Modern Canada has two founding fathers: Pierre Trudeau who gave us the Charter of Rights, and Brian Mulroney, who gave us the GST and NAFTA. Trudeau is the architect of social Canada, Mulroney the architect of economic Canada.
Pierre Trudeau secularized (i.e., de-christianized) the country, and, through the Charter and its overlording judges, gave us a way to circumvent Parliament. Liberal anti-democrats worship him for this. Liberals can now achieve their "progressive" agendas without the Liberal Party being "on the hook" to the electorate. (If you don't believe this, watch what happens over the next three years with prostitution.) Just populate the courts with judges listing badly to the left, fund left-wing Charter challenges exclusively, and watch it all unfold. Control the courts; control the funding; blather about the sanctity of the Charter; it's really a pretty simple recipe -- and unattentive Canadians have swallowed it whole.
Trudeau is the father of social Canada. Politicans who talk about tolerance when they mean abortion, diversity when they mean denying a child one of his parents, or inclusion when they mean excluding Christianity from public life, are his children.
Canada's economy since Mulroney has thrived; Canada's social and moral condition since Trudeau has spiralled downward faster than anyone could have imagined. Liberals would disagree. To them, the social ascendancy of abortion, pornography, easy divorce, single-parenting, homosexuality, and swinging, represents progress towards some great goal.
Thankfully, yet regrettably because of the social cost, the great Liberal experiment with amorality bears within it the seeds of its own destruction; either Canada will turn again and feed from the Bread of Life, or it is toast. Bread, or toast -- the choice is ours.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Swinging Past the Tipping Point
I believe Canada reached a tipping point with the court-forced change in the definition of marriage to accommodate radical homosexual equality. A point where moral thought has been so quashed by rights-based thinking that nothing short of divine aid can restore Canada's collective mind to something that could be considered moral.
We zipped on past the tipping point this week when the Supreme Court, using words such as diverse, tolerant, vibrant, and generous, legalized commercial (or, as Jack Layton likes to spit out, "for profit") swinging clubs. Using the word "generous" turns our newfound tolerance of swinging into a virtue. As someone pointed out, when a Supreme Court justice uses such words to describe acceptance of swinging, the words have no meaning. It is just judicial fluff most likely reflecting the judges' own positive view of themselves. ("Look at how generous we are, Canada!") Words such as "apathetic", or "indifferent", or "amoral" would have been more to the point. On the flip-side they suggested that opposition to swinging is rooted in "prejudice", so I guess the real message from the bench is "we're generous -- you're not!".
Well, if you want "generous", two can play at that game. Let's up the ante. "I'll call your swinging and raise you bestiality and marriage-rights rooted in pedophilia". (At least I would be applying the Court's own sexual orientation doctrine consistently across all sexual orientations.) "Take that, Supreme Court prudes! The state has no place in the bedrooms, clubs, or farms of our nation!
I do thank God for the two members of the court that saw the folly of this noxious ruling. Two among nine who apparently survived the moral lobotomy that apparently comes with appointment to these Courts.
We zipped on past the tipping point this week when the Supreme Court, using words such as diverse, tolerant, vibrant, and generous, legalized commercial (or, as Jack Layton likes to spit out, "for profit") swinging clubs. Using the word "generous" turns our newfound tolerance of swinging into a virtue. As someone pointed out, when a Supreme Court justice uses such words to describe acceptance of swinging, the words have no meaning. It is just judicial fluff most likely reflecting the judges' own positive view of themselves. ("Look at how generous we are, Canada!") Words such as "apathetic", or "indifferent", or "amoral" would have been more to the point. On the flip-side they suggested that opposition to swinging is rooted in "prejudice", so I guess the real message from the bench is "we're generous -- you're not!".
Well, if you want "generous", two can play at that game. Let's up the ante. "I'll call your swinging and raise you bestiality and marriage-rights rooted in pedophilia". (At least I would be applying the Court's own sexual orientation doctrine consistently across all sexual orientations.) "Take that, Supreme Court prudes! The state has no place in the bedrooms, clubs, or farms of our nation!
I do thank God for the two members of the court that saw the folly of this noxious ruling. Two among nine who apparently survived the moral lobotomy that apparently comes with appointment to these Courts.
The Goodale Affair - Chump Change
New Years' Eve polls show the Canadian Conservatives and the Liberals in a dead-heat, due, apparently, to the effects of the RCMP investigation into Ralph Goodale's Ministry of Finance. The unproven Goodale affair is one-off chump-change compared with the sustained and proven criminal activities associated with Adscam. It's a bit distressing to think that Goodalegate could have a bigger effect on voters than Adscam.
Hello!
December 31st, 2005. The fire is burning in the fireplace. And, with the press of an "Enter" key, a new blog is set ablaze!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)