Tag Archives: conscience

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

So, I’m a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. — Charlie Kirk

Sighting in my Tikka T3 in .243.

The murder weapon used in the killing of Charlie Kirk was a Mauser bolt-action rifle in 30-06 with a scope, a make and model of hunting rifle commonly used in North America. I have several left-hand bolt-action rifles topped with scopes in my collection in various calibres. I use them for hunting small game, varmints and big game. I occasionally visit the rifle range to ensure the rifles are sighted in before hunting. I am a good shot. When you choose to kill a game animal, you want to place the bullet in its vital area to ensure a quick, humane death. The suspect in the killing of Charlie Kirk, I will not mention his name, allegedly shot Mr. Kirk in the neck from a distance of two hundred yards. I have no idea of the suspect’s history with guns or whether he was a good shot. Regardless, he succeeded in mortally wounding Charlie Kirk with either a well-placed or a lucky shot. Of course, that is reprehensible. When a hunting rifle is used in a homicide, inevitably, some people blame the rifle, guns and gun owners in general. There is an expectation that I should rethink being a gun owner and hunter because someone used a hunting gun to commit murder.

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

Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor. — Norman Mailer

 

Protests in Wisconsin aftermath of Kenosha shooting

Kyle Rittenhouse, the seventeen-year-old from Illinois, who got into deadly confrontations with rioters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, showed he is more a man than the older men who attacked him. He found himself in the same situation that millions of young men throughout history have: when confronted by an attacker in warfare or civil unrest, you make the stark choice–it is him or me. Rittenhouse did everything possible to avoid the confrontations. He tried to leave the rioting scene when he was separated from the older men he accompanied in a local business’s defence. He was asked to take part in protecting the local business that was set on fire in the rioting the night before. He armed himself, yes, for self-protection, and that is how he used his rifle, an AR-15, in the end.

Moreover, he knew how to use his rifle. He fired five shots at the first attacker (when the first shots were fired), and one shot each at the second and third attackers as a last resort when cornered by them. Regrettably, two of the attackers died, and the third suffered a grievous wound to his arm. Whether he should have been there or not is academic. The fact remains, had Rittenhouse not used deadly force to stop the attackers, he would be either seriously injured or dead at the rioters’ hands. A second-hand account of what happened to the attacker who survived states, “I just talked to [name redacted] too–his only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him. Coward.” (National File) Following the shootings, he ran to the law on the scene, trying to surrender to the police. The police on the scene told him to move along. He turned himself in to the police in Illinois, and he faces several criminal charges in Wisconsin.

He will have his day in court. He killed two men and wounded a third. Being a man means facing the consequences of your actions. I think he understands that. He will have to live with the reality that he killed two men. It will remain on his conscience for the rest of his days. He is caught up in a critical situation, not of his own making that will determine the rest of his life. As the investigation into the shootings is underway, the available evidence supports the argument that he acted in self-defence. It will be some time before a judgement is handed down–he faces six charges. In the meantime, he will endure the media’s efforts and various interest groups to paint him and his family being all manner of villainy. I wish him well as he rides out the storm ahead. I hope he will be able to get on with his life when the court proceedings are concluded. Given how the young Rittenhouse handled himself when he came under attack that fateful night, I think as he matures and leaves his adolescence behind, he will become a fine man. He aspired to join the police force; I hope he can realize his ambition as he showed excellent character strength for such a young man. I think he will be an acceptable candidate for the police force if he stays the course he took before the unfortunate events in Kenosha interrupted his career path. Regardless, his life will never be the same.

Posted by Geoffrey

 

“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

Jacinda

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