Category Archives: religious hypocrisy

If you don’t believe in freedom of speech for people you disagree with, you don’t believe in freedom of speech at all. — Noam Chomsky

Justin Trudeau, speaking ex cathedra as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, pronounced on abortion: “I have made it clear that future candidates need to be completely understanding that they will be expected to vote pro-choice on any bills.” This pronouncement was decidedly illiberal, and something one usually expects to hear from only the most noxious, left-leaning ideologue. Given Justin Trudeau’s heritage, I would have expected a more nuanced stance on the issue. His father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, former Minister of Justice and Prime Minister in Liberal governments in the latter half of the 20th century, is remembered for his stand on personal liberty and faith (he was a practicing Roman Catholic).

On personal liberty, particularly on matters of sexuality, Minister of Justice Trudeau famously observed in 1967, “Obviously, the state’s responsibility should be to legislate rules for a well-ordered society. It has no right or duty to creep into the bedrooms of the nation.” Prime Minister Trudeau enacted the Constitution Act, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in 1982. The opening sentence reads, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” Section 2 of the Charter guarantees freedom of conscience and religion. Justin Trudeau, it seems, has decided to strip members of the Liberal Party of Canada of their right to freedom of conscience and religion, at least as it applies to the controversy over abortion.

I found Justin Trudeau’s stance on the issue untenable. He implied that the issue of abortion is settled and that there should be no further discussion. He could not be more mistaken. Abortion is an issue that needs to be addressed, and all points of view merit consideration. As a classical liberal who leans toward the libertarian camp, I am prepared to tolerate the pro-choice position, though I disapprove. I am in favour of what could be described as the pro-compromise position. While abortion should remain legal, society has a stake in the status of the unborn, and this needs to be addressed in Canadian law.

“Crimes Against the Foetus,” published by the Law Reform Commission of Canada in 1989, includes several recommendations for amendments to Canadian law in this regard. In effect, if enacted, these recommendations would make wrongful harm to the foetus criminal rather than abortion. Abortion would remain a legal surgical procedure with no restrictions in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy and with limitations brought to bear, maintaining society’s stake in the status of the unborn in the latter stages of pregnancy. The Law Reform Commission of Canada concluded such legislation is consistent with the Common Law and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But rather than follow the direction given by the Law Reform Commission of Canada on abortion, the Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau, and now Mark Carney, continued its trend of imposing left-wing authoritarianism on Canadians. With the passage of Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act, police forces across Canada, such as the Durham Police Force, have initiated the Community-Based Hate Reporting Program. In short, citizens are encouraged to spy on their neighbours, allowing “individuals to securely and confidentially report incidents of hate—even those that do not meet the threshold of criminality.” (Durham Region) And no doubt, the Liberal government will feign surprise when people take advantage of the opportunity to file vexatious complaints against those whose views they dislike. And why not? Your identity will be concealed, and you will face no repercussions for making a wrongful accusation. In some cases, you could be charged with mischief, but I doubt that is a priority for the police or the Crown prosecutors. For a party that has Liberal in its name, they have formed the most illiberal government in Canadian history.

Posted by Geoffrey

The fact remains; chauvinism is prevailing. — Emma Bonino

I lurk on the Facebook page of a Canadian queer activist. I never knew he existed until he appeared unexpectedly on my news feed. I am a liberal-minded man; I believe in liberalism, pluralism, and equality in law and opportunity instead of collectivism and diversity, equity and inclusion. I don’t like what he says, and I find his attitude and behaviour contemptible. He makes me think of my fieldwork when I studied the sociology of religion and religious studies at Queen’s University in the 1980s. I interacted with various Christian faith communities, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestants. I met many people, some of whom were the worst hypocrites. The man in question is the archetypal example of a religious hypocrite. His smug self-righteousness is insufferable. He reminds me of Jerry Falwell’s unctuous self-righteousness; he is unbearable. What is worse is his bigotry. He does not listen to his critics. He dismisses them as anti-queer chauvinists and haters, promptly blocking them. If push came to shove, he would happily try to cancel them.

Continue reading

Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. ― Friedrich Nietzsche,  The Gay Science

Listening to a true believer in gender identity and gender expression explain why they believe reminds me of when I was a pious Roman Catholic. I am sure I sounded much the same to non-believers when I explained why I had taken the leap of faith to practice Roman Catholicism. I accepted the theological arguments, the authority of Scripture, and the Apostolic Tradition that compose Roman Catholicism. I attended mass daily, said my prayers, and tried to do good and avoid doing evil. I regularly examined my conscience and tried to turn away from sin. It was reasonable to me at the time. Though I tried to be true to my faith, lingering doubt remained. Eventually, I realized that I could not continue as it was hypocritical of me. I stopped going to mass. I no longer believe in the claims of Christianity.

Continue reading

What matters most is not ‘what’ you are, but ‘who’ you are. ― DaShanne Stokes

 

Blackface diptych

The Right Honourable Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau.

 

A general election is scheduled for Canadians on October 21st. The governing Liberal Party with Justin Trudeau as its frontman seeks re-election. I think it likely the Trudeau Liberals will win re-election, and if so, this is bad news for Canadians. Since taking office in 2015, the Liberal government with the prancing popinjay that is Justin Trudeau consistently sowed division among Canadians. The Liberal government promoted its globalist agenda in pitting Canadians against one another via the imposition of identity politics on Canadians. Yes, the Liberals, with Justin Trudeau as their spokesman, pushed the belief that group identity matters more than individuality and the content of character in each of us as individuals. In doing so, the Liberal government instilled division rather than unity among Canadians since taking office in 2015. In 2019, Canadians are set against each other according to superficial differences such as race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sex, sexual orientation and the like. Not only that but the Liberal government set a standard of political correctness to which not even the sanctimonious Justin Trudeau can adhere. Continue reading

Sentence first, verdict afterwards. — Lewis Carroll

Jacinda

Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand, poses with Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada and Sadiq Khan, Lord Mayor of London.

“Sentence first, verdict afterwards,” is the unreasonable demand issued by the Queen at the trial in the novel Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. What brings this quotation to mind is the absurdity of the emotional and knee jerk response to the terror attack in Christchurch, New Zealand by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Her mawkish virtue signalling and condescension towards Muslims is truly cringe-worthy. I can only surmise this is a desperate effort to appease Islamists. It is a despairing ploy on her part to ward off a retaliatory attack on New Zealand by Islamists. If Jacinda Ardern thinks putting on a Muslim veil, encouraging New Zealanders to do the same, broadcasting the Islamic call to prayer over the airwaves, and having an Islamic prayer recited in parliament is going to impress Islamists, she is delusional. New Zealand had better brace itself for retribution from Islamists for the 50 Muslim citizens killed in Christchurch.

If this situation were not bad enough, Jacinda Ardern, moved ahead with a hastily crafted plan to prohibit specific makes and models of semi-automatic guns currently owned by New Zealanders. She justifies this decision in pointing to the dead and wounded in the Christchurch terror attack. This decision is emotionally driven, poorly thought out–there is zero public consultation. Sure, it is very popular with supporters of gun prohibition, both in New Zealand and across the world, but what does she expect to accomplish with this course of action? The people gunned down in the mosques in Christchurch were helpless against the attacker. It took New Zealand police 36 minutes to arrive on the scene. The fact that the attacker used semi-automatic rifles in the attack is incidental. The attacker in the shooting spree at the École Polytechnique at the Université de Montréal in 1989–in which 14 women were murdered–used a semi-automatic rifle. As the Report of the Coroner’s Investigation into the shooting at the École Polytechnique concluded: “with the unlimited ammunition and time that [the shooter–name redacted by the author] had available to him, he would probably have been able to achieve similar results even with a conventional hunting weapon, which itself is readily accessible.” (Report of Coroner’s Investigation)

There has not been an investigation into the attack on the mosques in Christchurch and the background of the perpetrator. Therefore, there is no rational basis on which to proceed with the prohibition of specified makes and models of semi-automatic guns as a response to this atrocity. Just as in Alice in Wonderland, Jacinta Ardern demands “sentence first, verdict afterwards.” Her maudlin virtue signalling and knee jerk jump to implement gun prohibition shows how weak and emotionally driven she is as Prime Minister. It does not inspire confidence. I hope the police and intelligence services in New Zealand are actively preparing for the likelihood of Islamist retaliation. It is sure to come. Beyond that, New Zealand’s gun owners are preparing for a fight with their government over the hasty decision to advance the prohibition of specific makes and models of semi-automatic guns. The dispute between New Zealand’s gun owners and their government only diverts attention from the threat of terrorism and ensures that New Zealanders are as helpless as the men, women and children gunned down in the mosques in Christchurch given the risk of future terror attacks.

I hope New Zealanders pull together and calmly and rationally take stock of their situation and work toward developing practical measures to ensure the peace and security of every individual and community in their society.

Posted by Geoffrey