timeimmortal

Feminism accomplished some decent ends in its early days — I don’t think that can be disputed too easily. It is right (although one needs to use a teleological category to say so) that women and men possess equal rights under the law of the land, that both sexes get to vote and/or run for office, and/or pursue education or employment.

At the same time, feminism certainly got away from itself and, in more recent years, has brought about some rather terrible ends. And I’m not talking here about things like how a woman can easily prevail in a child custody case by making a false allegation of sexual impropriety against her former partner, thus accomplishing two goals at once (securing complete control over the possession of her children, and forever ruining the life and employment prospects of her former husband), although in a way it is related to that.

This blogger, I think, spells out very well what I’m getting at.

…by emasculating men and keeping them as house pets and sperm donors, we have eliminated our first line of protection against danger. This is especially true in Europe, Canada and other gun-hating countries — an unarmed woman cannot defend herself.

Beyond mere feminism is the question of women’s pet politics: multiculturalism, focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment for criminals, the demonization and hatred of the white Christian male… By trying to be “nice” and make the world a softer, more candy-coated place, we have forgotten that human nature is not inherently good, and left ourselves open to attack. Our men, for the most part, are no longer men.

In a little less than two months, Grace and I will be welcoming our first child — a son or daughter; we don’t know which just yet — into the world. I keep thinking about what, as a father, to teach my child, and I keep thinking about how many of the things I’m likely to teach him or her will be contrary to the things he or she will be taught in school and by others. Because I’m going to teach my kid how to finish a fight, decisively and permanently. Strangely, that will probably mean he or she will get hauled to the principal’s office way more than the bullies do.

But what’s the alternative?

Zeister writes in with a comment on this article.

As I recall Canada fought the Germans to rid the world of National Socialism. I don’t think our men were worried about polygamy. The Netherlands has many things they can be proud of. They too work to define a developing society. Canadians should do the same and leave the Dutch to make their own decisions.

Toronto has David Miller as their mayor. Now there is a politician that is well beyond his ‘best before’ date. His ideas about personal freedoms are a little too socialist or should I say fascist for my taste. Beware of politicians that tout civilian disarmament in the name of public safety. Historically, Hitler and Stalin held the same views. It may be that Miller is simply ignorant with questionable ethics rather than being a fascist. In any case, the man is a danger and the sooner he leaves City Hall the better for all Canadians!

Miller is indeed a shoddy mayor, and his policies leave one with little recourse other than to scratch one’s head and/or roll one’s eyes. I don’t think anything much needs to be said about his disarmament proposals; increases in violent crime have followed, almost in lockstep, with diminished rates of civilian gun ownership…and only a very deluded person could possibly believe that a different outcome would result if Miller has his way in Toronto.

That said, while I agree that our soldiers were probably not concerned with polygamy whilst they were liberating the Netherlands, the point I was making was more along the following lines: why now, after having been liberated from a hard tyrany, are the Dutch making concessions to the demands of those who a) come to the Netherlands out of an alien culture, b) have no respect for Dutch culture or norms, and c) are demanding that the Dutch adapt their own culture to the habits and proclivities of the alien culture in their midst. What makes the soft tyranny of unreasonable, unthinking multiculturalism a virtue, when the hard tyrany of Hitler was so obviously a bad thing?

And if the Dutch are willing to roll over and succumb to a soft tyrany, what does that say to all those who lost friends and family in the cause of restoring freedom to the Netherlands way back when?

The Order of Canada has been hijacked by the left, in his view.

Jason Kenney, Canada’s Secretary of State for multiculturalism, says the Order of Canada has been “hijacked by a particular political faction that is not even making an effort to be neutral.”

Kenney is one of several MPs, Conservative and Liberal, who have denounced the appointment of abortionist Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada.

“If any good can come of this, it’s that Canadians will demand that the Order belongs to them and not to a small elite that simply reconfirms its own prejudices,” he said.

Kenney, however, does not see this award as politically partisan, noting that some Liberal MPs have also denounced the award. Manitoba NDP Premier Gary Doer has also come out against it. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton, however, both praised it.

Prime Minister has publicly distanced himself and his government from the process.

Personally, I think the Conservatives were a bit soft in their reponse to this appointment…but at the same time, what could they do? They don’t control the selection process, after all.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

A short piece, but worth the read:

No one who works for the [National Post] is unaware that many Muslims feel antipathy toward a newspaper that is officially pro-Israel and, in practice, generally skeptical of Canadian multiculturalism. It seems to occur to none of them to muck in and start up their own Daily Jihad that reflects the opposing views. Perhaps the Muslim world just doesn’t have enough oil wealth sitting around idle to underwrite such a thing. Maybe they’re content with the way the good old [Toronto Star] handles the task. Whatever the case, you’ll notice [Khurrum Awan] uses the “national” scale attained and defended by some media as an argument that they must, in essence, share the wealth. Because they’re successful, and have shown themselves capable of reaching out to readers who hold many different political and personal philosophies, they are required to cede the editorial judgment that led to that success, and abandon their own operating philosophies in favour of becoming mere venues for identitarian argument.

To say nothing of the fact that Awan et. al. have been claiming, from the start, that they just want a change to publish their side of the story, that they just want a debate. Well, they’ve had opportunities for both, in many other media outlets and even on live television.

And they have either attempted to flee from each such opportunity, or have used the opportunity only to repeat claims already made.

To the Osgoode Hall students in particular, Mohamed Elmasry in passing, and anyone who currently thinks that Islam and its adherents are getting an unfair shake in all of this: we’re calling your bluff. You are lying through your teeth and squandering every opportunity which is being generously presented to you that would enable you to obtain exactly that which you claim to want. Your repeated failure to take advantage of these opportunities speaks volumes about your true agenda of censorship of legitimate criticism of Islam, which is both a violation of a basic human right of all Canadians and something which, frankly, doesn’t belong in Canada in the first place.

So shut up already, or else actually do what you claim you came to do.

Vox Day links to an article from the New York Times that discusses new policies being put in place by Italy’s recently-elected government.

Underscoring the new Italian government’s determination to crack down on illegal Immigration and what the government contends is associated crime, Italy’s police arrested hundreds of people this week in a sweep of migrant shantytowns in major urban areas across the country, the police announced Thursday.

Nearly 400 people were arrested, including more than 100 who were immediately expelled. The police said more than 100 of those arrested were suspected of violating immigration laws, 180 of theft or prostitution, and 92 of drug dealing. Those arrested included 50 Moroccans and 32 Romanians.

The widely publicized raids were a strong signal from Italy’s new right-wing government, which is led by Silvio Berlusconi and includes the anti-immigrant Northern League Party, that it will keep its promises to pursue tougher policies toward immigrants.

“The anti-immigrant sweep was a positive thing because that’s what people want,” said Umberto Bossi, the minister of institutional reforms and federalism. “People ask us for safety, and we must give it to them.”

Vox is predicting that Italy will, within a decade or so, withdraw from the EU (given that the Italians seem to dislike most of the rest of Europe, this is probably a good possibility). Whether or not that comes to pass, however, this crackdown is ultimately a bit of a sign of hope for the Italian nation.

Especially in Europe, but over here as well, multiculturalism has become something vastly different than what it began as. The “mosaic/patchwork quilt” I was told about in school was all well and good when it simply meant that people wore different (and often more colourful) styles of clothing on the streets and opened up all manner of tasty restaurants and novelty shops. Now that it means that all manner of frankly ugly ideologies — things like Sharia law — are making inroads into Western democracies, multiculturalism is revealed to be something much less beneficial to those nations which espouse it.

I seem to recall that it was Lenin who remarked that the capitalist West would sell Communism the rope from which the West itself would hang. Lenin, ultimately, turned out to be wrong, but I can’t help but wonder if the sentiment itself had a ring of truth to it. More and more, it seems like multiculturalism is the rope from which the West — or, at least, some Western nations — may end up being hung. And there’s really only one plausible response to that danger: jettison multiculturalism.

If we allow abortions for such fatuous and trivial reasons as the fact that it “isn’t the right time,” or that we “can’t afford a baby” at the moment, is there any real reason why we should disallow a woman from another culture (one that doesn’t necessarily view women as having the same value as men) from getting an abortion for the purposes of gender selection? Especially since we are ostensibly a multicultural nation, and since all cultures are equal, and since we should not judge other cultural norms and practices (according to the received wisdom of our progressive betters)?

That’s Steve Janke’s (Angry’s) suggestion - send Canada’s Secretary of State for multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, Jason Kenney, to represent Canada at the Olympic Games in Beijing, since Canada does not plan to boycott the Games.

It would be a subtle yet effective way to poke China in the eye, given how very often Jason Kenney has embroiled himself in actions taken by the Canadian government that have annoyed or infuriated the Chinese government. And as a bonus, he’s usually not afraid to speak his mind.