Twitter is a funny animal. Because of the nature of the beast, you wind up following and, in turn, being followed by a wide range of different people with different interests and beliefs. So long as you don’t discuss politics or religion, things can be fairly amicable. Some of the nicest people I’ve met on Twitter were wonderful conversationalists before we clashed swords on some tenuous topic.
Although political tweeters tend to become segregated into the the left versus right dichotomy, I strive for a balance from both sides. As a result, I usually wind up in an argument during the inevitable moment somebody rushes to the defence of Omar Khadr. Or when I discuss the relative merits of the death penalty. Or, as in the case of last night, when I discuss Islamic extremism.
The topic of Islamic extremist can be fairly toxic, since very few people are able to rationally discuss it without offending the other person. Criticizing the fascistic and expansionist aggressive elements of political Islam can be almost impossible, if that discussion is taking place with a leftist afflicted with relativist myopia.
For a political group that claims to reject intolerance and hatred, the left — and I use that term loosely, since I mean a specific subset of the socioeconomic-progressive leftist — have found themselves the apologists for racism, hatred, intolerance, sexism, misogyny, inequality, segregation, and hegemony.
The discussion I had last night with several people revolved around the political symbol of the burqa/niqab, and what it means in the context of a woman wearing it within western society. I posited that while wearing a burqa does not necessarily make one a supporter of political Islam, it certainly ignores the symbolism of the garment, and the gender apartheid it represents in Middle Eastern society.
My opponent made the prevarication that the burqa is nothing more than a choice of dress, worn by the prerogative of the woman, and that I, a male, had no right to repudiate that right. Moreover, toward the end of the conversation, this person suggested that our culture — which by the way, is an egalitarian one, where women’s right are enshrined in law — was not morally superior in this regard, and that we should not place judgment on those who wish to live under Islamic law.
Such nonsensical thinking is the reason why western civilization is rotting from the core outward. That a self-celebrated progressive-leftist can’t summon the ethical fortitude to apply universal concepts of equality beyond her own bubble of self-serving rights, is the reason why the Taliban smirk at our attempts to promote the health and welfare of women in Afghanistan.
So-called feminists in Canada are perfectly comfortable within their much-celebrated birthright to equality under Canadian law. But they cannot summon the courage even to fight for their international sisters yet enchained in the slavery of a codified patriarchal society. They stand on the shoulders of giants, suffragettes who fought for the international principle of human equality, only to stand at a bus shelter next a woman whose identity has been eradicated by a black shroud, and think to themselves how tolerant they are of differing cultures.
Indeed. Yet for all of the education of the pseudo-leftist feminists, who will not hesitate to tell you the underrepresentation of women in Parliament and the gender gap in income, they look to nations like Afghanistan and give a shrug that suggests we should allow Islamic fascism a chance at self-determination.
Ask an eight-year-old child whether women in the third world should have the same equal rights as women in the first world, and you’ll get an unequivocal answer. But ask a neo-feminist in Canada the same question, and be prepared to hear the non sequitur rants on George Bush, Stephen Harper, neoconservatism, neocolonialism, and the rest of the University-bred philosophizing that has dumbed down the common sense of supporting universal human rights universally.
Worse than the fact that these people unwittingly support the paradoxical concept of gender equality and a woman in a burqa, they have the unmitigated gall to bandy about the term “racist” for those who disagree with their shamefully relativist views. The very idea of calling somebody a racist because they don’t believe women should be dressed in black gowns and robbed of their innate individualism, is just about as intellectually bankrupt as it gets.
I have a little girl, whom I love more than anything in this world or beyond. I cannot fathom covering her face behind a veil that shuts her off from the outside world, because doing such a thing would annihilate her outward individuality, and relegate her to nothing more than an object, conformed by extremist religious dogma. I would hope that any parent would feel the same way.
