Henry Morgentaler – Brave Fetal Menace Fighter
July 17th, 2008 by Joanne
One last post about the Morgentaler OC award, and then I promise you I’ll move on.
This really is separate-post worthy though – From Crime to Virtue by George Jonas, which is featured in today’s National Post as his entry in the discussion series for this week. I love reading Jonas’ columns. They’re not just opinion pieces – they’re works of literary art.
And so I will quote some of my favourite parts:
…Perhaps it’s salutary for an abortion doctor’s name to crop up among the recipients, just to put the Order of Canada into perspective. His inclusion doesn’t debase the honour, only illuminates it for the self-congratulatory establishment celebration that it is. Most awards and decorations are a ritual of pack members sniffing each other for the elite scent of recognition, routinely confusing a whiff of posterity with a whiff of posterior. ..
Oh, that is brilliant!
…Amazonian feminists felt they deserved a licence to kill. The high court issued one to James "Henry 007" Morgentaler, who sallied forth to fight the fetal menace. The Order of Canada celebrates the 20th anniversary of this joyful event…
Fetal menace. Exactly.
Or fetal tumour, because of course the fetus is only an appendage. A ‘menace’ would imply a separate being – unless it is a parasite. But then the DNA would be different anyway, right? Oh well, I digress.
Here is his most intriguing observation:
"It’s difficult not to write satire," remarked the Roman author, Juvenal, nearly 2,000 years ago. It still is. Take Canada honouring someone for exactly the same thing it jailed him for 32 years earlier. What turned a 1975 crime into a 2008 virtue? Public opinion? Hardly. Abortion is as divisive as ever. Has God said something new? If so, I missed it.
What changed indeed?
In our previous discussion, Mary T. mentioned a segment last night with Ben Stein on the Situation Room, where he was asked, what do you blame the decline of America on, and the answer was taking God out of the schools, public life, etc.
That’s right. The left-wing agenda has promoted a creeping new religion of cultural relativism which we have been seduced into accepting over the years, and made to feel guilty if we rebelled against it.
Years of Liberal governments placing Liberal judges and Senators into positions of authority and influence.
Liberal Fascism. Read the book and you’ll start to see the big picture.
And now the Liberals are doing anything and everything they can to try to claw their way back into power.
Be warned.
* * * *
Related: Jonathan Kay addresses Jonas’ piece here – The order of Canada is ridiculous. It seems that Kay is a big Jonas fan too:
…In my early days as a National Post editorial board member, my colleagues and I would marvel — "snicker" was often a more appropriate description — about how Jonas could take any subject and bring it back to Joseph Stalin in four paragraphs. His archenemy, then as now, has always been the creeping tendrils of the busybody, bureaucratic state — and the Soviet-style oppression that can result if free individuals do not beat those tendrils back. Over time, I’ve learned to stop snickering, because so many of his warnings have come true…
Here’s what I found most interesting in Kay’s article though:
…One of my relatives has the Order of Canada (richly deserved, according to the prevailing standards, I should add), and I have always found it slightly ridiculous to see her wear the lapel pin at parties and such. Her extraordinary accomplishments speak for themselves. Yet the pin sends the message that the respect she is owed is a matter of government-mandated duty — to be given or taken away by the state, like a teacher’s happy-face sticker on a schoolboy’s test paper. The fact that she is quite literally forced to wear that pin, according to the rules of the Order, only amplifies this infantilizing effect …
What??? They are forced to wear the pin?
How pretentious! What snobbery!
Let’s axe the OC . It has no place in my Canada.
Update: Jack’s Newswatch has more discussion on this topic at Daily Blogger.
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 17th, 2008 at 7:47 am and is filed under Abortion, Adoption is an option. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:43 am
[...] Blue Like You | Henry Morgentaler – Brave Fetal Menace Fighter [...]
July 17th, 2008 at 8:50 am
For someone who relies heavily on historical references, one would expect Jonas to recall that many of history’s most revered figures (MLK, Gandhi, and even Jesus) made their moral stands by breaking existing laws. Not to put Morgantaler in the same grouping, but merely “breaking a law” is not sufficient for denouncing someone whose position ultimately changed society because history itself has not proven such action to be invariably evil.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Also, regarding religion … Christian fundamentalists were in control of the US until about 50 years ago. During this time the US and Canada were indistinguishable from Apartheid South Africa in terms of social justice, had rampant poverty and spent centuries embroiled in large-scale wars that decimated the local population. North America’s “left wing agenda” has a long way to go to match the evil of the pious.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Not to put Morgantaler in the same grouping, but merely “breaking a law” is not sufficient for denouncing someone whose position ultimately changed society because history itself has not proven such action to be invariably evil.
Good point, Cynapse. Civil disobedience is often the forerunner of societal change. Whether or not the change is postive is up for debate though.
If you’re pointing to Christianity as the root cause for social injustice in the U.S. 50 years ago, then I guess the example of Jesus as a lawbreaker would mean that his actions changed society for the worse.
Of course, many people certainly believe that.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Hi Joanne:
Jesus, with his unkempt appearance and willingness to hang around the vermin of society (tax collectors, prostitutes, etc), would probably be scorned by most suit-wearing members of the present-day flock.
It’s doubtful he’d support capital punishment or segregation, given his penchant for forgiveness and desire to hang with the lower classes. He probably wouldn’t care for abortion (though the bible does not make any explicit mention of abortion – pro or con) but it’s doubtful he’d kill a doctor or bomb a clinic to make his point.
Point: the central tenets of Christian faith (which preceded Jesus), the actions of Jesus Christ and the agenda of present-day political Christians are three separate entities. Fundamentalists frequently make power plays by blurring the lines to demonstrate that modern day social advances are automatically an affront to the Christian faith and will lead to damnation. It’s politics, not faith or morality.
Let Morgantaler have his award and let history judge him as it has with every other human being that was elevated in some way.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:29 am
O.K. Cynapse, I think I see what you’re getting at. I agree that present day Christian churches are often running counter to Christ’s teachings, and certainly not all so-called Christians really act in a Christian manner.
Fundamentalists frequently make power plays by blurring the lines to demonstrate that modern day social advances are automatically an affront to the Christian faith and will lead to damnation. It’s politics, not faith or morality.
Yes, and we could probably make the same statement about Muslim Fundamentalists.
Let Morgantaler have his award and let history judge him as it has with every other human being that was elevated in some way.
Well, I doubt that it will be revoked anyway. But you make some good points. Definitely something to ponder.
And I certainly don’t believe that organized religion as it is today is a solid example of morality.
Which is probably what you were saying here:
Point: the central tenets of Christian faith (which preceded Jesus), the actions of Jesus Christ and the agenda of present-day political Christians are three separate entities.
Just one question though. How could the tenets of the Christian faith precede Christ? Are you referring to the basic philosophy of loving your neighbour, and doing no harm, etc.?
July 17th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Old testiment verses New Testiment is what I think he’s trying to refrence as the fundimentals for Christianity…although he probably pictures Christ as Charton Heston type with a beard and not a sandy Rabi who didnt agree with the existing establishment that was placing money, glutony, power and trade above a central belief in god…
Regardless, religon get’s blamed for more and bloodier wars then anything else in history…..but it’s not the actual fundimental beliefs of the average person that caused the wars….in any religion it takes a meglomaniac or fanatic to start these “Jihads”
But really, if you look through history and read between the lines there were political currents that twisted each religion to make the religion the “excuse” for the actual underlying gread, lust, envy, and glutony that were the reason behind real acts of war…very human failings. Land, Gold, Spices, Oil and other resources, preceived or manufactured wrongs against the agressor (”The people up stream pee in our water” (I loved that line in “The Man Who Would be King”)) or “weapons of mass distruction” etc,…were the real motivators.
When it comes down to it people killed people and if God didn’t exist as an excuse they’d have found something else to blame it on rather then look in the mirror…
July 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Well said, Mred. So you agree with Cynapse – “It’s politics, not faith or morality”.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
It’s even simpler then Politics…it’s basic human instinct vailed in politics regarding wars….but it takes the Charisma or Fanatisizm of a leader to drive it to a frenzy and a scape goat like religon to lay the blame on why we go to war. Religon is the easiest excuse to use as a rallying point that the average joe relates to … honor your mother and father, be kind to others, do on to others, an eye for an eye seems to always creap in, and people can be motivated to do something that they would normally be morally opposed to do or they would avoid at all costs.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I am going to change topic for a moment. Re Ethics Committee. I will summarize what I have posted on MSM sites.
There is no doubt in my mind, after watching two days of Ethics Committee on CPAC, that there exists a clandestine relationship between the LPC and Elections Canada. Interesting Paul Szabo had to make a side deal to get Mr Myrand to appear at the Committee.
I agree with comments indicating this ’stunt’ may backfire on the LPC. The LPC and Paul Szabo have inadvertently handed the CPC evidence to support the CPC claims of Liberal bias.
Of interest to me is the criteria applied by Elections Canada in their audits. It is my understanding that there was an Elections Canada guideline book in effect for the 2006 election and it was used by all parties. Following the 2006 election, Elections Canada revised the 2006 guideline book. The revised guideline book was to be used in all subsequent elections.
Question: Which Elections Canada guideline book did Elections Canada apply to the LPC, NDP and The Bloc?
It is also my understanding that the CPC were audited using the revised (second) guideline book; the book to be used in subsequent elections not the 2006 election. Was the CPC the only party audited using the revised guidelines?
July 17th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Kathy, those are really good questions. I wasn’t aware of the two versions. If you happen to dig up any more info on this or related links, please update us here. Thanks.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Kathy, good post here on the Szabo fiasco at Christian Conservative.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Thanks Joanne. During the Ethics Committee, the CPC were attempting to raise the issue of the two versions of the guidelines when they were promptly shut down by Paul Szabo. I began reading blogs on MSM looking for someone who may have picked up on this issue. Could find nothing, so in order to get it out there, I began blogging myself. Thanks for the link.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
You’re very welcome, Kathy! Another good one is Climbing Out of the Dark. Hunter is posting video.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Interesting that we were having an enlightening discussion on “the value of life and it’s religions” when suddenly we are back to “the ethics committee”. Maybe there is a link after all??
Just a comment and not a “Comment”!
July 17th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
…”when suddenly we are back to the ethics committee”.
Nothing interesting about it at all. I’m not even watching…Szabo bores me to tears. What I am looking forward to is seeing the taxpayers fire him.
Now that I will report!
July 17th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
WCT – There sure is a lack of ethics in that ‘Ethics’ committee.
I agree with Jack. The day the taxpayers fire Szabo will be one to celebrate.
But he doesn’t bore me, Jack. He infuriates me.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I remember about 2 months ago reading about the double standard and secondary revised rule book. I think Steve J had some posts on it and possibly a search on blogging tories will find it there a few pages in….I’ll do some digging later today and post the link if I can find it. There are definately though 2 different standards or sets of rules being applied…