Liberal Fascism Update

I heard two seemingly unrelated stories today but both share one thing very much in common: A growing number of people who adamantly describe themselves as "progressive" and "open-minded" have clearly become the close-minded bigots of the New Millennium. Presented below are two prime examples.

---

The University of Calgary has unilaterally removed the Free Speech rights of one group on its campus. Pedophiles? Serial killers? Neo-nazis? No, they're all allowed to say whatever they wish. Who has been banned is a Pro-Life group that wants to present their views about abortion. Ezra Levant has much more to say about this disturbing story.

---

This morning I received a call from a Canadian friend of mine who works at a large American company. He related to me the not so pleasant internal forum discussion about California's Proposition 8, which puts a ban on Gay Marriage.

A self-identified gay fellow was lamenting about how homosexuals are the "New Blacks" and completely oppressed in every way. He added that anyone who doesn't support Gay Marriage is a bigot.

My friend, who doesn't really care one way or the other about Gay Marriage, pointed out a few things to this fellow:

1. Labeling anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot isn't very conducive to having a useful discussion.
   
   
2. This would make Barack Obama a bigot.

---

Anyone not familiar with Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism, would be well advised to read it. It presents many more details of this scary period in history that we've entered.

Card Carrying Feminists vs. Reality

I just read this posting, which lead me to this one. The latter one is from a very unhappy woman who deeply believes she is a true feminist. She's extremely unhappy because the Canadian 'Best Feminist Blog' award didn't go her way. Here's a sampling (language warning) :

Within hours, sda received a slew of nominations from her tongue-lolling, crotch-scratching fans. Other rightwing female bloggers were nominated, albeit without the attendant frenzy of the admirers that sda commands who rushed the CBA site like so many grotty little boys comparing the length of their posts and the ejaculatory reach of their verbosity. All deleted now by a CBA moderator who had to dip her laptop in bleach after that little display of frothing fannitude for sda.

To this woman I just had to share my thoughts:

A Little Background . . . I'm one of those metrosexual guys who has always believed in and advocated for full equality for women and minorities throughout my life. Within my technology company I've hired people from around the world, including many women. Gender, race, skin colour, sexual preference - none of these things mattered one whit in terms of hiring or promotion. There was zero discrimination. In fact, women often have the more senior management roles and often the highest salaries! In my professional life there has never been a feminist agenda per say, but rather just a glorious meritocracy.

So for me the word "feminist" has always meant "equality for women", which is the original & proper meaning, is it not?

How naive I was to think that everyone still shared this definition. The recent U.S. election revealed a dirty little secret about card carrying feminists, didn't it? The infamous posting of the CBC's Heather Mallick showed a deep-seated HATRED (there's no other suitable word) toward Sarah Palin and women like her. And why? Because she's a strong proponent of the Pro-Life Movement and a Republican. Wow, what a horrible person!!

I actually don't share Palin's beliefs on abortion but do recognize them as being morally consistent. So while I don't agree with the 'no exceptions' views of Pro-Lifers, I do respect them.

It seems crystal clear that you and your like-minded readers have a long road to walk before you will ever understand that "feminism" simply doesn't equate to "pro-Abortion". The fact that you deeply believe that a feminist MUST be vociferously pro-Choice is a mystery I'll leave for Sherlock Holmes to unravel.

Another mystery is why you believe that feminists can ONLY have Radical Left political views? "Socialism is the only path to set us free, sisters" ? ! ?

The 3rd Requirement in the Trilogy for Card Carrying Feminists seems to be a certain degree of antipathy toward men, especially if they're Caucasian. If you think I'm exaggerating then you really need to hire a different polling firm.

So in summary, there are you you and your ilk who believe that Feminism means:

• Pro-Choice (anytime, anywhere)
• Radical Left political views
• A little or a lot of dislike towards men
  

Then there's the rest of us. Thank goodness there's the rest of us!

Until you realize how far off the rails your movement has veered, you will never be able to grasp why women like Sarah Palin, Kate McMillan, Michelle Malkin, Amy Alkon, Laura Ingraham, and Patricia Heaton are the TRUE feminists of the New Millennium.

My Views on Abortion

In responding to this post on abortion by columnist, Amy Alkon, I was libeled as a "religious nut job" by one of her other readers. I left a comment in response. I'd like to repost the gist of it here, as I feel it is important to publicly state one's views on controversial issues.

I firmly believe that human life begins at conception, when the sperm fertilizes the egg. I make this based on science and logic rather than religion. For when this occurs, if it isn't human life (admittedly in its very rudimentary stage) then what kind of life is it? The makings of a kitten perhaps? Or maybe a frog?

Be honest with yourself and get real. In the same way that a newborn baby is the precursor to a 1 year old, so is a 7 month old fetus the precursor to a newborn baby. And so is the solitary cell at conception the precursor to a 7 month old fetus. If anyone can fault the logic of this, I'd love to hear it!

With all that said, I do not agree with the Sarah Palins of the world that all abortions should be prohibited. Make no mistake though, I very much respect the moral consistency of their beliefs - essentially that all pregnancies are God's will. I just don't agree with them.

I was raised as a Roman Catholic but began questioning some of the teachings in my teens. One of the biggest questions I could not get a suitable answer for was this: "If a woman is raped and gets pregnant, is that God's will?" I could simply not get past my belief that no benevolent God would ever expect a woman to carry through with such an unwanted pregnancy, forced upon her through violence.

Further to that, I've also come to realize that women and/or couples may not want to carry through with a pregnancy for many reasons. And so I've come to the conclusion that a pregnant woman should be allowed to have an abortion in the first trimester for any reason, no questions asked.

In the 2nd trimester, I believe she should have to get permission from a doctor. And I have no problem if the law states that she must first watch a government sanctioned presentation which shows the pros and cons of having an abortion ... and then she has to wait for 48 hours.

In the 3rd trimester, I believe that something more stringent than just permission from a solitary doctor is needed. Perhaps a panel of doctors and some others from different walks of life.

I believe this proposal to be well thought out, moderate, and balanced.

Contrast it with the likes of one commenter on Alkon's blog who stated that "human life is not sacred until the moment a child draws breath". If one believes this then that means that a perfectly healthy mother with a perfectly healthy fetus and no expected complications would be perfectly fine to abort her baby 5 minutes before she is due to give birth. Such a viewpoint is sickening to me and I bet to most other people in our society. It is not balanced whatsoever but more a reflection of the Radical Left's hatred toward Fundamentalist Christians. A society should never create policies based on hatred.

Morgentaler Revisited

The recent Henry Morgentaler controversy in Canada concerning the awarding to him of the Order of Canada came up in conversation last night amongst some friends I was having dinner with. One of the guests, a female lawyer, provided us all with a lengthy and interesting account of her dealings with him while she was at law school.

Abortion is one of those issues that is a real gray area for me because I find there are no absolutes with it - at least not in my mind. For example, at one extreme end of the spectrum there are strident pro-Lifers who believe that the life of the fetus is of most importance over everything else. This means that they don't believe in abortion even if:

• Conception occurred because of a rape.
• The mother's health is at risk.
• There is a known physical or mental problem with the fetus.

I fully accept that the beliefs of such people are sincere but I just can't agree with them.

At the other end of the spectrum are the hardcore pro-Choicers. One of them, the 70 year-old father of a friend of mine, told me unequivocally last week that he would have no problem with a woman having an abortion under any circumstances and this would include "even having an abortion 5 minutes before the birth of a perfectly healthy baby were to occur". If you think I'm exaggerating his views, you'd be incorrect. I asked him 3 times if this was really how he felt and he assured me it was.

To say I was sickened by his views would be the understatement of my lifetime. But I think his views have more to do with his hatred for Stephen Harper and George Bush than anything else. His views seem to more often be based on "let me do the opposite of what I perceive Harper and/or Bush would do".

The rhetoric really does tend to reach dizzying heights on this issue. For example, before Canada's last federal election, a 40-something woman said to me: "There's no way I'd ever vote for Stephen Harper. If he ever gets elected, I'll lose complete control of my body!" Yeah, right. :-(

Getting back to the dinner discussion, the female lawyer assured me that Morgentaler is not in favour of a woman having an abortion after her first trimester, except with the written permission of her doctor. This seems more than reasonable to me.

Never let it be said that I'm not open minded and willing to listen to and digest new information.
So, while I was previously against Morgentaler getting the Order of Canada, because it seemed like a slap in the face to devout Catholics, I've come to the conclusion that my views are pretty much in line with what I perceive his to be.

Where Environmentalists Are Taking Us