Replacing logic with smugness

There’s something about the liberal mindset that doesn’t see the necessity of logic in advancing an agenda. All that’s really needed in liberal dialectics is moral authority, which is another way of saying, “Don’t try to confuse me with facts, I’m right and you’re wrong.”

---

Recently CFRB radio’s afternoon man, John Moore was holding forth on the dangers of global warming and how Canada needs to lead the way in the fight against anthropogenic carbon emissions to combat global warming. Callers that attempted to disagree with Moore were summarily dumped as he smugly asserted that the scientific community had reached a consensus on the issue. I suppose if one lived under a rock it may be excusable to hold this view, but in times like these, when information is so readily available, there is no excuse for the kind of ignorance displayed by Moore. Could Canada really make a difference in the fight against global warming? The true answer to that question is “not much” given that this country is responsible for only around 2% of all man-made carbon emissions and 0.06% (that’s six one-hundredths of one percent) of all so-called greenhouse gasses man-made and naturally occurring. But hey, don’t let logic come between a liberal and his agenda as the agenda trumps every time. Similarly, the so-called Human Rights Commissions currently oppressing Canadians with Draconian rulings can’t seem to keep their victims straight and have actually created a hierarchy of victimhood. As Ezra Levant, publisher of the on-line Western Review, recently wrote in the National Post, Canada’s human rights commissions are staffed by social activists and their rulings most often have nothing to do with neither the Charter of Rights, nor the law for that matter. They are in place to exercise a loosely defined, touchy-feely set of regulations that deal with racism, sexism, religious discrimination, etc. But what hasn’t dawned on anyone, except those who are affected by the bizarre rulings handed down by these bodies is that their function is not to enforce charter rights, but to restrict them and ensure that no one member of any aggrieved group is insulted by anyone in a relative position of power. Through these bodies our freedom of speech and freedom of religion is greatly curtailed, as those who do not like what is happening in society more often than not will complain to a human rights body before taking legal action, as unlike courts, human rights tribunals in Canada do not have strict rules of evidence. All that is needed for action to be taken is a complainant who feels aggrieved, whether it is in the workplace, in the media, in business dealings or in other everyday occurrences. Human rights tribunals exist to protect gays, women and visible minorities, not all Canadians. Some years ago when Ontario’s NDP government under the smarmy Bob Rae was running TV commercials decrying “dead-beat dads” who were refusing to pay child support, the Ontario Human Rights Commission refused to act on behalf of fathers, despite the fact that the percentage of dead-beat dads is roughly similar to the percentage of dead-beat moms. I am all in favor of going after dead-beat dads, so long as we pay equal attention to dead-beat moms. But equality isn’t what human rights bodies in Canada are about. They’re about righting perceived social wrongs committed against specific groups in which men, never mind white men, are not included. While on the subject of human rights, where are this country’s feminists when ethnic women are oppressed by their men folk? They’re silent as mice as it appears that in the hierarchy of vitimhood multiculturalism trumps gender. So you hear nothing from fem-lib harpies about honor killings or female genital mutilation performed in some Islamic societies, yet every December 6th they trot out the candles and whistles to point out how evil all men are in the annual Ecole Polytechnique massacre remembrance ceremonies. Cultural relativism has stepped in quickly in the debate over female genital mutilation. A female university of Toronto professor of Anthropology even goes so far as to offer a defense of the practice on a cultural basis. "There are good reasons within the society for the operation to continue, but these are cultural reasons. They are not scientific ones," says Prof. Boddy, author of Civilizing Women: British Crusades in Colonial Sudan. Clearly professor Boddy is blinded by what she perceives as a cultural practice, rather than a way to establish control over a woman. Yet, were I a betting man, I’d wager my soul that Prof. Boddy would be outraged over the suggestion that abortions should be banned in Canada. But then, the inconsistencies of liberal orthodoxy are invisible to those on the left as they are hidden by their agenda. It’s hard to take people seriously when their intellectual calisthenics render them blind and deaf, but not dumb. Liberal thought has degenerated to the lowest common denominator, rendering it devoid of reason and logic. Instead, feelings play an overwhelming role in the liberal lexicon, which makes any debate pointless.