There’s nothing edgy about ‘honour killings’

I can’t believe this needs to be said, but the choices of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas suggests it does.

Uthman Badar, spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia, will be speaking at the Festival on the topic “Honour killings are morally justified”.

How clever.

It has been many years since FODI has shown any desire to live up to its name. Their existences hinge on the flow of government grants, directly or indirectly through the units that make up the art establishment. It’s not here to disrupt the status quo. It is here because, as a Facebook friend snarked, “the whole idea of a Festival of Dangerous Ideas [is to be] some white–person wankery for inner–city latte drinkers to indulge themselves in a trip to the opera house and [provoke] the special feeling of belonging to that special part of society that attends ‘cultural’ events.

So whilst I am openly impressed that FODI has actually gone and proposed a dangerous idea in that context, as far as dangerous ideas go this is quite safe… which is what makes it so dangerous.

It is dangerous in the first instance because the material is justifying murder. Violence is generally accepted as dangerous.

For anyone who, say, might like to think of themselves as culturally enlightened, the barest of philosophical forays will lead you to the subjectivity of morality and/or its experience by the individual.

Armed with this, it is totally conceivable that people who commit what we call “honour killings” have reasons for doing so. It’s a scary rejoinder to the idea of monstrosity as other and seemingly perfect for a crowd seeking “danger”.

This makes it a safe bet. It’s destined to light up blogs like this, and papers and talkback tomorrow, and possibly the 6pm news from earlier this evening. Helen Dale – who has lit up the local media a few times, including this week – called the decision to give Badar a platform “the intellectual equivalent of streaking”, which is so right not just because it’s flashy, insubstantive, and guaranteed to get your eyeballs on the dangly bits, but also because it isn’t novel.

We know that attention will be paid because we have had these debates before. We have had these debates before because there are millions of people who believe murder is a prurient respond to the exercise of certain kinds of autonomy – but they’re other, safely ‘over there’, and the unbridled, uncritical acceptance of the other is how the worst sort of unthinking leftist gets their counter-cultural jollies.

It will be controversial. Why millions of people would hold values so far removed from our own always will be.

And thus we have Badar at FODI, surrounded by the latte elite, who have already started falling over themselves to demonstrate their open-mindedness by paying to listen to a man who fronts the national arm of an organisation that opposes the close-mindedness of a Western liberalism that would go back to stoning women if the culture wasn’t so close-minded.

If an open-mind is worth keeping on this issue this is still not a justification for FODI’s decision. The point of keeping an open mind is to think, judge, and close it eventually. If it never closes it is no great feat of mind, but the simple abrogation of critical thought. FODI is, by choosing to give this violent idea a platform, abrogating that responsibility in the name of whoring themselves out for attention. This is not an act without consequences; what we say in public sends a powerful message about (are you ready for this?) what is is acceptable to say and do in public.

They’re not concerned about that, nor are they actually concerned about whether we should kill slutty sluts for slutting. They’re concerned about how they can leverage Uthman Badar and the Hizb ut-Tahrir brand and the white guilt that creates the cultural relativism that baby leftists are injected with when they submit their first protest poster for assessment, in service of painting the Festival and it’s supporters as open-minded, critically engaged and edgy, and getting the attention that gets them paid. With taxpayer dollars.

If open engagement is what we desire there’s an endless supply of literature on the subject that could be privately consumed. Somehow I don’t think that’s what Hizb ut-Tahrir wants.

That is what I find the most dangerous – it’s lovely to have organisations like FODI that self-consciously hike their skirts and whore their stages in the pretence of glorying in liberalism while trying to undermine it. These ideas don’t deserve to be paraded on a platform as flimsy as amusement. There is no honour in giving a microphone to a man who doesn’t want to give the microphone back, when he will use it to promote a ban on microphones.

FODI sets its own agenda. They made a considered choice to offer the stage to a lobbyist for Islamototalitarianism to promote the murder of (mostly) women.

If FODI wants to truly be provocative, there are orthodoxies far better challenged than the secular, liberal, individualist democracy that permits people – including women – to pursue the free thought that allows them to consider and reject the killing women who exercise autonomy could be totally sweet.

FODI has the right to offer the PR flak for totalitarian organisation a space on its platform, and its secular “cultural establishment” type audience is mature enough to consider the idea without accepting it (the way the Murdoch-media-swilling general publicans apparently cannot, no doubt). Minds aren’t likely to slip out from under the warm, prosperous blanket of liberalism for the rock hard reality of whatever backwards logic makes it okay to kill for a contorted derivative of honour. 

Trudeau: It’s My Party And I’ll Shut You Up If I Want To

FrontOne of the often reviled features of the campus left, across the planet, is the way in which anyone who dares to argue a different viewpoint is shouted down, sometimes threatened, occasionally harmed physically, or, on rare occasions, have their lives threatened.

Thankfully, the vast majority of those campus ferals often grow out of their totalitarian proclivities, if not their socialist ways, and develop the ability to string three words together in a voice which cannot be heard in two separate cities at once without technological assistance.

Those who tended not to grow out of their authoritarian attitudes end up joining parties of the ultra left, such as the Australian Greens or the Canadian New Democrats.

Now, there’s a new voice on the ultra left, shutting down dissent, a wolf dressed in sheeps’ clothing, looking to dine out on freedom of speech, thought and conscience.

Continue reading

All Quiet on the UNHRC Front

Eh

One of the most under reported stories of recent months must surely be the troubling developments at the United Nations Human Rights Council (the UNHRC – not to be confused with the UN High Commissioner of Refugees) writes Elle Hardy

Formed in 2006 from the ashes of the hamstrung and ineffective Commission on Human Rights, the body’s watery but noble aim is to “help member states meet their human rights obligations through dialogue, capacity building, and technical assistance.”

The UNHRC is the lead body within the UN for human rights. Its reports and recommendations can ultimately only be enforced by the UN Security Council. It serves three functions: to review and give recommendations on the self-reporting of human rights in all participating countries every country every four years, to promote and discuss human rights, and to report gross violations.

The Council’s great fame is its infamy: passing repeated resolutions to condemn Israel, while only expressing “deep concern” on Sudan’s genocide in Darfur (and subsequent nomination of Sudan for a seat on the Council by the African bloc), and the repeated resolutions on “defamation of religion” brought by Islamic states and backed by allies in despotism, such as Cuba, Russia, and China.

In July this year, envoys from both Syria and Iran announced that they would attempt to run for a seat in 2014. Presently, the Council is reviewing the human rights credentials for the nominations for the 47 seats by Saudi Arabia, Senegal, China, Nigeria, Mexico, Mauritius, Jordan, Malaysia, Central African Republic, Monaco, Belize, Chad, Israel, Congo and Malta.

Last week saw all but several western countries take to the floor to congratulate Saudi Arabia and China on their ‘advancements’ in the field. Farce is a too temperate word; irony too wry.

A seat on the UNHRC may be of little consequence to the enslaved women of Saudi Arabia, or the starving Congolese – but there is an ethical incumbency to prevent tyrants and megalomaniacs from possessing the faintest air of legitimacy, or a platform to espouse their bilious views.

Furthermore, if any institution with such gravitas, resources, and access is of vacuous morality, is it not conceivable that particular countries or voting blocs could use this standing to cover-up, to corrupt, or to abet further human rights violations?

Outside of right-aligned, pro-Israel groups UN Watch and Human Rights Voices, there is little reporting, let alone criticism. The silence on UNHRC from the major left-aligned organisations Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International has been particularly disappointing.

It must be asked whether the inherent belief in and support of the United Nations by social-democratic and progressive movements in politics, media, and civil society is informing their silence.

Their collective failure for vocal criticism of the UNHRC can be seen through three key defining planks of much of the modern left: the notion of equality, moral relativism, and environmentalism.

Belief in democracy of nations is a logical fallacy. By giving equal seats at the table and votes to countries who do not afford their citizens the same rights, the UN was flawed from inception. Such an existential right of participation is the most absurd form of collectivism.

Moral relativism defies the modern concept of human rights, which dates from the French and American revolutions – where there was universal support for the assertion that human rights both exist and are possessed equally. Strains of the apparent slur of ‘enlightenment imperialism’ pervade the UN and many of its supporters on the left.

It is essentially a front for anti-American and anti-Israel chauvinism. While both countries rightly receive criticism for their records, they are the straw men of a deeply flawed organisation.  Orwell said it best when he noted “the sin of nearly all left-wingers from 1933 onward is that they have wanted to be anti-fascist without being anti-totalitarian.”

Finally, I suspect the left has abdicated the cause in favour of fighting climate change. While many on the right also support the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there is a hybrid of lionisation of the IPCC – and by extension the UN – and a siege mentality. Do they fear criticising the UN could undermine their position in the environment wars?

The only body that can enforce findings of the UNHRC is the impotent UN Security Council – of which Australia is a temporary member. It is well established that our voice on the Security Council will be inconsequential, as the power of veto by the permanent members have rendered it almost completely ineffectual. If Australia wishes to make any use of its time, both the government and human rights groups within Australia should use this platform as an opportunity to condemn the despotic cabals of the UNHRC in the strongest possible terms.

The Human Rights Council is set to review Australia’s commitment to human rights in 2015. It is certain that opponents of the government will pounce upon any criticism of our record. If such opponents do indeed have regard for the enlightenment values of human rights, it will be the height of hypocrisy if we hear scant from them beforehand.

Elle Hardy is a banker and freelance writer with an interest in liberty, politics, international affairs, and the Oxford comma. She can be found on Twitter @ellehardytweets

Lead by Donkeys

Vote 1. Donkey cutout

Is it any wonder why politicians elected
under an undemocratic system would defend that system? Well, that’s exactly
what they are doing. 

While we can’t stop people making
uninformed choices at the polling booth, donkey voting is very much a symptom
of compulsory voting.

Some people select candidates at random, take
a stab in the dark, confuse party names, or treat the election as if it were a Melbourne
Cup horse race and pick the party, or should I say donkey, with the best
sounding name, irrespective of form.

Of course it’s easy to blame the
individuals who do this, but it does happen. And the system itself tells people
that they should vote. It’s illegal not to. So technically donkey voters are
obeying the law, even if the system has made donkeys out of them.

And then there is the complex preferencing
system. Where preferences rely on secretive backroom deals, unknown to voters,
or when people select preferences because they have no choice, whether they like the alternatives or not.

So what’s the result? Politicians elected
undemocratically, not based on the will of the people, but due to a sampling
error or a selection bias. And the trouble is, the problem is swept under the rug.

Why would politicians who have prospered
under an undemocratic system complain? Why would they claim that their newly bestowed
power is illegitimate? After all, many of them have worked hard to play the
system.

At best politicians keep their mouths shut
or smugly placate the electorate with glib suggestions of change, while others
promote the undemocratic nature of the system as a virtue, in order to maintain
the system that favours their style of politics.

Clearly we should all have the same free
and equal right to vote, free from government coercion. Our decision to vote
should be democratic, and our choice should be final.

But who will champion electoral reform? The Queen?
Because the politicians almost certainly won’t.

I think Australian politicians are afraid of
democracy. Scared of losing support if the people’s decision to vote
were democratic.

Jason Kent

Free Our Right To Vote

The Power of the Parti Quebecois Compels You!

FrontKeith Topolski examines the latest bout of xenophobia to spew forth from Quebec.

 

The most memorable line from the classic film Forrest Gump was about a box of chocolates being compared to life. The second most famous line, to my mind at least, was ‘Stupid is as Stupid does’.

 The Government of Quebec, headed by the famously anti-anything-that-isn’t-French Pauline Marois, recently demonstrated it’s intellectual bankruptcy by finding a way for a province in one of the strongest Western economies, indeed global economies, to shed 30,000 jobs in a single month.

 Now, the non-stupid response would have been to try and deregulate, maybe cut taxes, open up the economy to business. Nice try, this is the Quebec Government we’re talking about after all.

 No, THEIR response was that the problems are all caused by those evil God-believers, Allah-believers and, well, believers in ANY omnipotent being which has power over us.

 The best way to rescue an economy that makes Greece look stable? “..ban veils, kippas, turbans and other symbols from government offices, hospitals, schools and any other place that receives public funding”! Isn’t it obvious?!

 Of course, Quebec geared up for this attack on freedom of expression by banning the clearly performance enhancing turban from all soccer matches played within Quebec. Well, maybe not performance enhancing, but we can’t have a show of cultural diversity, so there!

 Well, actually, Pauline Marois claims that Quebec is a vibrant, tolerant province and, in order to protect that diversity, it must suppress that diversity from the public square. I kid you not, to protect religion, the Premier of Quebec says it must be suppressed.

 In suppressing religion, some have argued that a discussion needs to be had over the promotion of religion within the public space. This is a legitimate debate, but the Quebec Government decided to skip around that point because, well, the Quebec Government’s house is just a special exemption to this cause, while its employees are not, ok?

 This brainless act by Parti Quebecois has even been attacked by the teacher’s unions, who have stated that they will support any teacher sacked for wearing a religious icon, on the basis mainly that the Government are a bunch of filthy hypocrites. Freedom gets a run in there somewhere, sure, but hypocrisy is the main beef.

 Perhaps the union might like to make the point that, should this law be passed, Quebec might also run into a small problem of having a lack of luxury items like doctors and nurses.

 Whoops, the Government clearly didn’t think of that, so maybe they might allow for a little bit of leniency in some areas of life, like those pesky doctors and nurses who don’t do anything important. However, with all these exceptions, it will be a great way to create an extra 30,000 jobs in the bureaucracy to deal with the ‘administrative chaos’ this would cause.

 This attack on public employees, not because of their performance, but because of their religion smacks of the most flagrant sectarianism one could possibly come across, and it is quite right that people living in Quebec should challenge the Government on the question of whether the Government views certain citizens as being ‘Quebec’ enough.

 Of course, identity is a huge issue for Federal NDP leader, and Quebecer, Thomas Mulcair, whose opposition to these new proposals is due to religious discriminationinfringement on freedomslack of tolerance the possibility of targeting Muslim women.

 Newly elected Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, also from Quebec, also took the chance to condemn the laws. Such condemnation from Non-Quebecers (!?!) led to a demand from Bloc Quebecois leader Daniel Paille (whose party is travelling so well, their own leader doesn’t have a seat in Parliament) to allow Quebecers to have their own discussion on the laws. All those Albertans (commonly referred to as Canada’s answer to America’s deep south) like Trudeau and Mulcair getting in the way must really peeve Quebec.

 Of course, when a real Albertan, like Muslim Mayor of Calgary Naheed Nenshi, calls the charter what it is, it’s all a conspiracy by the ‘pathetic anglo media’ to portray Quebec as a province that is intolerant of the other. Yeah, like the Anglos from outside Quebec are the only people calling this Government on its bigotry.

 However, some are Quebecers are simply giving up. English school enrolments are dropping so fast the system is in danger of collapse, Universities and families of returned soldiers are under attack, and we’ve already touched on the 30,000 jobs gone in July alone.

 What is most galling about this is how, if such an attack on a religious or ethnic minority occurred elsewhere in the Western world, it would be called out for the bigotry it is. And it did and it was.

 The Government of Quebec likes to declare itself a tolerant nation (yes, Quebec is apparently a nation, although how it squares that away with claiming Canadian equalisation payments is beyond me), full of diversity, but it doesn’t like that diversity being on display. However, perhaps we have misjudged Ms Marois’ intentions, so we’ll let her speak for herself. So, what does Ms Marois want to say, directly, to the minorities and believers of Quebec?

 Marois2

 

 

 

I figured as much.

(DISCLOSURE: While baptised a Catholic, I now identify as agnostic).

Keith Topolski is a regular contributor to Menzies House, with a particular focus on Canadian politics.

Australia’s Orwellian Democracy

War-is-peace4Around 1.4 million Australian eligible
voters are not registered to vote. This is why the government recently made
voter enrolment automatic. The Australian Electoral Commission is now
contacting unregistered voters to pressurize them into joining the electoral roll.

The AEC is ‘getting out the vote’ in
traditional Labor and Green demographics, at universities, unionized
workplaces, minorities, and indigenous communities. And before the election
they will campaign widely to make sure everybody knows the penalties for
non-compliance.

Rudd began his election campaign stating he
would seek to motivate young people to vote. Well, the Australian Electoral
Commission is doing his job for him. Who needs democracy when you have force?

In Australia’s Orwellian Democracy, where freedom equals to conformity, parties
can win elections in two ways: They can either offer good policies, effective
implementation, and quality leadership, or they can just say they offer good policies, effective implementation, and quality
leadership. They can just lie, or use Newspeak. Ruddspeak.

Ordinarily, in a democracy, lies aren’t so
effective because the people most vulnerable to lies – the ones who aren’t
interested in politics – don’t vote. In Australia, this isn’t the case.

In countries like England, Germany, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden and almost every other OECD nation, people are free to
choose. Their decision to vote is democratic and not subject to government
coercion. They aren’t forced to attend the polling booth and they aren’t threatened
with fines for not voting. The choice is democratic.

And the irony is that these countries often
have higher voter turnouts than we do. This is because in a democracy, leaders need
to inspire people to vote. Here, our leaders only need to be slightly less
repulsive than the other guys and compulsory voting does the rest. At 81% our VAP (voting age population) voter turnout is lower than Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and many others.

Ed Killesteyn, Electoral Commissioner at
the AEC says, “more than three million
Australians did not exercise their franchise at the 2010 election in the
formation of our government, or roughly one in five entitled to do so.”
AEC
Website

So while the Australian Electoral
Commission is out campaigning for votes, and the government spends record
amounts advertising free cash giveaways, please
don’t blame the Australian people if Rudd’s lies win him the election. Blame
our Orwellian Democracy.

We
should all have the same free and equal right to vote, free from government
coercion. 

Jason Kent

Free Our Right To Vote

When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty

Unfortunately for the Liberals, the first line of defense against compulsory voting is to not comply. People can secretly (or openly) break the law and take the view that when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. And many do.

Compulsory voting is more popular with the
left wing. The Liberals have opposed automatic voter enrollment while the ALP
pushed it through, and the LNP in Queensland have suggested voluntary voting
while Gillard and Swan bitterly opposed it. 

Liberals around the country have come out
in favour of voluntary voting. Unlike Gillard and Swan, many Liberals feel that
their decision to vote should be their own. Gillard and Swan know that
compulsory voting favours their side of politics.

Unfortunately for the Liberals, the first
line of defense against compulsory voting is to not comply. People can secretly
(or openly) break the law and take the view that when injustice becomes law,
resistance becomes duty. And many do.

This is why compulsory voting favours the
ALP. This is also why the ALP will campaign heavily on compulsory voting to
encourage the new 1.5 million voters who have been forced, or think they’ve
been forced onto the electoral roll, to vote. This could make a big difference, especially if they bring back Rudd.

This doesn't mean to say that everyone has
an opinion on compulsory voting. They don’t need to because compulsory voting
changes the flavor of the entire electoral process, from one of freedom to one
of conformity. Unfortunately many Australians still don’t see the difference.
But they can feel it.

In a system that is not free, some people
will always cut their losses and conform. In some ways it’s easier. It’s easier
to put your head down, conform and support the party – the ALP at least, but
not the Liberals. They tell people NOT to conform. They tell people NOT to
vote. They say it’s wrong to be forced against your will to attend the polling
booth. They suggest scrapping compulsory voting.

But why cut off your nose (by not voting)
to spite your face? Isn’t there a better way to protest in favour of democracy?

Some people would say that this is a reason
to comply with compulsory voting. Others say it’s a reason to abolish
compulsory voting. But surely our decision to vote should be democratic;
otherwise we will see our electoral sample continue to be tainted.

A selection bias is created when the
government forces us to attend the polls and this bias favours the very people
who happen to favour the bias. Go figure.

One way to remove this selection bias might
be for the government to select a random sample of voters, like in an opinion poll,
but with a larger sample. The trouble with this method is that it would not be
democratic because the decision to vote would have to be stolen away from the
people. It would mean that the government would choose who votes and who doesn’t.
Clearly the people should be free to make this choice for themselves. That’s
democracy.

In a democracy the people hold the supreme
power, not the government. We should all have the same free and equal
right to vote, free from government coercion. And it would be far better if our
leaders inspired us to vote rather than forcing us to attend the polling booth.

Only when the people are free to decide if they vote, will we have an accurate
electoral sample – a sample that is chosen by the people. After all, if we are capable of deciding
which party we will vote for, we are certainly capable of deciding if we vote.

The only reason people argue for compulsory
voting is to increase voter turnouts. Unfortunately the Australian people have
been lied to for many years about voter turnouts. The government boosts the
figures from 80% to 94% by counting invalid votes as votes and excluding the
10% of eligible voters who aren’t even on the electoral roll.

Our voter age population (VAP) turnouts are
lower than many countries where voting is voluntary, but Australians still think
we have the best voter turnouts in the world thanks to compulsory voting. We've been brainwahed into thinking our lack of freedom makes us more free.

And as our parties converge to attract the swinging voters, with no need to motivate their base, our system is centralised between communism and fascism at the totalitarian end of the political end of the spetrum. See more about Australia's slide towards totalitarianism.

Only nine other nations in the world
enforce compulsory voting and none are great bastions of democratic freedom, far
from it. We are headed in the same direction with threats to free speech,
freedom of association and other basic human rights, on which issues the Liberal's are mute. They can't afford to scare off the swining voters.

There is absolutely no reason to maintain
compulsory voting and every reason to give Australians back their freedom to vote.

Our decision to vote should be democratic.

Jason Kent

Free Our Right To Vote

English Speakers Not Welcome in English Speaking Nation

Front

Keith Topolski discusses how being an upstanding citizen is being turned into a crime in Quebec.

Ever since the French and English fought over the new continent actually discovered by an Italian, there has been tension in Quebec over who is dominant: Anglophones or Francophones.

Although it has long been established that, for the Anglos, Quebec is the one place in Canada where you are not in the majority on this question, it has not been until recently that Anglophones have been made to feel unwelcome in their own homes.

Bill 101 has been law in Quebec for many years, and it designates that French shall be the predominant language in Quebec. No complaints so far.

However, with all the good intentions of preserving a piece of Canadian history, Quebec went too far by instituting the language police. Lest this site be accused of discrimination by Dear Leader Marois, the Office québécois de la langue française, to be precise.

The role of this office (Stasi might be a more appropriate term) is to ensure that all business conducted in Quebec is done in the official tongue.

This has included, in the past, efforts to demonise Anglophones whose only crime has been to give English and French equal billing.

This carries within it a debate over official bilingualism and whether one official language should have right of way over another official language. That’s a debate we can have another day.

What is more disturbing is that there needs to be a set of police on the beat, telling people what language they can and cannot speak.

Indeed, the new Parti Quebecois Government is introducing legislation to the Quebec Parliament, known as Bill 14, which would, among other things:

… amend a host of Quebec laws, including the Charter of the French Language, the Quebec Human Rights Act, provincial immigration legislation, municipal charters, the Quebec Labour Code and the Educational Childcare Act. It would oblige businesses with more than 25 employees to operate in French (previously, the requirement applied only to companies with more than 50 employees). It would make it more difficult for Francophone students to attend English colleges. And it would make it harder for municipalities whose anglophone population falls below 50% to continue providing services in both languages.”

This is an unambiguous effort to drive Anglophones out of Quebec, along with anyone else who has had the misfortune to not be born a native Quebec Francophone.

This clear effort at playing ethnic wedge politics is a bit rich given it is the Parti Quebecois who are waltzing around comparing the rest of Canada to Nazis.

Now that the Quebec Government has set about cleansing itself of English businesses, it has moved on to Anglophone Universities, with budget cuts which do not apply to Francophone Universities. Education cuts can be debated without rancour in mature forums, but when the cuts apply only to Anglo establishments and not Franco ones, it gets beyond the pale.

These cuts are especially interesting given these evil Anglo institutions turn out role models so unfit for Quebec society that they became Parti Quebecois Cabinet Ministers.

This is on top of cuts which target primary/elementary schools, so that Quebec can remove such treasonous troublemakers as children of returned Canadian soldiers.

These attacks on Anglophones even stirred concern among a minority of the Francophone population, who believed the cuts had gone too far.

That minority was then, however, and this is now. Even just a few weeks down the track.

Now it is an invasion of Italian restaurants which has the Quebec Stasi up in arms, for daring to publish the word ‘pasta’.

I kid you not. PASTA is now the target of the Quebec language police.

This expose of the neo-fascist enforcement of language laws has divided the hardcore sovereigntists in Quebec. On the one hand, some are saying they will ‘review’ the enforcement procedures, while others complain it is more Quebec bashing.

Finally, perhaps finally, the may be an opportunity for reason to prevail in this debate. Oh, yes, I do get the irony of wanting reason to prevail in a debate of language identity when issues such as health, education, law and order and the economy take a back seat for the duration of the journey.

Quebec has often set itself up as the protector of all that is good about the French presence in Canada, and to hell with anyone who gets in their way.

For many years non-Francophones have been complaining about how they have been getting so badly screwed.

Well, some Anglophones won’t have to fear that any more given that the Office québécois de la langue française have now targeted sex aids for the wrath of the language police. Yes, if you want to drop your pants and do what comes naturally, Quebec’s language police want to have a word with you first.

For such an embarrassing overreach of Government authority, is it any wonder when people compare Quebec to a socialist dictatorship?

From education to food to your bedroom, there isn’t a place that Quebec’s language cops won’t go to ensure your cultural and linguistic purity.

Keith Topolski is a regular contributor to Menzies House, with a particular focus on Canadian politics.