The horrible reasons Jonathan Kay feels compelled to "explain" rape

Contributor: Tasia Alexopoulos

Jonathan Kay, Gender Expert Extraordinaire.

Jonathan Kay is a name I associate with many things: "feminist" is not one of them. This morning while I was scrolling through Twitter I was surprised to see that an article he had written about rape was being circulated by smart, feminist peoples. Unless I really want to subject myself to bigotry, idiocy, and a far-right politic that terrifies me I generally ignore Kay's work (this ban also applies to his mother, Barbara Kay).

"The many horrible reasons why men rape women"  encapsulates why I ignore Kay's work and why I think the National Post is ridiculous for giving him a platform. There is no point of his article, he is barely making an argument, and he's using anecdotal evidence to make sweeping generalizations about rape and sexual violence.

Apparently being at a famous party where someone was raped makes Jonathan Kay an expert on the issue. The infamous Zeta Psi assault was a galvanizing event and, certainly, an important moment on the Canadian political landscape in terms of how we understand and view assault. It raised questions about the culture of sexual violence and rape on campuses, the silencing of victims, and the shortcomings of the justice system.  It was not, however, an isolated incident nor are incidents like it uncommon today. What I find offensive about Kay's piece is that he refuses to contextualize this moment in time, he doesn't refer to any of the work done around it (including the personal voice of the woman he discusses who has written about her own experience), and he seems to think that having a cursory knowledge of it gives him a unique view on the general topic of sexual violence.

Careful to point out that the victim admitted she was "too drunk" to know how she arrived at the location of her assault but remembered details from the actual assault, Kay discusses how no charges were laid due to "questions about the reliability of the victim's recollections of that alcohol-soaked night. As well, according to Kay, "this was the era before cell phones and so there was no hard evidence." Does Jonathan Kay realize that there have been successful rape prosecutions without photo and video evidence? There are other kinds of evidence but at the time (and now) the most important evidence of all, a woman's own recollection of what happened, was ignored and discounted. Had Kay done any research at all on rape/assault cases he might see a distinct pattern of ignoring women's voices, invalidating them, claiming they were too drunk/too slutty/too scantily clad, accusations of story changes, improper collection of evidence, and police insensitivity when it comes to "proving" allegations of assault. It is never as simple as there not being "evidence" to support a charge. In fact, women's difficulties within the justice system was a keystone of this case but rather than even doing a cursory Google search or paying lip service to this Kay trusted that his own personal opinion and recollection was enough.

Kay goes on to discuss the motivations of the perpetrator (there were three and others watching, but he focuses on one). In the mind of the accused, what he did was a "sort of lurid sexual theatre for his pals," "he was quite giddy during the incident, acting as a sort of sexual emcee for the others... he'd treated the whole thing as a show and at the time seemed delighted by the attention." So, because a rapist is "giddy" during the act or enjoys the attention it garners him, he doesn't realize that what he is doing is wrong? Or that him appearing to enjoy himself means that the act is not really rape because it's not really about power or violence? I'm so confused. What appears to be a point is forming here, but it's so convoluted that I can barely understand it. The man, writes Kay, was not popular. Before he became "sexually infamous" everyone in the fraternity already knew that letting him in was a mistake, which he knew. Ok.. so does being unpopular make someone more likely to be become a violent gang rapist? Is that what he's getting at here?   As far as Kay "can tell" the motivation behind the rape wasn't sex or violence but was a "desperate attempt to bond with higher status peers through the collaborative humiliation of someone helpless." The collaborative humiliation of someone helpless sounds a lot like violence to me. Proving that one views women as objects also seems like violence to me, violence that stems from a culture that sustains itself on privilege and entitlement. What Kay doesn't seem to understand is that even if this guy was raping someone to make his frat brothers like him more it is still violence and still a wielding of power. It is a product of systemic misogyny and sexism. There are people who are actual experts on this type of thing, maybe Kay could have supplemented his bizarre expoundings upon the nature of rape with some actual facts.

Kay concludes with some ask and answer: "Is rape sex? Yes. Is it violence? Yes. A criminal pathology, a product of booze and incapacity, perversion, sadism, an expression of dominance, a bonding agent for mobs, a means for dumb men to climb within hierarchies of other dumb men? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. Rape can be any twisted combination of those things, which is why the crime is so tragically common, and so difficult to eradicate. It is also why the concept of rape can’t be reduced to mere slogans about sex and power. It’s much more complicated than that."

Who is reducing the concept of rape to mere slogans? What is the point of this article?!?! And, actually, rape is not sex. Rape is rape. Sex is sex. Kay simultaneously borrows from feminist rhetoric on sexual violence while spitting on it, offering no solutions.

This coming from a man who publicly berated anyone who had the audacity to connect the Montreal Massacre with sexism, misogyny, and violence against women. Writing the Massacre off as having "no larger social or political message at play [as just a] horrible tragedy that symbolizes nothing more than our inability to prevent bad things from happening to good people," Kay not only tightened his blinders in terms of the power  of social inequalities but also did so at the expense of the women who were murdered that day by a man who was a self professed woman hater. Jonathan Kay is correct when he says this problem is complicated and difficult to eradicate but it's not because rape is a nuanced thing. If we refuse to target the root of the issue, the systemic sexism and misogyny that operate at every level of our society, then how can we ever hope to eradicate symptoms of such inequality?

It's "Be Nice to the TTC Driver" Day!

On Monday there was some kind of spat on the Bathurst streetcar. According to the National Post (written by Kelly McParland) the "conflict" began when:

"passengers were kept waiting on a hot summer evening for a streetcar that didn’t arrive. Estimates of the wait vary — somewhere between half an hour and 40 minutes. It was rush hour and people wanted to get home. When the car finally arrived, the driver further aggravated the crowd by hopping off for a short break. A middle-aged woman said something and the driver said something back. “I don’t like your attitude and you are not getting into my car,” the woman (who now has a lawyer) says she was told.

She ignored the command and got on the car. The driver ordered her off. She refused. The crowd sided with her and the driver got his back up — one passenger claimed he was “out of his mind.” The driver called a supervisor,who.. tried to settle things down, insisting the woman leave the car."

It goes on to say that all of the passengers agreed with the woman and that one of them started videotaping the situation, the supervisor grabbed the camera, a passenger tackled them, the police were called, blah blah blah blah.

The bullshitty thing about this article is that it makes it sound like the passengers were kept waiting on purpose in deadly heat. It also makes it sound like the driver is responsible for the lateness of the street car, that he purposefully aggravated the situation by taking his break, and that he was not justified in asking the woman to not board the street car. Finally, this article is ALL based on hearsay from "witnesses" and the woman who started the whole thing by being kind of a bitch.

Ooooh, it was "hot" out. People wanted to "get home." We live in TORONTO. It's not that goddamned hot here, we have crapp TTC, I'm guessing it was rush hour(so people should expect delays- this is the biggest city in the country and you are ALL going home from work at the same time), and it's summer time in the city so chill out.

I hate late TTC as much as the next person. When I lived at Christie and Dupont and took the Dupont bus to Spadina station, it was late every single day. Every. Single. Day. I also commute to York frequently and I don't even need to explain that.

It's incredibly frustrating on some days, some days you're not so cranky so it doesn't bother you as much, and some days you are proactive and plan for it or you just walk. Bring a book, listen to your ipod, do some squats. If you want transit that is always on time, move to Germany.

That being said, I have never, EVER taken out my own frustration on a TTC driver. As someone who has worked in retail, in the service industry, and as a Teaching Assistant I understand that people's frustration often lands on the first person they come into contact with.

Had a bad day? Waited forever for a table? Your coffee isn't as hot as it should be? Well, I guess you asking me if I'm "retarded" is fine! Sure, go right ahead and snap your fingers at me from across a crowded restaurant, then leave me a fifty cent tip.

Or, don't. How about for five seconds you stop, take a deep breath, and recognize how entitled and rude your behaviour is and how disgusting it is to take out your problems out on somebody who is doing their job and who has nothing to do with your crankiness. How about this little thing called "respect"? Or "basic, human dignity"?

It SUCKS having to wait 40 minutes for a street car. It blows beyond belief. But guess what also sucks? Driving in heavy traffic, in a vehicle STUCK ON TRACKS. Streetcars are literally stuck on tracks, people. That means you can't pass or take detours, you are at the mercy of traffic. This "clash" happened on the Bathurst Streetcar. Uhhh... the Bathurst streetcar is a mess. It doesn't have a dedicated lane, the traffic moves slower than molasses, and here are a billion traffic lights. Any time I have ever taken the Bathurst streetcar I've been late. It's not the driver's fault, it's that there isn't proper transit infrastructure that prioritizes their movement through traffic.

Street car and bus drivers don't just say to themselves "I know what will be awesome, making my passengers wait 40 minutes for me!" No. They understand that every minute they are late, somebody is waiting to screech at them for it and be rude to them. Some people spit on them, or hit them.

A TTC employee is assaulted in some way or another almost every day, that's why there's a zero tolerance on the TTC for behaviour that is in any way abusive. They have to be able to set boundaries and ground rules on the vehicles they drive, because it's the only way they can feel safe doing their job and also the only way the TTC can actually stay safe. The driver is the authority on the bus, and when you have an authority figure that noone respects? CHAOS!

You know who else boundaries protect? Passengers! I can't even count how many times I've been on the TTC and watched the driver kick someone off for doing something dangerous or threatening people. And every, single time that's happened I've breathed a sigh of relief that I didn't have to be the one dealing with that person and now I can enjoy the rest of my ride home without some crazy man screaming in my ear that he's going to kill me.

According to the Toronto Star's "coverage" of this particular news item, the woman in question "recalls" just politely asking the driver why he was late. Oh really? I have this sneaking suspicion that asking the driver a polite question doesn't get you tossed from the street car. The Star and the NatPo have also very selectively chosen their witnesses. According to our own sources, there were just as many people yelling at the woman to get off the streetcar and allow it to move as there were "defending her" and taking a stand against the evil driver.

I tend to believe that people were yelling at her to get off the street car. The majority of rush hour riders really do just want to get home, and they don't need any more stress than they've experienced during the day. I've never been in a situation where other passengers were like "hell yeah I'll wait here all day for this lady's right to be rude to the driver!" No. Generally, other passengers are uncomfortable with rude people and will eventually start yelling at the person to disembark.

In any case, it doesn't matter what she said because it's the drivers right to kick her off. It's like being at the airport-- they can bar you from getting on the plane for a lot of different reasons, and most of us think that's probably for the best. Like, I'm more comfortable if that super drunk dude who keeps staring at the children DOESN'T get on the plane. Or, in a bar--if you're being unruly they can toss you out, and most of us other patrons generally think this is also for the best because it helps us enjoy our evening and makes us feel safer. So, why is the TTC any different? Because the Toronto Star and National Post love to attack Unionized workers? Because they'll do anything to turn a little thing into a big news story that they don't actually have to do any real reporting on?

I just feel like TTC workers get a really shitty deal. All of this over a short break?? For all we know, this driver really had to pee. Maybe he hadn't had his break yet, and maybe he was stuck in traffic a really long time. Would we prefer that he pee in a jar whilst driving? If a driver peed in a jar, heaven knows someone would complain. They just can't win. Maybe the driver is diabetic and needed to eat something really quickly. Maybe he had a kidney stone. Maybe he has a urinary tract infection. Maybe he had diarrhea. There are a lot of really great reasons why it is mandatory that we get breaks during our work day. We don't expect Admin Assistants to sit at their desk all day without peeing or eating, so why should we expect the same of our TTC drivers? Sure, they aren't perfect but neither are you and neither am I and we are still entitled to breaks at work.

So how about this: next time the street car is late and your driver hops off to do whatever it is that he is legally entitled to do, just smile. Say hi. Ask if it's been a busy day. Lots of traffic today? It is actually amazing how much that kind of behaviour can alter the atmosphere on the TTC. Being rude to anyone while they are at work ruins their day. It ruins my day, it ruins your day, and it ruins the TTC driver's day as well.

If you have to vent your frustration then call your City Councillor or, better yet, call the Mayor. Tell them that the TTC infrastructure is not conducive to fast and efficient transit in this city. Tell them that you are frustrated with the thought of another fare increase when service is no better than it was last year, or the year before. You're waiting 40 minutes , it's making you cranky and frustrated -- so pick up your cell phone that you're texting angrily on and call the Office of the TTC Chair. Put your frustration to good use, instead of just being the prick who ruined somebody's day for no good reason.

Why it does matter when the Mayor snubs Pride:

It might not come as a surprise to most of us, but at least it's official: Mayor Rob Ford will not be marching in or attending the Toronto Pride Parade this July 2nd. The major event, which is the culmination of a week's worth of events, conflicts with plans to go to his Muskoka cottage -- a tradition in his family for generations and generations.

When asked about his plans for the Canada Day weekend, Ford responded that he's been going to the cottage since he was a child: "Since I was a little boy, we always used to go up north to our cottage, and I’m carrying on the tradition that my father had.”

Fair enough. We all have family traditions that are important to us, that are priorities , and that we try to organize our hectic lives around but for most of us there comes a time when it becomes impossible and we have to (sadly) arrive late or even miss our favorite family festivities. It's a fact of life and, unfortunately for Mayor Ford, it's especially a fact of life for those in public positions who are paid with taxpayer dollars.

In today's National Post Barbara Kay wrote: "Good for Rob Ford. Canada Day is a day for all Canadians to celebrate their nation as a 38-million strong collective, not a small minority of people celebrating their sexuality. There are times when family trumps political work, and this is, or should be, unarguably one of them." (the article was lovingly accompanied by the photo on the right)

Well, okay. Interesting theory...? First of all, it's not a "small minority" of people. It's been estimated that participation in Pride events, and especially the parade, runs into the hundreds of thousands--a million even. That's comparable to the Caribana festival --or, rather, the Scotiabank Toronto Caribbean Carnival -- and even if it was just a small minority of people? What then? It's okay to not endorse and support the event? Well, that's just silly Barbara. The fact is that Toronto Pride is a massive corporate event and it brings an insane amount of money into our fair city, money that isn't just queer money even : straight people also attend Pride events! That "small minority" IS celebrating but so are their straight friends, their straight parents and grandparents, their straight children, and their straight colleagues. That's called a "community" and Pride is a "community" event.

Secondly: Canada Day isn't an excuse. Does the Prime Minister always miss Canada Day celebrations? Do other elected officials get to say "oh, a national holiday? Naaaah, I have to go BBQ at the ol' cottage!" Being elected Mayor of a city like Toronto means that your old holiday schedule might have to change, be flexible. It's that lack of flexibility that is the real problem here, the reason why it IS important that Ford is choosing to miss the Parade. Huntsville is a three hour drive away. Leave your cottage in the a.m, come wave a bit and throw some candy into the crowd, take the boos with a grain of salt, then drive back to Huntsville in time to toss a few beers back and set off some fireworks with the family. People do it ALL of the time. He's not going to a cottage on a private island in the middle of the ocean, he's going to the Muskokas, which is practically still in Toronto.

Just because it's Canada Day weekend doesn't mean that his choice is an obvious one-- maybe if being with your family on Canada Day is so important politicians should lobby for airline discounts during that weekend, so those of us who are not from the GTA could actually go home for a change. If Barbara Kay thinks that being with family is the most important thing on Canada Day then I will gladly accept a ticket home on her behalf, because guess what-- some of us don't have the luxury of skipping work to go home, let alone cottages.

In the same vein, why didn't Rob Ford take St. Patrick's Day off? Or Easter? He marched in both of those parades. I didn't get upset that the Mayor marched in an Easter Parade, despite the fact that I am not a Catholic and that I have major issues with organized religion. The Catholic Church doesn't want me to have protected sex because it thinks I should be a vessel for babies, risk be damned. But hey, Ford may be Catholic and he has Catholic constituents, so I don't really care that he marched in that Parade because that's what the Mayor does.

It is precisely because it would be so easy for Ford to attend(and that it's kind of his job) that makes it ridiculous that he won't. David Miller and Mel Lastman both marched in Pride while they were Mayor of Toronto. Even Police Chief Bill Blair once marched in the Parade. If Ford doesn't want to be there, that's fine. Don't march. But some kind of official representation from the City of Toronto's highest office is certainly in order here, especially in this case. Why isn't the Mayor on the Program for the Pride Flag raising at City Hall on June 27th? Is he at the cottage that day as well? Of course not, because where he is isn't the point.

Let's not pretend that Rob Ford hasn't displayed homophobic tendencies(to put it lightly). When he was a councillor in Etobicoke he commented that “if you’re not doing needles and you’re not gay, you won’t get AIDS, probably.” As mayor he was the only person who voted against restoring provincial funding for syphilis and HIV screening programs, he tried to defund Toronto Pride, and he doesn't support same sex-marriage rights.

Ford holds the same views on homosexuality and lgbtq rights as a lot of Conservative leaning politicians and people do, that's no secret. It isn't his homophobia or right wing politics that are at issue here, it's what he's planning on doing with them. That is why I agree with Councillor Wong-Tam who characterized the choice as a "missed opportunity... given the past historical remarks that he has made," an opportunity for him to "step forward" and begin to "make amends with the community." Whatever his own personal politics are, there IS hatred in this city. There are hate crimes, violence, and bullying perpetrated against homos (sorry po-mos, it's the truth). There are kids in high schools who aren't allowed to form gay-straight alliances, who aren't allowed to display rainbows, who KILL THEMSELVES from being bullied and called gay.

In Barbara Kay's article she declares that "Pride has no more legal and political ambitions to fill" because the "revolution is over." She says that "Pride is no longer about support for gays" and is actually just about having "gay-themed fun"(whatever that may be). Revealing her own deep-seated homophobia, Kay writes that Pride participants do everything but have sex in public, that it deserves public funding just about as much as a strip show, and is all about lewd self promotion. "Tolerant and non-homophobic Canadians" don't want to celebrate that yuckiness!

The culture we live in is one in which a straight woman feels entitled to tell us when our own revolution is over, that we are all dirty gay sex fiends, and that a diverse(and often family friendly) celebration is not worthy of our own tax dollars. And that's not homophobic? Pride isn't the only solution to this kind of garbage but when politicians and public figures participate it is always a step in the right direction. Barbara Kay herself is a good argument for Ford marching in the Parade -- hatred is so normalized that it's in the mainstream media without question.

Deciding against participation creates an Us vs Them kind of mentality with Ford on one side and the lgbtqa community on the other. Ford is the Mayor(unfortunately), we're stuck with him. But he's stuck with us too. This is our city AND his. To march in the Parade, or to be involved in any way, might not have meant a lot to some people but we need to stop and consider what it means to Ford. It means he doesn't want to extend an olive branch, he doesn't really want to work with this community, that he is so stuck in his own ideology that he can't even participate in something he doesn't 100% believe in. It means he doesn't acknowledge that there will be people participating in Pride who actually voted for him because all he sees are left-wing radical perverts. Sure, I might not want to see Ford at Pride shaking his money maker(actually.. I did) but it would definitely demonstrate that he's willing to step outside of his comfort zone and really lead this city, fags and all. To be a healthy city we need the Us and the Them to at least try to work together and that is why it matters that Rob Ford won't march.

Who knows, maybe Ford is just saving up all of his rainbow glitter for Muskoka Pride.

maybe YorkU should also sue the excalibur

for those of you who don't know, george galloway spoke at york university yesterday.

considering that he was banned from entering canada last year it's quite an accomplishment for york to secure such a big name speaker.

not everyone sees it that way though.

according to the always fair and balanced excalibur:

"Lots of legitimate points of debate need to be brought up surrounding George Galloway’s visit to York’s campus. The opinions he has voiced on the Israel-Palestine conflict have rightfully divided many York students into harshly opposed camps. Meanwhile, the YFS’s involvement in the event brings up tough questions about how far the union’s elected leaders should be allowed to pursue their own political agenda over the concerns common to all students."

well, the event WAS sold out... so it's kind of a supply and demand thing.. but i guess that's behind the point.

according to the author of this piece, it's not fair for the YFS to provide speakers that only represent one side of a debate:

"it’s hard to imagine what insight those who support Galloway got out of the speech. While Galloway is a big name, calling him an expert on the Middle East and Asia is a contentious claim, especially considering how little interest he has in alternative views of the issues there.

Ultimately, those students who agree with Galloway’s general position got to listen to an extreme voice affirm views they already held, unchecked by any moderator or opposing stance to provide new information or a different perspective. Those who don’t agree with Galloway got nothing."

well, excalibur writer, i would say the exact thing about rag you have the nerve to call a newspaper. the excalibur consistently towes the administrative line and only represents a specific chunk of the student population at york university. it features shoddy journalism at best and has often taken an explicitly anti-student stance(do i need to recall your vari hall debacle, where you lied about carrying out polls with hundreds of students?)

but, it has every right to exists and produce garbage that idiot student journalists can put on their C.VS when they get out of business school and cash in their membership to various zionist organizations for a six figure job.

i digress. so normally what the administration says at york, excalibur parrots back. in this case, however, yorku and president shoukri himself are standing up for the galloway talk.

in a surprising twist of events, president shoukri is threatening to sue a rabbi who had the gall to call him an anti-semite(the story in the national post, here)

rabbi aaron hoch is being told to stand the fuck down by yorku's legal representative (harriet lewis, who has impeccable morals), to stop spreading "defamatory remarks about the...president and stop encouraging non-students to protest the george galloway speech on campus."

apparently rabbi hoch wrote in an email that president shoukri "has again showed his amazing tolerance for anti-semitism and lack of vigilance regarding the feeling of safety for jewish students on campus."

i think that shoukri and the administration should take the excalibur to task as well since the "newspaper" is obviously supporting the idea that shoukri and the university are backing up the YFS conspiracy to end free speech on campus.

obviously, according to this story, the university doesn't take being called an anti-semite lightly anymore--unless your name is dr. david noble.

the national post, FAIL.

"In the human world, it's being white that's not that easy."

the words, written and unretractable from the pen of barbara kay in her most recent article "it's not easy being white"

her article is precipitated by saturday's national post, in which jonathan kay talks about going to an anti-racist workshop and learning that "whiteness is a kind of original sin" and that "Canada is a white supremacist country."

the workshop in question is presented by the toronto women's bookstore. jonathan kay is barbara kay's son.

i can just imagine her swooping around her huge apartment/house/garret swearing vengeance on the nasty feminists who dared call her son a RACIST.

she is angry. apparently before "9/11, white self-hatred mostly focused on whites' well-documented historical racism against blacks." she can deal with this shiz. she's all like, yeah, that's well-documented and comfortable racism, i can deal with that.

but barbara kay does not like to acknowledge anything else, especially post-9/11 "alleged but unsubstantiated anti-Muslim bias." because she's never opened a history book or read anything by authors like edward said. because anti-muslim bias was born when the planes crashed into the symbols of american dominance, and has no historical basis or relevance.

she's pissed off that "white privilege" is the "villain in the recently published Ontario section of the Canadian Federation of Students' Task Force on Racism report."

she really doesn't like sensitivity training.

of sensitivity training she writes:

"Coerced sensitivity training sessions are rituals of public humiliation for political ends. But since anti-racism activists are so enamoured of them, a question: Has any Canadian Muslim ever undergone sensitivity training?"

wowza. earth to barbara kay, you are an idiot. OF COURSE canadian muslims have undergone sensitivity training. like, where does that question even garner head nods?

i can't even continue on, because this article is such a clear example of why the national post is such a piece of junk. also, the jonathan kay article is here. how embarrassing to not be able to hold your own without your mother coming to your rescue.

i really only have one question left in my head after reading all of this: how long does it take your mother to swaddle you before you go to sleep at night, mr. kay?

brilliance. sheer brilliance.

another guest blog from hans, and it's amaaaaaazing!!

enjoy!

"I’m sure many of you read the editorial “Women’s Studies is still with us”, published in Tuesday’s edition of the National Post as part of their contribution to the Canadian media’s “Bash Women’s Studies Month”. At first I was a bit puzzled and upset, but then I realized it actually made a whole lot of sense. The problem was that it had been badly edited and there were just a few words here and there that needed to be fixed. I understand that in these days of fiscal realities and cutbacks, they probably don't have a whole lot of editors left. So in order to help them out and provide an enhanced reading experience, I made the necessary corrections. I think all told it was only about 40 typos that had to be fixed, and now the article makes sense. So please enjoy; it does make an important point.

Unedited: Women's Studies is still with us

Correction: The National Post is still with us

National Post Published: Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Unedited (original):

If the reports are to be believed, Women's Studies programs are disappearing at many Canadian universities. Forgive us for being skeptical. We would wave good-bye without shedding a tear, but we are pretty sure these angry, divisive and dubious programs are simply being renamed to make them appear less controversial.

The radical feminism behind these courses has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the ordinary relations between men and women.

Women's Studies courses have taught that all women--or nearlyall-- are victims and nearly all men are victimizers. Their professors have argued, with some success, that rights should be granted not to individuals alone, but to whole classes of people, too. This has led to employment equity -- hiring quotas based on one's gender or race rather than on an objective assessment of individual talents.

Correction:

If the reports are to be believed, the National Post is no longer being read by anybody with any sense and is about to go bankrupt. Forgive us for being skeptical. We would wave good-bye without shedding a tear, but we are pretty sure their angry, divisive and dubious views are simply being remarketed to make them appear less controversial.

The radical blend of neoliberal conservatism behind this paper has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the relations between men and women.

The National Post has preached that all rich white men – or nearly all – are victims and nearly all women, immigrants, non-white and non-rich people are victimizers. Their editors and reporters have argued, with some success, that rights should be granted neither to individuals alone, nor to whole classes of people, unless they’re rich white and male. This has led to inequality – hiring people based on one’s gender or race rather than on an objective assessment of individual talents.

Unedited (original):

Executives, judges and university students must now sit through mandatory diversity training. Divorcing men find they lose their homes and access to their children, and must pay much of their income to their former spouses (then pay tax on the income they no longer have) largely because Women's Studies activists convinced politicians that family law was too forgiving of men. So now a man entering court against a woman finds the deck stacked against him, thanks mostly to the radical feminist jurisprudence that found it roots and nurture in Women's Studies.

The equality protection before and under the law, granted to all Canadians regardless of race, sex, creed or origin, has been eroded because feminist legal scholars convinced the Supreme Court to permit preferential treatment for "traditionally disadvantaged groups," chief among whom, they contend, are women.

Correction:

Executives, judges and university students are now free to be bigots at will. Divorcing women find they lose their homes and access to their children, and wind up homeless because their income is clawed back from social support payments, largely because National Post activists convinced politicians that family law was getting to be too equal. So now a woman entering court against a man finds the deck stacked against her – like it was for most of recorded history – thanks mostly to the radical conservative jurisprudence that found its roots and nurture in the National Post.

The equality protection before and under the law, granted to all Canadians regardless of race, sex, creed or origin, has been eroded because National Post editorialists convinced the Supreme Court to ignore the need to deal equitably with traditionally disadvantaged groups, chief among those who need to be exploited, they contend, are women.

Unedited (original):

Over the years, Women's Studies scholars have argued all heterosexual sex is oppression because its "penetrative nature" amounts to "occupation." They have insisted that no male author had any business writing novels from women's perspectives; although, interestingly, they have not often argued the converse -- that female writers must avoid telling men's stories.

They have pushed for universal daycare and mandatory government-run kindergarten, advocated higher taxes to pay for vast new social entitlements and even put forward the notion that the only differences between males and females are "relatively insignificant, external features." All other differences are said to be the result of patriarchal brainwashing. So the only way to ensure gender equality is to turn over all education to the state, where professionals can ensure only unbiased instruction.

In sum, there would be little of rational worth left even if Women's Studies were to disappear. Yet despite all the hand-wringing by the programs' supporters, are the worst elements of Women's programs really disappearing or just being renamed? Are the professors different? Has the basic philosophy behind the program changed? Has the curriculum been altered?

In most cases the answer is no. Little has changed but the nomenclature.

While we'd like to cheer and say "Good riddance," we're certain such celebration would be premature.

Correction:

Over the years, the National Post has argued that everything except heterosexual sex is disgusting because it’s not heterosexual sex. They have insisted that no female author had any business writing books, although, interestingly, they have not often argued the converse – that male writers must avoid explaining women’s lives.

They have pushed to abolish any hope for universal daycare and mandatory government-run kindergarten, advocated lower taxes so that the rich can get richer, and even put forward the notion that the only differences between males and females are, well, whatever they think will best contribute to the oppression of women.

In sum, there would be little of rational worth left even if the National Post were to disappear. Yet despite all the hand-wringing by the paper’s supporters, are the worst elements of the National Post really going to disappear, or just reappear elsewhere? Are the editors and reporters different? Has the basic philosophy behind the paper disappeared? Has its political agenda been altered?

In most cases the answer is no. Little has changed but the fact its supporters don’t really bother to hide their bigotry any more.

While we’d like to cheer and say ‘Good riddance,’ we’re certain such celebration would be premature. "

article FAIL.

So, this is an important lesson to learn: don't ever, ever, ever write for the national post if you're in an altered state of mind.

I'm not saying Terence Corcoran was drunk when he wrote his crazy opinion piece about a bicycle tax, but i have no proof that he wasn't so I'll just leave it at that.

In "time to stop giving bicylists a free ride"(note: bicylists? not a real word?) Corcoran proposes that licensing cyclists isn't enough and that a bike tax is the best option for the city of Toronto.

Okay, a bike tax. interesting idea, Corcoran, now sell us on it!

1. Drivers of cars pay taxes, for gas, and for their insurance. corcoran writes: "all this is fair and just, right?" Right! Cars drink gas, use roads, and due to their extreme weight and speed they need to be insured in case they hit something/someone or vice versa.

Cyclists, he argues, don't pay for nothin' or noone!

I don't drive a car but I don't think that there is a separate "car tax" that drivers pay. Am I right? wrong? You buy your car and pay taxes on your purchase, and you buy gas and pay taxes on that purchase, but is there a separate car tax?

When someone buys a bike, they pay taxes on that purchase. When you buy your helmet, safety gear, lights, lock, and all of the other things that you need when you cycle there are taxes on those purchases.

So taxes on car related purchases go to a different place than taxes on bike related purchases? Is this the logic here?

I'm no tax expert, but I'd warrant a guess that this isn't true.

2. Bike trails, bike lanes, and bike-related infrastructure are expensive yo. Cyclists should pay for it!! Corcoran says just that: "there's a cost to all of this, in addition to maintenance, and bikers should pay for it."

Alright, well... I pay taxes... so, where are my tax dollars going? Oh wait, subsidizing car companies that make a product that I don't use? Is that where they go?

Remember how Canada bailed out the auto industry to the tune of like, $3 billion? Well I don't have a car and I think that only car users and drivers' taxes should go to that bail out. So by Corcoran's logic  I should be getting a tax rebate for that one.

By this logic we don't have to think about the jobs saved by that bail out or any other perk, just that it is related to cars.

3. Cyclists, like drivers, cause accidents. The difference, says Corcoran, is that drivers pay for their own insurance. They also pay fines when they break the law, something that cyclists don't have to do apparently. he asks:

"when's the last time a bike rider was ticketed for running a red light, riding up on the sidewalk, or putting pedestrians at risk by recklessly swerving through crowds?"

I wonder if Corcoran has ever driven or taken his bike down Beverley street, between college and Dundas? If he has(which I used to every single day) he would see cops on bikes handing out tickets left and right. Cyclists get tickets all of the time, so this argument is just a  lie.

4. This one is my favorite. the carbon footprint. I won't even paraphrase him on this one:

"when car drivers cruise Yonge Street on Saturday night, their metabolisms are more or less flat-lined. They just sit there, burning up little energy personally but paying for the cost of their automobile's carbon footprint via taxes and fees. Bike riders grinding up the same route burn up a lot more carbohydrates, which their bodies convert into carbon dioxide and exhale, adding to their carbon footprint. The volumes are small, but it all adds up, and bicyclists don't pay."

When someone is driving a car, they are sitting there not using any energy. This is better for the environment than a cyclist who is powering their vehicle with their own energy.

I can practically smell the booze on this one. So.. now we should stop exercising? Maybe we could impose a runners tax? A walkers tax? A breathing tax?

According to Corcoran "the social and environmental costs of biking" are too high to ignore any longer and he suggests a $100 fee for cyclists per year. Will this tax also be imposed on children who ride their bikes? They think bikes are all fun and games, but those little carbohydrate burning bike fiends should probably be held responsible for the damage they're inflicting upon society and the environment.

Also, i hate children and will never have them. I propose a child tax because I am sick of my tax dollars offsetting the costs of having children. Child care, health care, anything child-related. I want none of it!

One commenter on the article said "it's too bad that corcoran veered into cloud-cuckoo-land", but something makes me think that in cloud-cuckoo land you don't have to pay a special tax on your cloud bike.