NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
July 5, 2006
Layered treason
The effort which was foundering in the American Congress the other day, to criminalize flag-burning through an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, was something I would oppose, as I would also oppose the proposal to enforce a definition of marriage in another constitutional amendment. I am opposed to flag-burning, and profoundly opposed to “same-sex marriage”, but also opposed to the use of the crude hammer of constitutional law to defend patriotism and decency.The arguments are not the same in both cases. In the latter case, the very attempt of a state to “define” marriage, no matter how traditionally, creates the opportunity for its redefinition later; or for the drawing of unintended corollaries. The strength of the institution of marriage consists or consisted in its being prior to any state, and written instead into the laws of nature, which are not reducible to formulas in words. To say that a marriage can be only between a woman and a man is like saying that a child can be conceived only by a woman and a man; but not that only. And at the root of marriage is the survival of our species. Forget about law and constitution in such matters: there may well be no remedy, once a state or its courts begin to tamper with such a thing, for by doing so they undermine the order upon which their own survival ultimately depends. It is in the nature of natural law, as our ancestors understood, to be unbreakable. If we try to break it, we will break ourselves upon it. Similarly with so many of the proposals to revise the natural order, that have been tabled over the last couple of generations, in state and church and elsewhere. The pope in Rome is reduced to explaining that he has not the power to change Catholic teachings on various subjects, because they come from Christ, not him. The person who doesn’t like that, may leave the Catholic Church. Whereas, those who wish to change what is male and female, or to separate various self-destructive acts from their inevitable consequences, are putting us in a position where what we must leave is not the Church, but the planet. One thinks of such rising issues as, “the right to have a child”. Should the great apes be made equal in law to men, as the socialists have declared through the Spanish Parliament? We are passing beyond legal questions here, and entering the deep purple of insanity. Should apes get the vote? Should fish be allowed to smoke? Should pigs be awarded wings, so they can fly? Whereas, only the survival of the state is at issue in questions of treason. For this reason, a constitutional amendment to forbid flag-burning makes more sense. The definitions of a flag, and of a fire, and of a fire with a flag in it, are easier to descry. Yet what is being legislated against, in such an instance, is not strictly treason, but rather, extremely crass behaviour. Similarly with the incident in Ottawa, when several people were photographed urinating on the (unguarded) National War Memorial, and specifically our Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, on what is now called “Canada Day”. This was not high treason, so far as I can construe from the Canadian Criminal Code; nor petty treason. It was certainly in the most execrable taste. But it was more a symptom of what happens when a generation is raised as children are today, in broken families and broken schools. Some of them truly don’t know any better, and it is uncertain that any law would teach them. The best we can hope is that the wee-artists will be identified, and exposed to public humiliation, and thereby cured of their overweening self-esteem. But while I'm opposed to peeing on the War Memorial, I hardly think it was an act of desecration to compare with the design on the reverse of the current ten-dollar bill. That shows the War Memorial stripped of its cannon, and soldiery. A couple of communist “peace doves” flutter by ("make love not war"). A pert young female "peacekeeper" wields a pair of binoculars against a non-existent enemy; and Canadian manhood is represented by a stooped old veteran in a beret, supported by two children. The monument is falsely depicted as being guarded (by two androids). These misrepresentations are, in their aggregate effect, much worse than a little drunken incontinence. But still not treason. Real treason is what the 17 recently-arrested Islamists are alleged to have attempted in Canada; or what the New York Times and its media camp followers did in the States, by publishing national secrets to expose how their government intercepts terrorist financing. These are the things that need full and enthusiastic prosecution under law, for lives and security are at stake. It is by prosecuting real treason, effectively, that we can begin to restore the order by which the juvenile antics of those who play-act treason can be seen for what they are: despicable to be sure; but finally, beneath contempt. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top