Censorship, and the democratic 'right' not to be ignored
March 1, 2013 by Paul McKeever · 1 Comment
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 more
Layman's Summary of the Court of Appeal's Decision in R. v. Mernagh
February 1, 2013 by Paul McKeever · 11 Comments
Ontario’s Court of Appeal released its 60 page decision today in the case of R. v. Mernagh. In layman terms, the decision can be summed up as follows: Read more
Is a provincial ban on medical cannabis prescriptions the key to ending prohibition?
January 31, 2013 by Paul McKeever · 2 Comments
It may be time for Canada’s provinces to pass legislation banning medical professionals from prescribing cannabis for medical purposes. Ironically, that may be the only measure capable of stopping a federal moving target dead, and ending cannabis prohibition in Canada. Read more
Government, Libertarianism, and the Two Worlds: An Open Letter to Glenn Beck and Penn Jillette
January 5, 2013 by Paul McKeever · Leave a Comment
Gentlemen:
Your December 6, 2012 discussion on The Blaze in respect of Mr. Jillette’s book “Every Day Is An Atheist Holiday” has been forwarded to me by a person who asks “How can we better expand our tent without compromising any principles?”. Having now watched your discussion with great interest, I offer you the following in the hope that you might find it helpful in your efforts to build a big tent that is actually pro-freedom. Read more
You Keep Asking, Now We Answer: Freedom Party versus Libertarian Party
December 21, 2012 by Paul McKeever · Leave a Comment
The word “libertarian” is used in both a formal sense and an informal sense. When a socialist Liberal politician exclaims that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, he is called a civil “libertarian”. When a theocratic Conservative politician calls for a reduction in taxes, he too is called a “libertarian”. And when an “anarcho-capitalist” economist calls for the elimination of government, he is called a “libertarian”. So what does the word actually mean? Read more
Ontario's Fiscal Freefall: Liberal vs. PC = Feet-first vs. Head-first
October 27, 2012 by Paul McKeever · Leave a Comment
The more some things change, the more other things stay the same. The Liberal premier, finance minister, and energy minister have all announced their resignation from politics. The Liberal Party of Ontario is imploding. The province has fallen into a fiscal crisis. But Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives are doing a replay of the “we’re liberals too” campaign that left that party with opposition status in the 2011 election. Read more
Second Presidential Debate: Obama's Exploding Libyan Cigar
October 17, 2012 by Paul McKeever · 1 Comment
President Barack Obama’s response to the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya was the defining issue of the second U.S. presidential debate. Obama claimed that the day after the attack on the U.S. Consulate there, he:
“…stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”
That was a lie. Accordingly, in the manner of a civil litigator cross-examining a lying witness, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave Obama a minute to retract or qualify his answer. Obama did not do so. It was his undoing. Read more
Biden's Rand Card: Preparatory Advice to Paul Ryan
October 10, 2012 by Paul McKeever · 3 Comments
Will Joe Biden play the Rand card in tomorrow’s debate against Mitt Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan? How should Ryan respond if he does? Read more
Credit Where Credit's Due: McGuinty's Liberals Get One Right
October 9, 2012 by Paul McKeever · Leave a Comment
Ontario’s government today announced that pharmacists are no longer among those prohibited by law from performing certain services. The government’s news release featured the fact that pharmacists will now be able to administer the flu shot. For those – especially seniors – who find it difficult or inconvenient to get to the more limited number of places where flu shots are administered, this is certainly an added convenience. But the bombshell change is this: “…pharmacists can now also: Renew or adapt existing prescriptions…”. That is a major, praiseworthy change. Read more
Hate the Sinner
October 4, 2012 by Paul McKeever · 2 Comments
The electoral efforts of we pro-reason, pro-freedom individuals have been undermined by our cowardice.
Thinking ourselves bold and brave, we write in unambiguous and unequivocal terms of ideas and principles; of reason and faith; of selfishness and altruism; of individualism and collectivism; of free markets and central planning; of capitalism and communism. We stand up, look into the eyes of our audiences, and speak about big institutions and abstract entities – “the government”, “the state”, “unions”, etc. – and about their irrationality, their coerciveness, and the like.
In doing so, we act out of fear; fear not because of what we write or say, but because of what we refrain from writing and saying. Fearing we’ll offend someone, we cower from the utterance of the very thing that must be said if freedom is to prevail. Read more