Thursday, March 4, 1999
The Canadian matriarchy's reign of terrorBy GEORGE JONAS
The media insist on calling it "a landmark 'no means no' sexual assault case." I read the phrase in four newspapers, but I still think the Ewanchuk matter stands for something quite different.
Actually I raised this point years ago when "no means no" first surfaced. I wrote that feminists must mean something else by it, or the slogan would be redundant. Nobody has ever disputed that no means no, except rapists, and contrary to current revisions of history, rapists weren't popular in any culture. Some got away with it, no doubt, just as some people got away with other crimes, but rapists who were caught were severely punished in every place and period - sometimes by death.
I wrote that if today the phrase "no means no" has a different meaning from what people have always understood it to mean, it can only mean one thing. It must mean that "yes" means "no." If the Ewanchuk case is a landmark, it may be a landmark for this proposition.
We've been sidetracked from this question by an unseemly squabble between two members of the judiciary, Alberta Court of Appeal Justice John McClung and Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dube of the Supreme Court of Canada. The row - in case anyone missed it - began with a somewhat gratuitous separate opinion in which Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dube, not content to concur in a judgment overturning Judge McClung's acquittal of Steve Ewanchuk, elected to read him the riot act about not being in tune with feminist thinking about human behaviour. The spat continued with an intemperate letter in the press by Judge McClung, ultimately ending with his apology to Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dube.
But this is just a side issue. The actual issue is how the law - whether criminal, civil, or family - is being used as a weapon in the gender wars.
Take sexual assault. If a woman, regardless of her action, demeanour, or words, declares afterward that she didn't consent to a sexual contact in her mind, the law now regards the issue as settled. She has been the victim of non-consensual sex.
The important thing is the woman's mind, which the accused male ought to read correctly. He must make sure she's participating out of sheer sexual desire, and not for some other motive, such as fear, or a perception that he's in a position of authority.
In the words of Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dube: "In my opinion, as irrational as a complainant's motive might be, if she subjectively felt fear, it must lead to a legal finding of absence of consent."
Sir Isaac Newton expressed less certainty about the law of universal gravitation than feminists express about their opinions. Our courts adopt feminist notions by now as if they were scientific facts, with any contrary view dismissed by calling it "archaic," "myth," or "stereotype." These magic words, once invoked, are supposed to end all argument.
Feminism in Canada has acquired the status of state religion. It's a theocracy in which the matriarchy's high priestesses impose and celebrate their rule in government, academia and the judicial system. The primary purpose of the laws of sexual assault is no longer to protect the vulnerable - or even specifically women - but to serve as an instrument of the matriarchy's reign of terror.
A reign of terror may be described as the mature stage of identity politics. Identity politics, including radical feminism, is no longer about the equality of individuals. It's about the parity of groups - at best, because at worst it's about the special status of privileged groups, whether of ethnicity or gender.
In systems based on identity politics there are neither nations nor individuals. A country is merely a collection of hostile, inward-looking tribes, whether of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender, all jockeying to get the upper hand. The ones who manage to grab the levers of the state can then coerce and terrorize the rest.
This is the world toward which the matriarchy is marching, in concert with other forces of supra-national statism, including UN conventions whose signatories, such as Canada, undertake to "sensitize" - i.e., indoctrinate - public officials in the tenets of feminism. It's not a world fit for a free people.
Identity politics is identity politics, whether it asserts special status for women or Aryan nations. If we let identity politics triumph, we'll have wasted our time defeating Hitler.
Copyright© 1999, Canoe Limited Partnership.