March 16, 2015

Writer bashes Canada’s “anti-woman culture,” but his evidence doesn’t add up — literally

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

Vancouver Sun columnist Stephen Hume says Canada has "an anti-woman culture." Is he right?

His evidence is pretty pathetic.

Hume's own statistics about violence against women just don't support his thesis.

In fact, I correct his bad math and get very different results.

His other evidence of Canada's widespread misogyny? An offensive poster put up to promote a university campus event... 25 years ago!

JOIN for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else!

GET INVOLVED in our 100% grassroots crowdfunding campaign and help us bring you more stories like this one.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-03-18 14:34:24 -0400
This is a perfect example of the loony left in Canada welcoming sickening oppression of women in the guise of opposing it. Just a “non-problem” to Stephen Hume. What blind, rank hypocrisy.
commented 2015-03-17 21:53:06 -0400
What is it with Canadian media that make them want to wallow in Canada bashing? Calling us anti-women is absurd! Lets see if any of the msm point out the bad math in this story. Good work Ezra!
commented 2015-03-17 21:16:35 -0400
Ah, it’s good to watch Ezra knock down the arguments of leftist goofballs again. He does it so well.
commented 2015-03-17 10:15:37 -0400
And the only people on record supporting the wearing of the niqab which, in my opinion, is anit-women, is the star for Colgate/Brylcreem ads, Mr. Trudeau, and his minions (and I put the mainstream media into that group)!
commented 2015-03-17 10:13:02 -0400
If you accept the premiss that saying “hey baby you look hot in those jeans” puts you on the same moral ground as Paul Bernardo then the sexual assault statistics become atrocious. If you accept the premiss that saying “hey baby those jeans make you look fat” puts you on the same moral ground as Jack the Ripper, then the violence against women statistics become atrocious.

There is a growing men’s rights movement that is not afraid to answer feminist rhetoric..that is misogyny if you consider feminism a gender rather than a political ideology.

The pathetic castrati who sing in the feminist choir are sometimes called “manginas” or “white knights” but the actual term for men who bow to feminists is “Masochist” …adherent to the philosophy of Count Leopold Sacher-Masoch, the author of “Venus in Furs”.

Feminism is a chronic state of dissatisfaction and that is hardly news nor is it substance for editorials…feminists and their Masochist Echoes have a career investment in that chronic state of dissatisfaction.

Unfortunately the Liberal Party saw fit to make it a career managed future for women.
commented 2015-03-17 09:55:17 -0400
The visible women in public life: those as judges in our law courts, or as Governors-General, can be regarded as symbols. The place where judgments count for most of us is in the activities of daily life. There, it is the young men who have had to struggle to find jobs as, for instance, nurses, elementary school teachers, fast food workers, etc. As for burqas, etc., they are symbols of the rejection of our Canadian laws and of support for Sharia Law. As such, they have no place in any legal situation. Trying to subvert our laws is a very serious offence.
commented 2015-03-17 09:38:35 -0400
If women’s groups had any credibility at all they would be loudly weighing in against the ‘quiet invasion’ of muslims. It is the muslim cult that is the biggest threat to women’s rights, not the “investors, doctors, lawyers, police” of Joan’s overheated, paranoid fantasies. Their silence is deafening.

The way to win a war is to first recognize the enemy. And make no mistake, we, female and male Canadians, are at war.
commented 2015-03-17 07:43:55 -0400
Typical lefty polemics. Anyone who would be so fallaciously polemic is a member in good standing of the legion of uninspired mediocre media scribes would spit on the flag at a state funeral if they thought it would gain them notoriety. They’d say just about anything to stand out from the intellectually under developed toxic bores which comprise the literary/journalist clique in this nation.
commented 2015-03-17 00:06:52 -0400
Ezra is right that Canada is a better, more equitable place for women to live than in Muslim-majority countries.

But that does not mean women’s rights in Canada are secure.

It is not yet 100 years since the Alberta Five, the women Ezra referred to, appealed to the British Supreme Court, then the highest court for Canada, to overrule the federal court rule that women were not persons.

Under law in Canada, women were men’s property to be bought and sold like ISIS buys and sells women, like many would again like to do in Canada.

Not yet 100 years of women enjoying personhood under Canadian law is a very short time indeed. No one should be fooled that women ride some high horse therefore.

There is a huge global jihad being waged by agents of a political system that devalues women, that wants us put back in our place as men’s property.

Make no mistake there are many such agents in Canada. Powerful agents. They are investors, doctors, lawyers, police, and they work in government, business, finance.

The place of women in Canada is not secure.

If we want Canada to continue to be female friendly, we cannot pretend women have got too big for our britches and/or need to be brought down a peg. We must continue to support equity among persons under the law including the right of all to compete freely.
commented 2015-03-16 23:55:19 -0400
The editor of the Vancouver Sun must have been having a nap when this report landed on his desk. Perhaps Hume should be demoted to start from the bottom rung. Seriously though, does the V Sun not realize they are destroying their own credibility when they publish that type of rubbish?
commented 2015-03-16 22:24:01 -0400
ps. i meant niqab, not veil.
commented 2015-03-16 22:23:06 -0400
Steven Hume may think he is right in supporting people like the woman who won the right to wear her veil at the citizenship ceremony from the Supreme Court. He is not. Nor was she. I must say shame on her…and those who think she has a point. This woman may have the rare liberty to remove her veil or wear it but to use this tactic to encourage the debasement of other women is actually an example of a female being misogynistic. Most women from her culture wear it because if they didn’t they would be severely punished, or worse. By using her liberty as a ‘cloak of maliciousness’ to help her culture of oppression attack Harper the libertarian, she has, even worse, set other poor women in Canada back. I find her antics distasteful. She is at worst a pawn for abusive men to justify humiliation of their female property. At best she is no advertisement for female liberty for no woman who wishes to be free would choose to re-breathe her own expelled carbon dioxide all day…she SAYS she wears it so she doesn’t have to pay attention to how she looks…right…like that takes a couple of minutes a day…grooming is too much trouble so cover your face and breathe stale air! I guess tooth brushing is troublesome too.

If she was wearing it on behalf of those women who have to wear it to cover acid burns on their faces and missing ears and noses I might respect her, but that was not her point.

In my view, the only justified court case regarding the niqab would be for a woman to go to the Supreme Court to win the right NOT TO WEAR A NIQAB in Canada. Now that would be a strike for liberty. No one should have to live with their face covered by command of anyone. Period. It has nothing to do with religious rights.
commented 2015-03-16 21:55:59 -0400
Couldn’t believe when I saw that article this morning, get a load of the title: “If any country has an anti-woman culture, it’s Canada”
Yeah right Stephen, the province you live in has a female premier, what oppression!
<-- /_page_stream.html -->