jump to navigation

mocking the Inquisitor 13 January 2008

Posted by DSM in Canada, human rights, politics.
comments closed

Ezra Levant, former publisher of the Western Standard, appeared before the bizarre pseudocourt that is the Alberta Human Rights Commission, and took them to school. Video and transcripts are available at his website; his opening statement is a thing of beauty.

For those unfamiliar with the case, you may recall that a complaint was launched regarding the Western Standard’s publication of the Dread Cartoons of Blasphemy.    In a nice move, Ezra (he’s one of those guys you think of by their first names; not sure why) republished the Dread Cartoons on his website the day he had to appear before the court.  For the record, the image of a man in a bomb-turban remains my favourite; most of the rest are bleh, and poorly drawn to boot, although I think the “we’ve run out of virgins” one is kind of funny.   (Incidentally, there’s an interesting theory that the “virgins” in question are actually “pure white grapes”.  Read up on Christophe Luxenberg’s arguments about the Syriac origins of the Qur’an.  I’ve probably mentioned this before.  I think it’s both persuasive and hilarious, and those are the best kinds of theories.)

The free speech rights of Canadians have never been more under attack than they are now — Free Mark Steyn! — but this is also a major opportunity for us to end this ludicrous charade once and for all. As Ezra told his Inquisitor:

I have no faith in this farcical commission. But I do have faith in the justice and good sense of my fellow Albertans and Canadians. I believe that the better they understand this case, the more shocked they will be. I am here under your compulsion to answer the commission’s questions. But it is not I who am on trial: it is the freedom of all Canadians.

You may start your interrogation.

The text itself doesn’t capture the sheer scorn with which each syllable drips.  There are times for courtesy, and there are times for plain anger.  This is one of those times.

The only downside I see is that now that bland Inquisitor Shirlene McGovern has become a Youtube star, it’s probably less likely that we’ll get to see Steyn do likewise.. and I’d pay heavy coin to see that.

free Mark Steyn! 22 December 2007

Posted by DSM in human rights, law, politics.
comments closed

The recent attempt by several members of the Canadian Islamic Congress to silence the inimitable Mark Steyn — not by disproving his thesis that because of demographics Islam is on the way up, of course, but by charging him with blasphemy before the Inquisition — enrages and disturbs on every level.

I don’t mean to be metaphorical. I’m entirely serious in describing this as a blasphemy prosecution, and the misnamed human rights commissions as an Inquisition. Whether he’s convicted or not is less significant than the fact there is an official body empowered to determine whether or not he’s blasphemed.

Canada has an official belief system (half-affectionately, half-derisively called the multicult), and we’re required to make obeisance or risk punishment. Our religion doesn’t have many explicit dogmas, per se, but you can still come to understand it pretty well. In classical negative theology, you come to understand God by saying what he’s not; similarly, in our new faith, you come to understand the boundaries of Accepted Truth by what people are punished for, or threatened with punishment for.

These days, no one’s worried about being fined by the government for sympathizing with the non-Chalcedonian Christology of the Coptic Orthodox. Come to think of it, you can probably count one one hand the number of members of the various Canadian HRCs who know what I’m talking about. Questionable Trinitarian theology just isn’t something they concern themselves with, and if I tried to bring a formal heresy charge against an Egyptian friend then the Commissars would laugh.

“Settle this between yourselves,” they’d say.

They’d throw out the case like Seneca’s older brother, the Roman jurist Gallio, threw out the case against St Paul where the locals claimed that Paul “persuades men to worship God contrary to the law”. (Acts 18).

Gallio interrupted before Paul even began his defence, because he wasn’t interested in handling philosophical disputes between one group of Jews (the local synagogue) and another group of Jews and assorted Gentile hangers-on (Paul and coworkers). He was only concerned with dealing with matters involving “some misdemeanor or serious crime“.

Instead, he explained, “since it involves questions about words and names and your own law—settle the latter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things.

And he kicked everyone out of the courtroom.

It’s mildly astonishing that a few words from an irritated Roman proconsul two thousand years dead show more sense than a modern nation’s enlightened political structures, but there you go. Whether you view our innovations as inventing new thoughtcrimes or as broadening the traditional exceptions to free speech beyond all sense, the end result is the same: we’ve criminalized the expression of perfectly reasonable ideas, and the space in which our thought can move and play and explore grows ever smaller.

For Steyn’s argument, right or wrong, the natural battlefield is the page, not a kangaroo court.

It’s been noted — I think by the man himself — that the complainants almost always win in these cases, and so the odds aren’t good. I’m not so sure. It may be that if we cast enough light then Steyn might be found not guilty, for fear of throwing the entire HRC project into disrepute– freedom could win by losing. I’d hope so, anyway, but the many previous attacks on free speech in Canada via the Inquisitions have generally passed unremarked, in typical Canadian style.

It’s time for that to end. All those who support free speech — right, left, centre, other — must oppose the so-called “human rights” end-run around our ancient liberties in the Friendly Dictatorship.

Free Mark Steyn, to free us all.

the offending article

if you can keep your head 5 December 2006

Posted by DSM in human rights, politics.
comments closed

One of my favourite current-events writers is the incomparable Jay Nordlinger. I like his work so much that a certain friend of mine has dryly noted that whenever I send him something Nordlinger’s written, he can tell who I’m quoting as soon as he sees the word ‘incomparable’. (Steyn, by comparison, is ‘inimitable’.)

I love his common sense, his now-why-didn’t-I-think-of-that perspective, his appreciation for language, his music reviews, and his attention to human rights causes that others ignore. He’s one of the few writers I read — only Michael Leeden, he of “faster, please” regarding democratic reform in Iran, is in the same league — who regularly pays much attention to the cause of freedom. He’s especially good about reminding everyone just how terrible a place Cuba is for those who aren’t (1) Castro lackeys, or (2) foreign tourists. It was actually through reading Nordlinger that I first discovered the brave Cuban democratic resistance, including the hero Armando Valladares, which solidified my refusal to be drafted into the drone army of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. To this day I ask myself if I should invest in copies of Against All Hope to hand out to morons wearing Che shirts in the hope they’ll learn.

(BTW, because Christmas is fast approaching, let it be known I’d kill for one of the “Che is dead — Get over it” T-shirts. Though not as many people as Guevara did. London’s awfully cramped, and I’m not sure where I’d put the bodies..)

In the best sense of the word, Nordlinger is a humanist: one concerned with the human.

In today’s Impromptus, he’s in typically fine form. I especially enjoyed his link to Rumsfeld’s appreciation of Milton Friedman (I miss them both already), and his posting of a photograph of a “a man — an extraordinarily brave one, by the evidence — dressed in a keffiyeh”, in San Francisco holding a sign which unfortunately captures a very important truth about the current situation, and isn’t nearly as unfair as it should be.

the shadow of that hyddeous strength 30 October 2006

Posted by DSM in human rights, politics, theology.
comments closed

Some buildings are very beautiful; some are very ugly. Only one that I know of actually scares me, and it’s not merely because of the architecture.

It’s the Ryugyong Hotel in Pyongyang.

I was going to write about this quite a while ago, but then by coincidence Kate mentioned it, and I didn’t want to look too derivative (cue silly memories of time spent at the Brew Pub and wondering who was going to order first so that he could order whatever he wanted).. but enough time has passed.

Jeff Harrell over at the Shape of Days has an excellent post on the subject, which I can’t improve on, and I agree completely when he writes that “[t]he Ryugyong Hotel is, in my opinion, the single most unsettling structure ever erected by the hand of man.”

I also think that the discomfort it induces is worthy of real consideration. Over a decade ago, Fr Richard John Neuhaus wrote of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, martyred at the specific command of Hitler:

Many years ago I shared a platform with a theologian who suggested that Bonhoeffer’s opposition to Nazism was essentially aesthetic; it was the ugliness of the movement that first alerted him to the movement’s evil. At the time I thought this a rather improbable hypothesis that ran the risk of diminishing the moral and intellectual dimensions of Bonhoeffer’s conviction. But in the intervening years I have come to appreciate-with no little help from studying Hans Urs von Balthasar-the inextricable entanglement of the three transcendentals-the good, the true, and the beautiful. Reflecting on Bonhoeffer in the theological journal dialog, Jean Bethke Elshtain addresses the aesthetic under the rubric of shame:

“One of the reasons Dietrich Bonhoeffer was so repulsed by Nazism was precisely because of its aberrant shamelessness. Nazi ideology dictated erasing any barrier between public and private, between that which should be open to public scrutiny and definition and that which should not. The horrific denouement of an ideology that required breaching the boundary of shame was the shamelessness of death camps where human beings were robbed of dignity, stripped of privacy, deprived, therefore, of an elemental freedom of the body in life and of the respect we accord the bodies of the dead after life is no more. Scenes of starved, naked bodies, piles and piles being shoved by bulldozers into lime pits, is a nigh inexpressible instance of shamelessness, with the dead reduced to anonymous carcasses.”

Bonhoeffer understood that the great temptation is to forget that we are not God, that we are creatures living in a world whose fragmentation cannot be overcome by our efforts.

This temptation is surrendered to completely by Juche, the official doctrine of North Korea, and the Ryugyong is truly another Babel. That Juche produced such a demonically ugly building should come as no surprise.

For me, one of the most frightening aspects of the Hotel is that tour guides won’t discuss it. Everyone can see it, everywhere in Pyongyang — it’s monstrously large — but admitting it’s there is off-limits because it’d reveal the magnitude of the state’s failure. As bad as the starvation and the poverty that the regime has produced are, as dark a place as they’ve made North Korea, when the inevitable end comes the greatest challenge will be healing the minds of the people.

The terrifying silence reminds me of the utterly brilliant novel by C.J. Cherryh (but I repeat myself), Wave Without a Shore. I picked it up on a whim from the downtown Kingston library near my house and it was shattering. From its Amazon description:

Freedom was an isolated planet, off the spaceways track and rarely visited by commercial spacers. It wasn’t that Freedom was inhospitable as planets go. The problem was that outsiders — tourists and traders — claimed the streets were crowded with mysterious characters in blue robes and with members of an alien species.

Native-born humans, however, said that was not the case. There were no such blue-robes and no aliens.

Such was the viewpoint of both Herrin the artist and Waden the autocrat– until a crisis of planetary identity forced a life-and-death confrontation between the question of reality and the reality of the question..

The story is a powerful study on the limitations of Nietzschean/Objectivist solipsism, which has a milder sister in modern relativism. It’s the journey of a man who discovers that the world is much bigger than he is, and he ultimately finds his redemption in the truth. One of my favourite contemporary philosophers, Alvin Plantinga, calls the protagonist’s original view “creative anti-realism“: the denial that there really is a world out there which is independent of us, but instead that we construct our realities based on our own perspectives.

Cherryh’s a master at exploring the social implications of a worldview, and she’s in exceptional form here, where totalitarianism and radical self-actualization meet in the denial of reality. Wave Without a Shore affected me emotionally for weeks, and forever changed the way I look at everything from poverty to the tyrants of North Korea.

It’s available in a nice anthology these days, and I recommend it to everyone.

For liberation-minded North Korea information, you can visit One Free Korea and DPRK Studies, and of course the heroic gang at Freedom House. If you haven’t already seen them, you can’t miss Artemii Lebedev‘s astonishing photographs from inside the Hermit Kingdom; an English translation of his commentary is also available.

cognitive dissonance 11 October 2006

Posted by DSM in human rights, politics.
comments closed

I read (via Pajamas Media) a report on the recent shootings by the Chinese of Tibetans crossing the Nangpa pass from Tibet to Nepal (see also here); apparently such things happen frequently, always below the radar of the nightly news.

Then I remembered a recent comment at Tim Blair’s, about someone wearing a Mao t-shirt.. and a Free Tibet badge.

Some idiocies are beyond comprehension. The sufferers don’t need persuasion so much as exorcism.