We have also written a shining reflection on the matter, Of Gullibility. (See Diary, December 14, 2013)

Our Government is determined to find cost-effective and innovative ways to help Canadian consumers save money through energy efficiency. Energy efficiency savings generate economic growth while contributing to a cleaner environment. Working with our partners in provincial and territorial governments, utilities, industries, businesses and organizations, our Government helped Canadian businesses and companies save $32 billion in energy costs in 2010 alone.

In 2007, the Government announced its intent to increase performance standards for lighting and, in 2008, approved standards to come into effect in 2012. This was done to lower energy bills for consumers and to decrease energy use, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production. The Government consulted with Canadians and made a decision in 2011 to allow consumers and industry more time to comment on the new lighting standards.

You will be pleased to know that, based on the comments and information provided by Canadians like yourself, the Government has modified those original standards and, on October 4, 2013, announced our plan to amend the energy efficiency standards for Canada’s light bulbs. These changes mean that in addition to compact fluorescent light bulbs and light-emitting diodes or LEDs, Canadian can purchase an incandescent halogen light bulb that looks and performs like a traditional incandescent but that uses 28% less energy. Unlike the compact fluorescent light bulb, the incandescent halogen contains no mercury. The new standards also align with the standards in the United States, meaning that the manufacturers can provide the same products in the United States and in Canada. Efficient lighting products are available in various shapes and sizes, light outputs (brightness) and light appearances (colour temperatures), and at different price points.

Moreover, exemptions to the standards have been provided in order to allow traditional incandescent light bulbs designed for specialty purposes or locations where an efficient lighting alternative is not available. These include oven lights, decorative bulbs, appliance bulbs, three-way fixtures, chandeliers, rough service/utility bulbs, and bulbs used in certain agricultural or industrial applications.

Governments around the world are taking advantage of this energy saving opportunity. Our efficiency standards for general service lighting put Canada on par with the rest of North America, which is also phasing out traditional incandescent light bulbs. Canada is one of 18 countries implementing minimum energy performance standards for light bulbs.

For further information about the new standards for lighting efficiency as well as information on how to choose among the variety of alternative lighting options, please visit the following Web site: www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/regulations/17723.

Thank you for writing on this important matter.

It is precisely the determination of the government to enforce savings that is so objectionable.

Your first argument appears to be that citizens are too stupid to realize that efficient bulbs will save them money in the long run, and thus it is appropriate that their prudence and frugality be enforced by government.

But, if the savings to be obtained by the new bulbs were as legitimate as you suggest, would they not, over time, become apparent, and lead to a change in purchasing habits? Would persuasion not be preferable to proscription and prescription?

I might point out that this is exactly the kind of nanny-statism which is so abhorrent in our health care system. Free choice is sacrificed at the altar of equality, in spite of the fact that equality is a false god, an apparent wizard whose actual machinations of favouritism and gaming of the system is revealed when the curtain is, however briefly, pulled aside.

As Edmund Burke noted: The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.

With health care, the delusion is equality; with light bulbs, you suggest that the coercion is justified, not merely because it benefits the insufficiently enlightened consumer, but because it results in the reduction of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

Ten years ago, at the height of religious fervour, when Climageddon was – or so it seemed – on the lips of the faithful everywhere – one might understand such an argument as political prudence: suggesting to the faithful that their piety lacks evidence may be correct, but unpopular at the ballot box. Today, when the essential theory – that increased greenhouse gasses lead to global warming has been shown not to have been valid for sixteen years – political tact looks more like political wussmanship.

How refreshing to see Tony Abbott declare that the argument behind climate change is "absolute crap." Even James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia theory, and an early alarmist, has faced the truth:

Your final argument, that lots of other governments are reducing the choices of consumers is hardly persuasive. Lots of other governments approve of sharia law; Nirvana is not achieved by a consensus of the mindless.

Government coercion of consumer choice may be justified when there are clear irrefutable scientific reasons involving the safety of citizens. But coercion based on unachievable ideals or unproved theories is folly.

Eventually – or so I would like to believe – despite "popular delusions and the madness of crowds," it will be perceived as such.

(A letter to Michael Enright, of the CBC’s  The Sunday Edition)

Dear Mr. Enright:

I was shocked to hear you refer, this Sunday past, to the "fact" that 97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming.

My understanding* is that this is how the 97% figure was arrived at:

In 2009, a two-minute online survey was directed to 10,257 scientists.

About 3000 responded, of whom 82% answered in the affirmative to the following question:

"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Note the vagueness of the question – what is significant? – does "changing" mean cooling and warming? – are changes in agriculture and deforestation included?)

Of those who responded, only 77 were selected on the basis that they had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by climate science publications. One might reflect a moment on the significance of this winnowing: In the "climate" in 2009, what viewpoints might most likely receive the approbation of the already committed?

Of those 77, 75 were reported as agreeing with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.

Lo, and behold – that works out to be 97%.**

I find it fascinating that you would find the figure worth quoting.

Those in your universe also seem adept at ignoring the suggestion of Francis Bacon, that conclusions be derived from evidence, rather than evidence be gathered to support pre-conceived notions. In science, contrary evidence is a major stumbling block to any theory. In magical thinking, of course, it is not.

The theory of the climate alarmists is that an increase in atmospheric carbon will cause an increase in temperature. How strange, then, that although levels of atmospheric carbon have continued to rise, there has been no global warming for the past sixteen years. Does this not suggest that the theory should be – if not immediately thrown out – at least be carefully examined for the murkiness of contaminated and contaminating bathwater?

In my universe of climate change, little is certain. James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia theory has recanted, saying, in 2012:

(The Conversation, April 26, 2012)

When one considers the patent insincerity of the most well-known climate alarmists, Al Gore and David Suzuki, whose carbon footprints are sasquatchian, even as they urge others to burn the furniture of industrial civilization and return to the caves, one is given pause. Climate alarmism would appear to be in the category of snake oil and nostrum, peddled by unsavoury itinerants out to make an expeditious dollar.

Finally, my climate universe is dominated by an elephant which most (in your universe) purport not to see, even though the trunk is waving, and great echoing blasts of undeniable fact are trumpeted through the carbon-rich atmosphere: The climate of earth has changed radically, violently, and dramatically, long before mankind ever emerged from the caves and dreamt of Cadillac Escalades.

The remains of tropical animals have been found in the arctic.

It would seem reasonable to suggest that these changes have some other cause than human meddling.

Could it be that the magnetic field of the sun – which operates by inhibiting cosmic rays – which inhibition, in turn reduces the creation of cooling clouds – could it possibly be that the sun might have some tiny effect on global climate?

Ah well, perhaps not. It seems presumptuous to suggest as much.

Let the two universes roll on. But I have every confidence that the universe so frequently and passionately endorsed by the CBC will, one day have its comeuppance. Matter and anti-matter cannot long persist. Climate alarmism will one day be perceived as a fit subject for some future account of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

*Sources Larry Bell, Forbes; Lawrence Solomon, Energy Probe.

**Even if the Figure had Credibility, Observation #224 applies: The truth is not determined by popular vote; the fact that an overwhelming majority of scientists, doctors, Baptist ministers, or organ grinders believe in a proposition is irrelevant to its validity.

We’re resting comfortably now, thank you.

It was a close thing. Our universe wobbled alarmingly, and gave every evidence of falling into a frightening abyss. But it now seems to have regained its balance, and spins with its accustomed casual aplomb.

You see –the other day – an otherwise perfectly normal day – a day giving no hint of the horror to come – we had settled down to watch an episode of Murder, She Wrote.

Instead of the familiar theme, and the sight of Jessica Fletcher, typing the familiar sentence about Arnold racing out the door, there was something strange on the screen. We checked the time. We checked the channel. We checked to see if, somehow, a weekend had popped up in one of those occasional, unexpected, gratuitous time warps which we have occasionally experienced.

No, we were not mistaken. Jessica Fletcher had been usurped by Billy Graham.

We had an uneasy sense of foreboding. Had the pious Preacher made some unseemly pact with the Devil? Had he met with Lucifer, and plotted Fletcher’s premature demise? Would the re-runs of  Newhart be next, usurped by Jim Bakker?

The following evening, our forebodings were confirmed. There was Billy Graham again, taunting us, flaunting his influence with God and the Devil, exulting in unseemly triumph, proving that atheists were fair game -- their quiet pleasures as nothing to his evangelical might.

Now, we are not quite sure why we are addicted to Murder, She Wrote. The plots are full of improbable murderers committing improbable murders for unlikely reasons. They are formulaic. If there is no murder at the very beginning, it is guaranteed that there will be one by 7:25 (Eastern Time). The victim will be thoroughly detestable, and thoroughly detested by a considerable swath of the secondary characters. The viewer mourns him not -- and, in addition -- is presented with a number of competing possible suspects.

There is a ninety percent chance that Jessica will solve the murder as the result of an apparently chance detail. The detail – be it a thermometer on the wall, a framed photograph, or a button missing from a jacket – will remind her, quite inexplicably, of a chance remark or flaw in the alibi of the guilty party. This flaw invariably clinches the case.

The murderer, when confronted with the damning clue, does not – as would be sensible – make a stone-faced denial, and proceed to call a lawyer.

For that might leave some shred of doubt.

No, the murderer is invariably patiently co-operative. He or she attempts to explain, however unconvincingly, why murder was a better choice than a divorce, a lawsuit, or simply a rousing, full-throated denunciation.

There are, by the way, no fancy forensics to dazzle us. Nor is Jessica Fletcher ever in any serious danger. The murders obey certain rules of politesse: they are efficient and surgical rather than brutal and horrendous.

What then, is the appeal?

First, I suppose – the episodes carry a certain freight of nostalgia. The oldest of the programs will take you back nearly thirty years, the most recent, about twenty. We are taken back to an era before cell phones and iPads -- although bulky car phones are in evidence. Computers are there, but are ancillary rather than dominant.

Some of the automobiles are a match for our own beloved 1988 Geezermobile.

And, with any episode, there is the possibility that a famous star may be observed – June Allyson, Mickey Rooney, Joan Caulfield, E.G. Marshall, and Ernest Borgnine -- all appeared in the series.

Second, one should not overlook the general cheeriness of the series. This is murder light. The musical theme is sprightly, and Ms. Fletcher, at the opening, is shown jogging, bicycling, or gardening in the little New England Town of Cabot Cove.

One should not ignore the considerable appeal of the setting. Cabot Cove must be, statistically, the murder capital of the United States, claiming more murders per resident than any prudent jurisdiction might have reasonable aspiration for.

And yet, it retains the homey appeal of a small town. The sheriffs, Amos Tupper and later Mort Metzger, are both lawmen and friends of Jessica Fletcher. There is a bumbling mayor and a gossiping real estate agent. Seth Hazlitt is the curmudgeonly doctor -- Jessica's chess and verbal sparring partner -- and reliable friend.

Angela Lansbury plays Jessica, the retired English teacher who has become a world-famous mystery writer. She is warm and engaging, wearing her fame lightly. She is shrewd, but not cynical.  Though she may travel to exotic locations, or become embroiled in the sophistication of New York, there is something that sets her apart. Hers is the  perspective of someone whose roots are in a small town in Maine. She will return home, write mysteries, tend to the garden, and roll dough in her spacious, old-fashioned kitchen.

In the few episodes which she introduces, but in which she does not play a part, there is a sense of loss.  It is like a window in which the familiar candle's glow is missing.

Beyond the attractiveness of the character, we suspect that there is a peculiar sort of osmosis at work as the viewer follows Jessica Fletcher on her frequent trips away from Cabot Cove.

Whether she goes to Boston or Moscow, Egypt or Ireland, Jessica’s fame has preceded her. People she has never met are effusive in her praise, often claiming to have read most, if not all of her books.

Sometimes we are tantalized by the sight of a Copy of The Corpse Danced at Midnight, her first and most famous novel. Occasionally her picture on the cover of one of her books will reveal or confirm her identity.

And if she should travel to Colorado, Alaska, or Kentucky, Jessica will encounter dear friends she has known for years, and will be greeted with an exceptional a warmth verging on adulation. Indeed, it is clear that no real human being could have managed to acquire such huge numbers of devoted close friends – still devoted though unseen for decades.

And this, too is part of the appeal. We cannot help, as we follow Jessica Fletcher through the series, to bask just a little bit in the reflected warmth and glory. We, the viewers, are not famous -- nor are we beloved by so many people at such great distance. But it is pleasant to identify with someone who is instantly recognized and effusively welcomed.

We are pleased, of course, to report that the death of our heroine has been greatly exaggerated.

Billy Graham has been banished to those regions most suitable to his machinations. Murder, She Wrote has been restored. Jessica Fletcher is to be found, once again, on Wednesday nights at seven, in her comfortable Victorian house in Cabot Cove.

After a great shock, our universe continues to unfold with the rightness of things.

Real mail has become as scarce as common sense, and as a result, examples of it have become worthy of note.

We recently had the temerity to send Minister Jason Kenney a five page tome* regarding the proposed Quebec Charter of Values. Mr. Kenney has expressed a bias against the Charter, citing concerns about freedom of religion.

We, of course, are concerned about freedom from religion. We feel that ordinary citizens, in dealing with government workers, should not face constant reminders of the faiths of those employees. Such proclamations, silent though they may be, are no more appropriate than declarations of political partisanship, or views expressed on the death penalty, blood transfusions, gay marriage, or assisted suicide.

We feel that citizen and employee should be able to focus on the business at hand, rather than have unwanted, silent elephants in the background, raising their trunks, tromping around, and possibly pooping on the office floor.

We sent our tome by e-mail, of course.

It has received no acknowledgement of any kind. We have speculated that one of Mr. Kenney’s staff, having received the e-mail, but having been programmed to self-destruct when confronted by 141 characters of print, is now battling for survival in the Intensive Care Unit at an Ottawa Hospital.

We did not expect a response. Indeed, we indicated in an accompanying note that we did not expect, in the age of twitter, that anyone would read a five-page letter. We suggested that our missive might be simply chalked up as a "yes" vote for the Charter.

However, we have been surprised to have received a real letter, sent in an envelope, from the Office of Ms. Marois. It assures us – as far as our limited knowledge of French can determine – that the letter has been read with interest. It has the real signature of an administrative assistant at the bottom.

Of course, letters of favour and agreement are probably more rare than those of whining and complaint, and are more likely to receive a response.

But we cannot suppress a little ripple of satisfaction in receiving a real letter, whatever the circumstance.　

*See Drivel, September 16, 2013

We have received no recent letters of commendation, but do admit to some few letters of complaint. All these complaints deal with our Weekly Quotation Department. Here are the letters – and our responses.

Dear Dr. Dreimer:

Have noticed that your weekly quotations are seldom up to date. It seems several weeks go by without any entries, and then, suddenly, five or six new quotations will emerge and appear to make the list current.

I suffer from irritable quotation syndrome, and this irregularity causes me great distress.

None of the over-the-counter quotations seems to work. The nursery rhymes from my childhood cause bloating and intellectual discomfort. My doctor has informed me that a regular weekly dose of high-quality quotation – preferably before ten o’clock (a.m.) – would do wonders for my condition.

I am sure there are many others in my situation who are too embarrassed to write. You would be doing them a great favour as well.

Yours truly,

Yogurt Lover

Dear Mr. Lover:

We do apologize for the inconvenience. Please be assured that regularity is the ideal to which we constantly aspire.

However, we ourselves are victims in this matter. Quotations do not simply come to us, unbidden, before ten o’clock in the morning every Wednesday. Achieving a worthwhile quotation is not without strain on our limited resources, and depends upon a steady diet of appropriately rich information.

That diet is not obtained, alas, simply by the plucking of low-hanging fruit, or opening a tin of prunes; it often consists of truffles of insight which require sensitive detection devices and earnest digging.

Is your doctor in the Canadian Health Care System? If so, perhaps he could assist us with a centrally planned approach to easing bottlenecks and relieving the distress of quotation insufficiency.

Sincerely,

Dr. Idel Dreimer

Dear Dr. Dreimer:

I notice that your quotations department, besides being hopelessly out-of date, seems to focus entirely on the statements of dead white males. (DWM)

What century are you living in? The 18^th?

My phone number is 975 - 3790.

Sincerely,

Ardent Feminist

Dear Ardent:

Our quotations are chosen for their merit.

Their merit is decided through a careful assessment by a nearly dead white male full of prejudices, preferences, and antipathies.

Suggest a Human Rights Commission appeal might be in order. We are as anxious for Nirvana as you are.

Dr. Idel Dreimer

Dear Dr.Dreimer

I am twelve, and currently studying advanced quantum mechanics in the Gifted Children’s Program at the University of Toronto.

While I find some aspects of your site interesting, I am puzzled that you have no quotations in the Weekly Quotations list from Justin Bieber.

Can you account for this oversight?

Anxiously,

Melanie Williamson

Hi, there, Melanie:

The rumours of Mr. Bieber’s death have been greatly exaggerated. Ha! Ha!

Thus he does not qualify as a DWM, and is not eligible for inclusion in our list.

Good luck with the quantum mechanics! I am sure that Justin would agree we need more capable mechanics for our increasingly complex vehicles.

Sincerely,

Dr. Dreimer

In our Diary of October 17, we noted that Canada’s health care system was founded on the most admirable socialist principles: health care is provided to all by a single government funded entity.

As with so many things, the theory is wonderful; the practice reflects the intractable dichotomy between ideal and reality.

Indeed, as soon as the notion of equality is introduced – the notion that all citizens will have equal access to the best care – you know that there will be trouble. While equality before the law and equality of opportunity have some hope of being attained, the world has not yet been created in which a scarce and desirable good may be obtained without effort, or without some means of discriminatory allocation or rationing.

Thus it is that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than others. People, quite naturally, seek to improve their circumstances, to "game the system," in whatever way they can. The result, in effect is not a "single tier" system of the socialist ideal – but a multi-tiered system wearing a deceptive single-tier mask.

The Canadian system is particularly coercive, because there is no means – beyond leaving the country – of purchasing care outside the system. The government offers the patient care, but strictly on terms set by the government. If the government deems that you must wait two years for a hip replacement, then that is what you must do. You have no option to purchase private insurance which would allow you to hire a private doctor or facility in order to alleviate your distress.

We published a portion of our critique in a National Post comment thread. We were intrigued to receive a reply which objected to our criticism of socialism, and suggested that capitalism creates a disparity between rich and poor, which inevitably results in revolution.

Our response was as follows:　

It has often been observed that socialism is a system designed for man as he should be, whereas capitalism has evolved as a system which works for man as he is.

This, it seems to us, hits the nub of the problem, which is the nature of human nature. In every society there will be a conflict between the unattainable Nirvana of the Big Rock Candy Mountain and the realities of the instinct to struggle, triumph, and succeed.

On the whole, history has not been kind to socialist experiments – for precisely the reasons which are so evident in our Health Care System – inequality, inefficiency, corruption, coercion, and the suppression of choice. Capitalist societies have created greater wealth and freedom for their citizens than socialist societies.

Capitalism, at its core, is cruel, competitive, and unfair – just like life. There is an argument for modification of some of the worst effects of the reality in which we find ourselves – but a wholesale surrender to notions of a world which cannot possibly exist is to exchange the discomfort of the pan for the immolation of the fire.

What is the big deal? The big deal is that deference is paid, not to the individual, but to the individual as a representative of the state. To make that distinction the officer wears a uniform – which suggests a certain ‘uniformity’ and code of values – the legal system of the country or jurisdiction in which the officer is employed. When the officer wears, in addition to the uniform, a symbol of religious faith, the message of the uniform is confused and altered. It appears that the government also approves of a particular religious view of the world.

It has taken us centuries to create the state as an entity separate from theological control. That separation has enabled secular societies to explore the world through observation, and to test theories against evidence, not pre-conceived suppositions. The result has been not simply the comfort of wealth, but greater freedom, and a greater flowering of human potential than in those societies where religion holds sway.

Signs of the encroachment of religious sentiment are everywhere. President Obama, rather than defending freedom of speech (The Innocence of Muslims), has stated that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Would he be in favour of anti-blasphemy laws such as those in Pakistan – and, more recently Russia? Spain is attempting to deport Imran Firasat to Pakistan, that paradigm of enlightenment, where he faces death for apostasy. Mr. Firasat’s crime was to make a film critical of Islam.

The encroachments in Canada are legion: turbans in the RCMP; hijabs proposed for the Toronto Police force; Muslim prayers in Valley Park Middle school; police pressure to prevent Pamela Geller from speaking in Thornhill; the supreme court unwilling to uphold the traditional requirement that those testifying in court not be masked; the near-universal condemnation of the proposed Quebec charter by the pooh-bahs of punditry.

That’s the big deal.

Dear Mr. Kenney:                                    (September 16, 2013)

The proposed Quebec Charter of Values would ban the wearing of religious symbols by government employees – but only while they are interacting with citizens.

I was disheartened at the news that you planned to challenge the proposed Charter. It is true that you are quoted as saying that such challenge would be provisional:

However, I think it is unfortunate that you have given the appearance of joining what appears to be an ill-considered and reflexive response by the majority of commentators in the "rest of Canada"-- a response, I might add, which is not echoed in the results of polls of ordinary citizens.

It is my earnest hope that the Quebec law will not be found in violation of protections to freedom of religion; for if it is so found, then that determination will mark a huge backward step towards a period where it was accepted that religious dogma should hold primacy of place in the practical operations of the state.

From 1632 to 1633, Galileo Galilei was tried by the Inquisition, and found "vehemently suspect of heresy" in supporting the Copernican theory that the earth circles the sun. Galileo was forced to recant, and live under house arrest until his death in 1642.

It was not until 1758 that the Church lifted the ban on most works supporting the Copernican theory; it was in 1835 that opposition to heliocentricism was finally dropped.

Galileo is now considered by many to be "the father of modern science."

In a recent segment of the television series Civilization, Niall Ferguson contrasted two cultures: that of Frederick the Great (1712-1786), and that of the contemporaneous Ottoman Empire.

In one culture, while religious tolerance was promoted, it was not permitted to impede the advancement of science. In the other, a religious devotion to calligraphy stalled the reading of printed books and the introduction of the printing press. Thus, religion, in effect, closed the door to science. Laws were based on the revealed wisdom of the seventh century, rather than being allowed to develop by reason and observation.

It is surely clear that, in subsequent years of development, the culture which focussed on science and reason has become superior to that which looked to religion as its guide and inspiration. For that culture has managed to create greater wealth, more tolerance, more freedom, and a greater flowering of human potential for its citizens.

It is a source of great puzzlement to me why western liberal democracies, having achieved such superior outcomes to those of theocracies, or societies still in thrall to the dictates of a primitive religion, should now give every evidence of uncertainty. They are like Brutus’s climber-upward, who, having attained the upmost round:

He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend.

Indeed, it would appear that our western liberal democracies are prepared to sacrifice the secular rungs by which they have made their ascent. Half in love with the easeful death of their principles, their heads are in the clouds – in the self-flattering belief that tolerance extended to intolerance is virtue, rather than simple stupidity.

Consider just a few of the elements which suggest that secularism is under attack.

In Canada, we have seen fit to allow RCMP officers to wear turbans. The uniform of the police is the symbol of the power and values of the state; deference is paid not to the individual wearing the uniform, but to that individual as a representative of the state, identified by the symbols which he wears. What message is sent when the uniform includes a religious symbol? The ‘uniformity’ of the ‘uniform’ is destroyed. Suddenly, the state is sending mixed messages: the power of the state is seen in an apparently close embrace with a particular religious viewpoint.

The Toronto police force is reputed to be seeking female officers who will wear the hijab. If this plan is put into effect, the same mixed message will be sent: the Toronto Police Force is not secular and impartial, but supportive of a particular religious view of the world.

Recently Ontario Police put pressure on a Rabbi in Thornhill to cancel a speech by Pamela Geller which was to have been given at his synagogue. The police were responding, reportedly, to the religious concerns of a local community. In Ontario, apparently, religion trumps freedom of speech.

I would note also that Muslim ceremonies are currently being held -- during school hours -- in a supposedly secular public school in Toronto. Thus the "secular" has been subordinated to religious demands.

Not long ago, there was a proposal that Sharia Law be given force in the Province of Ontario. It was, fortunately, not adopted – but the fact that it was even remotely under consideration gives great cause for concern.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada, faced with the claim that a woman should be allowed to testify in court while wearing the veil she claims is demanded by her religion – contradicting legal tradition developed over the centuries – took a firm, bold and decisive stand. It made a forthright case for plain, unvarnished, undiluted dithering. Faced with the claims of religion, it ran. It decided to let trial judges decide what it – the "supreme" court -- feared to do.

Looking abroad, we see that Russia, in its secular wisdom – probably motivated by the sterling example of Pakistan – has passed laws against blasphemy. Such laws insulate religion from the freedom to question, mock, and deride. They become a useful tool for those seeking a virtually unanswerable weapon in achieving private ends and personal gain.

Even in the United States, Barrack Obama, the current president, seems characteristically uncertain. He thought it fitting to blame the attack on the consulate in Benghazi on the "disgusting" video Innocence of Muslims. Instead of defending the freedom of speech which is one of the hallmarks of democracy, he proclaimed that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." One suspects that Mr. Obama would hardly recoil at a law against blasphemy in his own country. Welcome to Pakmeristan! Speech is free and unfettered, as long as you are not critical of Islam.

And if you are – then, perhaps, a suitable penalty might be found in the recommendation of Sheikh Faisal Hamid Abdur-Razak, of Brampton, Ontario. Yes, that is Brampton, Ontario. Not the Brampton of the Piddle-Pot Province of Backwardistan. The Brampton in Ontario. The benevolent cleric has argued eloquently in support of judicial stoning, noting that a wonderful purification of the soul is thereby obtained by the benignly favoured recipient.

At the same time, anyone who expresses anything critical of religion – particularly of Islam – some of whose adherents seem partial to the issuing of fatwas, or murdering their critics without that prior formality -- or anyone who attempts to reassert secular values -- is treated with revulsion, scorn, and opprobrium.

Recently Richard Dawkins pointed out some facts not surprising in the light of the historical differences between cultures based on science and on religion:

All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge.

And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing. (2:191_193)

and applied it to Muslims.

He was attacked with outrage and revulsion – with quivering, righteous paroxysms of holier-than-thou-itude. He was accused of racism and bigotry – simply for stating the facts.

The exact same response has been garnered by Pauline Marois from virtually* every highly regarded commentator in the "rest of Canada" – for simply wishing to make a symbolic statement that her government is secular.

Yes, it is true that the enemy of the secular state is no longer Christianity, but, again, primarily, Islam. But there is a sense in which the name of the religion does not matter.

For all religions share a simple common denominator: they pretend to have a direct insight into the "mind of God" but they are unable to present any reasonable, verifiable evidence of their conclusions. They require us to rely upon the proclamations of those who claim to go beyond reason; they require faith.

"Faith," said Mark Twain, "is believing what you know ain’t so."

Now, I recognize – from the evidence – that religion may be an extremely important factor in peoples’ lives. The common sense arguments against religion are so simple, so persuasive, and so "damning" that it is obvious that they are consistently, routinely, and blissfully ignored; they play no part in a decision for religious commitment.

Perhaps, following James Mapes, we might see this as the great elephant of the subconscious, directing the tiny conscious rider, who mistakenly thinks he is controlling the pachyderm. Or perhaps we could think of it as a triumph of the primitive reptilian brain, the diencephalon, over the more recently developed cortex.

Either way, it seems appropriate to ask whether we want a state in which religion is given –or is seen to be given -- primacy, or whether we prefer one in which science and reason are allowed to guide the unfolding of the great human experiment.

I believe that Thomas Jefferson was correct when he said that without reason we have "no guard against absurdities most monstrous," and are "the sport of every wind."

Finally, I must deal with what I see as a misapprehension about the nature of the concept "freedom of religion." The freedom to worship the God of one’s choice is probably as close to an absolute freedom as one can get. For the belief itself interferes with no one. But it seems only common sense to stipulate that there must be some limitation on the freedom of religious practice.

I have noted, elsewhere, cynically, that the average Canadian, were he to be fatally wounded with a volley of machine gun fire, upon being assured that the shooting was carried out as an expression of freedom of religion, would die a happy man, a beatific smile of infinite tolerance etched on his otherwise vacant visage.

But if freedom of religious practice were absolute, then those claiming – as in a recent case – that the smoking of marijuana is a sacrament of their church -- would be exempt from drug laws.

Similarly, those responsible for the World Trade Centre destruction could simply point to verses in the Koran, and claim exemption from all penalty because they were merely expressing their freedom of religion.

In fact, the principle that the state has power to limit claims of freedom of religion has been shown by a former Minister of Immigration, who required that those becoming Citizens of Canada reveal their faces when making the oath of citizenship.

What then, are the reasonable limitations which can be placed on religious practice?

It does not seem unreasonable that the desire of the state to assure its citizens that it is a secular state -- which approves of reason and science -- should trump the desire of the practitioner of a faith to assert his commitment during his interactions with the public.

The employee is simply being asked to conform to a dress code during working hours. That does not impinge on his faith, his dress outside working hours, or other expressions of commitment in his private life.

Government employees, like other human beings, may well have passionate and deeply held beliefs about the death penalty, climate change, gay marriage, abortion, or Justin Trudeau’s hair as a deciding factor in the political fate of the nation.

But is it appropriate that they wear symbolic elements during their hours of employment which allude to such beliefs? If not, then no more is it appropriate that they bear reference to religious beliefs, which cannot help but be divisive.

So much attention has been paid to freedom of religion, that a counterbalancing right has been forgotten: the freedom from religion.

For if the government allows its employees to wear religious symbols, then it would seem only fair that it allow citizens who, of necessity, must deal with the power of government, be allowed to refuse interaction with someone wearing the symbol of a religion of which they disapprove.

The Muslim citizen might ask that he not have to deal with an overtly Jewish employee. For all I know, the Zoroastrian might have an issue with Druidism. The practitioner of Voodoo might balk at conducting his business with a Scientologist. And what of the atheist, who sees religion as no more than superstition, wearing a better suit of clothes? Would he not be offended at being required to conduct his secular business with a government employee stridently proclaiming his devotion to mumbo jumbo? Would he not feel that the credibility of his government has been put in question? Would he not see government as worthy of mockery and contempt?

Indeed, the allowing of religious symbolism in the government workplace would seem to open a hirnea vermibus best left sealed. The most prudent and sensible course is precisely that proposed by the Government of Quebec: government employees should refrain from drawing attention to their private religious beliefs when representing the government to its citizens.**

The secular state is under persistent, deliberate, and concerted attack. One would hope that, ultimately, the attack is not lethal – but there is nothing in the tide of events – including the sometimes shrill and fanatical response to the proposed Quebec Charter – to suggest that the secular state may not, ultimately, succumb.

In my view, the secular state must respond by sending a clear symbolic message: religious belief is protected, but it must not be seen to encroach on the values of the state. The state must commit itself to dealing with the real world as revealed by observation and evidence; it must remain resolutely separate from the world of superstition and the tyranny of dogma.

* To his great credit, the estimable Mr. Ezra Levant has expressed conflicting feelings in the matter.

**As a practical matter, the policy might be phased in over several years.

We happened to see last evening a segment of Civilization in which Niall Ferguson shows a contrast between the Prussia of Frederick the Great (1712-1786) and the Ottoman Empire.

It depicts, essentially, a contrast between cultures dominated by Science and by Religion. While Frederick the Great promoted religious tolerance, religion was not allowed to interfere with scientific progress. In the Ottoman Empire, religious concerns held back the development of modern artillery, and a religious devotion to calligraphy stalled the reading of printed books and the introduction of the printing press. Thus access to scientific knowledge was denied. Laws were based on religion, rather than developed by reason.

The subsequent developments of the two empires have differed markedly. It is obvious that the modern liberal democratic states, using science and reason have provided a higher standard of living and a more humane way of life than those states still held in thrall to the notion that religion should trump all.

It is, therefore, extraordinary to see in those same modern liberal democratic states, an incipient rejection of the very cultural attitudes which have brought them to a position of dominance.

Like the inhabitants of Troy, the western democracies have been presented with a wonderful horse. Imbued with idealistic notions of equality, especially the idea that all cultures are equal, they have found multiculturalism to be a sturdy, attractive steed, and have hauled it into the city, exulting at the corralling of such a resplendent chimera. They see it as a reflection of their own superior tolerance and humanity.

But the horse has a secret trap door, from which emanate disruptive elements.

Some of the cultures welcomed with such enthusiasm fit more comfortably in the seventh century than the twenty-first. For them, religion is seen as paramount, not secondary. The claim is made that no criticism must be made of religion, and that religious practice should hold sway over established customs and legal systems.

The western Trojans, instead of soundly rejecting the very attitudes which have been shown to be inferior in developing wealth, comfort, and freedom, seem bemused by the demands. They seem almost half in love with the easeful death of their principles. So great is their devotion to the ideal of tolerance that they fail to see it as operating successfully only as a two-way street. As a one-way street, it has considerable deficiencies. As we have remarked elsewhere, toleration extended to intolerance looks very much like stupidity.*

Examples of the encroachment of religious over secular values abound.

In Canada, we have seen fit to allow RCMP officers to wear turbans. The uniform of the police is the symbol of the power and values of the state; deference is paid not to the individual wearing the uniform, but to him as a representative of the state, identified by the symbols which he wears. What message is sent when the uniform includes a religious symbol? Is it not that the state approves of that particular religion?

The Toronto police force is reputed to be seeking female officers who will wear the hijab. If this plan is put into effect, the same mixed message will be sent: the Toronto Police Force is not secular and impartial, but partial to a particular religious view of the world.

Recently Ontario Police put pressure on a Rabbi in Thornhill to cancel a speech by Pamela Geller which was to have been given at his synagogue. The police were responding, reportedly, to the religious concerns of a local community. In Ontario, apparently, religion trumps freedom of speech.

Not long ago, there was a proposal – fortunately not adopted – that Sharia Law be given force in the Province of Ontario.

The Supreme Court of Canada, faced with the claim that a woman should be allowed to testify in court while wearing a veil she claims is demanded by her religion – contradicting legal tradition developed over the centuries – took a firm, bold and decisive stand. It made a forthright case for plain, unvarnished, undiluted dithering. Faced with the claims of religion, it ran. It decided to let trial judges decide what it feared to do.

Going abroad, we see that Russia, in its secular wisdom – probably motivated by the sterling example of Pakistan – has passed laws against blasphemy.

Even in the United States, Barrack Obama, the current president, seems characteristically uncertain. He thought it fitting to blame the attack on the consulate in Benghazi on the "disgusting" video Innocence of Muslims. Instead of defending the freedom of speech which is one of the hallmarks of democracy, he proclaimed that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." One suspects that Mr. Obama would hardly recoil at a law against blasphemy in his own country.

At the same time, anyone who expresses anything critical of religion – particularly of Islam – some of whose adherents seem fond of issuing fatwas or killing their critics -- or anyone who attempts to reassert secular values-- is treated with revulsion, scorn, and opprobrium.

Recently Richard Dawkins pointed out some facts not surprising in the light of the historical differences between cultures based on science and on religion:

One would have thought Mr. Dawkins had taken the exhortation from the Koran --

and applied it to Muslims.

He was accused of racism and bigotry – simply for stating the facts.

Similarly, in Canada, Pauline Marois has proposed a Quebec Charter of Values would ban the display of religious symbols during working hours for government employees who deal with the public. At the news, every commentator in Canada leaped to the side of the angels. They expressed revulsion, horror and outrage. They quivered in the paroxysms of their holier-than-thou-itude.

It seems to us a great pity that they did not welcome – at last – some sign of a determination to retain the secular values which have created both wealth and freedom for western liberal democracies.

Instead, they seemed enamoured of the great hollow horse, the horse with the trap door, the horse with the noxious, destructive elements waiting, ominously, within.

*Observation #234

We suppose it started with the self-esteem movement. We suppose the self-esteem movement started when someone was looking for a short cut to Nirvana, that ideal destination where all are happy, exuding confidence, and full of themselves. The old, tired method of acquiring self-esteem was off-puttingly Darwinian. It consisted of overcoming obstacles, acquiring skills, and accomplishing things.

In the process, of course, it was shown that some people are more competent than others. The competent might acquire self-esteem – but the less competent were likely to suffer from slings and arrows, and end with a diminished view of themselves. This, of course, was cruel and inegalitarian.

In the new world of equality, such disparities are unthinkable. Why not take a short cut, and give everyone a large dollop of self-esteem? The solution was charmingly simple: if people are told often enough, that they are wonderful, they will soon begin to believe it; their dollop cups will run over, and they won’t take crap from anybody.

In Fame Junkies, Jake Halpern traces what we must assume to be some of the effects of the self-esteem movement. In a survey of 650 teenagers, Mr Halpern discovered that given the "magic button" option of acquiring strength, intelligence, fame, or appearance, boys chose fame almost as often as intelligence, and girls chose it more often. (www.jakehalpern.com)

Mr. Halpern concludes that The United States is raising a generation of the "celebrity obsessed." Even those who do not aspire to fame themselves, seem as moths to the flickering candle:

Among girls, 43.4% indicated that they wanted to become assistants to a celebrity. They chose this option twice as often as "the president of a great university like Harvard or Yale," three times as often as U.S. Senator, and four times as often as "the chief of a major company like General Motors.

It is probably no coincidence that President Obama seems often to reflect on matters of political importance on late night television shows.

In Canada, there is little room to indulge our usual sense of smug superiority. The tentacles of the self-esteem movement show up in our determination to prevent citizens from feeling the devastating shame of being offended. Sticks and stones may well break bones, but words of disapprobation may well draw legal consequence.

In a recent ruling, the Quebec Human Rights Commission has ordered Robert Delisle to pay $8,000 to Francine Beaumont, a beggar accustomed to importune outside a liquor store in Montreal. (National Post, August 8).

Mr. Deslisle, annoyed by Ms. Beaumont's presence, had written a letter to the store manager suggesting some violent solutions – such as a bullet, or the use of "napalm or flame-throwers." The store manager conveyed the letter to Ms. Beaumont, who filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

What we see here, of course, is a topsy-turvy world at the end of a rabbit hole. In this world, harmonious equality reigns, and none will feel the sting of slight or the smart of disapprobation.

Hatred and anger are subsumed in the mask of unrelieved happiness, and in the benign aspect of infinite tolerance.

It is world neither real nor sustainable. It is a world of the new religion where self-esteem is the chief good, and has inviolable sanctity.

Now, we have noticed an interesting thing about religions. Those things considered inviolable and sacrosanct, those things which, when infringed upon draw the most implacable ire, are precisely those things of the most dubious authenticity.

We do not, for example, have laws and restrictions protecting Einstein’s Theory of Relativity against critical comment. Nor are there committees formed to ferret out those who might speak disparagingly of the three times table.

For these are matters of fact and science, which can stand or fall on their merits.

But in the realm of supposition and imagination – where facts are hard to come by – that is where tempers are on a hair-trigger. Do not mock my deeply held, but completely unsupportable religious belief – for your days will be haunted, and the great Thingamabob will exact his revenge. Indeed, since Thingamabob is imaginary, I will exact the revenge for him.

In Pakistan, death is the penalty for blasphemy.

Remedies for libel and harassment are legitimate. But remedies for hurt feelings take us into the world of blasphemy-- a world of subjective blasphemy--where blasphemy can be redefined, reinterpreted, re-imagined, and expanded in scope -- so that it becomes a tool for whomever wishes to crush his enemies – or make a bit of cash.

It is time to de-certify the new religion, to defrock its priests, and disband the Kangaroo Courts where justice is not upheld, but mocked and denied.