What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Philippines goes the wrong way

I reported here on a proposed population control law in the Philippines, and I got some follow-up information today. As I said there, the chief purpose of the law is to open up sex education in the schools and to required the government to propagandize its citizens on limiting their number of children to only two. It looks like people who want to get married have to go through some kind of sex and birth control education.

Well, that law has passed, and at this point the only possibility of its not being put into effect is that the Philippine Supreme Court might declare it to be in conflict with the Philippine Constitution. Not being an expert on the Philippine Constitution, I don't know how strong that case is, but for all I know it might be true that the law is in conflict with the Constitution.

There's one charming little draconian aspect of the law I read about only today: One of the prohibited acts is "maliciously engaging in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this law." Isn't that nice? Living in a country without a first amendment to protect criticism of the government must be so peaceful and traditional. You know, when the government can pass a sex education and population control law and forbid anyone to criticize it lest they be charged with spreading misinformation about the benign intent of their leaders.

Comments (21)

I don't want to detract from what should be the main point, the evil of the Philippine legislature and it's contraceptive policies, but I must say I am not fond of your knee jerking against traditionalism.

You should be sensible enough to differentiate between a government by democratically elected politicians who possess a leftist ideology and a government such as a monarchy or aristocracy that is devoutly Catholic and criminalizes pornography and contraception. The former is obviously to be condemned, and speech against it is to be encouraged. The latter should be praised, and there are obvious reasons why speech against it should be punished as lèse majesté.

You should be sensible enough to differentiate between a government by democratically elected politicians who possess a leftist ideology and a government such as a monarchy or aristocracy that is devoutly Catholic and criminalizes pornography and contraception. The former is obviously to be condemned, and speech against it is to be encouraged. The latter should be praised, and there are obvious reasons why speech against it should be punished as lèse majesté.

Assuming this is all true, you should be sensible enough to differentiate between a social order in which the latter is possible and one in which it isn't. I am open to the arguments of Catholic monarchists on a whole range of things, but the European monarchies of the Christian centuries existed in a limited, peculiar time in history. There is little reason to believe that anything like "traditional" Christendom could be established in the modern world tomorrow and there is a lot of reason to believe that, given the disposition of the whole of the Western elite and the steady advance of Westernization generally, something like the contemporary conservative conception of limited government is a prerequisite to preserving what remains of our traditions. In fact the First Amendment originally was just such a protection, even if later federal supremacist courts have interpreted it otherwise.

Anymouse, I just don't agree. Speech "against a government" that criminalizes things I believe should be criminalized should not, per se, be punished.

Not in general. Now, sure, speech calling for revolution or for chopping off the President's head or something, direct incitement to crime, no problem there. Such isn't protected by our First Amendment anyway.

Don't get me wrong: Of course I'm in favor of laws against pornography. I've made that clear repeatedly. But laws against criticizing laws against pornography? That's a whole different story.

Power corrupts. The power to suppress political dissent and debate as such is a corrupting power, and I believe it to be unjustified. I emphatically do not agree that as long as the government is "my side," it should be punishable per se to disagree with it or criticize it.

Let's get specific, here: The Philippines _is_ a Catholic country. I would bet you anything that in the past the absence of any protection for speech merely criticizing and disagreeing with governmental policy has been something the trads would applaud. Because the government was on their side, or so they believed. So what happens? The virus principle. The virus principle which should be burned into the brains of all conservatives. The virus principle that we should think about good and hard when we start blithely advocating centralized power per se. The virus took over all that lovely, useful governmental power and now, voila! It's using it to suppress criticism of a law that tears down the traditionalism that remains in Philippine society. It's, "We're going to pass a law mandating sex education for kids and population control arm-twisting, and heaven help you if you dare to give out what we consider to be 'misinformation' about it, or even about our intentions in passing it!"

Well, guess what: I think people should look at that and go, "Hmmm, maybe there's something to be said for open political debate after all." And I specifically mean people like yourself, Anymouse, who have an inclination to think that centralized power to force people to shut up and not criticize the Guys in Power is a good thing as long as it's used by the Good Guys. It won't always be used by the good guys. The people wielding the power change. They change all the time. But the power survives.

Let's hear it for the First Amendment, God bless America, and all that!

Let me add, too, Anymouse: So far from being "knee jerking," my position here is the result of decades of fruitful interaction and friendship with traditionalists of different stripes, including both in-person friends and on-line friends and acquaintances. I do not knee-jerk. I think about things and come to conclusions. You are free to disagree with the conclusions, of course, but don't mistake kicking up one's heels for jerking one's knees. My comment in the main post may have been a sort of provocation against some who might read this particular site. But being deliberately provocative or even annoying (or even, for that matter, rude) isn't the same thing as drawing conclusions in a thoughtless or shallow fashion, which is the meaning of "knee jerking."

I will accept that critique and acknowledge you have a point. Many today raise that point, and vigorously defend free speech.

I would not want to defend centralized power, (indeed I believe in subsidiarity) however I do not think laws restricting political speech or activity are necessarily incompatible with subsidiarity.

I am way more sympathetic to traditional religiously affiliated political regimes than almost anyone here, but I see huge problems with this:

"maliciously engaging in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this law."

See, it's one thing to engage in disinformation about what the law says, or who pushed it, or how the government says it expects to implement it - these are all matters of fact that can be justified in court (with penalties for lies, etc): offenses against truth can be and have been legislated before. It is another thing entirely to engage in so-called "disinformation" about INTENT, because it's entirely open-ended. If the state charges you with violating this, there is NO WAY you can defend yourself. And the term "maliciously" is, again, open-ended, it leaves the state the determiner of YOUR intent. You get slammed on intent both coming and going. These are the kinds of laws that are so perniciously ill-conceived, creating whole divisions of government to seek out new kinds of crimes that didn't exist before, whose reach cannot be estimated beforehand and cannot be resisted effectually.

Oh, indeed...I don't think anyone would defend a law like that, except of course, for the thought crime loving part of the political spectrum.

You should be sensible enough to differentiate between a government by democratically elected politicians who possess a leftist ideology and a government such as a monarchy or aristocracy that is devoutly Catholic and criminalizes pornography and contraception. The former is obviously to be condemned, and speech against it is to be encouraged. The latter should be praised, and there are obvious reasons why speech against it should be punished as lèse majesté.

Romans 13 would disagree with you. I'd also suggest that you read Romans 13 in light of Romans 1 to get an idea of what God thinks about people who encourage subversive behavior enthusiastically simply because they dislike a generally lawful government. Reasonable people can disagree on when and how a government has ceased to function in a manner defensible under Romans 13, but advocating subversion for the sake of subversion simply because it is a democratically elected, left-of-center regime is both heresy and a serious sin in its own right.

Mike T, I don't take either Anymouse or me to be referring to sedition or the attempt to overthrow a government when we mention "speech against" a government. In fact, that's kind of the point--that what we are talking about is _criticism_, such as criticism of a law or policy, even if the government who favors it wants to call such criticism "misinformation," not sedition. If one blurs that distinction all manner of problems follow. However, I take Anymouse to have retracted his apparent support for laws outlawing _criticism_ of even a good Christian monarchy.

Anymouse said:

The former is obviously to be condemned, and speech against it is to be encouraged.

Encouraging criticism for its own sake is a violation of the teachings in Romans 13 and is a form of intellectual, if not legal, sedition. Most governments have enough flaws that you can constructively criticize them, but I took Anymouse to mean that a democratically-elected left-of-center regime out to be considered fair game for criticism across the board simply because of its positions.

that what we are talking about is _criticism_, such as criticism of a law or policy, even if the government who favors it wants to call such criticism "misinformation," not sedition.

I'm well aware of what you and Tony said. I was responding to Anymouse's original point which was substantially different from your point. I took Anymouse to mean, as many Christians do, that a secular regime that promotes some evil things is "fair game" for attack across the board.

However, I take Anymouse to have retracted his apparent support for laws outlawing _criticism_ of even a good Christian monarchy.

I see nothing to substantiate that, merely an unironic reference to thought crimes while not retracting his support for lèse majesté which is generally tantamount to a thought crime.

There's one charming little draconian aspect of the law I read about only today: One of the prohibited acts is "maliciously engaging in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this law." Isn't that nice? Living in a country without a first amendment to protect criticism of the government must be so peaceful and traditional. You know, when the government can pass a sex education and population control law and forbid anyone to criticize it lest they be charged with spreading misinformation about the benign intent of their leaders.

It occurred to me a while back that one of the chief problems with constitutions is that the "fundamental laws" are not part of them. For example, why should the legislature be allowed to willy nilly change the murder statue or add a new flavor of murder? Why should marriage and family laws be any different? I think we have it all wrong on these laws. Anything which can impose a jail or prison term, fine, prevent the exercise of a right or privilege or form the basis of a new cause for standing in a civil court ought to be an article of the constitution.

This particular part reminded me of that idea when I thought "you know, this could all be solved if the requirement of a mens rea in all criminal cases was a constitutional requirement on the criminal laws."

It would make more sense for the requirement of mens rea to be included in all criminal laws to be part of the constitution than for all the criminal laws themselves to be part of the constitution. The latter breaks down the distinction between a meta-law, a "law of laws" or "law about laws" and the specific laws themselves. Essentially, making all positive law part of the constituting document of the country removes the function of the legislature, and that is not a good idea.

It occurred to me a while back that one of the chief problems with constitutions is that the "fundamental laws" are not part of them.

Well, this is at the heart of John Adams well known quote:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

There must be common assumptions about what is good, true, beautiful, etc in order to have any coherent understanding of what constitutes good government. The Framers didn't need to specify that killing a lab rat isn't murder, or that marriage meant one man and one woman because there was a common public morality that didn't consider, much less embrace those propositions. The deterioration of a the previous Enlightenment/Protestantism public ethic and its replacement with progressive secular humanism is what has opened the door to the sort of changes to "meta-law" that you're discussing.

Mike T, I don't take either Anymouse or me to be referring to sedition or the attempt to overthrow a government when we mention "speech against" a government. In fact, that's kind of the point--that what we are talking about is _criticism_, such as criticism of a law or policy, even if the government who favors it wants to call such criticism "misinformation," not sedition. If one blurs that distinction all manner of problems follow. However, I take Anymouse to have retracted his apparent support for laws outlawing _criticism_ of even a good Christian monarchy.
Oh, there is a legitimate place for criticism of the government, (to improve it, obviously) but it becomes a problem when that criticism attempts to reject foundational forms of morality. Just as it is a problem when the government attempts to reject foundational forms of morality and punishes criticism of it's own immorality as we are discussing right now.

The notion of health in the world of public health is not only based on the absence of disease or infimity, but on the holistic sense of the person's well being biologically, mentally, and socially. Stupid.

Sure enough, when I went to the actual Filipino bill, which is shot-through with the term reproductive health, I found this definition:

Reproductive Health refers to the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infimity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.

As one moves through the categories from physical to social, there is an increasing loss of empirical objectivity. Arriving at social well-being, one has arrived at nearly or totally complete subjectivity. This is the trajectory along which the forces of population control and - as Lydia calls them in another topic - the forces of death make their entrance into the realm of "health" through public health. From there they begin to control the agenda.

The ideas and governmental organizations that promote public health have been sterling in their historic successes against disease. They rightfully are respected, even to the point that in a question of individual rights v. the public health, the interests of public health triumph. This is why the anti-human forces have latched onto public health like leeches. By their unchallenged sophistry they have been able harness the good and authority of public health to create a bogus category of reproductive health. The intent is not on health nor reproduction, but on disrupting healthy reproductive systems so that they do not function as designed by nature. They use reasons of mental and social health, the definition of which they control, to achieve this. The part of the Filipino bill that seems to prescribe punishment for criticsm stands entirely on the the value and power of public health, which the leeches upon the authority of public health have hijacked to eliminate dissent.

The eugenicists (and the circumcisers) of the Progressive Era wielded similar justifications, ala Racial Hygiene and prevention of VD.

Essentially, making all positive law part of the constituting document of the country removes the function of the legislature, and that is not a good idea.

I never said making all positive law a part of it, but rather making the core of the legal system part of the constitution that would be such things as what constitutes a marriage, a murder, a rape, etc. I can think of no reason why the legislature ought to have the authority to alter or abolish these things. Murder is murder today as it was when organized law was first conceived in the mind of Hammurabi or one of his predecessors.

With that caveat, I'd also add that this would apply purely to the federal government and ought to cover only laws that would "provide for a fine, jail term, prison sentence, probation or any other detention, loss of property or prohibition of free movement outside of federal facilities by any act of coercion under color of law."

Congress actually has a lot of legislative powers beside the ability to draft criminal law. The funding power need not be touched, the treaty-making, confirmation of appointees, regulation of the structure of the civilian bureaucracy and military and a host of other things such as regulating employee conduct. I think eliminating its ability to willy nilly change federal criminal statutes would do a lot to make it take its other responsibilities seriously.

I think Zippy's semi-rebuttal of the John Adams quote is good reading for those who are quick to blame public morality for the failings of an obviously flawed political system.

but rather making the core of the legal system part of the constitution that would be such things as what constitutes a marriage, a murder, a rape, etc. I can think of no reason why the legislature ought to have the authority to alter or abolish these things. Murder is murder today as it was when organized law was first conceived in the mind of Hammurabi or one of his predecessors.

Well, I disagree. The definitions of things that are basic to society generally should be *presumed* (for law) to be the definitions and meanings in society, they shouldn't require explicit definition in the law (constitutional or not). That's part of the understanding of how law works. The meaning of special terms requires the ability to adjust at times: "vehicular manslaughter" didn't need inventing before vehicles were invented. The purpose of a written constitution isn't to lay out the basic norms of society, it is to lay out the basic norms of how government shall operate. Everyone should be pretty familiar with the constitution, and so it should be relatively simple. People who know even the major parts of teh criminal code are called "criminal lawyers", not "citizens". (And, by the way, "criminal lawyers" is a redundancy, of course.)

Anymouse,

Contraception was not criminalized in the Philippines. It just was not given out in schools etc. The decision was left to families. Now families cannot chose to make their own choices, because the govt thinks they are stupid and should be brought in line.


Mike, Zippy makes some good points, but I am not fully convinced of his main point. Nor of this point.

John Adams, for example, preemptively stated that any failures in the American experiment would be attributable, not to weaknesses in the Constitution, but to moral failings in the populace:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I think Zippy misconstrues the point of the Adams quote here. Adams is not saying that failure of the experiment would be attributable to the moral failings instead of weaknesses in the Constitution. He is saying that you would choose one constitution for a virtuous people, and a different constitution for a vicious people, and so it is the statesman's job to discern which of the two sorts of people you have and pick the right constitution - to make the right MATCH between constitution and people. If the experiment fails (at least in the early going) it will be because they mismatched the kind of constitution to the kind of people - a failure of the statesmen doing the match-up.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.