Not selectively bestowed by pandering politicians and underachieving bureaucrats.
So said Eleanor Roosevelt, a champion for universal human rights back in the day when the left still believed in the idea, believed such rights were innate, were morally superior to cruelty and ignorance and barbarism, were worth fighting and dying to preserve, protect and extend to every man, woman and child on earth. Today she is quoted by free people sneered at as racists for refusing to endorse the submission of women made evident in sexual-mutilation and child “marriage”, refusing to accept apartheid law in place of common law, refusing to accept medieval sumptuary law in place of self-expression or blasphemy law for freedom of speech. Most grotesque of all, dismissed as racists by neo-Nazis and their allies and their apologists for the new crime of opposing genocidal anti-Semitism; this in living memory of the Holocaust.
We don’t have to worry here in Trudeaupia.
We have numerous Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals and smarter-than-us experts to protect us and tell us how and what to think.
Part 1
http://tinyurl.com/52zo8r
Part 2
http://tinyurl.com/4urbrh
Yes, and what has that to do with the price fo rice in China??
Fred: Those CHRC video send ups are a scream!!
In german the comment on those CHRC video send ups would be:
“Sie sind ja Alle zum schiessen!”
Literal translation:
“You should all be shot!”
Colliquial translation:
“You are all hilarious!”
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Hans,
What gives with all of that schmootz you write after your signature? In addition to ‘The Caramilk Secret’, this is one thing that’s always troubled me.
Eskimo
My long dead Grandmother had the opportunity to speak with Eleanor Roosevelt back in the ’50’s when she was touring Southern Ontario. Grandma was a strict Scots person that put up with no guff wahtsoever.
After meeting and speaking with her in Woodstock Ontario ( New St. Pauls Anglican Church ) she appeared to soften her attitude regarding others and always was proud of the fact that she had met and spoken with such a celebrity.
They shared tea together and I am now the proud
recipient of Mrs. Roosevelt’s cup from which she drank.
This of course means absolutely nothing to the subject at hand but I felt the need to express it.
Sorry if I bored anyone.
Malcolm Cross:
“Boring”….. surely you jest. You want boring? Go read Kinsella’s blog.
“no-one can make you feel inferior withour your permission”.
here’s a decision where the Sask Human Rights Commission awarded $2,500 to a same sex couple for ‘hurt feelings’ after a marraige commissioner refused to marry them. The marriage commissioner has been order to pay this personally.
“no-one can make you feel inferior withour your permission”.
here’s a decision where the Sask Human Rights Commission awarded $2,500 to a same sex couple for ‘hurt feelings’ after a marraige commissioner refused to marry them. The marriage commissioner has been order to pay this personally.
“no-one can make you feel inferior withour your permission”.
here’s a decision where the Sask Human Rights Commission awarded $2,500 to a same sex couple for ‘hurt feelings’ after a marraige commissioner refused to marry them. The marriage commissioner has been order to pay this personally.
http://www.saskhrt.ca/forms/index/Descisions/05232008.htm
Bushman, that just can’t be true. After all, we were assured no such repercussions would result from same sex marriage legislation.
Say it ain’t so.
from the article linked: My rights are granted by God and a firm resolve, not some Dark Ages fever dream…
My rights are not *granted* by anyone–God included. They are mine, pure and simple because *I* say so.
I am a human being and my life is my own. I am no one’s property and no one’s rightful subject (my allegiance is mine to withhold or bestow), and I am likewise subject to no deity or deities.
The problem with many who oppose free speech is that they have been told for years that we must be tolerant towards others and to do otherwise is a sure sign that you are racist,homophobic,islamaphobic,etc. Those labels are the worst thing possible that could be put upon the typical socialist. So to avoid this,they open their arms to everyone,including the evil that may be there. Canada has freedom of religion,but that does not necessarily mean all religions should be accepted here. The left cannot make that distinction,therefore if you oppose a religion or gay marriage,you are intolerant and should be persecuted for your beliefs.It is an upside down country that the lefties live in.
Religious organizations make no claim to speak for or to protect the interests of anyone but their adherents. Consequently the withholding of marriage as a religious sacrament is properly up to the decision of the religious body.
The State, however, does claim to speak for, represent and protect the interests of *all* citizens. Consequently, the State and its agents (marriage commissioners, for a relevant example) should not be able to discriminate when it comes to withholding or allowing marriage as a *civil* arrangement between consenting adult citizens.
The State should just get out of the marriage business.
Further on the same point, and quoting kate:
Not selectively bestowed by pandering politicians and underachieving bureaucrats.
Exactly.
Marriage as a civil arrangement, if it is a right for some, should be a right for all–it should not be “selectively bestowed by pandering politicians and underachieving bureaucrats”.
A perfect example.
Ron Good:
*sigh*
The institution of marriage was not given special status by governments or societies for the benefits of the participants, but for the good of society: marriage was a special status conferred to a man and woman, as were tax credits, child tax credits, public education etc. in order to encourage hetero couples procreate and have children. This is because it is in the best interest of the state that an increase in births means more citizens to function and keep the country working. Less babies = less production, less taxpayers, and soon you have what europe is seeing: dwindling countries with 1 point whatever birthrates per couple, that may cease to exist as we know them today in two or three more generations.
Furthermore, marriage is not a “human right”. Period. Go check your 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights and advise immediately where it mentions marriage as a human right. Don’t bother; it’s not in there.
Marriage is a societal custom. In addition to the state’s wanting marriage to produce more citizens, it was always society’s belief that the best atmosphere to raise a child was with a stable family with one father and one mother; hence another reason for promoting marriage between a man and a woman. The goal, again, was not for the participants’ benefit, but for the children produced by that union.
Thus, the idea of same sex “marriage” is truly one of the largest canards in modern society. Same sex unions (which most folks had no problems recognizing) cannot be equal to hetero marriage, because, ipso facto, they cannot produce children. And no amount of leftwing or gay rights wailing, hetero-bashing, homophobia namecalling or human rights tribunals can alter that simple fact.
They. Are. Not. Equal.
Period. And thus, they should not be recognized as such. When you start randomly assigning “rights” (so-called) to people based on behaviour, as opposed to, say, skin colour, then all manner of unintended consequences may occur. To wit, look at the creeping legalization of polygamy in canada, which the SSM crowd always scoffed, “Oh come OFF it, man! Just because we want to get married doesn’t mean a straight male can have multiple wives”.
Pah. When you don’t dictate the gender of the participants, then who can balk on the number of them? As we’re seeing today.
I’m anxiously awaiting the day when these HRC’s have the arrogance to force a religious institution to “marry” a same-sex couple. That just might be the tipping point for the whole pathetic issue.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
mhb23re:
Re:
I think we both agree there are other and better reasons for the HRCs to disappear quickly, even if they don’t get that stupid. I’d be as upset as you were they to do that. But that’s concerning marriage as a religious sacrament.
We’re talking “marriage” as a civil contract here. So:
As for marriage as a “right”, well, I agree that as a human right as opposed to a legal permission, it doesn’t exist (for gay *or* straight folks), but it is still my overall position that the State is incompetent and unethical when it comes to social engineering, and–in any case–it is improper for the State to discriminate in its provision of services and benefits, regardless of the reason.
re:
I’m not a socialist, nor any other type of collectivist. I don’t care why married straight folks were given special status. I don’t see people as means to my ends–or yours–or the State’s, which is to say that I see people as much more than baby-making fodder to keep the State going. I see people as individuals; as long as we’re talking consenting adults here, their personal sexual or romantic arrangements are not my proper concern.
If you want to pay people extra to couple up and have babies, feel free to do so, and you might even have good reasons to do so–but that’s not a good enough reason to tax single people, or LGBT folks to a greater degree than hetero couples, nor to confer special tax-related benefits to heterosexual married people.
Your wish for special status for people choosing a particular class of living arrangements is just that: your wish. It is certainly not my command.
Gay rights have nothing to do with it; individual rights do. My wallet is not properly held at the ready to suit your purposes, as noble as you might claim them to be.
In other words, I’m not talking like the lefty here–you are–and specifically so with your “good of society”, “best interest of the State” and “for the children” comments.
And what do we do about barren couples, say even barren couples that know before marriage that they can’t procreate? Why, according to your logic, should such couples enjoy *any* special economic benefit? By your standards, they would be as pointless, as counter-productive, as gay married couples. Me, I just don’t think it’s my business. Or the State’s.
Re:
What proper business is that of the government? And who would *you* be to dictate that?
Re:
Do you really look to the UN for the what’s what on human rights? That makes *me* sigh.
Well said mhb.
[quote]Bushman, that just can’t be true. After all, we were assured no such repercussions would result from same sex marriage legislation.
Say it ain’t so. [/quote]
Shamrock,
Not all things are as they seem! The creeping crude CHRC has a role in the hidden agenda for the First Nations. The Indians, of course, don’t deserve the real rule of Law. The CHRC Tribunals are a quick & dirty way of changing tribal dynamics. The Chiefs may be fooled for a while but another apology is in the near future. The discrimination resulting from those laws are self-evident.
I firmly believe we are all created equal…Children are born without guilt, they are born with Pride, they are born with self-confidence. It is an unequal Society that changes all those dynamics.
Canada must abolish the Indian Act. It would not change the economic support structure or the Cultural connection of First Nations. It does remove the quasi self Government notion of a People that are totally dependant on the good-will & wisdom of “OTHER” Canadians. The “Other” Canadians also deserve an apology, from the Government, for the failed & wasted resources on what were, and continue to be, colonial discrimination.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, is written in stone.
Ron Good:
“We’re talking “marriage” as a civil contract here”
No, sir, “we’re” not. You are. But in case I’m mistaken, please clarify if you equate the significance of a marriage contract with the piece of paper you sign for your car lease, or the bank loan to renovate your basement?
If not, then perhaps you’ll agree that marriage, legal contractuality notwithstanding, has a far higher and more important purpose in terms of the healthy upbringing and caring for children and the healthy advancement of society.
If not, I need waste no further time on you.
“I don’t see people as means to my ends–or yours–or the State’s, which is to say that I see people as much more than baby-making fodder to keep the State going”
Good for you. Perhaps you’re equally insouciant about an utterly failed canuck immigration policy, that grants citizen’s rights to phony refugee claimants (therefore overburdening our altogether-stressed social systems), reunifies entire multigeneraltional families (accomplishing the same), and makes legitimate immigrants – those with the skills, knowledge and desire to live here and improve the country – atrophy at the end of the line. A policy that actually loses track of 30,000 “refugees” (and amongst them, who knows how many criminals and undesirables). So what, eh? What’s the relevance? It’s relevant because if we as a nation were able to increase our population through the birthing of new canadians, we would be less reliant upon unchecked immigration to function as a society, and thus could veto those with questionable backgrounds and deport others who would harm the country. Well, at least the Conservatives would; the liberals would still need vote-buying schemes to stay in power and keep on with (as David Warren sublimely puts it) “the devil’s work”.
As for the benefits of homespun population increase via “baby making fodder” versus unchecked immigration, look to the dying european countries such as england, germany and france for current examples. France, in fact, has relied so much upon uneducated islamic immigration they have – if you recall – had the unfortunate circumstance of dealing with rioting and arson-prone disenfranchised “youths” of a particular but discreetly unmentioned religion. Here’s a fun thought: what about a betting pool to determine which euro-nation in the 21st century is the first to implement sharia law ?
I suggest you do a bit of reading in this area to give you some interesting real-life education here; this would be a great start.
“but that’s not a good enough reason to tax single people, or LGBT folks to a greater degree than hetero couples, nor to confer special tax-related benefits to heterosexual married people. Your wish for special status for people choosing a particular class of living arrangements is just that: your wish. It is certainly not my command.”
Er, actually it IS your command moreso than my “wish”; governments have been providing tax incentives for hetero couples to marry for aeons. Perhaps the canuck taxation model is a relevant topic for parliamentary debate, alongside complete and radical reform of our immigration policies as noted above.
“Gay rights have nothing to do with it; individual rights do. My wallet is not properly held at the ready to suit your purposes, as noble as you might claim them to be”
Are you entirely innocent of current affairs in canada? Of all “minority rights”, gay “rights” trump all, and the least sanctified “right” in canada is – ironically – also the most important: the right of the individual. That’s why there is no freedom of speech in canada allowing you to object to the gay agenda (ask Scott Brockie, Fred Henry, Stephen Boisson, et al), or to even quote radical islamic imams in a privately run publication (Steyn & Macleans). As for “your wallet”, wake up, man. Government sponsored political correctness is using your tax dollars to teach young schoolchildren about homosexuality, fund “PRIDE” parades, and use a totalitarian star chamberish Human Rights “Commission” to break the law whilst witch-hunting supposedly free canadians for exercising their pathetic “right” of free speech, feeble as it is.
Who do you think is paying for that, Ron? I say as a kindness without trying to appear snide, but perhaps you should blog less and read more.
“What proper business is that of the government? And who would *you* be to dictate that?”
Ron, don’t be a doofus, okay? You appear to be smarter than that last comment would indicate.
Society has accepted and promoted heterosexual marriage for thousands of years, again with the goal of providing a stable family for children that consists of one father, and one mother. This was done not because everyone wanted to be “nasty” to the same-sex minority, but for the good and continuence of society. Long before transatlantic steamers and flight, countries literally lived and died by their birthrates and not through unlimited immigration. Thus, promoting a system that increased the population in a successful manner was in everyone’s good; regrettably, until the liberals successfully impregnate a male (doubtless some university is wasting tax dollars researching it) the ability to increase population is the exclusive domain of a hetero marriage, and one reason why it has had exclusivity over the name, at least until the liberals sleazed their way out of that with the SSM “debate”. Traditional marriage was quite satisfactory for the introducing and raising of children in this country for hundreds of years. True, only recently did it run in opposition to the monumental demands of the gay lobby, but thousands of years of social patterning and customs speak for themselves. It was the idiotic liberal courts of Ontario that, in their staggering hubris, ruled against Nature itself in asserting it was possible for a child to have two mothers, while both common sense and grade-school level biology suggest this ruling should be used as toilet tissue in the judges’ commode.
But to your point, Ron, do YOU think it’s cool for a child to have two mommies, or daddies, or multiples of each or some other permutation thereof? If so, then no need to reply as it’s pointless to debate you. But remember one thing: with all the liberalized social engineering and systemtic dismantling of the traditional family, we won’t know the true impact until one or two generations hence; the jury is still out.
Incidentally, I noted the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights merely as a reference as lefties tend to submit to the will of the UN in most things social or international. With the current hypocrisy, child sex scandals, Oil-For-Food scandal and other corruption ad infinitum at the UN I subscribe to the John Bolton philosophy regarding Turtle Bay: you could lop off the top 10 floors of the UN building and never notice the difference.
But thanks, Ron-O, for the great laugh I had at your sneer that I’m a “lefty”! Google my posts at SDA and you’ll see I’m to the right of George Bush and 90% of the Republican party, not to mention likely 95% of the Conservative Party of Canada.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
mhr, I just re-read this of yours:
You’re correct, of course. Married heterosexual couples have been granted special benefits based on their behaviour–and now, other people want the same “rights” too.
As you noted: unintended consequences.
mhb:
Thanks for the friendly and thoughtful response. You’ll get the same from me.
I’m not religious but, no, not at all. I would hope that marriage always would reflect the depth of love and commitment shared by, for example, my parents–but lots of married people (of any gender) don’t see it that way, even regardless of oaths taken or promises made.
In any case, I still think the government ought to get out the marriage business; I don’t think it’s the government’s place to extend special financial benefits to any living arrangements. Actually, there’s lots of business the State ought to get out of. Which leads to…
No. I’m not insouciant about individual rights or our immigration policy. Current immigration policies are suicidal for our culture–but not because of immigrants. The suicide is related to our failure to rigourously protect our British common law/classical liberal heritage, and because of the ability of immigrants to live at the expense of other people once they get here. Immigrants ought to be told that, welcome as they might be, they will be expected to fend for themselves and to accept and expect help only from those who choose to provide the assistance.
But that’s not limited to immigrants; multi-generational Canadians abuse and over-use “social programs” and ride roughshod on our heritage of liberty every bit as much as immigrants.
I have no preference between population increase by immigration or domestic child-rearing. I have nothing against kids or foreigners, but the root cause of our low domestic birth-rate, in my view, is much more because we’ve trashed our economy (almost exactly parallel to the degree we have adopted socialism–see von Mises for the mechanics of that decline) to the point that essentially all adults wishing to raise children have to work away from the home just to maintain a comfortable standard of living. That makes larger families out of the question for most folks, and tragically cripples the stability and level of familial care provided to children as well. As Bastiat described, Canada has become just another “great fiction through which everyone tries to live off everyone else.”
I think it’s cool for a child to have a good, caring and responsible family and, actually, I do think it’s generally better for children to have a stable traditional family–but many children don’t get that, and I’d vastly prefer those kids to be raised by loving gay parents or even in other unusually extended family situations than I would see them raised in institutional settings like orphanages or quasi-familial “group homes”. Besides, I’ve lived long enough and known enough people to know that some straight couples can fail miserably when raising children and that some gay parents, for example, can do a great job. Although it doesn’t reference anyone I know personally, this short clip does illustrate what I have seen.
All legitimate human rights are individual rights, and morality is not a numbers game where something wrong for one becomes magically right when a mob of some certain size does it. And so gays ought not to get treatment different than any other advocacy group in schools; they can spend their own dollars to talk about Pride parades. I will say I think it would be stupid not to “teach young schoolchildren *about* homosexuality“, it exists–not to recommend, but to merely inform. I would also hope that the lessons include messages about tolerance because nothing was ever gained by the wholesale character assassination and outright advocacy of disgust and revulsion spread in the past by only some educators in the past, and that’s *if* it was mentioned at all. There are, after all, any number of other more important human characteristics to use when deciding a persons moral worth than who they choose to love.
It’s interesting to note (as Ezra has acknowledged) that Gilles Marchildon of Quebec’s gay advocacy group, Egale, has written unequivocally on the side of freedom of expression for Boisson and others, writing:
Xtra has written similar regarding other offensive radical gay tactics, as have others.
Finally, you’re welcome for the laugh. I didn’t call you a lefty, actually–I said you were talking like one, and I provided my quoted reasons. This last response of yours, though, I really appreciate. As it happens I likewise see myself as “right of George Bush and 90% of the Republican party, not to mention likely 95% of the Conservative Party of Canada” but it might be for some different reasons.
And I read lots 😉
bad link…my html-fu was terrible and I am ashamed.
Von Mises here.