Back in 2003 when I decided to begin my part-time socio-political activism, I knew that Canada, and indeed the West, was in a serious mess. When the country decided to start debating the definition of marriage, I knew I had to drop what I was doing at the time and help raise awareness and momentum to preserve the traditional definition – indeed the only definition – of marriage. My concern for this issue was primarily rooted in my belief in the central and irreplaceable role of the human family as defined by the natural law. But secondarily and perhaps even as importantly, I was particularly disturbed at our willingness to accept a change in the definition of the immutable nature of marriage, thereby rejecting the basic, natural role human physiology plays in it.
Once a culture begins to tamper with a definition that is rooted in the objective natural order of things, it is only a matter of time when it begins to question the definition of other relationships or intrinsic truths such as, for instance, freedom itself. For lack of a better expression, when we lost the definition of marriage, the proverbial barn door swung wide open. After all, if one can redefine marriage which has an objective and natural basis and whose foundation is rooted in the realities of our human organs, it is not difficult to redefine or even outright deny what was traditionally known as freedom of speech. As Dean Steacy would later remind us, “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value … It’s not my job to give value to an American concept.”
Indeed, the march toward totalitarian social regimes was well underway before Canadians started changing definitions of necessary societal institutions, but the pace and voraciousness of that attack has increased exponentially over the past few years. Once our society accepted the principle of changing foundational, social definitions, it was only a matter of time before political pressure groups used their figureheads in both Parliament and Star Chamber Tribunals to impose their ideologies through the various jackboots of the State. For years now, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals have been nothing less than instruments of tyranny against mostly a conservative, Christian population who espouse traditional moral views and reject definitional changes in foundational institutions like marriage. In many ways, their very existence and punishment of politically incorrect, unstarchamber thoughts is beginning to create a subclass of citizen whose social and moral views are deemed unacceptable and, for the time being, must be taxed and fined and whose proponents must be socially and professionally ostracized. In the future, who really doubts that a more serious punishment will not be laid on them along the lines of incarceration? No one who has any foresight can deny this. We’re off into the brave new world o where freedom of speech has been eclipsed by the “Rights” hit squads who are always on the prowl for someone to entrap and to silence so that all may conform to their world view. What fool does not see that this is going to end very badly for our country unless cooler and wiser heads prevail?