Category Archives: Secularism

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

There is no crueller tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice. — Montesquieu

Leave a reply

The Liberal government has made the 2SLGBTQI+ the focal point of its Woke tyranny. The acronym stands for “Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and additional people who identify as part of sexual and gender diverse communities. The “2S” at the front recognizes Two-Spirit people as the first 2SLGBTQI+ communities. The “I” for intersex considers sex characteristics beyond sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. The “+” is inclusive of people who identify as part of sexual and gender diverse communities, who use additional terminologies.” (Women and Gender Equality Canada) The premise on which 2SLGBTQI+ rests is the narrative that Canada was founded by European conquerors who imposed heternormativity and patriarchy on the Native population and the marginalized and oppressed non-Indigenous communities—particularly the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour). Naturally, this is patent nonsense. That is not to say that racism never existed in Canadian history and that gay and lesbian people were persecuted. There were historical wrongs that Canadians acknowledge, and changes to Canadian law have been instituted to guarantee equality under the law and opportunity, and, where appropriate, reparations have been made to affected individuals. For example, survivors of the Japanese internment during World War Two were awarded $21,000 each in 1988. Also, twelve million dollars was given to the Japanese Community Fund, along with 24 million dollars towards the creation of a Canadian Race Relations Foundation to ensure that similar injustices would never happen again. (National Association of Japanese Canadians) But for the current Liberal government, that is not enough. In short, the Liberal government uses the acronym to project Trans Queer fantasy and nonsense onto Canadian history. They are revising our history, if not trying to erase it, and making it an offence to challenge or criticize the narrative with the passage of Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act. (Canadian Constitution Foundation)

Continue reading →

Reason obeys itself, and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. — Thomas Paine

Leave a reply

Those of us across the world who are working to end the involuntary genital cutting of boys are at an impasse. We have demonstrated beyond any doubt that intact genitals are as nature intended and debunked the claims that the male prepuce was a vestigial piece of skin that served no purpose. Despite that, cowardly politicians insist their hands are tied because they cannot breach the rights to religious liberty and parental autonomy over their children’s bodies. At least not when boys are at issue. They had no trouble enacting prohibitions on all forms of genital alteration on girls, no matter how minimal, despite the religious sensibilities and autonomy of parents to raise their daughters how they saw fit. Western nations lead an international effort through the United Nations to end female genital mutilation. When Iceland, a European country with a population of 340,000 people, moved to update its legislation in 2018, prohibiting involuntary genital cutting of girls to include boys, the United States intervened. The US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, in a letter sent to the Embassy of Iceland, Congressmen Ed Royce, the Republican chairman of the committee, and Eliot Engel, its top Democrat, wrote: “While Jewish and Muslim populations in Iceland may be small, your country’s ban could be exploited by those who stoke xenophobia [read anti-Muslim prejudice] and anti-Semitism in countries with more diverse populations.[…] As a partner nation, we urge your government to stop this intolerant bill from advancing any further.” (Times of Israel.) The Amendment to the legislation did not pass.

The thing to remember, also, is that in Iceland and the rest of Europe, the majority of the population does not cut the genitals of boys and girls involuntarily–which might make people think that a ban is moot. Still, one wonders why the ban on cutting girls is not viewed as something that “could be exploited by those who stoke xenophobia” [read anti-Muslim attitudes] in countries with more diverse populations.” Somehow, that only applies if you make the ban on involuntary genital cutting universal by including boys, and that is irrational. Despite these hurdles, the effort to protect boys continues — no one said it was easy. There is an interesting development in the recent controversy over “gender-affirming care” for minors. The issues of religious liberty and parental autonomy are back at the fore in the dispute over the ethics and legality of subjecting children to surgeries and drug therapies that result in the chemical and surgical castration of children whose parents believe they were of the opposite sex into which they were born. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming care for minors is constitutional. The challenge to the law was based on the 14th Amendment, with arguments that the ban was discriminatory based on sex and violated the laws and the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children, following their beliefs. The court did not consider the latter arguments in reaching its decision.

Given this development, one wonders how scurvy politicians will justify the involuntary genital cutting of boys based on the superstitions and wants of their parents. Why is it not tolerable to alter a girl’s private parts or allow parents to authorize sex changes on their children regardless of their beliefs, but it is bearable to allow radical and irreversible alterations to a boy’s genitals for no other reason than someone else wants it? Why is the notion that boys have rights, particularly to the integrity and security of their person, so contentious? I am cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors will cause renewed attention to the ethical and legal issues of the involuntary genital cutting of boys. I hope that the Icelandic parliament will reintroduce its legislation to protect boys and girls alike from involuntary genital cutting and that other Western jurisdictions will follow suit. This invidious state of affairs has gone on too long.

Posted by Geoffrey

I also survived circumcision, a barbaric practice designed to remind you as early as possible that your genitals are not your own. — George Carlin

Leave a reply

I learned what male genital cutting was in high school in health class. The teacher handed out mimeographed copies of pages from a textbook that had crude illustrations. He did this by mistake and hurriedly told us to ignore them, but the cat was out of the bag. Once I knew what it was, I began to think about it. I finally understood why other boys I knew over the years, particularly when I lived in England in the late 1960s with my family, looked different. A couple of years later, while one of my aunts visited, a news story came on the television about male genital cutting. She spoke up about how it could not be done to her firstborn son at birth because of complications following his birth, and that they never saw the need for it later. She had a second son years later, and he was left intact. I remember how pained my father looked when she related that to us. My mother was absent from the conversation, leaving the impression that she was behind it for my brother and me. As I grew older, I came to deeply resent what was done to me.

Continue reading →

The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil. — Hanna Arendt

Leave a reply

Hannah Arendt developed the concept of the banality of evil: “Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil.” I am reminded of this when I note the dismay of Intactivists when Facebook posts pop up where a newborn boy is subject to involuntary genital cutting for any reason or no reason. I also note the angry reactions of the parents who do not care for the criticism or condemnation for doing this to their newborn sons. Yes, there is no shortage of people who see nothing wrong with it and will tell you to mind your own business. That and they retort, “Don’t choose it for your son if that’s how you feel!” I watch with interest as Eric Clopper, Attorney at Law and Founder & President of Intact Global, mounts a constitutional challenge in Oregon for the protection of boys from involuntary genital cutting. I stand with him and hope for the best as he and his team of lawyers proceed with the challenge. The challenge is based on the constitutional guarantee of legal equal protection. As the involuntary genital cutting of girls is prohibited in US law (in several states, not federally), the reasoning is that boys deserve equal protection. Though I am neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar, as a well-informed layman, I expect the challenge will be an uphill battle.

Continue reading →

Gay men don’t have much in common with lesbians. — Douglas Murray

Leave a reply

The thing to remember is that gay is a demographic, not a coherent community. I am a gay man, a free thinker and a skeptic. I am proudly Anglo-Saxon; both sides of my family came from the British Isles, my father’s family from England and my mother’s from Ireland. Short of taking a DNA test, it is anyone’s guess what blend of ethnicities may be in my ancestry. However, that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that I am a middle-aged, gay white man. That said, those characteristics are irrelevant. Above all else, I am an individual. I am the man I am today because of my childhood and adolescence circumstances. I grew up in Canada in the latter half of the 20th century. I remember the Centennial celebrations in 1967 on Canada’s 100th birthday. I learned to take pride in my heritage, and the freedoms and opportunities afforded me as a Canadian. Still, growing up gay in my generation had its challenges. 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

Leave a reply

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 →

“Nothing is more deceitful,” said Darcy, “than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast.” ― Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

Leave a reply

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

I remember in 1968, my mother enrolled me in a class at the Holy Family parish in Kingston, Ontario. The class was to prepare me for my First Communion. I was seven years old, and in the class, I received my first lessons from the Roman Catholic Church in its perceived need that I learn humility. I have fleeting memories of the classes–on the whole, I think I enjoyed attending them. After our lesson, we got to play games like hide and seek. One night we got to watch That Darn Cat. The experience that lingers in my memory was delivered by the young woman who taught the course. She told us that Jesus, as a boy did not talk back to his parents and teachers; neither did he fight with other children. I think the children in the class took this lesson to heart. The experience was not unreasonable in and of itself–Christianity, Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, teaches that we should try to be like Jesus. Knowing that I talked back to my parents on occasion and got into scraps with my siblings left me feeling a little abashed–so I did my best to follow the example set by the boy Jesus. I learned at that early age that I am not perfect–that despite it, I should strive to do good and avoid doing evil. At the time, I did not appreciate that it was easy for the boy, Jesus, as He was Divine, unlike the rest of the children in the class and me. Continue reading →

Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony. — Heraclitus

Leave a reply

maxresdefault eris__goddess_of_strife__discord_and_chaos__smite__by_mitchumhody-d8ky9dq Growing up I really enjoyed reading books of fairy tales, folklore, legends and myths. I especially enjoyed the books of ancient Greek myths I found at school. These were adaptations of the stories suitable for children, not the original texts in translation, of course. Of these stories, the one featuring Eris, the goddess of strife and discord, and the apple of discord was a favourite. In short, in the story the apple of discord is a golden apple with the inscription “for the fairest” the goddess Eris threw among the gods. Just who among the gods was fairest was open to question and led to disagreement between the goddesses Athena, Hera and Aphrodite over who among them was the fairest. What started as petty bickering between the three goddesses over this question ultimately brought about the Trojan War. The moral of the story as Timothy and Susan B. Gall note in The Lincoln library of Greek & Roman mythology refers to “the core, kernel, or crux of an argument, or a small matter that could lead to a bigger dispute.” (as cited in Wikipedia) What made me think of this story in the present is the discord generated by Motion 103 Systemic racism and religious discrimination, introduced in parliament on December 5, 2016 by the backbench Liberal MP from Mississauga Iqra Khalid and passed on March 23, 2017. Continue reading →

The poet’s expression of joy conceals his despair at not having found the reality of joy. — Max Jacob

Leave a reply

When the news broke on July 20, 2017, of the death by suicide of Chester Bennington, lead singer of the band Linkin Park, my immediate thought was “surely this is another hoax, like the bogus announcements over the internet of the deaths of Clint Eastwood and William H. Macy.” Sadly, it is true. Chester Bennington took his own life at the age of forty-one; this came as a horrible shock to his family, friends, bandmates and millions of adoring fans. He was in the prime of life, at the top of his game as a professional performer, between tours with his band in promoting their new album One More Light. It seemed he had everything to live for, yet he decided to end his life–this is, undoubtedly, hard for many to understand and who are left wondering why. I can only surmise that despite the fame and success he enjoyed in life, despair got him better, and he decided he could not go on living. Despair is part of being human and how human beings cope with it or not varies according to the individual. Continue reading →