Asshat of the Day - April 11th, 2009

Today's Asshat of the Day? Paul Edwards.

Now, were it not for a case of mistaken identity in a Pharyngula comment thread, I'd never know of the man. Mr. Edwards is a pastor and radio host for WLQV, an evangelical Christian radio broadcaster operating out of southern Michigan. Given their transmission wattage, they cover nearly four states and southern Ontario with their broadcast.

Now, Mr. Edwards was fortunate enough to have the esteemed Christopher Hitchens on his show (hence the confusion in the comment thread from a similar interview), and, for the most part, was respectful. Granted, he repeatedly said that he wasn't out to win a debate, but to "show the Gospel to Mr. Hitchens", but pretty much all evangelists are like that, so I suppose that cannot be held against him.

However...

Now, to digress for a moment, I was under the impression that Pastors were, among their various theological studies, trained in the sort of interpersonal techniques that in which psychologists and counselors are trained. If so, Mr. Edwards clearly failed that part of seminary, because he totally fails to see the points at which he says things that are so abhorrent to Mr. Hitchens as to prompt the later comment, "I felt as though I wanted to hang up, just then." In fact, he goes on, after the interview is over, to ask his audience to "show [him] the point at which Christopher Hitchens got emotional".

I can tell you the things that you said that disgusted him, Mr. Edwards (though I'm not dead certain about the order):

• Mr. Hitchens had already made it clear earlier in the program, that the Bible's acceptance (and mild support) of slavery was absolutely revolting in his eyes, and that he felt that there are few greater evils than one person claiming to own another. And then you went and said that you are a "willing slave to Jesus Christ", and moreover, that you "Do what God wants, without question". Slavish thinking, slavish action - both of these, Christopher Hitchens made it clear he despises and wishes to see eradicated, and you held them up as virtues. If you wanted to deliver the Gospel to your guest, that was not the way to go about it. Specifically, he made reference to Abraham and Isaac, with regards to the slavish obedience to the Lord, with the question being this: What if God hadn't stayed Abraham's hand? Abraham would have killed his own son, just because God told him to do so.


• You also clearly missed the point Mr. Hitchens was making when he said you owed the American Armed Forces an apology for your comparison. You attempted to spin it, in the after-talk, to sound like he was accusing you of suggesting that the US Army had committed war crimes, but this was not the case. In Iraq, the invasion was partially for oil, partially as a victory when Osama Bin Laden couldn't be found, but ostensibly to free the citizens from a tyrannical dictator. The only people they were aiming to kill (and even then, only after a fair trial) were Saddam and his ruling council. If enemy combatants faced them, certainly, there could be deaths. But, tragic though it may be, battlefield deaths are a generally-accepted part of war. What were "God's orders" to the Israelites regarding the Alamekites? Oh, right:

  Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:3)

  
  Now, assuming that we're treating the Bible as a fairy story (and what better way to treat it?) wherein every single Alamekite was not only evil, but born evil, perhaps this is acceptable. But if you want to claim that the bible represents parts of history, this is religion-motivated genocide. An effective means of ending an opponents ability to pose a threat, true, but you can't claim it to be good, nor can you draw a parallel between it and modern warfare conducted by any nation that follows the Geneva Conventions. According to the Story Book, God told the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child in Alamek, and not one Israelite stopped and said, "Hang on, they can't all be evil." Mind you, later, when Moses instructs them not to kill everyone, it gets even worse.
  


• Finally, I think the third major point wherein you got Mr. Hitchens angry was in stating that you were not his enemy, and alluding to Matthew 5:43. On the face of it, this is just fine. Hate is, after all, a destructive emotion - very little good has come of it. But doing good for those who hate you is a recipe for an abusive relationship! Feeling empathy for your enemies is fine, and good - but loving them as you would love your neighbour is both impractical and dangerous!
  
  In many ways, this passage (and, later, Mark 9) are representative of one of the truly frightening messages espoused by believers of many stripes - that what happens in this life doesn't matter. That suffering under your enemy's hands while you love him, or that mutilating yourself rather than admit fault are good options, because you'll be rewarded once this life is over. Those, however, who do not believe, view this as insanely self-destructive - and worse, it can impact them as well, even though they don't think they're getting any sort of benefit after death other than decomposition. It's what makes religious fanatics so unstoppable - death is merely a transition to reward. It seems to me that is the reason why suicide, at least in the Christian doctrine, is a sin. They needed a way to stop people from taking the shortcut to the good life. This is what horrified Christopher Hitchens.

So there you are. Now you know. And, to top it off, you're the Asshat of the Day.

Asshat of the Day - March 18th, 2009

Samson Effect here, with another Asshat of the Day. Today, we have an asshat who a large number of people believe is beyond reproach; that his words from the pulpit are the divine word of God. Well, I am not one of those people, and so this Asshat of the Day title belongs to none other than His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI himself. Now, some of you on one side might say what I just said above, that his God speaks through him, and when he speaks about doctrine, he is infallible. On the other side, though, you might think that tabbing any of the higher-ups in the Catholic Church, up to and including the Pope, is just plain unsporting.

Anyways, I'm sure you're familiar with the Church's stance on birth control of any form, which, if you aren't, is 'no artificial birth control' and that abstinence is the way. Well, Benedict XVI is making his first papal visit to Africa, and a few days ago, in line with Catholic doctrine, has said that condoms are not the answer in fighting HIV/AIDS. In fact, he goes so far as to say that it can increase the problem.

Here's the problem with that line of thinking: It's wrong. It's very wrong. It's woefully wrong. Condoms, when used properly, not only reduce the risk of pregnancy significantly, but they have a profound effect on the likelihood of contracting just about any sexually transmitted disease, HIV included. Want proof? A cursory search for stats on Google regarding the subject quickly shows that the pope is quite clearly, at least on the subject of condoms making things worse, talking out of his ass. And when it comes to transmission and prevention of diseases, I think the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention knows a little bit more than the Pope does. Still not sure about it? More from the CDC about the subject, and going beyond HIV and on to STDs in general. Not only does claiming that condoms exacerbate the problem show up to be flat-out false, it's contrary to the goal of just about every single AIDS relief organization in existence.

Right, now that the comment about condoms is thoroughly dusted, the other part that I have to talk about is the Pope stating his opinion (or doctrine) that 'sexual abstinence as the best way to prevent the spread of the disease'. Now, on its face, this much is true. If you don't have sex, you're much less likely to contract or spread diseases such as AIDS, syphillis, gonorrhea, and all those nasties. Two things: First, those are not the only way to spread or contract those diseases, and second, I really don't know how to put this any more succinctly, but he and his followers are eventually going to have to get it into their heads that the very vast majority of people REALLY like to have sex. You aren't going to change that without seriously damaging those people psychologically, not unlike that portion of the Catholic clergy you seem to hear about in the news an awful lot, or (although not Catholic himself) Ted Haggard. You CAN, however, teach people about sex and safety, and how and where the two intersect, and that will help stanch the flow of spreading STDs.

It took about four centuries for the Catholic Church to admit that Galileo was right, hopefully it won't take nearly as long for the Church to admit that the CDC is also right, and that claiming condoms make this problem worse is baseless, harmful misinformation. Pope Benedict XVI, you are the Asshat of the Day.

Asshat of the Day - March 16th, 2009

Today we return to the well - and by well, I mean the Big Blue Well of Infinite Idiocy. And what do we dip out of that well? Well, what would you expect from an anti-abortion site but a misogynistic chauvinist who thinks that feminists are the cause of society's woes?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Ken, aka RuralRite.

Now, my attention was first drawn to this wannabe patriarch by his first comment to a post that already smacked of patriarchal influences:

Most women have yet to be liberated. They moved from the protection of a naturally dominant man to an overly domineering feminist to think for them.

Wearing men's clothing, men's haircuts and being aggressive certainly isn't liberating.

So, pretty damning right off the bat; a generalization, and not even one of an ideology, but of a full half of the population. Also, he equates feminism with the butch look, and implies that women who prefer more boyish haircuts or enjoy wearing pants as opposed to dresses do so out of envy, rather than simple preference.

A couple snarky comments to deal with "feminized" men as being "she-men", and then we get into "yikes" range once again...

I respect my ladyfriend and she respects me so we don't have to prove anything by having sex.

Er... what? In this blogger's opinion, if you truly respect your ladyfriend (or boyfriend), you're having sex as frequently as she (or he) likes. It's not a matter of "proving" anything. It's a matter of "I care for you, and want very much to give you pleasure." Now, given Ken's behaviour, I'm not surprised that "as much as she wants" is none, but I can't help but feel bad for her.

Feminists have comletely failed to convince most women that they have the best intentions for women. Indeed, if it wasn't for the continual infusion of tax-payers(including mens) money, the whole movement would die.

They had enough time and resources over the years but the fact is you can't fool all the people, all the time.

So, now we've progressed from rudimentary sexism to advanced sexism with a paranoid conspiracy theory focus. Come on, Ken, I know you can reach doctoral levels...

It was thanks to men and men only, that everyone including women enjoy all the lax time they have. Without our inventions you'd still be living in a cave.

Women's 'rights' took a notch upward when they weren't tide down with chores.

... and there it is. Men have apparently invented everything in history. Women have been riding our collective coattails for the duration of human history. That, I think, earns him a PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper) in bullshit.

But wait, there's more!

"you seem to think you should share in the achievements of others just because you have a penis."

Now we get to the root of the problem. Envy.

"And I have news for you Ken, women have been inventing things for millennia "

No they haven't but they have been a better help to mankind in more ways than men because of their different, patient personalities and gifts.

So now we're taking Freud's approach - all women view themselves as incomplete men. Also, apparently we're not going to just suggest that women don't invent things, but state it as fact. Where can we possibly go from here?

Another thing a man invented, The Bassiere.

...huh. Well, at least this is innocuous. It's wrong, of course, but at least it's not insulting...

"Why on earth would a man invent a bra?"

Why would he invent a toolbox?

Come on, man! Give me something here! But surely he can't run with this one, given the substantial proof to the contrary...

I guess you ladies are all too young to remember all the inventions or even books on who invented what. Try as they might feminists haven't been able to change that part of history, yet.

I'm quite secure in all that I have accomplished across Canada but it is absolutely nothing in comparison to what our Lord does every nanosecond.

*sound of head repeatedly hitting desk*

Right. So Ken is another "history is being revised by a conspiracy" group. Unlike the right-winger we previously wrote about, though, in this case, it's not the leftist conspiracy. No, it's the feminist conspiracy, which is simultaneously all-pervasive and on its last legs, supported by the patriarchy and undermining it. And then, of course, to throw away whatever shreds of sanity he might claim to cling to, he gives a shoutout to teh Ceiling Cat.

Ken's baseless claims became so outlandish that she-of-the-all-caps, SUZANNE herself, calls him on it. He returns with another claim of revisionist history, content in the knowledge that SUZANNE is anti-feminist and anti-choice, and therefore almost as nuts as he is and bound to agree with his worldview. But not so, despite defending him against other posters.

Now, there's other stupidity on a truly grand scale at Ken's blog - too much to detail here, but do check it out; gibbering idiocy on a grand scale.

Okay, one post that I have to make note of, just because of the sheer insanity that engendered it. Calling someone a "good person" is an insult. Ken is a man (questionable) not a person, apparently. He goes on to say that "person" isn't a real word, and shouldn't appear in the bible. He cites some etymological background for this claim, and it's not entirely from left field. But then he drops right out of the calm shallows of simple misogyny and into the depths of religion-fueled insanity:

The only words which have substance are nouns. Nouns have substance, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, etc., do not. Verbs are not substantial, they only indicate action. The substance is in the noun. For example, the word party was previously only a noun, but now it's a verb, now it's an act. Instead of saying, "let's go to a party", we say, "let's party". We see how the English language, through its evolution, changes the substance of a word into nothing.

There are no words. Which is fine, because apparently, even if there were words, they would have no substance.

I wonder if he has a tinfoil hat to fit over his asshat?

Asshat of the Day - March 11th, 2009

We return to BigBlueWave for today's Asshat... but this time, one of her commenters, rather than the wingnut herself.

The topic under discussion? The increasingly horrific case of the nine year old in Brazil whose abortion of the twins conceived through rape by her stepfather was roundly censured by the Catholic Church.

Ladies and gents, I present Susan Peterson.

Now, I'm actually struck nearly wordless with rage on reading what she had to say, so I'll let her speak for herself (emphasis added in an attempt to point out the really astonishingly grotesque or irrational bits):

My understanding has always been that this is not permitted. A cancerous uterus may be removed even though it is pregnant, because this is the removal of a diseased organ and it is that which is desired, not the death of the baby. That is the usual application of the principle of double effect. A fallopian tube with an ectopic pregnancy can be removed because that is the removal of an organ in which an abnormal process is going on, but you can't flush the tube with methotrexate to kill the developing fertilized ovum.

Now, for those not familiar, the principle of double effect was first postulated by Thomas Aquinas and is best summed up thus: a non-evil act that results in a foreseen evil side-effect is permissible provided that the resultant good effect is of greater benefit than the detriment resulting from the evil effect. More importantly to this discussion, Aquinas postulated that an evil act is never permissible, regardless of the good it might do.

So, in Susan's example above, rather than preserving a woman's reproductive system by terminating an ectopic pregnancy through a chemical abortion, the only permissible action is surgery to remove the fallopian tube altogether. But she continues...

At that point in those days after several days of labor the chances of a woman surviving a C section were slim. The standard obstetric practice for such cases was the same procedure which is now called partial birth abortion, which involved collapsing the baby's skull so the head could deliver, allowing the woman to survive.
The church did not allow this, and required that a C section be done and an attempt made to save both mother and baby. Usually this resulted in the survival of the mother and not the baby.
...
Even though luckily this situation does not exist today, I think it makes it clear that it is not true that it is never wrong to save the mothers life. It is always wrong to kill an innocent child by crushing its skull, even if that is what is required for its mother to live.

Note, here, that she doesn't say "if that might improve its mother's health" or "if that improved its mother's chances". If it is required for the mother to live - if a c-section or natural birth will kill her - a c-section or a natural birth, killing both mother and child, is the only moral thing to do, according to her doctrine. This is nuts. And just in case there was any doubt:

This case would also have arisen in those days more frequently as without IV fluids women died from hyperemesis gravidarum, and it would be quite clear that only ending the pregnancy would save the woman's life. In that case, probably both would die. I am going to go back and read again, but I didn't see an exception even for this case.

So, tragic, of course, but if the doctrines of a bunch of men fifteen hundred years ago say a mother has to die, even if she could be saved, if the alternative is abortion, so she's a corpse. To borrow from her book - Jesus wept.

Now, she goes on to say that if the medical condition doesn't result in death, abortion is definitely off the table - even if, afterwards, the mother might not be able to walk. Or breathe without a ventilator.

But the capper is this:

If her uterus were overstretched and thinned and clearly about to rupture, I believe at that point it could be considered a diseased organ and removed even though this would kill the unborn children, under the principle of double effect.
I recognize that this would destroy her future fertility, whereas an earlier abortion most likely would not, and that this is something which might make her unhappy in the future. However, in Catholic moral theology, the right to life of the unborn is definitely a higher claim than either her suffering in carrying them longer, or her future fertility.

So, because her stepfather's been raping her since she was six (by the way, he was not excommunicated) a nine year old has to deal with pregnancy either until the third trimester, when they can cut her open to take out two barely viable fetuses, or until her uterus is in danger of rupturing, at which point they perform a hysterectomy. In the former case, I can't imagine the stresses on a nine-year-old's system, or the trauma associated with the C-section. In the latter, you have the trauma of pregnancy, surgery, and the permanent, irreversible destruction of her fertility. And both of these are preferable to aborting 15-week fetuses.

Words fail me. Asshat of the Day may be too kind a term for Susan.

Asshat of the Day - January 31st, 2009

Today's Asshats of the Day, collectively, are... the CHP! I've been putting them off for a while, on the basis of "really, really easy targets are unsporting", but their time has come.

Their full title, the Christian Heritage Party (and their sub-nom de plume, "The Right Conservatives!") should give you an idea what this party is about from the get-go, but let's pick apart the asshattery in detail, shall we?

First, there's the tagline present on every page of their site:

The CHP is Canada's only pro-Life, pro-family federal political party, and the only federal party that endorses the principles of the Preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution, which says:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."

Now, off the bat, they make a really arrogant statement. I'm sure the neoRhinos would claim to be both pro-life and pro-family. In the sense that they are pro-people having a life, and pro-people having a family. Of course, they're also likely to claim to be strawberry jello or figments of your imagination, so I suppose they don't count. Even so, they imply - as most "pro-life, pro-family" types do - that all the other parties want to break up families and kill people (specifically, helpless babies).

Leaving that aside for a moment, let's go into a few more of their more general pages.

Alright, how about here? "Biblical Principles that Guide the Christian Heritage Party of Canada". Yikes. Well, let's have a look:

• There is one Creator God, eternally existent in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Well, there's probably not. I mean, these guys make some pretty solid counter-apologist arguments against the existence of the Abrahamic God, these guys have a whole index debunking myths about a Creator, and these guys went through that book of yours, pointing out contradictions or blatant falsehoods.

If you want to believe in the Lordship of a dead and possibly mythical figure, feel free - but don't expect sane people to swear fealty to you if you're swearing fealty to ghosts above all others.

• The Holy Bible to be the inspired, inerrant written Word of God and the final authority above all man's laws and government.

Er, aside from the link above above all man's laws? The shady, patriarchal bible-language aside, Leviticus is a nightmare, if you go by its laws. Also, there's the ever-popular Leviticus 11:10, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." So no shrimp. If you want to throw Leviticus out, because, well, gee, that was the old testament, I'm just fine with that - but you'd better be ready to welcome in the homosexual community, because guess where all the rules about gay folks are? So either give up shrimp, pork, and rabbit, or give up gay bashing. You can't have it both ways.

• Civil government to be under the authority of God.

You know, on the whole, I'm alright with this, if it doesn't involve the bible or speaking in tongues. The guy hasn't stuck his head in to ask how things are going in going on two thousand years now, and I don't think he's likely to start, so if they want to make a big beard in the sky the authority over the Supreme Court, they can go ahead. They just can't use the Bible, nor can priests of any description claim to have heard from Him unless they have a notarized affidavit attesting to the conversation.

The remainder of that page, though tainted with some "biblical principles" this and "Biblical ethics" that, is largely inoffensive. Which is good, given the content of the rest of the site!

Going through their Policy at length would be an essay in itself, so I'll just pick and choose some of the most horrendous verbiage.

1. The Canadian Nation
   
   • 1.0.1 NATIONAL IDENTITY - "In the interests of national identity and stability, we believe it is wise to enhance public appreciation for God’s role in Canada's unique history, laws, freedoms, political structure, resources, economic opportunities, all of which reflect Canada’s Christian heritage."
     
     Er, sorry, what? Our laws, freedoms, and economic opportunities are in no way the providence of some Creator - that is what was achieved by labour and effort, over years. The resources, I'll leave - I've already expressed my skepticism as to the role of your God in any great act of Creation.
   
   
   • 1.1.2 RESPECT FOR CHRISTIAN HERITAGE.
     Look, guys, I realize you're a one-trick pony as a party, but seriously, this is embarrassing.
   
   
   
   


2. National Sovereignty
   
   • 2.1.6 RECRUITMENT - "In general, admission to Canada's armed forces should be open to all applicants who are of the age of eighteen (18) years and who are resident in Canada, in sound physical health and not practicing either unnatural or immoral lifestyles. Recruitment should be on a voluntary basis in time of peace, encouragement being given to those wishing to make a career of the service. Conscription in time of war should make provision for conscientious objectors (on religious grounds) to serve their nation in non -combat roles."
     
     Okay, I have a few issues here. For one thing, we all know what you mean by "unnatural" lifestyles - and despite what your read-along-with-Father book might say, they're every bit as natural as you or I. Second, the only valid conscientious objection is one based on religious grounds?!? While I would willingly defend my country against an aggressor, what about a moral objection to an unjust war that isn't founded in religious twaddle?
   
   
   • 2.1.9 - ROLE OF WOMEN - "Without diminishing the worth of the individual, government should respect the inherent God-given differences (physical and psychological) between men and women within the context of national defense. The role of women in the armed forces should be restricted to non-combat roles."
     
     So, to summarize, "No offense intended, but we're just going to keep you away from any real fighting for your own safety. Not because you're necessarily weaker or less capable with a weapon than our other recruits, but because of your gender." I'm not a huge supporter of the military, but if a person can do a job, where in the hell does gender come in as a consideration?
   
   


3. National Prosperity. This section has so many bible-reference footnotes, I'm not even going to try.


4. National Finances. This section hardly mentions God at all, and is broadly in line with my own fiscal conservatism. Except, of course, one of their precepts is getting more money into the hands of the taxpayer by means of tax breaks - and we all know how well that works. However, aside from that, very little objectionable here.


5. Resource Management
   
   • 5.0.3. GREENHOUSE GASES - "Both water vapour and carbon dioxide at all historical levels be recognized as beneficial greenhouse gases..."
     
     Water vapour, being mostly a magnifying effect, I'm willing to cede as a neutral greenhouse gas. But beneficial? Are you guys nuts? Oh, wait...
     
   
   


6. The Law
   
   Now, there's way too much for me to list here, so I'll just hit the highlights:
   
   
   
   • Original Sin under the law.
   
   
   • Consultation of the Bible before making legislation.
   
   
   • The Bible's rules are beyond reproach in Parliament.
   
   
   • Special government protection for Christian institutions. Not religious, mind you. Just Christian.
   
   
   • No euthanasia.
   
   
   • Abortions are bad and should never be performed. Not in the event of rape, or hazard to the mother's health. Never.
   
   
   • Pornography? Illegal.
   
   
   • In-vitro fertilization, sperm donors, and pregnant lesbians? Right out.
   
   
   • Gay marriage? Please.
   
   
   • One that I have to quote in its entirety, just to emphasize the asshattedness of the policy: "It should be beyond the power of any legislative or administrative body to recognize, affirm, condone, or discriminate in favor of, identifiable sexually aberrant individuals or groups." (Emphasis added.) So not beyond the power of the government to discriminate against. They just can't recognize them publicly. Hm.
   
   
   • Mothers should be encouraged to stay home. Not "caregivers", mind. Mothers.
   
   
   • Banning the teaching of positive viewpoints on abortion, homosexuality, and the occult, among others.
   
   
   • No laws banning hate speech.
   
   
   • To reiterate: Porn == Bad.
   
   
   • Capital punishment. But not abortion!
   
   
   • Laws based on the Bible, rather than current events.
   
   
   
   Whew.
   


7. Civil Government
   
   
   
   • 7.0.2. CHURCH AND STATE
     We affirm that government and some belief system are inextricably intertwined, and that faith and government, therefore, cannot be segregated. Though the mandate of church and state are different, we deny that God and His Word should be separate from either institution.
     
     Seriously. WHAT THE HELL?
     
   
   
   • You know what? It keeps getting worse. So again, I'll try to hit the highlights.
   
   
   • Human rights come secondary to the rule of the Bible.
   
   
   • Human beings are human beings from conception onwards!
   
   
   • Proportional representation. Gee, I wonder why?
   
   
   • Want to be a Supreme Court Justice? Then you'd better be a God-fearin' Christian!
   
   


8. The Public Service
   
   Pretty inoffensive. No mention of God, or of the moral decrepitude that is clearly overwhelming our country.


9. Welfare Services
   
   Quick summary: Fewer welfare cases, sex should only be in marriage, because that would stop the spread of STDs.
   


10. Arts and Communication
    
    
    
    • 1. CODE OF ETHICS
      
      In view of the awesome power of the media and entertainment industries to shape public sentiment and attitudes, we favor the adoption of national codes of ethics to restore objectivity and to uphold wholesome traditional values. In the past, censorship implied the suppression of legitimate view-points or facts. In our own time 'censorship' is necessary to protect the weak and gullible from the avaricious. Therefore, a code of ethics incumbent on the mass media and entertainment industries, both printed and electronic, is necessary to halt the debauching of public morals, particularly those of the young.
      
      I am, somehow, unsurprised.
      
    
    
    • 2. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
      ... [I]f the media and arts are unable to regulate, by a self-imposed code of decency, those things which are calculated not to inform but to titillate or disinform, then censorship by authority becomes essential.
      
      Again, I'd like to say I'm surprised that they want to slap a muzzle on media. I'd like to.
      
    
    
    • 4. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT OF THE ARTS
      Government support of the arts should continue, but it must not be left aimless -- a condition in which it is susceptible to misuse or abuse by anti-social, anti-religious, immoral or unpatriotic ideologues. Instead, government funding should be targeted to works that ennoble the human spirit, educate, preserve and transmit the values of our culture and the Christian principles upon which they are based, encourage the aspiration to be better human beings, and glorify the Creator. (Emphasis added.)
      
      So, we'll keep paying for the arts - but only the arts that we want the people to see. And yet this is the group who says totalitarian regimes are a bad thing.
      
    
    
    • 6. NATIONAL FILM BOARD
      The National Film Board should be reduced to an archival facility with a limited budget to purchase Canadian-made productions which document Canada's culture, history, natural history, and educational standards.
      
      And as a last bitter stab, we'll go and gut a prominent Canadian institution.
      
    
    
    
    

There are hundreds of pages of stuff, which may be revisited in the future, if there's a slow day, but the long and the short of it is that the whole party's insane. They want to turn the clock back to 1920, legally and socially.

News flash, CHP. It's not a lack of proportional representation that's meant your party's never landed a seat in Parliament. It's the fact that your policies are thinly-veiled bigotry, sexism, and theocratic mutterings. It's the fact that you're clearly hypocritical and, frankly, apparently unstable. It is, more than anything else, the fact that you purport to know what everyone needs better than they themselves do.

You want to evangelize? Take a lesson from what happened to the smokers, and so it in the privacy of your own home. Don't take it into a political forum.

Addendum - this is just too juicy.

So, get this. The CHP posted a bit about climate change, the danger of the UN, and the IPCC. If I had an irony meter, it would probably have exploded - take a gander:

Thousands of respected climatologists have raised their voices (and signed a document) in vain to warn that the "science" behind the IPCC's fear-mongering is in fact woefully unscientific: it tolerates no questioning of its basic premise, which is not a scientific orthodoxy but a religious dogma: "Human activity is altering the world's climate, and disaster portends." Saints Gore and Suzuki have uttered the decrees, and doubts are heretical and sinful.

Is it possible that they miss the massive cognitive dissonance involved in a party which defines itself by religion using a comparison with religious dogma to throw science into a negative light?