Thursday, June 22, 2006

God Help All Canadian Men!!!

Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada threw out decades of precedence of a sensible no-fault divorce law by ruling that the bitterness of a B.C. woman must be a factor in deciding whether she continued to receive financial support from her ex-husband. Sherry Leskun's husband left her after 20 years of marriage and ever since she has been very bitter, supposedly incapable of working.

Ms. Leskun had a well paying job at a bank and succesfully argued on her own in front of the Supreme Court. So she is clearly not lacking in intelligence or drive. Yet the "higher minds" of the court ruled her to be a victim and thus deserving of support.

This surely must represent the pinnacle of twisted Liberal thinking: S/he who cries loudest is most entitled. Mark my words, this continued "be a victim, get whatever you want" thinking is quickly destroying the fabric of our society. Just look at the poor example it is showing to children: "Don't get what you want? Just threaten child abuse or human rights violation and all adults around you will give you whatever you want!"

When my own parents separated after 33 years of marriage, I stepped in, mainly to protect my mom's fragile mental state. But I didn't continue to coddle her forever because I intuitively knew that she eventually had to stand up for herself. And she did, stronger than ever. All of us play the role of the victim at times but it's completely unhealthy to keep on doing so in perpetuity. The fact that the highest court in the land is supporting this behaviour is not in the best interests of Ms. Leskun, nor anyone else.

I don't know about you, but I've met several drama queens in my life. I thus have to wonder if certain women are going to go into full actress mode whenever they appear in front of the court, playing up on what is clearly an anti-male bias. Don't believe me? Here are some quotes from a recent Barbara Kay column in the National Post:

  • Supreme Court of Canada chief justice Beverley McLachlin: "We have to be pro-active in rearranging the Canadian family"

  • Former justice minister Martin Cauchon: "Men have no rights, only responsibilities"

  • Feminist psychologist Peter Jaffe, a social-context educator of family court judges: "[J]oint custody is an attempt of males to continue dominance over females"

  • National Association of Women and the Law: "Courts may treat parents unequally and deny them basic civil liberties and rights, as long as their motives are good"


JayC said...

You've it up very nicely. Excellently worded.

What women I don't think understand is it's just one more reason for men to stay single. I lost count of the number of women who say they can't find a husband. yet they can't draw the dots from rulings like this to why they can't find "a nice guy". Makes me enjoy the single life a whole lot more.

PelaLusa said...


I've never assumed that all women think exactly the same way. And I know some terrific, amazing women out there who have been treated like crap by some pretty horrible men.

But when it comes to the law, I'm very much against special treatment for anyone, be they:
- Women
- Native Indians
- Muslims
- Non-muslims
- Refugee claimants
- Etc.

The official Trudeau-esque multicultural policy is a horrible concept that pits "us" vs. "them". Pulling the veil off it, it's clearly a policy designed to build allegiance to the federal Liberal party. Most everyone in that party strives to deny this but in their heart of hearts, they know it's true.

"My" Canadian Multiculturism Policy could be summed up as follows: "Treat everyone equally and fairly but recognize that everyone in Canada is first & foremost a Canadian and so the laws & traditions of this land supercede all others." And I walk my talk. Here in Vancouver I have countless friends & colleagues of every racial background. Their race, their religion, and their sex are completely irrelevant to me. As long as they act like a "mensch" they're alright in my book!

dgnyhk said...

Funny, given *men* have had special treatment by the courts for generations.

That said, I think this ruling is a problem for *both* men and women - you're assuming that only a woman would ask to be supported for bitterness and that just isn't the case. There are enough men out there who would seek out the same thing.

The problem isn't that the courts favoured a *woman*, the problem is that the courts have favoured the abdication of personal responsibility. This is a problem for *everyone*.