The Right Page
The latest edition of The Right Page has been posted on the Politics Canada website. Click here to read Of Frozen Rage and Poison Dogs. Here's a quick slice to whet the appetite:
“Anyone who has transgressed in this matter is going to pay the consequences” --Prime Minister Paul Martin.
Sleep will not come easy for Paul Martin over the next few weeks. He is already suffering. He has the look of a French nobleman hearing the dark, greasy swish of the guillotine blade just outside the tiny window of his cell. He’s going to have to do some fast talking to get out of this one. And, if he wants to save his hide, he better come up with phrases a damn sight less measured than “transgressed” and “consequences”. I suggest he start chucking out a couple of “criminal fraud’s” and “jailed for life’s”, because, unlike his predecessor, Martin can’t count on the decency of Canadians to look away and not call attention to the tortured monstrosities he passes off as sentences. We hear everything Martin says as clear as crystal, and we’re going to demand logic, precision and truth from now on. I have a feeling he’s going to regret those words above as surely as he regrets ever crossing the little palsied Napoleon from Shawinigan.
Mean Jean Chretien has just returned from pretending to be a lawyer and playing golf in the Far East. He is preparing a statement on this matter, say his handlers. Another screed of demented lies and gnarled prevarications, no doubt. The same Sgt Schultz tack that Martin defaulted to: Knew nothing; saw nothing. It’ll take a while before we see it, of course, because a team of real lawyers will have to dig through it like fat kids through a box of Timbits. But, when it’s finally released to the public, you can bet your last cup of double-double that Chretien won’t follow Martin’s lead and refuse to implicate his erstwhile friend.
Oh, and by the way, has anyone checked Sheila Copps’ head recently? Someone might want to call St. Joseph’s in Hamilton and have them dispatch the paramedics to see if they can unhook her grin from her ears….
Sunday, February 8, 2004
O Tempora, O Mores!
With breathtaking regularity David Warren opines on an issue in such an incontrovertibly well-reasoned way, and articulates it so precisely, that I am compelled to call everyone’s attention to it.
The article entitled More Revolution is Warren’s take on the “Gay Revolution’s” victories to date. The situation, for those of us who abhor the willful hypocrisy and moral disingenuousness shown by the proponents of so-called “gay rights”, is grim.
For Canadians, from the shocking support by supposedly sensible parliamentarians of the dispiriting free-speech restricting Bill C-250, to the dizzying vacuity of Conservative Party leadership candidate, Belinda Stronach, Warren tabulates the dire state of political thought on this matter.
For Americans, Warren turns his attention to the latest learned pronouncement of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on same-sex marriage; and how they used, of all things, the Ontario Superior Court’s decision legalizing it to butress their own argument…and, with seasoned prescience, Warren prophesizes parenthetically that “our Supreme Court will cite the Massachusetts decision in return”.
Speaking of which, Warren makes a much more important parenthetical remark in his next paragraph, the thought behind which should be expanded into a full article itself, and then the article should be published on the front pages of every newspaper and website in the English speaking world:
"Civil unions" confer…privileges…including…full adoption "rights". (The quotes are necessary, for the idea that the adoption of a living child can be a human right is a moral obscenity, on a level with slavery.)
Think about that for a minute: that making the adoption of a living human child a right, an entitlement, is on a par with slavery! He’s absolutely correct. Once said, once pointed out in this way, it is astoundingly obvious, isn’t it?
This revelation alone should be enough to have this man canonized.
Of course, the wisdom keeps right on coming. Warren exposes the frightening level of megalomaniacal disregard for the public displayed in the thinking of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall:
[I]n a condescending dismissal of [the public's] right to an opinion, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote, "That there may remain personal residual prejudice against same-sex couples is a proposition all too familiar to other disadvantaged groups. That such prejudice exists in not a reason to insist on less than the constitution requires."
When the opinion of what is likely the majority of the electorate is described as a "personal residual prejudice", we are dealing with something more than mere personal arrogance. And when a moral disorder is intentionally confused with a cultural or racial identity, we are dealing with a view of reality that is deeply twisted.
The degree of the condescension may be gauged by the fact that the constitutional right to same-sex marriage on which Madame Chief Justice based her decision, does not exist. Her invocation of it was a bare-faced lie. The idea that any such "right" existed, or anything resembling such a right, in the founding documents of Massachusetts or any other polity in North America, is a howling absurdity.
Well, I guess, to any Chief Justice who can so cavalierly disregard the Constitution upon which she is meant to base her rulings, dismissing the opinion of the majority of the herd she has solemnly sworn to faithfully serve must come easy. When one is so convinced one is right, it must be a simple matter to justify the illicit means for the self-evidently correct ends. Clearly, the possibility that those tens of millions, who disagree profoundly with homosexual conduct, and its judicial promotion, might be right has never entered Maggie’s concrete skull.
Incidentally, via positive synchronicity, I noticed Mark Steyn has re-posted an Aug 2003 article dealing with the same intolerance of dissent afflicting our tolerance-demanding elites:
Thirty years ago, in the early days of gay liberation, most of us assumed we were being asked to live and let live. But, throughout the Western world, “tolerance” has become remarkably intolerant, and “diversity” demands ruthless conformity. In New Zealand, an appeals court upheld a nationwide ban on importing a Christian video Gay Rights/Special Rights: Inside The Homosexual Agenda. In Saskatchewan, The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix was fined by the Human Rights Commission for publishing an advertisement quoting Biblical passages on homosexuality. Fining publishers of the Bible surely can’t be far off.
The coerciveness of the most “liberal” cultures in the western world is not a pretty sight.
Whatever happened to “live and let live”? If I can live with the occasional rustle from the undergrowth as I’m strolling through a condom-strewn park or a come-hither look from George Michael in the men’s room, why can’t gays live with the occasional expression of disapproval? Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage, they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. But increasingly gays oppose the right of Christians to advocate their beliefs. Gay activists have figured that, instead of trying to persuade people to change their opinions, it’s easier just to get them banned.
As Rodney King, celebrated black victim of the LAPD, once plaintively said, “Why can’t we all just get along?” But, if that’s not possible, why can’t we all just not get along? What’s so bad about disagreement that it needs to be turned into a crime?
What indeed?
I implore you to read both articles and e-mail them to everyone you know. To me, it seems that far too many people, who would be natural allies against these political/judicial machinations in favor of a cause few seriously support, are hopelessly misinformed. We who see what’s going on are duty-bound to at least try and alert those who don’t.
I leave you with Warren’s summation:
We are living in a dark time, in which we see the laws that bind our civilization together arbitrarily overthrown by judicial fiat, with no comprehension and verily, no interest in what the destructive consequences will be for our families and society at large. I am more and more convinced that we must drop the pretence that these judges are fulfilling a legitimate mandate. They are the deadly enemies of all we hold dear.
With breathtaking regularity David Warren opines on an issue in such an incontrovertibly well-reasoned way, and articulates it so precisely, that I am compelled to call everyone’s attention to it.
The article entitled More Revolution is Warren’s take on the “Gay Revolution’s” victories to date. The situation, for those of us who abhor the willful hypocrisy and moral disingenuousness shown by the proponents of so-called “gay rights”, is grim.
For Canadians, from the shocking support by supposedly sensible parliamentarians of the dispiriting free-speech restricting Bill C-250, to the dizzying vacuity of Conservative Party leadership candidate, Belinda Stronach, Warren tabulates the dire state of political thought on this matter.
For Americans, Warren turns his attention to the latest learned pronouncement of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on same-sex marriage; and how they used, of all things, the Ontario Superior Court’s decision legalizing it to butress their own argument…and, with seasoned prescience, Warren prophesizes parenthetically that “our Supreme Court will cite the Massachusetts decision in return”.
Speaking of which, Warren makes a much more important parenthetical remark in his next paragraph, the thought behind which should be expanded into a full article itself, and then the article should be published on the front pages of every newspaper and website in the English speaking world:
"Civil unions" confer…privileges…including…full adoption "rights". (The quotes are necessary, for the idea that the adoption of a living child can be a human right is a moral obscenity, on a level with slavery.)
Think about that for a minute: that making the adoption of a living human child a right, an entitlement, is on a par with slavery! He’s absolutely correct. Once said, once pointed out in this way, it is astoundingly obvious, isn’t it?
This revelation alone should be enough to have this man canonized.
Of course, the wisdom keeps right on coming. Warren exposes the frightening level of megalomaniacal disregard for the public displayed in the thinking of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall:
[I]n a condescending dismissal of [the public's] right to an opinion, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote, "That there may remain personal residual prejudice against same-sex couples is a proposition all too familiar to other disadvantaged groups. That such prejudice exists in not a reason to insist on less than the constitution requires."
When the opinion of what is likely the majority of the electorate is described as a "personal residual prejudice", we are dealing with something more than mere personal arrogance. And when a moral disorder is intentionally confused with a cultural or racial identity, we are dealing with a view of reality that is deeply twisted.
The degree of the condescension may be gauged by the fact that the constitutional right to same-sex marriage on which Madame Chief Justice based her decision, does not exist. Her invocation of it was a bare-faced lie. The idea that any such "right" existed, or anything resembling such a right, in the founding documents of Massachusetts or any other polity in North America, is a howling absurdity.
Well, I guess, to any Chief Justice who can so cavalierly disregard the Constitution upon which she is meant to base her rulings, dismissing the opinion of the majority of the herd she has solemnly sworn to faithfully serve must come easy. When one is so convinced one is right, it must be a simple matter to justify the illicit means for the self-evidently correct ends. Clearly, the possibility that those tens of millions, who disagree profoundly with homosexual conduct, and its judicial promotion, might be right has never entered Maggie’s concrete skull.
Incidentally, via positive synchronicity, I noticed Mark Steyn has re-posted an Aug 2003 article dealing with the same intolerance of dissent afflicting our tolerance-demanding elites:
Thirty years ago, in the early days of gay liberation, most of us assumed we were being asked to live and let live. But, throughout the Western world, “tolerance” has become remarkably intolerant, and “diversity” demands ruthless conformity. In New Zealand, an appeals court upheld a nationwide ban on importing a Christian video Gay Rights/Special Rights: Inside The Homosexual Agenda. In Saskatchewan, The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix was fined by the Human Rights Commission for publishing an advertisement quoting Biblical passages on homosexuality. Fining publishers of the Bible surely can’t be far off.
The coerciveness of the most “liberal” cultures in the western world is not a pretty sight.
Whatever happened to “live and let live”? If I can live with the occasional rustle from the undergrowth as I’m strolling through a condom-strewn park or a come-hither look from George Michael in the men’s room, why can’t gays live with the occasional expression of disapproval? Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage, they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. But increasingly gays oppose the right of Christians to advocate their beliefs. Gay activists have figured that, instead of trying to persuade people to change their opinions, it’s easier just to get them banned.
As Rodney King, celebrated black victim of the LAPD, once plaintively said, “Why can’t we all just get along?” But, if that’s not possible, why can’t we all just not get along? What’s so bad about disagreement that it needs to be turned into a crime?
What indeed?
I implore you to read both articles and e-mail them to everyone you know. To me, it seems that far too many people, who would be natural allies against these political/judicial machinations in favor of a cause few seriously support, are hopelessly misinformed. We who see what’s going on are duty-bound to at least try and alert those who don’t.
I leave you with Warren’s summation:
We are living in a dark time, in which we see the laws that bind our civilization together arbitrarily overthrown by judicial fiat, with no comprehension and verily, no interest in what the destructive consequences will be for our families and society at large. I am more and more convinced that we must drop the pretence that these judges are fulfilling a legitimate mandate. They are the deadly enemies of all we hold dear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)