Warning; We are not a politically correct site. Don't like us? Don't read.

Friday, July 18, 2014

Is the dark side of feminism infesting the liberal party of Canada?

Due process on ice at the University of Ottawa
Allegations that some members of the University of Ottawa’s men’s hockey team committed sexual assault in Thunder Bay earlier this year are deeply disturbing. If they prove to be true, the young men involved are guilty of a serious criminal offence, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. But the university’s recent decision to suspend the entire hockey program for a full season is hasty and unjust to those players whose only fault is one of circumstance: They happen to play on the same team as the three alleged offenders. Twenty-one players are innocent of any crime – even an alleged one – yet they are being treated as though they are guilty by association. It’s a kind of collective punishment.
It’s a surprising verdict, coming from Allan Rock, the University of Ottawa’s president, who once served as liberal justice minister.............

Would it have made more sense to wait for the police to lay charges, and for those charges to be proven (or not) in court? It’s called due process, and one would think that Mr. Rock would get that.

The university’s suspension of the hockey program doesn't just mean a couple of dozen players don’t get to play their sport. A group of people who had nothing to do with the alleged incident – some of whom weren't even in Thunder Bay – have had their reputations tarnished, job offers revoked, and have been ostracised by peers. Mr. Rock should have waited; if any players are ultimately found guilty, the university can punish them (after the justice system does). But based on the evidence that’s publicly known, at least 21 other players have done nothing wrong. They deserve something else from Mr. Rock: the presumption of innocence.
------------------------

Then we have statements such as this; 
Male legislators should not have a say in matters of women's right, specifically abortions.
OR,
Pro life candidates have no place in the liberal party...
Made by the liberal leader J. Trudeau...

We can see the dark shadow of radical university feminism in all this; First, A. Rock suspending all of the Ottawa U. hockey team smells of trying to please said radicals, after all, these hockey players were all men, and as we know, all men are rapists, even if most men find rape to be an abhorrent act...For someone who used to be justice minister, one would expect "innocent till proven guilty" to be important in his decisions, even as the reporter said in his post...the presumption of innocence, not to mention the right not to be punished for the actions of other.

Then we have good old Justin himself, the irrational statement he has made as of late, seem a bit strange at best, if male legislators have no say in the matter of women's rights, then all laws, including the rights to abortions are null and void according to his way of thinking, since when they were passed and made into law by the supreme court and governments way back then, there were more males legislator and judges than today....
It would also mean that since there are more female legislators and judges today, they have no right to pass laws in the matter of...men's rights? Like alimony, child support, so on? This would be the domain of male legislators only?

As for pro life candidates not been welcomed into the liberal party of Canada, I guess that also means if you are pro-life, and yes there are people who have that belief, are not welcomed to vote for them?

Say what you will about the conservatives and PM Harper, at least they allow the conversation. Harper. does not want to bring it up for a vote, but he does allow the freedom to talk about it, to run under that banner, hence inviting those who are pro life or pro-choice to vote for him. That is true democracy, giving the voter the right to a voice....

Pro-life, pro-family, even pro-fathers have no voice in the federal liberals and the n.d.p. for that matter, because the issue is close? That is not the way it works in politics, one must accept opposing views, and not close the door to those who have different opinions, when you do this, you limit your vote and depend only on your base, that does not put you in power.

These kinds of radical positions never turns out well for those who "impose" their will on the population, we seen that as of late with the 2 provincial elections, one was the destructive 100,000  job cuts, scaring the crap out of those who work, which allowed one of the most corrupt governments to be re-elected, Ontario, the other was the lack of realism when they tried to demonize religion, not realising their supporters all have a catholic cross in their home, Quebec.

Either way, the choice is ours to make, we control who gets to be in power, J.Trudeau is the product of the radical feminism infecting our universities, one sided policies forgetting the rest, the open anti male rhetoric which seems to have stayed with him. Whether he does what he says once in power, we will see.
But I know this, his policies would not advance the traditional family, it would further destroy it with his pro-feminist views. If your a man, you would have no say in abortions, (takes 2 to tango the last time I checked, and if not, my parents did not tell me the whole story), unfair alimony and child support by the courts will continue and might even get worse, and forget the idea of free and just access to your kids or kids to their fathers.

What about the stay at home mom, will she be under pressure to look at it as feminists describe it, slaves to their husbands? Will laws or pressure be put on her to put her kids into state sponsored day care, having strangers raise her kids, in order to push her in the work place and hence collect more taxes for undeserving bureaucrats salaries?
They seem to have forgotten their power totally depends on the traditional family, this is where freedom is thought, hard work, self dependency. The state under radical feminist views sees the traditional family as a bad thing, fathers are abusive and husbands are slave drivers. Maybe we should follow governor moonbeams of California's direction, ban the words husband and wife....
Heck let's ban the family altogether while were at it, let the government license adults for having kids, the result of all this will be...depopulation. This should make thing a hell of a lot better.
Family is the guidance to a prosperous life for kids, not the state, it is the unequivocal strength of a free people and the stability of nations....
A democratic society has a simple rule for continuance, respect for diverse opinions, and accepting the fact that not all think the same, find a balance by not "imposing" radical views on each other.

Note;
We are not trying to take sides politically, just trying to inform and make a point.

1 comment:

Runingwolf said...

Love it.Thank you.Defending the rights of the family is defending the rights or children, mothers, fathers and the Elders.