Current Affairs: Abortion, Gay crusaders against the Church, Sharia law in Quebec, China and Microsoft, NDP, Greenpeace

Three, no four things caught my ears and eyes over the last couple of days that has compelled me to write about. I'm usually a comfortable mugwump when it comes to certain popular debates.

Like abortion for example. Pro-choice is tolerable provided that it is responsible. But how do we determine the line of what is 'responsible?' We can all agree that a thirteen year-old teenager is not acting responsibly when she engages in unprotected sex. A teenager can be forgiven if she was not properly guided. But what of an adult who rolls the die and who knew better? In the end, we all make mistakes. We should never judge others whatever the decision a person takes.

Two things bother me about abortion (and I'm deliberately avoiding the medical and legal aspect for brevity) - the first, we are probably not doing enough to teach children about abstinence and safe sex. Easier said than done of course. We are more educated than ever on both the pleasures and dangers of sex. The power of pop culture and its subtle and overt glorification of 'sex as cool' provide a strong temptation. Even those of us not influenced by outside cues, who act responsibly, still manage to practice unprotected sex. Should they be denied an abortion? Sex is natural and inevitable indeed but it doesn't mean we should be indifferent to how we approach it.

The abortion problem, it seems to me, would be partially curbed if we empower our kids with knowledge. A mature and sophisticated approach to sex in our schools and at home is essential - it sounds as though we are weaker in the homes as parents and are not quite sure how to handle this. In general, the boy is easier in that we let them figure it out on their own and feel completely unable to confront our daughters - ignoring by ignorance if you will.

The second is the psychological impact an abortion has on women that is rarely mentioned. A woman who has an abortion as a result of rape has a right to choose. A woman who is irresponsible and promiscuous should not. Again, the problem with this is how does one determine this? We fall in danger of moralizing and judging. Though I believe we should carry a card that read 'we should know better' knowing full well we don't always do. Feminists have done a terrible disservice to their gender on this front. Those who claim that pro-life will put a strain on the economy have a dubious argument at best.

This is just a superficial point to make on a complex debate, I realize that. To me, it is not black and white.

Since I'm on a slight roll I shall indulge on other issues.

-Mr. Kevin Bourassa has a problem and dilemma. He has declared in typical hyperbolic fashion (is there any other way for special interest?) wants religious institutions, in all their zany zealotic bigotry no doubt, to comply with the Charter (specifically, if they oppose gay marriage laws that are expected to ram through Parliament without much debate) or else risk losing their charitable donation status.

What is remarkable in his demand is that 1) he and his ilk are no different than any fundamentalist on either side of the ideological divide 2) his shocking disregard for freedom of religion and speech in his anti-democratic reactionary and myopic attitude and 3) more importantly, he obviously does not care about the funding the Church uses to run homeless missionaries or food care packages to families during the Christmas Holidays.

Thankfully our politicians are having none of it and will seek to ensure protection for the Church. This is a secular society and there is no need to go after religious institutions. His campaign will prove to be counter-productive and gays should distance themselves from this nonsense.

-Recently Arab leaders were seeking to make Muslim Sharia laws legitimate in Quebec. As usual, like anybody with an agenda they play down the significance of their request. "No, no you are over reacting." Are we??

Here's the thing, and I'm no expert, but someone, anyone has to remind newly arrived Muslims that this is, at its core, an open and tolerant Christian-based (majority) secular society that will ensure human and equal rights before the law for all.

I'm not entirely sure what and how Sharia would function. Is it a case where it would trump our laws? If so, can it live side-by-side within a constitutional democracy with its own established legal codes?

I think for the time being, Jean Charest and the Liberals have shown wisdom in not allowing this.

Surprise surprise at the Can-Can. China has asked Microsoft to ban certain words on an internet service they provide in that walled up country- excuse the bad pun. What's bizarre is how a country with a remarkable historic civilization can be so utterly backwards. Oh yes, that's right they are communists. Or Marxists or Leninists or Maosits. Whatever, a million killed here, 50 million there it's all good.

Chinese web log users are prevented from using words like 'independence', 'human rights', 'democracy' and 'demonstration.' Wow, do you think the ideologues in Quebec City are taking notes? Microsoft complied. I'm not about to jump on MSFT on this one. They are a business and as such they must do what is in the best interest of their company and international stockholders. It's not their job to be the defenders of liberty. That's for the people and their respective governments to work out.

-"Let (the bastards, morons etc.) Americans freeze in the dark" so says NDP MP Pat Martin in response to Bush's plan to divert Devil Lake into Manitoba that may pollute its waters. Forget the issue, where Canada has a point, and focus on the delicious irony. The New Democratic Party, the name in itself is oxymoronic since they are socialists, is a party that, in part, hinges on compassion. They claim to be caring and not like the 'other' parties. How does this statement fit with their moral ethos? The NDP are morons.

-In the most ignorant thing I have heard yet section I present Greenpeace. The same Greenpeace that had one of its ships sunk by the 'peaceful' French. It seems the brass over at GP headquarters are playing the all too familiar 'let's find a parallel' history game. They recently published a report comparing Guantanamo to the 'gulag of our times.'

The comparison between the two ends within seconds of comparing them. If GP wants to make the world a better place they should go by the Way of the Truth Dante spoke of. Using historical inaccuracies is a crime against the arts.

As for the Americans, it's time they just swallow a pill by Pfizer and just admit that they are an empire. If they would, things would go much easier for them in the eyes of public opinion. It would eliminate the gluttony of contradictions in their actions and behaviour. Can it be nations are annoyed that Americans in fact deny they are an empire? It's as if the world is saying "Hey, you're the new Rome and London. Act like it! Stop acting like softies."