Politics is Personal
November 15th “Politics is Personal” Dinner
Lamplighter Hotel, 591 Wellington Road, London, Ontario
The theme of tonight’s dinner is “Politics is Personal”. Although the theme was one ultimately chosen by Bob Metz, the idea of the personal nature of politics has worked its way into a lot of my thinking in recent years.
There are several senses in which politics is personal. For my part, tonight, I will submit to you that the fact that politics is personal is the reason that we are all gathered in this room tonight.
What I find most striking is the extent to which many in society have tried to hide the fact that politics is personal. They hide its personal nature by the division of governmental powers. They hide it with elections. And they hide it with political parties. 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
ConsentThe Lexicon of Man: “Free”, “Freedom”, & “Free Society”
CapitalismRight to work laws: a leftist assault on capitalism
The 5 Most RecentPolitics is Personal
ANALYSIS: Is a Good “Atlas Shrugged” Movie Possible?
The Lexicon of Man: “Free”, “Freedom”, & “Free Society”
OkStupid: The Progressive Conservatives’ Leftist Attack on Morality and Freedom