Canada: the No Free Speech Zone

University of Ottawa's letter to Ann Coulter

March 22, 2010

Dear Ms. Coulter,

I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.

There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this university, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,

Francois Houle,

Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa

The letter above, translated from elite-speak into English:

Dear Peon:

We are delighted to welcome speakers from all viewpoints to our campus. We have ideas we like, and we are always pleased when someone comes to remind us just how correct our ideas really are. Why, we even have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms to prove it.

But you need to remember that not all viewpoints are created equal. Here in Canada, we have laws to make sure that you remember that. We’ll have none of that ‘First Amendment’ garbage here. After all, this is not pre-Obama United States up here. This is Canada. Here we have our Charter of the Freedom to Keep Your Mouth Shut.

Here in Canada, if you peons say anything that we can label as ‘hateful’ we will slap you in the slammer before you can say, “freedom of expression.” In fact, we would suggest you avoid that expression, as it does not comport with our Canadian customs.

You surely understand that our threats and intimidation are necessary to make sure you don’t say anything we know to be stupid. And we, of course, know much better than you what is stupid. (Hint: what you think is stupid.)

So just say things that we want to hear and nothing else. That’s the only civilized thing to do. And if you know what’s good for you, it’s what YOU will do.

Sincerely,

Francois “Goebbels” Houle
Vice-commandant and First Citizen, University of Ottasquat

More on ‘Social Justice’

from Jim Wallis at The Huffington Post

Private charity, which Beck and I are both for, wasn't enough to end the slave trade in Great Britain, end legal racial segregation in America, or end apartheid in South Africa. That took vital movements of faith which understood the connection between personal compassion and social justice. Those are the movements that have inspired me and shaped my life -- not BIG GOVERNMENT. And my allies in faith-based social justice movements have wonderfully different views on the role of government -- some bigger than mine and some smaller than mine -- but we all believe social justice requires changing both personal choices and unjust structures. Apparently Beck thinks social justice ends with private charity, but very few churches in the nation would agree with him.

Kent comments:

Jim Wallis – the socialist who thinks that is the central belief of the Christian faith – is still complaining that Glen Beck urged Christians to bail out of churches that preach ‘social justice.’  That should surprise no one.  Without so-called churches that make ‘social justice’ (which is neither social nor just) a key teaching, Jim Wallis would be out of business.  He could no longer jet around the world, in a life style that would be the envy of billions of people on earth, preaching that it is a sin for one human being to have more than another.

But that’s not the main point here.

It is nothing short of idiotic for Wallis to tell us that ‘private charity’ ‘wasn’t enough’ to do things like end the slave trade or racial segregation.  Only the straw men of Wallis’ warped imagination ever thought ‘charity’ could end slavery.

Slavery was unjust because it used the force of the state to coerce people into giving their whole lives to their ‘owners.’  Ironically, the ‘social justice’ Wallis constantly whines for does exactly the same thing to a lesser degree.  Instead of using the state to force someone to be the ‘property’ of someone else, Wallis wants the state to own only a part of you.  That part is the part that is taxed and regulated away from you, which in recent years is about half of you.  While that is not full slavery, it is a ‘partial slavery’ that has the added sinister feature of being disguised slavery.

But it is no more ‘just’ that was slavery.  And it is anti-Christian, which is exactly why any group that advocates ‘social justice’ is not worthy of the name ‘church.’

Empty Words?

Question:  Does the proposal of Federalist #46, paragraph the third from last, first several sentences, ever “kick in”?  If so, what would be sufficient reason to do so?  Or, are these just empty words?

This is a serious question, especially given our current situation.  I hope people will respond.  To answer the question you will need to use the link above to read figure out just what I refer to here.

I asked one of my sons this question today and he quickly replied, “Those are empty words.”  Perhaps that is the case.  I would like to know what you think, and why.

After, or if, anyone responds I will probably offer some commentary on the matter.

 

‘Easter’ and the Resurrection

Survey: Less than Half Link Easter to the Resurrection

Religion News Service reports that less than half of U.S. adults link Easter directly to the Resurrection of Jesus, even though most describe Easter as a religious holiday. According to a Barna Group survey, seven in 10 respondents mentioned religion or spirituality in their response to an open-ended question about how they describe what Easter means to them personally. But just 42 percent tied Easter to the Resurrection. At 73 percent, baby boomers (ages 45 to 63) were the most likely to describe Easter as a religious holiday, compared to two-thirds of those ages 26 to 44 and Americans 64 and older. The youngest group of adults (ages 18 to 25) were least likely, at 58 percent, to use that kind of description. "The Easter holiday in particular still has a distinctly religious connection for people but ... the specifics of it are really fading in a lot of people's minds," said David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group.

Kent comments:

Even among those who make a connection between ‘Easter’ and the resurrection, it would be interesting to know what they mean by ‘the resurrection.’  Long before this connection faded in society at large, it was subverted in the church.

For many decades now, many mainline churches have redefined ‘the resurrection’ as being nothing more than a psychological event restricted to the ‘hearts and minds’ of the disciples.  It was something that might re-occur in our hearts and minds.  When you ‘believe’ (whatever that means in this context) Jesus has been ‘raised’ for you.

But in this way of thinking, it never happened in history, in time-and-space, so to speak.  Those who learned their ‘Christianity’ in these places don’t really accept the resurrection of Jesus as it is presented in the New Testament.

This perversion of the gospel formed a large part of the ‘theological hole’ by which much non-Christian garbage has been sucked into what used to be the church.

It would be interesting indeed if Barna asked the question, “What do you mean by ‘the resurrection’?”  The range and content of the answers would probably be shocking.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Madison

I would like to wish everyone a happy “James Madison’s Birthday” anniversary today, March 16.  Mr. Madison is the fellow who said, among other things:

Hitherto charters have been written grants of privileges by Governments to the people. Here they are written grants of power by the people to their Governments.

Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for … the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community … government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights.

The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.

There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied … than … that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong … nothing can be more false … it would be the interest of the majority in every community to despoil and enslave the minority of individuals … reestablishing … force as the measure of right.

The legitimate meaning of [the Constitution] must be derived from the text itself.

The real measure of the powers meant to be granted to Congress by the Constitution is to be sought in the specifications … not … with a latitude that, under the name or means for carrying into execution a limited Government, would transform it into a Government without limits.

With respect to the words, "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution … not contemplated by the creators.

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

If Congress can employ money indefinitely … the powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.

Would it be wonderful to have someone like this in Congress right now?  Unfortunately, dead guys cannot run for high office – expect in Chicago.

Beauty and the Music of the Church

I have for quite some time been working on a little paper exploring the connection between beauty and church music, and some implications of that connection.  Here is the most recent version.  If you care to wade through it, I would welcome your comments.  Use this link:

http://www.thecra.org/Strange%20Club/Reruns/ChristianPhilosophyChurchMusic0310.htm

The Great Glen Beck ‘Social Justice’ Debate

Glen Beck is an interesting guy.  I have listened to him sporadically over the last several years.  When I first heard him he was a kind of talk show funny man.  He did some very funny political parody and satire.  But he was normally very (very) light on substance.

Something happened to Beck a little over a year ago.  It was clearly linked to the election of Obama and the radical statist group that took over Congress.  It seemed to awaken Beck from his humorous slumbers.

It’s not that he is no longer funny – he is, very much so sometimes.  But he seems to have begun to study political history, some economics, and a few related topics.  Over that last few months it has been intriguing to hear – when I have the opportunity – Beck ‘discover’ all sorts of things that some of us have known for a long time.  He seems so genuinely surprised by his discoveries that it is, in a way, cute.

Beck has discovered things like the following:  the so-called “progressives” of the early 20th century were in fact statists whose ideas were the precursors to modern “liberals” of the “leftist” variety.  He discovered that the great dividing line in political ideas is statism vs. liberty, and that both communists and fascists are on the statist side of that line.

Glen Beck has been doing lots of homework lately, stumbling upon all sorts of things in the process.  Just this week he seems to have discovered that “social justice” as it is usually conceived is neither social nor just.  When callers talked about their churches advocating “social justice” Beck told them that “social justice” is not compatible with Christianity and that good people should abandon “social justice” churches.  (Christianity Today published a nice account of all this.)

This has launched a firestorm of criticism.  As you might expect, Jim Wallis of Sojourners fame was irate, saying:

Glenn Beck says Christians should leave churches that use the word “social justice.” He says social justice is a code word for communism and Nazism.

Of course, Christians may disagree about what social justice means in our current political context -- and that conversation is an important one -- but the Bible is clear: from the Mosaic law of Jubilee, to the Hebrew prophets, to Jesus Christ, social justice is an integral part of God’s plan for humanity.

Beck says Christians should leave their social justice churches, so I say Christians should leave Glenn Beck. I don’t know if Beck is just strange, just trying to be controversial, or just trying to make money. But in any case, what he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show. His show should now be in the same category as Howard Stern. Stern practices pornography and Beck denies the central teachings of Jesus and the Bible. So Christians should stop watching the Glenn Beck show and pray for him and Howard Stern.

Glen Beck is a Mormon who thinks Mormonism is a version of Christianity, while Jim Wallis is a statist socialist who thinks socialism is the essence of Christianity.  But on the point of “social justice” being at odds with the Christian faith, the Mormon gets it right, while the statist socialist gets every so wrong.

Peruse the Sojourners website and newsletters, and one thing becomes very clear very quickly:  to Jim Wallis, “social justice” necessarily includes statist coercion.  The link Wallis includes for the “heart of our Christian faith” (above) will take you to an online reference to Luke 4:18-19 where Jesus talks about His mission to “to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free.”  Where, pray tell, is there any reference here or anywhere else in New Testament urging Christians to lobby the government for ever more statist programs of legalized theft and wealth redistribution?

If “social justice” simply meant Christian charity of material goods, this should not be controversial.  But the “social justice” crown never means that.  In fact, they typically hate the idea of Christian charity.  Christian charity implies individual ownership and gifts by willing individuals to the needy.  “Social justice” people despise that whole idea.  They begin with the Marxist assumption that the mere fact of an uneven distribution of wealth means that the ‘haves’ have exploited the ‘have nots’ to get what they have.

Jim Wallis and his friends never even attempt to hide this assumption, and it is the key assumption through which they filter everything in the Bible to get their theological views.  These views are very theological, but not at all Christian.

These views are not Christian because they are not at all non-violent.  When you first realize this, it is a bit surprising in light of the fact that the “social justice” crowd loves to proclaim their commitment to “non-violence” when it come to things like civil defense and capital punishment.  But when it comes to redistributing wealth, the “social justice” people are ever ready to have the state impose by force their latest scheme of wealth redistribution.  Of course, to redistribute wealth you must first take it from people – something the Bible condemns as theft, a most important form of true injustice.  Historically speaking, state-imposed theft leads to a destruction of economic society.  Thus, “social justice” is neither social nor just.

This is something that Glen Beck understands, but Jim Wallis does not.  The extent to which anti-social injustice views have infiltrated many churches is shameful.  Just browse the websites of most mainline denominations and you will find things like this from the United Church of Christ website:

Churches are already doing a lot to take care of needy people directly through charity work. . . But Christians devote much less effort to influencing what governments do.

God, however, requires both charity and justice, and justice can often be achieved only through the mechanism of government.

Government is not the only or always the best instrument to deal with injustice. But it is one of the institutions created by God part of God's providence for the welfare of people. Because we live in a democracy, a nation with a government "of the people," we have a special privilege and responsibility to use the power of our citizenship to promote public justice and reduce hunger.

If you give of what you have to feed the poor, and urge your neighbors to do likewise, that is a Christ-like action.  But if you lobby the government to force people to redistribute wealth to the poor, that is a Chairman Mao-like action.  The fact that it is “for the poor” is morally insignificant if the means is legalized theft.

Even though Glen Beck is part of something (Mormonism) that is not a Christian church, he has discerned that Christians should abandon groups that advocate anti-social injustice.  Good for you, Glen Beck!