Given the oceans of ink and hours of air time expended by Canada’s print and electronic media over the past decade or so on the topic of violent abuse and harassment of women in our society, one might reasonably expect that an incident in which a female Member of Parliament was publicly swarmed, pushed and shoved, as well as subjected to hostile verbal intimidation by a group of males, would elicit some editorial condemnation – even outrage.

Think again, at least when the female victim is gay-rights opponent Roseanne Skoke, and the assailants a group of homosexual/AIDS activists.

The incident in question took place last summer, when Ms. Skoke visited Wolfville, N.S., in an entourage accompanying Jean Chrétien.

Vendetta

Homosexual/AIDS activists, miffed that Chrétien had declined making an appearance at the 11th International Conference on AIDS held in Vancouver July 7-12, went to Wolfville determined to demonstrate in protest of the Prime Minister’s west coast no-show. The mere presence of Roseanne Skoke, who has become a national symbol of opposition to the gay-rights agenda, provided these “human rights advocates” with both pretext and opportunity to indulge in some hands-on bullying.

Reportedly, some half-dozen large, menacing gays surrounded the diminutive Ms. Skoke, jostling and manhandling her while shouting verbal abuse in her ears. She was not injured, but felt obliged to request that security personnel escort her from the premises.

Now, in these parlous times we inhabit, a male can be subject of a human rights action for merely looking at a woman in a manner she does not appreciate. Verbal abuse against women is also considered by the politically correct crowd to be a form of “violence.” However, in the instance cited above, a woman was not only subjected to a verbal attack, but a literal, physical assault as well. So where was the protest from feminist editorial writers, not to mention NACSOW and the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women?

There was nary a whisper of protest from these guardians of women’s rights, at least none that I’m aware of.

For instance, the (enthusiastically pro-gay and pro-feminist) Halifax Chronicle-Herald reported the Wolfville confrontation as a news story, but heir only comment was from Bruce MacKinnon, the paper’s leftist editorial cartoonist, who saw fit to make a joke out of the shameful incident, with a cheap crack about special human rights protection for “petite, blonde homophones.”

There appears to be something more at work here than simply a biased double-standard.

The problem homosexual militants in particular and left-liberal humanists in general have with Ms. Skoke can be explained thus. Liberal-leftists on the one hand, and conservative traditionalists on the other, respectively and necessarily regard each others’ views and ideologies as mistaken. However, for leftists it goes much deeper and farther than that. The humanist view of the world adheres to a rigid, prescribed, code that is regarded as self-evidently correct to “cultivated” intellects. Therefore, if someone disagrees with this vision of how things should be ordered, there can be only two possible explanations from the lib-left perspective – ignorance or bad will.

Hence, the ubiquitous leftist prescription of “education” or “re-education” as the all-purpose cure for “incorrect” thinking. However, in the case of intelligent, articulate, and well-educated individuals like Roseanne Skoke, the “ignorance” explanation inconveniently cannot apply. Therefore, within the cramped confines of the liberal-humanist worldview, the only other possibility is moral failure, or in other words: Ms. Skoke’s opposition to what humanists regard as obviously and unequivocally correct can’t be conveniently dismissed as the rantings of an ignoramus, so it must be attributed to deliberate maliciousness.

Mean-spirited?

Ergo, in the narrowly circumscribed liberal-humanist universe, Roseanne Skoke must be considered deliberately and perversely mean-spirited – evil even, and therefore a legitimate target for moral outrage, who needs not be accorded respect, dignity, or even the human rights considerations leftists aggressively claim for themselves.

Ms. Skoke and others like-minded are moral lepers as far as the lib-left is concerned. In their estimation, she asked for, and deserved, the treatment she received from the gay bullies in Wolfville.
It is unsettling to reflect on the fact that this liberal-left vision has today achieved an almost monolithic stranglehold on the hearts and minds of people in the media, the educational establishment, the judiciary, and most other culturally influential institutions, not to mention the unelected and unaccountable kangaroo-court human rights tribunals. In such an ideological climate, the likelihood of those of us who reject the liberal-humanist vision receiving a fair hearing or due process is slim to nil.