Tuesday, September 28, 2021
PTBC is about normal
principled conservative viewpoints.

PTBC has over 12,000 articles written by several columnists, over 20+ years.

The flawed reasons for doing away with prayer at Queen’s Park

Related Articles

How to lose

BC Liberal Party website — They obviously put out a news release announcing their leadership debate, stating, as even their own website states, that you can stream it at their website. The Globe and Mail said so too, even. But go to their website, and nothing like an anticipatory video teaser is there. Like they're not even set up for it. Or don't care if you watch it. You can, they say, watch it on Facebook. But I won't support that crap. So heckofa job, Libbies.

Click to (not) watch it


Canadians love their cheap Chinese trinkets despite the moral question

Globe and Mail — Startling reports out of the Port of Vancouver indicate just how much Canadians care that communist China was (and still is) holding Canadian and American citizens illegally, steals intellectual property from everyone around the world, is a rogue racist state, an authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorship, which is bent on global communist domination, which enslaves and arguably eliminates ethnic groups, and which pollutes the entire globe to beat hell.

The Port of Vancouver is sending record numbers of empty shipping containers to Asia ... The reason so many shipping containers are going back to Asia filled with nothing but air has to do with a surge in consumer demand for Asian goods ...

...There were 597,443 TEUs of empty containers exported from Vancouver in the first eight months of this year, up 89 per cent from the same period in 2020. And 2020 was previously the record-high year for empty-container shipments from the port.

Almost half of all the containers that have left Vancouver so far this year have been empty.

In total, the Port of Vancouver has handled 2.55 million TEUs of both imports and exports during the first eight months of 2021, up 17 per cent from the same period in 2020.

China is the largest shipper into the Port of Vancouver of containerized merchandise, including consumer goods.

What happened to all that bellyaching about "sustainability?" It doesn't apply to the country of Canada itself? Trudeau? Liberals? Maybe lose the woke BS, lose the love and admiration for "that basic dictatorship" and labels that read "Fabrique en Chine," raise the Canadian flag that you've shamed from its now months-long half-mast detention, and show you give more of a crap about Canada and its real, actual issues.

Hey has China relaxed its restrictions on tourists from the west yet? Asking for literally nobody.

Wall Street Journal —Don't plan your next trip to China without writing your will and saying goodbye to loved ones. The WSJ's editorial board is not impressed - with China or with President Biden and his team of surrender monkeys.

China’s Hostage Triumph

The U.S. lets Huawei’s CFO off easy, and Beijing frees two Canadians.   
By The Editorial Board
Updated Sept. 27, 2021 7:56 am ET

Westerners working in China are officially on notice. You could be arrested on trumped up charges at any time and used as hostages to promote Communist Party interests. That’s the message from the humiliating U.S. surrender to China’s hostage diplomacy in the case of Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou.

Canadian authorities arrested Ms. Meng in 2018 at the request of the U.S., which charged her with bank and wire fraud. Under a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) reached Friday, Ms. Meng was allowed to return to China without going to trial. She merely admitted to facts she had previously denied. Shortly thereafter, and right on cue, China released two Canadians it had arrested on phony charges not long after Ms. Meng’s arrest.

China’s immediate release of businessman Michael Spavor and former diplomat Michael Kovrig proves their arrest was a hostage-taking to pressure Canada and the U.S. over Ms. Meng. In China the law serves the Party. But in the U.S. the law is supposed to operate independent of political interests. ...

I'd no sooner visit China than I would North Korea, Iran, or Cuba.

“Health Reasons.” Fer sure, China.

Globe and Mail — It's not the Globe and Mail's fault. In this case, they're just reporting. And it — China — is just utterly insulting our intelligence and totally disrespecting us. I didn't even read the article because I don't take well to being insulted by communists or a-holes. But on the other hand, this one is all Globe and Mail. For me it's about the contrast between how they treated the last president's handling of the border crisis — a problem not of his own making; and how they are treating this president's handling of a far worse crisis of his and his comrades' own making. Media bias 101? Or them more simply utterly insulting our intelligence and totally disrespecting us?

Joe Oliver for leader? Alas no. But heed to his leadership.

Financial Post — Joe Oliver penned a good column today offering good conservative sense for Conservatives. So that's something different and worthwhile for you to read today in the papers increasingly filled with total bunk and muck — usually from lefties — about how the Conservatives need to go still further leftward to win. It's headlined "Conservatives must persuade the electorate, not pander to the left." And it's worth your read.

"...There is an economic and cultural route to broaden the appeal of Conservative values and policies: bring the public to you, rather than mimic the left-wing’s latest faddish ideals and retreaded socialist truths. That is what leadership is all about. ..."

Ronald Reagan believed in and practiced this philosophy very effectively, making wonderful speaches counseling his fellow conservatives to speak up — "in bold colors" — to convince the electorate to vote for the values — conservative values — which most of their fellow electorate actually already believed in. And he was one of the best and most popular presidents in US history. Joe Oliver wrote today about some of those Canadian conservative values, which, similarly, are actually Canadian values.
Joe Oliver isn't running to be the leader. He's 81 and is rightly enjoying retirement. But anybody who wants to follow in Ronald Regan's — or Joe Oliver's — footsteps is more than welcome to step up at this time, please.

Advice to GOP, which Canada’s CPC should heed: Just. Say. No.

Washington Post — From this surprising source  — the...

Lefty Mayor caught maskless but it’s ok: “I was feelin’ the spirit!”

National Review — Another article you won't read in 99% of the "news" media because, oh do I even have to say it?... she's a lefty mayor! (and we can well imagine the "news" media's faux outrage if she was a he and he was a Republican):

The mayor of San Francisco [London Breed] says that she shouldn’t be criticized for breaking her own COVID rules, because, and I quote, “I was feeling the spirit and I wasn’t thinking about a mask.” CBS reports:

“We don’t need the fun police to come in and micromanage and tell us what we should or shouldn’t be doing,” said Breed during an interview to address the controversy.

The city’s health order states attendees at live indoor performances must remain masked except when actively eating or drinking. Breed maintained that she was drinking at the time.

“My drink was sitting at the table,” said Breed. “I got up and started dancing because I was feeling the spirit and I wasn’t thinking about a mask.”
As Charles C.W. Cooke points out, the hideousness doesn't stop just at her hypocrisy, her failure to take responsibility for her own actions, or her elitist rule-breaking, it's the fact that she laments the notion of "the fun police," when, in fact, as mayor and as the perpetrator of these asinine rules, she IS "the fun police."

Best post-election headline so far

Wall Street Journal — They get the headline just about right: Their opener:

The late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher counseled that in politics “standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous. You get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.” That’s the lesson delivered to Canada’s Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole in Monday’s national election.

I like that they added this because Canadian "news" media are loathed to mention it:

Yet while they again won the popular vote, they finished a distant second in seat count with about 119, two seats down from 2019. (By the way, the Tories have won the popular vote in five of the last six elections, which is a lesson for Americans who think this only happens because of the Electoral College.)

They see what I see. O'Toole: Speaking in pale pastels — largely pink — instead of bold colors. Lesson #596 for the Conservative Party of Canada. They'll learn someday. Maybe.
Read the WSJ take here. (Free link)

BC’s NDP gov and their “news” media divisions hiding stats and facts? Here’s one.

health-infobase.canada.ca For all the noise from the Canadian national "news" media, you'd think Ontario was the only province in the country, and that it's doing terribly with regard to the Wuhan Virus (which everybody still calls "COVID" on orders from the Communist Party of China). That's not news to anyone outside of Ontario. What might be news to people both outside and inside of Ontario is that BC's rate of death is nearly twice that of Ontario.
Don't worry lefties, even people in BC don't know that, because the "news" media in BC are actually cheerleaders for the NDP government of BC — much as the national news media is actually a division of the federal Liberal Party (well and the Ontario Liberal Party of course). Ontario is led by a party with the word "Conservative" in it, even though "Progressive" is the first and foremost word and concept in their party name and style of governance. But, you know, it's just deathn shit. Politics is way more important to the "news" media.
Facts. Get 'em anywhere you can, because you can't reliably get them from the "news" media.
See also:
And from liberalvision CTV: Secrecy over B.C.'s true number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients

The Article

The recent decision by the McGuinty government to consider removing prayer from Ontario’s daily legislative proceedings has once again catapulted the complicated relationship between religion and the modern state to the forefront of public debate.

Nobody should be fooled by the fact that there are public consultations on this subject. Like the adoption of same-sex marriage before it, when it comes to prayer in the legislature the die has already been cast. The Liberal government has concluded that the prayer must go, and the Conservatives have decided to acquiesce. Hearings are only a way of giving the decision a measure of credibility.

Given the interest of the province’s conservative Christian community, it is likely that when all of the submissions to the committee are counted, most will favour retaining the prayer. A significant minority will claim, however, that Ontario is a diverse society, and that its legislature should reflect that diversity by eschewing prayers of any single – read Christian – religious group. This will be the opinion that prevails.

I admit that I personally don’t care too much whether or not the Speaker of Ontario’s legislature opens the daily session in prayer. As a religious man, I certainly believe and engage in prayer myself, but the legislature in Ontario only adopted the practice officially in 1969, a relatively short period of time ago, and its elimination would not prevent those who wish to gather in prayer from doing so elsewhere in the legislative building.

What troubles me most about this whole affair is not the possibility that prayer may be removed, but the rationale that is being used to justify its removal.

It has become fashionable in polite company to refer to “values” such as equality, tolerance for diversity, separation of church and state, and a whole host of other “values” that we adhere to as “secular” values. In reality, however, these are not ‘secular’ values at all. They are Judeo-Christian values; standards of behaviour that have so deeply permeated the collective consciousness of our society that they have more or less retained their rightful place as hallmarks of Western civilization, despite the widespread and growing ignorance of their philosophical pedigree.

When Ontario’s government rejected a plan to allow Muslim courts to function as arbitration boards under the law in 2005, it was not embracing diversity. On the contrary, it was imposing a particular cultural norm on the province’s Muslim minority. The great fear was that Muslim women in particular would be pressured to submit their disputes to such courts unwillingly in cases dealing with divorce and separation, thereby surrendering rights that all Ontario women possess. That decision was presented as a victory for secularism over religious orthodoxy, but in reality, it was nothing of the kind. It was a victory for the Judeo-Christian perspective on women’s rights over the perspective of other religions that regard women as mere chattel – the property of their husband.

Few people today seem to know that most of the chief organizers of the original women’s rights movement (as opposed to the radical feminist movement of today), both here in Canada as in other Western countries, were devout Christians. Their argument for equality was simple and compelling. They believed that the practice of denying women the right to vote, or to enter certain professions, or to attend certain schools to obtain a higher education – in other words the practice of treating women as though they were born with a diminished intellectual capacity – was inconsistent with the principle of equality intrinsic to normative Christianity and therefore unjustifiable in a society that professed itself to be Christian. In short, they said, treating women as second class citizens because they were women was un-Christian. Like the decision regarding Muslim courts in Ontario, the end of official discrimination against women did not represent the ascendancy of secularism over religious orthodoxy. Quite the opposite, it represented the triumph of Judeo-Christian principles over a lingering practice traced its roots to pre-Christian – that is to say, secular – society.

Similarly, it was Christians, mostly evangelical, who led the campaign to end slavery. Abolitionists argued that the idea of human beings as property was inconsistent with genuine Christian principles – that a truly Christian society could not tolerate a slave trade in any form. It’s an argument that they won. In the war of ideas waged in Europe and throughout the British Empire as well as on the actual battlefields of America, Judeo-Christian moral principles emerged victorious over the lingering amoral and obsolete practices of pre-Christian society.

This concept of equality is not an objective fact that can be scientifically proven. It is a philosophical premise – Judeo-Christian in origin – that was gradually, and reluctantly, accepted by our society. Today’s intellectuals are loath to acknowledge these Judeo-Christian roots and the institutions and practices that are their embodiment, such as individual liberty and constitutional, democratic government. What neither they, nor the myriad of other intellectuals who have come before them – both religious and non-religious – have been able to do, however, is posit a credible theory of right and wrong that can successfully transcend narrow self-interest in the absence of that religious framework.

The reason is quite simple really – there is none.

A truly secular society can admit the existence of no objective moral code. Instead, it must rely on the moral capital it has inherited from previous generations to justify the standard of behaviour it imposes on its members. Once that capital is depleted, a secular society has no means of weighing questions of right and wrong except by conducting a brutish cost-benefit analysis.

We can already see the results of this depletion of moral capital in our own society. Unlimited and unregulated abortion is now the norm in Canada. Doctor-assisted suicide, while still illegal (for the time being), is wide-spread, as is euthanasia. In an environment where Robert Latimer is considered to be a hero for murdering his severely disabled daughter as a means of ending her suffering, how long will it be before the “compassionate” killing of all severely disabled children becomes a “moral” imperative? It is an indication of just how compartmentalized Christianity has already become that these issues are subjects of legitimate debate today, but at least there is still a debate. What will happen if secularists succeed in negating Christian influence in the dialogue over public policy altogether, as is their stated aim? I shudder to think.

Which brings us back to the controversy over the daily recitation of prayers in Ontario’s legislature.

I don’t object to the elimination of these prayers per se, I object to the argument that they must be eliminated because we live in a secular society. Ontario, like the rest of Canada, is not secular, but Christian. It may be that we have largely removed any reference to Christianity in describing the character of our society, but this does not alter the fact that it is fundamentally and profoundly Christian. Indeed, the very respect for diversity that we believe is offended by the inclusion of these prayers in the first place is predicated on that Judeo-Christian heritage.

This is not to say that Canadians should all become Christians, nor, of course, is it to say that the government should promote Christian theology.  It is a plea to end the campaign, conducted in the name of a lazy understanding of the separation of church and state, to marginalize Christians and to deny the crucial role that Christianity has played – and continues to play – in the emergence and maintenance of our culture of freedom and equality. And it is a plea for conservative church leaders to not abandon the field, thereby becoming willing participants, not just in their own demise, but in the demise of Western society as a whole.

I can recognize a good thing when I see it, and speaking as a member of one of Canada’s many religious minority communities, I think that this country’s Christian character is a good thing.

I just wish that more Canadians, especially Christians themselves, would recognize it as a good thing too.

Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel
Latest posts by Joel Johannesen (see all)

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?
    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —spot_img