Sample Columns by Michael Coren
Here,
you will find some previous columns written by Michael Coren.
These appeared in his Saturday columns for the Toronto Sun,
which you can read each week in the Sun newspapers or at the Sun
Website.
This week we commemorate
the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade by the British
parliament. Anglican leaders in Britain have marched around the country
offering their apologies and even Prime Minister Tony Blair has said sorry,
as if he was somehow personally responsible. Hardly a day goes by without
another confused and confusing European or North American screaming contrition
and indirectly blaming the churches and white civilization for the use
of African slaves between the late sixteenth and mid nineteenth-centuries.
Problem is, it displays an achingly flawed understanding of history and
of human nature.
It’s surely a self-evident truth in the opening years of the 21st
century that slavery is an intolerable evil. Also self-evident that earlier
cultures did not share this opinion and that the most sophisticated of
them, of all races and religions, thought it inevitable and even ethical
that the powerful would enslave those whom they defeated or those who
could not effectively resist capture. One culture and one religion, however,
are distinguished for condemning and concluding slavery when it was easier
and far more lucrative not to have done so. The culture is Anglo-Saxon
and the religion is Christianity.
Europeans certainly enslaved Africans, often buying them from local African
warlords or simply transforming local customs into something far more
repugnant and far more widespread. The same Europeans, of course, were
themselves used as slaves when captured by the Ottoman Turks and would
continue to be such victims until the seventeenth-century.
But there is no doubt that the white use of black men, women and children
as slaves was organized, brutal and grotesque. And enormously profitable.
Which makes the grand opposition to it by the 1780s so profoundly impressive.
To put it simply, there was a great deal to lose, nothing to gain and
no need to change anything. The only dynamic behind a series of boycotts
of slave-produced products, campaigns to expose the cruelty of slavery
and eventually successful legislation to abolish the trade was that in
Christian eyes it was wrong.
There were certainly church figures who supported slavery but there were
people from all area of life who supported it. What is important is that
the only opponents were monks, priests and Christian laity. Secular and
non-Christian resistance was almost unheard of.
This was one of the reasons why Christian missionaries were so vehemently
opposed by many African chieftains. The famous Dr. Livingstone spent much
of his time in central Africa preaching against slavery, much to the chagrin
of the local Arab slave-dealers, and their indigenous partners, who made
a fortune out of selling Africans to other parts of the continent and
to the Middle East. The Sultan of Zanzibar was forced to end slavery as
late as 1873 when the British arrived. In an act that would today be called
barbarically imperialistic the British occupiers built an Anglican cathedral
on the site of the destroyed slave market.
In 1843 the British took Karachi from its Muslim leaders and demanded
that the slave trade be stopped immediately and the slave market be torn
to the ground. They built in its place a huge fruit and vegetable market
that operates even to this day. The notion that Islam rejects slavery
and Christianity encourages it is, frankly, laughable.
It is beyond dispute that in the eyes of African and Arab leaders in the
nineteenth-century Christian expansion signified an end to slavery, which
is one of the reasons why British ships so regularly battled Muslim pirates
around North Africa and why Anglo-Celtic culture was seen as a liberating
force by contemporary liberal movements.
The real axis of evil that was slavery connected Africa, south Asia and
Arabia and lasted far longer than that in the white, Christian world.
Indeed it still exists. According to anti-slavery groups there are still
millions who are enslaved servants and concubines. In Sudan Animist and
Christian tribes are raided by Arab militias; the men are killed and the
women and children taken as slaves. There are cane-workers in leg-shackles
in southern Pakistan and hundreds of thousands of women and children are
sold from Benin and Togo to wealthier African nations such as Nigeria
and Gabon.
The criminals who operate these multi-national enterprises are seldom
reprimanded and in the case of Sudan are applauded by a government that
is, in turn, supported by several leading Arab states. They must be laughing
at the post-Christian westerners beating their breasts and crying for
forgiveness for something, which their ancestors worked so hard to stop.
Did so only because their Christian faith and European enlightenment convinced
them that it was wrong. Those dead white guys certainly knew a thing or
two.
Gavin was having a
bad day. A very bad day indeed. And when 5-year-old boys have bad days
everybody gets to know about it. He began to kick the cat. His father
told him to stop it. Gavin refused, and gave the creature another few
kicks. At which point Joe Cleary did what many parents might do. He gave
his son a spanking. End of story.
But no. The spanking on the bum left a very slight mark and this was noticed
by a teacher at Gavin’s swimming lesson. The teacher reported it
to her supervisor, who in turn reported it to the Durham Children’s
Aid Society.
The first thing that happened was a telephone call from a young social
worker to Joe’s wife, Perry, the mother of their six children. The
social worker wanted clarification of the incident and requested an interview
with little Gavin. “I’ll have to speak to my husband first”,
said the heavily pregnant Perry. The social worker was incredulous, even
annoyed. Why on earth did she have to speak to her husband?
“Because” replied Perry, “he is my husband, because
he is Gavin’s father and because he is the head of the house.”
There is an expression concerning a bull and a red rag that comes to mind.
The social worker seemed extremely angry now, almost beyond reason.
It was a month later when the police came to arrest Joe Cleary. They came
to where he worked, handcuffed him in front of his workmates and employers
and took him away like some rapist or murderer. He was charged with assault
and was told by the police that he really should make a statement before
his lawyer arrived because if he didn’t it would look bad in court.
Joe had nothing at all to hide and so he made a statement.
This good, honest, hard-working man was now incarcerated for two days
in a holding cell and then in Whitby Jail, where prisoners are kept for
up to two years. He had to fend off sexual advances from other men, had
to watch out for the men around him charged with unspeakable crimes of
violence and sadism.
After a brief court appearance the Crown asked for $1000 bail. His wife
managed to get the money and offered it to the court. She was turned down,
because of a statement she had made to the 22-year-old social worker on
the phone. She had referred to her husband as being “the head of
the house” and this was to be used in court by the prosecution,
the accusation being that the couple had a “slave-master”
relationship.
So the money had to be found elsewhere, and this wasn’t easy for
a large family who put their children first and have limited personal
savings. But they managed. The bail conditions initially prevented Joe
from having any contact with minors, effectively stopping him from seeing
his family. Perry, now with a 10-day-old baby in her arms, protested so
loudly that eventually her husband was allowed to return home.
The couple had to go to court a further seven times, with the crown demanding
continuances and further investigations. “It was almost as if they
were trying to punish us,” say the Clearys. The couple’s legal
bills eventually totaled $10,000 but their lawyers were so outraged by
what was going on that they halved the cost.
Finally the judge dismissed the charges under Section 43 of the Criminal
Code, which allows parents to, well, to be parents and to spank their
children with reasonable force if they see fit to do so.
The whole family was and is still in shock and Joe is hardly confident
of promotion at work after he was seen being arrested and his bosses read
about his court appearances. If it hadn’t been for the strength
of his union Joe Cleary may well have been fired.
As for young Gavin, none of the people behind this persecution seemed
to care very much about him one way or the other. It seemed to be his
parents they were after. He is, by the way, an extraordinarily happy and
content little boy. The only thing that worries him these days is the
idea of social workers and policemen coming to take his daddy away.
His parents are more concerned about those people who want to remove the
right of mothers and fathers to chastise their children and expunge Section
43 from the Criminal Code. Such zealots quote the United Nations Charter
forbidding spanking, a document that also says that if little Johnny or
Jenny run to their room and slams their door shut no parent has the right
to enter. It would be an “infringement” on the child’s
personal space and could even be “emotional abuse”.
Do look behind the gentle façade of the so-called children’s
rights activists and do question their agenda. If you have any doubts,
just have a talk with Joe and Perry Cleary. If you can still find them,
because they are so upset and disillusioned that they are considering
leaving the country.
.
Top
of Page
Canadian media coverage
of Israel is sometimes achingly supportive of any critic of the Jewish
state. But compared to newspapers, television and radio in Britain it
is a treasure island of objectivity. Nobody expects any batter from consistently
liberal publications such as The Guardian and The Independent but the
bias now extends to the tabloids, some of the conservative press and,
most offensively of all, the publicly funded BBC.
Speaking on one of the most important shows on BBC Radio 4, the highly
influential Nick Thorpe stated that, “The Kassams mostly needle
the Israelis, like pin-pricks in the ankles of a giant, taunting him to
stamp back with his big, US-issue army boots. The Katyushas are like poisoned
arrows. They drive him mad. ”
Those fairy tale rockets have killed dozens of innocent men, women and
children. Jews, Arab Muslims and Christians. Entire communities have been
ripped apart, forcing more than 500,000 people to flee south or live in
shelters. Hardly pin-pricks.
The most telling phrase in the BBC reporter’s diatribe, however,
is the reference to the Israeli army in “big, US-issue army boots.”
Actually Israeli Defence Forces footwear is made in Israel, but the deeper
point is extremely significant. The hatred evinced by so many establishment
figures in Europe towards Israel is because the country is perceived as
being a conduit for the United States and a Middle Eastern symbol of American
values.
Indeed Nick Thorpe’s analogy is more accurate when applied to himself
and to his people’s tiresome attacks on the United States. They
mostly needle the Americans, like pin-pricks on the ankles of a giant.
Almost every BBC or independent British television report of the Israeli
advance into Lebanon refers to “American made” helicopters
and F16s. Yet they seldom describe the rockets tearing into Israeli towns
as being Iranian made.
Nor do they describe the Merkava tanks, the machineguns and the rest as
Israeli-made, even though they undoubtedly are. If all this is implicit
criticism of Israel and the United States, however, some of the attacks
are direct and positively outrageous.
During the second week of the conflict the BBC showed footage of the UN
emergency-relief-coordinator explaining how Israeli actions could be seen
as a transgression of international human rights. They did not show the
rest of the interview, in which he stressed that Israel’s actions
could be explained by the fact that Hizbollah had been, “cowardly
blending in among women and children.”
On Monday The Daily Mirror, a mass circulation tabloid newspaper that
supports the Labour Party, led on its website with a statement that 40
people had died when Israeli jets bombed a Lebanese village. Although
even the Lebanese government changed its claim within an hour and said
that in fact only one person had died, the Daily Mirror insisted on running
the same lead headline all day.
Before we congratulate ourselves on Canada being more equitable and fair,
consider a diary entry in Britain’s The Independent on Sunday last
week by the notorious Robert Fisk, an English journalist who lost any
sense of balance about Israel long ago. “I do an interview with
the CBC in Toronto and talk openly of Israeli war crimes, and no one in
the Canadian studio feels this is impolitic or frightening or any of the
other usual fears of television producers, who think they will be faced
the usual slurs about ‘anti-Semitic’ reporters who dare to
criticize Israel.”
So any criticism of biased reporting becomes a “slur”. Very
Robert Fisk, very CBC. Also very British and, sadly, sometimes rather
Canadian as well.
Oh for the gift of
hindsight. One day people will look back to the early years of the 21st-century
in Canada and wonder why the desires of a small number of people within,
perhaps, 3% of the population should receive so much publicity and be
acted upon with such alacrity by politicians and judges. I refer of course
to Gay marriage.
Numerous legislatures have voted on this issue is recent years and all,
including those governed by the NDP, have rejected it. Which is why activists
went to the courts and compliant judges read in sexual orientation into
a charter of rights that was never intended to include it. So those of
us who were opposed to the idea called for a vote. But a free one.
Which is certainly not will happen when the government prepares a bill
on the subject in the extraordinarily short time of two weeks. The Prime
Minister has made it clear that he expects his cabinet to vote for the
bill. They and their parliamentary secretaries give the proposed legislation
an immediate 70 odd votes. Hardly free.
But the issue goes beyond mere politics to the deeper moral and logical
issue of what should and should not be. It has to be stated immediately
that if there is any hatred in your heart, you have no right to comment
on this issue. But if there is love in you, you have a responsibility
to do so. I also have to bemoan the fact that the government could not
be so enthusiastic and prompt about issues such as, for example, child
poverty, third world exploitation and the arms trade. Just a thought.
Marriage is a religious institution. It was designed and devised by faith
groups, particularly of the Judeo-Christian kind, several thousand years
ago. The argument that it is entirely an economic concept invented in
early medieval Europe is nothing more than the tendentious fantasy of
radical historians who have not done their homework.
That Gay people will live together, love together and spend productive
and generous lives together is axiomatic. Only a zealot would argue otherwise.
They should be, and are, protected by legislation that guarantees them
employment, housing, benefit and opportunity equality. If abused, they
have protection. If insulted, they have recourse. Thank goodness for that.
But when an ancient and, important this, holy, institution is labeled
“unconstitutional” by a court and its meaning exploded, we
have to take a stand. I have heard people argue that it is of no concern
to heterosexuals and will not effect them. Please! As a white man I was
not directly harmed by Apartheid, but I still realized the absolute wrong
of a philosophy and thus opposed it. It lessened me as a person.
If marriage is suddenly fundamentally altered to include people of the
same gender, it loses its genuine meaning to the rest of us. We may include
in the cat family the earthworm. Does this make worms feline? Of course
not. But it destroys the definition of cat.
Marriage was and can only be the union of a man and a woman. The state
intervened some time ago but the origin, and I would argue the essence,
of marriage is still rooted in faith. And do not, please, tell me about
the vital separation of church and state. Our entire legal code, our entire
grasp of right and wrong, is based on Judeo-Christian principles. Let
us go further. The very notion that there is such a thing as right and
wrong is taken and inspired by Judeo-Christianity. Why not steal or kill
if we can get away with it, unless there is a deeper imperative directing
our conscience.
It has also become fashionable to deride what has been termed the “slippery
slope” approach. In brief, what comes next? But this is a poignant
and powerful stance. If we genuinely believe that a man can marry a man
and a woman a woman, how can we possibly prevent a man from having more
than one wife? Especially as many Moslems believe this to be acceptable.
They would have legal precedent as well as freedom of religion on their
side.
Incest? Supporters of Gay marriage claim that it is illegal, so there
is no argument. Won’t do. Homosexuality was illegal not that long
ago. The central argument behind Gay marriage is that the only criteria
is love. I have no doubt that Gay people can be in love. But then so can
a brother and a sister. It may be convenient to say that this will never
happen, but it neither logical nor morally consistent.
Care, compassion, respect all round on this one. But also common sense
and thought. One more thing. They used to say the world was flat, and
those who disagreed were even arrested. Did it make the world flat?