Recommended Reading – Tuesday, February 28th
Supreme Court Puts The Final Nail In The Coffin of Religious Freedom (National Post)
“God speaks plainly; Supreme Court justices speak legalese. They’re different languages. If one looks for an innocent explanation of why the Ottawa Nine ruled as they did last Friday in S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, this may be it — though the real reasons are probably a little more complex or sinister.
Without blinking, the full court held that it’s okay for Quebec’s education minister to compel believers to describe God to their children, not as they see him, but as non-believers do. It does no injury to their Charter guarantee of religious freedom.
Hmm. What exactly is religious freedom, if it isn’t teaching God to your children as you see him? The justices didn’t say.” (Click here for the rest of the article)
Have We Reached The Tipping Point on Abortion? (MercatorNet)
“From 1917 to 1991, for more than 80 years, Russia was ruled by an ideology of oppression which paraded as a beacon of liberation. But within 40 years, the masquerade was over, even if the misery remained. Novels like Dr Zhivago, by Boris Pasternak; One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; or Life and Fate, by Vasily Grossman, exposed the Soviet system for what it was, a band of thuggish mummified old toads lying to the people they governed. It took another 30 years to shake off Communism despots, but their ideology was dead.
Events last week suggest that we may have reached a similar tipping point with the ideology of abortion. Nearly 40 years ago Roe v. Wade pressed a button which opened the floodgates in the US and around the world. Now legalised abortion is being exposed as a republic of lies governed by another band of toads.” (Click here for the rest of the article)
The Perversion of Rights (National Review)
“For most of the last five years, I’ve been battling Canada’s so-called “human rights” commissions, and similar thought police in Britain, Europe, and elsewhere. As I write this, I’m in Australia, to talk up the cause of free speech, which is, alas, endangered even in that great land. In that sense, the “latest hot topic” — the clash between Obama and American Catholics — is, in fact, a perfect distillation of the broader struggle in the West today. When it comes to human rights, I go back to 1215 and Magna Carta — or, to give it its full name, Magna CartaLibertatum. My italics: I don’t think they had them back in 1215. But they understood that “libertatum” is the word that matters. Back then, “human rights” were rights of humans, of individuals — and restraints upon the king: They’re the rights that matter: limitations upon kingly power. Eight centuries later, we have entirely inverted the principle: “Rights” are now gifts that a benign king graciously showers upon his subjects — the right to “free” health care, to affordable housing, the “right of access to a free placement service” (to quote the European Constitution’s “rights” for workers). The Democratic National Committee understands the new school of rights very well: In its recent video, Obama’s bureaucratic edict is upgraded into the “right to contraception coverage at no additional cost.” And, up against a “human right” as basic as that, how can such peripheral rights as freedom of conscience possibly compete?
The transformation of “human rights” from restraints upon state power into a pretext for state power is nicely encapsulated in the language of Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which states that everyone has the right “to receive free compulsory education.” Got that? You have the human right to be forced to do something by the government.” (Click here for the rest of the article)
Give Me Free Stuff (Gods of the Copybook)
“The numbers here are indeed shocking. University tuition in la belle province is currently averaging about $2,200 a year. Much lower than in other provinces. Under the heartless cuts of the noted right-wing extremist Jean Charest, that figure threatens to rise to an astronomical $3,800 a year. These increases are set to be implemented over the next five years, so most of the current students will never pay the full $3,800.
This being a right-wing blog let’s do a small amount of math. Not too much. It’s early in the morning and Publius has to go work soon. Now the minimum wage in Quebec is $9.65 an hour. Not quite the princely $10.25 in Dalton’s McGuinty’s Ontario, but it’s something. So if we take $3,800 and divide by $9.65 we find the number 393.78. That would be the number of hours you would have to work at minimum wage to pay for a year’s tuition. That’s about 10 weeks working full time. Sure there are required deductions you need to factor in, but this is a rough estimate. Not a negligible sum, nor an extravagant one either. Universities tend to end their final exams in mid-May, starting up classes again in early September. That’s more than 10 weeks.
A disproportionate number of university students come from middle class homes. Many of those homes have two incomes, two cars, internet connections and flat screen TVs. University tuition is not means tested in Quebec and special bursaries are granted to those with low-incomes. Demanding cheap university tuition is essentially a bribe to middle class voters, charging them less than they can pay, while charging poor students perhaps more than they can afford” (Click here for the rest of the article)
The ‘Fairness’ Fraud (Thomas Sowell)
“During a recent Fox News Channel debate about the Obama administration’s tax policies, Democrat Bob Beckel raised the issue of “fairness.”
He pointed out that a child born to a poor woman in the Bronx enters the world with far worse prospects than a child born to an affluent couple in Connecticut.
No one can deny that. The relevant question, however, is: How does allowing politicians to take more money in taxes from successful people, to squander in ways that will improve their own reelection prospects, make anything more “fair” for others?
Even if additional tax revenue all went to poor single mothers — which it will not — the multiple problems of children raised by poor single mothers would not be cured by throwing money at them. Indeed, the skyrocketing of unwed motherhood began when government welfare programs began throwing money at teenage girls who got pregnant.
Children born and raised without fathers are a major problem to society and to themselves. There is nothing “fair” about increasing the number of such children.” (Click here for the rest of the article)