A visitor from another planet arriving in Canada could be excused if he thought himself to be in cloud-cuckoo land. A spokesman for the Employment and Immigration Ministry said recently that the target of 175,000 immigrants for the current fiscal year should be raised to 235,000 in 1991, and to 265,000 the following year. “Various studies also have concluded that immigration levels must be increased to offset the declining birthrate,” he said.
At the same time, Canadians kill off some 100,000 of their own children per year, a genocide which, if reported by Amnesty International in other circumstances, would horrify all those liberals and human rights advocates, with demands that the government “should do something.”
Last year a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that an injunction, brought by the boyfriend of a 22-year-old Toronto girl to prevent her from having an abortion, violated the girl’s rights under the (of course) Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The girl had had two previous abortions. One might paraphrase Madame Roland: “Oh, freedom, what crimes are committed in thy name.”
Meanwhile, the Halton Children’s Aid society, with 250 families on the waiting list for adoptions and fewer than 15 infants available in one year, decided it was not worth the expense of maintaining this extensive waiting list indefinitely.
One of the regrettable facts of life in Canada is that the media are decidedly pro-abortion. Prominent columnists in the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail write consistently and vituperatively against pro-life activities. This slanted liberal propaganda has now become virtually accepted with little attempt by Church leaders to refute the onslaught. There is not even the slightest pretense of a reasoned debate or an alternative point of view.
That this bias is widespread is only too evident. Linda Greenhouse, a New York Times reported, joined a Washington, D.C. march in support of abortion rights, as did several reporters from the Washington Post. While the Post invoked guidelines barring the reporters from covering abortion-related stories, the Times ruled that Ms. Greenhouse could write about abortion provided she did not take part in any further demonstrations. Which raises the question, would a writer who hated opera or the theatre be permitted by the Times to contribute on these subjects?
There is also a curious ambiguity in the ruling of some women judges. Madam Justice Janet Scott issued an injunction against anti-abortion demonstrators in Cambridge, Ontario, last ear, ruling (among other things_ that the word “killing” was “defamatory.” It is standing logic on its head to suggest that the word, but not the action, should be judged illegal. What is the willful termination of the life of another human being but killing?
Feminism and pornography
While feminists rail against male chauvinism and increasing assaults on women and children, they apparently do not object to pornography and graphic illustrations of perverted sex. The Toronto Star recently carried a seven-column headline on the front page “Anguish of 1 million women Reported.” This referred to a report prepared for the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. It was an absurdly exaggerated report. One analyst stated that the report was “a disgrace to scholarship, writing and editing,” and a device by feminist leaders to demand more funding and universal day care, fuelled by a doctrine of universal manhood hatred.
Yet when the federal government introduced an anti-pornography bill in the Commons, the same organization said the proposals were puritanical and would effectively ban soft-core pornography and erotica. “It seems they listened too closely to the religious and fundamentalist groups against pornography,” said Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
The law, he said, could be interpreted to outlaw such first-class films as “Last Tango in Paris”, which depicted anal intercourse (what price AIDS?) and “Lolita”, the story of a sexual relationship between a man and a young girl (what price child abuse?).
Interestingly, the feminist bloc which talks of caring, compassion and concern can be rough and tough. The woman chairman of Citizens Against violent Pornography, who was a guest panelist at the Symposium on Media Violence and Pornography in Toronto, related that as the panel began taking its place, it was upstaged by a group of radical feminists. Guests were then asked to condense their presentations, but the feminists ignored this request, with the result that some speakers had to be eliminated.
And while militant feminists urgently press for the participation by women in politics, one British magazine carried an article “Ditch the Bitch” in an all-out attack on Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
Shulasmith Firestone, an American feminist, considers that the subjugation of women is rooted in the “biological family” and that liberation will only come when the need for this family is removed by artificial reproduction. “Pregnancy,” she says, “is barbaric.”
Lesbians and homosexuals constantly assert that they wish to be treated as equals, yet many blatantly and flamboyantly demonstrate their distinction. In Britain, a Labour candidate won a by-election in a London borough, which, one might have thought, would have greatly pleased the Labour executive. However, the candidate, Mr. Nick Raynsford, had ill-advisedly used photographs of himself with his wife and two children I his campaign literature. The executive then passed a resolution, inspired by the women’s section of the Islington Labour Party, which said that the photographs were “unfair to gays and lesbians” because they unnecessarily highlighted the fact that he was not a homosexual. So a circular was sent to all constituency parties demanding a ban on family photographs as part of its campaign towards “eliminating heterosexism.”
Not even Father Christmas is immune from these joyless creatures who see oppression and discrimination everywhere. Father Christmas, wrote Elaine Aschar in a letter to a paper, “is a blatant male chauvinist symbol. With his facial hair and trousers, he stands for the exclusive male breadwinner bringing goodies to the bourgeois nuclear family. Superman Santa, who is never black, should be abolished totally. Also Christmas, as a religious festival, is itself thoroughly offensive in a multicultural society. A minority of Christians impose their silly superstitions, which even their own bishops do not believe, on everyone else, especially children.
“The sooner we realize that a truly anti-racist and anti-sexist society demands the complete removal from schools and public life of everything to do with Christmas, the better.”
And peace and goodwill to all, except men!