Discrimination and Justice

Imagine the following scenario. You are at a bar or a nightclub and someone comes up to you, expressing romantic interest, and asks you for your name and contact information. This person is of the same sex as you and you, not being into that, politely explain this and turn this person down. The next day, you are notified that you have been charged with discrimination on the grounds of sex and sexual orientation. You think the charge is absurd but find yourself dragged into a long, expensive, legal battle, at the end of which, a judgement is made against you, and you are slapped with a fine that exceeds your annual gross income and which you cannot possibly pay.

“Preposterous,” you say. “That could never happen!”

Why not?

“It is not discrimination for a heterosexual to turn down an advance from someone of the same sex.”

Actually, yes it is. To discriminate is to observe a difference or make a distinction and to act as if that difference or distinction mattered. A man, who turns down a sexual advance from another man, because he himself is heterosexual, is discriminating against potential sexual partners on the grounds of both their sex and their sexual orientation.

“That cannot be right. There is nothing wrong with a person rejecting an advance from someone he is not attracted to.”

That is my point precisely. There is nothing wrong with it. Furthermore, since there is nothing wrong with it, there is nothing wrong with discrimination qua discrimination.

It is a matter of basic logic folks. A heterosexual man, being attracted only to women, will turn down advances from other men. In doing so, he is making and acting upon a distinction between men and women, and therefore discriminating. If discrimination is wrong in and of itself, then it is wrong for him to do so. Since, however, everyone who is not crazy knows that there is nothing wrong with a man who is attracted only to women turning down another man, it must therefore follow that discrimination in itself is not wrong.

As impeccable as this logic is, the conclusion will still be resisted by those who, lacking all capacity for thinking outside of the “discrimination is wrong” box, will sputter in helpless rage at this demonstration of how everything that they have been brainwashed into thinking by the news media, popular entertainment and the Stalinist indoctrination camps that are our public educational system all their lives is wrong. To pour salt on their wounds, I will point out that logic brings us to the same conclusion if the scenario is altered so that it is a lesbian rather than a heterosexual man rejecting the advances of a male suitor.

“Not so fast”, someone might object, “to arrive at the conclusion that discrimination is not intrinsically wrong from that starting point would requires that the lesbian be right or at least not wrong in rejecting her male suitor, and does not traditional Christian morality teach that lesbianism is wrong?”

Traditional Christian morality does indeed teach that lesbianism is wrong but not in a way that would affect the outcome of our argument. It is not the lesbian’s rejection of men that traditional Christian morality condemns as sinful but her having sexual relations with other women. It is modern liberalism that runs into a problem here, because liberal ethics seeks to simultaneously affirm the goodness of homosexuality and the injustice of discrimination. The lesbian’s choice of sexual partners, however, is no less discriminatory based on sex than that of the heterosexual male – or for that matter those of the homosexual male and the heterosexual woman.

It is not wrong to discriminate. That does not mean that it is always right to discriminate, of course, but it does mean that the rightness or wrongness of an act of discrimination lies elsewhere than in the mere fact of its being discriminatory. This is one of the reasons why laws against discrimination are themselves unjust.

It is a little over fifty year since the first anti-discrimination bill, the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. The United Kingdom followed suit with the Race Relations Act of 1965 and Canada with the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977. Other Western countries brought in similar legislation and the US, UK and Canada have all subsequently amended and expanded their initial anti-discriminatory bills.

Advocates of this sort of law point to injustices of the era in order to justify the introduction of these laws but the interesting thing to note about that is that the injustices in question consisted of laws and government policies whereas the anti-discrimination bills forbade private acts of discrimination. Segregation in the southern United States, for example, the justification given for the US Civil Rights Act, was the separation of the races by laws enacted by the state governments in the late 1800s, laws which were struck down by the American Supreme Court ten years before the US Civil Rights Act, which forbade discrimination on the part of businesses, employers, and those looking to sell or rent a house, was passed.

It is one thing to tell a magistrate, responsible for hearing and settling disputes between two parties, that he is required to base his ruling on the facts of the case and not on the wealth and social status of the parties in question. This has been recognized as a basic principle of justice from time immemorial and the violation of it is the classic example of a kind of discrimination that is also an injustice.

It is a different matter altogether to tell an employer that he cannot discriminate in his hiring practices. Imagine if the government were to pass a law that says to employers “if a member of group X comes to you looking for a job, you are required to hire him, and you must never fire him.” That such a law would be a grotesque injustice to employers is easily recognizable by all sane people but laws which forbid discrimination on the part of employers inevitably translate into such laws in practice. If the law says you are not allowed as an employer to discriminate against members of group X, and a member of group X applies to be hired and is turned down, he can then charge you with discrimination and you will be faced with the burden of proving that your decision was not based on discrimination. That is not something that can be proven to a human judge, however, because discrimination takes place in the heart and mind which the judge cannot see for himself and can hardly be required to take your word for it. Therefore, the only way to protect yourself as an employer from a false charge under a law that says “you cannot discriminate against members of group X” is to treat the law as if it said “you are required to hire members of group X.”

Laws that forbid discrimination by placing the onus of proof upon the accused rather than the accuser and by presuming to dictate what we can and cannot think or feel in our thoughts and hearts violate our civilization’s traditional principles of justice and are experiments in totalitarian thought control that would be right at home in kind of Communist hellhole that Stalin and Mao ran and George Orwell satirized. Which is why, unless these laws are revoked, we can expect that someday in the not so distant future we will see the absurd hypothetical scenario with which I began this essay, become an absurd reality. It is the fundamental nature of these laws to produce such an outcome.

Liberalism Exposed by Orlando

“It's just obvious”, Chicago School economist Milton Friedman told Peter Brimelow back in the 1990s, “you can't have free immigration and a welfare state.”

These words are not as well-known as his “there is no such thing as a free lunch” but they ought to be. It is perfectly consistent to be opposed to both open immigration and the welfare state. One can make a rational case for either against the other. To try and have both, however, as all Western ex-nations have sought to do for decades, is to invite every would-be free rider in the world to come to your country and leech off of you.

Friedman, who was a libertarian, would have chosen free immigration over a welfare state. I, a somewhat libertarian, High Tory patriot, would lean towards having neither, while regarding a modest welfare state – much more modest than we have today – as the lesser of the two evils. These are positions that can be intelligently defended. The progressive or left-liberal position that we must have both is not, which is perhaps the reason why progressives, rather than try to intelligently defend the indefensible, instead try to silence everyone else with emotional accusations of being cruel, hard-hearted, inhumane, bigoted, unfeeling and the like.

This is not the only example of progressive liberals simultaneously endorsing two things that are mutually exclusive. If someone were to say “it’s just obvious that you cannot have a culture that affirms and celebrates homosexuality while also being open to Islam” he would be just as right as Friedman was. Once again, a person can argue against both of these things simultaneously without self-contradiction. Or he might make a convincing case for the one that excludes the other. It is those who insist on having both who are writing a prescription for disaster. Once again it is progressive liberals who do this and who denounce anyone who opposes either of their pet causes as being bigoted and unenlightened.

If the folly in this had not already been obvious before, it was certainly exposed for all the world to see by the events in Orlando, Florida this past weekend. In what has been described as the worst such shooting in American history, a twenty-nine year old son of immigrants from Afghanistan, called 9-11 to announce his intentions and his allegiance to the Islamic State and then went into a gay club called the Pulse and shot the place up, killing about fifty people and wounding about fifty others.

Liberals, with the exception of those gay rights groups that have now endorsed the Donald Trump campaign, have learned absolutely nothing from this about the mutual exclusivity of the causes they espouse in the name of such banal drivel as “social justice” and “human rights”. If we do not include US President Barack Obama’s emotional meltdown and hate-filled tirade against Trump the liberal response to the shooting has basically been twofold.

First, quite predictably, they are blaming the incident on the accessibility of guns in the United States and what they call the American “gun culture” and calling for more restrictions on gun owners. That way, the next time someone declares his loyalty to ISIS and hatred of the United States, and in the name of Allah sets out on a one-man jihad, his efforts will be frustrated and defeated by the fact that he has to obey a law that prevents him from owning guns. Peter Hitchens has already said all that needs to be said about this kind of stupidity when in his reflections on Orlando he observed that America’s gun laws were a lot laxer fifty years ago before these kind of shooting incidents became common place, noting that such shootings also occur in countries with strict gun control like Britain, Germany and Finland while being much rarer in Switzerland. Hitchens argued that “an inquiry into the correlation between drug abuse and violence” would be “the most rational and effective response to the horrific news from Orlando” which suggestion contains far more good sense than all of those coming from the gun-hating lunatics on the left.

Secondly, and again predictably, they have been blaming conservative Christians for the incident. The same people who consider it to be a horrible and unfair generalization to blame the actions of this man on his own religion have no problem blaming it on another one altogether. This is what enlightenment looks like, folks, and it is indistinguishable from what we used to call being just plain crazy.

According to the looney-tune left, Christians are responsible for creating a “culture of homophobia” which drove this young Muslim into a murderous frenzy. He pledged his loyalty to a regime that kills homosexuals by throwing them from rooftops. Islam is the dominant religion in the ten countries in the world where homosexuality is a capital offence. Yet, liberals expect us to believe that the source of his murderous hatred is not his own religion but Christianity, a faith whose adherents are also routinely targeted by ISIS for death.

Who do they think they are fooling?

Liberals maintain that all religions are equal, an idea that can be held only in a mind that regards all religious beliefs as false and therefore takes seriously the beliefs of neither Christians nor Muslims. As Sir Roger Scruton recently explained it “the new ideology of non-discrimination” means “not sounding too certain about anything in case you make people who don’t share your beliefs feel uncomfortable.” Not believing anything himself, the liberal cannot accept that Christians might genuinely believe that God made mankind male and female and gave the sexes to each other in marriage so that we are not therefore free to change this institution to accommodate homosexuals in the way the liberal considers to be reasonable. No can he accept that Muslims might sincerely believe in anything that would prevent their full integration into Western society or lead to a violent clash with Western culture or a portion thereof. Faced with evidence that somebody does actually believe something, he seeks to silence that person and extirpate the belief for, as Sir Roger further explains “What we might have taken to be open-mindedness turns out to be no-mindedness: the absence of beliefs, and a negative reaction to all those who have them.”

Despite their promises of twenty years ago that their campaign for gay rights would not infringe upon anyone else’s rights and certainly not upon the freedom of religion of devout believers, the ink had hardly dried upon the legislation and court rulings that secured their victory in Canada, the United States, and throughout the Western world, before Christians were being dragged into court, fined thousands of dollars, and forced out of their businesses because they would not alter their Christian convictions to suit liberalism.

This is the behaviour of bullies, and bullies are natural cowards. It is not surprising therefore, that much depends upon whose beliefs have come into conflict with liberalism. Liberals are not about to risk the beheadings, bombings, and other messy possibilities that might result from offending believers whose faith has not been three-quarters diluted with liberalism already and includes concepts like jihad. Therefore, when someone does something in the name of Islam that offends them, they take it out on Christians. Which is why today, their response to Orlando looks less like genuine outrage over a horrible atrocity and more like the cynical use of the suffering of one of the groups for which they feign compassion at the hands of another to further kick a defeated foe while he is down.

That’s just how classy they are.

The Conservative Party’s Capitulation in the Culture War

It is almost thirty years since the label “culture war” was first attached to the relentless onslaught of liberalism, the ideology that misleadingly took its name from an adjective used by the Romans to denote generosity and all that is worthy of free people, against the traditions, religion, and ancestral ethnic groups of the Christian civilization that succeeded the Graeco-Roman civilization of antiquity. In Canada, the Liberal Party had turned the Supreme Court into a weapon of offence in this war by adding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to our Constitution in 1982 and in 1988 that weapon was used to strike down all the laws against abortion in Canada, scoring a major victory for what Pope John Paul II would a few years thereafter call “the culture of death.” At the time, the Progressive Conservative Party was inclined to fight back against liberalism and in 1989 introduced Bill C-43, which would re-criminalize abortion while allowing it in instances where a mother’s life was in danger. The bill passed in the House of Commons, but died on its third reading in the Senate in 1991, when it received a tie-vote. The Tories, lamentably, did not press the issue further and today it would appear that the Conservative Party has raised the white flag in the culture war.

Last month, when Justin Trudeau’s Liberals introduced Bill C-16, Rona Ambrose, the interim leader of the Conservative Party, declared that she would not oppose the bill. Several other Conservative MPs followed suit. Bill C-16 is the bill which will make it illegal to discriminate against transgender people, i.e., people who think that they are a sex other than the one they actually are. In practice, what this means is that public facilities designated for the use of one sex, including washrooms, change rooms, and showers, will be required by law to be open to people of the other sex who maintain that they think or feel that they are of the sex for which the facilities have been reserved. It also means that anyone who turns down someone who is in disagreement with their X and/or Y chromosomes as to what sex he/she/it is for a job, passes over for promotion, or fires that person, may face a charge of discrimination in which he will have to bear the impossible onus of somehow proving that he is not guilty of the crimethink of which he accused. If all that were not bad enough the bill will also make “hate speech” against transgender people into an offence punishable with up to two years in prison. Note that the words “hate speech” do not, as sane people might be tempted to think, merely refer to explicit incitement to violence but include the expression of thoughts that contradict what progressives have decided all enlightened people must believe. If ever there was a time for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to oppose something, this is it.

Yet, not only is the Conservative leader supporting this insane new bill but the party, in its national convention held later in the same month, voted by a very large margin to abandon its position that marriage is something that exists “between one man and one woman.” It also voted to change its policy on marijuana and to take the position that the possession of small amounts ought to be decriminalized. The latter is a much lesser matter than the former but we can see the same train of thought at work in both decisions. The Conservatives were trounced majorly by the Liberals in last fall’s election and are now reasoning that this was because the Liberal positions on same-sex “marriage” and marijuana were more popular than theirs and that this means they must change their positions in order to survive as a party. To reason this way seems to be a perennial temptation for Conservatives whenever they lose elections. As long as Conservatives keep succumbing to this temptation, liberalism will keep winning, and will keep moving further and further to the left, dragging the rest of us along with it. The Liberal Party already has a pair of doppelgangers in the NDP and Green Parties and it does not need another one in the Conservatives.

The idea that it was the Conservative Party’s right-wing positions on matters like marriage and election that cost them the last election is absurd when one considers that they had done next to nothing about these issues while they were in office for the last nine years, even in the four years in which they had a majority government. The Civil Marriage Act that created the legal fiction of same-sex “marriage” nation-wide – the courts had already done this at the provincial level through most of the country – was passed during the Liberal premiership of Paul Martin in 2005, the year before the Conservative took power. It was only in that first year that they attempted to re-open the issue, at a time when they had a minority government making it inevitable that the attempt would fail. Nor did they attempt to reintroduce restrictions on abortion – indeed, then Conservative leader Stephen Harper had declared that the abortion debate would not be reopened during his premiership. On the matter of doctor-assisted suicide, Steven Fletcher, at the time a Conservative MP, actually introduced legislation similar to the bill the Liberals are currently ramming through Parliament a year previously.

In other words, the Conservative Party had already basically surrendered in the culture war by the beginning of the Harper premiership. This surrender was even more complete when it comes to immigration and the issues surrounding it than with regards to abortion, same-sex “marriage”, euthanasia and the other issues that are conventionally categorized as “social.” In the late 1960s, during the premierships of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, the Liberals launched an aggressive assault against white Anglophone Canadians. Their weapons were mass immigration, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the public schools and the national news media. Under the pretence of making Canada’s immigration laws fair and race-neutral, which the Conservatives had already done during the premiership of John Diefenbaker in 1962 having a negligible effect on the composition of immigration, the Liberals changed that composition from being almost ninety per cent traditional European at the beginning of Pierre Trudeau’s premiership to being seventy per cent Third World by its end. In the Canadian Human Rights Act they made it a civilly liable offence to discriminate on the basis of race. On paper, this looks like it applies to everyone – whites cannot discriminate against blacks, blacks cannot discriminate against whites – but in practice it was only enforced against whites, and only intended to be enforced against whites. This anti-white bias is what the Liberals really mean whenever they say “protecting vulnerable minorities”. They turned the public schools into indoctrination camps to program people into thinking that racism, bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, and xenophobia – on the part of white people, that is - were all greater sins than Pride, Envy, Wrath, Sloth, Avarice, Gluttony and Lust. The news media branded anyone who dared to publicly disagree with the Liberals on any of this as a Hitlerite even if, like the late Doug Collins, he was a man who actually fought against Hitler during the war. No subsequent government has dared to do anything about any of this, certainly not the thoroughly cucked Conservatives under Stephen Harper’s leadership.

While liberals claim open-mindedness and tolerance as their virtues, on all of these matters they have insisted every time they have scored a victory in the culture war that all discussion of the issue ought to be closed, and that people who disagree with them publically ought to be punished. Since Canadian liberalism has made it absolutely clear that it will accept no victory short of a Carthaginian peace in this culture war, the Conservatives, in the face of such an attitude, ought never to have ever contemplated surrender.

Having said that, I could have told you thirteen years ago that something like this would happen.

That was the year that the present Conservative Party was formed when the merger between the old Conservative Party and the right-populist Reform Party was completed. Theoretically this could have produced a superior party that would combine the best of both. From the original Conservative Party, formed in the year of Confederation and which under the leadership of Sir John A. MacDonald, Father of Confederation and the first Prime Minister of Canada, governed the country for nineteen of its first twenty-four years, it could have taken its royalism, patriotism, Anglophilia, and economic nationalism. To this it could have added the small town, rural common sense of the Reform Party, founded as a Western protest party in 1988, as well as its opposition to such things as bureaucratic overregulation, progressive social engineering, and socialist wealth redistribution. The social and cultural conservative defence of the Christian religion, its ethical teachings and its traditional and historical role in Canada, an element the two parties had in common, could have served as the glue to make such a union work.

I could not see this happening, however. The old Conservative Party was hardly recognizable as the party of Sir John A. MacDonald any more. Having foolishly added the adjective Progressive to its name in 1942, thus creating a self-contradicting title and a confused identity to go along with it, the party ousted in 1966, John Diefenbaker, a leader who was patriotically fighting for Canada’s traditional symbols such as the old flag against Liberals determined to replace them, and, back in power in the 1980s, abandoned its traditional anti-contintentalist economic nationalism and negotiated a free trade deal with the United States. After its one failed attempt to recriminalize abortion it gave up and it made the immigration problem, started by the Liberals, even worse by jacking the yearly target of immigrants to be accepted up through the roof. As for the Reform Party, or the Canadian Alliance as it was then called after an initial, incomplete, attempt at merging with the Conservatives, its capitalism was always more important to it than its social conservatism. By 2003 – indeed, long before then – capitalism had evolved from a relatively benign, small town, competitive market into a globalist economy controlled by multinational megacorporations who, as an examination of the list of those who have intervened legally against state governments south of the border that have sought to protect traditional marriage or even the freedom of conscience of traditional religious believers, will reveal, have joined forces with liberalism in the culture war. I predicted that the new party would join the worst elements of the two parties rather than the best, and that social conservatism would be the first thing on the chopping block. I decided it would not be worthwhile joining.

Unfortunately, since all the other parties in the House of Commons are completely and extremely liberal, the betrayal of the Conservatives leaves those of us who love this country and would like to pull it out of the abyss of cultural and moral insanity into which it has sunk without a voice in the federal legislative assembly.

Canada's Cultural Marxism was "Made in the USA"

In reporting on the Trudeau Liberals’ draconian new “transgender rights” bill the editors at Taki Theodoracopolus’ e-magazine made the remark that “[a]t any given moment, Canada is also about 15 years ahead of the USA down the murderous path of instituting Cultural Marxism as a state religion that must not be transgressed under penalty of death.” This is not, alas, an entirely erroneous statement, at least if we have the last few decades in view, but the most interesting thing about it is that it is essentially saying that Canadian progressives are attempting to be more American than the Americans. In Canada, Cultural Marxism is and always has been, a product imported from the United States.

Cultural Marxism is the use of culture to subvert and undermine the traditions of a society and civilization. It is usually thought of in terms of the attacks on people of white European ancestry, the Christian religion, the patriarchal family and the male sex in general, and heterosexual normality, that now permeate popular and academic culture. Political correctness is the popular appellation for Cultural Marxism in its coercive aspect.

American conservatives think of all of this as having been imported from Europe and they are correct in one sense in that Cultural Marxism as an actual strategy of infiltrating and subverting the institutions that generate and transmit culture such as schools, media, and churches was developed by European neo-Marxists such as Italian Communist Party leader Antonio Gramsci during the interwar period of the last century and brought to America by thinkers such as those of the Frankfurt School – Max Horkheimer, Theodore Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse – who temporarily relocated to Columbia University in the 1930s and 1940s and had a surprisingly large amount of influence in the cultural upheavals of the 1960s for men whose theories were primarily a synthesis of the ideas of the two most boring and uninspired thinkers in all of history, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. If Europe was the birthplace of Cultural Marxism at the level of theory, however, Los Angeles, California has been the central base of operations from which it has conducted its highly successful campaign against the peoples, religion, and traditions of Western Civilization. Can there be any doubt that the most effective weapon in the arsenal of the Cultural Marxists has been the “pop culture” produced in music and motion picture recording studios of the City of Angels?

All of Cultural Marxism’s victories in its endless war against all things good, decent, and normal can be traced to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which was itself to a large degree a Hollywood fabrication. The conventional narrative of this history tells us that black Americans, having undergone a century of continued cruel oppression under segregation after they had been freed from slavery in the American Civil War, rose up against their oppressors under the leadership of a modern-day Spartacus, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and finally obtained their rights in the Civil Rights Act passed by the United States Congress in 1964. In reality, the US Supreme Court had dealt the deathblow to segregation in its ruling in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, a year before the media elevated King to celebrity status in the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The Civil Rights Act did not terminate the “separate but equal” state laws that had already been struck down by the Supreme Court ten years earlier but rather made it a civilly liable offence for private citizens to discriminate on the grounds of race or sex, in certain situations. By telling people what they were or were not allowed to be thinking while selling or renting a house, hiring, promoting and firing an employee, or serving or withholding service from customers, thus extending the rule of law into the realm of private conscience, and by placing an impossible burden of proof upon the accused, this bill was in itself a major assault on principles of justice that had been long established in the English-speaking world. Nevertheless, so effective was the falsified, media-generated, version of these events that the Civil Rights Movement has served as the template ever since for the “Social Justice Warriors” who, howling with outrage on behalf of one supposedly mistreated group or another, have demanded radical changes to society and the strict curtailing of how we are allowed to think or speak.

The American Civil Rights Act was obviously the model upon which the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977 was based. Like its American equivalent, the CHRA forbade private acts of discrimination, but it went the American bill one further by including the notorious Section 13, which defined as an act of discrimination, the communication via electronic media of words and ideas that were “likely” to expose people to “hatred or contempt” on the grounds of their race, sex, national origin, or any other prohibited grounds of discrimination. It was the Liberal government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau that brought in the CHRA with Section 13 in 1977, and we can see a parallel with what the present Liberal government of Justin Trudeau is seeking to do by introducing Bill C-16, which proposes to make “hate speech” against transsexuals a criminal offence, punishable with up to two years of prison time. Both generations of Trudeaus looked to the United States for their inspiration, in Justin’s case to the President Barack Obama’s attempt to shove all this transgender rights nonsense down all the states’ throats by executive order. In both cases the Trudeaus have taken a rotten American idea and made it even worse.

In this we see how it is true for the editors of Takimag to say that Canada, with the Trudeau Liberals in power, is ahead of the United States in the game of instituting Cultural Marxism as a state religion, but that this is by imitating the United States and trying to outdo the Americans in their own game. The reorientation of Canada away from her British roots and connections and towards greater continental integration with the United States has been the goal of the Liberal Party since the nineteenth century. This remained the case when the Liberals came under the leadership of the Trudeaus, themselves a cheap, Canadian, knockoff of the trashy, American Kennedy family. To this day the Liberals look to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as their greatest achievement during the premiership of Pierre Trudeau. The Charter is clearly a second-rate imitation of the American Bill of Rights. It is built on the same false premise as the American document – that rights and freedoms are better secured by being written down on paper than being enshrined in long-established custom and tradition – while making no mention of the basic right to one’s own property, and making the most important rights and freedoms mentioned, less secure than the multicultural, egalitarian, and feminist agenda that Pierre Trudeau had borrowed from Hollywood. The biggest effect of its having been added to our constitution was to make the Canadian Supreme Court more like the American, that is to say, a panel of activists carrying out a social, moral, and cultural “revolution from above” against the Christian religion and the customs, traditions, and way of life that had been identifiable as Canadian since Confederation. Six years after the Charter was introduced, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down all of Canada’s laws against abortion, a decision the American Supreme Court had anticipated by fifteen years. Last year it struck down all of our laws against doctor assisted suicide. In between were a string of liberalizing and secularizing decisions striking down long-established laws and traditions of the type the Americans have had to endure from their Supreme Court since at least the 1950s. Progressive activist judges in the United States had had the Fourteenth Amendment at their disposal since 1868. Their Canadian equivalents had to wait until 1982 to get the Charter.

It is deeply ironic, therefore, that virtually everything which progressives, including supporters of the NDP and Green Parties, both of which basically want all the same things as the Liberals only faster, think of as being “the Canadian way” as opposed to “the American way” is merely one American innovation or another taken to an absurd extreme. The original Canadian Tories, from Sir John A. MacDonald through to John G. Diefenbaker, knew that what set the Canadian way apart from the American was our loyalism, monarchism, and our remaining true to our British traditions and institutions within the larger British family of nations and it is pathetic, that the party that bears the Conservative name, has abandoned its opposition to same-sex marriage and endorsed the transgender rights bill thus essentially conceding the culture war to the Cultural Marxism that has infiltrated our country with “MADE IN THE USA” stamped all over it.

Brief Thoughts on Assorted Matters

- A country over which neither a king nor a queen reigns is not a real country.

- Democracy is not the safeguard of liberty, it is royal monarchy that protects the freedom of the people from the tyranny of elected politicians who think they can do whatever they want to the people because they act in the name of the people.

- The most misogynistic remark that I have ever heard is that a woman ought to be a feminist because she is a woman for this is the equivalent of saying that women qua women are irrational, out of touch with reality, humourless, self-righteous, obnoxious and tyrannical.

- Liberals are always using the expression “it is about time” to refer to laws that nobody dreamed of passing until the day before yesterday, that are neither necessary nor just, and which negatively affect large numbers of people for the sake of the convenience of a small handful. It is apparent that they do not know what these words actually mean.

- The Liberal Party is, and always has been, the most American political party in Canada, and the Trudeaus are the most American of the Liberals, albeit in a Hollywood lefty sort of way, being basically the Canadian equivalent of the Kennedys.

- The greatest lie in the history of mankind was the one the serpent told to Eve in the Garden of Eden. The second greatest lie was Thomas Jefferson’s “all men are created equal.”

- There can be no freedom without order, and no order without hierarchy.

- We are constantly being told that we need to build bridges rather than walls. Homes require walls not bridges. Either the bridge advocates have put no thought whatsoever into their metaphor or they do not think of their country as their home.

- There may very well be something to the frequently heard accusation that capitalism unshackles Avarice, but socialism institutionalises Envy, which in the traditional ranking of the Seven Deadly Sins is the greater of the two.

- The same people who think it a heinous and barbaric act for a government to take the life of a murderer as the just penalty for his crime believe that women should have the right to take the lives of the unborn children growing in their wombs and that people who wish to kill themselves should have the right to force another person into complicity in this action.

- While of all the sins and wickednesses in the world there are undoubtedly many that are much worse than that of being romantically and erotically attached to a member of your own sex, the very worst of the Seven Deadly Sins has always been thought to be Superbia or hubris as the Greeks called it, the English name of which is Pride. Think about it.

- Whenever a progressive, forward-thinking, person dismisses an idea, custom, or institution as being “old-fashioned”, “archaic”, “out-dated” or the like, this ought to be taken as evidence on behalf of its retention or revival.

- For decades we have been told that enlightened and humane people do not believe in corporal discipline by parents or teachers and today, after all these years of timeouts, we are witnessing the complete collapse of parental authority. Do you think these two things might possibly be related?

- The retributive theory of justice in which the courts exact penalties owed to the law by criminal offenders has been condemned by the more-enlightened-than-thou as being atavistic but surely treating these offenders as human Guinea pigs in experiments in behavioural corrections is far more cruel and inhumane.

- It is impossible to work for the good of generations yet to come without a proper and pious reverence for the generations that have preceded us.

- The word “hate” used to refer to the wishing of harm, violence, death and destruction on someone or something but progressives now seem to be using it to refer to all disagreement with their goals.

- We are now being told that we must consider a person to be whatever sex he, she, or it says that he, she, or it is. Does this mean that we have to consider JFK to have been a jelly doughnut?

- A morality of rules for the sake of rules themselves is just legalism. True morality, as the Latin root of the word suggests, is about the development of a character of good habits or virtues so that men can make wise and right decisions.

- Have you ever noticed how all the proposals of those who loudly proclaim their great compassion for the poor would make everything much more expensive for everybody, hurting the poor the most?

Hic et Ille, II

My Last Two Essays in a Nutshell

The ancients maintained that governments exist to establish and protect the common good of the political communities they govern. Liberals maintain that governments exist to safeguard the freedom of individuals. This is a self-defeating goal. The more governments seek to safeguard individual liberty by adding to the evergrowing list of "rights" that are formally recognized and officially protected, the more areas of our everyday lives they regulate until their cramping presence is felt everywhere. The ancients, as classical Tories recognize, had it right. The common good of the entire country is the end for which government exists, and when governments seek that end, with past and future generations in mind not just those living in the present, freedom, which is a big part of the good but not the whole, is better secured, than when it is actively and aggressively pursued in the liberal fashion.

A Leader Who Does Not Give a Fig For the Good of His Country

Earlier this month Canada received offers of assistance from Russia, the United States, Mexico, Australia, Israel, Taiwan and even the Palestinian Authority to assist in fighting the wildfire that was devastating northern Alberta. Justin Trudeau, in his typical snotty and haughty manner, told them that no help was needed, on the same day that he announced that he would be pouring $785 million in foreign relief to Africa over the next three years. One wonders if Trudeau, who six years ago told an interviewer on a Quebec station that "Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work", would have been singing a different tune if the fire had been elsewhere than Alberta, say in Quebec.

This Tuesday the Trudeau Liberals introduced Bill C-16 which, if passed, will make it illegal to discriminate against men who think they are women, women who think they are men, or men and women who think they are some other gender altogether. The "discrimination" that Trudeau wants to forbid includes "hate speech", which means that if you are a sane person, who thinks that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, your freedom to speak your opinion, is about to be curtailed severely.

The same Justin Trudeau who wants to make it illegal for you or I to say that a man who thinks that he is a woman is still a man is the Justin Trudeau who has been bringing refugees into the country by the thousands, and who wants to bring thousands more in, most of whom are Muslims. I wonder if they will be expected to obey the new transgender rights bill as well? I wonder if the Liberals really do not see the conflict between these two policies seemingly so dear to them?

Whatever the case, Justin Trudeau clearly does not give a fig for the good of this country.

Mrs. Trudeau In the News

Justin Trudeau's wife, Sophie Gregoire Trudeau has been in the news almost as much as her husband this month with the controversy she sparked when she requested a larger staff to assist her. Canada is not the United States. The Prime Minister's spouse does not have an official title and role the way the spouse of the American President does. There is a very good reason for that. The Americans, in electing the head of their republic, choose the person who will be both head of state and head of government. In Canada, as in all the parliamentary monarchies of the Commonwealth, the Queen is the head of state, and the Prime Minister is merely the head of the government, a fact of which the Trudeaus need to be reminded. The Queen, currently a Queen regnant, during the reign of a king, a Queen consort, is the First Lady of Canada. The Queen's representative in Canada is the Governor-General and his wife has the title "Her Excellency" as befits a vice-regal spouse.

I was amused to read Lorne Gunter's comments on this matter in his Sun media column this weekend. Mr. Gunter, who was the managing editor of the defunct Alberta Report, and who writes regularly for the National Post and the Sun chain of newspapers, is the kind of commentator from whose columns I generally walk away saying that I more or less agree on the issue at hand, but have either deep reservations or at times am outright opposed, to the underlying ideals and principles brought to bear on the issue. Mr. Gunter is one of those individuals, of whom Alberta has plenty, who thinks he is a conservative but is not. He is actually, a pro-American, classical liberal, republican which is something quite different. To be a conservative in Canada you have to be a monarchist.

Mr. Gunter, writing from his American-style populist democratic worldview, ridicules Mrs. Trudeau's desire for a larger role and staff, writing that:

The point is Canada doesn’t need a First Lady or a queen consort or even a prime minister’s wife with a lot of pretentions.

Gregoire Trudeau hasn’t been elected by Canadians to any official position. She needs to remember that.

No Mr. Gunter. The reason Mrs. Trudeau needs to be humbled is not because Canadians have not elected her to anything. We elected her husband, and look at how well that turned out! She needs to be reminded that Canada is a Commonwealth country, that we have a Queen Regnant, and that her husband merely leads Her Majesty's government in the currently elected Parliament.

Liberalism Has Not Improved With Age

Liberalism is the spirit which has animated the civilization that was once Christendom for at least the last two and a half centuries. It was born at the dawn of the Age that is called Modern and its conquest of what it has renamed Western Civilization was more or less complete by the end of the Second World War. It has many facets; from the standpoint of epistemology – the theory of knowledge itself - for example, it could be described as a naïve faith in man’s ability to arrive at truth through his own reason, assisted only by the findings of experimental science. Essentially, however, it is a theory about the nature of man, his society, and his freedom.

According to liberalism, man is first and foremost, an individual being. His individuality belongs to his intrinsic nature and comes before his belonging to any larger social group, be it his nation, or on a smaller scale his local community, or even his family. These latter are external to human nature as constructions formed by individuals for their advantage as individuals. The essence of man’s individuality, liberalism further declares, is his freedom which is defined in liberalism as the individual’s sovereign rule over his own self. The purpose of government, in liberal theory, is to safeguard the freedom of the individual by protecting his rights, i.e., those regions of his self-dominion that are formally recognized and guaranteed against assault from other sovereign individuals.

When liberalism began, its proponents thought that by articulating this theory they were laying the foundation of an edifice that would protect against the ancient evil of tyranny which men have struggled against throughout human history. The ancient Greek word tyrannos originally referred to someone who had obtained power through means other than the prescribed constitutional order, in other words a usurper. By the time classical Athenian civilization had reached its height the term had taken on other connotations, that of a ruler who governs autocratically, not recognizing the constraints of law, constitution, or even basic morality and decency, and in a way that is oppressive towards his people. It is not too hard to see the connection between the original concept and the later one – someone who seized power in an unorthodox way is more likely to rule in a harsh, autocratic, manner than someone who has come to a position of authority legitimately – and so we might define tyranny as power that is usurped, unrestrained, and oppressively harsh. The liberals of the so-called Age of Enlightenment, made frequent accusations of tyranny against the medieval Church, the feudal aristocracy, and especially kings. They believed that these institutions had a tendency towards tyranny which their theories would check, thus providing for government that is more restrained and responsible.

History, however, tells another story. Today, in the age of liberalism triumphant, there is scarcely an area of our everyday lives over which elected legislative assemblies and the armies of bureaucrats and regulators at their beck and call would hesitate to assert some degree of control. They may not always literally march into a man’s house and business and boss him around, as home safety inspectors and Child and Family Services social workers do, but they have nevertheless made their government virtually omnipresent in a way that any feudal king would have rightly regarded as tyrannical. Indeed, in virtually every way the size of government can be measured, from the number of ministries and civil workers to the extent of the government expenditure and how much it takes out of everyone’s pockets in taxes, government is very much larger now, than before liberalism got its hands on it. As High Tory journalist Sir Peregrine Worsthorne put it about ten years ago “with remarkable rapidity, from being a doctrine designed to take government off the backs of the people, liberalism has become a doctrine designed to put it back again.” (1)

Libertarians maintain that this is because today’s liberalism is not really liberalism at all but a democratic socialism that has stolen liberalism’s identity. From this point of view, the classical liberalism endorsed by the libertarian and contemporary democratic socialist liberalism are the opposite of each other. Historically, however, democratic socialism sprang forth as a budding branch from off of the trunk of the tree of liberalism itself and draws ultimately from the same root in “Enlightenment” philosophy that liberalism does. Tellingly, the nineteenth century liberal, John Stuart Mill, whose On Liberty is highly regarded by libertarians as a classical liberal defence of the freedom of the individual against state tyranny, himself came to accept some of the elements of socialism.

If the libertarians deplore today’s liberalism while praising that of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Red Tories do the exact opposite. Red Tories are, for the most part, a Canadian phenomenon. They profess to subscribe to the same older school of conservatism that Canada inherited from Britain as this writer, namely High Toryism – the conservatism that is monarchist, communitarian, traditionalist, and favours a strong institutional church in a healthy working relationship with the sovereign. Unlike this writer, the Red Tories also have a strong affection for many left-of-centre causes and political views. According to the Red Tories, liberalism matured between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, corrected some of the excesses of its individualism, and by adopting an expansive view of the role of the state in bringing about ameliorative social changes moved closer to the classical and Tory concept of the common good.

The Red Tory and the libertarian have both misassessed the situation, in my opinion. The contemporary progressive, democratic socialist, type of liberal has not moved closer to the Tory vision of the common good. The concept of a hierarchical social order, itself part of the larger hierarchical “chain of being” starting from the throne of God Himself, was essential to the Tory vision of the common good, whereas the contemporary liberal justifies his expansion of the role and jurisdiction of the state by means of egalitarian ends. In the Tory view of the common good, the society whose common good government is supposed to serve, includes past and future generations as well as the present. Liberals may sometimes acknowledge the need to take future generations into consideration but since that acknowledgement is not joined with a similar regard for past generations, as liberals tend to look at those who have gone before them with the smug, condescending attitude that C. S. Lewis and Owen Barfield dubbed “chronological snobbery” , it amounts to nothing for it is only by showing proper reverence and consideration for our ancestors – the virtue the Romans called pietas – that we can truly include future generations in the common good.

The libertarian is also wrong in that the contemporary liberal has not so much subverted the essence of liberalism and replaced it with something different but rather brought to fruition the tyranny the seeds of which have always been there within liberalism. From the beginning, liberals believed that the threat of tyranny came from kings, aristocrats and the Church and sought to transfer all real power into the hand of institutions and officials that were representative, elected, and democratic. These latter, however, have a far greater propensity for tyranny than the former, albeit a soft tyranny that disguises itself as concern for the well-being of those it tyrannizes, which disguise makes it all the more deadly.

The liberals believed that in their doctrine of human rights they were setting up roadblocks to the abuse of power. Instead, they were clearing the path for the multiplication of such abuses. A right is a claim to something on the part of a person or a group within a society which claim is formally recognized by the society. It is one thing for a society to formally recognize a man’s claim to security of his person and property against the violence of others, be they private citizens or the state. The justice of such a right is evident to all sane people, and it imposes no heavy burden upon either society as a whole or the members of whom it is composed. It is a different story completely when a society, in multiplying the rights that it recognizes, loses sight of the distinction between what someone may desire for himself and what he can reasonably and rightly claim for himself.

Take, for example, the rights that are defined as such in the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977 and the American bill on which it was modelled, the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, the passing of which acts of legislation are celebrated by liberals across North America as milestones in the path towards social justice and progress. In these bills, the governments of Canada and the United States formally recognized as rights, claims to protection against discrimination on the part of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities as well as women. In recognizing such claims as rights, the governments of Canada and the United States had to forbid discrimination against women and racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. Discrimination is something that takes place internally, in the mind or heart. By forbidding discrimination, the liberal governments of Canada and the United States had extended the jurisdiction of law into the realm of the inner thoughts and private conscience. Liberals had objected to the laws establishing the Roman Catholic Church in feudal Europe and the Anglican Church in Tudor England on the grounds that these violated men’s freedom of conscience, but these laws pertained only to public religion, the organized communal expression of faith, and did not presume to tell people what they had to believe or think in their own hearts as liberals themselves are now doing with anti-discrimination legislation. Anti-discrimination legislation, by the way, violates more than one traditional safeguard against the abuse of power. Because such law is classified as civil rather than criminal, there is no presumption of innocence for the accused, and since what he is accused of takes place in the heart, which human judges cannot see, there is no way for the accused to establish his innocence.

Liberals, blind to the damage they have done to our traditional standards of justice and to the fact that they have benefited nobody so much as those operating the thoroughly corrupt minority grievance shakedown rackets, continue to press forward, adding more and more groups to the list of those with the “right” not to be discriminated against. Last year liberals succeeded in having the “right” of same-sex couples to “marry” recognized across North America, this year it is the “right” of males who think they are female and females who think they are male to use public facilities designated for the use of the sex they identify with that liberals feel must overrule the thousands of reasonable objections most people have to such nonsense.

All of this is plainly a huge abuse of government power, even when it is carried out with a smiley face, by nice, cheerful, types who tell us that they are doing it all with our own wellbeing at heart. It is, however, completely consistent with basic liberal principles. If freedom is the self-determination of the individual, and government exists to safeguard freedom by protecting the individual’s rights, then the more rights the government protects, the freer people will become. That is the logic of liberalism, even if the ensuing “freedom” has come more and more each day to resemble the inside of a prison run by a madman.

While John Locke, John Stuart Mill, (2) Adam Smith, and the other fathers of liberalism would probably not recognize themselves in the liberalism of today, what we are seeing was nevertheless present in their doctrines in germinal form. That doctrine has now grown to full maturity, and it has certainly not improved with age. Perhaps it is time, that instead of looking back for guidance to the earliest generation of liberals, as the right-liberals who call themselves conservatives today suggest, we look instead to those like Richard Hooker and Archbishop Laud, Jonathan Swift and Samuel Johnson, Lords Falkland and Salisbury, Benjamin Disraeli and Sir Walter Scott, and more recently Michael Oakeshott, Maurice Cowling and Roger Scruton who, drawing from wisdom more ancient than that of liberalism and its Modern Age, have directed us towards order, tradition, and stability as the true safeguards against tyranny and apart from which there can be no real freedom.


(1) Peregrine Worsthorne, "Liberalism failed to set us free. Indeed it enslaved us.", The Guardian, June 21, 2006, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/21/comment.politics2
(2) Maurice Cowling, the High Tory historian, wrote that John Stuart Mill himself, “may be accused of more than a touch of something resembling moral totalitarianism” and that Mill’s liberalism was ”no less than Marxism, is intolerant of competition” going on to say that “jealousy, and a carefully disguised intolerance, are important features of Mill’s intellectual personality.” Maurice Cowling, Mill and Liberalism, 2nd Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963, 1990), pp. xlviii and xlvix.