THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
If freedom becomes dogma,
what's left?
—Eric
Rohmer
Kevin
Michael Grace, 9.14 a.m., 30 April 2005►
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
The
roots of the Air India tragedy lie in our nation's
willingness to provide refuge to Sikh militants who sought
to pursue their campaign for Punjab independence from
Canadian soil. Sikh moderates tried in vain to warn the
government that many of those being admitted in the years
prior to the bombing were dangerous. Ironically, it was
precisely the newcomers' claim of membership in the
extremist Sikh organization Babbar Khalsa that was offered
as the pretext for granting asylum.
Once
in Canada, the militant Sikhs made no secret of their
agenda, setting up supposed consulates for the future,
independent nation of Khalistan in major Canadian cities.
These men also fought to take over Sikh temples,
intimidating and on occasion killing their opponents.
The
Sikh militants clearly understood that Canadians, ever
fearful of accusations of racism, and led by politicians
who could be counted on to pander to ethnic
constituencies, would do nothing…
If
Canadian leaders are to explain what went wrong to the
relatives of those killed in the Air India tragedy, they
will have to acknowledge that the source of the tragedy
lies in muddled multicultural and immigration policies.
But there is little evidence any of them will face up to
this fact. Indeed, even now, there is a rising tide of gun
violence in Toronto's growing Jamaican community,
something no one dares speak of for fear of being branded
insensitive.
—Martin
Loney
Kevin
Michael Grace, 12.55 p.m., 29 April 2005►
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
Around 1963 the philosopher
Michael Polanyi presented his theory of "moral
inversion," according to which disapproval once
directed at an activity may become directed instead at the
people who still disapprove of it. By moral inversion we
protect ourselves from our previous beliefs and from the
guilt of discarding them. Moral inversion has infected the
debate about sexual inversion to the point of silencing
it. To suggest that it would be better if children were
not exposed to homosexuality or encouraged to think of it
as normal, that the gay scene is not the innocent thing
that it claims to be but a form of sexual predation—to
make those suggestions now, however hesitantly, is to lay
yourself open to the charge of "homophobia." And
this will spell the end of your career in any place, such
as a university, which has freedom of opinion as its
guiding purpose. In this area, as in so many others, the
ruling principle of liberalism applies; namely, all
opinions are permitted, so long as they are liberal.
—Roger
Scruton
Kevin
Michael Grace, 4.41 a.m., 26 April 2005►
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
If you want bouillabaisse,
you go to the south of France, and if you want to see the
Pope, you go to Rome.
—Auberon Waugh
Kevin
Michael Grace, 11.04 p.m., 24 April 2005►
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
The Prime Minister does not
distinguish between what, in his opinion, ought to be the
case and the actual facts. The "what ought"
always takes precedence over the "what is." Thus
no prime minister should have had anything to do with the naming
of Dr David Kelly, so Mr Blair said he had
not. The security services ought to have deplored the
presence of a sunset clause in the Prevention of Terrorism
Bill, so he said that they had done so. The wicked Tories
always slash public expenditure, so Mr Blair said that was
what they were proposing. Saddam Hussein must have weapons
of mass destruction, so any suggestions to the contrary
have to be wrong. Britain should enter the euro, so the
Treasury's tests must show that it is right to do so. In
each of these examples, the Prime Minister breaks Lord
Butler's rule: "It is not justified to mislead."
It may seem exaggerated and
unfair to compare in this regard the Prime Minister with
the late Robert
Maxwell, the former Labour MP and business
tycoon who looted the pension fund of Mirror Newspapers.
But there is a connection. I knew Mr Maxwell over a number
of years, first when I was a financial journalist and then
when he became an unwelcome shareholder in this newspaper.
It took me a long time to realize that in conversation he
stated only what was useful to him regardless of whether
it was true or false. This caused him no uneasiness. If
you caught him out in a lie, he swiftly smoothed away the
discrepancy and carried on as before.
In a similar way, I believe
that Mr Blair habitually states what ought to be the case,
regardless of whether it is strictly true or false. He
feels completely justified in doing so. Like Mr Maxwell,
he is unembarrassed when found out and carries on
regardless. People with no regard for the truth are very
dangerous. Mr Maxwell was. So is the Prime Minister.
—Andreas
Whittam Smith
Kevin
Michael Grace, 6.13 a.m., 18 April 2005►
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
They are no longer afraid of
truth because they know that the truth will have little
impact on us. Their message to us is this: we've given you
a glorious victory, and we've given you back your
self-esteem...now here's the truth. Which do you prefer?
—Steve
Tesich
Kevin
Michael Grace, 10.33 a.m., 17 April 2005►
