Section 13, the controversial hate speech provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act, should be repealed, according to an independent review by University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon.
“The use of censorship by the government should be confined to a narrow category of extreme expression — that which threatens, advocates or justifies violence against the members of an identifiable group, even if the violence that is supported or threatened is not imminent,” Prof. Moon writes in the review, released today, five months after it was commissioned by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
“Less extreme forms of discriminatory expression, although harmful, cannot simply be censored out of public discourse… Censorship of expression that stereotypes or defames the members of an identifiable group is not a practical option and so we must, as a community, develop other ways to respond to this expression,” Prof. Moon writes.
Archives for 2008
Music to my ears
Not often you pick up a paper and flip casually through to read something like this:
Like Dostoyevsky’s Raskolnikov, one act of killing requires more acts of killing to legitimize itself. This has been the real agenda behind the enigmatic enthusiasm for stem-cell research and the furious criticism of bans on late-term, or “partial-birth,” abortion.
One act of abortion is killing, but two or more–now that’s “choice.” (From the Saturday National Post.)
Fight FOCA
There’s a web site that’s sprung up to fight the Freedom of Choice Act. I wasn’t really aware of what FOCA would do–it’s a promise the President-elect made to Planned Parenthood.
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide.
- FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
- FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
- FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.
Sounds like an incursion into state jurisdiction to me.
Obama’s choice
President-elect Barack Obama picked the executive director of EMILY’s List to be his White House communications director. This is what they’re celebrating these days:
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7vhXpLNijk]
____________________________
Rebecca says: You beat me to it.
To be fair to Obama, though, this isn’t a surprise. He has already waffled on foreign policy (keeping Gates, a Bush appointee) and seems to be preparing to run Clinton’s third term in office, despite making a fetish out of change. He has never for a moment, though, pretended to be anything other than rabidly pro-abortion. I don’t like this, but it was predictable. Next promise he will likely keep: to pass the “Freedom of Choice” act ASAP.
It’s going to be a long four years.
___________________________
Andrea adds: I have talked to many pro-lifers who supported Obama. When I tell them I couldn’t support him for the abortion issue alone, they said one of a couple of things, which were all interesting to me. One person said she thought he was “grappling with the ethical issues;” another didn’t believe me when I spoke about his record. Another said you have to weigh with the damage of the past eight years. Still another said, fine, but McCain didn’t care about abortion really–which is incidentally the only explanation I find even remotely compelling. That’s probably true. But then, would McCain go out of his way to find and hire people like those working at Emily’s List?
I can’t be complaining all the time…
Apropos nothing in particular. It’s just that this was a nice day in Ottawa. Clear skies, crisp air, perfect for a long walk. And of course for a nice cup of something sweet with whipped cream on it. It makes me happy.
Eeeek! Blood!!!
Oh dear. A kerfuffle. Turkeys slaughtered while the governor yaks on. Is this a major faux-pas, or, as Mark Steyn called it, “a great teaching moment”? I admit I don’t think it’s so great a backdrop for a media availability. But the reactions of horror from sophisticated urbanites who blanch at the mere idea of blood (what do they do these people, eat animals that aren’t dead yet?) make me giggle. And I’m a latte-drinking urbanite myself.
I think I’ll be on Sarah’s side this time again (what, you’re surprised?). Here’s the video. Warning: it’s a bit gross.
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8DTSPzU0RI]
On the road
I’m in Washington DC, on the tail end of a most interesting conference. Today I have the day off. I went jogging on the Mall, tried to circle Capitol Hill but you can’t–they have it all fenced off to get ready for the inauguration.
You may be expecting some weighty analysis–the tone and tenure of DC post-election, perhaps what is going on in politics–what was my conference about? But No. It is my day off. So did you known you can get The Onion in news boxes on the street here?
Here’s my favourite headline of the day. It’s a fashion item because I’m about to go shopping:
Sweater-Vest Worn As Well As Could Be Expected”
(More later–I actually do have some interesting thoughts to share from pro-life folks I’ve met while down here.)
Choose life – here’s why
[h/t Michelle Malkin]
But what if he still doesn’t like me?
Ahhh, progress.
___________________________
Andrea adds: “But what if he still doesn’t like me?” I’ve taken to suing gentlemen callers who don’t ask me out on a second or third date. It’s expensive, but I expect it to come to a happy, lifelong relationship soon enough.
Change, yes, but for what?
Further to yesterday’s post (we ain’t done with that topic, just you wait). Brian Lilley surveys the state of affairs and asks whether the GOP ought to drop social conservatives to woo voters. Well.
While it’s true that change is sometimes good and that it’s always a smart idea, and not just in politics, to ponder what might have gone wrong in order to improve our lot in the future, there are certain things that ought not to be changed because they are right. Being unpopular is one thing, and if you care about being more popular, then yes, you’d probably be out there (along with David Frum) saying the GOP ought to lose its embarrassing so-cons and move bravely forward to where all the cool kids hang out.
But the larger question is twofold: 1) is it right? and 2) will it work? And my answer is no and no. If you believe, say, that abortion is wrong and you care about it enough to get involved in public affairs, then the idea that you should shut up about it in order to win power so that you can get into a position of power where you’ll be able to do precisely nothing about the issue because you ran away from it during the campaign is horrifying. And for a good reason. Plus it’s unlikely to work anyway; look at Stephen Harper. Ya think supporting him because he’s marginally less pro-abortion (we hope) than the other guys does anything?
So. The answer to Brian’s question is: It depends. If your main concern is to be more popular and win power, then maybe you ought to move away from the uncool kids with their sexual hangups (ugh, people who think having kids is neat – how perverse is that?). But if you care more about the issue than about how personally awesome you are deemed to be, don’t listen to those who are trying to convince you that you should do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. If that means yet another split on the right, so be it.
Like they say, change is sometimes necessary.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- …
- 93
- Next Page »