Deborah Gyapong: April 2008

I must be clear. I am an evangelical Christian. I believe that marriage is a lifelong covenant of love and loyalty between one man and one woman. Further, adults who, with or without consent, engage in sexual acts with children should be severely punished. Pedophilia and polygamy are morally wrong. God declares them wrong, and He does not change.

If, however, God is out of the picture, morality changes with the times. When personal values trump transcendent moral teachings, attempts to distinguish right from wrong are hopeless.

This should concern everyone — liberals and conservatives, heterosexuals and homosexuals, Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, theists and atheists. All must be alarmed. Do not think moral relativism must be contained in the realm of sexuality. It can easily spill into any area of life. What is free speech today could be hate speech tomorrow. What is an acceptable religion today could be an illegal cult tomorrow. What is sexually permissible today could be punishable by death tomorrow. It depends on who calls the shots. If God is not higher than the secular state, then the state becomes our highest power. The state, then, has unbridled power to define and enforce its own morality. Inalienable human rights become state-granted privileges. That sounds like fascism.

When self-interests define morality, magnetic-north is where the elite put it. Our moral compass is whacked. Bountiful’s polygamists are not the only Canadians lost at sea amidst the fog of a moral disaster.

They offered Maclean's a choice, that according to the magazine's editors went like this:

" They demanded the right to respond with an article of equivalent length, by a writer of their choosing and with a cover of their own design. The editors of this magazine would have no opportunity to edit the article except for spelling and punctuation. According to their terms, they would be free to write anything they wanted, however inaccurate or unreasonable or offensive or libelous or criminal or otherwise unsuited for our publication.

They also wanted a substantial sum of money donated to a charity of their choice. If we refused any of their terms, they said they planned to bring a human rights complaint against us. They said they were also contemplating a criminal action against us.

We told them that we couldn't possibly meet their demands. No publication could. It would violate an editor's responsibilities to his publication, his readers, and his profession. We told them we would rather go out of business than to give over complete control of space in the magazine to anyone on such terms. We stand by that decision. Faced with their ultimatum, we asked if there was anything else we could do to satisfy them. They said "no" and smiled.

Since that meeting, the students have been communicating an inaccurate version of what transpired. For example, it's not true, as they claim, that we said we would rather go out of business than allow them right of response; we said we'd rather go out of business than allow them to respond entirely on their terms. They claim now that they would have settled for a reasonable right of response; we asked if they were firm in their position, and they said "yes." We were prepared to give them an opportunity to have their say, but they gave us no opening for reasonable conciliation. Several weeks later, we learned they had complained to federal human rights authorities, and to similar commissions in British Columbia and Ontario.

"The assertion that the editors were prepared to consider a reasonable
counter-view article to Mark Steyn's Islamophobic polemic is a complete
fabrication," said Muneeza Sheikh, one of the students present at the meeting.
"They categorically refused to publish any response whatsoever, stating that
they preferred bankruptcy."
The Canadian Islamic Congress's lawyer puts it this way:

"Not once did Maclean's reciprocate our desire to discuss a response that would resolve
the matter," said legal counsel Faisal Joseph. 



Okay....let's recap.  According to the editors the law students demanded:

1) a writer of their choosing

2)  a cover of their own design.

3)  If we refused any of their terms, they said they planned
to bring a human rights complaint against us. They said they were also
contemplating a criminal action against us.
4) money to a charity of their choice


The law students claim all they wanted was a reasonable right of response.
Well, one fact is true beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt and that is
the worst, most egregious aspect, the threat in #3.  And, given complaints in three
jurisdiction, the threats of human rights complaints were followed up.

Now the law students have moved away from points 1-4 to a-d:

a)a mutually acceptable response to the
Steyn article from an agreed upon author

b) nothing about the cover mentioned

c)  nothing about donations to charity of their choice

d) they will withdraw our complaints if they get agreed upon author rebuttal


While these events have a haggling element to them, why do I feel like I am witnessing
a slow-mo mugging? 

The weapon in question is the human rights complaints.

The muggers offer to lower the weapon if they get what they want, though perhaps
with a little water in their whine.

Of course, who can blame the law students (or the Canadian Islamic Congress for
that matter)  for behaving this way.  They are only
following the example of other groups who have successfully used the system to
trample the rights of others in the name of human rights.
Why shouldn't they use this illiberal system, too? 

I hope they come to realize that this system is dangerous to everyone, including
Muslims and their religious freedom and freedom of speech, which I defend.

Students and Islamic Congress Make Settlement Offer to Maclean's - Publish a Reasonable Response from a Mutually Acceptable Author

    TORONTO, April 30 /CNW/ -  Today the law students who launched human
rights complaints against Maclean's made a public offer to settle the matter
without a hearing before the quasi-judicial British Columbia Human Rights
Tribunal. The students and legal Counsel to the Canadian Islamic Congress
(CIC), are testing the sincerity of Maclean's editorial statement that the
magazine's editors were prepared to consider a reasonable response to
Islamophobic content, including the October 2006 cover story, The Future
Belong to Islam, by Mark Steyn.
   Published after the Ontario Human Rights Commission's condemnation of
Maclean's, the editorial refers to a March 2007 meeting between the students
and Maclean's senior editors, Kenneth Whyte and Mark Stevenson, in the
presence of Maclean's legal counsel, Julian Porter. In the editorial, the
editors claimed that Maclean's had been prepared to "give them (the students)
an opportunity to have their say, but they gave us no opening for reasonable
conciliation."
   "The assertion that the editors were prepared to consider a reasonable
counter-view article to Mark Steyn's Islamophobic polemic is a complete
fabrication," said Muneeza Sheikh, one of the students present at the meeting.
"They categorically refused to publish any response whatsoever, stating that
they preferred bankruptcy."
   "Despite this response, we continued to try and resolve the matter. We
wrote directly to Ted Rogers and asked for a meeting," said Khurrum Awan, a
member of the student group. "Our legal counsel indicated at our press
conference last year that we were prepared to meet with Mr. Rogers or his
representatives to discuss a resolution. And in our op-eds, we made clear that
what we are seeking is a reasonable opportunity to respond."      "Not once
did Maclean's reciprocate our desire to discuss a response that would resolve
the matter," said legal counsel Faisal Joseph. "However, in light of the
editors' latest assertion we are making a fair and reasonable proposal today.
In exchange for Maclean's publishing a mutually acceptable response to the
Steyn article from an agreed upon author, we would be prepared to settle this
matter."
   "We hope that Maclean's will reciprocate our efforts to resolve this
matter without a hearing before an independent quasi-judicial body in British
Columbia," continued Joseph.

For further information: Legal Counsel for the CIC, Faisal Joseph, (519)
672-4510

ALBANY - The Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be happy to see Barack Obama's presidential campaign derailed because the pastor is fuming that his former congregant has "betrayed" their 20-year relationship,

The Post has learned. "After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn't know about Jeremiah's views during those years, that he wasn't familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn't hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal," said the source, who has deep roots in Wright's Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.

"Jeremiah is trying to defend his congregation and the work of his ministry by saying what he is saying now," the source added.

"Jeremiah doesn't care if he derails Obama's candidacy or not . . . He knows what he's doing. Obviously, he's not a dumb man. He knows he's not helping."

This is a potentially perilous moment. In the first four months of this story, the Canadian Islamic Congress have won no sympathizers and the broader "human rights" establishment have lost almost all the ones they previously had. So this press conference is a critical attempt to reposition themselves, not as Islamist bully boys trying to shut down all debate on the perfectly legitimate topic of Islam and the west, but as "victims" of a powerful Islamophobic media. Presumably they will offer to shut down the case in return for a more modest right of reply without some of the more absurd demands they made last time round. It will sound "moderate" and "compromising" and "reasonable", all the things mainstream Canadian opinion likes. But, if Maclean's were to accede, it would be setting a very dangerous precedent: it would reward the CIC thugs for their bullying. As David Warren said way back when, the process is the punishment. Maclean's doesn't fear a modest fine, which is all the commissars can do. What we fear is a world in which the editorial choices of private publications are destabilized by bullying lobby groups who represent nobody using the "human rights" process to hijack our pages.

Great editorial over at The Catholic Register about Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Barbara Hall's drive-by verdict of "Islamophobia" regarding Mark Steyn's book excerpt from his international bestselling book America Alone that ran in Maclean's Magazine and became the subject of human rights complaints. Read the whole thing.

This is a shocking statement for a supposedly disinterested public adjudicator to make on a contested issue. Even though there has been no hearing, no opportunity for in-depth examination and argument that would expose the offending article to the kind of scrutiny it would need to truly determine whether it is guilty as charged, Hall decides to tell the world that Maclean’s and Steyn are at fault.

She then argues that her commission has a duty, though there is nothing in legislation to support this, to leap into the fray of public debate on such issues and pursue them.

This is a scary thought for those who cherish free speech. As anyone who has run afoul of these thought police knows, the deck is stacked heavily against the defendant. Just ask Fr. Alphonse de Valk, editor of Catholic Insight. This tiny magazine has already spent $6,000 and countless hours of work to defend itself against accusations before the Canadian Human Rights Commission that it has printed material likely to stir up hatred against homosexuals. That may not be much to big publications, but for a small monthly magazine, it is an incredible hardship. And Fr. De Valk has not even been told whether this complaint will actually make it to the hearing stage. Meanwhile, complainants can rest comfortably in the knowledge that the tribunals pick up the legal tab on their behalf.

Given that Maclean's editor Ken Whyte responded to that previous overture by stating that he would rather go bankrupt than publish an anti-Steyn manifesto, I would estimate the chances that the magazine accept this offer at about 0%. The issue has become a point of principle with Steyn and Whyte. As well, it has served to unite the formerly dispersed and somewhat obscure right-wing Canadian blogosphere around a single powerful cause, giving the centrist Maclean's ideological credibility among a tranche of Canadian thinkers who would otherwise ignore it. On a purely commercial basis, it would be foolish to throw that away by giving in to the CIC.

Come to think of it, it's fair to say that the Maclean's imbroglio has been one of the biggest shots in the arm to Canadian conservatives in general.

It's insulting to suggest CH does not respect rights when it is operating within its private sphere, but point taken: When CH became an agent of state policy it lost its ability to resist state morality.

It's clear, though, from the commission-ordered sensitivity training that goes along with the employment ruling that the OHRC is interested in far more than merely assuring an Ontario government contractee is in compliance with provincial government employment standards. It also wants to stamp out political views at variance with those favoured by the Commission.

And that's dangerous, very dangerous.

The Ontario government may make Christian Horizons operate its group homes as it wishes, after all, the government is paying the freight. What it may not do, ever, is demand that CH and its employees think as the government wishes.

Yet I have no doubt the OHRC's ruling would have been exactly the same if CH had been running its residential homes completely privately having raised its entire annual budget without any help from taxpayers. After all, in 1999 the OHRC forced Toronto Christian printer Scott Brockie to do print jobs for gay and lesbian customers even though his print business was private and not under any contract with Queen's Park to provide print services.

Hmm. "History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes." Commissar Lynch provides, as she would say, "no substantiation for these claims." But then she's a "hate speech" prosecutor and, as we know, Canada's "human rights" procedures aren't subject to tiresome requirements like evidence. So she's made an argument from authority: the great Queen's Counsel has risen from her throne in the Star Chamber and pronounced, and let that suffice. Those of us who occupy less exalted positions in the realm might wish to ponder the evidence for her assertions.

It's true that "hurtful actions that undermine freedom" and lead to "unspeakable crimes" usually have some fig leaf of intellectual justification. For example, the ideology first articulated by Karl Marx has led to the deaths of millions of people around the planet on an unprecedented scale. Yet oddly enough, no matter how many folks are murdered in the name of Marxism-Leninism, you're still free to propound its principles at every college in Canada.

A Chicago native son, Ayers first went into combat with his Weatherman comrades during the “Days of Rage” in 1969, smashing storefront windows along the city’s Magnificent Mile and assaulting police officers and city officials. Chicago’s mayor at the time was the Democratic boss of bosses, Richard J. Daley. The city’s current mayor, Richard M. Daley, has employed Ayers as a teacher trainer for the public schools and consulted him on the city’s education-reform plans. Obama’s supporters can reasonably ask: If Daley fils can forgive Ayers for his past violence, why should Obama’s less consequential contacts with Ayers be a political disqualification? It’s hard to disagree. Chicago’s liberals have chosen to define deviancy down in Ayers’s case, and Obama can’t be blamed for that.

What he can be blamed for is not acknowledging that his neighbor has a political agenda that, if successful, would make it impossible to lift academic achievement for disadvantaged children. As I have shown elsewhere in City Journal, Ayers’s politics have hardly changed since his Weatherman days. He still boasts about working full-time to bring down American capitalism and imperialism. This time, however, he does it from his tenured perch as Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Instead of planting bombs in public buildings, Ayers now works to indoctrinate America’s future teachers in the revolutionary cause, urging them to pass on the lessons to their public school students.

Progressing from education to indoctrination, postmodernism has ushered in an age of educational nihilism that seeks to destroy the minds of the next generation of Americans. The good news is that the biggest impediment to their grandiose plans is that they earlier suceeded in destroying their own minds on the bullshit they now force-feed the children of today.

What is outrageous is that anyone--anyone who is capable of thinking anyway--could take postmodern, brain-damaged and unapologetically violent collectivists like Ayers seriously, let alone grant him the authority to teach children of any age.

That a major Presidential candidate does is extremely alarming.

This decision by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is a direct attack on religious
freedom in Canada.

It reminds me of the Vriend case in Alberta.  Delwin Vriend got fired for breaking
a behavior code at a Christian college. When he was hired, he agreed not to have
sexual relations outside of a traditional marriage. Then he got involved in a homosexual relationship and
flaunted it.  The prevailing narrative says he got fired for being gay. No, he
got fired for violating a morality code that he signed.

Vriend complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission and they would not hear his case
because sexual orientation was not a protected ground in the Alberta Human Rights
Act.

He appealed and a higher court read in sexual orientation into the Act.  HOWEVER, THE
COURT UPHELD THE RIGHT OF THE COLLEGE TO HAVE A BEHAVIOR CODE. That gets overlooked.
But the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal is now insisting that a Christian organization
does not have the right to make sure that chaste, practicing Christians are involved in
an important, often thankless ministry to the most vulnerable people in our midst.

I don't think this decision will survive a higher court challenge.  For the sake of 
old and disabled people everywhere, hope that it does not.  This is a terrible 
decision that could destroy the Christian character of an excellent organization that
provides loving service to disabled people.  That loving service depends on its
Christian character.  And its Christian character depends on people living lives
that are consistent with a Bible-based faith and their being able to mutually
support each other in a ministry that most people would not want to do unless they
were paid a lot more money.

If this kind of thing happens, then Christians will pull out of cooperating
with government in performing crucially needed social
services. Is the Salvation Army going to be next?  L'Arche?

Yeah, yeah, the tribunal argues that government funds are involved.  But Christians
pay taxes too, and Christian Horizons does not discriminate among the people it
serves. They are of all faiths--religious and non-religious, gay and straight. And
all their clients are loved.

This decision could have the effect of killing the goose that lays golden eggs.
Right now, Ontario taxpayers are getting a sweet deal through Christian Horizons.
I know people who work for this wonderful outfit, people who brush the teeth of
disabled individuals who can't do it for themselves and other tasks that most
people would not want to do.  Do we want to have these jobs go to just anyone trying
to earn a few dollars an hour?  

Without agencies like Christian Horizons and the Salvation Army harnessing the
Christian love of a staff motivated to serve Christ, expect to see the costs of
such care skyrocket and the quality of that care to go down.  If I were running
Christian Horizons, I would be tempted to say, okay, we're shutting down. If
we can't be Christian then here, Ontario, you run this.  That's what the Catholic
bishops did in England. When told they had to open their adoption services to
non-traditional couples, they said, okay, we're out of the adoption business.

This decision has convinced me the whole "human rights"system as got to go, lock stock and barrel.
It has become totally anti-human rights as set down in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. It has become a menace. 

Here is evidence:

TORONTO, April 25 /CNW/ - The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario released
its decision in the case of Connie Heintz v. Christian Horizons. The decision
has a significant impact for faith-based and other organizations that provide
services to the general public. Such organizations must ensure their hiring
policies and practices do not unreasonably restrict or exclude the employment
of persons based on grounds under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
   Ms. Heintz, an individual of deep Christian faith, and a model employee
for five years with Christian Horizons, was providing care and support to
individuals with developmental disabilities. Like other employees, when first
hired, Ms. Heintz was required to sign a Lifestyle and Morality Statement,
which prohibits, among other things, homosexual relationships. After several
years, Ms. Heintz came to terms with her sexual orientation as a lesbian. When
Christian Horizons discovered this, they advised her that she was not
complying with the Statement and required her to leave the organization.
   Christian Horizons describes itself as an Evangelical Christian Ministry
that provides care and residential services to 1,400 developmentally disabled
individuals of all races, creeds and sexual orientations. With over 180
residential homes across Ontario, and 2,500 employees, Christian Horizons is
the largest provider of community living services in the province, funded
almost exclusively by the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services.
   The Tribunal ruled that Christian Horizons could not require its
employees to sign the Statement. It found that Christian Horizons is primarily
engaged in serving the disability-related needs of its clients, and the
prohibition on homosexual relationships was not a legitimate job requirement
for providing quality care and support to disabled residents.

Theologian and author Scott Hahn said the three biggest obstacles to his becoming a Catholic were: "Mary, Mary, Mary."

Like many evangelicals, the former Presbyterian minister had problems finding a biblical basis for Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption and Mary's heavenly queenship.

He and many other evangelicals believed the more Catholics give to Mary, the more they take away from Jesus, and "rob Jesus of the glory due him alone."

Yet since his 1986 conversion to the Catholic faith, Hahn now sees that Mary is Christ's masterpiece.

She is not a "self-made woman," he told a packed St. Patrick's Basilica in Ottawa April 12. Christ made her and redeemed her. And just as an artist would rather have you look at his masterpiece than at him, "Mary is his masterpiece."

In her, we can see the "perfection of Christ's redemptive work."

"She reflects all of his glory."

The picture shows Archbishop Terrence Prendergast and theologian and author Scott Hahn.

We don't have to die to go to heaven," author and speaker Scott Hahn told more than 800 people packed into Ottawa's St. Patrick's Basilica April 12.

"All we have to do is go to Mass."

The former Presbyterian minister, who now teaches theology and Scripture at Franciscan University of Steubenville, shared how he slowly came to understand how the Catholics are standing in heaven during the Eucharist and sharing in the marriage supper of the Lamb as described in the Book of Revelation.

The author of The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth first encountered Revelation as a teenager while attending a weekend retreat.

He learned he was lucky to be alive in the "end times," about the coming rapture of Christians and the Antichrist. Those "left behind" would face plagues of demonic frogs and bloody rivers.

Read the whole thing. The picture shows Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast and Scott Hahn.

TORONTO -- Naeem Muhammad Khan wants everyone to "Support Our Troops," but he's not talking about the Canadian Forces in Kandahar.

From his apartment in Toronto, Mr. Khan has been posting messages on the Internet calling Osama bin Laden a "hero" and "champion of Islam."

The 23-year-old fundamentalist's on-line logo combines the black Taliban flag and the outline of an AK-47 above the Support Our Troops slogan.

-snip-

Mr. Khan is an Islamist, not a terrorist, but what most disturbs moderate Muslims like Tahir Gora are his harsh comments about those who do not subscribe to fundamentalist beliefs.

In his online postings, Mr. Khan calls Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji and other moderates "apostates" and says that under Islamic law the punishment for apostasy is death. The same goes for those who insult Islam.

"Behead her!!! And make a nice video and post it on YouTube," he writes about one so-called "Islam basher." As for "Jews who support Zionism and Israel...since they are killing Palestinians...killing them is not bad...they deserve to die."

Q You reject democracy, you support the Taliban and you believe that fundamentalist Islam is the only way to live. So why do you choose to live in Canada, a democratic nation with freedom of religion that is at war with the Taliban? Isn't it hypocritical to say you believe what you do, while you sit in Toronto enjoying all the benefits of Western society?

A Yes, I reject democracy and all other forms of governance except Islam. Yes, I support the right of Taliban to live freely and to defend themselves from any invasion based on lies and deceit. And yes, it would have had been hypocritical of me to stay in the West had there been an Islamic state … but since there is no state in the entire world which has a complete Islamic system … Therefore, it is better to be in the West, where at least one can openly preach what he believes in, unlike the so-called Islamic countries, where you can be jailed, tortured and even killed for speaking the truth against the government. Besides, I was forced into coming to the West as my parents shifted here and I was not self-sufficient enough to provide for myself back home. And believe it or not, me and many Muslims like me are willing to migrate ASAP to an Islamic state as soon as it emerges.

Of course, if he'd been killed by a Christian you'd have made a dozen HBO specials about it by now, and Green Day would have a whole album about it, and the t-shirts would be flying off the virtual shelves.

And Ang Lee doesn't believe that artists "should be able to say whatever they want." He thinks they should be able to utter boring old received liberal wisdom and get subsidized by conservatives for doing so.

The pope spoke for about 20 minutes, asking forgiveness and speaking of his personal shame over the depraved priests who crushed the innocence of children, Horne and McDaid said.

The most dramatic moment of the gathering came when the only woman victim's turn came for her private time with Benedict, Horne said. With all the others' heads turned to give her privacy, she stood facing the standing pope. She wept as words escaped her.

"Her sounds were filled with sorrow, like an aria," said Horne. "So sorrowful, yet the sweetest sound, as if it were being exhaled. There was complete reverence around the room. No one interrupted. No one said anything like 'it's going to be all right.' Her sobs floated around the room, settled around all of us in the room. Then it was expelled. You saw the pain in Benedict's face."

Tears came to many eyes in the room, Horne said.

Bella is a beautiful film, and I can think of no higher praise than to say it is loved by the right people - and hated by the right people as well. Only at the very end do we discover the meaning of the title, and I will not spoil that for you.

If I told you exactly how I think Bella relates to intelligent design, I would spoil critical scenes and, - worse - tempt you to read it as some kind of an allegory. So let me hint: Nina starts out assuming that life is determined in advance, and it is very limited. No one cares, and no one will ever care what she does. Therefore, she must have an abortion.

She doesn’t exactly “want” an abortion. It would be more accurate to say that she cannot imagine a future in which she did not have one. An abortion will accomplish the only goal she can imagine: set her back on the treadmill to nowhere instead of tipping her into the abyss of nothingness. And that is her future - her full stop is delayed a while.

We are not encouraged to judge Nina for her past or proposed choices, but rather to see them in the context of her limited expectations.

But Jose, the chef at Nina’s former workplace, has plunged into the abyss himself. He has emerged, knowing that life is not as Nina thinks. On the contrary, there is a design to life, and that design is much larger and more promising than we usually imagine. If we cooperate with it, we become our best selves. If we don’t, we wander, aimless and self-destructive, forever bound by limits of our own making. Jose impulsively walks away from his frantic kitchen and sets out to demonstrate that to Nina.

He senses that he is one of the few men who can truly relate to the dilemma Nina and many other pregnant single women face. His own life, like theirs, was forever altered by the outcome of a few moments of unwise choices.

This contest is the logical reductio of the identity-group fetishization that they've been peddling for years. They're just feeling suckered because they plumped for the establishment diversity candidate and then found themselves out-diversified. But, if they think this is a low, mean, petty, unbecoming contest, wait an election cycle too when the Democratic primary offers the gay guy versus the imam.

Perhaps the greatest secular gift to the world by Judeo-Christian civilization is its seminal concept of the individual, which it raises above the tribe or the collective. In Genesis, we are told that man is made in the image of God. Deuteronomy tells us that "each human by his own sin is to be judged" and "do not punish children for the sins of their fathers." And, of course, the biblical life and teachings of Jesus reflect the deep importance of the individual. Thus was planted in the soil of the West our uniquely heightened respect for the individual.

It is impossible to imagine Western civilization — and particularly America — without the existence in our culture of the instinctive respect for the individual to offset the more general human instinct to be subordinated in the tribe or the group.

Mr. Soharwardy said the idea for the walk came about a year ago.

He said there wasn’t just one violent incident that prompted it, but the apparent escalation of violence — from incidents between young people to international terrorism — that led to the project.

"What I see, what’s going on in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, suicide bombings, killings, domestic violence in homes," Mr. Soharwardy said in a Halifax waterfront parking lot. "Because being a leader in the Islamic community, I get calls from many women (telling) me that they have been abused by their husbands.

"I did not have something personally that I experienced. But I can see, I can feel, and it hurts me, and people around the world are getting affected by this violence.

"Now we are living in a completely different world. This is a global village, so violence takes place in any part of the world. It becomes news, and when you turn on news, it affects you."

In 2006 Church of England officials contemplated giving Saint George the boot from his perch as Patron Saint of England because he was too offensive for modern day Muslims.

Now, British officials have cancelled an annual St. George's Day Parade in Bradford in fear that Muslims will riot.

This is such a sad story, more evidence of the fact that we don't really have a problem with Muslim extremism, we have a problem with the collapse and decay of Christian institutions and the whole foundation of Western Civilization. Without renewal of those foundations and a rediscovery of a robust, masculine, loving, virtuous Christian faith, our culture is toast. Onward Christian soldiers. But we must remember that our battle is not against flesh and blood and the first dragon that we must slay --with God's help--is the our own sinful nature.

"Authority" … "obedience". To be frank, these are not easy words to speak nowadays. Words like these represent a "stumbling stone" for many of our contemporaries, especially in a society which rightly places a high value on personal freedom. Yet, in the light of our faith in Jesus Christ - "the way and the truth and the life" - we come to see the fullest meaning, value, and indeed beauty, of those words. The Gospel teaches us that true freedom, the freedom of the children of God, is found only in the self-surrender which is part of the mystery of love. Only by losing ourselves, the Lord tells us, do we truly find ourselves (cf. Lk 17:33). True freedom blossoms when we turn away from the burden of sin, which clouds our perceptions and weakens our resolve, and find the source of our ultimate happiness in him who is infinite love, infinite freedom, infinite life. "In his will is our peace".

Real freedom, then, is God's gracious gift, the fruit of conversion to his truth, the truth which makes us free (cf. Jn 8:32). And this freedom in truth brings in its wake a new and liberating way of seeing reality. When we put on "the mind of Christ" (cf. Phil 2:5), new horizons open before us! In the light of faith, within the communion of the Church, we also find the inspiration and strength to become a leaven of the Gospel in the world.

On Wednesday, we'll be having a little fundraiser here at SteynOnline for the Freedom Five - Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan and Mark and Connie at Free Dominion, the five Canadian bloggers being sued by serial plaintiff and Stormfront member Richard Warman. So I hope you'll swing by between midnight Eastern and the following midnight Eastern and support a good cause.

I'm pleased to officially announce that I'm in the process of writing the novelization of the award-winning movie Bella. I was contacted by Thomas Nelson earlier this past autumn and plans were finalized in December. Working from the screenplay by Leo Severino and Alejandro Monteverde and painstakingly watching the film itself has been a unique process for me, but one I am enjoying. Bella is life-affirming, filled with faith, hope and love.

The more frightening possibility raised by this week’s RCMP “visit” to Conservative party headquarters is that the Canadian bureaucracy has once again revealed a deep, sustained and highly ideological hostility to ordinary rights of free speech.

Elections Canada has a simple excuse for its conduct: It has a mandate to enforce the law limiting campaign expenditures. Parliament enacted the local/national cap scheme, and we’re just doing our job.

It’s the same excuse we hear from human rights commissions as they police speech: We have a mandate to combat harmful discrimination.

But administrative agencies have a lot of discretion and scope to interpret their mandates. They can choose to interpret those mandates to minimize their interference with core freedoms, or they can interpret their mandates in ways indifferent to core freedoms.

Canada’s human rights commissions did not have to extend the definition of “discrimination” to include speech: That was a choice, a bad choice. And Elections Canada has a similar choice to make about how it treats speech. It could give local candidates wide scope to express themselves in the way that those local candidates think most effective — or it can create a new role for itself as the hall monitor of Canadian elections, adjudicating what candidates can and cannot say in their campaigns.

That is the path that Elections Canada is treading now, and it is a very dangerous one. Soon it will be telling candidates how much local involvement is “enough” and how much is not enough.

The Pope was speaking at a time when there are growing clashes between different “rights”. In Canada and many countries, religious rights have come under attack as traditional religious opposition to such things as homosexual sexual acts has landed Christians in court and before quasi-judicial human rights tribunals for merely expressing their most deeply held beliefs.

In Canada, for instance, Catholic Insight magazine is defending itself before the Canadian Human Rights Commission against accusations that it is fomenting hatred against homosexuality. And Maclean's magazine has been forced to defend itself for publishing excerpts from Mark Steyn's book America Alone, in which he argues that the growth of the Muslim population in Europe is to the detriment of Western culture.

The Pope went on to argue that a proper understanding of human rights leads to wiser decisions made by states for the common good. If human rights lose their mooring from the transcendent, he argued, they can be distorted by either a secular culture that has no understanding of objective truth, or states where a single religion dominates and suppresses all others.

Preceded by security personnel and an official Vatican camera crew, the pope then began slowly walking down the aisle, stopping to touch the face or grasp the hands of each of the children, sometimes bending over to kiss the top of a head.

Some of the children seemed to make eye contact with him. Many did not, or only managed to raise their eyes a few seconds after the pope had touched them and moved on.

“Mario got very still when the pope came along,” said Holly Borzacchiello, of Cornwall, N.Y., holding the hand of her 8-year-old son, Mario, who is autistic. “He calmed right down, right Mario?” They were still parked in the aisle of the chapel, along with many of the children, sticking around to talk to each other long after the pope had left.

13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

This reference to human dignity, which is the foundation and goal of the responsibility to protect, leads us to the theme we are specifically focusing upon this year, which marks the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document was the outcome of a convergence of different religious and cultural traditions, all of them motivated by the common desire to place the human person at the heart of institutions, laws and the workings of society, and to consider the human person essential for the world of culture, religion and science. Human rights are increasingly being presented as the common language and the ethical substratum of international relations. At the same time, the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights all serve as guarantees safeguarding human dignity. It is evident, though, that the rights recognized and expounded in the Declaration apply to everyone by virtue of the common origin of the person, who remains the high-point of God’s creative design for the world and for history. They are based on the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations. Removing human rights from this context would mean restricting their range and yielding to a relativistic conception, according to which the meaning and interpretation of rights could vary and their universality would be denied in the name of different cultural, political, social and even religious outlooks. This great variety of viewpoints must not be allowed to obscure the fact that not only rights are universal, but so too is the human person, the subject of those rights.

Pope Benedict, I think, is pretty clear that human rights and human freedom are the key issues that must be addressed in the world today. He is particularly concerned about freedom of religion and that countries where this is restricted are violating human rights (who might he be talking about, I wonder? Hmmmm.).

If we want to see the consequences of leftist socialism-lite, utopian pacifism, moral equivalence, and cultural relativism, then we need only look at how easily Europe and the leftists in this country have surrendered the fundamental values of Western civilization to the shrill (and violent) demands of Islamic fanatics--all done in the spirit of multicultural tolerance and politically correct compassion.

Europe, having given up any objective standard by which to mediate the vastly different perspectives and feelings of its varied populations; having abandoned reason altogether in favor of the expression of feelings no matter how destructive or unreasonable; and, finally, having endlessly touted the critical importance and essential need to "belong" to one's race, tribe, religion or group first and foremost; the outcome is what Stephen Hicks refers to as "group balkinization" --with all its inevitable and inescapable conflict.

That politically correct road which the left has taken us all down--billed as the path to peace and harmony--has instead led to a land dominated by emotions; a place where barbarism of the most primal sort is tolerated and excused; and where the human rights that the Pope talks about have been all but abandoned.

To often those who are not Christians, as they observe the splintering of Christian communities, are understandably confused about the Gospel message itself. Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called "prophetic actions" that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition. Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of "local options."

[From this week's editorial page]

The net result of allowing Section 13(1) to stand is that all manner of political and social and religious debate is now vulnerable to censure under Canada's ill-defined human rights apparatus. To engage in free and wide-ranging discussion on issues of politics, race, religion, terrorism, fanaticism, foreign policy, or domestic policy is to court being stigmatized as a bigot. That risk will chill discussion of the war in Iraq, the push to introduce sharia law in Ontario, Canada's anti-terrorism act, or Quebec's reasonable accommodation hearings, to name just a few examples. Given that the commissions are not led by judges, but are increasingly staffed by political activists — who aren't required to respect normal rules of evidence, courtroom procedure, or the defence of truth — the system seems fundamentally skewed against anyone who finds themselves accused.

It appears that the ultimate solution to this sorry situation is for the Supreme Court of Canada to reconsider its support of Section 13(1) in light of all that has transpired since 1990. The fears of the dissenters have come true, and then some. Canada needs an unambiguous reaffirmation of the right to freedom of expression, and assurance that reasonable limits on free speech are in fact reasonable.

In the meantime, Parliament should act to abolish Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act on the grounds that it applies a hopelessly vague and subjective limit on freedom of expression. That freedom, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged, is absolutely fundamental to a healthy democracy. The system of human rights star chambers has wandered far beyond the "reasonable limits" envisioned by Parliament and the Charter, and no amount of tinkering will do.

The tribunal was ordered to include consideration of RCMP statistics which Mr. Tahmourpour obtained under federal access to information legislation. He concluded that the statistics show visible minorities accounted for 11 per cent of RCMP recruits between 1996 and 2001, but made up 23 per cent of the rejections during that period.

Mr. Tahmourpour told the Federal Court of Appeal there was “systemic discrimination” against visible minorities in the RCMP. At the time, the RCMP denied his allegations, saying Mr. Tahmourpour was simply not Mountie material.

He also told the court that instead of treating his request to wear the pendant during fitness classes respectfully, a sergeant told the class in a “condescending and hostile” manner that “no one is going to wear his religious jewelry, except for Ali, of course.”

He described his first fitness class, where cadets were ordered to remove all jewellery. Tahmourpour asked a sergeant if he could keep wearing his religious pendant. The sergeant agreed but then mocked him in class for wanting to wear it.

"It ostracized me. It singled me out," he said. "It was the first destructive moment in my training."

He said he was pulled out of class daily by the academy's staff and criticized for taking too many notes, sitting in a too-formal position and for being too soft-spoken.

"I saw no validity to the things I was being criticized for. I saw it as harassment."

The other minorities, he said, would "poke fun at their own ethnicity, their own ancestry just to gain acceptance."

He also described being ridiculed and yelled at for an hour and told his English was unintelligible, and another incident where an officer mocked his Arabic signature.

From the dawn of the Republic, America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the “self-evident truth” that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God. The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement.

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good.

"I was never a great Brigitte Bardot fan and I'm not exactly known for being on the cutting edge of "animal rights" issues. But, if you happen to believe that Muslim slaughtering practices (for sheep, that is, not infidels) are unacceptably cruel, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to say so. But apparently not in France"

"Via the Hyacinth Girl, who yokes Bardot's name to mine to a degree that would boggle Roger Vadim. Who would have thought the quintessential Euro-sex kitten would end her days as the Mark Steyn of France? Although I guess that makes me the Brigitte Bardot of Canada."

As I posted earlier, I found it astonishing how few journalists attended yesterday's B'Nai Brith Canada news conference on anti-Semitic incidents in the year 2005.

Okay, okay, so the number of incidents were down a tad from the year before, but the trend upwards since 2001 is alarming. They are up threefold in that time period, and the group warned of the terrible proliferation of hate on the Internet and on university campuses--often perpetuated by professors---in Canada.

Last night I watched CBC's The National to see if they carried a report on the newser, as there was a CBC reporter and cameras there. Nothing. But, they carried a whole story on aging French film star Brigitte Bardot, a sex symbol from the 60s. She is now in her 70s and let me write a memo to myself to avoid lots of eye make up and avoid the "bed head" look when I reach her age. I digress. There was a wide shot of her press conference on the National's report and the SESSION WAS PACKED.

That's where they all were.

The Canadian Jewish Congress and its allies cannot have it both ways. Since they favour the muzzling of opinion that expresses "hatred" or "contempt," they have no legitimate quarrel with the decision to process the Maclean's complaint. If, as they have said, the mere processing of such complaints is an "abuse of legitimate human rights mechanisms," their proper recourse is to join in urging the repeal of the relevant legislation.

"I have no hidden agenda," he said.

The Prophet Mohammed preached love for others, not just for other Muslims, he said.

Delic said he chose to live in Canada where faithful people can affirm God's love in a society where religion is an agent of freedom. He described Canada as a land where people from different religions live in cooperation and respect, "where no one uses religion to gain advantage."

"Canada for me is the most Islamic country," he said.

Canadian Islamic Congress -- In your editorial Unproven 'Racism' (April 11), you denigrated the Ontario Human Rights Commission for objecting to 22 anti-Muslim articles published by Maclean's magazine between January of 2005 and July of 2007. Your dismissal of the OHRC ignores the scurrilous content of these articles - particularly that of Mark Steyn's The Future Belongs to Islam - that allege that "enough" Muslims share the goals of terrorists; that Muslims believe in drinking their enemies' blood; that contemporary Islam condones sex with minors and animals; and that some Muslims are "sheep-shaggers."

Dear Sir,

In his letter, Imam Delic of the Canadian Islamic Congress says that, in my Maclean’s columns, I “allege” that “Muslims believe in drinking their enemies’ blood” and that “contemporary Islam condones sex with minors and animals” .

Er, no. It was not I who “alleged” that. The latter “allegation” was made in the 1980s by the late Ayatollah Khomeini, a quite famous Muslim in his day, and the former “allegation” was made by Sheikh Omar Brooks, a British Muslim, in a well reported debate at Trinity College, Dublin, the oldest debating society in the world*.

Imam Delic says these articles were “scurrilous”. If by “scurrilous” he means “the crime of accurately quoting prominent Muslims”, then I plead guilty – though I confess I am surprised to discover this is apparently a crime in Canada. But if the Imam disputes these and other characterizations, he should surely take them up with the Islamic scholars who made them rather than attempting to eliminate the middle man.

In other words, the wheels of justice grind slowly, they grind cautiously,
and they grind very publicly. Is this inconvenient? You bet, but it’s what due
process and the rule of law is all about.

Which is precisely what Canada’s progressive human rights champions and ‘practitioners’ can’t stand. For them, our existing laws and practices – laws and practices that I might add were sufficient to protect us from turning fascist when fascism was popular among progressives – are inadequate to their plans. Like all true believers, for them, only the cause matters, and if existing legal institutions and traditions impede the speedy success of that cause, those institutions and traditions have to be replaced by new ones, better suited to the efficient imposition of the ideology of the day.

This is the true innovation of human rights commissions and legislation in Canada. They do not enhance the rule of law – they circumvent it. Their supporters can adorn them with noble platitudes about tolerance and respect for diversity, but that doesn’t change the fundamental nature of their purpose, nor does it mitigate their inherent danger.

The only sure defence against tyranny is the maintenance of a free market in ideas, because it in such a free market that bad ideas can be weighed against good and exposed for what they are. Vile ideologies such as those espoused by the Nazis can never succeed in acquiring political power in a society that values above all the free
exchange of ideas and opinions. They can only prevail in a society where the
range of ideas and opinions that can be expressed in the public square is
limited only to those approved by the state.

Unfettered speech is not dangerous, unfettered power is. Where there is unfettered speech, there can be no unfettered power.

"I have no idea what I'll do, but I'm sure I'll work for another 10 15 years," Hillier said. "I don't want to sit on the couch scratching my belly in my underwear watching the soaps."

"These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I'll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties," he said.

Hillier served as the head of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Kabul last year.

He took over as chief of the defense staff in February this year, just weeks before the Liberal government announced a big increase in military spending.

"We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," the newspapers quoted him as saying.

And, of course, he doesn't seem capable of understanding the consequences of his own appeasement and enabling of terror and despotism worldwide.

Someone once said that Jimmy Carter was actually the first female president of the U.S. (I think it was Gagdad Bob at One Cosmos); and I must say that this assertion is an insult to bimbos everywhere. Carter reminds me of the pathetic mother in the movie Mean Girls who wants to be loved and accepted by her daughter's clique (and completely identifies with them--meanness and all); so much so, that she is eager to enthusiastically support their antisocial acting-out behavior and endure the girls' contempt as well.

Carter is perhaps a wannabee despot herself himself, who admires and seeks the approval of practically every dictator in the world (it is possible that using the word "practically" is being overly cautious). I'm sure he lusts in his heart for the kind of brutish manliness such thugs radiate, but he only manages to come across as a weak and insecure person who stands for nothing.

• But there was a moment in the interview, nearer to the end -- just like the moment at the end of my debate with CanWest's Scott Anderson, where we finally got through the well-rehearsed cliches, and finally got some frankness -- that was a revelation. With Anderson, it was his admission that he didn't think the cartoons were offensive, but that some others did, so he let their judgment trump his own. With Cruickshank, it was his comment that to publish the cartoons was simply being "macho". Pressed to explain, he said that critics called cartoon self-censorhip a "lack of courage... you're just afraid that your correspondents in the Islamic world are going to face the consequences of this. Well, yeah."
• 
  
• Well yeah? I appreciate the honesty: the CBC's news boss acknowledged, for the first time, that they are afraid that if they cover Muslim news in the wrong way, there could be violence against their reporters in Muslim nations. So they don't.

Cruickshank called the cartoons "artefacts of hatred". What does that mean? That Muslims hate the cartoons? Or that to show them means you hate Muslims? Will the CBC stop portraying swastikas, which are a symbol of Nazi hate? Will they be blurred in CBC documentaries about the Second World War? Isn't the point of news coverage to report the world as it is -- including controversies coloured by hate? Is Cruickshank implying that to show evil is tantamount to agreeing with evil?

Cruickshank creates a false dichotomy -- and false comparison -- between Muslim terrorists (though he doesn't use that word; calls them "extremists") and the "extremists" who are "intolerant of any restrictions on speech rights". That's a cute turn of phrase, but to equate violent terrorists with free speech activists -- to say they're both just "extremists" -- is grotesque. It's also a handy way of marginalizing anyone who believes in some limits on free speech -- as I do, in cases ranging from fraud to defamation to forgery to copyright. Is it really "extremist" to want to show these cartoons on the news? Is that a catch-all phrase for people who disagree with political correctness? And is it really appropriate to use the same word as was used to describe murderers and arsonists opposed to the cartoons?

The ban on polygamy is archaic. There is no law in Canada to forbid a man from living with two or three women, or a woman with two or more men - assuming, of course, the consent of all concerned. So if any such group were to have some kind of ceremony and call themselves married, how would prosecuting them serve any purpose?

Oppal asserts that "all right-thinking Canadians" - we assume he means people who agree with him - abhor what's going in Bountiful. Maybe. But no doubt many "right-thinking Canadians" abhor what happens in strip clubs, fraternity house and gay bars, too. But who would want special prosecutors to attack those places?

OTTAWA - Liberal MP Denis Corderre says the next election will be fought over censorship.

But the newly minted Heritage Critic was not speaking about press freedom in light of hate speech complaints levied against Catholic Insight, Maclean’s and Ezra Levant, the former publisher of the Western Standard. In fact, Corderre did not even know about them when pressed in a scrum April 1. Instead, he, like many socially progressive MPs, has joined the artistic community in objecting to Bill C-10 and its potential effect on the film industry.

The Act to Amend the Income Tax Act would give the Heritage Minister discretion to yank the tax credits from Canadian feature films that are deemed offensive or contrary to public policy. Heritage Minister Josée Verner has promised industry-wide consultations to develop guidelines. But the artistic community warns Bill C-10 would give too much power to government to make subjective moral judgments about works of art, cause artists to self-censor and force Canadians to move to the United States.

Bill C-10 passed the House of Commons with all-party support because most MPs failed to read the fine print in its 560 pages. The Liberal-dominated Senate has referred the controversial bill to its banking, trade and commerce committee.

Socially conservative voices argue Bill C-10 has nothing to do with censorship, only sound fiscal management.

But the gloomiest part of the Pipes speech deals with the third option - "harmonious integration":

Yes, indigenous Europeans could yet rediscover their Christian faith, make more babies and again cherish their heritage. Yes, they could encourage non-Muslim immigration and acculturate Muslims already living in Europe. Yes, Muslim could accept historic Europe. But not only are such developments not under way, their prospects are dim. In particular, young Muslims are cultivating grievances and nursing ambitions at odds with their neighbours.

One can virtually dismiss from consideration the prospect of Muslims accepting historic Europe and integrating within it.

That's a bleak assessment - especially when "harmonious integration" is the option to which the European political class remains (officially) committed.

While I applaud the fact that people are standing up to the Islamists, I am not terribly sanguine about the commitment to free speech among secularists--though perhaps the signers of the manifesto are exceptions. For secularists, equality often trumps all other rights, including freedom of speech and religion. We have plenty examples up here in Canada, which is further down this road than the United States. Secularists are behind the push to get all religious symbols and belief out of the public square. Note I am making a distinction between the secular--which includes people of religious and non-religious belief--and secularism which is another ideology that proponents love to force on others.

I like living in a secular society. I like freedom of religion and association and the fact that no one denomination is forced on anyone. But religious folk are part of the secular and we have a right to be here along with non-religious folk, participating fully in public life. I don't have a problem with Muslims having freedom of religion, wearing their hijabs, praying five times a day even in public schools. I distinguish between Islam and Islamism, just as I distinguish between the secular and secularism.

The West is in crisis. Attacked externally by fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism, it is not able to rise to the challenge. Undermined internally by a moral and spiritual crisis, it can't seem to find the courage to react. Our affluence makes us feel guilty and we are ashamed of our traditions. Terrorism is seen as a reaction to our errors, whereas it is nothing less than an act of aggression against our civilization and against all human kind.

Europe is at a standstill. Its foreign policy lacks unity, its birth rate is declining and so is its competitive edge in the world market. Europe hides and denies its own identity, and so fails to gain popular support when called to adopt a constitution. It hops on the anti-American bandwagon and drives a wedge between itself and the United States.

Our traditions are questioned. Our heritage, dating back thousands of years, is denied in the name of secularism and progressivism, thus impoverishing the values of life, of the person, of marriage and of the family. It is affirmed that all cultures are equally valid. The integration of immigrants has been left rudderless and without rules.

As Benedict XVI said, nowadays "The West doesn't love itself any longer". To overcome this crisis, we need to increase our commitment and show more courage when dealing with issues regarding our civilization.

The West

We are committed, in the name of a shared historical and cultural tradition, to reaffirming the value of Western Civilization as a source of universal and inalienable principles, and to opposing any attempt to place Europe as alternative or antagonistic to the United States.

Europe

We are committed to founding anew a fresh European spirit that seeks inspiration from the founding fathers of European unity, wherein lies Europe's true identity and strength, enabling it to speak to the hearts of its citizens.

Security

We are committed to dealing with terrorism anywhere, considering it a crime against humanity. We will undertake to deprive it of every justification and support, to isolate all organizations that threaten the life of civilians, and to counter all those who preach hatred. We are committed to give full support to our soldiers and to our security forces who safeguard us both at home and abroad.
Integration

We are committed to promoting the integration of immigrants in the name of shared values and the principles of our Constitution, without, in any way, accepting that the rights of any one group should prevail on those of its individuals.

Life

We are committed to supporting the right to life, from conception to natural death, and to considering the unborn child as "someone" whose rights must be balanced against others, and never as "something" easily to be sacrificed to other goals.
Subsidiarity

We are committed to supporting the principle of "as much liberty as possible, as much State as is necessary". This underscore the Christian and liberal primacy of the person and of intermediate bodies of civil society, and highlights the role of political power as an instrument for assisting the free initiative of individuals, families, associations, businesses and volunteerism.
The Family

We are committed to affirming the value of the family as a natural partnership based on marriage, which needs to be protected as distinct from any other kind of union or bond.

Liberty

We are committed to spreading liberty and democracy as universal values held to be true just as much as in the West, East, North or South. A privileged few may not live at the expense of the slavery of many.

Religion

We are committed to reaffirming the distinction between Church and State, without giving in to the secular temptation of relegating the religious dimension solely to the individual sphere.

Education

We are committed to defending and promoting freedom of education without denying the public function of instruction. We therefore intend to establish full equality and recognition for both state and private schools, applying the general principle of subsidiarity in this sector as well.

Italy

We are committed to making our homeland even stronger and to highlighting the values of conservative liberalism so that the growth of public and individual freedom may develop at the same rate as the preservation of our common heritage. People who forget their roots can be neither free nor respected.

The West is life. The West is civilization. The West is freedom.

There’s a reason Richard Warman is the man of the hour: he embodies– almost perfectly– the contradictions of our present age. He’s Canada, 2008: confused and contradictory.

No matter how we feel about Warman or his activities, we neglect opportunities to learn more about ourselves and our civilization and the problems facing us, if we simply wish people like Warman would go away– the kind of blindly abusive attitude embodied in a recent Free Dominion article entitled ‘Richard Warman Is Not A Human‘. Pure nonsense: he is us and we are him.

OTTAWA, April 10 /CNW Telbec/ - Four Canadian journalists who have stood
up to threats to freedom of expression in Canada are the finalists for an
annual World Press Freedom prize.
   Toronto Star Asia Correspondent Bill Schiller, freelance journalist and
author Derek Finkle, reporters Joel-Denis Bellavance and Gilles Toupin of
Montreal's La Presse and Maclean's columnist Mark Steyn will be considered for
the $2,000 prize, which is awarded each year to the Canadian media worker who,
in the view of the jury, has made the most significant contribution to press
freedom in this country over the previous 12 months.
   The prize will be awarded by the Canadian Committee for World Press
Freedom at a lunch event marking World Press Freedom Day on Friday, May 2nd at
the National Arts Centre in Ottawa.


I bought myself a ticket yesterday.  All of the finalists have faced
some aspect of the growing threats to press freedom, whether human
rights complaints, pressure to reveal sources, or defamation suits
to stop investigative journalism. As the Blogger-5 (or six if
Connie and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion count as two) face a
defamation suit, these laws also have to be re-examined as well as
human rights laws and regimes.

This luncheon will attract the media elite of Ottawa. I would advise
anyone who wants to be there to order their ticket now.

Information on how to do so via the web or over the phone is
here: www.ccwpf-cclpm.ca

OTTAWA - The pilgrims carrying the Ark of the New Covenant have faced snow and rain and shine. They have become experts in caring for blisters. Some of them have sunburns on their faces. Mervin Lucas, 61, of the Gaspé diocese, loves it, even though the days have been long. The pilgrims pushed the Ark on its custom “Ark-mobile” mostly up hill for 31 kilometres through a snow storm on the way to Orillia, Ont., he said. Not only did they have to push the Ark, they had to push the police car when the road got too slippery, he said.

“We prayed. We laughed. We sang. We got wet. It went well,” he said.

“It has been phenomenal,” said a beaming Sarah McDonald, 26, who is co-ordinating the team of 12 that is transporting the Ark on foot via five national Catholic shrines on its way to Quebec City, to raise awareness of the 49th International Eucharistic Congress taking place there June 15-22. “We have been welcomed in each and every parish.”

"What strikes you first is the laugh. It springs from the chest, yet registers as a kind of cartoonish yuk--a sound rendered all the more weird if you know the reputation of its owner. As with many legal complainants, Warman comes across on papers as a mirthless scold. But in person, he is all charm and mockery."

It is of course important to keep asking whether human-rights commissions could do better. But even those who support reform, including me, are troubled by unfair criticism, distortion and mudslinging. We continue to hear wildly inaccurate statements that commissions issue "orders," or that they conduct criminal proceedings, determining "guilt" and "innocence."

Political leaders must speak out against all this. It is disquieting that Liberal MP Keith Martin calls for repeal of s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, given that the Liberal Party of Canada has historically worked against hate speech and discrimination. Martin's website asserts that the federal commission is not accountable to Parliament, when the federal act says clearly that the commission reports directly to Parliament.

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus on the pope:

A few weeks before he was elected pope, Joseph Ratzinger said at the funeral of Luigi Giussani, founder of the renewal movement known as Communion and Liberation, “Christianity is not an intellectual system, a collection of dogmas, or a moralism. Christianity is instead an encounter, a love story, an event.” Of course Christianity is also a rich intellectual tradition, some of us would say the richest in the history of the world, and Benedict is a master teacher of that tradition. And Christianity also entails dogmas and doctrines, vigorously defended and articulated by Benedict. It is also and very importantly a way of living in the truth, including the moral truth. But all of that is ancillary to and dependent on the fact that Christianity is a love story, an encounter with “the human face of God,” Jesus Christ.

h/t LifeSiteNews.com

The shop is on Main Street, which isn’t really main at all anymore.
Inside, the place inspired both awe and a vague sort of horror.

The owner, Wayne, stands at the front of the store surrounded by heaps of books that are stacked haphazard around his knees. He stays there, behind his ancient desk, looking like a prisoner of literature. He seems content enough, though, as he hollers out a conversation with another customer. Yelling that French Canadian Hockey Players are the best in the world and how Don Cherry taught him to watch TV with the sound off.

I tune him out and venture deeper into the place. It seems to go on forever. Room after room of yellowing books stacked as high as the ceiling. Boxes of unsorted books trip me and grab at my pant leg. I can’t seem to find the back of the store, the last room. For a surreal moment I feel like the star of a BBC children’s special; Bonnie and the Book Store, and I wonder if I will find a magical portal, or a talking dog, or a secret door that leads to outer space.

Jesus might get away with wrecking the place but I don’t think I can, so I’m left with the dilemma of how to handle the avalanche of fury that descends. It took me a little while to figure out how to channel it constructively. But finally I got it - I could write.

So I write. I allow my pen free reign. I don’t censor myself. I vent and rage and fume on the page. I let myself see red and I pour scarlet, ruby, crimson words on to the innocent white of the page, metaphorically spilling my blood and sparing my fists. The paper takes it, absorbs my fury and, when I’m spent, the tears can come and wash me clean again. And sometimes I’m surprised to discover a kernel of beauty in the torrent that flows - the seed of an idea, an embryonic poem.

Many have indicated they're redirecting their CPC donations to this effort, and have copied their MP's as to why.

Celestial Junk has an action plan:

In my opinion, unless your concerns transfer to direct action … you are no more than a windbag. If you don't have concerns abou this issue, then by all means ignore this post.

First and foremost, call or email Robert Nicholson, the Minister in Charge of CHRC excesses, or your MP. Email has the advantage of being able to link your MP to the appropriate sources of information. But, a personal call, which they will return after you leave your request, will carry a lot of weight. Furthermore, encourage your readers to call or write, supplying them with the proper phone and email addresses. Collectively, the BT has huge readership.

Next, call the CPC and tell them that you will not contribute donations unless action is taken. I’m sure all of you who have memberships have had your share of the dreaded CPC fund raisers from hell. They are persistent, they are regular, and they’ve raised a pile of cash for the party. Now, I’d say it’s time to cut off the tap where we can, simply because the CPC has been incredibly quiet on this issue. If you give, give to those who will need support through the legal process.

There's more, plus links.

It is appalling -- it is appalling -- that anyone with legal training and a public forum would say, as Judge (Judge? Whatever...) Hall says in effect, "I am not competent to provide a due-process investigation for this complaint, but he's guilty. Just look at him." To do so is to demonstrate the excesses that have made a growing number of Canadians rightly leery of the role of human-rights commissions in providing a handy, relaxed, star-chamber alternative to the rule of law in sensitive disputes.

In 2006, the Liberals streamlined the procedures employed by the OHRC to ensure speedier resolution of complaints, provide more rigorous adjudication standards, and take discretionary powers out of the hands of commission mandarins. It was the right thing to do. But the reform generated a firestorm of opposition among entrenched interests — most notably, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which resented having its members taken down a peg. ("The human rights commission is a hotbed for the most militant OPSEU activists," my source told me.) "In a million years, McGuinty would not want to revisit this sort of thing by opening up the Code again," I was told.

I also heard some interesting back story. Barbara Hall, who was named Chief Commissioner of the OHRC in 2005, was initially appointed because the government felt she would hew to the political direction it provided. But according to my friend, "she was a weak leader who was almost immediately co-opted by the radicals within the bureaucracy."

The MCC finds it shameful that the OHCR would use Islamist supplied information in

a blog discussion that called for "the mass killing, deportation or conversion of Muslim Canadians" and position it as reflective of the view of media and ordinary Canadians.

The OHCR decision must be cause for celebration in Osama Bin Laden's cave and among the soldiers of the world Jihadi movement that love to spread the falsehood that Canada is at war with Islam and that Muslims in Canada live under a cloud of racism and persecution. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The denier will feel justified in acting out against those who threaten the peacefulness of their fantasy (check out the "peacefulness" and "reasonable" slogans chanted at most antiwar rallies these days). Check out, for example, the attacks and attempts to silence authors like Mark Steyn because his book , America Alone, discusses the genocidal demographic trajectory of Europe as they refuse to acknowledge or deal with the reality of Islamic immigration.

[ NOTE: Considering the fact that Europe has taken this track before in recent memory, Steyn is more of a Delphic oracle, rather than the genocidal maniac he is being portrayed as by those who would also deny reality. Nevertheless, his Canadian Inquisitors--otherwise known as "Human Rights Commission" kangaroo court find him guilty--without benefit of trial:

OTTAWA - Catholic Insight magazine has paid $6,000 in legal fees fighting a human rights “hate” complaint, yet no hearing date is in sight.

For a small circulation (3,500 subscribers) conservative specialty magazine, “it has cost us quite a bit,” said the magazine’s editor, Basilian Father Alphonse de Valk. “We’re getting some donations, fortunately, even though we haven’t done anything,” de Valk said in an interview from Toronto.

It’s not only the money. De Valk said he and staffer Tony Gosgnach have spent an “enormous amount of time” on the issue since they became aware of the complaint against the magazine a year ago.

“We probably spend three days a week, two people, just keeping up with what’s going on in this,” he said.

But de Valk remains calm in the face of the complaints.

“Maybe my little problem is something to be endured patiently, maybe we can say a few words of truth before this commission,” he said. “Nothing is lost in the eyes of God.”

Almost as soon as the first houses were built at the foot of cliffs overlooking the river, Franciscan missionary priests, known as the Recollet Fathers, built a wooden church.

In 1633, Champlain built a chapel in Upper Town near the site of the present Notre-Dame de Quebec Basilica Cathedral. Jesuit missionaries, the "Black Robes," soon followed. They lived among the Huron tribes, sharing their hardships and meagre food. They spent eight to 12 years learning the language before they could share the Gospel.

"The quality of the first Jesuits was extraordinary," said Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Quebec, who remains inspired by St. Jean de Br‚beuf and the Canadian martyrs, who gave their lives to serve among aboriginal peoples.

"When you read Br‚beuf, so impressive was his readiness for martyrdom. And it was authentic; it was not the enthusiasm of an adolescent."

Ouellet hopes the 2008 International Eucharistic Congress this June 15-22 in Quebec City will revive the memory of Br‚beuf and the seven other Canadian martyrs, as the city also celebrates the 400th anniversary of its founding.

The 2008 International Eucharistic Congress coincides not only with the 400th anniversary of Quebec City's founding, but also with the 350th anniversary of Canada's first bishop Francois de Laval and the 300th anniversary of his death.

"He built the Church with boldness," said Father Jacques Gourde, who with Sister Lucienne Boisvert, is organizing a series of special events to mark the jubilee year begun on the feast of the Immaculate Conception Dec. 8.

Beatified in 1980, Laval established the first cathedral in North America and the New World's first Catholic seminary, establishing a community of priests to minister to both French settlers and native peoples.

"He was like Abraham, going to a strange land," Gourde said. Ordained a bishop in 1658, Laval came to the New World in 1659 as an apostolic vicar. He established the seminary in 1668. He became North America's first bishop when the Quebec Diocese was established in 1674.

Laval, like the fur traders and the Jesuits, travelled by canoe, risking attack by hostile bands, harsh weather and difficult portages as he constantly visited the parishes he planted as far away as Montreal and Tadoussac.

More information is available at www.francoisdelaval2008.org .

Organizing a spiritual event such as the 2008 International Eucharistic Congress in Quebec City June 15-22 is far different from organizing a non-religious event such as the Olympics.

Not only do organizers have to be concerned about programming, accommodation, food and logistics for thousands of pilgrims, but also they must act as witnesses to the importance of the Eucharist in their own lives. They must keep the congress' spiritual focus in mind.

"The Christian faith is at the centre of our identity," said Msgr. Jean Picher, general secretary of the congress. "It is not really easy to measure spiritual results in everyone."

"We are organizing opportunity. It is the Holy Spirit who will provide the results."

Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, however, said that for the Commission "to refer to Maclean's magazine and journalists as contributing to racism is bullshit, if you can use that word."

He said the Commission has unfairly taken sides against freedom of speech in a dispute within the Canadian Muslim community between moderates and fundamentalists.

"There are within the staff [of the Ontario Human Rights Commission], and among the commissioners, hardline Islamic supporters of Islamic extremism, and this [handling of the Maclean's case] reflects their presence over there," Mr. Fatah said, identifying two people.

"In the eyes of the Ontario human rights commission, the only good Muslim is an Islamist Muslim," he said. "As long as we hate Canada, we will be cared for. As soon as we say Canada is our home and we have to defend her traditions, freedoms and secular democracy, we will be considered as the outside."

While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission has serious concerns about the content of a number of articles concerning Muslims that have been published by Maclean’s magazine and other media outlets. This type of media coverage has been identified as contributing to Islamophobia and promoting societal intolerance towards Muslim, Arab and South Asian Canadians. The Commission recognizes and understands the serious harm that such writings cause, both to the targeted communities and society as a whole. And, while we all recognize and promote the inherent value of freedom of expression, it should also be possible to challenge any institution that contributes to the dissemination of destructive, xenophobic opinions.

So, having concluded they couldn't withstand the heat of a trial, the OHRC cut to the chase and gave us a drive-thru conviction. Who says Canada's "human rights" racket is incapable of reform? As kangaroo courts go, the Ontario branch is showing a bit more bounce than the Ottawa lads.

I'd be interested to know whether the Justice Minister of Ontario thinks this is appropriate behaviour. At one level, Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall appears to have deprived Maclean's and me of the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence and the right to face our accusers. But, at another, it seems clear the OHRC enforcers didn't fancy their chances in open court. So, after a botched operation, they've performed a cosmetic labiaplasty and hustled us out.

The Jewish community makes up barely 1 per cent of the total Canadian population, according to the 2006 Census released by Statistics Canada. Despite such a small demographic profile, the Audit findings once again mirror those of police reports, illustrating a disproportionate targeting of the Jewish community compared to other ethnic and religious groups, a trend that has been steadily intensifying in the past ten years.

Interestingly, the FBI's Hate Crime Statistics Report for 2006 indicates that of the 1,462 anti-religion hate crimes reported in the US, 967 cases (65.4 %) were caused by the offenders anti-Jewish bias. The next closest group was the Muslim community: 156 cases (11.9%) involved an anti-Islamic bias.

If you’re too busy defending libel chill lawsuits from the Left or supporting those who are, there’s really not much left over to give to the pseudos in the CPC.

Politicians listen to opinion polls and money. We’ve been hitting the first. Now it’s time to hit the second.

DON’T GIVE THE CPC ANOTHER DIME. INSTEAD SEND IT TO THE FREESPEECHERS.

Kay writes:

"Censoring people because you don't like their ideology is wrong. Censoring
people because they explicitly advocate murder is just fine. "

Be careful if you follow Kay's links though, because the site is hideous.

Unfortunately, these days though you don't know what is real, who posted what, and whether someone from some human rights commission or law enforcement agency actually posted hateful material. That's sad, because those who directly and overtly incite violence and murder deserve to be prosecuted. But the fact that hrcs are persecuting so many who have not even come close to incitement has put the whole system into disrepute.

Q: What’s your attitude toward Oregon’s assisted suicide law?

A: I believe it’s within the province of the states to make that decision. I commend Oregon on this count, as well, because whether I agree with it or not or think it’s a good idea or not, the fact that Oregon is breaking new ground and providing valuable information as to what does and doesn’t work when it comes to end-of-life questions, I think, is very beneficial.

Q: Would you have voted for it if you were a resident of the state?

A: I don’t know the answer to that. I have a great deal of sympathy for people who are in difficult end-of-life situations. I’ve gone to friends who have been in great pain and suffering at the end of their lives. I’ve never been personally confronted with it but I know it’s a terribly difficult decision that should never be forced upon anyone. So with appropriate safeguards and informed decision-making, I think it’s an appropriate right to have.

Come to think of it, it would make a great Olympic event of itself: try to carry a torch (or baton, or any object) 31 miles through a major city, smiling the whole time, while being assailed by an angry mob.

As I write this post the relay is barely half-way across London, and the event is degenerating into what looks like a rolling series of Reagan shootings – someone attacks the procession, 20 policemen jump on them, another one shouts Go! Go! Go! and the torch, almost the literal definition of a political hot potato, continues on its way.

Already one protestor has tried to snuff out the torch with a fire extinguisher, while another tried to rip it out of the hands of a bemused children's TV presenter. There have been 25 arrests so far. The BBC has full coverage of the festivities/hostilities (festilities?), including video clips of the aforementioned incidents, here and also on its front page.

[Episcopal News Service, Jerusalem] King Abdullah II of Jordan has given a plot of land to the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem for construction of a church and retreat center at the Jordan River location traditionally believed to be the baptismal place of Jesus.

"It's a privilege for us to have this gift from His Majesty King Abdullah and at the same time we look at this as a project to build a medium-sized Gothic Church with a retreat center," said Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem Suheil Dawani, who officially dedicated the land on March 28.

The land is important "from a religious point of view because of its location and because it represents an opportunity to strengthen our Christian presence there," Dawani added. "It will be a center for the entire Anglican Communion all over the world to visit and to connect with what's going on here."

King Abdullah II, the eldest son of the late King Hussein, in a statement on his official website, cited Jordan as an example of tolerance and coexistence between Islam and Christianity. He also commended Dawani's commitment to interfaith collegiality and said Jordan will continue assuming its historical role in supporting and protecting Jerusalem churches.

For what it is worth, both the intemperate The Second Plane and the furor surrounding its inception represent the debate an open and confident society should be willing to sustain about such fundamental, if difficult, matters.

It's a small mercy that Martin Amis hasn't been carrying out his noisy discussion here in Canada. We'd have tried hushing him up with a human rights commission inquiry and then considered the matter nicely, neatly closed.

In today's climate, I wonder whether the Toronto Star debated whether to run even this review for fear of a human rights complaint. You know how quotation marks can suddenly disappear and paraphrases of content can be contorted into new meanings.

If I had heard the word “denormalizing” from a sociology prof, instead of from Ezra Levant, the courageous Canadian lawyer who is working to bring down Canada’s unspeakable “human rights commissions”, I would just groan.

But, “denormalizing” is a useful term for the Expelled film’s potential impact in the United States.

Consider, for example, the following recent events:

- When Rick Sternberg published a peer-reviewed paper in his Smithsonian journal that suggested support for intelligent design, a concerted effort was made to ruin his career. he was told not to come to the press conference disavowing the article because, he told Michael Powell of the Washington Post, “they could not guarantee me that they could keep order” among the distinguished Darwinist scientists (September 2005).

It's sad though that today the Christian aspect of the story of North America is being airbrushed out. I asked my son who was born here and attended elementary school in the 80s whether he had ever heard of the Canadian martyrs or the Jesuit missionaries. No, they learned only about the fur trade and the Hudson Bay Company. To me that's like learning about Christopher Columbus and the Pilgrims but only hearing about the search for gold and commerce, and omitting the Pilgrims' desire to find religious freedom.

Maybe it WAS the Flying Spaghetti Monster after all ... No, Pasta forbid! Too much of a mess to clean up.

Richard Dawkins, the Flying Spaghetti Monster loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life

This interview represents an amazingly sloppy piece of journalism. Why didn't you research this adequately before putting this woman on and letting her rhyme off her assertions unchallenged? First of all she is not one of the complainants to the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, the two human rights bodies that have agreed to hear the complaints. Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress is the complainant. The CIC also filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, but that body has said it does not have jurisdiction.

I hope that you give Mark Steyn an equal opportunity to tell his side of the story. At least he has a sense of humor, unlike your earnest but inaccurate guest.

You have allowed your interviewee to broadcast far and wide a number of false assertions about the article in question. You have allowed her to claim that Steyn said Muslims are breeding like mosquitoes when he was in fact quoting a European Imam. The CIC complaint is full of missing quotations and misrepresentations of what Steyn actually wrote. Did you bother to do your own checking in advance? The complaint even attacks Steyn for a review of a dystopic novel. That's where the twisted imagery of bloody civil war comes from, a review of a novel!!!! It has nothing to do with Steyn's body of work, which is more a critique of Western civilizational exhaustion than of Islam.

Did you even bother to read the except of America Alone or the other articles in the dossier the law students compiled? In a half day's research of material easily available on the web, you could have handled this far more fairly. Instead you have given this woman a propaganda platform that is dangerously defamatory. In today's climate, if these attacks on Steyn are believed, you could be putting his life in danger by allowing them to be broadcast far and wide without correction.


Have you bothered to find out anything about Canada's dangerously illiberal "human rights" regime? Their investigative techniques? The fact that investigators have admitted planting "hate" messages on targeted sites under assumed names and there's now a criminal complaint filed that they pirated an innocent young woman's unsecured Wi-Fi to do so? Do you care? Do you know that before these tribunals one is guilty until proven innocent? That the hate provision in subsection 13(1) is so vague that the general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association Alan Borovoy warns that even legitimate journalism covering trouble spots around the world could run afoul of this law, that says any material (truth is no defense) that is likely (no need to prove that it has in any measurable way) to expose a person or group to contempt or hatred. Did you know the normal rules of evidence don't apply, and basically, the rule of law is replaced with mushy, administrative procedures that seem to be made up as the investigations go on?

Thanks, NPR, you have given a softball interview to someone who is part of a movement in Canada--not Muslim-dominated, by the way, they are but one special interest group--that is trying to put out what little freedom of speech Canada has left.

Not only that, you have tacitly given support to a censorship regime whose supporters also want to expand to include restrictions on the Internet, kinda like the Chinese firewall. This coalition of politically correct would-be censors likes diversity only when it pertains to skin color, sexual orientations, and external cultural manifestations under the banner of multiculturalism, but abhors real diversity of opinion and wants to make sure there is less of it.

You did ask some challenging questions on the principles involved and you get a passing grade for that, but barely.

The opposition and the media have behaved disgracefully regarding this incident. I'm not talking at all about the public figures involved. Opposition parties of all partisan stripes have been on a dumpster-diving race to the bottom for many years and, of course, scandals sell newspapers, so those aspects of the story are not at all surprising.

What is truly appalling is the media's treatment of the other people who were on that tape.

I worked on the Progressive Conservative party campaign in question. Fortunately, I'm not on that tape, but I know all the people who are on it and I shudder to imagine the embarrassment they must be feeling.

No one on that tape was doing anything illegal. No one was making any sort of policy statement.

No one was making a declaration to reporters or issuing a personal vision statement.

Now, if journalists hold political beliefs as Fife does ... so strong that they can't keep their mouths shut about those beliefs, even while “reporting” the news, then they have broken public trust. They can't be relied on to bring political news, free and uncluttered from bias, into the living rooms of millions of people. They have now become a propaganda organ of a specific line of thinking, and if that line of thinking happens to be the one holding power, then they become a branch of "state" propaganda. If there ideological "side" doesn't hold power, then they become complicit in trying to topple an elected government.

So, how free and open is democracy, when journalists can openly shill for one side and effect how millions think. It's called manipulation ... not freedom ... it's called failure of duty ... not openness ... it's called a dangerous manipulation of democracy ... not journalistic integrity.

The CHRC's damage control strategy is part of a coordinated, nation-wide spin campaign that all of the HRCs are engaging in.

The Nova Scotia and NWT commissions have started their PR campaign this week, too, with embarrassing results.

Of course, what other HRCs do with one bureaucrat, the CHRC does with three -- that's a sign of how bloated their bureaucracy has become. With 170 staff, it could have even been more.

I don't generally go line by line through an article, but this one is just too delicious to pass up, so please allow me:

A savvier, politically aware CHRC would acknowledge its errors, issue some bumf about being more responsible, announce a few token reforms on its own initiative, and try to let some air out of the balloon. But that kind of reasonableness just isn't in the DNA of these people. How could it be? It takes an especially arrogant person to censor the thoughts of his neighbours; it take an even more arrogant person to break the law and violate natural justice to do so. Could such bullies even fake contrition, let alone feel it? They just don't get it; they still think they're beyond criticism and above accountability. The Greeks called it hubris; Sun Tzu saw it as a weakness; I say we're lucky to be pitted against such arrogant fools.

But in the past few decades, the devil has returned. As the late John Paul II said, "Anyone who does not believe in the devil does not believe in the gospels."

His successor, Pope Benedict XVI, exhorts the faithful to take Satan seriously, praises his team of exorcists, offers university courses in exorcism and calls for more exorcists around the world.

One Vatican City priest told his congregation on Ash Wednesday: "How could a person know anything about Satan if he has never encountered the reality of Satan but only the idea of Satan? ... It is like someone who brags about not being afraid of lions and proves this by pointing out that he has seen many paintings of lions and was never frightened of them."

Only 37 per cent of Canadians believe in the devil, but twice that number of Americans do. Well over half of Latin Americans and African also believe in Satan and 80 per cent of Pentecostal Christians in those regions say angels and demons are active in the world.

Ottawa's Catholic archbishop has appointed at least two new exorcists, one each for the English and French communities, replacing the region's last exorcist who retired five years ago.

The archdiocese will not name the priests, or say how many exorcists there are for fear of a flood of phone calls. Msgr. Kevin Beach says all the men are experienced clergy with overseas experience, some in areas of the world where belief in demons is more robust than it is in North America.

He said it wasn't easy to find men with the right qualifications, nor was it easy to persuade them to take the duties.

"I think they had to give prayerful consideration. If they are looking for the job, that's not the person you want."

They all have other duties as well as their new roles.

The archdiocese doesn't receive any more than seven or eight calls a year. Nor are the callers any more likely to be possessed -- in the past 15 years, Ottawa clergy say they have had only one case of demonic possession.

But exorcism has always been part of the Catholic ministry, even if it has fallen by the wayside in the last generation.

Q: How do you separate what is human evil and what is demonic? I might be tempted to cheat on my taxes. Is that demonic temptation?

A: That's human nature. But the enemy might use it to get us in deeper. He may get you to lie about the reality of your situation. The devil is deceit. So it can (start) as something that is human but can be led in the wrong direction.

There was a young fellow who came for counselling. He was having difficulty controlling himself and his actions. One day he said to me, "I have a feeling of rage. I hear in my mind, the voice says, 'Kill.' I haven't done it yet, but there is that compulsion."

I started asking about the video games he had played as a child and they were full of violence. So it's not surprising to me we have these shooting incidents in high schools.

Q: Are they the work of the devil?

A: I have to take it from the point of view that the devil is against mankind. There is no doubt about it - he wants to ruin everybody. He doesn't just have a few favourites that he works on. He tries to get his hoof in wherever he can.

Just two days before the story was to appear, I met Ottawa's former exorcist, a gentle, elderly man with shaking hands. We read a passage of scripture and said a prayer before the interview, and he anointed me with holy oil afterwards. He prayed that I would find my way to the truth, which is as good a journalist's prayer as I have ever heard.
I found myself relaxing utterly in the prayers, and the anointing, although I joked to friends later that he was probably trying to see if the oil made me sizzle and smoke, a gutter dog of the press.
In the final drafts, my editors looked at me funny and struggled to find a tactful way to ask, ‘do you really believe this stuff?' They settled on, ‘who are you readers here? People who believe this stuff?'
By the end of the day, I shook my head with a smile and shrugged. ‘I'm laughing at this stuff," I told them, "but not very hard."
Why trouble trouble? I think I'll tiptoe away.

585

If there were no obscurity, man would not be sensible of his corruption; if there were no light, man would not hope for a remedy. Thus, it is not only fair, but advantageous to us, that God be partly hidden and partly revealed; since it is equally dangerous to man to know God without knowing his own wretchedness, and to know his own wretchedness without knowing God.

Free assent to the good never exists simply by itself. If there were structures which could irrevocably guarantee a determined—good—state of the world, man's freedom would be denied, and hence they would not be good structures at all.

By way of introduction in an interview this week, Ian Fine, senior general counsel and director-general of dispute resolution at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, wanted to read out loud some of the nastiest material his staff have dealt with, to prove the seriousness of their mission.

"Savage commie Jews hate European beauty and nobility," he said, quoting a prominent violator of Canada's most controversial hate speech law,

-snip [blah blah subscribe to the National Post for the rest as I don't want to violate posting etiquette and go beyond four 'graphs]

It was the most bizarre moment in an unusual conference call with three senior CHRC staff, who had mustered for the beleaguered agency's first public relations offensive, a calculated effort to rebut the "misinformation" that is turning some public opinion against them, and inspiring high-level demands that their powers be severely curtailed.

"The reality is we read the papers. We know about the current debate, we know the parameters, if you will," Mr. Fine said. "If you think that we're concerned, upset, from time to time discouraged with some of what we've been hearing and reading in the press, you're right, we are. Because to be quite clear about it, we do believe in what we do. We believe that in our society there should be limits on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, that there is a line, not one that we draw, but one that must be drawn nevertheless. We are comfortable with what we do."

Postmodernism is characterised by a profound aversion to any notion of a universal or objective truth. It holds that all ideas are no more than human constructs, shaped by biology, ethnicity and society. Yet, it asserts at the same time that individual autonomy, environmentalism and the moral equivalency of all cultures are "fundamental" principles that cannot be negotiated, which points to some internal inconsistency or lack of intellectual rigor amongst postmodernist thinkers.

First off, let me say that some of what is on the tape is inappropriate ... period ... in any context. The parties involved have apologized, without making excuses, as they should.

Normally I'd chafe at NDP glee being expressed at the expense of conservatives, especially on the blogs, but I recall how all political opposites usually rejoice in the pulling down of their opponents. It is politics after all.

My question is though, what did the NDP hope to accomplish by this stunt? They've embarrassed the "enemy" ... but once the apologies are made ... what then? This story will be dead by Friday ...

I have not seen Mr. Lukiwski's comments, but I'm reticent to judging them preemptively, but I can tell you that Stephen Harper has done everything he can to try to get rid of this stigma of social regressivity around the Reform party and now the Conservative party, but there's a reason why they dropped the name Progressive from their moniker. It's because of, they wanted to be consistent with truth in advertising. This party is, is, is not socially progressive. This is not the party of Joe Clark or Bob Stanfield and it's another reminder to Canadians that when push comes to shove on issues of social progress, this party represents the worst traditions of the Reform Alliance party, a party that would drag Canada backwards in terms of basic fundamental rights and equality.

But don't let me interrupt the man's self-immolation:

Freedom of speech is an important hallmark of a liberal democracy, but it is defeated when the means to express opinion is concentrated in the hands of a powerful media elite. If Maclean’s had been willing to present the dissenting view of the Canadian Islamic Congress, there might never have been a complaint in the first place. Billing oneself as Canada’s national magazine would seem to call for a broader expression of opinions.

...Be thankful for the existence of a human rights commission which is here to fight the good fight and ensure that human dignity is always on the public agenda.

Before we delve into the sheer moonbat nuttiness of this, stop for a moment, again, and do the thought exercise of pretending that a real judge said this. Remember, the Maclean's case is still before two HRCs, but here we have the boss of another HRC all but denouncing Maclean's as guilty. It's unthinkable that a real judge would weigh in on a case publicly before that case was heard. Not only would such a judge look like a fool -- after all, he hasn't heard the evidence; the case hasn't even begun yet -- but he is so clearly interfering with the process that has is underway in the other two jurisdictions.

Michael Noonan might think he stands alongside the activists who brought down Apartheid in South Africa. But his analog in Apartheid South Africa would not have been a grassroots activist, debating the issues and changing minds one at a time, in the face of great odds and even some danger. He would have been the government censor, stamping out "offensive" ideas like the equality of races, using the power of the state to censor, fine and even imprison. Maclean's magazine does not have the jackboots of the state on. Michael Noonan does.

So what does Nova Scotia's answer to Nelson Mandela been up to? What injustices has he and his team of freedom fighters been fighting?

Well, they just had a very exciting hearing about the human right to watch Al Jazeera TV.

According to this proud press release:

Ahmed Assal filed a complaint in 2003 with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission. He alleged that by refusing to permit him to install a satellite dish to receive Muslim and Arabic language programming, Halifax Condominium Corporation No. 4 discriminated against him on the basis of his religion and ethnic or national origin.

So, after four years of investigations and hearings, Halifax Condo Corp. #4 -- that is, Assal's neighbours -- "won". And by "won", I mean, they are out thousands of dollars in legal fees and hundreds of hours of time. With Assal, we have the answer to Shakespeare's question, "what's in a name?"

A condo corporation is a group of people who are united not just by the fact that they live next to each other, but that they contractually agree to details about the management of their homes -- including bans on satellites. It's a property rights issue and a contracts issue. But Assal thought he could save his own legal fees and make it a human rights issue.

Even in an ersatz legal system with a 100 per cent conviction rate, and none of the traditional demarcation lines between plaintiff, prosecutor, judge and jury, plus a serial plaintiff who is a former employee of the prosecutor, and no due process or otherwise objective procedures, even with the deck stacked overwhelmingly in its favour, the Canadian Human Rights Commission felt its "case" against Marc Lemire was a little weak. So they resorted to entrapment, telecommunications fraud, and identity theft. And at no point in their fun 'n' games did anyone think, "Whoa, I wonder if this is in compliance with our procedures." Why would you? How can you be in breach of your procedures when there are no procedures? You can do whatever you like to whomsoever you like.

Incidentally, if you examine the philosophical underpinnings of Canada's "human rights" "jurisprudence," you're struck by a consistent contempt not just for freedom of expression and the presumption of innocence but also for property rights: it's no surprise that a body that takes unto itself the power to regulate the content of privately owned magazines also assumes with nary a thought that it has the right to hijack its neighbours' computer systems when it needs to construct a false identity.

Although the CHRC behaves like a rogue agency way beyond political accountability, it remains formally the responsibility of the minister of justice. So what does Rob Nicholson have to say about his Frankenstein monster? Sadly, he seems to have had reconstructive surgery and entered the witness protection program.

The Western Catholic Reporter has published my profile of Cardinal Ouellet:

When Cardinal Marc Ouellet became a priest in 1968, he dreamed of becoming a missionary.

Instead of work in a far off jungle or city slum, Ouellet hoped to be a "missionary to priests." He joined the Sulpicians, an order dedicated to priestly formation.

His vision did not include becoming archbishop of Quebec and cardinal primate of Canada. Nor did he ever imagine his home province as his mission field.

Yet he sees his life as continuing "on that line of missionary," as he prepares to host the International Eucharistic Congress in Quebec City June 15-22.

"I could not have been better prepared to do what I'm doing," he said in an interview. His theological reflections over the past ten years have involved a deepening of sacramental theology, specifically marriage and the Eucharist, and developing "an awareness of fundamental importance of the Eucharist as the ground of the Church."

Except we remember that the enemy here are the bad ideas, not the people involved: to the bad ideas we show no mercy, no quarter. We overcome evil with good; we stand on guard for the better Canada which is and can be, aside from the dreams of caliphate on the one hand, and the longing by some on the left for systems so perfect that nobody ever needs to be good.

“They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
But the man that is shall shadow
The man that pretends to be.”

- T.S. Eliot: Choruses from The Rock (1934)

Today marks the third anniversary of death of Pope John Paul II. For three solid weeks in April of 2005, we were inundated with words, stories, images and rich ceremonies coming to us from Rome -- images that helped us recall and evaluate a charismatic leader's life and mission.

In this age of titillating television reality shows depicting the crudest forms of human existence, the world was invited in 2005 to take part in another kind of reality show of deep pathos and emotion -- first in the Papal Apartments at the Vatican, then at Rome's Gemelli Policlinic and finally back in the Apostolic Palace of the Vatican.

Rather than hide his infirmities, as many public figures do, John Paul II let the whole world see what he was going through. It came as no surprise, for the late Pope had remarked on several occasions prior to his death, in both private and public discourse that: "If it doesn't happen on television, it doesn't happen!" The passing of this Pope did not take place in private, but before TV cameras and the whole world.

I love reading and writing polemics, and engaging in public discussion and debate. But I find that more and more, I compartmentalize. I argue and debate because it's important to engage on issues critical to the direction of our politics and culture, and in some sense it's pleasurable. Yet I'm finding that I'm coming to the age in which the idea of going to the party and being nice to everybody is sounding more and more appealing. Life is hard, and long. I used to know a political journalist who, in a discussion about arguing and sociability, said something that has come to strike me as profound: "You get to an age when you just want to go to the party and be nice to everybody."

By way of comparison, consider a less stellar victim of the anti-"hate" regime and one who lacks the support of one of the Canadian mosaic's preferred identity groups. Stephen Bossoin is the more or less penniless pastor clobbered by the Alberta "Human Rights" Commission for one letter to the newspaper on the subject of homosexuality. Last Sunday, his story was on CBC TV: They interviewed the plaintiff, Darren Lund, but not Mr Bossoin. A couple of weeks before that, The Globe And Mail ran a column by Mr Lund, but rejected one by Mr Bossoin. Before that, The Red Deer Advocate ran a front-page profile of Mr Lund about Mr Bossoin's "hateful" speech, but declined to run a letter by Mr Bossoin.

And so it will go, forever and ever. The thought police have declared him a non-person. For years to come, "human rights" crusaders like Mr Lund will make reference to the importance of "the Bossoin case" and of taking a stand against "Bossoin's hateful speech", but Bossoin the person will have no right of reply, even in the local newspaper, which will have no desire to attract the attentions of Lund and his enforcers.

Farrow’s observation that the hubris of the all-encompassing, all-knowing state, recognizes the central threat, that of a government that knows no limits. We are about to subjugate ourselves, Farrow warns borrowing from Karl Barth, to a lordship of the lordless, a state that “knows no bounds.” The state’s belligerence in defence of its near official ideology leads to a situation in which the state, not the church, threatens the “division of duties and powers” today.

Farrow says that the earthly authorities fail to understand that“sin is a matter of conscience requiring as a remedy priestcraft, not statecraft.”

The state thus turns the Trudeau/Globe and Mail line about keeping the state out of the nation’s bedroom, on its head, for with same-sex ‘marriage’ the state now assumes that all consensual sex that occurs is a public matter. When the government fails to consider marriage’s central role in the creation of future generations of Canadians, it reduces the civil institution to mere “coupling and copulation” or“state-approved fornication.”

This state would become ever more interfering, enforcing private immorality. How long do you think liberty would last under such a regime? As part of the custody battle for the nation’s children, the main battlefield is education.

The state, not parents, will decide what morality children will be taught.

I highly recommend Nation of Bastards. I think Farrow is an unsung Canadian prophet. It makes especially good reading to shine some light on the whole debate over state censorship via human rights commissions.

And don't forget, Catholic Insight Magazine also faces human rights complaints for articles deemed homophobic because they defend Catholic teaching on human sexuality.

The federation expelled Mr. Ahenakew from its senate, boards and commissions following the comments. In 2005, a provincial court judge convicted Mr. Ahenakew of wilfully promoting hatred and fined him $1,000. Higher courts later overturned the conviction and ordered a second trial, which is set to begin this fall. "We totally, unequivocally condemn [Ahenakew's] remarks," Mr. Joseph said yesterday.

"But, he's apologized, he's won an appeal, he's been stripped of everything he had, including an opportunity to make a living, and he has not repeated that mistake in over five years. Let's be reasonable."

How postmodern everything has become. Words mean whatever we want them to mean. Rights mean whatever the state as interpreted by judges decide they are. As Scalia, a Catholic who believes in natural law, pointed out if new rights can be added, old rights can be taken away. And we're already seeing in Canada that freedom of speech is getting more and more restricted and so is religious freedom---especially if you are Christian.

What's the world coming to when the right to life---the basic, foundational human right--has given way to the right for women to get abortions, the right for same-sex marriage and the shrinking of the rights of those who would publicly defend traditional marriage. Coming soon the right to die and have someone, perhaps from the medical profession, assist you. As Scalia said on the last one: "Stay tuned." Of course, concealed in that right will be coercion, that is if you are old or disabled.

All this seems mighty important to me, but the funny thing was, while I was getting my hair cut before heading off to Montreal last week, when I told the young gal where I was going she asked, "What's the Charter?"

I'm sure, though I didn't ask, that she knows she has rights. Everyone has rights. But I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word 'rights' is. It's a sad that that's the case. The Christian leaders have a lot of work to do to try to find their way back into the conversation.

Calgary imam Syed Soharwardy has announced a multi-faith walk against
violence, which aims to draw thousands of Canadians to the streets, as the
walk winds its way across the country over the next eight months.

Flanked by leaders from the Anglican and Catholic churches, the United Church
of Canada, the African and Khmer communities, Soharwardy said the walk would
protest all forms of abuse, including child abuse, domestic abuse, terrorism,
gangs, bullying and elder abuse.

The Calgary-driven initiative will kick off in Halifax on April 20 and wind
up in Victoria at the end of November, the team said.

My take: this story gets curiouser and curioser.

For the record, I do not want to see anyone hounded out of a livelihood, whether they are on the right or the left. I do think it is legitimate to ask, however, what a special grievance department within a government department goes and whether any of the same tools and techniques used by the Canadian Human Rights Commission are being employed by this department.

And I am opposed to fake dirt or prank emails, whether it is bloggers on the right or the left writing them, just as I am opposed to human rights commissioners and complainants posting fake hate on various message boards the commissions are investigating. The ends do not justify the means.

While I find the various personalities at play in this saga most interesting and sometimes downright entertaining--one could not get away with writing fiction with this cast of characters--I urge us all to remember that real human beings are involved, no matter what we may think of their actions or points of view. I urge all of us to rise above the easy temptation to demonize the people we disagree with.

It is very easy in the confines of one`s office staring at a computer screen to be far less civil than one might be if meeting someone face to face.

There are fundamental principles and cherished rights and freedoms at stake in this debate. The cast of characters and their individual narratives help drive interest in the debate, but they must not eclipse it.