Simon Says Sex: The Nature and Purpose of the “Affirmative Consent” Campaign
Consent. By its nature, it is the difference between giving and stealing, between murder and assisted suicide, and between sex and rape. By its nature, it is the difference between victim and non-victim. In law, it is also the difference between guilt and innocence. Therefore, its legal definition, and the way it is judged to be present or absent, has a dramatic impact upon whether justice prevails or fails. It should concern everyone, therefore, that a small but vocal number of activists are promoting a new approach to consent that is certain to facilitate injustice, to endanger young children, to make sex repulsive, and to replace love and respect between men and women with fear, distrust, disrespect, animosity, and hatred. Read the story »
Michael Chong’s Assault on Democracy: a “Reform Act” for Disloyal MPs
Michael Chong’s proposed Reform Act, 2013 has been praised as a bill that would shift each party leaders’ power to their respective caucus members, thereby revitalizing an allegedly withered role of Parliament’s confidence in government, and facilitating a broader diversity of party policies and philosophies in Parliament. Whatever the merits of such arguments, they miss the essential nature and function of Mr. Chong’s would-be law, and the threat that it poses to democracy itself. The bill should be rejected by all MPs worthy of re-election. Read the story »
Censorship, and the democratic ‘right’ not to be ignored
Bill Whatcott says that homosexuality is an “abomination”, and that homosexuals are “sex addicts” that have “sick desires”. He says that teaching children tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality in our public schools will cause children to die early, and will subject us all to God’s wrath. The Bible tells him so, and he likes to quote it in his pamphlets opposing the promotion of tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality in our public school curricula.
A couple of days ago, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in the case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott (hereinafter referred to as the Whatcott decision). It said that if we say things that cause others to laugh at Bill and other Christians because of their Christian beliefs, the court will not allow the government to punish us. If we write things that cause others to look down their noses at Bill and his fellow Christians for their beliefs, no problem, they’ve got our backs. We can even say things that cause people to engage in an affront to the dignity of all Christians, and the court will stand on guard for thee and me. But if we say anything true or false that is likely to cause people to hate Bill and other Christians then, whether or not we intended to cause others to hate Christians, the Court will look the other way if the government gags us and punishes us. Read the story »
RealityWilful Blindness, Religion and Politics
ReasonMcKeever’s Minimal Maxims and Bon Arrows, Volume 2, Issue 4
ConsentParis attacks not truly a response to insult: a tactic to replace Democracy with Shariah
CapitalismRight to work laws: a leftist assault on capitalism
The 5 Most RecentSimon Says Sex: The Nature and Purpose of the “Affirmative Consent” Campaign
Paris attacks not truly a response to insult: a tactic to replace Democracy with Shariah
Politics is Personal
ANALYSIS: Is a Good “Atlas Shrugged” Movie Possible?