned.
The fact that this emerged from something called the "Equality Ministry" should warn the alert reader that a bit of Orwellian logic is being applied here. Instead of the old offensive term, British civil servants are now ordered to use "orientation towards people of the same sex."
That is all very well, but right-thinking folk know that the devil is in the details. How will this new descriptor be used? Clearly not as a noun, as in "Cyril, my hair-dresser, is an orientation towards people of the same sex". Perhaps we are to view it as an affliction, as in "Rich, you suffer from an orientation towards people of the same sex. What do you think of my new window treatments?" No, that won't work either. I believe the answer lies in the same careful language we use towards AIDS victims, as in "I can't find that photograph of Svend Robinson but my friend Harold, who is a Person Living With an Orientation Towards People of the Same Sex, has his picture hanging somewhere interesting."
Meanwhile, back in Canada the traditional terms "A.D." (Anno Domini) and "B.C." (Before Christ) are being replaced by the Royal Ontario Museum with the "C.E." (Common Era) and "B.C.E." (Before the Common Era). Far too ethnocentric, sniffs the ROM, and offensive to those who disagree that Jesus was the Christ. This is old news in academia where the trendy locutions have been promoted for the past decade or so but what interests me about the controversy is that even after all these years its defenders still haven't found a decent explanation for the new terms. There is plainly nothing "Common" in year 1 C.E. that didn't exist in year 1 B.C.E. Augustus Caesar was ruling in Rome ; the Han dynasty in China and the Parthians in Persia all continued on their merry ways unaware something "Common" had happened. Recent attempts to put a spin on the weasel words by saying that "C.E." stands for "Current Era" are even more preposterous -- just what does "current" mean when it has to apply to everything over the last two millenia?. By all means, use "C.E." if you must but please blush when you do so. Hyprocrisy is far more offensive than the use of a term with religious roots.
In accepting the Nobel Peace today, former American President Jimmy Carter said: "One of the key factors that arouses intense feelings of animosity in the world is the festering problem in the Holy Land, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the inability of Israel to live in peace with its neighbors."
The "inability of Israel to live in peace with its neighbours"? Doesn't it take two to tango? The sole gold star on Carter's foreign policy report card -- the only thing remotely worthy of a Nobel Prize -- was helping to facilitate the Egyptian-Israeli accord with Begin and Sadat. Both countries wanted peace; they talked, they got it. If the Saudis, PLO, and Syrians were willing to have an adult discussion and concede Israel's right to exist, peace in the Middle East would be within reach. And would everyone please remember that this problem pre-dates the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?
Richard Gwyn has announced that Canadians are right to feel morally superior to the United States and that this is a sign of our maturity. Nor is he shy about stating why we should possess these feelings of righteousness. With not the least fear of hubris he claims “we feel we are better North Americans than they are; that is, we jointly possess most of the essential attributes of being a North American — optimism, love of freedom, a sense of limitless possibilities — but, in addition, have done a better job of being a collective, of having a sense of solidarity.”
Before the Great Gwyn blessed with his insight, who had ever before heard before that Canadians were more of a collective than Americans or that we possessed a greater sense of solidarity? Is he really talking about us? We of the compulsory hyphen before the word Canadian? Remind me Richard: which country is the more obsessed about the likelihood of its breaking apart? Which country had an Official Opposition dedicated to dissolving the federal union? Which country defines itself not by shared deeds of past glory but by the particular format in which it administers medical care?
When the Americans were spending billions rebuilding Europe through the Marshall Plan or instilling democracy in the Japanese through a costly military occupation, Canadians were dismantling their armed forces and building a bigger bureaucracy. When the Americans were shouldering the cost of the Cold War that protected the West from Marxism our Prime Ministers were cosying up to dictators like Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe or Nicolai Ceausescu. Americans have been willing to spend money, resources and lives for their principles; we have been willing to write smug editorials and posture as peace-makers.
Our chief virtue as a nation is that like the beaver (Castor canadensis) we are generally inoffensive. And now we’ve gone and offended the people who are responsible for doing more good in the world than any other nation.
In an unguarded moment the Australian Prime Minister John Howard recently stated that if his government knew that terrorists were about strike his country he would be justified in ordering a pre-emptive attack against them, even if they were hiding in nearby Asian states.
This doctrine, which is only common sense in the post-9/11 world, sent the rulers of these countries (all of which have been used as bases by Islamic militants) into a froth of indignation. Australia was denounced roundly by the region's leaders and editorial writers as an agent of European and American values, intent on establishing a neo-imperialist hegemony.
Leading the chorus of mouth-foaming indignation was Malaysia's Matathir Mohamad whose hatred of the West is bone-deep and who can always be counted on to combine paranoia and zaniness in ways that would make him a great late-night radio call-in host in one of those American states where alien abductions are a rite of passage. In southeast Asia, however, he is what passes for a senior statesman. Prime Minister Howard, according to Matathir who seemed to have momentarily mislaid his Acme Pocket Guide to Diplomatic Language, was arrogant, insensitive and racist; should Australian agents or even an unmanned drone commit an outrage on Malaysia's sacred turf it would mean war. It cannot have helped that a former member of Howard's cabinet was willing to diagnose the Prime Minister as a victim of the belief that his country's values were superior to those Asian beacons of prosperity and democracy which were now his critics.
While all Australia trembles at the prospect of a tussle with a legion of Matathir's mighty warriors, it might be well to recall that today is the 61st anniversary of a famous unprovoked attack. In 1941 the air and naval forces of the Japanese empire surprised the world, and residents of Pearl Harbor in particular, with a lightning assault that killed thousands of Americans and blew their fleet out of the water. That same day they attacked Hong Kong and the Canadian troops helping to defend the colony along with other targets in Southeast Asia. The successes on this day of infamy enabled the Japanese to sweep quickly through huge swathes of the Pacific, the Dutch East Indies, French Indochina, Burma and Malaya and to set up the exploitive and racist Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
It took American, British and Australian forces almost four years to defeat this nasty empire; millions lost their lives during this struggle against fascism and militarism. But according to the Matathir Doctrine and the delicate consciences of the left, President Roosevelt would have been a racist aggressor had he learned of the Japanese plan and forestalled it with a pre-emptive strike on Japan. Perhaps such a blow might have prevented the entire war that followed: no Death March of Bataan; no Rape of Manila; no Canadian prisoners tortured or starved to death in slave camps; no mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The notion that national sovereignty is inviolable was shattered when hijackers started crashing passenger jets into buildings and George Bush announced an us-or-them foreign policy. The Taliban government of Afghanistan was slow in apprehending this new reality but I'm sure it's a topic its survivors discuss earnestly over their cold gruel in some windy mountain hideout. It's a lesson good Dr. Matahir Mohamad should consider when he ponders whether to tolerate the presence in Malaysia of terror cells who might tacitly leave his country in peace while they felt free to export terror to his neighbours.
There is too much good sense here for the government to digest at one sitting.
It is shameful that Canada has so blindly signed on to the Convention in question. One of the few countries that has had the presence of mind not to do so is the US. Another idea so dumb that only the world community could love it is the UN position on equality of women, which holds that Mother's Day is a coercive and sexist tool used to force women into unnatural roles.
There is no reason (at the moment) to suppose that most Canadians who support these conventions do consciously wish for the demolition of civil society. Nevertheless, it is curious how neatly the values-free, unparented world of UN utopian dreams would mesh with the agenda of, for instance, NAMBLA.
It is further baffling that anyone who has had to renew a driver's license would wish for a more powerful and ubiquitous government, or for a global one. Given that most people have justifiably little faith in the government's ability to calculate their taxes properly, shovel streets on time, or meet a gun control budget within a factor of ten, why would anybody at all think that the government should be involved in the details of marriage and childrearing?
Dexter reveals his narrow-minded conservatism in this statement, I fear. As a signator to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada has agreed with the principle that parents have no business interfering in their childrens' lives or modes of expression, and the right to sexual expression is near absolute. If they are denied the right to early and frequent promiscuity, which shall of course know no limits of sex, marital status or indeed species, how are children to grow up to be normal polyamourous NDP voters?
This Convention also forbids parents from educating their children in their religion unless the child fully concurs. When one looks around and sees how terribly rigid we are as a society, how repressed are most people's natural desires, how almost everyone feels the need to stifle their emotions and urges, it becomes clear that less religious indoctrination is in fact the only hope for the future. This too should have the laudable effect of creating more NDP voters.
It will be hard to feel too sorry for the Canadians heading to Iraq to act as human shields if they in fact get to serve as shields. If they do meet an unfortunate and predictable end, they will doubtless be held up as innocent victims of evil American imperialism. (Should that be Amerikan?) In fact by deliberately placing themselves in harm's way they do little to assist the Iraqis; if they by some fluke do deter military action to oust Hussein they will arguably be adding to their suffering.
If they would really like to taste life as an Iraqi, they might try surrendering their citizenship in a civilized democracy and then throwing themselves upon the mercy of Saddam Hussein. When they no longer have the option of fleeing on the next Air France flight, when they depend for their food and water and right to live torture-free upon the whims of a sadist, then perhaps they might change their minds about the desirability of forcible overthrow. This would be a suitable afterlife for most knee-jerk pacifists, in general: to be subject to the whims of an Islamofascist psychopath, while the world's intelligentsia try to restrain the world's only superpower from coming to their rescue.
Two Canadians are going to Iraq to serve as human shields. These young women, a nurse and a home-care worker, hope that, by interposing themselves between Iraqis and the weapons of an imminent invasion force, the American-led coalition will be dissuaded from attacking Saddam Hussein. This latest example of tourist activism prompts a number of reflections.
Firstly, I salute their bravery. Risking one's life to save others is a noble instinct with a long and honourable tradition. Secondly, I urge them to take their precious bodies and use them in a more worthy cause. Hindering the liberation of a country that has suffered the rule of a sadistic tyrant for far too many years is an ill-advised act when there are so many other places where they might more usefully sacrifice themselves.
Zimbabwe for example. There a racist and cruel regime is looting its nation's own riches and starving its own people for the gratification of a ruling clique of kleptocratic killers. Misses Vandas and Ziemann might wish to place themselves between a murderous ZANU mob and a brave newspaper editor or a terrorized farm family. They would swiftly be hacked to pieces or burnt alive in a necklacing ritual but that would be a small price to pay for drawing the world's attention to a tragic situation.
Or they might try Burma. There a racist and cruel regime is looting its nation's own riches and starving its own people for the gratification of a ruling clique of kleptocratic killers. Misses Vandas and Ziemann might wish to place themselves between a murderous Burmese army squad and some Karen refugees or a human rights activist. They would swiftly be shot or beaten to death with rifle butts but that would be a small price to pay for drawing the world's attention to a tragic situation.
Perhaps a visit to North Korea would be on their agenda. There a racist and cruel regime is looting its nation's own riches and starving its own people for the gratification of a ruling clique of kleptocratic killers. Misses Vandas and Ziemann might wish to place themselves between the Communist secret police and a political dissident. They would swiftly be gunned down or sent to a concentration camp but that would be a small price to pay for drawing the world's attention to a tragic situation.
Or maybe they could even spend their time in Iraq more fruitfully. There a racist and cruel regime is looting its nation's own riches and starving its own people for the gratification of a ruling clique of kleptocratic killers. Misses Vandas and Ziemann might wish to place themselves between the Baathist secret police and a Kurdish family or a Shi'ite cleric. They would swiftly be gassed or tortured to death in one of Hussein's many dungeons but that would be a small price to pay for drawing the world's attention to a tragic situation.
I've got an even more radical suggestion. Perhaps these well-meaning women could stay in Canada and serve the suffering in their own country. Many communities desperately need nurses and home-care workers, particularly those who vow they would be willing to die for others. Healing wounds and bathing aged bodies is not as glamorous as posing for the world's media but it may count for more in the long run.