Ah. . .tolerant liberalism. . .
(from the Corner of the National Review)
Misguided youth with a liberal fascist instinct:
"In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.
Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.
"You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body," Ms. Massa said. "We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they're sexist in nature ... The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do ... Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women's rights."
Another sign that open-minded classical liberalism is by and large a thing of the past. I think I hear the Emperor's March from the Empire Strikes Back playing quietly in the background.
4 comments:
Should any classical Christian be surprised that there is no one so illiberal as a "liberal?" The old classical liberals are now conservatives and the new 'liberalism' has its roots in the essentially totalitarian philosophys of the twentieth century. We can wish it were otherwise but we should never deceive ourselves.
I should add that Anglicanism is the religion of freedom and liberty. The decay, even the threatened death of classical prayer book Anglicanism is a greater threat to the liberties of the English speaking peoples than anything else. Anglicanism and the English Church even before the Reformation was the champion of freedom and liberty and that even before the Magna Carta in which it was stated that "the English Church shall be free." But a free church can only function at its best among a free people and that is what Elizabeth I lived for and Charles I was content to die for. I only hope that all true Anglicans understand that.
Dear AC+:
I cannot believe that I am about to ask this, but here goes....Is there a legitimate issue of free association here that ought to be balanced against free speech? These events took place in Canada, not the USA, so maybe the same constitutional principles don't apply. Still, at least in principle, shouldn't we respect the right of this Canadian student government to pursue its censurious policy, as long as the excluded persons and groups still have access to the larger university community?
I'm not missing the point that they are trying to stifle all debate on the subject, and that they took the action when classes were in recess, etc. Clearly, these guys are jerks. But in the long run, aren't the rest of us better off when extremists are open about their real agenda?
welshmann
You have some good points, but (as you recognize) my main point here is that "free speech" and "tolerance" are wonderful sounding words, but they are becoming meaningless in Great Britain and Canada. You can no longer voice dissent--about abortion or human sexuality, and perhaps about other religions--without fear of legal retribution in those countries. In Alberta a minister was fined $5000 and forced to issue printed retractions for (not "hate speech") but simply making "disparaging" and "critical" comments about homosexuality. In cases like these, if anyone uses the KJV or ESV Bible in their services and uses the 1662 lectionary (and has someone looking over their shoulder seeing what they read in service) sooner or later they'll be brought up on human rights violations.
Post a Comment