 |
7 July 2009
Feminist madness comes back to bite them
There is no doubt considering the manipulation of the legislative process by feminists in key academic and governmental positions that they have a big say in the generation of anti-discrimination legislation. One can now see the linkage between particular equal opportunity legislation that seems harmless on the surface and subsequent legislative proposals drawing on the first that suddenly appear to target a group considered politically unacceptable.
The outstanding case at the moment in Australia is the review of the exceptions to the Victorian government's Equal Opportunity Act. The Equal Opportunity Act cast religious organizations as essentially discriminatory but allowed them to continue as an exception under the act. What generosity on behalf of the government! Nobody thought anything about the casting of schools that reflected the exercise of the rights to association, religious belief and parental authority as discriminatory organizations, organisations that had long been established in the cultural life of the country and to which only a minority of ideological bigots ever objected. Now we see the nastiness in the second phase of an ideological process that has captured the law.
The extreme political colour of anti-discrimination legislation is sometimes dramatically illustrated when it actually comes back to bite the originating political group on the bum. This happened a little over a year ago in Holland. I noted it then but have only just come to it, possibly because the issue of legislative manipulation is foremost in my mind at the moment. The case concerned a feminist monthly called Opzij. The literal translation is "aside", but when directed at someone can mean "get out of the way!"
Naturally a feminist magazine would want to employ only women, particularly if its management was a group of lesbians. A complaint was brought to the Commission for Equal Treatment (Commissie Gelijke Behandeling) claiming that the editorial management team's policy of excluding men from applying for a job on the team was discriminatory.
Well, the Commission as befits PC zealots in the position of possible embarrassment found that the policy was indeed discriminatory. You can imagine them gritting their teeth as they publicised their finding. Opzij objected that only women could be feminist (I agree wholeheartedly) and for that reason men could not write for a feminist magazine. I agree again. A bloke would have to be mentally disordered to write an acceptable piece for a feminist magazine like Opzij.
But the Commission dismissed their objection. According to them a man may write even better pieces than a feminist! Really? Opzij then came with another objection. The editorial board has to function as a model or example: "they show that a team of only women can deliver good work." Pretty thin, isn't it? The Commission thought so, too. Fortunately for Opzij the Commission's findings are not binding, but may be used in legal action.
Let's be realistic about this. Opzij will have ignored the Commission's findings. There's no way they will employ any man let alone one for the editorial team. And nothing will happen to them because belonging to the class that originated the legislation they are not the target. The Commission has to seem to be doing the right thing. But this for me is a secondary matter.
The primary issue for me is the essential nature of legislation that does not allow a group of women, feminist or not, to set up an association that is only for women. I am doing the ridiculous thing here and appealing to commonsense. For most ordinary people, this does not present a problem. Ordinary associations that reflect particular interests and activities function without impinging on the rights or the well-being of citizens that have no interest in the purpose or activity. That Opzij wants only women on staff has, in itself, no impact on the lives of those who don't share their views. What their activities are may affect lives (and they do) but their being all women does not. This whole case has been an absurdity - an absurdity that has flowed from the nature of the legislation invoked.
comment: gerard@gerardcharleswilson.com