Multiculturalism vs. Religious Freedom

How many times have I tried to explain that official multiculturalism should never be allowed to trump individual rights to freedom of religion or expression? I argued this in the Keegstra case, in the Zundel case, in the Malcolm Ross case, and in various human rights cases as recent as the case of Terry Tremaine. The Human Rights laws have so far reigned supreme in the name of tolerance.

The contrary argument goes that the goal of religious, racial, and ethnic harmony supersedes the rights of free speech and freedom of religion because if free speech or freedom of religion were superior individual rights they could cause intolerance. Of course they could. Of course they will. Speech and religion will inevitably express views advocating the superiority of one culture, race, religion, or sexual orientation over another. True tolerance is the tolerance given to one person by another to say A is right and B is wrong. The great questions of morality, ethnicity, culture, language, or philosophy to the extent they are important at all will inevitably claim one is right and the other is wrong. When we ask if we should allow this, the first and more important question to ask first is which is true.

To the liberal, the answer is nothing is true or false, because all truths are merely opinions and they are equal and must be tolerated. This is where the liberal and the believer part company. So far, the liberal has been able to silence the believer by force of law using the trump card of multiculturalism, which criminalizes the believer in any religious, racial, moral, or ethnic superiority. Multiculturalism is a state religion, and religious belief of any other kind cannot peacefully co-exist.

Multiculturalism is the new totalitarianism which the Canadian state has enshrined as a state religion. The place of the inquisition has been taken by the Human Rights Tribunals. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate this than the new Alberta Education Act, which incorporates the Human Rights Act. The combination will make it illegal for a school, public or private, to teach the correctness of any religion over another or that homosexuality is wrong.

The Human Rights Act in every classroom will make it illegal for a teacher to tell any unpleasant truth about a race, religion, or sexual practice which might cause discrimination. This, 30 years after the fact, seems to point at the Keegstra case.

Quebec’s new “ethnic and religious culture” curriculum aims to teach religious tolerance by teaching that religious differences don’t matter. As Father Raymond de Souza put it: “If you are a Muslim parent who wants to teach your child that Islam is superior to being an atheist or being a witch, the education system will teach the opposite.” There are no exemptions. All children must go to these classes. The Supreme Court of Canada, the ultimate authority in Canada in these matters agrees. Parents have no right to disagree with the State religion.

Similarly in Ontario, the government demands schools teach homosexuality is right and proper under the guise of defeating bullying. They are not satisfied to stop bullying by punishing the bullies. They demand a moral affirmation of homosexuality as well.

So everyone is free to teach their children one set of morals, religious values, or cultural beliefs at home, so long as they surrender their children to the State to be taught the opposite in many cases. It is the State’s version upon which they will be tested and if they disagree, they will be marked down and held up to scorn and ridicule by or in front of their peers. That, the State teaches, is teaching tolerance.

The Libyan Experience & Western Canada

In Libya, we managed using force from 40,000 feet to kill Moamar Gaddafi and now separatism is breaking out. The region of Cyrenaica (an old Roman province) from Ras Lanuf on the Mediterranean to the Egyptian border, and from the Mediterranean to Chad contains three quarters of Libya’s oil reserves and desires to separate. What was their grievance?

They claim under Gaddafi, this oil rich eastern province was marginalized and exploited to support the dictator’s popularity in the densely populated areas of Tripolitania and Fezzan. This sounds very familiar.

How ironic that Nato has achieved the hiving off of the oil rich region which no doubt will be more than willing to sell oil at a reasonable price in exchange for independence. The residents of this area will no doubt be better off individually, freer as a people, and better able to preserve their democratic rights and legal and cultural identity than subordinated to the Libyan version of Ontario which Moamar Gaddafi had so carefully manipulated.

Everywhere in the world, small nations are emerging from resource-based economies, which are better able to reflect the democratic will of the people in the land where they live. Usually this is by force of arms. Here in Canada, we have a legal method – The Clarity Act – whereby this can be achieved by the peaceful means of a democratic referendum. Why should we blindly surrender to the Ontario dictatorship and more than Cyrenaica did the Gaddafi dictatorship? They had to fight for their freedom. All we have to do is wake up, organize, and vote!