"The long-term aim is to strip people of what are deemed their barbaric cultural affiliations, religious exclusionism, customs, laws, etc., and end up with a universal mass of citizens equally tolerant of each other, simply enjoying, but no longer worshipping or venerating, their own cultures."

           The English-speaking democracies, among others, have not yet awakened to the realization that a policy of wholesale accommodation to the conflicting customs and beliefs of all people, especially tribal people, is only working in one direction: it is dissolving traditional Western customs, standards, and values (for this, read: Christian values, and in the case of North America, and other democracies spawned by England, the entire historical framework of morality, custom and law inherited from a thousand years of Anglo-Saxon history). Whether allowing Turbans and Kirpans for Sikhs, or polygamy and shari’ah law for Muslims, or the outrageous land-claims and law-breaking of native peoples, this giving-way policy has the potential to erode the standard of toleration itself: watch for a vicious backlash from people frightened to see their cultural and moral standards disappearing forever, replaced by alien ones. And note also the recent publication - long overdue, and very close to the mark - of the book, "Liberal Fascism," which makes the case that despite the public promotion of differences, we are today half-slaves to massive egalitarian welfare states under which we put up with overbearing levels of control and regulation.

           What is unusual historically, and not a little puzzling, is to see all this top-down control mixed with such a fawning official accommodation of different cultures. The question is: How do we make sense of the fact that the liberal-democratic nations of the West have thrown themselves so completely into what seems the contradictory project of tolerating all differences even as we standardize, equalize, and over-regulate our citizens. How can we have both?

             The explanation, I believe, is that we are in the midst of a universalist revolution that began in the late 1960s and is continuing, powered by the idea that egalitarianism must be made to work not only within nations, but among all people's of the world. That is why Canada's former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said (and I disagree) that "it doesn't matter where the immigrants come from." But it actually matters a lot, because the underlying belief systems of different cultures are often so fundamentally opposed on basic moral, legal, economic, and theological principles that they cannot survive as different cultures once their core beliefs are eroded. The result is that under the egalitarian ethos – especially one in which all cultural differences are publicly funded - they discover too late that they have been thrown into a competition with each other and against the host culture for cultural dominance on every front.

             So it is tempting to conclude that the extreme cultural toleration shown today by our own core liberal culture is actually its last gasp. But in reality it is a strategic process for grooming citizens of the world for the egalitarian utopia by attempting to equalize, and thus neutralize, their real differences. Which is to say, it is a strategy for making everyone a liberal by first equalizing cultural and moral differences, making all differences equally valid, so that in the end we will have only a single people obedient to the same culturally-neutral regulations, controls, codes of human rights, etc., etc.

              That is why the first step for the dominant culture is to weaken its own "hegemonic" power.  Among the tools required for this, is the trivialization of historical, cultural, religious, and ethnic symbols and practices. The long-term aim is to strip people of what are deemed their barbaric cultural affiliations, religious exclusionism, customs, laws, etc., and end up with a universal mass of citizens equally tolerant of each other, simply enjoying, but no longer worshipping or venerating, their own cultures. We are to have a world in which the usual symbols of culture, nation, people, custom, and the like, are no longer powerful motivating forces that citizens would happily die to protect, but rather, they have become transformed into something portable, that can be put on or taken off at will, for the moment. Cultural symbols are to become so interchangeable, so mixed together, and so varied that they lose their psychological and religious hold. The cross, the moon, the turban, the yarmulke, the dreadlocks, and so on, will be fascinating cultural trinkets, embellishments, or decorations, up front and highly visible at malls and other popular gathering places where citizens of the world may enjoy Western sausage and pancakes for breakfast, Arabic cous-cous for lunch, and a Thai salad for dinner, all just another choice on the menu of life, items for consumption. Window-shopping is energetically encouraged, as long as there is no intent on buying.

             From another perspective what we are witnessing is in large measure the fallout of international capitalism spewing forth from its cornucopia a smorgasbord of commodified cultures for easy consumption. But deep underneath is the force moving it all: moral relativism, a visceral repugnance for religious thinking, and hence a near fanatical secularism, widely evangelized, which, while it seems at first to be anti-western, is nevertheless rooted in a core Western ideal: the Christian ideal of accommodation of the enemy.

            So from an even larger perspective, the sort of international secular tolerance now preached by all the liberal democracies is really a negative form of aggression; it is a philosophy of cultural disarmament for everyone, that is nevertheless promoted on distinctively Western universalizing terms: let us all lay down our cultural arms and follow radical secularism, egalitarianism, anti-theism, moral relativism, modern liberalism, “multiculturalism,” and so on. In other words, what is presented as a policy of universal cultural tolerance is in fact an aggressive policy aimed at defanging our opponents by asking them to remove the particulars of their own warring cultures, and accept the universalizing generalities of our own.

         When we were a sincere faith civilization, that was a clever strategy – you love the enemy in order to win him over. But in a secular age, especially when the enemy has no intention of surrendering to your way of life, when he prefers real theism to a secular religion, it amounts to handing over your weapons.

In the comment below, J.L. Harrison writes that Andy Rooney has denied making this speech and decried it as racist.  I haven't verified that yet. But I will take his name off it today and check it out.  Meanwhile, I think the "racist" epithet is getting way overused just to shut up those with whom one happens to disagree. That technique is what the Germans call Denkverboten - the forbidding of thought. Some of these remarks may make a few people feel uncomfortable. But there is no law against that if what is said is true.  The last time I made what I thought was an innocent remark about the amazing differences between the sexes, an irate feminist stood up and said my comment was "sexist." I replied that it's not sexist if it's true; it's just an observation.

The speech below is about America. But I am posting it because I think it is a stirring reminder of the feisty spirit we have lost in Canada, too. I love the gutsiness of it. It seems like the writer has caught the voice of ordinary citizens, and so I give thanks to the www., because if "there is a change a comin'," passing around such heartfelt comments to each other, instead of waiting around for the sanctimonious dictates or prohibitions of socialist academics, leftie judges, and self-important media types, is what is going to make it happen. So do your part 
                                                         

                                                                                                    ~

I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except
numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory
are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black
Entertainment Television, and Miss Black America. Try to have things
like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White
Entertainment Television, or Miss White America; and see what
happens...Jesse Jackson will be knocking down your door.

Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You
can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to
ban you from driving to the ball game.

I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, which is why
there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! ARE YOU
LISTENING MARTHA BURKE?

I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia,
it is an opinion.

I have the right 'NOT' to be tolerant of others because they are
different, weird, or tick me off.

When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70%
of the population is black, that is not racial profiling; it is the
Law of Probability.

I believe that if you are selling me a milkshake, a pack of
cigarettes, a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As
a matter of fact, if you want to be an American citizen, you should
have to speak English!

My father and grandfather didn't die in vain so you can leave the
countries you were born in to come over and disrespect ours.

I think the police should have every right to shoot you if you
threaten them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the
word 'freeze' or 'stop' in English, see the above lines.

I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you are
qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank
loans or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop,
trinket store, or any other business.

We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our
lives in wars to defend their freedoms, so that decades later they
could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living
document; and open to their interpretations.

I don't hate the rich I don't pity the poor

I know pro wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television. That
doesn't stop you from watching them.

I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and
continue to make more. If it ticks you off, go and invent the next
operating system that's better, and put your name on the building.

It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does
take a parent to stand up to the kid; and smack their little behinds
when necessary, and say 'NO!'

I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please
don't pretend they are a political statement. And, please, stay home
until that new lip ring heals. I don't want to look at your ugly
infected mouth as you serve me French fries!

I am sick of 'Political Correctness.' I know a lot of black people,
and not a single one of them was born in Africa; so how can they be
'African-Americans'? Besides, Africa is a continent. I don't go around
saying I am a European-American because my great, great, great, great,
great, great grandfather was from Europe. I am proud to be from
America and nowhere else

And if you don't like my point of view, tough...

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND
TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD,
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL! And what about
CANADIANS-We feel the same. Bravo for the Canadians too!!!

I was asked to send this on if I agree or delete if I don't. It is
said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very
hard time understanding why there is such a problem in having 'In God
We Trust' on our money and having 'God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Why don't we just tell the 14% to BE QUIET!!!

If you agree, pass this on, if not delete.

Opening remarks by Ezra Levant, at his Interrogation by the Alberta Human Rights Commission

January 11, 2008 – Calgary

 My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government interrogation begins, I will make a statement. When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, ezralevant.com. I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats “the commission” or “the hrc”, since to call the commission a “human rights commission” is to destroy the meaning of those words. I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam. So much for the separation of mosque and state. I have read the past few years’ worth of decisions from this commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a male hair salon student complained that he was called a “loser” by the girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this. Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900. In other words, the commission is a joke – it’s the Alberta equivalent of a U.S. television pseudo-court like Judge Judy – except that Judge Judy actually was a judge, whereas none of the commission’s panellists are judges, and some aren’t even lawyers. And, unlike the commission, Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech.

It’s bad enough that this sick joke is being wreaked on hair salons and restaurants. But it’s even worse now that the commissions are attacking free speech. That’s my first point: the commissions have leapt out of the small cage they were confined to, and are now attacking our fundamental freedoms. As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, a man who helped form these commissions in the 60’s and 70’s, wrote, in specific reference to our magazine, being a censor is, quote, “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons.” Unquote. Since the commission is so obviously out of control, he said quote “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation.” Unquote.

The commission has no legal authority to act as censor. It is not in their statutory authority. They’re just making it up – even Alan Borovoy says so.

But even if the commissions had some statutory fig leaf for their attempts at political and religious censorship, it would still be unlawful and unconstitutional.

We have a heritage of free speech that we inherited from Great Britain that goes back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta. We have a heritage of eight hundred years of British common law protection for speech, augmented by 250 years of common law in Canada.

That common law has been restated in various fundamental documents, especially since the Second World War.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights guaranteed, quote

1. “ human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

( c ) freedom of religion; ( d ) freedom of speech; ( e ) freedom of assembly and association; and ( f ) freedom of the press.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed, quote:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Those were even called “fundamental freedoms” – to give them extra importance.

For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.

It is also deeply procedurally one-sided and unjust. The complainant – in this case, a radical Muslim imam, who was trained at an officially anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, and who has called for sharia law to govern Canada – doesn’t have to pay a penny; Alberta taxpayers pay for the prosecution of the complaint against me. The victims of the complaints, like the Western Standard, have to pay for their own lawyers from their own pockets. Even if we win, we lose – the process has become the punishment. (At this point, I’d like to thank the magazine’s many donors who have given their own money to help us fight against the Saudi imam and his enablers in the Alberta government.)

It is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don’t apply. Rules of court don’t apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and part Stalin. Even this interrogation today – at which I appear under duress – saw the commission tell me who I could or could not bring with me as my counsel and advisors.

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 .

Below is a story that appeared in the New York Post on December 16, 2007.

Read carefully. I never thought I would see the day that we had thought police in Canada, of the infamous kind that have preceded the eventual complete shut down of so many basic freedoms in every totalitarian regime and dictatorship in history, such as Red China, North Korea, or Cuba.  But they are here in force.

It used to be the case that ordinary Libel and Slander laws protected us from damage to our reputations or livelihoods due to intentional false statements or accusations by other citizens. But the simplistic idea that the State has an official position on free verbal expression of any kind, or that free citizens are no longer permitted to state openly that they dislike or disapprove of or find antithetical to our common way of life a culture, a religion, an ethnic or language group, or a human behaviour, is unprecedented in recent times and offensive in the extreme to human liberty. We may not like what others say, but within the bounds of proven harm to reputation mentioned here, we ought to defend to the death their right to say it.

It is a cowering population that lives in fear of punishment for speaking freely, and it is no country worth the name that accepts the idea that free people are permitted to say out loud, or to write, only what the government will like.    

                                                                                          ~

Canada's Thought Police

Celebrated author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian judicial panels on charges linked to his book “America Alone."

The book, a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, argues that Western nations are succumbing to an Islamist imperialist threat. The fact that charges based on it are proceeding apace proves his point.

Steyn, who won the 2006 Eric Breindel Journalism Award (co-sponsored by The Post and its parent, News Corp), writes for dozens of publications on several continents. After the Canadian general-interest magazine Maclean's reprinted a chapter from the book, five Muslim law-school students, acting through the auspices of the Canadian Islamic Congress, demanded that the magazine be punished for spreading “hatred and contempt" for Muslims.

The plaintiffs allege that Maclean's advocated, among other things, the notion that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada's liberalized, Western civilization. They insist such a notion is untrue and, in effect, want opinions like that banned from publication.

Two separate panels, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, have agreed to hear the case. These bodies are empowered to hear and rule on cases of purported “hate speech."

Of course, a ban on opinions - even disagreeable ones - is the very antithesis of the Western tradition of free speech and freedom of the press.

Indeed, this whole process of dragging Steyn and the magazine before two separate human-rights bodies for the “crime" of expressing an opinion is a good illustration of precisely what he was talking about.

If Maclean's, Canada's top-selling magazine, is found “guilty," it could face financial or other penalties. And the affair could have a devastating impact on opinion journalism in Canada generally.

As it happens, Canadian human-rights commissions have already come down hard on those whose writings they dislike, like critics of gay rights.

Nor should Americans dismiss this campaign against Steyn and Maclean's as merely another Canadian eccentricity. Speech cops in America, too, are forever attempting similar efforts - most visibly, on college campuses.

In fact, New York City itself has a human-rights panel that tries to stamp out anything deemed too politically incorrect.

Since 9/11, Americans have been alert to the threat of terror from radical Islamists. But there's been all too little concern for a creeping accommodation of radical Islamist tenets, like curbs on critical opinions.

That needs to change.

Yesterday I received a set of guidelines sub-titled “A Peaceful Solution for the Teaching of December Holidays” that had been handed out to a teacher-in-training at Ontario’s notoriously left-wing Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).

The gist of the memo was that teachers-in-training must avoid teaching about any religious celebrations in the month of December, teaching only about cultural diversity, etc., etc., because the stated hope of the Institute was that teachers and administrators would “become more aware of the real issue: the pain suffered by students and parents with minority religious views.”

Oh, the pain, the pain!

Gee, I had always thought that the real issue at the heart of all genuine religious celebration, regardless of type, or time of year, was the worship of God, the sincere expression of gratitude, love, generosity, and so on, and that’s what students ought to learn about. Somehow I missed out on the pain bit, how it’s all about me, and so on.

So I wrote the student back a brief note, as follows:

“When societies are bent on self-destruction through immolation of their own core values and traditions, not much can be done. Multiculturalism is not a culture. It is a flight from culture. It presents culture as a T- shirt; something to put on or take off at the right time. But real cultures do not operate this way; they are soul-embodying realities. Any nation that fails to sustain itself by teaching a core culture (around which other cultures may rotate, so to speak), will eventually fragment and pass away. Before that time comes it will transform from a common home into a kind of motel, with each in his or her own space which they can check into or out of at will without relating to anyone else. In this motel the only common interactions will be pragmatic, commercial, and legal.”

Shortly, a new Icon will be available on my home page for the translation of essays found on this website.  

In the next few days you will find a half dozen translations - into French, Polish, Slovak, and Portugese - of the "Declaration on Marriage" that has been available in English here for over a year. 

There will also be two essays posted that have already been translated into French (and published in the Quebec journal Egards).  The first is a translation of "The Paradoxes of Freedom," and the second is a translation of of "Abortion and Slavery" (thanks to my translator, Richard Bastien, of Ottawa).

Call For Translations - You Can Help!

Pick any essay

If you feel, as I do (quite apart from my vanity) that certain essays on this site ought to be available in other languages, you may be able to help get the word out.

Your Name Will Be Posted As Translator

Just translate any essay on this site into another language and send it to me, and I will post it with your name attached as the translator.

I hope some visitors will help out in this way, and I thank you in advance for your help

William