Politics: Canada: Christianophobia - Alive and mean in Canada
There is no clear movement for the inner reformation of judiciary-practice in Canada, nor for the inner reformation of the science-side of a multi-aspectual jurisprudence, such as we mite find in the philosophy of law of hi Canadian awareness. With the foregoing remark in place, I note it is just a background observation for today's blog entry on "Christianophobia - Alive and Mean in Canada."
I do not write as an adherent of "conservatism" in general, nor as an exponent of choosing between or combining of the "fiscon" position versus the "socon" position, as numerous analystists and practioners of conservatism in North America generally do. Fiscal responsiblity, the value of a mainly free market domestically and in regard to trade abroad, the value of policing an honest mainly-free market economic system - all this is a set of principles that can be held quite differently from a purist laissez-faire economic doctrine or Libertarian economic ideology based on a purist individualism. Likewise, social and societal responsiblity (the "soc" words can be fruitfully distinguished, while noting the intersection of the subjects these words adjectivize), soc-responsiblity can be adhered to firmly without absolutizing the (Roman Catholic Magisterium's) "Consistent Ethic of Life" as a general principle; nor absolutizing its subthemes either as a policy set or as a personal free selection from within the Roman Catholic set.
Consistent Ethic for Life thawt absolutizes a whole range of Magisterium-driven positions. Such as: absolute opposition to all abortion, absolute opposition to all non-heterosexual unons (what I oppose is genericization of marriage so that it is legally indistinguishable from "same-sex" arrangements and others), absolute opposition to all termination of life (I have no family at hand and want to be able to determine the time of my death when I am no longer functional otherwise or am at the mercy of unscrupulous care-givers), discrimination against all but "natural families" (what I oppose is the devaluing of family as a distinct societal sphere with its own set of characterizing relations (parent/s/children//siblings, and typified by gender differentiations thru-out). I support state benevolence, subject to fiscal planning, toward children in poverty and toward all kinds of families (parent/s and child/ren), while I reject a sometimes-occurring socon lack of compassion for all "sorts and condition" of women and men, according to which we see some self-styled "socons" shift over to mean fiscon positions to the exclusion of families outside the "natural family" model.
So much for the hazards of the binomial opposition in the usage of the terms "fiscon" and "socon" for contemporary "conservatism" in North America - both Canada and the USA. Were I to advocate around an alternative term, for now, I would choose the Bushes "compassionate conservatism." That would be a good rubric for me in facing a prevailing set of thawt patterns where my tendency of viewpoint seems to have little place to emerge in its own rite (I'm not the only person who holds to this tendency). I could stance myself elsewhere in the prevailing political miasma by spending my time trying to influence Canadian socialism a wee bit, in Europe such a strategy occurs in many countries with Christian Democratic and Christian Social parties (note, for instance, certain policy features of the winning party in the recent Polish elections); but only in the Netherlands does Christian political thawt rise to the level of articulating the importance of recognizing the validity of the differentiated societal spheres - from family policy (including various kinds of families - not just "natural families") to fiduciary policy (including various kinds of banks, trusts, foundations, coops - not just "for-profit free-market" varieties). Each exists in its own rite (sphere specificity) and calls into its functioning human personnel who retain individual and group factors in their identities which in turn have to be balanced justly within each particular case of organization or institution with a given societal sphere (sphere specificity).
A hallmark of human identity is religion. In each country, a society-wide pattern of variations, conflicts, and peaceful concords between religions can be established by careful analysis. We usually think of religions only in terms of theistic varieties (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, and polytheistic Hinduism, etc) or nowadays in terms of spiritualities (which cause us to pluralize the foregoing terms and to add non-theistic religions/spiritualities such as Buddhisms). But an even broader concept of religion requires the definition of a religion as a commitment to set of ultimate values; thereby we are allowed to identify Humanism, Secularism, and many other non-theistic or anti-theistic systems of valuation as religions (without a God the Creator perhaps, but always with a god-function in the form a hi-est value of ultimate belief-commitment for a person's or group's life - which atheist philosopher Anthony Flew has tawt us does not rule out atheist-naturalist versions of Intelligent Design opposed as much to neo-Darwinist evolutionism as is Creator-guided evolution or Creationism). Atheism too has its own internal varieties - Voltaire, Robespierre, Marx, Freud, Hitler, Stalnin, Mao, Rand, and many of today's Libertarians (these are the atheist/secularist versions of spiritualities). All these phenomena have a history of existence in various societies and all are subject to demographic analysis in regard to their adherents, groups, organizations, and institutions.
In recent years, it is possible to note a slide toward a deeper and deeper secularization process, pushed along by a definite ideology of Secularist religion. The drive to exclude the historic religion dominant once in a given society, to exclude its primal societal spheres of institutional grouping in churches and synagogues and mosques and temples, and to exclude the implications of the widespread presence in other spheres of fully-dimensioned persons as personnel, customers, lenders, borrowers, managers, union members, voters, office holders, bureaucrats, police, military, sports people, artists, filmgoers, TV viewers, radio listeners, radio-TV broadcasters, journalists in the various media, the drive to exclude a targeted kind of religion from having full course for persons of historic religious commitment functioning in these societal roles continues mercilessly and viciously apace. The main target in Canada is Christianity of certain kinds. And the drive to exclusion can legitimately be called "Christianophobia."
In recent times, one Member of Canada's Parliament has stood out for trying to name the pernicious force in Canadian civic life, the force that is attempting to drive certain kinds of outstanding Christians from civic life and to disadvantage them as such from full societal participation - because they stand out as publicly-stated persons committed to their faith, in the midst of all these societal roles that engage them. Since the kinds of Christianity are so diverse, and the spiritualities among those Christianities so varied, one need not deny to this Member of Parliament her hi standing and fortitude because one mite disagree with the Consistent Ethic of Life to which, apparently, she subscribes. In contrast to her stance in that regard, I personally distinguish my non-absolutist position on abortion, following Laura Bush - "abortion should be permitted, but rarely." That's but one example of the kind of policy issue with which I would disagree with my nominee for a Christian Bloggers' Ariel Award 2005.
Were it some other prioritized zone of policy such as the fiscons mite dwell on, I would for instance not recognize the actual welfare policy change the Harris Government imposed on Ontario as worthy of a Christian political stewardship of the economic life of society. Harris too we must recognize was part of the targetting of people, not because they belonged to kinds of Christianities, but because they were poor (and, it must be said some of those he targetted were only pretending to be poor, or only pretending to need welfare monies); it was the draconian actual policy-contours involved that produced the subchristian results that really did not thereby "perfect" a free economy in Ontario. So, my version of a Bush-following Christian politics of compassionate conservatism is very unhappy with certain features of the overall Bush policy results toward the American poor.
In Canada, on the other hand, I find certain Christian-political formations which take commendable stands in regard to antipoverty policy, especially supporting the allotment of funds for children in poverty, yet to be remiss in entirely disowning support for co-religionists who stand up against the targetting of certain kinds of fellow Christians/ities hurt greivously in their daily living by the rampant spread of Christianophobia. It is nowhere more cruel than in government-financed secularist schools, and in the news and opinion media in general.
A certain few seconds on a TV news report caused me to first become acutely aware of the phenomenon that awt to be powerfully opposed. It was the occasion of the Conservative Convention in Montreal - being reported on CTV, as I remember it - where a certain Member of Parliament had just given a speech about the systematic oppression of Christians in Canada.
Now, the MP spoke too narrowly about "Christians," not making clear apparently that it was some kinds of Christians and some kinds of Christianities that were being targetted by the secularist oppressor. Because - it was unstated - most Christians in Canada are very weak in regard to what the Lordship of Christ Jesus means for the Christian task in politics and in all realms of life; most Christians are neutralists as to the Christian ethical definition of the hi-est good we must pursue in civic co-existence - namely, "the coming of the Kingdom of God," as Herman Bavinck tawt us. But all the neutralism aside, all the fawlty "Christian" figures in politics like the stance toward Ontario's poor of the most recent Tory government there a-s-i-d-e, let's take note of the raw phenomenon of pro-secularist Christianophobia that refuses to dialogue with a compassionate Christian political force here in Canadadaland.
And more than that, let's take note of systematic bigotry, some more subtle than others, practised by news and opinion media in Canada. I will never forget the unprofessionalism and the unveiled bigotry of a female TV reporter, I think it was on CTV.ca, where almost the very first words out of the reporter's assassinatory mouth in regard to a Federal Conservative MP's speech to the convention was the stabbing of an anathematizing label onto her - fixing her to the wall with the (o)pin(ion-term) "extremist" - disembowelling her valuationally for her raising the issue of Christianophobia in our Canadian national life. The reporter was protecting Christianophobes as tho they themselves are not extremists, as tho they had a monopoly on moderation, clarity of thawt, mainstream positions, reasonablness, and whatever else is presupposed by a labeller deploying the word "extremist." Of course, there are extremists, and there are extremist Christianophobes, and some are in the media/
My nominee for the Christian Bloggers' Ariel Award 2005 is Cheryl Gallant, Member of Parliament for the farming and forestry riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Ontario, along the Québec border. I honour her for outspoken challenge to the Christianophobes - without my necessarily endorsing a number of her policy positions to the letter (for reasons I hope I have already made clear).
Now, while I couldn't find the text online of Cheryl Gallant's speech Against the Christianophobes which she delivered at the Tory Convention, Montreal, reported Thursday, March 17, 2005 in a segment on CTV News with Lloyd Robertson, there is on CTV's website a more charitable dispatch by Canadian Press than what we got live in the segment. Accompanying CTV's clickable items regarding Gallant are some video clips, which my computer technology does not accomoadate, but which may well contain the video-soundbite where the CTV reporter performs her obscene "extremist" labelling.
However, I did actually find onlinje a list of Gallant's Speeches on some other issues, much of them related to her work on the House of Commons committees on National Defense and Veterans Affairs, and on Industry, Science, and Technology (the latter a perfect locus should there ever come a Parliamentary debate on Intelligent Design which many in the Christian, Judaic, and Islamic faith-communities should receive research grants in preference to some other matters funded as "science"). Other speeches listed have to do with constituency concerns, including the presentation of numerous petitions to Parliament.
I don't see extremism in the body of this work, tho I do see a firmly held minority view, a clear position I can't agree-with to the letter on several points, an occasional rivetting metaphor like the one comparing abortion to beheading (but of course that's exactly what partial-birth abortions are, where the infant just prior to birth is hacked apart in the womb, head removed from trunk, limbs removed one by one, etc, - because if allowed to be born, the child would suddenly by recognized in law as a human being and the abortionist recognized as a murderer (this practice is called "live-birth abortion") ... but I'm not sure the speech with this particular metaphor is on Gallant's website either).
I respectfully request that socon Cheryl Gallant, MP, have her staff put her speech Against the Christianophobes on her website, and any others that her discreditors have attempted to use as the basis for the various smears launched against her. These speeches should not be dropped from view, not edited out of the public record, and may prove down the road to have a prophetic value. I wish others online would join me in nominating Cheryl Gallant, MP, for a Christian Bloggers' Ariel Award 2005. - Owlb
Cheryl Gallant, MP for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke; Member of House of Commons committiees > a) Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs - Sept 30, 2002 to Nov 12, 2003; and b) Standing Committee on Industry, Science, and Technology - Sept 30, 2002 to Nov 12, 2003
•Gallants's website frontpage
•Gallant's speeches
• CBC, CBC Conservative MP calls for repeal of hate law (June 6, 2004 update)
• CTV.ca, MP Gallant compares abortion to Iraq beheading (June 7, 2004)
• LifeSite, Cheryl Gallant, the Most Bashed over Pro-Life Stand Re-elected by a Landslide (June 29, 2004)
• CTV.ca, Tory MP says Christians are persecuted in Canada (March 17, 2005)
• CTV.ca, Conservative convention off to rocky start (March 18, 2005)
RELATED CTV VIDEOCLIPS (unavailable to us)
CTV Newsnet Live: Conservative Convention starts 13:06
CTV News: David Akin on a ruckus convention start 1:31
CTV News: Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife with his view 1:20
CTV Newsnet Live: Peter MacKay speaks at the convention, part one 7:13
CTV Newsnet Live: Peter MacKay speaks at the convention, part two 8:20
CTV Newsnet Live: Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife, Mike Duffy and
.............Jane Taber from the convention 4:19
CTV Newsnet Live: Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife, Mike Duffy and
............Jane Taber from the convention, part two 4:05
My tentative conclusion from this list, unavailable due to refWrite's technical inability to access these online videos, is that the mystery reporter in Owlb's incomplete memory regarding of the name of the extremist bigotted reporter who breathlessly labelled Cheryl Gallant "extremist" is probably Jane Taber. I hope some student with the appropriate desktop technology could research the accuracy of the probablility, and if necessary correct it for us. - Owlie Scowlie
No comments:
Post a Comment