Sad news

George Jonas has died.  Very sad, he was one of the very best.  R.I.P., George.

... Obituary;

... In his own words;

... Robert Fulford;

... letters.

Iranian nuke deal: Obama's Chamberlain moment?

Not quite says Mark Steyn: the comparison "... is rather unfair to Neville Chamberlain"



See also: Barack Obama,  Mark Levin,   Dick Cheney,   George Jonas,   Jonathan Kay,   Bibi Netanyahu, and Ezra Levant

George Jonas on Alan Borovoy

George Jonas: When my old leftist friend, Alan Borovoy, saw the light

A few days ago I reminisced about an old friend in this space, the founder and General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, A. Alan Borovoy, who passed away last weekend.

... I noted that he and I agreed on almost nothing, except the importance of liberty.

... Central to our debates were Canada’s human rights commissions: The laws and institutions Borovoy and like-minded civil libertarians, mostly leftwing activists, created, or at least played a major role in creating, ... Alan and his friends couldn’t imagine how civil liberties had anything to fear from laws and organizations they themselves, champions of civil liberties, were bringing to life.

... In the 1980s, with civil liberties already halfway down the throat of the voracious state, Alan was still dismissing the slippery slope as a shopworn myth. It took him another decade and a half to change his mind.

... By 1998 he did. “Ever since the government embarked on a course of trying to outlaw expressions of hatred, it’s shown that there is a slippery slope. One thing has led to another,” he said in relation to a proposed “hate speech” legislation in British Columbia. ..

... once he saw the light, Alan didn’t pull his punches. He was as outspoken in defending freedom against his own creation, the human rights bureaucracy, as he had been defending it against its traditional enemies. 

How our immigration system went wrong

George Jonas:

... The assumption, unspoken but taken for granted until the 1960s, was that immigration was beneficial as long as it was designed to serve the interests of the host society first. 

... It was in the past 40 years that the immigrant of dubious loyalty emerged, followed by the disloyal native-born, sometimes of immigrant ancestry, sometimes of Islamic conversion. The new immigrant seemed ready to share the West’s wealth but not its values.

... How did this come about? Three reasons stand out.

One, we retreated from the principle that immigration should serve the interests of the host country first.  ...

Next, we tried to turn this liability into an asset by promoting multiculturalism....

Finally, in fundamentalist Islam, we’ve come up against a culture for which the very concept of rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s is alien.  ...

.... When Canada is no longer regarded as a culture, with its own traditions and narratives, but a clean slate for anyone to write on what he will, immigrants of the new school will be ready with their own texts, including some that aren’t very pleasant. 

Maybe right 90% of the time but scumbags 100% of the time

George Jonas on the ethics of his fellow journalists:

...“‘Think dirty, and 90% of the time you’ll be right.’” ...

Reading what some of my colleagues have been saying about public-figures-turned-media-targets ... makes me wonder ... Perhaps they’ll score in the end, for thinking dirty may well make one right 90% of the time, but the parallel fact is that thinking dirty is disgusting 100% of the time. [And at least 10% of the time they're guilty of defamation].

... publishing before the evidence is in, commenting on the basis of allegations as if they were proven facts, smearing people on the basis of rumours and innuendos, piling on, attacking like a pack of jackals an unfashionable target, going after someone who seems wounded and unable to defend himself — that’s disgusting, and not made less disgusting by a subsequent consensus or endorsement by public opinion. It’s especially ugly to calumniate people, then hide behind a climate of slander that the original calumny helped create. ...

Bravo! Well said, George!

More strikes against the Supremes' Whatcott decision

Rex Murphy: Choosing self-esteem over freedom of speech

Andrew Coyne:

... where has the Court been the last twenty years?

Supreme Court twists the Charter of Rights in its haste to limit free speech

George Jonas: Debating free speech

Ezra Levant:

Jonas is no libertarian

George Jonas:

I replied promptly: “No, I’m not a libertarian,” and then described briefly what I consider myself to be: an old-fashioned liberal, a type also called laissez-faire or 19th-century liberal. Or classical liberal. I’m what all liberals used to be before many, if not most, became supporters of the interventionist state. Nineteenth-century liberals didn’t leave liberalism, liberalism left them. To be a liberal isn’t complicated: One simply has to revert to being one.

... I’m what a liberal used to be.” It was a comment on liberals, not libertarians. It was also an expression of regret that, in just a few generations, Liberal parties of liberty have become illiberal parties of the social-engineering state.

George Jonas on Indians and residential schools

Political correctness, white liberal guilt and shaky logic are not what one expects from George Jonas.  He gets off to a bad start but reaches a reasonable conclusion.

Jonas: "It’s important to note that the residential school programs were disgraceful ...[even]from the perspective of their own [times]."

Then he contradicts himself with: "The reason we didn’t view our own conduct in this light at the time was due to civilizational arrogance ..."

While the latter bit ("civilizational arrogance") rings true, the former is unsupportable nonsense. Boarding schools were hardly a novel concept in the 1800's and early 1900's. In fact they were common. So were the methods of discipline. Regimentation and corporal punishment were pretty much the norm in British schools both at home and in the colonies (and from my own experience, in public schools in the 1950s and beyond). That it was applied in Indian residential schools is hardly surprising and certainly wouldn’t have been thought "disgraceful" by anyone at the time. Sexual abuse is another matter but it would have been considered criminal then and more severely punished than it is today.

Jonas’, in arguing from the perspective of his own supposedly ‘more enlightened’ times is guilty of ...what? Temporal arrogance? It would be interesting to hear from those who ran the schools back then but, luckily for George, they’re not here to defend themselves.

That's mainly in the first part of his column.  But he works his way to a reasonable, politically incorrect conclusion:

The ultimate solution, if there is one: ... A good version of the same model of which the residential schools were a bad ... example. The alternative, which is having the government maintain some sort of Paleolithic Garden of Eden for natives in post-industrial Canada, isn’t just unaffordable but unworkable. Unless people join the century in which they live, they will be alienated and displaced. For aboriginals no less than everyone else, Canada must be a first nation.

George Jonas On Liberty

There’s nothing liberal about compelling liberalism:

At just about any social gathering, a dimwit is sure to explain that free speech isn’t absolute. There are limits. Chances are he’ll tell you about a person yelling “fire!” in a crowded movie theatre, then look at you as smug as a parrot, expecting a treat for having figured things out. I usually resist asking “Polly wants a cracker?” but it’s an effort.

... Mobility rights aren’t raised as a defense against a charge of trespassing or home invasion, not because mobility rights aren’t “absolute” but because they confer an entitlement to mobility, not criminality.

...

Thanks again, George.

"Banning-the-bomb" - dumber than "banning" guns

George Jonas:  Don’t ban the nuclear bomb, or else…

... A press release this week called it “fitting” that the anniversary of Hiroshima, Aug. 6th, should also be the day for the 600th Member of the Order of Canada to sign an appeal to the government “to join in an international effort to eliminate nuclear weapons.”... [Which speaks poorly of the quality of Order of Canada recipients.]

If the "ban-the-bomb" crowd of naifs got their way the world would be much more dangerous:

The result of nations agreeing to abide by such a ban would be no nuclear weapons in the hands of any nation except North Korea. [and soon, Iran]

That's dumber than the "ban guns" idea in the sense that at least gun-ban proposals allow for good-guy law-enforcement to carry guns.  In a "nuke-free" world only certifiable lunatics would have nukes.

Monarchy versus republic

George Jonas weighs in on the debate:

... My friend Jonathan Kay may or may not describe himself as a republican, but he’s certainly taking the republican position vis-à-vis my friend Andrew Coyne, who (whether or not he would describe himself as a monarchist) dazzles on the tightrope as he demonstrates a loyal subject’s fealty and affection for a hereditary monarch. Kay calls Coyne’s declaration for the monarchy “feudalism lite” and for the concept of royal descent coins ... the enviable word “crotchocracy.”As if anticipating Kay, “A constitutional order founded on love strikes me as no bad thing,” Coyne writes, conflating the high wire of real, DNA-testable monarchy with the safety net of constitutionality that protects plucky Alice in Wonderland in case the monarch turns out to be the Red Queen. Spectacular, but don’t try it at home.

... Another friend who has written on the subject is John O’Sullivan. He points out that “political reforms work better when they follow the grain of historical experience.” This is very likely true. It means that I’m wrong about not trying Coyne’s high wire act of monarchy conducted over constitutionality’s safety net at home. That’s exactly where we should try it — and so we have, for the past 60 years.

Or as Chris Selley said: The monarchy is a terrible idea, except for the alternatives

John O'Sullivan and the state of conservatism

George Jonas:

John O'Sullivan thinks conservatism in the “Anglosphere,” or the English-speaking world, is alive and well in three out of four countries. It “remains vigorous and fundamentally healthy” in America, and it “is thriving both in Australia and in Canada.”

Only the “Cameron Tories” of the United Kingdom are faltering.

... O’Sullivan thinks conservatism is thriving in Canada and Australia in very different ways. “It is advancing in Australia by boldness,” he writes, “and in Canada by caution.”

O'Sullivan's prescience on Stephen Harper's future:

... he asked me what I thought Harper would be doing in 10 years time. ... Harper was then 40, running the National Citizens Coalition ...

“Teaching civics classes,” I said. “Writing op-ed pieces. Walking the dog.”

“In 10 years, he’ll be prime minister of Canada,” O’Sullivan said. He was wrong. It took Harper only seven years. [Actually, O'Sullivan was not wrong.]

... the rest.

Malicious Muslims

Great column by George Jonas:

The much-disputed mosque near Ground Zero has been described as a test
of our commitment to liberty. ... I think it is a test of our commitment to the
wrong question.

... The question isn't whether people should be able to build whatever they like on their private properties. To this, the answer is a simple yes ... Except this isn't the question to ask about the Cordoba Initiative ... Described in news reports as a nonprofit organization whose stated goal is to promote cross-cultural understanding between Islam and the West

... The question to ask is: Can any group genuinely believe that building a mosque two blocks from where jihadists pulverized 3,000 New Yorkers nine years ago will promote cross-cultural understanding between Islam and the West?

... The answer to this question can no longer be yes for anyone non-delusional with a measurable IQ.

... So the question isn't whether Ground Zero's mosque-builders have a right to what they do, but is what they do right? The first is an obvious yes. The second, if you ask me, is a no.

... Certain plans are too insensitive and provocative to proceed from
anything but malice. Seeking to build a mosque and Islamic community centre two blocks from where the Twin Towers used to be "to promote understanding" can only be intended to add insult to injury.

Tolerating diversity

A columnist in my local rag regularly (and annoyingly) derides "whitebread" Victorians for their supposed lack of diversity. So thanks to George Jonas for his column today on the subject:

... Tolerating diversity is good. It's fire prevention; it's what fire fighters do. Cultivating diversity is playing with fire. It's bad; it's what pyromaniacs do. Not understanding the difference is the multicultural fallacy.

... Diversity tolerated is mature; diversity cultivated is juvenile. In the long run, societies either integrate or disintegrate. The melting pot may be inelegant but it's functional; the cultural mosaic is elegant but it's risky and multiculturalism spells, "Hi, folks, welcome to Lebanon."

“Human rights” a Ponzi racket

George Jonas:

... Freedom is the only human right. The rest -- to be housed, hired, admitted to a club -- are human ambitions. In the Ponzi scheme of "human rights" the state feeds A's ambition by trading some of B's freedom for it, then pays for C's ambition in the coin of A's freedom, until the gold of freedom is exchanged for the inflationary paper of ambitions and privileges renamed "rights," printed and doled out by the authorities.

Lip service to liberty, power to the government: That's the deal. Oppression has the bad press; freedom has the rough ride.

... Note to the armed forces of the Canadian-U. S. coalition: After you've liberated Afghanistan, would you consider doing the same for North America?

The rest.

The meaning of Obama’s victory

It’s only four days since Obama's "historic" election, so it's small wonder people are still trying to come to grips with the meaning of it all.

Today the National Post published the views of two New York Times columnists.
Thomas L. Friedman figures that it’s a historic event symbolizing the end of the American Civil War:

And so it came to pass that on Nov. 4, 2008, shortly after 11 p.m. Eastern time, the American Civil War ended, as a black man — Barack Hussein Obama — won enough electoral votes to become president of the United States. [Notice now that he’s been elected it’s OK to include Obama’s middle name. Or is that only permitted for liberals?]

And then there’s the gonzo Maureen Dowd who has a wide range of expectations:

Obama may be in over his head. Or he may be heading for his own
monument. [Or, one has to assume, anything in between.]

Thankfully, on the opposite page of the Post, classical liberal George Jonas provides a more reasonable assessment:

... to those who may be upset about Barack Obama’s victory because he’s black ... consult your shrink. [You’re a racist.]

... To those who are elated about Obama’s victory because he’s black ... Talk with your physician. [You’re a racist but a good racist with a "better prognosis" than the first.]

... To those who are elated about Barack Obama’s victory because it’s a historic first, I’d say: Sorry, it isn’t. .... When a candidate’s skin colour passes unnoticed, that will be a historic first. [Thomas L. Friedman take note.]

... What about those who are upset about Obama’s victory not for reasons of racism but statism? Those who consider his ideas statist, his executive experience meager and his associations dubious - in short, who are upset for the right reasons? To them I suggest: Democracy isn’t for sissies. [Suck it up and "abide not grudgingly but cheerfully" and work to throw the bum out next time around.]

... To those who think who think an Obama victory is going to be a disaster, I suggest: Relax. Take a stiff drink....Yes it may be a disaster ... America survived disasters.

... to those ready to jump on the Obama-presidency’s bandwagon, I suggest: Put on you crash helmet. It’s going to be a rough ride.

...Finally, to those who are happy because they like Obama’s politics and would have voted for him if he had been white and his opponent black ... Congratulations. You may be wrong about your politics, but at least you’re happy for the right reasons.

Excellent advice, George!

A majority for Mr. Cool?

Yesterday my wife and I participated in a rally at the Victoria airport to boost Stephen Harper who was on his way from Victoria to Richmond. It was a big, enthusiastic crowd and there were rousing warm-up speeches from all the local candidates.

We shook hands and exchanged a few words with the PM as he worked the crowd and made his way to the microphone. He was in excellent spirits and in his usually fine speaking form. That guy is one cool customer.

Which brings me to my point. I’ve previously noted my own lack of enthusiasm for this campaign and my disappointment with the debates. I often found myself wishing Mr. Harper would take the gloves off and go after his opponents with a little, no - a lot, more fire. But that seems to be the strategy. Stay cool and leave the fire to others - like Dianne Ablonczy and Jeff Norquay yesterday on Mike Duffy Live. Both of them did an admirable job of aggressively hammering their Lib and Dipper counterparts for their irresponsible, over-the-top, economic fear-mongering.

George Jonas has an optimistic take on the Harper ‘stay cool’ approach:

... Yes, I still think we'll have a majority Conservative government. The latest polls suggest otherwise, but I'll go out on a limb.

... Exhibiting generalship Prince Mikhail Kutuzov would have envied, Harper lured his hubris-ridden opponents to their doom ...

... In fact -- never mind Kutuzov -- Harper showed himself to be the political equivalent of the legendary George Chuvalo. It's not that opponents couldn't lay a glove on the Canadian heavyweight; it's just that it made no difference.

... Why did Canada's opposition leaders do this to themselves? You'll have to ask them ... because I don't know. Possibly it's central to their belief system that Canadians regard any lapse from a state-centred, quasi-socialist credo a sin if not a felony.

... Anyway, did his imitation of frozen-fish-unjustly-maligned-of-being-alive get Harper a majority? I think so. By this week, even emerging with an ever-so-cautious platform seemed safe enough for the Conservatives.

Thanks George - that large dose of optimism is welcome when the chips seem so down. And today, on the TSE, they’re down another big notch.

More optimism here.

"Loony-liberalism" a threat to liberty

George Jonas at his best:

... the force with the greatest capacity for becoming a threat to liberal democracy is liberalism itself -- meaning loony-liberalism, a kind of ideological menage a trois between Timothy Leary, Karl Marx and Al Gore, at once passionate and arid, that in Western societies has all but captured the educational and judicial machinery of the state.
In some, it's a virtual state religion, whose matriarchal, environmentalist, multicultural, anti-male, anti-family, anti-individual and public-hygiene shibboleths are enforced by Orwellian regulatory agencies, commissions and tribunals, better known as the smoke-, smut-, seat-belt-, thought-, language-and calorie-police.
... Democracy, far from being eco-fascism's enemy, seems to be its friend. Its enemy is liberty. That's why I think liberty has as much to fear from democracy as from autocracy.
... I wouldn't rule out anything, not even peace and tranquility, albeit more likely as a result of repression than of good government.
... I'd give individual liberty the worst odds. I think it will continue to decline in the 21st century.

Short, sharp and to the point.

Free speech “doublethink”

George Jonas on the CHRC's Orwellian free speech:

Few institutions conjure up George Orwell’s dystopia of 1984 as readily as the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Chief Commissioner Lynch made a remark that seemed puzzling. "I’m a free speecher," Ms. Lynch was quoted as saying. "I’m also a human rightser."

Well, yes, dear Commissioner, sure — who isn’t? Free speech is a fundamental human right. It says so in the Charter, just in case a human rights official isn’t sure. If you really are a "free speecher," as you call it, you’re a "human rightser" by definition — and vice versa. The two don’t clash.

Ah, but they do, for the Commissioner.

... balancing perceived contradictions between freedom and human rights is Ms. Lynch’s act on the high wire. Ms. Lynch seems proud of being a free speecher as well as a human rightser, presumably because she considers it an achievement in doublethink ...

Orwell describes the doublethinker as holding "…simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it ...

As Ezra Levant said: "Fire. Them. All".

Happy-face fascism

.

.

The smiley faces in the above-left photo accompanying George Jonas’ column in today’s ‘Post’ reminded me of the cover of Jonah Goldberg’s new book. In the photo Ontario Premier McGuinty is announcing his new law banning smoking in cars carrying children.

Everywhere you look these days are examples of Goldberg’s assertion that modern liberalism embraces a well-meaning, smiley-face version of fascism. The example George Jonas picks is second-hand smoke:

I have nothing against the ... agenda; I only dislike coercion and lies. I'm not in favour of environmental smoke, only opposed to environmental hysteria. And I marvel that we don't even blink anymore as government metastasizes into such private spaces as our cars.

Unhealthy as smoking is, it's not half as unhealthy as politicized science. When the Czech President raised the alarm this week about the cause-driven state "that transcends the individual in the name of the common good," he was only reminding us that in order to survive cancer or global warming, it's unnecessary to succumb to tyranny.

It certainly is unnecessary to succumb to tyranny. But we’re gradually and apparently happily succumbing anyway. Eventually, when we’ve given up all of our freedoms, all that is not forbidden will be compulsory. Then we’ll have achieved the ultimate progressive, collectivist utopian dream, The Borg Hive.