News

Youtube reverses decision to ban video critical of gay activism in Canada

1 Comment

Here’s the original story about the banning of the video from May 18th, 2012.

Excerpt:

In a victory for gay rights extremists, YouTube has agreed to remove a video critical of Canadian laws concerning homosexuality from its website, even though the video discusses policy issues and does not use any derogatory language about gays and does not advocate violence against them.

The video created May 16 by preacher and hard rock drummer Bradlee Dean to accompany his weekly column published by WorldNet Daily and other news outlets, exposes facts about the hatred and oppression directed at conservative Christians and opponents of gay marriage in Canada by the radical Left toward people of faith, those who hold to traditional marriage. The video also details a solemn warning to American’s to get vocal on the issue or prepare for the cultural overhaul under way in Canada.

Among the shocking examples of how gay rights extremists are using hate speech laws to silence conservatives is a ruling by a Canadian official that Christian parents who home-school their children can not teach their children that homosexuality is a sin.

Within 2 hours, the video was taken offline by YouTube after it was flagged by a discriminatory individual for “hate speech.”

The video now appears in its original version on MRCTV.

And here is the updated story about the decision to reverse the charge.

Excerpt:

YouTube has reversed its decision to censor the views of a pro-traditional marriage organization after attention was drawn to its removal of a video last week produced by Christian preacher and hard rock drummer Bradlee Dean.

[…]Dean’s video did not attack or demean gays – it addressed serious policy questions raised by actual events and political decisions in Canada. By taking Dean’s video offline, YouTube called into serious question its commitment to “defend everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view” isn’t all that strong when it comes to defending the right of people who hold traditional values.

The situation was all the more worsened by the fact that Dean’s video (which you can now watch on YouTube) was, among other things, denouncing censorship. We’re glad Google has reversed course and stood up for political speech. No matter what your opinion on gay marriage or homosexuality in general is, Dean’s clip didn’t deserve to be removed. His opponents should stick to criticizing his actions rather than trying to censor them.

Rank and file gay people deserve to be treated with respect, and they should treat those who disagree with them with that same respect. We can disagree without having to resort to taking away fundamental rights, like the right to free speech.

News

Should Simon Fraser University build a Men’s Center to match the Women’s Center?

4 Comments

Political correctness gone mad at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, BC.

Excerpt:

The student union at Simon Fraser University in B.C. has made the apparently contentious decision to finance the creation of a Men’s Centre on campus. Motivated, surely, by deep-seated patriarchal values, the union approved a budget of $30,000 to launch the project — the exact same amount conferred on the university’s Women’s Centre, which was established back in 1974. The idea for the Men’s Centre was proposed by fifth-year accounting student Keenan Midgley, who told SFU’s student newspaper that he believes men, too, are entitled to safe space on campus.

Unsurprisingly, however, not everyone at SFU is thrilled with the decision. The Women’s Centre, for one, coolly brushed off the idea of a stand-alone Men’s Centre on its website, simply stating that, “the men’s centre is everywhere else.” They did say they would welcome a men’s centre that focused on “challenging popular conceptions about masculinity, confronting homophobia, sexism, racism, classism, and ability issues.” In contrast, they would oppose a men’s centre that “focussed on maintaining the old boys club … that promotes the status quo, encourages sexual assault, or fosters an atmosphere of competition and violence.” Oh. OK, then. Good to know.

Several other students have taken a more direct approach, compiling their objections to the Men’s Centre in widely-circulated five-minute YouTube video. Deeming the project “not financially responsible,” students take turns expressing their grievances. One woman with seemingly impeccable foresight declares that, “The Men’s Centre will end up being a place to celebrate hegemonic masculinity.” She later attacks the credibility of the Centre’s proponents, scoffing that they have, “no experience being in a gender-studies class.”

Men, too, join in the criticism of the proposed Centre, one curiously warning that it may “become a highly masculinized space.” Another cautions that the project risks creating a “heteronormative space,” while yet another critical male dismisses the Men’s Centre as simply, “a room with a PS3 and a bunch of douchebags playing games.”

[…]While statistics show that comparatively, far fewer university-aged men are diagnosed with depression than women, the rate of suicide among men is four times as great. It’s not hard to connect the dots: men are suffering in silence. And it’s not hard, either, to see why. If the assumption on campus is that men have no use for a resource centre other than meeting up with new PlayStation buddies, it becomes that much more difficult for them to break down the barrier of bravado.

Men, like women, struggle with issues of victimization, anxiety, and depression, but they must battle in addition with a societal expectation of stoicism. In short — it’s not manly to talk about your feelings. And it’s precisely for that reason that a Men’s Centre on campus is such a necessary initiative.

I think if there is this much anti-male hatred coming from the students and faculty, then Men should get a resource center. Or abolish them both, and abolish all the other taxpayer laws and programs that discriminate in favor of women and gays and against heterosexual men.

And furthermore, it makes no sense for these secular leftists women to bash masculinity, and the traditional male roles of protector, provider and moral/spiritual leader, then complain that men won’t commit to them for life and stay faithful. You can’t bash chivalry, chastity and enterprise and then expect men to be ready and willing to marry. To be a feminist is  to be opposed to marriage, fidelity and parenting. if feminists hate men, then they shouldn’t be surprised when men don’t love them or commit to them or protect them or provide for them.  You can’t expect to be treated kindly by people you hate – they will just ignore you and withdraw. You can’t tell a man that he has no special role and responsibility to be a protector, provider and moral/spiritual leader and then complain when he refuses to protect, provide or lead on moral and spiritual issues. If men aren’t expected to be anything special, then they won’t be anything at all.

News

Arthur Brooks: true fairness means rewarding merit, not spreading the wealth

Leave a comment

Arthur Brooks is an economist, a Christian and the President of my third favorite think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. He has been making a push lately to convince conservatives to become more articulate when making the case for the free enterprise system. One of his major ideas is that happiness is not related to the amount of money you have, but it’s related to how well you can achieve your own prosperity and independence by your own labor. His research shows that people are happiest when they feel in control of their own prosperity, even if they have less wealthy than people who depend on the government to take money away from others so they don’t have to work.

Here’s an article he posted on AEI entitled “True fairness means rewarding merit, not spreading the wealth”.

Excerpt:

There are two main ways to define fairness: fairness in terms of opportunity, and fairness in terms of outcomes. The first means leveling the playing field, and the second means spreading the wealth around. The first means lifting people up on the basis of merit, and the second means bringing successful people down.

[…]In a 2005 Syracuse University poll, researchers asked a cross-section of Americans if they b14elieve that “everyone in American society has an opportunity to succeed, most do, or only some have this opportunity.” Some 71 percent of respondents said that all or most Americans can get ahead.

This is consistent with most of our experiences. It’s almost impossible to argue that American success is not earned. We can all think of times when our hard work has gotten us ahead or when we’ve been punished at work or in life for making poor decisions. Even if America’s not perfectly meritocratic, we all see how hard work pays off.

Now, of course, America is far from perfectly fair. But that‘s because life isn’t fair. For instance, all other things being equal, taller men and prettier women make higher salaries than their shorter, plainer counterparts. Believe it or not, there are studies that show these things (as if we needed them). More seriously, some people have substandard elementary education or childhood nutrition, which creates a lifelong disadvantage. Worse still, some children are born into families that don’t emphasize the values that beget opportunity: honesty, hard work, and education.

We need to address these inequities. Still, we shouldn’t abandon the idea of meritocratic fairness just because not everybody has completely equal opportunity. But this is what the president appears to be asking us to do.

America is built around the shared values and aspirations of mobility, opportunity, and merit. Even if only, say, half the outcomes in our life are due to merit, that’s still the half within our control. We should focus on increasing the role of merit, not dismiss the idea because it’s imperfect. Without a belief in meritocratic fairness, we have little incentive to work hard, be honest and optimistic, and create value in our lives and the lives of others. Fatalism and envy are simply not American values.

We need to make the case for the free enterprise system now, using moral arguments like this, otherwise we are going to find ourselves treading the path of countries like Greece, where almost no one works and almost everyone depends on the government to take care of them. It’s not sustainable.