Wednesday, April 30, 2008

The Church of State

I like to think that I'm not yet middle-aged, but I can recall a time not too long ago when gay people had something of a claim on being oppressed by the Man and the general culture. A time before it was considered cool to embrace alternative sexualities. The fashionable opinions and poses have changed so quickly. The balance of swankiness has sloshed from one place to another, enough for people to feel comfortable calling others newfangled terms like "homophobe" for still holding opinions that were almost universal even a decade ago. Who can doubt that there walk among us many who bullied other kids while calling them "fags" or "queers", and who now bully other adults for not buying in to new fads like gay marriage?

So why would anyone imagine that, as fashions and generations change, as new victim-demagogues and advertising campaigns capture the popular imagination, and as today's modish victim group becomes tomorrow's untouchable, offensive anathema while today's hateful extremists become tomorrow's community spokespeople, that these tables will not turn again? The direction is unknown, but the Fundamental Constant of Intolerance ensures that humanity will ever find or rediscover groups suitable for persecution under phony colour of law. At the very least, there's money in it.

The OHRC on April 15 decided that, because Christian Horizons required a former employee to sign a Lifestyle and Morality Statement that prohibited homosexual relationships, Christian Horizons must: pay lesbian Connie Heintz two years' wages and $23,000; no longer require its employees to sign a lifestyle and morality statement; develop 'anti-discrimination' policies; provide 'training' to all employees and managers; and review all of its employment policies to ensure they are in compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code.
HT BCF

"Me today, you tomorrow."

Christian Horizons doesn't deserve this persecution for their private business dealings any more than gays used to deserve persecution for theirs, or than gays will in the future as the wheel of fortune inevitably comes round again. We have already figured out how to resolve disagreements such as these without having the state arbitrarily persecute those who do not keep up with the supposed times -- it's called property rights and freedom of association. These illegitimate Fashion Police, who have been established precisely as an end-run around the rule of law and the peaceable, reciprocal natural rights the law was established to defend, must be shut down. As members of a minority that has usually been persecuted everywhere in the world, all gays should agree that Christian Horizons is being persecuted by cretins and that Heintz should be ashamed of her little bag of silver. They should not be so naive as to imagine they will always be the "tops" when it comes to the interpretation and enforcement of lawless, slippery made-up gibberish like Human Rights.

Bastiat:
Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

3 comments:

basil said...

Christian Horizons business dealings are not wholly private. Supposedly, one of the reasons this was pursued was that they receive Ontario government funding.

(Ha, ha, as I write this, I've noticed three of the letters in the word verification spell out "pay"!)

Mike said...

But then surely the government would just withdraw that funding. Where does the "Human Rights" racket enter into it?

...and that funding should be removed from CH anyways -- even if they weren't anti-human-rights heretics.

basil said...

Like education and other services, I think the government would rather fund them than not (it's not their money anyway) then they can exercise their control of the subsidized racket, whatever the 'business'.