Statement of Clarification

Saturday, August-17-2013

It has come to the attention of the Crown that an internet site named List of Micronations Wiki: It's a Small World (http://www.listofmicronations.com/lomwiki/index.php/Main_Page) has publish a profile on the Principality of Durstonia. The Crown wishes to thank ww.listofmicronations.com for it's interest and encourages the said site in it's enterprise. However; in reviewing the content of the posted profile it is clear that the contributor(s) have either misunderstood, or was unable to find, relevant information regarding the Principalities publicly stated aims and objectives. As well as certain internal changes that said site would not be reasonably privy to.

The site states,

“Durstonia was created in August 2010 by menswear outfitter and self-declared "very conservative" Roman Catholic Kyle Durston as a vehicle for promoting opposition to abortion, taxation, affirmative action, human rights, the "legal persecution of Christians", "subversion of the jury system", "legalized and institutionalized misandry" and the "persecution of men". Other than Durston, the only named individual known to be associated with Durstonia is one Adam Felice, who is identified as the micronation's chancellor.”

The Principality of Durstonia’s publicly stated position is as follows:

“The Sovereign State of Durstonia is located Lat. 48.3952597, Long. -89.232254. The Principality's political system's an Absolute Monarchy. The state religion's the Roman Catholic Faith & public policy is guided by the maxim "religion, family & duty."

The Principality of Durstonia is a secessionist nation that strives for full independence from the Dominion of Canada based on conscientious objections to the said state’s execution and promotion of mass murder through the violent abortion of children in the womb; violation of the dignity of conscience by legal persecution of Christians through non accountable “human Rights” tribunals; institutionalized racism by way of legalized and institutional affirmative action and subversion of the jury system; theft of subjects liberty, labour and quality of life through enslaving levels of excessive taxation; and violations against the dignity and sovereignty of the family through the legalized and institutional misandry and persecution of men and interference in the family compact. Until such time as a clear majority of residents of the claimed area of the Principality of Durstonia have voluntarily consented to pledge allegiance to the Sovereign State of the Principality of Durstonia, the Principality shall function as a sovereign micro nation.”

Clearly the Principality of Durstonia is not for the “promotion opposition to taxation or human rights”. The Principality of Durstonia is clearly a great proponent of Human Rights. Thus the opposition to unaccountable  “Human Rights Tribunals” that punish individuals based on their religious convictions that are themselves a protected Human Right outside the Rule of Law. The Principality of Durstonia is not opposed to taxation. Rather, the Principality is against the excessive taxation to fund  private interests and ideologies that may or may not be shared by the people they are coercively extracted from; and that would be legitimately, and more effectively, executed by private organizations that would offer whatever service or enterprise it espouses through the consensual donations of like minded individuals. Be that as it may, it would seem a simple “cut and paste” of this statement would have been sufficient for the accurate dissemination of the relevant information. Indeed, the Crown is easily contacted for any information via the sources sited on the profile itself.

Regarding the Honourable Mr. Adam Di Felice D.S.O.D.; He was the first Chancellor of the Principality of Durstonia. The Hon. Mr. Di Felice faithfully fulfilled his duties as Chancellor from August 22, 2010 to February 15, 2013 when his resignation was accepted by His Serene Highness Prince Kyle on a matter of private conscience. The Hon. Mr. Di Felice D.S.O.D. also returned his Distinguished Service Order of Durstonia at that time. This however was not accepted by His Serene Highness and this post nominal shall remain in tact in all public records and future reference to the Hon. Mr. Di Felice D.S.O.D. by the Principality of Durstonia in the grateful regard for his many services and efforts in the foundation and promotion of the Principality of Durstonia. His loss is sorely missed. The Crown wishes the Hon. Mr. Di Felice D.S.O.D. every success and blessing in his future pursuits, and looks forward to the day when His Serene Highness may return to the Hon. Mr. Di Felice’s D.S.O.D. his well deserved Distinguished Service Order of Durstonia. May God grant it so! To date a replacement has yet to fill the position of Chancellor.

The Principality of Durstonia is foundationally resolved to keeping to the premises of subsidiary. In that policy the Crown endeavours always to keep bureaucracy small and leave to the capable hands of Families, individuals, and societies the roles and enterprises they deem important. Thus it is that there will hopefully ever be but few official ministerial names attached to the government of Durstonia. However, in regard to another “named individual known to be associated with Durstonia”, Mr. Rocco Rizzo D.S.O.D. was publicly recognized for services rendered to the Crown on January 30th, 2011. Other than these, and future, officially recognized Fellows of the Order, there is no intention of the Crown to violate the privacy of any Subject, Supporter, or Sympathizer with public recognition.

The Crown sincerely hopes the List of Micronations Wiki: It's a Small World will take these corrections and clarifications in the spirit of Charity in which they are provided and will make the appropriate modifications. We wish the List of Micronations Wiki: It's a Small World the best in it’s vocation and look forward to it’s continued interest.

A Playful Look at the Circular Reasoning of Naturalistic Verificationism

It’s rare one gets a glimpse of themselves in a bygone age… and for myself it was certainly the ghost of Christmas past. I was invited to discuss… well I’m not sure, but it was with an friend of a friend who had become an atheist. In all honestly the only thing I came away with was that this evangelical atheist was really just an angry Christian, but that’s a separate story. It really wasn’t much of a conversation as he was simply parroting New Atheist talking point that are based on fallacious presuppositions but takes a safe intellectual space to unpack them; a space this gentleman is years away from occupying. But I think I’ll play with one of them here. Mostly because it is one of the many reasons I left atheism myself a number of years ago. For me, it’s a rather diverting exercise in irony as for 12 years I held these views myself. So to suggest I didn’t understand or sympathize them would be nonsense. But in mocking these ideas I rather enjoy mocking myself post hoc.

Most religious folks will have run into the arguments I am going to rant about in varying levels of sophistication. But they really are all variations of the simple principles I’m going to poke fun at. And if anyone reading this thinks there will be a “magic bullet” argument that will crush your atheist opponent, think again. Atheists, contrary to their elevated claims, are just as susceptible of cognitive dissonance as any religious person whom is having their world view rigorously criticised. They will simply not see, or perhaps not acknowledge, the contradiction of the foundational principles of their own argumentation.

The first principle of Atheism is naturalism. The Natural world, that is to say the material or physical world is the only thing that we can know to exist and all things can, and must, be explained by these means.  Verificationism is the principle that all these things must be verified via science to be “proven” true. “Proven” is in scare quotes because it’s a fundamentally and scientifically improvable” proposition e.g. prove you’re not a butterfly dreaming you’re a person discussing the existence of God with me.

At any rate, these conversations always come to the “God doesn’t explain anything” variation. This objection springs from not the misunderstanding, but the denial, of anything existing outside the physical world. The classic example of this idea would be an equation like (98 x Q2) / Z + GOD = X. A First Cause does not necessitate an explanation. That is to say, it cannot explain anything. It can give meaning, or lack of meaning given what “it” is; but it cannot be explained further. Naturalistic materialists will jump on the unifying theory of everything, or the multiverse theory, as those are easy outs to get around the clear evidence that St. Aquinas’ cosmological argument for the existence of God, something cannot come of nothing, is exactly what the Big Bang proposes. But if these alternate theories were true, what explanatory value would THEY have; given the stated concept that in order to be valid, something must explain something else and be explained? These Theories would explain nothing at all except the constants of the universe(s), but not the existence of it/them.

Moreover the assumption that the materialist nature of science can even investigate or verify non material, aka the supernatural, using materialist means is a contradiction in terms. Scientists recognize this. Although physical, gravity is an interesting analogy of the premise. We do not know what gravity IS, but we can measure and feel it’s effects. Thus, the immaterial or supernatural can just as easily have the same relationship to the natural world, yet be immeasurable aka unverifiable do to it being non-physical. And due to the atheist’s Anthropic principle that the Universe is just the way it is, none would bother considering the probabilities of such an effect.

Yet even if the theories mentioned above become true, it still doesn’t follow that God does not exist. God as such, could have simply made independently functioning universes; just as the same people assert he universe supposedly made independently functioning and self sustaining life forms.

I am in no way suggesting cities on Mars!

At any rate, the issue of there being no “Made by God” stamp on the universe will come up as “evidence” for God’s non-existence or non influence on the natural order. Usually it’s some insanely large example like “Jesus’ name written on the moon” etc.  But these same people will simultaneously use the anthropic principle to say the universe “is as it is” because it simply cannot be anything else. Well how can we find such evidence when one’s presupposition is that any such evidence is to be accepted as simply not being able to exist any other way. Indeed, Jesus’ name written on the moon would likewise probably be naturalistically explained away by saying we religious people simply created that connection because the human mind naturally tries to make connections and patterns which may or may not be there to successfully compete in the evolutionary race. So even if one could provide the evidence requested, it’s dismissed before it’s submitted.

Yet even if the obvious and imposing “Made by God” standard was readily recognized, it wouldn’t guarantee good behaviour or acceptance by humanity. The very criticisms that atheists make of religious peoples hypocrisy and nasty behaviour is evidence, that even those that really do believe in such a God don’t act in accordance with the obvious consequences that said God’s existence demands. So I fail to see how the big miracles to “prove” God’s existence to all humanity would positively effect man’s indifference and hostility to his fellow man… or God for that matter. The “angry, jealous, God of the Old Testament smiting people” would be supplementary evidence of this point as well. But I digress…

But some will even go so far into self fulfilling prophesy in the miracle discussion that, when given the evidence of the Miracles of Fatima, Guadalupe, the Shroud of Turin and others, they simply reply that “Well we just can’t explain it with science yet. But it doesn’t mean it won’t be explained!” Well la ti da, we get to give rational evidence and place our bets on a rigged roulette table of scientific explanations that may never come as an intellectually honest discussion on the rationality of belief in God. The whole reason for asking for evidence that does not fall into Naturalistic Verificationism is to find something science does NOT explain; not something it MAY explain later. And what if science does not explain it later? And how long is later? Until it can be dismissed as too long ago to be trusted? Is miraculous evidence for the existence of God to simply sit on the back burner of sceptical inquiry indefinitely because it does not support the theory of Naturalistic Verificationism? That sounds more like open ended Dogmatism rather than Rational Inquiry and Scepticism based on Reason.

In the end, the only thing this shows is that for all the high claims of atheists, they fall into the same double standards and cognitive dissonance that anyone does when the foundations of their world view is rigorously critiqued. I’ve even been told that my whole line of reasoning is antiscience (the atheist version of screaming heresy). As though understanding and stating the limitations of science somehow makes one hostile to it. But these are the recriminations of the sour grapes effect of a bruised ego. Thus when one is seriously challenged, or countered, one can simply dismiss reflecting on the points by declaring the opposition “antiscience”, or for using “clever debating tactics”.  “Clever debating tricks” generally being basic philosophical principles like defining terms and using logic to make connections. I probably won’t get around to it, but I should write about how these same folks will claim Logic as a standard for understanding and making sense of the world and reality, but then turn around and say it’s not infallible, but the best we have. Well what failures make it the best we have? The points of science and moral concepts show Rationalism and Logic to be unable to make accurate predictions 100% of the time? e.g. old evidence must be assumed to be inaccurate. An observation about logic and rationalism, by the way, the Popes have consistently asserted since the beginning of the Enlightenment. But are we therefore to proclaim atheists “antilogic”? Of course not. Yet we Theists are to be given a separate standard when recognizing the value of the observance of natural phenomenon by the scientific method and at the same time seeing it’s obvious limitations.

These are the circular reasoning processes that I eventually recognized as an atheist and forced me to become sceptical of my “scepticism”. Like I said, the is no “magic bullet” argument that will defeat someone who has locked themselves in an intellectual feedback loop of circular reasoning. The only thing one can do is challenge the points and wait for the person to find the intellectually safe space to re-evaluate their position and world-view. A debate, where the ego is on the line, is the last place one is likely to change ones world view. But it is a great place to play with concepts and contradictions. If anything it’ll show you how much you need to study, or how desperately the atheist hasn’t been bothered to.

Marriage as an Expression of the Culture of Death: If It's Not a Sacrament, It's a Scam!

I work in the Menswear business. Between April and September of every year I’m privy to observe the mass cultural practice of the contemporary wedding ritual. The main observation I’ve made is two fold. One: The wedding is incredibly expensive. Two: There is an attitude of unimportance of the ceremony and it’s importance as a central role of the whole cacophony of activity.

When I look back at the photos of my grandparents and the parishes of my neighbourhood I’m struck by the austerity and frugality of the participants. I grant that many where in the Depression of the 1930’s, but many photos go back to the late nineteenth century and we observe the same thing. Men and their friends in clearly different suits and the groom, in an occasional example of extravagance, sometimes in a visibly new suit. The brides are all in dresses of modest expense and in many cases non white, but brand new for the occasion. The guests are in their Sunday best and sometimes there are ribbons on the gentlemen’s lapels. The event seems very affordable and relaxed. It's as though the emphasis is on documenting something that has already occurred as opposed to something that is still happening. 

What I observe now is the ostentation and complete sense of entitlement in weddings today. What do I mean by that? I’m describing the over the top idea that everyone is entitled to a Disney wedding. Huge and plentiful dresses, tuxedos, magazine quality photos with accompanying moment by moment video documentary film, and a gigantic Godfather scale reception. I hear the laments of the participants in the burdensome expenses of these enterprises. Weddings are seen as a burden for all those involved. The gifts, the reception, the clothes, the venue, the decorations. The whole point of that reception scene in the Godfather was to show the overt display of extravagant wealth was to demonstrate the nefarious power of the Family, not to celebrate the married couple's union. But I digress...

The whole hive of activity has come to focus on ONE person; the bride. Everything, including the groom, is little more than a stage set and props for the bride and her splendour. Many may see this as romantic and sentimental, but in fact I’ve observed the toxicity of this. The event is in the mind of the culture, and more often than not the bride, all about her. It’s routinely expressed as “Her/My day”. It is turned into an ego centric exercise in self esteem and a foreshadowing of the overarching selfish behavior of the bride. This explains the inexplicable endorsement of weddings by all four of my feminist professors, but their simultaneous degrading and undermining of the institution and indissolubility of marriage. The statement of “it’s not about marriage anymore. It’s about princess for a day” was universally chanted by these professors as though to say, "you can still have your wedding as a feminist; but remember, it's really just a glorified Costume ball in your honour". So it’s really no surprise a feminist would endorse something that focuses entirely on the importance of the female to the detriment and exploitation of the male and their union. Indeed, with indoctrination like this, it’s no surprise then that these marriages are destined to fail. I’ve sat across from the domineering bride dictating the colours and styles of tuxedos as though her soon to be “life partner” were an accessory like a handbag, or the little dog that gets to sit in it is perhaps more accurate. I sit thinking, “Dude, this is the tip of the Iceberg”. If I could say one thing it would be "honey, your only a princess to your daddy. GROW UP!" But I belabour the point.

The ceremony itself is not even seen as the wedding anymore. When I ask “where’s the wedding” of the guests, I almost always hear some hall or legion named. To these people it’s not the wedding ceremony in the church or civic building that is the wedding, but the drunken revelry at the reception that is the wedding. Thus is it any surprise that the reception is seen given primary importance by couples, guests and marketeers? A wedding is really become no more than another reason to host another huge party for one’s friends and family. Indeed, is it any surprise the couple’s themselves see it this way. I’ve had many grooms openly acknowledge that the only thing they feel they have to look forward to on their wedding day that has them as an active participant is the reception… and I suspect many more are thinking it, for their actions and conversations infer those same sentiments. I fail to see how a wedding where the groom feels emotionally and culturally alienated from the whole ceremony bodes well for future success.

These narcissistic displays of decadence illustrate the problem of these cultural practices.  These events cost thousands and thousands of dollars and are focused on the material rather than the spiritual emphasis of marriage! Small weddings alone cost at least twenty thousand dollars. The contrast between my grandparents and my contemporaries is starkly displayed in that alone. A couple basically starts their union saddled with the immense debt that could have been used as a down payment of a house. Or more appropriately, the liquidity to comfortably welcome the addition of the great joy and blessing of children. Is it any surprise that people “can’t afford to have children”? Indeed, instead of the cushion of wealth to ease the couple into cohabitation and family, they are initiated into the friction and pressure of crushing debt. Debt that is the death sentence of many marriages. And each precious child cannot help as being seen as another heavy debit on the great ledger against them. Add to this an undercurrent of self centred resentment for the other do to a self esteem addiction and we're sending a divorce lawyers kids to college baby!

The social pressure to conform to this secular ideal is reinforced by the vampiric media and their corporate masters. There is a reason all commercials and television is geared to women. They know women spend more money than men. And they spend it therapeutically  to make themselves feel better about themselves. This is why the movies, television, magazines and advertising all emphasize the expectation to females... from the womb to the tomb. But what of those whom are unable to afford these extravagances. The poor are discouraged from marriage based on these false presentations of what a wedding is. The depression and sting of poverty are most strongly felt when marriage is mentioned to the young working poor. I acknowledge as a man of modest means, I don't even consider dating due to the looming financial expectation. So how can we seriously bemoan “shaking up” when we as Catholics do not condemn and resist the materialist wedding practices of the Culture of Death? "Shaking up" is, in a very real sense, the only affordable option available to these poor souls.

It’s clear to me that the Church has and continues to fail to challenge this attack on the family and Sacrament of Marriage. It is as though the Church is so concerned with attempting to convince people of the importance of marriage in general that it has feared or neglected to recognize the poisonous initiation into it! To break the Culture of Death’s hold upon the wedding the Church must break the materialism and feminist egoism that has infected it so thoroughly. Weddings of modest means must be celebrated as role models of joy; and the honourable and beautiful reasons for them extolled from the pulpit and during marriage preparation. Clearly this alone will not save the Sacrament of Marriage, but I firmly believe that it will contribute to it’s protection and growth. The time has come to see that the Culture of Death is not just a bioethics issue or, God forbid, some ludicrous eco theosophy; but a whole pattern of behaviour that imbues every aspect of the Christian life without rigorous instruction.

If anything I hope this has demonstrated why my maxim of “if marriage is not a sacrament it’s a scam” is completely Justified.

Why I Refused the White Ribbon Against Pornography

For the first time in the last four years, I refused to wear the white ribbon. In the previous years I’ve been proud to wear the white ribbon against pornography that was graciously offered by the Catholic Women’s League of my parish. I wore it strait through the week on my suit at work as a testimony to the real problem of pornography in our society. This year however, I was not offered a white ribbon against pornography, but a white ribbon against internet bullying.

“Internet Bullying?“ I asked, “I thought the white ribbon was against pornography?” “Oh it’s the same thing if you think about it” came the quick response of an aging hipster at the door. At this point I became so frustrated and enraged that I broke with my usual decorum in Church and actually blurted out “what kind of feminist nonsense is that?” But being a man of faith, I at least when to know when not to push my extra-religious ideological views on others and took my pew.

Yet this incident has continued to bother me. And it really is an extension of a previous blog I’ve posted regarding the Feminist misandry against male sexuality in the Catholic Church at the moment ( http://durstonia.blogspot.com/2011/06/man-bashing-as-catholic-mainstay.html). In fairness I do not know if this new association regarding the white ribbon is actual or the personal tack on of that particular woman. However that’s not the point.

The point is that at the door of the church, each and every man was presented with a ribbon that said if he was struggling with a sex addiction or struggling with internet pornography, he was not just struggling with unrestrained sexuality, but he was somehow being violent toward women. For let’s be honest; when one says bullying, one’s immediate mental picture is of violence. And contrary to feminist belief, Men are almost exclusively the primary consumers of pornography. So now men, whose natural sexuality is inclined to gain sexual attraction and excitement visually is not only the sin of  promiscuity, but violence as well. This is a hateful demonizing of male sexuality that permeates our society.

This incredibly mean spirited and vicious attack against men who come to Christ with their struggles is reprehensible and inappropriate. I proudly wore the white ribbon against pornography because pornography negatively effects everyone who participates in it, regardless of sex or relation. It’s a protest against those that are exploited by pornography, and those who exploit it. But the fussing of internet bullying to pornography now excludes the main victims of pornography and emphasizes the minority victims. That is to say, it creates a female privileged position in the campaign that moves the issue from universal victimization of pornography, to the users of pornography being violent victimizers themselves.

Only a complete moron would suggest I am supporting or excusing the viewing of pornography. However, if one looks rationally at the relationships within pornography we will see that men are the most negatively effected; not women. Women are paid to make pornography. Except for a small number in production, men pay for pornography. Men become addicted to pornography, and men demonized for it. Pornography is marketed and targeted at men with a ruthlessness that women cannot even come close to conceptualizing. And when a man succumbs to this barrage of psychological marketing, and his natural sexuality, he is to be presented as an internet bully for slapping his pork sausage alone in a dark room with a glowing computer monitor? Really? That is how the Catholic Women’s League is to deal with the issue? To say pornography victimizes women by breaking up marriages and negatively effecting the self image of women is simply to ignore that the other half of those scenarios are intrinsically linked to the exploited men involved and only supports the point I'm making. Men suffer proportionally more than women by the victimizing of pornography.

Is it any surprise male participation in Catholic observance is diminishing when they are intentionally singled out and psychologically victimized for an attack they have supposedly committed, simply by being exploited themselves. It’s ironic that if I were to say a woman was raped because of what she wore; I’d be strung up as a bigot and misogynist. Yet if a man is sexually exploited by a well organized and efficient pornography industry, he’s said to be an internet bully… and there is no outrage at this.

If I appear to be defensive about this issue it is because I am. I, like many if not most men my age, struggle with the temptation and pervasiveness of internet pornography and sex addiction. And to be told my failing in the execution of the resisting of sexual sin is also an act of violence is demeaning and insulting to the magnitude of the struggle I, and many others, grapple with every day. Pornography is a blight and evil. Those that are a victim of it are to be supported and helped, not vilified and condemned by politically driven feminist opportunists trying to win cheap political points at the Church's expense.


I hope to wear the white ribbon against pornography next year, assuming it is a ribbon against pornography and not the exploited victims of it.

Prolife Gender Privilege: How Feminism Poisons Everything

There seems to be a tacit surrender to feminist argumentation amongst many female Prolife advocates. Or perhaps it is intellectual desperation to get Feminists on board the Prolife side. Either way, it is a betrayal of the dignity of the human person to engage or validate a slogan such as the one above. Although Prolifers are generally very pro family, it becomes very apparent how many female Prolifers will close ranks with the feminist "Sisterhood" when it comes to a man's input in the discussion of the reproductive act. The misandry imbibed by Prolife women in the Postfeminist culture is clearly evident in the discourse I had just recently of Facebook regarding the posting of this image. Indeed, push come to shove, they will take our money, celebrate our attendance at protests and protection against intimidation at those protests; but when it gets down to who really calls the shots in reproduction... men can keep their mouths shut! Now I have to make the obligatory caveat that "not all Prolife women are like that", but enough are to have me post this discourse. I understand that this person is sincere and arguing based on what a Feminist would say, but look at the quick allegiance to what sex is a priority in all of the discourse. The intrinsic value of boys or the input of men is not even affirmed in passing. Only the importance of Women and the privilege of their position in the discourse is asserted. i leave you to make your own observations from the discourse bellow.



Kyle- I think I find this offensive because it buys into the feminist idea that somehow females are of more value than males... that is to say, unborn girls deserve priority over unborn boys...

Kristi- ‎Kyle, the reason why such a saying exists is because all the pro-choicers believe in "Women's Rights"!! So, this statement is saying: What about the rights of the UNBORN women?

Kyle- I understand, however it still buys into the feminist conception of female privilege. If anything, aborting children is the only issue that feminists really do believe in gender equality... either way, this sets up a priority list for who shall be saved from abortion and boys are at the bottom of that list. Abortion is human rights issue, not a gender issue. This slogan is a big step in the wrong direction!

Kristi- ‎Kyle, I disagree with you because abortion is never viewed as a "Man's Right". Men can never have children. It's all about the women, in this case.

Kyle- I beg your pardon? Men have children all the time. In fact I have two myself. Again, abortion is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not a gender issue. This splitting of the child bearing act is what got abortion legalized to begin with. This is why Mens Rights Activists are now demanding that men be able to legally FORCE women to abort children Men don't want because the child is half theirs! BOTH these positions are erronious and false because it is irrelevant who is bearing the child, who made the child and or who wants the child. The HUMAN Child is the Subject of discussion, not gender privilige.

Kristi- ‎Kyle, my mistake, sorry. I mean to say that men cannot conceive children and carry them for 9 months. Only women can.

Kyle- Even if that is true, this does not validate the argument, nor does it pay to buy into the ideological framework that forms it. For it still presumes "unborn women" are of primary importance in the antiabortion issue. What if girls were not the majority of aborted children? Are we to now accept the argument that we must reduce the number of female abortions so as to stop the fetal oppression of women? you see, we are no longer discussing the dignity of Human Life, but on which sex is more more worthy of consideration and concern. This is the nature of Feminist argumentation and why we must not even rhetorically buy into it to score cheap points in abortion exchanges.

JUDGE DEFENDS INFANTICIDE BY COMPARING IT TO ABORTION

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/canadian-mother-strangles-newborn-gets-no-jail-time-and-judge-defends-infanticide-by-comparing-it-to-abortion/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/09/edmonton-effert-infanticide-suspended-sentence.html

Well it seems as though the inevitable logic of violating the dignity of the human person by way of state sanctioned murder is finally working it’s way out in the Canadian legal system. That is to say, none is safe from being liquidated due to inconvenience or lack of interest. There are several issues that are of concern here.

1) The horrific murder of a new born infant by his mother is expunged because there “is no abortion law in Canada”. Obviously we are not discussing an abortion as the child has been born… but that is irrelevant if it is not the dignity of the child that is of concern, but the dubious thinking of the Mother. Indeed, in this case we are far beyond the “glob of tissue rape product” argumentation. This is a child consciously brought to term and then murdered. But that is irrelevant under the feminist rationale of a judge not bound by law, but ideology alone. For the fact that there is no abortion law for a child in the womb does not somehow remove the law of murdering a child outside of it. We are to believe that after nine months this woman suddenly decided she didn’t want a baby in a country with no law or stigma against abortion on demand? Following this logic when can a Mother not commit infanticide… or outright murder of her children?

2) This ruling is a back handed attack on men by creating two laws; one for women and one for men. Within the Western Tradition of Law, at least following the “Enlightenment”, all equally must be subject to the Rule of Law and be Equal before the Law. This judge offends this principle based on nothing more than ideology. For, although a woman can murder a child due to some dubious claim of stress, depression, or whatever excuse can be plucked from the top beak Mount Improbable, a man cannot. So a man who does not want a baby and strangles it with a pair of underwear is a murderer; but a woman who does the same act, under the same circumstances, is legally blameless. This seems to be a replaying of the Handmaid’s Tale in a Star Trekian alternate universe; AKA the Dominion of Canada. A little known legal maxim that has existed for some time goes like this: Murder is Murder no matter who commits it. But I belabour the point.

3) The Judiciary as the revelatory voice of the People. Nowhere in the Constitution of the Dominion of Canada does it say that the Judiciary’s responsibility is to speak for the people of Canada or to express their will. I know because I have actually read it! The Judges comment that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support” is fine. Many Canadians also prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate; yet that really doesn’t resolve the issue of if it’s lawful to suffocate ones child in a 2 gallon bucket of ice cream. However, problematically the judge transitions into what ALL Canadians believe when she goes on to state: “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.” Do they? ALL Canadians grieve for a mother who “chooses” to strangle her newborn with her panties?! Apparently judges have a mystical connection to the emotional and moral sensibilities of every Canadian citizen. Because if that is not the case, she would be going far beyond her finite caporal duties as stated in the Canadian Constitution and the laws of the observable universe and basically acting as though she was omnipresent. But this "legislating from the bench" is a recurring problem in Canada. Gay marriage, so called Child Abuse via spanking, so called Hate Crimes, and a host of other infractions against the Natural Law politicians won’t touch with a ten foot pole have been foisted on the Canadian public without their consent… oh wait, judges clearly DO know what Canadians consent to by virtue of the occult nature of their office. I’d forgotten.

Just these three issues are enough to cause any thinking person concern for their own safety and the very nature of the judiciary that is supposed to protect and uphold the Rule of Law. If the judiciary can drop laws it is supposed to uphold due to the sex of the offender, none is safe… except baby killing women of course. The only redeeming quality I can see from this sad sully into madness is that there is now a public recognition of the correlation between abortion and infanticide that must now be publicly and legally resolved. At least,although this does not validate abortion, laws governing that murderous act most probably will now come due to this horrendous situation.