This is an extraodinary piece of television, at least by Canadian standards. In the present free speech climate of Canada, which is to say the march to its destruction, it is worth reflecting on it. It is an editorial from a jounalist on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann. He flays alive President George Bush for comments he made in a recent interview on another televised forum.
Never mind whether you think Olbermann is right or wrong. What is important is that he that he was able to go on for about 12 minutes in this fashion without the studio being invaded by some police agency and the network going off air temporarily. What is important is that he probably went home without the necessity of a police escort.
Now, no doubt the network and Olbermann received their share of hate e-mail and telephone calls, but that also is an exercise in a right of free expression.
There is a basic respect in the United States for the right of free speech which means that people like Olbermann see nothing inappropriate in describing their national leader and the commander-in-chief of their military forces in the harshest terms, on national television.
Are you paying attention, Avi Lewis?
Friday, May 16, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Authoritarian versus Totalitarian
In my post about the TVO episode with Mark Steyn, commentator "aelfheld" took issue with my assertion that Islam is an authoritarian religion, claiming that, as it recognizes nothing outside of itself, totalitarian would be a more apt description.
I don't agree with that. I think it is very important to be clear in our use of language so that we have proper problem identification. Normally, people spend about 10% of their time identifying a problem and 90% coming up with solutions (e.g. Kyoto Protocol.
To describe a religion as authoritarian is to refer to the requirement of strict obedience to the dogma. Islam demands strict obedience. Other monotheistic religions, Judaism and Christianity, do as well. Although, what we find is that people stray from obedience for different reasons in all three of these religions. But that doesn't mean at their historical and purest core they don't demand obedience as the key to entering the kingdom of heaven.
The term totalitarian applies when a religion becomes the operative agency in the administration and policy formation of the state -- when it controls the civil functions of a society. Iran would be an example. This is a theocracy, whereby clerics dictate to the civil authorities the policies and the laws. In Saudi Arabia, the civil authority, the tribe of Saud, having entered into a pact with the Wahhabi sect of Islam, allows the religious authorities free rein in enforcing religious rules.
This is not peculiar to Islam. In the 9th century, Charlemagne created France (and Europe) by entering into a pact with the Vatican and either destroyed or converted the Germanic barbarian tribes to Christianity. All pagan gods were abolished.
In the 15th century, Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain threw out the Islamic Moors, then entered into a pact with the Vatican, commenced the Inquisition, and drove the Jews from Spain in an effort to make the country completely Catholic Christian.
And while our historical evidence is weak, Old Testament accounts from the time of the Jewish kings, Saul, David and Solomon, suggest that the ancient Israelites were no less fanatical about religious purity within the territory of the state's writ.
To speak of a religion as totalitarian without identifying in its relation to the secular power of the state is not accurate.
I don't agree with that. I think it is very important to be clear in our use of language so that we have proper problem identification. Normally, people spend about 10% of their time identifying a problem and 90% coming up with solutions (e.g. Kyoto Protocol.
To describe a religion as authoritarian is to refer to the requirement of strict obedience to the dogma. Islam demands strict obedience. Other monotheistic religions, Judaism and Christianity, do as well. Although, what we find is that people stray from obedience for different reasons in all three of these religions. But that doesn't mean at their historical and purest core they don't demand obedience as the key to entering the kingdom of heaven.
The term totalitarian applies when a religion becomes the operative agency in the administration and policy formation of the state -- when it controls the civil functions of a society. Iran would be an example. This is a theocracy, whereby clerics dictate to the civil authorities the policies and the laws. In Saudi Arabia, the civil authority, the tribe of Saud, having entered into a pact with the Wahhabi sect of Islam, allows the religious authorities free rein in enforcing religious rules.
This is not peculiar to Islam. In the 9th century, Charlemagne created France (and Europe) by entering into a pact with the Vatican and either destroyed or converted the Germanic barbarian tribes to Christianity. All pagan gods were abolished.
In the 15th century, Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain threw out the Islamic Moors, then entered into a pact with the Vatican, commenced the Inquisition, and drove the Jews from Spain in an effort to make the country completely Catholic Christian.
And while our historical evidence is weak, Old Testament accounts from the time of the Jewish kings, Saul, David and Solomon, suggest that the ancient Israelites were no less fanatical about religious purity within the territory of the state's writ.
To speak of a religion as totalitarian without identifying in its relation to the secular power of the state is not accurate.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Islamic Lawfare
A very cool synopsis by this very hot lawyer, Brook Goldstein, of the concept of Islamic Lawfare at this site.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Letter to A-G re: Freedom of Speech
This is a copy of an e-mail I sent today to the Attorney-General of Canada. It would be nice if the Conservatives were in front of this issue instead of reacting to a Liberal MP.
Dear Mr. Nicholson:
For some months I have been following the unfolding drama of the human rights complaints against Maclean’s magazine, Ezra Levant and by implication, Mark Steyn.
The guiding case in this matter is a 4 to 3 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, John Ross Taylor et al. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General of Canada , 1990.
The key weakness in the majority decision is the following Polyanna utterance supporting the court’s opinion that section 13 is a reasonable limit on the free expression guarantee of section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“
I have read Mr. Steyn’s book, America Alone, an excerpt of which in Maclean’s prompted these human rights complaints. I did not find him expressing “deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification”, unless one were to take exception to the truthful information he provided about the potential of Islam overtaking European societies; in short, if one doesn’t like the fit of the shoe when one tries it on.
We have now been treated to the spectacle of the Ontario Human Rights Commission declining to pursue the complaint but issuing a condemnation of Maclean’s in any event, without calling any evidence. Further, Barbara Hall, head of the OHRC has opined that, with only 2,500 complaints a year, there must be a lot more hatred in Ontario that has be rooted out. My own experience is that Canadians are generally not a hateful people and the thought that someone operating an intrusive government agency with that mindset bothers me. It should bother all of us who believe as I do.
When we look at some of the disgraceful conduct of the Canadian Human Right Commission, apparently relying on pro-active entrapment procedures by employees and ex-employees, and the testimony of one employee that he pays no attention to free speech (the most fundamental of human rights!) because that is some “American concept”, one begins to wonder what HRCs in what country the SCC had in mind when it said “as long as human rights tribunals continue to be well aware of the purpose … and pay heed to the ardent and extreme nature of the feeling described.”
Now, I recognize that these are two different matters; what the HRCs are delving into, and how they do it. But, these are related in the sense that they are evidence of a systemic breakdown in the protection of human rights, specifically free speech, which needs to be addressed.
Some wish to abolish Section 13 altogether. Some wish to abolish Human Rights Commissions. Perhaps there is a compromise option. Why not simply build into Section 13 the normal defenses one would have in a court of law: presumption of innocence, fair commentary on matters of public interest, truthful statements, reasonable belief in the truth of the statements, etc.? I would also be inclined to remove the word “likely” from the qualifications for causing harm. It is far too subjective.
The idea behind HRCs was to give quick and simple redress for discrimination in housing and employment, and there may still be validity to keeping them around for that purpose. However, this business of restriction on free speech and public comment affects a far broader constituency (everybody) and goes to the heart of our liberal democracy. It deserves a better and fairer airing than these “make up the rules as they go along “HRCs are prepared to give it.
Finally, I would urge you to consider the opinion of the dissenting judges in John Ross Taylor. I find their reasoning far more compelling, and, as events are now unfolding, almost prescient.
Dear Mr. Nicholson:
For some months I have been following the unfolding drama of the human rights complaints against Maclean’s magazine, Ezra Levant and by implication, Mark Steyn.
The guiding case in this matter is a 4 to 3 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, John Ross Taylor et al. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General of Canada , 1990.
The key weakness in the majority decision is the following Polyanna utterance supporting the court’s opinion that section 13 is a reasonable limit on the free expression guarantee of section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“
The phrase "hatred or contempt" in the context of s. 13(1) refers only to unusually strong and deep‑felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification and, as long as human rights tribunals continue to be well aware of the purpose of s. 13(1) and pay heed to the ardent and extreme nature of feeling described in that phrase, there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section.”
I have read Mr. Steyn’s book, America Alone, an excerpt of which in Maclean’s prompted these human rights complaints. I did not find him expressing “deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification”, unless one were to take exception to the truthful information he provided about the potential of Islam overtaking European societies; in short, if one doesn’t like the fit of the shoe when one tries it on.
We have now been treated to the spectacle of the Ontario Human Rights Commission declining to pursue the complaint but issuing a condemnation of Maclean’s in any event, without calling any evidence. Further, Barbara Hall, head of the OHRC has opined that, with only 2,500 complaints a year, there must be a lot more hatred in Ontario that has be rooted out. My own experience is that Canadians are generally not a hateful people and the thought that someone operating an intrusive government agency with that mindset bothers me. It should bother all of us who believe as I do.
When we look at some of the disgraceful conduct of the Canadian Human Right Commission, apparently relying on pro-active entrapment procedures by employees and ex-employees, and the testimony of one employee that he pays no attention to free speech (the most fundamental of human rights!) because that is some “American concept”, one begins to wonder what HRCs in what country the SCC had in mind when it said “as long as human rights tribunals continue to be well aware of the purpose … and pay heed to the ardent and extreme nature of the feeling described.”
Now, I recognize that these are two different matters; what the HRCs are delving into, and how they do it. But, these are related in the sense that they are evidence of a systemic breakdown in the protection of human rights, specifically free speech, which needs to be addressed.
Some wish to abolish Section 13 altogether. Some wish to abolish Human Rights Commissions. Perhaps there is a compromise option. Why not simply build into Section 13 the normal defenses one would have in a court of law: presumption of innocence, fair commentary on matters of public interest, truthful statements, reasonable belief in the truth of the statements, etc.? I would also be inclined to remove the word “likely” from the qualifications for causing harm. It is far too subjective.
The idea behind HRCs was to give quick and simple redress for discrimination in housing and employment, and there may still be validity to keeping them around for that purpose. However, this business of restriction on free speech and public comment affects a far broader constituency (everybody) and goes to the heart of our liberal democracy. It deserves a better and fairer airing than these “make up the rules as they go along “HRCs are prepared to give it.
Finally, I would urge you to consider the opinion of the dissenting judges in John Ross Taylor. I find their reasoning far more compelling, and, as events are now unfolding, almost prescient.
Friday, May 9, 2008
An unusual Agenda on TVO
I watched the Agenda on TVO with the confrontation between Mark Steyn and three of the Muslim laws students who are calling him Islamophobic. It was an unusual program for this very good public affairs show.
The normal format is for the host, Steve Paikin, to interview the "headliner" for 15 minutes and then adjourn to another part of the studio to moderate a panel discussion that normally does not include the headliner. The headliner in this case was Mark Steyn who used the occasion to bait the students into a face on debate. They were clearly uncomfortable and wanted Paikin's assurance that Steyn wouldn't shout at them.
Bear in mind that these are law students who have entered their articling period which means that within a year or so they will be unleased on the public to be able to represent them in court. One would think they would embrace the opportunity to deal with somebody who would shout at them just to get that experience under their belts.
Most of the program was taken up with their complaints that Macleans magazine would not surrender editorial control so that they could publish a pro-Islam article. One wonders why they would not have just submitted an article to Macleans for publication. If Macleans wouldn't publish it, then they might have a stronger argument. If Macleans did publish it, then I guess their 15 minutes of fame is up.
Two of the students were women. One was born in Canada and one came here as a baby from India. The male had been born in Pakistan and had lived in Britain where he grew up before he emigrated to Canada. All of them were in western dress and had they not said they were Muslims there would be nothing about their appearance that would have tipped you off.
At one point, Paikin offered that if all Muslims were like them Canadians would have no problems. I have no idea what he meant, but as one Canadian I would like to exempt myself from his list. I have problems with them.
In numerous articles Steyn has been calling them "sock puppets" for reasons that escaped me. However, I have since learned that sock puppets are people who are put up to putting out some party line or propaganda. In that sense, I would agree with Steyn's depiction.
What bothered me was that they wanted to talk about the issue of Islamophobic media (specifically Mcleans) but not about Islamophobia itself. Try as he might, and he did try valiantly, Paikin could not steer them on to that discussion. Every time Steyn pointed out that he had simply been reporting the claims religious spokespersons were making for Islam, the students tried to suggest that these people he was quoting were obscure, and irrelevant, like Ayatollah Khomeini. Huh!
What impressed me was their lack of preparation (they came with some idea of a script that they would simply put out without challenge). This is not a good beginning for young lawyers. In law, preparation is everything, and thinking fast on your feet outside the script is essential.
The second thing was, despite the fact that they have come of age and were educated in Canada, specifically in the legal tradition of Canada, they still don't understand the concept of free speech. They think they are entitled to force Mcleans to simply allow them to publish whatever they want, and if they can't get it by bullying Mcleans they will get a government agency to do it for them.
This is so Muslim. If you want to accuse somebody in an Islamic country of offending Islam, you go to an Imam and get him to issue a fatwa against the offender. In effect, the human rights commissions substitute for the Imams and issue the fatwas.
They frequently complained that all Muslims in Canada were tarred with this extremist voice that rises in various parts of the Muslim community that Steyn featured in his book. But at no time did they take the opportunity to point to specific things and say as Canadian Muslims those things were wrong and those people who say them are wrong and are wrong to say them. In short, like nearly all other Muslims, they find themselves incapable of criticizing or taking issue with relious authorities. Islam is an authoritarian religion.
And this is what so-called moderate Muslims who live in western countries are not getting, even though, time and again, writers and journalists have pointed out the absence of forcefull denials of the extremists by the moderates. This was a good opportunity for these Muslims to show that kind of awareness and respond to it, and yet they sat on their hands.
I am continually left with the impression that the only thing Muslims do not want discussed in any public forum is Islam. And anyone who wants to discuss it is an Islamophobe. Unfortunately, mainy mainstream journalists think that bigotry, Islamophobia and critical discussion of Islam are all the same thing, and they aid and abet this silencing of critics.
As Mark Steyn said, from the geopolitical, social, cultural and religious perspective the impact of Islam on western societies is one of the biggest story of the 21st century and these folks don't want us to talk or write about it.
I happened to come across this quotation from George Washington, the first American President:
Wise words.
Go to this site if you want to see the hour-long video of the show: http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/
The normal format is for the host, Steve Paikin, to interview the "headliner" for 15 minutes and then adjourn to another part of the studio to moderate a panel discussion that normally does not include the headliner. The headliner in this case was Mark Steyn who used the occasion to bait the students into a face on debate. They were clearly uncomfortable and wanted Paikin's assurance that Steyn wouldn't shout at them.
Bear in mind that these are law students who have entered their articling period which means that within a year or so they will be unleased on the public to be able to represent them in court. One would think they would embrace the opportunity to deal with somebody who would shout at them just to get that experience under their belts.
Most of the program was taken up with their complaints that Macleans magazine would not surrender editorial control so that they could publish a pro-Islam article. One wonders why they would not have just submitted an article to Macleans for publication. If Macleans wouldn't publish it, then they might have a stronger argument. If Macleans did publish it, then I guess their 15 minutes of fame is up.
Two of the students were women. One was born in Canada and one came here as a baby from India. The male had been born in Pakistan and had lived in Britain where he grew up before he emigrated to Canada. All of them were in western dress and had they not said they were Muslims there would be nothing about their appearance that would have tipped you off.
At one point, Paikin offered that if all Muslims were like them Canadians would have no problems. I have no idea what he meant, but as one Canadian I would like to exempt myself from his list. I have problems with them.
In numerous articles Steyn has been calling them "sock puppets" for reasons that escaped me. However, I have since learned that sock puppets are people who are put up to putting out some party line or propaganda. In that sense, I would agree with Steyn's depiction.
What bothered me was that they wanted to talk about the issue of Islamophobic media (specifically Mcleans) but not about Islamophobia itself. Try as he might, and he did try valiantly, Paikin could not steer them on to that discussion. Every time Steyn pointed out that he had simply been reporting the claims religious spokespersons were making for Islam, the students tried to suggest that these people he was quoting were obscure, and irrelevant, like Ayatollah Khomeini. Huh!
What impressed me was their lack of preparation (they came with some idea of a script that they would simply put out without challenge). This is not a good beginning for young lawyers. In law, preparation is everything, and thinking fast on your feet outside the script is essential.
The second thing was, despite the fact that they have come of age and were educated in Canada, specifically in the legal tradition of Canada, they still don't understand the concept of free speech. They think they are entitled to force Mcleans to simply allow them to publish whatever they want, and if they can't get it by bullying Mcleans they will get a government agency to do it for them.
This is so Muslim. If you want to accuse somebody in an Islamic country of offending Islam, you go to an Imam and get him to issue a fatwa against the offender. In effect, the human rights commissions substitute for the Imams and issue the fatwas.
They frequently complained that all Muslims in Canada were tarred with this extremist voice that rises in various parts of the Muslim community that Steyn featured in his book. But at no time did they take the opportunity to point to specific things and say as Canadian Muslims those things were wrong and those people who say them are wrong and are wrong to say them. In short, like nearly all other Muslims, they find themselves incapable of criticizing or taking issue with relious authorities. Islam is an authoritarian religion.
And this is what so-called moderate Muslims who live in western countries are not getting, even though, time and again, writers and journalists have pointed out the absence of forcefull denials of the extremists by the moderates. This was a good opportunity for these Muslims to show that kind of awareness and respond to it, and yet they sat on their hands.
I am continually left with the impression that the only thing Muslims do not want discussed in any public forum is Islam. And anyone who wants to discuss it is an Islamophobe. Unfortunately, mainy mainstream journalists think that bigotry, Islamophobia and critical discussion of Islam are all the same thing, and they aid and abet this silencing of critics.
As Mark Steyn said, from the geopolitical, social, cultural and religious perspective the impact of Islam on western societies is one of the biggest story of the 21st century and these folks don't want us to talk or write about it.
I happened to come across this quotation from George Washington, the first American President:
"If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use for us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led like sheep to the slaughter."
Wise words.
Go to this site if you want to see the hour-long video of the show: http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/
Friday, May 2, 2008
Submission to committee considering the Lord's Prayer
In Ontario, it has been the practice of the legislative assembly to recite the Lord's Prayer prior to engaging in the business of state. The Premier has struck an all-party committee to evaluate whether this practice should be continued and the committee has asked for public submissions. I prepared the following draft submission on behalf of the Canadian Secular Alliance. It will no doubt be tweaked before submission, by the group, but it represents my thoughts on the matter.
SUBMISSION TO THE ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REVIEWING THE LORD’S PRAYER
May 1, 2008
Submitted by the Canadian Secular Alliance
The Canadian Secular Alliance is an association of people dedicated to the advancement of secularism in public institutions.
We welcome the opportunity to offer this brief submission to the Committee.
1. Need for Prayer
While there may be members of the provincial legislature who are devout followers of religions it is not clear why it is necessary to occupy the time of the legislative sessions reciting scripture, of any sort. Members can pray in their homes, in their cars, on airplanes, in their offices, or wherever, and will no doubt receive precisely the same attention and guidance from the deity or deities, as the case may be, that they would receive by collectively standing, bowing their heads in the chamber and verbalizing holy incantations.
There is no evidence to suggest that harmonized recitation of biblical passages by a multitude grants benefits not otherwise obtainable by individual prayer. There is also no evidence to suggest that the abandonment of this ritual would lead to debates and decisions in the chamber that are less than they should be without divine intervention.
In short, unless the committee can find a reason why the valuable time of those on the public payroll that should be devoted to the interests and welfare of the people of Ontario should instead be spent appealing to deities, the best solution would be to drop the thing entirely.
2. The Lord’s Prayer
This is originally a Jewish prayer that has, by custom, become associated with Christians and is now considered very much a Christian prayer. Cleary, the demographic changes in Ontario in the last 25 years would suggest that Christianity is becoming not “the religion”, but simply one of many. Even with Christianity there is a veritable Babel of differences. There are approximately 31,200 verses in the King James’ version of the Bible, but there are 38,000 Christian sects and denominations differentiating themselves from the others by emphasizing some verses of scripture to the exclusion or in preference to others.
It seems inappropriate to continue a Christian prayer to the exclusion of other religions, and since there are many sects with different creeds and dogmatic viewpoints, it is unlikely that some common prayer will cover all the bases. How could one reconcile polytheistic religions with monotheistic ones, with animists, pagans, wiccans, let alone Satanists and Scientologists?
Trying to appear even-handed in some fashion to all of these religions is a Pandora’s Box, best left out of the legislative chamber.
3. The Manner of Prayer
Collectively praying in a house of worship dedicated to holy and sacred rituals is one thing, but when prayer occurs outside of these places, particularly when reciting the Lord’s Prayer, one needs to consider Matthew 6:6. Matthew says very clearly that public prayer is hypocrisy and that the Lord’s Prayer should be recited in private. So, if the committee decides after all to recommend sustaining the Christian character of the prayer, at least perform it in accordance with Biblical rules and let the members do it in the privacy of their offices.
It is also worth considering, with respect to Christianity, that Jesus prescribed that the faithful should “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s.” He reportedly drove the money changers out of the temple to ensure this result. Does it not seem reasonable to observe this separation at Queen’s Park, which majestic as it may be, is not a temple, but is more akin to a money-changing bourse?
If the answer is to recite prayers from different religions in some rotational fashion one might want to consider the rules of those creeds regarding the appropriate manner of prayer: rules regarding the wearing of headgear, ritual washing prior to prayer, the separation of men from women, and praying in kneeling positions with foreheads pressed to the floor.
4. The Non-religious
Always the last to be considered, and when considered, not often with much respect, are the estimated 18% of the population, and growing, that have no interest in religion and would like to see the public prayer in the legislature abandoned because its continuation is a violation of the eminently sensible liberal-democratic rule of separating church and state. You may take it that the CSA speaks for this constituency, one that pays taxes, votes and has equal civil and human rights under the laws of this province and country, just exactly like the most religiously devout.
5. Messages from the people and the courts
It is widely believed that the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party initiative to fund Catholic Separate Schools led to the end of the continuous 42 years of PC government in this province, even though the other political parties signed up for it. The most recent election saw the PCs lose badly once again over proposed policies to mix religion and schools. The courts have outlawed prayer in schools and in municipal councils.
At some point, and this is as good a time as any, members of the legislature might reflect on the clear messages that are being sent from the factories, fields, farms and the courts, and get on board with the broader public view that public space and public institutions ought to be devoted to secular concerns and should not be used for the promotion of religion in any manner.
SUBMISSION TO THE ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REVIEWING THE LORD’S PRAYER
May 1, 2008
Submitted by the Canadian Secular Alliance
The Canadian Secular Alliance is an association of people dedicated to the advancement of secularism in public institutions.
We welcome the opportunity to offer this brief submission to the Committee.
1. Need for Prayer
While there may be members of the provincial legislature who are devout followers of religions it is not clear why it is necessary to occupy the time of the legislative sessions reciting scripture, of any sort. Members can pray in their homes, in their cars, on airplanes, in their offices, or wherever, and will no doubt receive precisely the same attention and guidance from the deity or deities, as the case may be, that they would receive by collectively standing, bowing their heads in the chamber and verbalizing holy incantations.
There is no evidence to suggest that harmonized recitation of biblical passages by a multitude grants benefits not otherwise obtainable by individual prayer. There is also no evidence to suggest that the abandonment of this ritual would lead to debates and decisions in the chamber that are less than they should be without divine intervention.
In short, unless the committee can find a reason why the valuable time of those on the public payroll that should be devoted to the interests and welfare of the people of Ontario should instead be spent appealing to deities, the best solution would be to drop the thing entirely.
2. The Lord’s Prayer
This is originally a Jewish prayer that has, by custom, become associated with Christians and is now considered very much a Christian prayer. Cleary, the demographic changes in Ontario in the last 25 years would suggest that Christianity is becoming not “the religion”, but simply one of many. Even with Christianity there is a veritable Babel of differences. There are approximately 31,200 verses in the King James’ version of the Bible, but there are 38,000 Christian sects and denominations differentiating themselves from the others by emphasizing some verses of scripture to the exclusion or in preference to others.
It seems inappropriate to continue a Christian prayer to the exclusion of other religions, and since there are many sects with different creeds and dogmatic viewpoints, it is unlikely that some common prayer will cover all the bases. How could one reconcile polytheistic religions with monotheistic ones, with animists, pagans, wiccans, let alone Satanists and Scientologists?
Trying to appear even-handed in some fashion to all of these religions is a Pandora’s Box, best left out of the legislative chamber.
3. The Manner of Prayer
Collectively praying in a house of worship dedicated to holy and sacred rituals is one thing, but when prayer occurs outside of these places, particularly when reciting the Lord’s Prayer, one needs to consider Matthew 6:6. Matthew says very clearly that public prayer is hypocrisy and that the Lord’s Prayer should be recited in private. So, if the committee decides after all to recommend sustaining the Christian character of the prayer, at least perform it in accordance with Biblical rules and let the members do it in the privacy of their offices.
It is also worth considering, with respect to Christianity, that Jesus prescribed that the faithful should “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s.” He reportedly drove the money changers out of the temple to ensure this result. Does it not seem reasonable to observe this separation at Queen’s Park, which majestic as it may be, is not a temple, but is more akin to a money-changing bourse?
If the answer is to recite prayers from different religions in some rotational fashion one might want to consider the rules of those creeds regarding the appropriate manner of prayer: rules regarding the wearing of headgear, ritual washing prior to prayer, the separation of men from women, and praying in kneeling positions with foreheads pressed to the floor.
4. The Non-religious
Always the last to be considered, and when considered, not often with much respect, are the estimated 18% of the population, and growing, that have no interest in religion and would like to see the public prayer in the legislature abandoned because its continuation is a violation of the eminently sensible liberal-democratic rule of separating church and state. You may take it that the CSA speaks for this constituency, one that pays taxes, votes and has equal civil and human rights under the laws of this province and country, just exactly like the most religiously devout.
5. Messages from the people and the courts
It is widely believed that the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party initiative to fund Catholic Separate Schools led to the end of the continuous 42 years of PC government in this province, even though the other political parties signed up for it. The most recent election saw the PCs lose badly once again over proposed policies to mix religion and schools. The courts have outlawed prayer in schools and in municipal councils.
At some point, and this is as good a time as any, members of the legislature might reflect on the clear messages that are being sent from the factories, fields, farms and the courts, and get on board with the broader public view that public space and public institutions ought to be devoted to secular concerns and should not be used for the promotion of religion in any manner.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
America Won, Canada Zero -- Rachel's Law
If you have been following this blog you will know that Canada is very stressed at the moment over the issue of free speech. It is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, just as it is enshrined in the United States Constitution, as amended. But we pay lip service to it, while Americans actually believe what they say. An attempt by a Saudi billionaire to shut up an American researcher and author, Rachel Ehrenfeld, has now been thwarted by the State of New York. How fitting that the news of this should be disseminated on day in which the old Soviet Union used to celebrate the glories of communism.
The Libel Terrorism Protection Act, also known as RACHEL's LAW, signed by Governor
Albany, NY (May 1, 2008) -- New York State Governor David Paterson yesterday signed the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" (S.6687/A.9652), which on March 31 passed the state's Assembly and Senate unanimously.
Also known as Rachel's Law, the bill sponsored by Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) will protect American journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits that infringe on First Amendment rights. The bill also received unprecedented support from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.
"New Yorkers must be able to speak out on issues of public concern without living in fear that they will be sued outside the United States, under legal standards inconsistent with our First Amendment rights," said Governor Paterson. "This legislation will help ensure of the freedoms enjoyed by New York authors."
Reflecting the New York legislation's importance, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) on April 16 introduced a similar bill, the Freedom of Speech Protection Act (H.R. 5814), in the House of Represenatives.
In Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, New York State's highest court held that it was unable to protect Dr. Ehrenfeld from a British lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz. Britain's High Court ordered her to pay over $225,000 in damages and legal fees to Bin Mahfouz, apologize and destroy copies of her books.
Instead, November 2006, Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a U.S. federal court order to protect her constitutional rights. But a New York Court of Appeals ruling with national implications sent legal shockwaves throughout American newsrooms.
The New York court potentially undermined U.S. journalists' ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical support networks, when it ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction to protect Americans - on U.S. soil - from foreign defamation judgments that contradict the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Rachel's Law declares overseas defamation judgments unenforceable in New York State unless the foreign defamation law provides, in substance and application, the same free speech protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The law gives New York residents and publishers the opportunity to have their day in court.
The bill could not have passed without the expert assistance of Attorney Daniel Kornsein of New York City's Kornstein, Veisz, Wexler & Pollard, LLP. Kornstein represented Dr. Ehrenfeld in Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz.
Its supporters included First Amendment Attorneys Floyd Abrams, David Siegel, Samuel Adaby, Harvey Silverglate; the New York City Bar Association; PEN; The Authors Guild; New York D.A. Robert M. Morgenthau; Former Secretary of State George Shultz; Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey; State University of New York Counsel Nicholas Rostow; 9/11 Families for a Secure America; The Association of American Publishers; Act for America; Rabbi Aaron Raskin; New York Board of Rabbis President Joseph Potasnik; many other public officials and tens of thousands of concerned New Yorkers and Americans, especially New York business leader Lawrence Kadish and ACD Senior Fellow Alyssa A. Lappen.
"This law will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world," Lancman stated.
"The truth is a critically-important component in the War on Terror," said Senator Skelos. "This important new law will protect American authors and journalists who expose terrorist networks and their financiers."
Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau said: "Terrorism and terrorist financing are matters of vital interest to all New Yorkers, in no small part because New York City remains a target of significance for international terrorists. New York authors must have the freedom to investigate, write and publish on terrorism and other matters of public importance, subject only to limitations that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. This legislation will help to ensure such freedom."
Today, Governor Paterson declared the intention of New York State, the publishing capital of America, to safeguard the First Amendment and its courageous writers.
Rachel's Law marks an important step in Dr. Ehrenfeld's efforts to stop Arab billionaires like Khalid bin Mahfouz from attempting to silence U.S. writers who
expose Saudi terrorist funding and global radical Muslim organizations, including al Qaeda and Hamas.
Rachel's Law --- and your financial support---now make it possible for Dr. Ehrenfeld to return to court for a declaratory judgment against Mahfouz. Your generosity makes possible the continued exposue of financial jihad by courageous investigative journalists and researchers. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your financial assistance is essential to our success.
The American Center for Democracy (ACD) is a tax-deductible, non-profit organization that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations.
Your support is important to us. Thank you for helping our work to preserve democracy and freedom in America.
The Libel Terrorism Protection Act, also known as RACHEL's LAW, signed by Governor
Albany, NY (May 1, 2008) -- New York State Governor David Paterson yesterday signed the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" (S.6687/A.9652), which on March 31 passed the state's Assembly and Senate unanimously.
Also known as Rachel's Law, the bill sponsored by Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) will protect American journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits that infringe on First Amendment rights. The bill also received unprecedented support from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.
"New Yorkers must be able to speak out on issues of public concern without living in fear that they will be sued outside the United States, under legal standards inconsistent with our First Amendment rights," said Governor Paterson. "This legislation will help ensure of the freedoms enjoyed by New York authors."
Reflecting the New York legislation's importance, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) on April 16 introduced a similar bill, the Freedom of Speech Protection Act (H.R. 5814), in the House of Represenatives.
In Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, New York State's highest court held that it was unable to protect Dr. Ehrenfeld from a British lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz. Britain's High Court ordered her to pay over $225,000 in damages and legal fees to Bin Mahfouz, apologize and destroy copies of her books.
Instead, November 2006, Dr. Ehrenfeld sought a U.S. federal court order to protect her constitutional rights. But a New York Court of Appeals ruling with national implications sent legal shockwaves throughout American newsrooms.
The New York court potentially undermined U.S. journalists' ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical support networks, when it ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction to protect Americans - on U.S. soil - from foreign defamation judgments that contradict the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Rachel's Law declares overseas defamation judgments unenforceable in New York State unless the foreign defamation law provides, in substance and application, the same free speech protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The law gives New York residents and publishers the opportunity to have their day in court.
The bill could not have passed without the expert assistance of Attorney Daniel Kornsein of New York City's Kornstein, Veisz, Wexler & Pollard, LLP. Kornstein represented Dr. Ehrenfeld in Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz.
Its supporters included First Amendment Attorneys Floyd Abrams, David Siegel, Samuel Adaby, Harvey Silverglate; the New York City Bar Association; PEN; The Authors Guild; New York D.A. Robert M. Morgenthau; Former Secretary of State George Shultz; Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey; State University of New York Counsel Nicholas Rostow; 9/11 Families for a Secure America; The Association of American Publishers; Act for America; Rabbi Aaron Raskin; New York Board of Rabbis President Joseph Potasnik; many other public officials and tens of thousands of concerned New Yorkers and Americans, especially New York business leader Lawrence Kadish and ACD Senior Fellow Alyssa A. Lappen.
"This law will give New York's journalists, authors and press the protection and tools they need to continue to fearlessly expose the truth about terrorism and its enablers, and to maintain New York's place as the free speech capitol of the world," Lancman stated.
"The truth is a critically-important component in the War on Terror," said Senator Skelos. "This important new law will protect American authors and journalists who expose terrorist networks and their financiers."
Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau said: "Terrorism and terrorist financing are matters of vital interest to all New Yorkers, in no small part because New York City remains a target of significance for international terrorists. New York authors must have the freedom to investigate, write and publish on terrorism and other matters of public importance, subject only to limitations that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. This legislation will help to ensure such freedom."
Today, Governor Paterson declared the intention of New York State, the publishing capital of America, to safeguard the First Amendment and its courageous writers.
Rachel's Law marks an important step in Dr. Ehrenfeld's efforts to stop Arab billionaires like Khalid bin Mahfouz from attempting to silence U.S. writers who
expose Saudi terrorist funding and global radical Muslim organizations, including al Qaeda and Hamas.
Rachel's Law --- and your financial support---now make it possible for Dr. Ehrenfeld to return to court for a declaratory judgment against Mahfouz. Your generosity makes possible the continued exposue of financial jihad by courageous investigative journalists and researchers. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your financial assistance is essential to our success.
The American Center for Democracy (ACD) is a tax-deductible, non-profit organization that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations.
Your support is important to us. Thank you for helping our work to preserve democracy and freedom in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)