Canadian Bar Association has called, on the occasion of International Women's
Day, for the Canadian Government and public to recognize "the horrors
endured by some 200,000 young Asian women who were forced into slavery to
satisfy the sexual needs of Japanese soldiers during the Second World War."
We agree that this issue should be raised by pressure-groups and governments.
But what has the female-dominated Canadian Bar Association done to publicize
the much greater horrors which were endured by much greater numbers of men
in the Second World War ?
No legal organisation with the status of the Canadian Bar Association ever
deplores the fact that it was men who suffered
these horrors. On the contrary, the fact that they were men is glossed over
as much as possible in Feminist-dominated Western societies, and terms such
as "soldiers" "men and women", or "people" are
used wherever there is a risk that men might attract sympathy as men.
This happened, for example, when the New Zealand Chief Justice (a woman) gave
a speech on ANZAC Day 2003 (Anzac Day is New Zealand's armed forces memorial
It would be decent of the Canadian Bar Association if they were to celebrate
International Men's Day by acknowledging male victims of wars, and also other
male victims, such as victims of suicide, who are also predominantly male.
This is especially so because many male suicides are the result of the anti-male
judicial system. See the page: "The
case against Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin" for evidence
as to how ingrained anti-male bias is in the Canadian "justice"
The history of Feminism is the history of hypocrisy. For example, Feminists
never demand that women be conscripted into the front line in wartime. They
use the excuse that men "don't want them there." If there is anything
that is obvious about Feminism it is that Feminists never give two hoots whether
men agree with their demands or not-- they just keep on making their demands
until men eventually agree to them. So if Feminists have been uncharacteristically
paying attention to what men want, it is obviously just an excuse to avoid
getting the sort of equality that they don't want to have.
Feminist lawyers and judges have enough naivety to enable them to believe
the Feminist ideology that they have been indoctucated
with, and they enjoy the extra power and authority that that ideology imbues
them with. Western societies are like courtrooms where Feminism
is the prosecution and men -- the defendants -- have no defence counsel.
We are all judges and jurors in the Court of public opinion, so to speak,
but only one side of the case gets stated. Because of the lack of organized
Masculist resistance, Feminists are allowed to plead both sides of an argument
in different contexts:
For example, they say they need a Women's Room at Victoria University of
Wellington (New Zealand), so that women can breast-feed in private -- but
one Male Feminist journalist on Radio New Zealand thought it was so obvious
that a female Parliamentarian in Australia should be allowed to breast-feed
her baby in Parliament's Debating Chamber that he didn't even bother to hide
his prejudice from listeners! The point is that some men might be embarrassed
by bare breasts in public, and some men might not -- but it is not up to women
to decide by themselves that they need privacy
for breast-feeding in one context, but that they should be allowed to breast-feed
in public in another context !
The fact that Feminism is the ruling ideology
in Western countries means that it is open to Feminists in authority to exploit
and abuse the positions that they hold in order to carry out Feminist propagandising.
Few will dare to criticize such behaviour, and their criticisms are likely
to fall on deaf ears and/or result in significant censure. The
Canadian Bar Association should be barred from making sexist, pro-women pronouncements,
because they further undermine the perceived and actual gender-neutrality
of the Canadian Justice System.