“A year earlier, during the third week of April 1940, Lewis had read Christopher Dawson's Beyond Politics. What struck Lewis about the book was the distinction Dawson drew between the ideal of freedom and the ideal of democracy. The idea of democracy as propounded by Rousseau and embodied in the French Revolution placed its emphasis on the ‘general will’ of the community over against the individual. The idea of freedom as expressed by the English placed its emphasis on the rights of the individual over against the will of the whole. Dawson traced modern English notions of freedom to the nonconformists of the 17th century, who sought religious liberty, and to the English aristocracy, which asserted its rights over against the Crown. Dawson concluded that without freedom, modern democracy and modern dictatorship are ‘twin children of the Revolution’ with their emphasis on the community or collective or state. Jack told [his brother] Warnie that he thought this view explained a great deal about the difference between the English and the European democracies. The French offered no exemption from military service for a conscientious objector, but the English did, even if reluctantly. This also explained the political alliance in the 17th and 18th centuries in England between the great nobility and the nonconformist merchant class. It was never the marriage of convenience as some supposed but a marriage of conviction. This view also explained to Jack why he and Warnie he felt so strongly about freedom but less so about democracy. These observations would not have risen to much more than a passing interest, except they became the thesis of C.S. Lewis’s first radio broadcast in May 1941.”

Harry Lee Poe The Making of C.S. Lewis

“Will you permit the sacred fire of liberty, brought by your fathers from the venerable temples of Britain, to be quenched and trodden out on the simple altars they have raised?”

Joseph Howe [in appealing to a jury Halifax in 1835 to acquit him on libel charges because what he’d published was true even though at that time truth was not a defence in British law, which they did, thus engaging in “jury nullification” to uphold that liberty] in Dennis Gruending, ed., Great Canadian Speeches

In my latest Mercatornet column I ask how the United States, of all places, could have become vulnerable to tyranny.

In a talk to the Augustine College Summer Seminar I argued that the American Revolution brought liberty and prosperity because it looked back to the solid foundations of Magna Carta, Christianity and the Western tradition, while the French Revolution brought misery and death because it looked forward to a utopian future unconstrained by the past.

“As Justice Jamie Campbell once wrote, ‘The Charter is not a blueprint for moral conformity. Its purpose is to protect the citizen from the power of the state, not to enforce compliance by citizens or private institutions with the moral judgements of the state.’ Trinity Western University v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, 2015 NSSC25, at para. 10. Sadly, this clear thinking was not followed by a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in a similar case, where seven of nine judges ruled against Trinity Western University’s proposed Christian law school due to a perception the law school would discriminate against non-Christians.”

André Schutten and Michael Wagner, A Christian Citizenship Guide 2nd edition

“If the policeman regulates drinking, why should he not regulate smoking, and then sleeping, and then speaking, and then breathing?”

G.K. Chesterton in Illustrated London News June 5, 1920, quoted in Gilbert The Magazine of the Society of G.K. Chesterton Vol. 26 #5 (May-June 2023)

“The first thing worth noting is that the drafters of the Charter titled this first section ‘Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms.’ In other words, the intended purpose of the opening section is to underline that the rights and freedoms laid out in the Charter are guaranteed. But, if you look at almost every judgement that wrestles with this section, talk to almost any lawyer, or consult most government websites, they instead call the section ‘The Limitations Clause’ or ‘The Reasonable Limits Clause.’ That is a very different focus! And that betrays the problem: the legal culture in Canada has focused on the phrase ‘reasonable limits’ instead of ‘guarantees the rights and freedoms.’ That changes the analysis before we even start.”

André Schutten and Michael Wagner, A Christian Citizenship Guide 2nd edition

In my latest Epoch Times column I argue that the main governmental problem in Canada isn’t who we entrust with power, it’s the amount of power we entrust them with.