The politicians running the Canadian government sure do seem dedicated to showing folks in other nations how to build the “road to serfdom” and lead the way in the decline of western civilization.
In 2016, they passed the bill, now statute, C16, which mandates that all state employees or people working at businesses “regulated” by the Canadian government (pretty mush all) must use pronouns that others tell them to use. Then there came the revelation that their Social Justice Warrior (SJW) Poster-Boy Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, once wore “brownface” to a costume party, which is supposed to be verboten among SJWs. And, just this month, we’ve discovered that the Canadian government interrogated Rebel News publisher and reporter Ezra Levant because he wrote a book about Trudeau and his troubles.
Now, comes word that the president of a government-funded feminist group is not only describing heterosexual relationships as “violent”, but that there ought to be a “conversation” (i.e. “there ought to be a statute passed by the government”) about banning them.
See, when politically-minded people say, “we need to have a national conversation” about something, they really mean that what is currently NOT under the sphere of political mandates and controls SHOULD be placed in that sphere.
Thus, Canadian CTVnews reports that Gabrielle Bouchard, president of the "Federation des femmes du Quebecthe," a Canadian feminist group that receives $120,000 of annual tax cash (but at least they write their missives in French), recently said on social media:
'Heterosexual couple relationships are really violent. In addition, the vast majority are relationships based on religion. It may be time to have a conversation about their ban and abolition.' (Translated from French.)
I’ll pause, as you get to enjoy the vast number of insulting and downright absurd assumptions in that paragraph…
Okay.
So, let’s think about that.
First, we have the stunning absurdity that romantic relationships (as they imply) of any kind are anything other than consensual. And why focus on just “hetero” relationships? By their nature, the act of entering into a loving relationship is voluntary, so it can’t be predicated on violence.
Of course, violence can erupt in such relationships, but entering into an agreement to be together is an act of free will. Once said relationship becomes a situation where one person keeps the other in it against his or her will, then it becomes violent.
Ironically, since it’s only when aggressive force is involved to pull another into it (or to keep another in it) that a “relationship” becomes violent, we can logically understand that it’s the government – to which these “feminists” would turn for their “ban” – that forces on us a never-ending violent relationship.
That’s why it’s called “The State” and not “society”. The state is involuntary, while ethical social relationships are, by definition, voluntary.
And God forbid anyone enter into a “relationship” based on religion (pun intended).
Perhaps the most stunning thing about this social media statement – apart from the fact of the call for authoritarian “relationship bans” could apply to any kind of relationship once that Pandora’s Box is opened – is that the group Bouchard is president of gets $120,000 in tax dollars FORCIBLY taken by the government!
And yet, in her self-righteous, SJW way, she is completely blind to her own hypocrisy.