The Shotgun Blog
« "To the ashcan — go!" | Main | OK, If You Say So »
Monday, February 08, 2010
"totalitarian tide of intrusive state control"
First they came for the Catholics:
Last night’s defeat by the House of Lords of the aggressively anti-Christian provisions in Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill should not be allowed to gloss over the malevolent intent of the House of Commons in promoting this legislation. The impertinently intrusive provisions of the Bill demonstrated that the state has acquired pretensions far beyond its legitimate scope and urgently requires to be cut down to size.
The Bill attempted to force churches to employ people even if they do not lead lives consistent with the teachings of the Christian faith. On a narrow interpretation the Bill could even have compelled the Catholic Church to ordain women as priests. The Bill’s supporters want churches to employ homosexuals and transsexuals. The theology of the Catholic Church condemns homosexual practices as one of the Four Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance and, as with any other mortal sin, teaches that those who die unrepentant face damnation.
The point, of course, is not whether Catholic theology is sane, sensible and correct, but whether it is the role of the state to play theologian. In truth I don't have a dog in the fight between Catholic Reformers and Catholic Traditionalists. It is very much in the vein of how many angels there exist on the head of a pin. Arbitrary assertion versus arbitrary assertion. Yet if the right of association is not absolute, then so much of the rest of the undergirding of a free society goes with it.
In Canada the right of association was first seriously attacked by the Human Rights Commissions, which began by denying the right of employers and landlords to employ and rent to whom they chose. This was done, as are many things, in the name of justice and fairness. Specifically these laws were imposed to prevent discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities. Few opposed such laws, who, after all wants to defend bigots? The state has no special gateway into the human soul. Whether a man is truly a bigot, a malcontent, a fool, a saint or moral nullity is a deep enough question for the philosophers and psychologists. The bureaucrats have no inklings of it.
The state is also no wiser or more virtuous than those it governs. A society of bigots will have a government of bigots. Had HRC equivalents existed a century ago, they would have employed the intellectual fads of the time. Arguing, perhaps, that the racial hygiene of the Anglo-Saxons required that their rights be protected, by say banning immigration by non-Europeans. When the state becomes the enforcer of decency and right, rather than simply a defender of the right to be left alone, its remit becomes unlimited. We all have our ideal world. We have no right to impose it on others by force.
Posted by Richard Anderson on February 8, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
"In Canada the right of association was first seriously attacked by the Human Rights Commissions"
The most ignorant garbage I have ever read. Congratulations on ignoring a couple centuries of brutal segregation and racism in the interests of a polemic piece against anti-discriminatory legislation.
Posted by: i saw dasein | 2010-02-08 8:36:56 AM
That legislation was very descriminatory. dasein
Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2010-02-08 8:41:00 AM
Which legislation do you think is discriminatory, and why? Certainly the UK legislation is not discriminatory - it simply holds religious organizations to the same standards as secular organizations. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't see how you could characterize that as discriminatory.
Posted by: i saw dasein | 2010-02-08 9:59:20 AM
Which legislation do you think is discriminatory, and why? Certainly the UK legislation is not discriminatory - it simply holds religious organizations to the same standards as secular organizations. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't see how you could characterize that as discriminatory.
Posted by: i saw dasein | 2010-02-08 9:59:20 AM
Who is to hold people to what standards? I assume you mean the governemnt to hold religious organizations to the more politically correct secular standard. That is dangerous and may what caused the "couple centuries of brutal segregation and racism" you refer to.
Posted by: TM | 2010-02-08 10:07:07 AM
The government holding religious organizations to the same standard as secular organizations: making it unlawful to make employment decisions on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc. It's not a terribly sensible policy with respect to churches, but its difficult to see how requiring churches to consider hiring homosexuals will result in racism, segregation, or discrimination.
Posted by: i saw dasein | 2010-02-08 10:19:17 AM
It's not a terribly sensible policy with respect to churches, but its difficult to see how requiring churches to consider hiring homosexuals will result in racism, segregation, or discrimination.
Posted by: i saw dasein | 2010-02-08 10:19:17 AM
A key point in what you say is "requiring." Who will enforce the requiring is what will result in disaster. It is the state that is the root cause of most atrocities. The CHRC seemed like a good idea to some as a means to advocate for human rights and to right wrongs. However, is has been used as a political weapon.
Here's somehting else to think about. Should a gay bookstore be required to hire a red neck white male? Should a basketball team be required to hire more whites? Should the BET Music Awards be allowed to exist, unless they change the nake and hire and recognize more whites?
If denomination wants to hire gays, or ordain women, it is their business. If they do not, it is also their business.
Posted by: TM | 2010-02-08 10:32:50 AM
Should a trendy club have to hire an ugly man?
The only way to level the playing field is to do the opposite of what "i saw dasein" proposes: secular employers should have the right to hire whomever they please based on whichever criteria they please. This whole idea that racism and other types of hate can be combatted by violating private property rights is absurd.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-08 10:54:33 AM
What did I propose? Nothing. I said that:
a) the creation of the HRC is certainly not the first breach of freedom of association in Canada, which it manifestly isn't.
and
b) that holding churches to the same standards as other organizations isn't discriminatory.
I don't particularly think that churches should be held to the same standards, if only because it doesn't seem like forcing the Catholics to hire homosexuals isn't going to help homosexuals or the church.
Posted by: i saw dasein | 2010-02-08 11:11:00 AM
TM and Charles I concur. This proposed law indicates the cowardliness of the UK government, but then all totalitarians are cowards just like all bullies. They choose to attack the weakest group in the UK, in fact a dying group, since they know what would happen if they tried the same on mosques and Muslim organisations.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-08 11:43:09 AM
My apologies, I read your comments too quickly ;)
Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-08 12:41:17 PM
b) that holding churches to the same standards as other organizations isn't discriminatory.
I don't particularly think that churches should be held to the same standards, if only because it doesn't seem like forcing the Catholics to hire homosexuals isn't going to help homosexuals or the church.
Posted by: i saw dasein | 2010-02-08 11:11:00 AM
I also didn't read closely enough. However, I would still comment on what you say here. Holding the church to the same standard may, or may not be discriminatory. But you can't talk about that without accepting, at least to a degree, that governments should be able to. Furthermore, the only standard that matters is that which is held by those who would patronize whatever organization or club, so long and property rights were not violated. There should be no other standard imposed by any entity that can legally use force.
Posted by: TM | 2010-02-08 1:14:29 PM
If denomination wants to hire gays, or ordain women, it is their business. If they do not, it is also their business.
Posted by: TM | 2010-02-08 10:32:50 AM
And Hooters should be forced to hire fat and flat chested women.
I hear the old folks talk about the good old days when not everyone was minding every one elses business and we were still a free country. Days before government felt obligated to intrude into every aspect of our personal lives. Days before common sense was wiped out by political correctness.
When is white history month ??.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-02-08 8:47:17 PM
peterj, how dare you say that. If you are white that is. You can only say black history month if you are black. But not white history month if you are white!
Posted by: TM | 2010-02-08 8:58:24 PM
Is Israel a society of bigots governed by bigots?
It was Jewish interest groups that instituted the assault upon free association in Canada. HRC's didn't exist a century ago because Canada, as an Anglo-Saxon nation, was homogeneous. And as Mill said free institutions wither in a multinational state.
Posted by: Arminius | 2010-02-08 9:20:35 PM
peterj, how dare you say that. If you are white that is. You can only say black history month if you are black. But not white history month if you are white!
Posted by: TM | 2010-02-08 8:58:24 PM
I should have known better. I will watch CBC until this stuborn streak is broken. Like most of my fellow Canadians I will concede that as a white person I am worthless and must be punished. Damn these european genes. Long live the CHRC and bless them for showing me the proper mind set. (I just put this in to cover my ass in case they read this).
I just know I can be politically correct if I just try harder. Wonder if the CHRC rents out the training manual they use. They do have one dont they ??. I mean....how do they become "experts" in their field without one ??.
In a few weeks we will once again have the "All native basketball Tounament" here in BC. I will watch through the window,
I will cheer them on, yes damnit.....I can do this. I AM CANADIAN.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-02-08 9:48:16 PM
peterj, you inspire me!! We are learning aren't we?
Arminius, it matters not who started or supports the HRC. They are wrong and hurt us all.
Posted by: TM | 2010-02-08 10:19:05 PM
That's right Arminius ... the Joooooos did it. While we're at it, why don't we keep all dem etnics outta da country.
Free institutions require a culture that believes in free institutions. We've lost that. Not sure how we'll gain it back.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-09 4:53:34 AM
I'd like to see the government try to force homosexuals on to the "Religion of Pieces" Islam..
Didn't think so...
Posted by: Van Grungy | 2010-02-09 7:39:04 AM
Yes Charles, free institutions do require a culture that believes. Culture, like the beaver's dam, is an extended phenotype. Thus Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism evolved on a small island of like people. Non-kinship based reciprocity governed by contract, that empowered voluntary action of the individual, free association, was transported to this country by the British diaspora. It came under attack because ethnic groups who migrated to this British commonwealth despised the founders freely engaging in discrimination. And yes it was organised Jewry that led the attack on freedom because it served their interest. It is important to identify because it speaks to motive and affirms Mill's position that free institutions cannot exist in a multinational polity.
Posted by: Arminius | 2010-02-09 1:17:48 PM
Dasein:
I think Greenpeace should be forced to hire oil company execs if they apply.
I think Planned Barrenhood should have to hire pro-lifers if they apply.
I think the media should be forced to hire conservatives if they apply.
Or maybe, we let each group and business set their own hiring standards?
Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2010-02-09 1:52:28 PM
The ‘Freedom of Religion' clause in the US Constitution is about the people's ability to practise the religion free from a religious imposition from the state.
Of course, when the official religion of the UK, Anglicanism, involved itself in these types of issues ... a state imposition on all religions seems to be a natural consequence.
Once again, the Founding Fathers of the US, who fled from this type of insanity, have proven to be correct and the concept of guarding against state-imposed religion (in this case, secular humanism) has proven its worth.
England? I'm afraid there is no hope.
Posted by: set you free | 2010-02-09 1:52:37 PM
Arminius,
Blaming the "Jewry" for the constant erosion of our liberties is very dishonest. Anglo-saxons attacked their own institutions from within.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-09 3:14:07 PM
Dishonest? How so Charles? Walker's dissertation, linked above is not dishonest.
"Following World War II, leaders of Canadian Jewry explained antisemitism as an aspect of racial prejudice in general, a problem attributable to pathological individuals who engaged in discrimination and whose behaviour influenced the attitudes and prejudices of the public."
This classification of the classical liberal tenet of free association is, however, dishonest. Pathological? Really? The pursuit of a desire to associate freely is "caused by or evidence of a mentally disturbed condition." Do you really believe that Charles? If so do you believe Israelis are mentally disturbed?
Posted by: Arminius | 2010-02-09 4:24:55 PM
Did the Canadian legislator that created the HRC have a jewish majority? I'd like to know their religious-ethnic breakdown.... or better yet were they statists or freedomists?
Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2010-02-09 6:32:09 PM
Floyd, excellent point you make. It is always interesting how the behaviour of some Jews, the professional Jews as Ezra Levant calls them, end up as if they represent the whole group. That some of them pushed for so-called human rights legislation is true, even if they were wrong in doing so. However, the fact remains that it required the agreement of a lot more non Jews to follow through. Considering the low number of Jewish voters, it could not be explained away as the necessity of pandering to the "Jewish vote".
Prior to and during WW II there were a lot of British in love with communism/socialism, just as there was no small number of Nazi sympathisers. However, the idea of a big centralised government to manager the affairs of the people and to enforce behavioural change came from the Left. Still this is all water under the bridge and cannot explain away why the UK has one of the most intrusive governments around even now.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-09 6:56:09 PM
Well, apparently the people of England kept voting for it and somewhere along the way they got their wish. Today the bureaucracy has more power than the Parliamentary majority, to the point where political leaders kowtow to the "Civil Service".
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100025495/conservatives-well-listen-to-the-civil-service/
Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2010-02-09 9:01:40 PM
The strategy was not designed to pander to the Jewish vote.
"Jewish organizations in Canada designed a grand strategy to interrupt the syndrome. The goal was to enlist the force of the law to inhibit the behaviour of pathological individuals, both through test cases in the courts and through the introduction of protective legislation. (6) This would, with one stroke, prevent the most overt discriminatory practices, it would interrupt the syndrome and thus have an effect on the generation of the underlying prejudices, and it would set the educational example of the law before a generally law-abiding Canadian populace. Since antisemitism was regarded as one aspect of the problem of prejudice, universal laws against discrimination would address the specific problem of antisemitism. The method selected, the tactical approach to fulfill this grand strategy, was to forge alliances with other minority organizations and with liberal forces generally in Canadian society, to demonstrate to legislators that there existed a constituency supportive of reform. All instances of discrimination, not just those perpetrated against Jews, would be exposed in order to illustrate the need for legal protection."
The very nature of Canadians, freedom loving and law abiding, was deemed pathological and exploited by an alliance of minorities under the auspices of a grand Jewish design. The very basis of their freedom, non-kinship based reciprocity was turned against them explicitly in the pursuit of self-interest. It was never put to a vote. The opinion of Canadians was never tested electorally.
Posted by: Arminius | 2010-02-10 1:08:00 AM
Arminius, you would do better to address the issue to-day instead of Jew-bashing. I agree that the status quo is not acceptable and that we need to restore our inherited traditional freedoms, but as I said it really does not matter "who started it". What matters is why it is sustained, and that cannot be solely attributed to a small Jewish minority.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-10 2:54:07 PM
It's an understandable position you take Alain because you are a Jew. For you, any criticism of any Jews by a gentile will ultimately be deemed "Jew-bashing". It's surprising you let the free discourse run this long before playing you favorite card. And you ask how a small minority can sustain it? It appears you've answered your own question.
Posted by: Arminius | 2010-02-10 4:13:47 PM
Arminius, the broken record. Show exactly where in any of my comments did I play the Jew card as you claim. It seems you are incapable of discussing the present situation. Since I would have said the same thing had it been so called representative of Christians or any group that pushed for this erosion of freedom, you are simply full of it. If you cannot move beyond this, then any further debate is a waste of time.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-10 6:40:39 PM
Our liberties began to be assaulted decades before WWII or the creation of the HRC's. I find it ludicrous to blame an entire cultural change on the Jews.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-11 12:28:59 PM
In fact, most of our statism can be blamed on the progressives. The left was once liberal. Once they converted to statism, there was no one left to defend liberty.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-11 12:47:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.