Showing posts with label The primacy of free speech - cornerstone of western civilization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The primacy of free speech - cornerstone of western civilization. Show all posts

Sunday, May 26, 2019

Dr. Jordan Peterson and the primacy of free speech

Below are partial transcripts from Dr. Jordan Peterson's talk at the Public Library in Ottawa, March 11, 2017.

The signs Fr. Tony's wears to protest the attack on our free speech rights, uses these words from Dr. Peterson's talk:
"The primacy of free speech - cornerstone of western civilization - without free speech the state is a corpse"
Jordan Peterson is a professor and clinical psychologist at Toronto University. He stressed the primacy of free speech for a society to survive, in his talk. Below are the links to his talk and some excerpts from his talk. Emphasis are Fr. Tony's.

I love the way Dr. Peterson posits how free speech goes back to Genesis and God's Word.

https://youtu.be/W9NP4XlveGs (Q&A Part II, 23:05)
https://youtu.be/dKwWkAwlVps (Q&A Part II: final, 2738)

“So here’s the idea that lurks at the beginning of Genesis. So, there’s three elements that are involved in the creation of habitable order, from chaos, at the beginning of time. One of them is, whatever is represented by God the Father, and one of them is whatever is represented by the chaos that exists at the same time, and the other is whatever is represented by the idea of God’s Word. That’s the Logos from a Christian perspective which is a very, very strange idea. So there’s this idea that developed over the course of thousands of years, that the redeeming Saviour was also the thing that God used to extract habitable order out of chaos at the beginning of time. It’s a very strange idea and to assimilate an idea of that preposterousness and magnitude to mere pre-rational superstition is foolish. First of all because we don’t even understand what it means. But it means something utterly profound and it means something that we cannot forget. We forget it at our peril. The story at the beginning of Genesis means that structure, that’s the Father, that’s the patriarchy, if you will, structure extracts habitable order from chaos through speech, and that’s what we do. …

“[W]e partake in the capacity to extract habitable order from chaos with our consciousness, with our speech and with our capacity to communicate. …You understand that in that communication between people something of inestimable value emerges that you have to pursue, and you live for that.… It’s the core of meaning in life, and it’s not an illusion. In fact it’s a manifestation of the highest functions of your nervous system … your nervous system which has evolved over billions of years has learned to tell you when you’re standing on the border between chaos and order and keeping them in balance, and that’s what manifests itself as meaningful and that’s the same phenomena that’s referred to in the creation stories in Genesis and it’s the same idea that’s reflected in this strange Christian insistence that the thing that saves mankind is the same thing that draws order from chaos at the beginning of time. It’s unbelievably brilliant and we’ve been trying to figure it out for, who knows how long, forever, and have never been able fully to articulate it because it’s so complicated. It’s such a complicated idea, but there’s nothing in the least illusory about it” (40:28-44:53).
2
“[R]espect for the Logos and respect for free speech are the same thing, and that without that respect our societies cannot maintain their structure, differentiate and progress. They cannot do it. We use our free speech to face the chaotic potential of the world and its horrors, to structure it, to understand it, to communicate about it and to reach consensus. It’s the mechanism by which we adapt. There can be no restrictions put upon that unless you want to sacrifice adaptation, and I wouldn’t recommend that. Things get stale, old, decayed, dead and dangerous, with extraordinary rapidity...if living people don’t maintain their responsibility to update the state...It’s an ancient, ancient idea, and the reason that we haven’t forgotten it was because everyone who forgot it, died, so unless that’s where we want to go we better stop forgetting about it. … (47:50-49:02).

“And because we are constantly being presented with new things we need to keep that individual variability paramount because it’s upon that variability that the very state depends and that’s actually what the West discovered. That’s why we have always subordinated the state to the divinity of the individual, and that’s expressed, as I already said, in the primacy of free speech in our civilization. It’s the cornerstone, the primacy of free speech, and it’s because the individual has something to offer the state, and so state identity is something that can only, it can structure, and it can reassure, but it also constrains to too great a degree, and so societies that become only state, immediately become old, and blind, malevolent, and collapse, and that’s an ancient story... But that’s the relationship that has to obtain between the individual and the state. The state is a corpse. The state is dead, but it’s a gift that the dead have given to you, and you have to provide it with vision, and with speech, because otherwise it can only blunder around like a zombie. You go to university, you become educated, so that you can serve as the eye, and the mouth of the rejuvenated state. … But that’s the purpose of that education, to turn you into the thing that ensures that the entire ship doesn’t founder and sink, and that’s your responsibility. And if you’re looking for a meaning in your life, that’s the meaning. Keep the state afloat. Why? Well, because it’s better for us all to be in a ship than drowning in the icy water, and that’s the alternative” (54:21-57:36).

“So I would say, you support free speech because it’s the mechanism that maintains the sanity of the individual and society, and you live in relationship with the spoken truth to the best of your ability because the alternative is Hell, and if Hell is what you want, then you can remain arrogant, and resentful, and deceitful, but if you want to work to better the world, to bring it up to what it might be, then you speak forthrightly, you clarify yourself, and you act properly in the world and then you see what happens (1:09:37-1:10:21)”.

Saturday, October 27, 2018

The Mad Hatter has nothing on Ontario's bubble zone law

Okay class, let's review.

This abortion bubble zone law has got to be one of the most moronic laws that the former Liberal government in Ontario--together with Ottawa mayor Jim Watson--ever dreamed up.

Of course, we know it was done for purely political reasons. In fact we have proof of that. But first let's recap this down the rabbit hole lunacy, and then update it with the latest.

It all begins with Joyce Arthur's writing to Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson. Arthur sends a submission to Jim Watson about a make believe need for an abortion bubble zone. Jim Watson parrots Arthur's submission to the Attorney General's office. He literally cuts and pastes Arthur's blah blah blah and sends that to the Attorney General.

Jim Watson falls for Arthur's nonsense and includes her make believe non-reasons for a bubble zone:
• Protecting the safety and privacy of providers, staff, and patients
• Protecting the right to access healthcare services
• Protecting women’s health by reducing the risk of complications
• Protecting the clinic and property from destruction and vandalism
• Fostering community peace by reducing neighbourhood nuisance and noise
• Reducing traffic problems, hazards, and accident risk
• Potentially reducing anti-choice violence and harassment
• Potentially lowering the levels and impact of anti-choice activism in general
His letter to the Attorney General concludes with this gem:
"Legal services has included the recommendations made by the Study's authors in its analysis of the available options."
I am not kidding.

The Attorney General buys this mythological need for a bubble zone and implements the new law.

I learned of all this through a freedom of information request on the bubble zone.

I am now appealing to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario because of all the information that I didn't receive.

In fact, what I did receive was pretty sloppy stuff. No index was included in my package. When an index finally arrived (after I told the information commissioner I hadn't received it when she asked), it referenced document numbers, but my information only had page numbers and no document numbers. So clearly it was impossible to match the index with the stack of papers I received.

One of my other complaints was the glaring omission of any police reports to support the need for a bubble zone in the first place. You know, like actual evidence for the need for a bubble zone?  When I asked the information commissioner about this, I was told:
"with respect to the police reports, I had followed up earlier with the ministry [attorney general] and they advised there were no police reports."
So the abortion bubble zone was enacted purely on the basis of Joyce Arthur's say so, and not on any actual concrete police reports. Political? You bethca. Of course I had already learned that there were no police reports for Ottawa, through an FOI of the Ottawa Police. So not only were there no police reports for Ottawa, but now I learn that there were no police reports for the entire province of Ontario.

Even a pro-abortion's own research corroborates the extremely low incidence of any harassment or violence at abortion clinics in Canada. This information was also not included in Jim Watson's so-called "rationale" for an abortion bubble zone.
"Facilities reported very little harassment (Table 4). No Canadian facility reported a resignation of an abortion provider–physician or any staff member owing to harassment. Only a single facility reported any resignation of an allied health professional staff member, and in this case the facility specified that the one resignation was not owing to violence, fear, or threats. Similarly, two-thirds of reporting facilities (49 of 74, 66.2%) indicated no episodes of harassment or violence in 2012, with a further 28.4% (21 of 74) reporting solely picketing without interference. Among 7 facilities reporting “other” episodes of harassment, half specified only receipt of harassing e-mail."
And now we have an elderly priest being charged with breaking this stupid law. Fr. Tony Van Hee's ticket tells us the reason he was charged:
"Intimidation or intent to intimidate a person."
A sign about free speech is intimidating? To whom? Jim Watson?
"The primacy of free speech - cornerstone of western civilization - without free speech the state is a corpse"
Fr. Tony was also facing away from the abortion facility when he held that "intimidating" sign. So he wasn't contravening this nonsensical clause in the law by:
"continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility," 
Yes. This law is political. Pure and simple.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018