Time Immortal

Leave it to a British journalist to catch the deeper significance of the electoral victory of Barack Hussein Obama. The sane Hitchens brother notes:

I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street — which runs due north from the White House — the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

The main problem with a progressive demagogue taking office is that the changes he brings about tend to be of the sort not easily dislodged from the public scene. Think of Pierre Elliot Trudeau and how he gave Canada its Charter, which purports to defend the rights and freedoms of Canadians but which, in effect, does almost the opposite. Think of nationalized , or nationalized Education, or the welfare culture extant today in most Western democracies. Think of the irregularities and insecurities that plague Immigration laws in many nations, Canada and the U.S. included.

Now imagine how it might come to pass that those things could be undone again? It’s impossible to envision, isn’t it? Or, at least, nearly so?

Even in what could be called the best-case scenarios (either a disastrous Obama presidency that swings the American populace strongly back toward an invigorated, staunchly conservative Republican party, or an Obama presidency in which Obama himself is forced by circumstances to channel the spirit of Ronald Reagan), the social changes that the Obama administration is (if only at first) going to be anxious to implement will be of the same lasting character.

And who knows who will then pay the price for such progressive excess? The unborn almost certainly will, but I doubt it will be just they who suffer.

Reader Drumna Parx writes (on the day when Henry Morgentaler is to receive his Order of Canada, no less!):

Abortion might have saved the lives of some women who were raped, sick or went out drinking too often and were promiscuous…but I guess I am missing the point when you speak of child poverty. Thousand of immigrants have swarmed this country and have children left and right without any problems. Our governement is providing for them even more than it ever gave us. Those welfare services helping children, single mothers and poor families exist and whether or not Morgentaler had abortion legalized doesn’t seem to make much difference at this point!

Now, I confess that I’m at something of a loss as to which article Ms. Parx might be referring to here, if any. I’m also not entirely sure of her tone; I would hope that nothing I have said recently could be mistaken for something which is supportive of abortion, because that would be very far indeed from the truth of my thoughts and opinions. I’m wondering if she is perhaps thinking of Count Roland’s recent article, or perhaps my comments on the wretched concerns of Dr. Andre Lalande, who fears that the example of Sarah Palin might motivate more women to keep unborn babies that, in his opinion, they might not be “ready” to have.

As though one is ever “ready” to have a baby. Sorry, but if that’s your standard, you’ll die childless.

Abortion very likely has not “saved the lives” of any woman who was raped or who had to cope with the aftermath of a drunken romp, because the overwhelming majority (99%+) of pregnancies resulting from such things will probably progress normally, as pregnancies are wont to do. I will grant that in some medical cases, it is impossible to save both mother and child…although I’m not sure that such a surgery could rightly be termed an “abortion,” given that both mother and child would probably be saved were it possible. And given the pace at which medical technology is advancing, it may one day be possible, and then perhaps within my lifetime.

But I think Ms. Parx does raise an interesting point about Immigration and economics. If I am not misinformed, one of the “justifications” trotted out in defence of the odious practice is that it acts as a shield for economically disadvantaged women to prevent them from having to bear the cost of an unexpected baby (admittedly, raising a child is not exactly cheap). Except that in Canada, it is both very easy to game the public welfare system, and very easy to live at a reasonable standard on the public dime, even if one is raising a child. We don’t quite have the cradle-to-grave welfare that is so commonly found in European countries, but we come fairly close.

I spoke of gaming the welfare system, and the issue of having children is applicable here as well; more children equates to more welfare claimants, for example. Indeed, if one wants to rake in more than one’s reasonable share of the public purse, one would do well to have a few children, preferably by different fathers (why not boost one’s “victim” cred at the same time?), in order to maximize one’s potential “earnings.”

The government pours out huge amounts of dollars into those who are either unable or unwilling to work, so much so that many supposedly “poor” families have amenities that even a working family (such as my own) cannot afford; having sold big-screen televisions for a year or two, I can speak to this more directly than some others could hope to.

And indeed, at a glance, it does not seem to be the case that women who supposedly fit into the category of “economically disadvantaged” are the ones procuring all that many abortions, given the number of children that such women often seem to have. In many parts of the U.S., abortion is used as a method of birth control, and then by more well-off women. The same is true of immigrant communities, except perhaps where female children are concerned.

I don’t know…certainly, in my limited amount of work with the pro-life movement here in Alberta, I’ve not encountered too many arguments grounded in economics and demographics, but it might make for an interesting study.

As to Morgentaler’s reception of the award today, I’ve not much to say, except to note that it seems that cowards think alike.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

The Brits are still debating whether or not to allow men with more than one wife to claim additional welfare benefits for the additional brides. Here in Canada, however, it’s full steam ahead!

Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages — some with a harem of wives — are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.

Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.

“polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims,” Ali said yesterday. “Ontario recognizes religious marriages for Muslims and others.”

Yes, but not multiple marriages. In Canada, you only get one. If you’d like more than one, get out. You’re more than welcome to move somewhere that allows additional marriages.

He estimates “several hundred” GTA husbands in polygamous marriages are receiving benefits. Under Islamic law, a Muslim man is permitted to have up to four spouses.

What have I been saying about Sharia being barbaric and misogynistic?

However, city and provincial officials said legally a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse. Other adults living in the same household can apply for welfare independently.

The average recipient with a child can receive about $1,500 monthly, city officials said.

That’s a lot of dollars these men are able to claim. And how much actually reaches the women, do you suppose, O Reader?

Look, I know that in Canada, we have kind of shot ourselves in the foot. We’ve more or less done away with restricting marriage based on the gender of the participants, and once you’ve gone that far it seems bloody pointless to quibble about the number of participants. That said, polygamy is still, for the time being, illegal in Canada, and no government at any level has any business treating it as a legal arrangement simply because the actual marriages took place in a country that regards polygamy as legal. If people want to live out that barbaric little custom, let them move to the country they got married in. And reform welfare law to specifically prohibit additional welfare payments to “other adults in the same household” if in fact an investigator determines that the relationship between those “other adults” is of a marital nature.

Asking a lot? Yeah, it probably is, at that. But what’s the alternative? To tolerate that this misogynistic practice within Canada? I. Think. Not.

Kathy has an excellent suggestion as well:

Let Mumtaz and his friends how “liberal” some of us really are by contacting them here:

info@muslim-canada.org

Meanwhile, Toronto City Counsellor Rob Ford is on record as saying this scheme must end. If you agree that parasitical state-sponsored sharia harems have no place in Canadian culture, contact him here:

Phone: 416-397-9255
Fax: 416-397-9238
Community phone: 416-233-6934
councillor_ford@toronto.ca

Why not contact our Mayor while you’re at it?

Don’t worry if you aren’t from Toronto: tell him you’ll be boycotting Toronto until the city stops using our extorted tax dollars to support illegal, backward tribal customs.

Mayor David Miller
Toronto City Hall,
2nd Floor, 100 Queen St. West,
Toronto ON M5H 2N2

Phone: 416-397-CITY (2489)
Fax: 416-696-3687

mayor_miller@toronto.ca

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: SDA)

Update: Welcome, Steynians!