Here in the Dominion of Canada, we are now in the eighth year of the federal premiership of Captain Airhead, or Justin Trudeau to use the unkind slur by which he is often called. He came to power in the Dominion election of 2015 with a majority win for the Liberals and has managed to cling to power ever since with slim pluralities. Despite, however, the fact that he has been in a position of minority government since 2019, he continues to govern like he has a clear, blank-cheque of a mandate, to do whatever he wants, no matter how unjust and divisive his various agendas turn out to be.
Take Bill
C-21. Please, take it. This bill was tabled (1) early last year and
had finished going through its first two readings around the beginning of
summer in June. The bill is the product
of all the hot air that has been coming from the Liberal government since the
multiple shooting incident in Nova Scotia in April of 2020. Shortly after the attacks, Captain Airhead
announced on the Communist holiday that a ban by Order-in-Counsel would take
effect immediately on what he called “assault-style” weapons. This was all a lot of smoke and
mirrors. Actual assault weapons of the
kind that match the way the Prime Minister keeps describing them, i.e., weapons
designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a period of time, were
already illegal in Canada and had been long before the Nova Scotia
shootings. The “assault-style weapons”
that he was going after were merely non-military grade rifles that had been
made to look like military rifles for those to whom such an appearance had an
aesthetic appeal. Captain Airhead then
began shooting his mouth off for the last three years about the need to make
our streets safe from gun crime, even as he introduced or stuck to policies on
everything from border control to mind-altering drugs to bail reform that had
the opposite effect. Bill C-21 if
passed would amend various Acts of Parliament to enshrine a much broader gun
ban than the one of 2020 into statutory law.
It would do absolutely nothing about making our streets safe from gun
crime because these crimes are overwhelmingly committed with guns that are
illegally obtained – as were the guns in the Nova Scotia shootings,
incidentally – because they are already illegal. None of these acts of the Trudeau Liberals,
from the Order-in-Council of 1 May, 2020 to Bill C-21, have had or will have
much of an effect on making Canadians safer from crimes either of the Nova
Scotia variety or of the kind that afflicts our inner cities. Those who are most affected by such empty,
self-righteous, gestures are law-abiding Canadians who own guns that they
acquired legally and have only used legally.
Liberals like the Prime Minister, Bill Blair and Marco “the Mendacious” Mendicino
think nothing about unjustly and unfairly punishing such people for the crimes
of actual gun criminals against whom they are either unable or unwilling to
act.
All the
criticism of Bill C-21 and its drafters in the preceding paragraph applied to
the bill even before it went into Committee consideration after the second
reading in the House which is where it presently stands. During the Committee stage, however, the
Liberals amended it in a way that made it much worse. The amendment, which was introduced very
late in the year, the Liberals apparently hoping to squeak the amended bill
through Committee and its third reading before the House adjourned for
Christmas and relying upon the amendment having been introduced just prior to
the anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre to shield
the move from criticism, greatly expanded the list of guns to be banned. While the Liberals continue to shout
“misinformation” and “disinformation” at anyone, especially His Majesty’s Loyal
Opposition, the Conservatives, when they point this out, it is quite reasonable
to conclude from the amended list of guns to be banned that rural Canadians,
especially farmers and hunters, are being targeted here. There are guns on the list that are clearly
hunting guns and which are in no way connected to gun crime in Canada. A traditional shotgun made by English
manufacturer Webley and Scott for hunting birds is one such example. There are many others. (2) Indeed, if you were to draw up a list of the
most common guns used by farmers and hunters, you would find that many of the
most prominent guns on the list are included in the amended version of Bill
C-21. The Liberal Party under its
current management loves to turn Canadians against each other, to reward those
who vote Liberal, and rub the noses of those who do not vote Liberal in
Liberal laws, but here this backfired against them. At present, as a minority government, they
are propped up by the socialist party, the New Democrats, who agreed to support
them in Parliament until the next Dominion election. It is not just the Conservatives, however,
who have a large rural base but the NDP as well. While the NDP is led by urban socialists,
much of their caucus represent northern ridings where reservations in which
hunting remains a huge part of the way of life are to be found. When the Assembly held an emergency session
in early December and condemned the Liberal bill as an assault on their way of
life the NDP had no choice but to join the Conservatives in opposing the Bill
in its currently amended form. When
this happened, even the few Liberals who represent rural ridings felt free to
break ranks with the leadership of their own party over the issue. Call it a Christmas miracle.
While
initially when faced with such opposition the government gave signs of being
willing to make concessions, when asked a few weeks later about this the Prime
Minister indicated that they intended to pass Bill C-21 and doubled down on
accusing the Conservatives of “misinformation” and “disinformation” for telling
the truth about how the bill would adversely affect law-abiding rural Canadians
without doing anything about actual gun crime.
How this shall unfold in this New Year remains to be seen.
Earlier
last year Captain Airhead made a remark in an interview that is quite revealing
about the attitude he brings to this issue.
Appearing on an American podcast (Pod Save the World) he defended his
government’s gun control policies and contrasted American and Canadian culture
saying:
and we have a culture
where the difference is, guns can be used for hunting or for sport-shooting in
Canada, and there are lots of gun owners, and they're mostly law-respecting and
law abiding, but you can't use a gun for self-protection in Canada. That's not
a right that you have in the constitution or anywhere else.
It would be
interesting to know if he really believes this or if he was just shooting his
mouth off without thinking. It is, of
course, nonsense. Canadians do indeed
have a constitutional and legal right of self-protection and when a right is
explicitly spelled out as such in constitution and law the implicit corollary
is the right to employ such means as the explicit right may require. Trudeau may be under the mistaken impression
that his father’s Charter is the Canadian constitution, a mistake about which I
shall have more to say shortly, but even if we limit our discussion of the constitution
to the Charter his statement would be wrong.
Section 7 of the Charter by spelling out Canadians right to security of
the person, recognizes their right of self-protection. Furthermore, the Firearms Act recognizes
self-protection as a legitimate grounds for a firearms permit (Section 20) and
the Criminal Code (Sections 34, 35) acknowledges the right to use force to
protect one’s person and property.
The Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, properly understood, of course, is not Canada’s
constitution, but a part of Canada’s constitution that was added in 1982. Even the British North America Act, which,
contrary to what many mistakenly think was not repealed in 1982 but renamed
(the Constitution Act, 1867), taken together with the Charter, is only part of
our constitution. In Canada, we have a
constitution that is both written and unwritten, and the unwritten parts are
the largest. The Charter itself acknowledges that its
enactment does not annul other rights and freedoms than those spelled out it in
it, that Canadians had previously enjoyed as part of our constitutional
heritage of Common Law and parliamentary monarchy. The right to use firearms in self-protection
was already part of that heritage before the American Revolution and was not
invented by the United States. The only
thing distinctively American about the United States’ version of the idea of
the right to use firearms in self-protection is the notion that the right is
absolute. That people have the basic
rights of life, liberty, and property, and the necessary corollary right to
protect the same, and consequently the right to the means to such protection
was recognized by both the Tory (Sir William Blackstone) and Whig (John Locke)
traditions before the latter gave birth to both the American Revolution and the
Liberal Party, which, for all of Trudeau’s yap about American influence on
Canada, has always been the party of Americanization.
There is a tendency
in some Christian circles to misinterpret the teachings of Christ in way that is
parallel to how Trudeau misinterprets the Canadian constitution and law. These misguided brethren have the idea that
not merely the use of guns but self-protection in general is forbidden
believers by Jesus’ teachings (the Sermon on the Mount specifically), and
example (He allowed Himself to be arrested, falsely accused, tortured, and
crucified without resisting). In an
extreme form that is associated with the tradition of the far left radical wing
of the continental Protestant Reformation this interpretation of Jesus’
teachings and example is taken to mean that Christians cannot serve as
policemen, soldiers, or in any other office of the state that requires the use
of force.
With
regards to the Sermon on the Mount this misinterpretation arises from the basic
error of failing to give due weight to Matthew 5:17-19 or to note how these
verses apply to what immediately follows in the remainder of the chapter. These verses are the warning not to think that
Jesus had come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfil them. They
come before Jesus’ saying that one’s righteousness must exceed that of the
scribes and Pharisees to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and His expansion upon
what that entails with a series of six contrasts in which one variation or
another of the words “ye have heard that it was said to them of old time” introduces
a quotation from the Old Testament, and then Jesus introduces the other side of
the contrast with “but I say to you”.
These latter words are ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν in the
Greek. δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν means “but
I say to you” without the ἐγὼ and ἐγὼ like all other nominative case personal
pronouns in Greek is only used for emphasis.
By emphasizing the first person pronoun in this way, in this sort of
contrast, Jesus declares His Own authority in speaking to be on par with that
of the Old Testament Scriptures. This
format could easily suggest to some minds that Jesus was telling His followers
to disregard the Old Testament and listen to Him instead. Verses 17 to 19 warn His hearers against taking
His words in that manner.
With regards to the first two contrasts, in which the Old
Testament quotations are taken from the Decalogue, there is less need of such a
warning since what follows the “but I say to you” intensifies the meaning of
the quoted commandment. The third and
fourth contrasts, however, could easily be taken as contradicting the Old
Testament commandments. The quotations
come from the civil portion of the Mosaic Law, the instructions with regards to
divorce and swearing oaths. Jesus tells
His followers that anyone who divorces his wife except for the cause of fornication
causes her and anyone who marries her to commit adultery, and tells them not to
swear at all. Verses 17 to 19 tell us
that this is not to be taken as annulling the civil provisions of the Mosaic
Law. Therefore, when Jesus said “swear
not at all” this had nothing to do with the courtroom, as those sects whose
members won’t take the oath before testifying in court wrongly think, but with
oaths in common conversation. Swearing
on a Bible to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” does
not violate Jesus’ instructions. Saying
“by gum” in casual conversation does. (3)
The same principle applies to the last couplet of
contrasts. In the first of these, the
Old Testament quotation is the Lex Talionis “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for
a tooth”. In the second the quotation is
the Second Greatest Commandment, to love your neighbour. Note that in this final contrast, in
addition to the Old Testament quotation there is added the words “and hate
thine enemy”, a false extrapolation from the Old Testament commandment, and it
is this false extrapolation to which Jesus speaks with His “but I say to you”
which here directly contradicts the unscriptural add-on with the instruction to
“love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,
and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you.”.
It is Jesus’ “but I say to you” remarks in this last couplet
of contrasts that is taken by some to mean that Christians are not allowed to
protect themselves against violence.
What do verses 17 to 19 tell us about Jesus’ instructions to turn the
other cheek?
The first thing to note, is that clearly verses 17 to 19
tell us that Jesus was not setting aside the Lex Talionis as the standard of
criminal justice to be applied in a court of law. Since that is the case, the extreme
interpretation that says that Jesus’ followers are not serve as officers of law
enforcement or any other state office the duties of which require the use of
force is a twisting of the meaning of this passage.
The second thing to note is that just as clearly “But I say
unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also” cannot be speaking about protecting oneself
against the violent attacks of others.
This is because the right of self-protection was established in the
Mosaic Law. Exodus 22 is the operative
passage. If somebody breaks into
another person’s house in the middle of the night, that person – the homeowner
not the burglar – is not guilty of a crime if he uses lethal force against the
housebreaker. It was a limited right –
it lasted only to daybreak after which the homeowner would be guilty,
presumably because other options than lethal force would then be available –
rather than an absolute right, but it is there and therefore, we can conclude from Matthew 5:17-19, that
the instruction to turn the other cheek does not forbid such self-protection. Indeed, this should be apparent from Jesus’
very words. The verb translated “smite”
is ῥαπίζω and while this word did originally mean “strike with a stick” – it is
derived from a noun meaning “stick” or “rod” – or “cudgel” or “thrash”, it
later came to be used as shorthand for the phrase ἐπὶ κόρρης πατάξαι which
more or less means “knock upside the head” and in writings contemporaneous with
the New Testament generally means a “slap in the face”. This is what it means here in the Gospel
where the right cheek is specifically mentioned. This particular combination refers not to an
attack on the security of one’s person, but to an insult, the kind of insult
that affronts one’s honour and challenges one to a duel. To accept that challenge is to take a
situation in which a confrontation has been building up in words and escalate
it into violence, potentially lethal violence.
The response prescribed by Jesus, however, is one that would defuse such
a powder keg. It is quite perverse,
therefore, to take Jesus’ words here as forbidding you from taking measures to
protect yourself in situations that are already violent.
This brings
us to Jesus’ Own example. There are a
number of important observations to be made.
The first of these is that Jesus clearly did not believe that the use of
force is never called for in any situation.
Had He thought that way He would not have overturned the tables of the
money-changers and drove the merchants out of the Temple. The second, is that prior to His meekly
submitting to arrest He commanded His disciples to procure for themselves the
means of self-protection by selling their clothes if necessary (Luke 22:36,
from which the title of this essay is taken).
The third is that His submission to being arrested, falsely charged,
falsely convicted, tortured, and crucified was necessary because it was through
these events that He fulfilled the purpose for which He came into this world in
the first place, to offer Himself up as the propitiatory sacrifice for the sins
of the whole world.
Related to
this last observation is one that can be made about Jesus’ early followers,
both in the New Testament and in the early centuries of post-New Testament Christian
history. While it is true that the
early Christians submitted to being tortured, imprisoned, and killed for Jesus’
sake, the most important words here are “for Jesus’ sake”. Jesus had warned His followers at various
times, such as in the Olivet Discourse and in the earlier original commissioning
of the Twelve Apostles (and later the Seventy), that thy would be persecuted in
this manner because of His name and told them that they would be blessed and
rewarded for this. The early Christians
rejoiced at the opportunity to suffer for Christ in this way. All of this, however, had to do with their
being treated in this way because they were Christians, because they publicly
confessed and proclaimed Christ. If a
disciple were walking down a street in ancient Corinth and were pulled into an
alley and beaten and robbed of everything he had on him and left to die, not
because he was a Christian but because the robber who neither knew nor cared
what his religious beliefs were wanted some quick cash, this did not make a
martyr out of that disciple. When the
early Christians qua Christians, were
persecuted, tortured, and killed in the name of the Christ they confessed, by
submitting to such treatment they bore witness to that Christ, and by doing so
persuaded many others of the truth of their faith. Just as good came out of the sufferings and
death of Jesus Christ, in that His death paid for the sins of the world and
made salvation available to all, so good came out of the martyrdom of His
followers which contributed to the spread of the Gospel throughout the ancient
world. The willingness of the early
Christians to submit to martyrdom or rather to embrace it – St. Ignatius of
Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle, is said to have yearned for
martyrdom his entire Christian life and mourned when he survived earlier
persecutions than the one in which he finally attained it – should not
therefore be taken as evidence that they thought they needed to submit without
resisting to any and every act of violence.
While the death of Jesus Christ accomplished the salvation of the world
and the martyrdom of the early Christians helped the Gospel to spread like
wildfire, most types of violent deaths – robbing someone for his wallet,
murdering someone in a fit of rage, the cold-blooded assassination of your
business or political rivals, killing someone in a drunken or drug-induced brawl,
etc. – accomplish no such good. To
submit to such acts can indeed do evil to others. If you give in to the demands of a bully,
for example, he will generally not be satisfied and leave you alone, but will
continue to bully you more and demand more of you, and will be emboldened to
bully others, until someone stands up to him.
This applies to other forms of violent aggression as well. Those who erroneously think that the
teachings and example of Jesus and His early followers tell us that we ought to
submit in non-resistance to every sort of violent crime are telling us that we
should be content to allow our neighbours to suffer from society being overrun
by violent crime. That is an odd way of
loving one’s neighbour. The Second
Greatest Commandment, of course, is to “love thy neighbour as thyself”. If someone’s
idea of loving himself is that he should allow everyone and everything to walk
all over him, submit to every sort of affront to his human dignity, and let
every imaginable sort of violent crime be perpetrated against himself, I would
not place much stock in his love for his neighbour.
(2) Amusingly, one gun which somehow made it onto the Liberals’ list of guns to be banned is something called the “Butt Master”. This gun is pretty much the exact opposite of a gun designed to kill as many people as fast as possible. It is a single use gun in the shape of a pen that has to be re-loaded each time it is fired. Moreover, there has only ever been one of these in existence, the one still owned by its designer, Mark Serbu of Tampa, Florida.
(3) This is, of course, where the word “swearing” in the negative sense of the term comes from. Originally, “swearing” in the negative sense meant the use of oaths outside of a courtroom. Some older Canadians may still remember a time when they would be reprimanded for swearing for saying any of the various sorts of “by this or that” casual oaths. Ironically, as the word came to take on the generic meaning of “language you shouldn’t use” so as to include cursing, which Scripture is also against, and barnyard or gutter slang about which the Scripture is silent, the sorts of phrases it originally and literally described, dropped out of what most people think when they hear the word.
No comments:
Post a Comment