Tag Archives: Feminism

Ezra Levant defends free speech on the Michael Coren show

In Canada, the right not to be offended trumps freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. If you offend someone, nothing can save you from the Human Rights Commissions. All that is needed is for a victim to feel offended. The complainant doesn’t have to pay anything to lay charges, but the defendant is on the hook for all of his own legal fees. The conviction rate is virtually 100%. Even if you could somehow win, you would still lose time and money while you defend yourself. Penalties can include fines, public apologies, bans on future speech, and even jail time! These are left-wing inquisitions created by left-wing governments who believe in controlling citizens through the force of government.

Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are the two most prominent defenders of free speech in Canada.

Here is Ezra Levant’s most recent appearance on the Michael Coren show. (There is no clip 3) In this show, Levant gets to debate against two left-wing activists, and there are fireworks going off. Do not miss this debate!

Clip 1a
Clip 1b
Clip 2
Clip 4

On the Michael Coren show in 2008, Ezra Levant explains the Human Rights Commissions. No debate in this one.

Clip 1
Clip 2
Clip 3
Clip 4
Clip 5
Clip 6

And, as a special bonus, here is Mark Steyn’s appearance on the Michael Coren show.

Clip 1
Clip 2
Clip 3
Clip 4
Clip 5
Clip 6

Here is a summary of Ezra’s struggle against the Human Rights Commissions. He has spent more than $100,000 defending himself from charges that he offended people. Here is a summary of what happened to Mark Steyn. He authored the extremely popular book “America Alone”. Steyn was just hauled in front of the Human Rights Commission in Ontario to answer for offending people with his writings.

To see how this affects Christians in particular, consider the case of Stephen Boissoin. You will not believe the sentence that he gets after 5 years of being tried. These anti-free speech laws are not applied equally, they are almost always applied against groups that are hated by the left. When left-wingers get into power, they are not shy about using the full force of government to go after people who did not vote for them. Your human rights are irrelevant to them.

UPDATE: Welcome visitors from the Anchoress! Thanks so much for the link! New readers may want to take a look around since I cover a lot of different topics here, from free speech to economics to science to public policy!

Stephen Baskerville on Dennis Prager show today

I just received an e-mail from Stephen Baskerville, who is an expert on the effects on marriage and family caused by our divorce laws and divorce courts. He is scheduled to be on the Dennis Prager show today at 2:00 PM Eastern, 11:00 AM PST. (It was pushed back from 1:30 PM to 2:00 PM)
Here are some places where you can listen online:
Or you can try a radio guide here:

For more information about Stephen Baskerville, check out his cover story on marriage and divorce for Touchstone Magazine, here.

UPDATE:
Today’s show (02/06/09) is available here.
Baskerville’s previous appearance (12/19/2007) on the show is here.

BONUS:
An appearance on Milt Rosenberg’s Extension 720 is here.

How divorce laws discourage marriage

A friend notified me of this new article by the Canadian journalist Barbara Kay about a recent decision by a judge in Ontario, Canada. The article states that a Toronto judge has awarded custody of the 3 children from a dissolved marriage to the father, as a result of the mental trauma suffered by the children while they were in custody of the mother. The article notes that this is a “stunning and unusual family law decision”.

According the Government of Canada’s own numbers, sole-custody is awarded to the mother in nearly 80% of divorce cases:

In the majority of cases (79.3 percent), the mother had sole custody; the father had sole custody in 8.7 percent of cases. Shared custody (a child spends at least 40 percent of the time with each parent) and split custody (one or more children have primary residence with the mother and one or more children have primary residence with the father) were relatively infrequent at 6.2 percent and 5 percent, respectively.

In this particular case, Kay notes that the mother (K.D.) had pressured the children to distance themselves from their father (A.L.). She writes:

According to the judgment against K. D., she is denied all contact with the girls, even by telephone or text messages She has been ordered not to come closer to them than 300 metres. A. L. has been given the right to confiscate their computers and cellphones. This is necessary, Justice McWatt said, because the mother had so poisoned her children’s feelings toward their father that they had lost their capacity for independent judgment in relating to him.

Now, for good men, the thought of losing access to our own children after a divorce is a terrible thing to contemplate. Two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women, often against the wishes of the men, under no-fault, (i.e. – unilateral), divorce laws. Additionally, there is the question of money. Alimony and child support payments can be high, and men can often be required to pay even if they lose their jobs!

In another related story, a Quebec judge overturned a father’s grounding of his daughter because the judge felt the grounding was too harsh! Men are not going to feel comfortable about getting married when the courts interfere with families in order to implement their politically correct agenda. Men want to be fathers, but it seems as if the courts are sending men a message: don’t marry, don’t have children.

Stephen Baskerville, a professor at Patrick Henry College, has written a cover story for Touchstone Magazine in which he explains the danger that faces men and women who choose to marry. This article summarizes Baskerville’s new book, and is highly recommended understand how and why the government discourages marriage.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Though obfuscated with legal jargon (losing “custody”), what this means is that a legally unimpeachable parent can suddenly be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. Following from this, he can be arrested for failure or inability to conform to a variety of additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even if no evidence is presented that he has committed any. He can be arrested for not paying child support, even if the amount exceeds his means (and which may amount to most of his salary). He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or a psychotherapist he has not hired.

This can happen to women as well, according to Baskerville, in certain cases. Christians typically believe in marriage, and research indicates that a stable marriage is the best environment in which to bring up children. Therefore, Christians should be concerned by the government’s attempt to weaken the bonds of marriage by providing spouses with financial incentives to file for divorce, seize custody of the children, drain their ex-spouse of money, and prevent the ex-spouse from having a healthy relationship with the children.

Stephen Baskerville was interviewed on the Chicago-based radio show Extension 720 with host Milt Rosenberg. This interview is alarming, but required listening for men and women contemplating marriage, and for those who want to see marriage encouraged, and not discouraged, by the government and the courts. Here is another interview with Dr. Baskerville, but this one is from the Dennis Prager show.

Marriage is without a doubt good for children, for spouses, and for society. Shouldn’t we be thinking of ways to encourage people to marry, and to stay married, instead of having the government provide incentives to divorce or not marry at all?

UPDATE: Australian study shows that kids are safer when they live with their fathers.

Domestic violence and censorship

Here is a fascinating article from the Canadian journalist Barbara Kay in their national newspaper, the National Post.

The article describes how the Justice minister of a Canadian province was stripped of his Cabinet position for daring to suggest that men could be victims of domestic violence (DV) and not only women.  He did this in an internal e-mail – this was not even said in public.

Some special interest groups and their government allies have a vested interest in making sure that the public thinks that all DV is committed against women. There is a lot of taxpayer money at stake. If it were discovered that male victims of DV existed, that taxpayer money might have to be shared. Canada might then need a Minister for the Status of Men, an Office on Violence Against Men, a Violence Against Men Act, a National Council to Reduce Violence against Men and their Children, etc. I think that we should condemn DV against women and men, equally.

Here are the numbers from official government surveys in the UK and Canada:

UK numbers:

In the event, the CASI method found relatively high levels of male victimisation, to the extent that men appear to be at equal risk to women of domestic assault (4.2% of both sexes reported an assault in the last year).

Canada numbers:

An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive new report on family violence.

Here is a related research paper by Dr. Linda Kelly, a professor of Law at Indiana University School of Law.