DOSSIER # 13 B: DAVID MILLER'S TORONTO: VIOLENCE, RACE, RELIGION AND FAMILY CONTINUED
In the fall of 2003, just after David Miller won the mayoral campaign there was a town hall meeting broadcast by CFRB radio. Newly minted Mayor Miller was in attendance as was then Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino and several councilors. Many members of the Toronto community came to address the problems of crime which was on the rise in Toronto. Inevitably, what arose amongst citizens was not that crime in general was the main concern, but random gang violence.
As I listened, it became apparent that the majority of people who cared the most about this issue was the black community. One woman passionately pleaded for something to be done because she said her son had recently been a victim of gang violence. Another man identifying himself as a Baptist minister said that our schools were useless because they no longer taught values since God or right and wrong were not allowed to be mentioned. These voices from the black community cried out for help. Literally. When the mother spoke and began to scream in tears because her son had been killed I called my fiancée. Only the hardest of hearts could not have been moved.
Personally, I still do not believe Mayor Miller heard the cries. Hs comments earlier this week only confirm my belief. I wish it wasn’t a factor but why is it that so many of the most staunch defenders of the ‘leftist’ status quo in Canada and political correctness in general are middle to upper-middle class white people in academia, media and law? Yes, there are exceptions, but more often than not, this is the case.
The problems with the violence in Toronto have to do with community, culture and family. We live in a society which puts any problems with race under the carpet unless there is a politically correct answer. I have heard many in the black community speak and many believe the issue goes to the lack of religion or values in our schools and the fact that no longer are we allowed to speak about issues such as right and wrong with certainty to our children. Unfortunately, one must also mention that statistically, young black men are the highest demographic to be raised without a strong male father figure role model.
Now, anyone who would use these statistics to state that all people of a particular race or descent as being prone to be more inclined to criminal activity would be racist and as I mentioned before that should not be acceptable. But anyone who refuses to acknowledge these facts, is guilty of a form of racism that is more insidious. A form of racism that is implicit and latent; a form of racism that lies dormant and does not want to acknowledge truth because to do so would be to disrupt the status quo that has been maintained in Toronto culture for the past two decades.
David Miller would rather blame America because it allows him to ignore the fact that his own world view which values secularism over faith and adult sexual freedom over family is part of the root of the actual problem. Mayor Miller’s world view is one that places relativist values over empirical values and the corrosion of the family unit over the value of family to society.
Mayor Miller also does not want to give the police money to fight the problem. Formed during the radical turbulence of the 1960’s, David Miller’s world view sees Vietnam as his life-changing experience. In his view, police are violent co-conspirators in a state that seeks to oppress left wing ideals and America is nothing but a force for evil in the world. His view sees any traditional form of authority or morality as retrograde to progress while cleaving desperately to the modern edicts of political correctness and neo-Marxist social policies. Because Chief Fantino saw the problems with crime in Toronto, Mayor Miller would never afford him respect and Toronto suffered as a consequence.
When I attended last November’s Remembrance Day ceremony at city hall, I was saddened to see David Miller use it as an opportunity to wax nostalgic about how he opposed the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq as opposed to honoring those who fought for Canada during WWII and indeed all wars. Mayor Miller’s generation sees themselves as the forbearers of a brave new world, when they really have become all that they have feared. The old guard; that establishment hanging onto values and rules that no longer apply through a corroded system that is obsolete.
Toronto is still a
relatively safe city to live in. But it is not a safe city to live in; certainly not for the increasing numbers of families hit by violence and gangs. To confront this is to confront real issues of race, family, and faith and how we are increasingly living in a society that values none of these; only the blanket of political correctness which covers that most valued asset of all…truth. Political correctness is much more menacing than just dictating what language one can use. Is it is the lie of not being able to say what you see.
Mayor Miller will have to face this issue someday. As he sits in his house, one night in a part of Toronto I can’t even afford to visit, someday he will have to acknowledge truth.
Sooner or later, you can run from the truth, you can hide from the truth, but the truth ultimately has a way of finding you.
DOSSIER # 13 A: VIOLENCE, RACE, RELIGION AND FAMILY IN TORONTO
One of my favorite times of the year is New Year’s Eve. That night, after the bluster and hectic nature of the Christmas season where one can sit back, relax and reminisce about what has transpired over the past year and what one hopes will occur in the next. It is, for me, a time for family, friends, excellent food and drink.
On New Year’s Eve 2002, my then fiancée and now lovely wife met up with me around 3 o’clock in the afternoon at the NW corner of Yonge and St. Clair. After standing and talking for about 15 minutes in the magazine shop there, we made our way across the street and proceeded to walk south on Yonge St. We were in a great mood as we discussed what we would cook for that evening. Then, about a block down, my wife and I felt a wet, white wash come across our bodies. Someone had just…spit on us. We turned around. Standing about four feet from us was a young black man dressed in requisite gang wear/Fubu style baggy clothes, his head partially covered with a large hood.
“Did you just spit on us?” I asked. He looked at my fiancée and said “What are you gonna do about it you white b***h?” I took a step forward as his hand went under his shirt and grabbed something located in his belt buckle and jiggled it. He turned to me. “You want some of this you white b***h?” I could not see what he grabbed. He certainly wanted me to believe it was a gun he had in his hand and that he would use it. This was in broad daylight on the corner of Yonge and St. Clair in downtown Toronto; a family neighborhood. I like to think of myself as brave, but not stupid. I motioned for my fiancée to get behind me, preparing for the worst. I took a step back. He jiggled the object one more time stating, “You want some of this?” He then turned around and walked back up the street.
Shaken, we crossed the street. Our voices raised, we struggled over what we should do about the incident. A young, Portuguese couple with a baby carriage approached us, concerned by our expressions. We recounted what had happened just moments ago and questioned whether we should call the police. They said a similar thing happened to them recently and the police could not help. Without an actual person to prosecute, reporting it would be useless. A lovely couple, they wished us well and walked off. Filled with rage, I grabbed the phone and ran up the street in the direction of the assailant but found nothing.
Our New Year’s was not pleasant that night and I became grim and depressed for the next several months. I felt violated. I thought of all of the
‘what if’ scenarios that could have happened to my fiancée. I thought of writing letters to newspapers but then one wonders, what will that accomplish and what if the thug reads it and sees my name?
Eventually the anger passed and I incorporated it as another one of life’s experiences.
In Toronto there were seven separate shootings within a 24 hour period earlier this week. Unlike shootings that occurred in previous years, increasingly violence is happening in well populated civilian areas. One shooting was at Dundas and Church, just a few blocks from the Eaton Centre. Another was at Square One Shopping Mall during the day. More of these shootings are also happening in broad daylight. Some other unfortunate factors are also usually associated with the violence. More often than not, sadly, the gunmen are young black men involved in gang culture. Most of the victims are also usually black. Some say to acknowledge this is racist. I say to not acknowledge this is racist. Many civilians are also getting hit by stray or random bullet sprays.
When asked about the shootings Toronto Mayor David Miller did exactly as suspected. He put his neo-Marxist politically correct hat on and blamed America. On a radio broadcast on CFRB I actually heard him say that because of (America’s)
‘idiotic gun laws’ they were
‘exporting violence’ to Toronto. Mayor Miller’s comments are simplistic and defy logic. If Toronto’s laws worked properly it would not matter where the guns came from. Similarly, and this is something that even the most simple-minded child seems to understand, is that criminals are criminals precisely because they don’t obey laws. Mayor Miller does not want to deal with this because then he would have to deal with what many in the black community other communities already know.
The issue of gang violence in Toronto runs as an ever widening chasm. All of the statistics that politicians and statisticians come up with that say violence is on the decrease more and more reads like propaganda. While overall violent crime may be down, random acts of gang violence are up. This is what people are concerned about; that a random bullet might hit a civilian as they go about their business at a shopping mall, in a park or on the street. Similarly, Toronto city council does not want to deal with the fact that many of these crimes also occur in parts of town that are heavily populated by the black community.
Were it happening in one of the wealthy, white areas that Mayor Miller and his compatriots at city hall live in, they would not tolerate it. If Mayor Miller would listen to the black community on this issue as much as he has listened to the residents of Toronto Island over the airport expansion or Sarah Polley on issues of the ‘arts’, perhaps Toronto would have some headway.
Now, anyone who would use this to cast a pall over the black community to generalize would be committing an act of racism. However, to slide it under the table and not deal with it, is also a more insidious form of racism; a form of racism which puts liberal political correctness first and basic human compassion second. This is also unacceptable.
David Miller seems to want to take the second route, and like so many who have gone before him, not acknowledge the problem until too much damage has done, too many lives have been destroyed and too much real blood of the innocent has been shed.
This is unacceptable.
To be continued
PLEASE LOOK FOR PART B SOMETIME ON FRIDAY JULY 29, 2005
DOSSIER # 12: IF I WERE CONSERVATIVE LEADER
I would deliver the following speech.Fellow Canadians thank you.
Thank you for making this country what it is. My home, my heart, my soul.
Canada is many things to many people.
It is home to those who have lived here for generations, working the land and remembering her proud traditions and history, so that others can use the wisdom of the past to gain insight into the future.
It is home to those that come from far and away lands looking to start a new life filled with desires and dreams.
It is home to a multitude of faiths and religions. All of which, while different, believe that ultimate freedom, endowed by God, our creator will give us the insight and independence to fight…
…for what we believe in.
What we believe in is our family, our friends, our work and our future. A future united in anticipation and truth. Of being able to stand together, a mosaic of human beings united together under one flag, as Canadians.
And yet, we are at a crossroads. For not everyone shares this common dream for Canada.
There also stands today another competing vision for this nation.
A Canada where citizens are divided and categorized by their race, gender and sexual orientation and then pitted against each other.
A Canada where freedom comes not from God, but from the courts and attorneys that interpret the laws of this land.
A Canada where the freedom to worship as you please is not acceptable unless you acquiesce your beliefs to those with whom you do not agree.
A Canada which believes that freedom of expression does not mean freedom to dissent and separation of church and state means the subjugation of the church by the state.
A Canada where traditional families are seen as archaic institutions filled with second class citizens who are only holding the country back.
A Canada which only takes from the planet but gives nothing back in return.
I do not believe in this vision of Canada.
I see a Canada where people are allowed to speak their will, always with respect to others, even if it disagrees with the government or any other higher institution.
I see a Canada where traditional families are seen as the backbone of this great nation. Where parents rise in the morning to work for the betterment of their family’s future and children eager to learn are filled with the hopes and dreams of our potential.
I see a Canada where all Canadians are free to worship their God as they see fit without fear of ridicule, persecution or condemnation.
I see a Canada where the traditions and customs of the past are used to gain wisdom and enlightenment into the future. Never so much as to hold us back, but always with the benefit and wisdom of our grandparents who went before us.
I see a Canada where people from all four corners of the world are welcome. Welcome to bring their cultures and traditions and be a part of this rich cultural tapestry…not just live under it.
I see a Canada where children learn the value of independence and where they learn the value of an education that teaches them how to think, not what to think.
I see a Canada which values the opinions of all, but the will of the many. Where truth is a virtue and right and wrong are values to know the difference from. Not merely relativist terms which put the needs of the few ahead of the needs of the many.
I see a Canada where all are free to own and pursue their dreams as they see fit, away from interference of an imposing government.
I see a Canada which respects its land and the rights of people who own property on it. And also respects its native peoples who were here long before we were.
I see a Canada that earns its place in the world. Always leading…always responding, always caring.
Canada has accomplished a great many things in her past. From those Canadians who fought for freedom in Europe, three generations ago to those who allowed the freedom of the slaves through the underground railroad. Yet these are not merely heights that we as a great nation once reached….they are heights that can and will be reached again as this proud nation dances into the new century.
I believe many of you share my vision for Canada. I look forward to experiencing it with you over the coming years.
Good night.
TRANSMISSION FROM BEHIND ENEMY LINES: WHAT'S A TERRORIST?
Late last night one of our top operatives returned. After having been under-cover and behind enemy lines on special assignment for 3 weeks with nothing to eat but granola and organic yogurt, she came back exhausted with hours of tapes left to transcribe.
These tapes, show first hand evidence of the types of discussions that people are engaging in outside in the battle zone. As The War Room’s audio technicians work extra hours to transcribe these conversations, we bring you a taste of what is to come. This conversation, recorded at approximately 20:38 hundred hours central time on July 18, 2005 seems to be between a CBC employee and his son, named Billy, who sounds about 6 years old. We cannot confirm this though. It came from a park somewhere in the downtown Toronto core.
Billy: Dad, what’s a terrorist?
Dad: Where did you here that word, Billy?
Billy: Ben Feingold used it in the school yard today.
Dad: Feingold? We don’t use those words. It’s a moral value judgment that puts us in a position of acting like we are better than other people.
Billy: But he said terrorists like to blow things up and kill people; like British and American people. Isn’t that bad?
Dad: It’s not for us to say, son. After all, don’t British and Americans kill people and blow things up too?
Billy: I s’pose. Are the Americans terrorists then?
Dad: Some people think so.
Billy: What do you think, Dad?
Dad: I think we should always try to be tolerant and open minded of other people’s point of view; just like I taught you.
Billy: So the Islami…err…they
might be right?
Dad: Islamic Fundamentalists; yes, they
might be right.
Billy: Or the Americans might be right?
Dad: No.
Billy: I’m confused.
Dad: Don’t be. It’s really just about tolerance and being open-minded.
Billy: But you just said…
Dad: Exactly.
Billy: So then are we on the side of the Islamic Fundawhatmalists?
Dad: Not really.
Billy: Are we on the side of America?
Dad: No.
Billy: Why do the Islamic Fundawhomalists hate America?
Dad: Well son, that’s very complex and nuanced. See, they hate capitalism, inequity, Christianity and Zionists.
Billy: Aren’t those all things you said you hate too? When you brought me to work last week, it seemed that’s all everyone talked about; especially that MacNeil woman. She went on and on and on…
Dad: Son, all of those are bad, evil things.
Billy: Then didn’t you just make a moral value judgment? Just like Ben Feingold.
Dad: Of course not. My position comes from having looked at both sides thoroughly and from having a complex, nuanced world view. Your little friend Ben…Feingold you say… can’t certainly be as complex as that.
Billy: I s’pose not. Why does America hate Islamic Fundamenta…?
Dad: ...because America is a bigoted, white, racist Zionist Christian nation led by a totalitarian fascist.
Billy: Totaliwho?
Dad: Totalitarian. It’s another evil thing you want nothin’ from.
Billy: So then, if we want nothin’ from America which is led by a fasci…fasci
Dad: Fascist totalitarian.
Billy: Right. And we have the same concerns as the terror..err…I mean Islamic Fundamentalists…
Dad: Right.
Billy: Does that mean Ben Feingold is right when he says we are on the side of the terrorists?
End of transmission
A QUICK DISPATCH: VOX DAY AND THANK YOU
We came across
this interesting column from Vox Day today. Vox is a self-described Christian Libertarian who gives an interesting analysis as to what Christians should do to help themselves and culture. We thought it was also applicable to people who might have a conservative or libertarian spirit in Canada.
A taste:
"The law is nothing before God's Law. Christians would, I think, do very well to remember that the apostle Paul was a serial lawbreaker who would have certainly fallen afoul of a three-strikes law, and that like his Lord and Savior, he was executed by the authority of the state."Again all law is rooted in morality. In a democracy the morality and hence the law comes from the people...bottom up. It does seem in Canada we now have a top down system where elites from on high dictate to the people what their morality and law is. As we asked in the last Dossier, when this happens either the law is invalid or we cease to live in a democracy, but you can't have it both ways.
Also, a thank you to Robert B. who wrote an impassioned response to my last Dossier on how SSM invalidates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I recommend you read it in the comments section.
We were going to write an equally impassioned response but when we came to this paragraph:
"I see you for what you are - an arrogant, self appointed dictator who wants to run my life, dictate what I can do in my bedroom, and with whom I can do it. You cannot be content to run your own life, but then, neither could Hitler. Hitler hated all those unlike himself.Maybe your next article could be a defence of why you and Hitler are not the same."...we realized we had already won the debate. We love responding personally to responses but once the New Left uses the 'ole 'Hitler' accusation...it seems a little bit like a lost cause.
Perhaps the next Dossier will be an in depth analysis of what the New Left has in common with the National
Socialist German Workers Party of 1938.
DOSSIER # 11: HOW SSM INVALIDATES THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
"No man is above the law and no man below it." Theodore Roosevelt
Suppose that you went out today to buy a new home entertainment system. One with a new widescreen TV, subwoofers, surround sound system, amplifiers etc. You spend anywhere from 8-10 thousand dollars. And then let’s presume you ask the salesman before you purchas the final terms of the warranty. It says all parts and labour are guaranteed for 2 years. There is a stipulation though. All parts and labour are guaranteed for two years
unless the corporation changes the warranty without serving notice as is their right. In other words, the two year guarantee might be changed to 10 years or 6 months or 0 years.
Would you still go through with the purchase?
Would the warranty be worth something to you?
The philosophical or academic reasoning behind SSM to the academics and legal proponents of it is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an elastic document that must constantly change with the times. Everyone from Jean Chrétien to that towering pantheon of ‘conservative’ thought, Joe Clark, has used this argument. To be blunt, the right to SSM is no where to be found in the Charter. At it’s formation, the creators of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms deliberately decided against incorporating sexual orientation into it. It is now being read into the Charter by elites who confuse their own ‘moral’ worldview with the legal text of the Charter.
In essence, this renders the meaning of the language of the Charter irrelevant. If a document can be re-interpreted so loosely that it can be made to go against the will of the majority of the populace at the imposition of the minority, what good is the document in protecting anyone’s rights and freedoms?
All documents, charters and constitutions in every language and culture are constructs of language. Language and words are imbued with meaning. The meanings of these words and how they form together to contain thoughts are interpreted through context. Context involves discerning a moral worldview.
What worldview of morality then must one adhere to so that one can interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a way that so many disagree with. The world view is that of Radical Feminist Gender Identity Theory, one of the philosophies which forms the crux of the New Left. In short, it is the belief that all humans are pansexual and that all concepts and notions of gender have been instilled in humans by an oppressive, patriarchal Judeo-Christian culture. The goal therefore is the eradication of gender.
For a more in depth discussion of this please see Dossier # 6.
What happens then, when the Charter is now interpreted using a moral worldview that not only is scientifically incorrect but also is not known by the overwhelming majority of Canadians?
In a democracy, laws come from the wisdom and morality of the majority of the people. These laws are then codified and enforced as best as possible using the wit and wisdom of the common person as the guide.
People are now being told what their morality is from elites above and they must conform or suffer the consequences. Without resorting to hyperbole and rhetoric, this is not how a democracy works. However, we must also note that for democracy to flourish, the people themselves must take the responsibility to educate themselves of their choices before they go into the voting booth. They also must
care about the choice they make.
The proponents of SSM believe that this new law will be like the laws of old that many don’t agree with. That people will conform, conscript and fall in line.
However, unlike other laws that people disagree with, for many, compliance and acquiescence with this law requires one to consider the implications on their very soul. It will force those with religious convictions, be they Sikh, Evangelical, Orthodox Jewish, Catholic, Muslim etc. to understand why they believe what they believe and to fight for it. It will also strengthen the intellectual arguments of secular individuals who are opposed to SSM on philosophical grounds.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will now be seen as a document which protects only those who conform to the morality of New Canada. Eventually, one by one, there will be fewer and fewer people who are willing to conform to it. They will also be willing to endure whatever punishment the government metes out to them for their dissonance.
No man is above the law and no man is below it. But when a law, Charter or Constitution becomes merely a tool for elites to force an agenda on a populace that it does not want, in a democracy, that law, Charter or Constitution renders itself invalid. When this happens, the populace has very little choice but to disregard those laws and engage in civil disobedience. Some will pay a price, others will prevail.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become a worthless document. Because its meaning can be changed at whim without consent of the populace it protects no one but those who gain power from it. It has become antithetical to the cause of freedom and assumes the worst of human nature.
Such documents do not form the basis of a functioning democracy.
They form the basis of governments that are rooted in corruption, tyranny and lies.
DOSSIER # 10 EDUCATION: IT’S ELEMENTARY, THE NEW A- IS C+
"The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government of the next." Abraham Lincoln
While at a wedding on Saturday, myself, my lovely new wife and a young teacher got into a debate with two good friends of ours. Both are bright and friendly. They are also unabashedly New Left.
Both asserted that they would only send their kids to an Ontario public school. As they described it, they believed one should expose kids at an early age to people of all minorities and economic strata. The implication was that to not do so would result in children who were prone to racism. They also heavily implied that all private schools were wealthy and white, while government run public schools were fonts of ‘diversity’ and ‘enlightenment’.
I interjected that just because one might not go to a school which is racially ‘diverse’, is in no way indicative that one would grow up racist. Then, the young teacher spoke up. She has taught in the Toronto system for a decade and said that the dream of ‘diversity’ at most public schools is a myth and that many students tend to form cliques with similar cultures. She said this has caused much tension and violence in the schools she has taught in. She said this without judgment, just as fact. She then pointed to many of the predominantly white public schools in the area where she believed racism flourished. I then mentioned the many private Hindu, Jewish and Christian schools in the GTA where the population is hardly all ‘wealthy and white’.
We then mentioned the lowering of standards in the public system with reference to Dalton McGintey and his Education minister Gerard Kennedy making sure that they achieve their quota of 75% of students passing literacy tests in Ontario not by better teaching or study, but by in fact lowering the standards to pass the tests that are taken.
If I understand it, under the new system, instead of having to take a reading test and a writing test independently and pass both, students in the Liberal system will be able to add up their results to make for a combined pass. I suppose this means a failing grade of say 35% in reading in one and 25 % in writing in another now adds up to 60% overall.
See, the Liberals just transformed two failing E’s in the classical system in to a passing C- in the new system.
Another friend who teaches in the public school system of Toronto recently told us that no longer was she allowed to assign due dates for essays or assignments. If she assigns an essay in September, the student can hand it in any time during the year he/she sees fit.
I have made many references to the New Left being informed not by classical liberalism, but by a neo-Marxist, neo-communist view of ‘equality’.
The problem with this goal is the same with the problem with communism. In order for all to be equal, the greatest must be lowered to the least. The NDP-Liberal view of ‘diversity’ is similarly distorted. It merely looks at culture from a superficial and even racist point of view. Minorities are reduced to their cultural stereotypes; the clothes they wear, the food they eat or the colour of their skin. But true diversity comes from understanding their culture as it pertains to their values as human beings.
In the pursuit of achieving NDP-Liberal ‘equality’ our public schools they have also become little more than breeding grounds where children are used as guinea pigs for New Left social engineering.
A poll taken by the
Environics Research Group last winter stated that almost a third of all Canadians did not know that the Jews were the primary victims of the National Socialists during the Holocaust. The next day I read a story that the public school board in Montreal would institute ‘gay day’ for school students, whereby they would have to ‘understand’ what it would be like to be gay. I then found another article which stated that in Vancouver, activists were trying to institute a curriculum where history would be taught through the eyes of the gay experience.
But a third of Canadians did not know that Jews were the primary victims in the Holocaust!
I certainly believe that children can benefit from an education with students of different ethnicities and cultures. But that is much more complex than Paul Martin putting on a Native head-dress for a photo-op. Will the child from the ‘progressive’ household be taught to ‘tolerate’ his new Orthodox Jewish friend when he finds out he/she believes marriage is only between a man and a woman? Or will he believe his new friend is an ‘intolerant bigot’.
Last winter, when a group of Toronto Muslims protested that their children were being taught the ‘value’ of same-sex marriage, Dalton McGinty said they had to take it because it was a question of ‘tolerance’. To
The War Room, Dalton McGinty is a gutter-barrel racist. Period. True diversity goes deeper than skin colour, it goes to the core of the soul, your values, your belief system.
I must also question what is being taught when 40% of Canadian teens say America is ‘evil’.
When I went to my wife’s high-school reunion in Toronto recently, the class-room she was stationed in was filled with assignments depicting different forms of governments. Of course, more than a few students chose communism and one used Che Guevara as a heroic example of a communist. All of the ‘facts’ of him were like one might find on a communist propaganda sight. This is like using Saddam Hussein as an example of an heroic dictator. What mark do you think the student received? How many more stories like
this (via
Neale News), of the family from Alabama, will Canadians have to read before they realize, that they are teaching their children to become the worst stereotype of an ‘ignorant, boorish American’ that they can think of.
Lowering standards, and just giving cosmetic lip-service to New Left terms such as ‘diversity’, ‘equality’ and ‘tolerance’ helps no one.
Instead, it guarantees Canada a future governed by illiterate bigots who see diversity in the most shallow and superficial of terms.
DOSSIER # 9: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH STRIKES BACK
There is only one thing in this world that upsets me to the point of seeing red more than arrogance…it is arrogance backed up by ignorance.
When we read late yesterday (in the
Ottawa Citizen via
Neale News) that NDP MP Charlie Angus and his wife Celina Symmonds had been informed that they could no longer take communion in the Roman Catholic Church they had attended in their Ottawa riding, our first reaction was to be thankful the church was finally fighting back. As we continued to read however, we grew increasingly angry at both the pure ignorance of these people on church philosophy and their selfish arrogance in not even trying to understand it.
Angus was denied communion because of his public vote on same-sex marriage. Angus goes on to say that he is upset because of "the rising militancy of language within the church. I went to Ottawa feeling that I would be speaking as someone rooted in a faith tradition and rooted in a justice tradition.”
It is because of ignorant and arrogant individuals like Charlie Angus that the Catholic Church is having such a difficult time in its history right now. They are people who have no basic understanding of the philosophy of the faith and merely travel in the window dressing of it. They like that they get presents at Christmas because it’s like, hey…Christ’s birth dontcha know.
We also wonder if Charlie Angus comforted NDP MP Bev Dejalais who used her faith and conscience to vote against Bill C-38 and was then promptly demoted by Jack Layton. She will most likely not have her nomination papers signed in the next election. Apparently some types of militancy are alright for Charlie.
The faith and justice tradition of Roman Catholicism is rooted in a seamless garment view of human life. It is a philosophy of Natural Law; that from the time of conception to the last breath, the human being deserves dignity and respect. It is this basic philosophy that informs all of the churches’ teachings.
It is complex and uncompromising.
It is neither liberal nor conservative.
The same philosophy that makes the church oppose abortion and same-sex marriage also makes them oppose the war in Iraq and call for the eradication of Third World debt. To hear Angus describe it, one would think that the teachings of Christ were no more complex than the last words of E.T. to Gertie before he went onto the mother ship, “Be good.” Sorry Chuck; wrong faith, wrong philosopher.
For simplistic life musings of this sort perhaps you should check to see when the Dalai Lama is coming to town next, or maybe Oprah.
His wife, Celina Symmonds, earlier had been denied having a wedding in another Catholic church because of her pro-abortion beliefs and her running of a Planned Parenthood office, where one might assume she went about her daily business of informing little girls how to put condoms on bananas and how to do a good job of not telling their parents if they ever needed an abortion because they failed to put a condom on a banana properly.
To hear her say it; "When you grow up Catholic you grow up awaiting the day where you can walk into that great big cathedral with your husband. It's something you dream of as a little girl.”
Why?
Why would she wish to get married in a church whose core philosophy she vehemently opposes? Why not a Jewish synagogue, Muslim Mosque, a Buddhist Temple? Incidentally there is a Christian denomination that believes in abortion and same-sex marriage; it’s called the
United Church of Canada. Why not get married there, Celina?
Oh right, those Catholic churches just have such wonderful architectural arches and Buddhists don’t get chocolate at Easter…something like that?
The Celina Symmonds’ and Charlie Angus’ of the world, prefer to think of the ‘Buddy Christ’. The one with the big smile on his face who gives the thumbs up to everything they do because, like hey, they are
nice people and all.
The thought of the bloodied, philosophical Christ who died on the cross for some thing called sin doesn’t occur to them because then they would have to accept that perhaps there is a right and wrong world view. That is the Christ of the Roman Catholic faith. It is His body and blood one drinks if one is Roman Catholic.
Belief systems are sacred and difficult, none so much as Roman Catholicism. No one is forced to be Catholic but if one is going to call themselves Catholic they should at least behave like they are informed by the consciousness of their faith. Faith is not a shirt you put on in the morning and take off when it is convenient.
In voting for Bill-C-38, Angus not only showed an ignorance of his ‘faith’, but a blatant disdain for it. His vote said his Catholicism in no way formed his conscience about who he was as a human being. By claiming to still be a Catholic he in essence said he knew better than God as to what the true definition of justice was.
To the Charlie Angus’ and Celina Symmonds’ of the world I ask, “If man can dictate to God what man needs to learn from God, why then does man need God?”
We are unequivocally rapturous that this diocese made the decision they did.
There will be repercussions for this, of course. The rising tide of hatred against Catholics in Canada will increase and the selfish Charlie Angus’ of the world will continue their cries of ‘intolerance’ or ‘bigotry’.
Let them.
We were certainly happy to see that the church finally struck back.
DOSSIER # 8: PRESIDENT BUSH’S SUPREME COURT AND CANADIAN CULTURE
Since the beginning of this blog we have had as one of our core thesis that more so than any other Western Country, Canadian politics and popular culture is affected by the liberal popular culture of America that rose during the cultural and sexual revolution of the sixties. That the Canadian New Left is both intellectually and morally adrift and having had a monopoly on our cultural institutions for the past three decades with nobody to challenge them has led our nation into a lapse both domestically and internationally.
With the advent of the forced ‘passage’ of Bill-C 38 last week, many of the New Left praised Canada for being a bastion of ‘tolerance’ and openly reveled in how they were able to silence dissent and free speech in the name of establishing their new ‘equality’. The NDP-Liberal coalition basks in the lack of challenge to its authority. That using the systems of government it has put in place systemically over 3 decades, it can thwart Conservatives and have no rival.
Could it be however that its true challenge will come from the source of its power that it sees as its most banal foe? Truisms in life never seem to fail. The two in play here would be:
‘Absolute power corrupts absolutely’ and
‘never underestimate your opponent’.
With the announced retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor from the American Supreme Court last week Americans are preparing for what will be perhaps the biggest domestic battle of President Bush’s career. This will be President Bush’s first chance to leave his ideological stamp on the Supreme Court and his judicial nominee will define his presidency as easily as the war in Iraq, 9/11 and The Patriot Act.
In short, a conservative nominee who is principled on issues such as abortion, SSM and euthanasia will help tip the American Supreme Court into the conservative ideological camp and away from the liberal tilt that has defined it and hence America for the past three decades since Roe v. Wade. As expected, left-wing pundits and Democrats have already begun their crusade to attack any nominee who to them does not reflect the values of the New Left. Ralph G. Neas, president of far left People for the American Way has already threatened a fight if President Bush picks a candidate with conservative or Catholic views like Justices Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. To these people, any nominee who is not a vociferous defendant of abortion or same sex marriage will not make the cut.
President Bush will most certainly pick a conservative nominee, as he should. This battle in the ongoing culture war will help define America’s legal decisions for the next generation. Democrats and liberals in America still believe that they are the mainstream and are concerned, but this could not be further from the truth.
How does this affect Canada?
As we have mentioned, Canadians, contrary to what the CBC and The Toronto Star would have you believe, do not spend too much time watching Don Mackellar films or listening to the inane political ramblings of Sarah Polley. The vast majority do not even watch the CBC. Most views of the Canadian left are formed through the hegemony represented in the American cultural industry. Explicitly, I am referring to the liberal values found in American television, movies, music, magazines, media etc. The impact of our own culture industries on our populace is nil to negligible.
Politically, America has already begun on its journey out of the left-ward socialist tilt that it had been mired in for more than a generation. It’s cultural industries however still retain much of the influence of the communist movement that caused so much controversy during the fifties. Luminaries like Robert Redford have even produced films deifying communist butchers like Che Guevara. Indeed Redford himself has helped finance a film school used for communist propaganda in Fidel Castro’s Cuba. Nevertheless, his tenure as an American cultural icon is in its last throes. His world view is no longer that of a young feisty rebel but that of a tired old man.
Again, assuming Bush’s nominee takes hold and he/she is a conservative, not prone to waffling on such New Left dogma as abortion and same-sex marriage, eventually, the American legal and academic culture will shift. Similarly, once the generation of children raised during the Reagan eighties comes to power in the next ten-fifteen years, that generation whose frame of reference is America as a force for good against communism and not America as a force of evil through Vietnam, American popular culture will then also begin to shift right. More films, television programs and media will then be exported reflecting this world-view.
When this comes, it will be hard for Canada to avoid its influence. Canadians will feel more comfortable sharing conservative views when they are being portrayed positively in the popular media whether the CBC and the CRTC approves of it or not. It will be more and more difficult for the NDP-Liberal coalition to demonize conservatism when Canadians will see more positive portrayals of conservatism in popular media. Some might argue this has already begun with not only
The Passion of the Christ but with a sympathetic sub-textual portrayal of 9/11 in
War of the Worlds and
Batman Begins and the fact that alledgedly Ron Howard is retooling
The DaVinci Code so as to not offend Catholic or Evangelical sensibilities (although how this is possible I do not know).
This is when Canada will slowly begin to wake out of its slumber and accept how far it has slid to the left. It will be, if you will, a domino cultural shift that will occur over the course of the next generation.
The only question is whether or not in Canada’s case, it will come too late.
A QUICK DISPATCH TO THE FRONT LINES
Here is a wonderful column by Michael Coren, written in the eloquent yet sharp way that he has mastered. Coren, a landed immigrant, has a patriot's love for his country but like so many of us he never ceases to want more and to dream. In this column he does what true patriots sometimes need to do...question in times of crisis.
Here's how he opens.
"ON CANADA Day weekend I am supposed to behave like a good Canadian columnist. To say how wonderful this country is and how great and grand it is to be Canadian.
Sorry, not going to do it. I love Canadians, I love what this country has done for me, but I cannot serve it well if I play the game of adulation. Simply put, we're in big trouble. "Here is the link for the rest.
http://www.torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2005/07/02/1114312-sun.html
DOSSIER NUMBER 7: ON CANADA DAY, WHAT DEFINES A COUNTRY?
Note: Originally a Dossier was promised on how the philosophy of SSM invalidates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That will come but being this is Dominion Day, The War Room felt this Dossier was more appropriate.
Many will celebrate Canada Day in honour of the country of their birth; in honour of the country of their residence; and in honour of the country in which they live. Some will take the time to reflect quietly on what it means to live in Canada…most will not. Some will quietly reflect on the nature of patriotism in the Nation State; most will use Canada Day as an excuse to drink beer, eat burgers and listen to The Tragically Hip.
We will ask some questions. We do not know what the correct answer is and have spent much time thinking about them lately. The main question-the one from which all of the others will flow- is:
In a democracy, what defines a country?
Does a government define a country? If so can a government say which citizens are good patriots or bad citizens? Should the bad citizens partake in celebrating a country which they do not define? Is the government honest? Is it corrupt? Are all religions and cultures tolerated or just those that acquiesce to the government? Does the government protect all of its citizens or just a desirable few?
Do citizens define a country? If so do the citizens of the country have enough of a say in policy? Are the citizens informed or apathetic? Are they hospitable to foreigners or exploitative? Do they respect their freedom or take it for granted? Would they die for the country? Is the country worth dying for?
Does culture define a country? Who then defines the culture? Do you feel you have a say in it? Does it reflect your view? Do you feel comfortable saying your piece? Are all views respected?
Does tradition define a country? What are the countries traditions? Are they respected? Are they even known? Are they taught in schools? Do younger generations know and respect those traditions?
Do the founding fathers define a country? If so, do you know who they are? What they desired? Is what they desired being upheld today? Would today’s version of the country be a testament or an insult to their vision?
Does international reputation define a country? Is a country how they see themselves or how others see them? Does the country earn respect or ride on the coattails of the past? Does it uphold its duty or let others pick up the slack?
Does helping its less fortunate define a country? If so, how does it treat it’s poor and sick, its elderly, its children and babies? How does it treat its indigenous peoples, its farmers, its land?
Does freedom to dissent define a country? Is dissent allowed or frowned upon? Are those who disagree welcome at the table or shut out? Is free speech a platitude or a necessity to the country?
My father was with the Canadian Navy during the latter part of World War II. Because he had me later in life, I am younger than most of the children of WWII veterans but I have always asked these questions of myself. On the July 1st holiday, I hope many more Canadians ask them also.
Have a safe Canada Day.
