The liberal Blitzkrieg against the West

The long time slogan of the radio station WINS is: “All News—All the Time.”

What we seem to be having lately is: “All Liberal Outrages against Liberty, Civilization, Humanity, Common Sense, and Sanity—All the Time.”

Here’s the latest outrage:

Court overturns father’s grounding of 12-year-old

OTTAWA (AFP)—A Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl’s grounding, overturning her father’s punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet, his lawyer said Wednesday.

The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting “inappropriate” pictures of herself online using a friend’s computer.

The father’s lawyer Kim Beaudoin said the disciplinary measures were for the girl’s “own protection” and is appealing the ruling.

“She’s a child,” Beaudoin told AFP. “At her age, children test their limits and it’s up to their parents to set boundaries.” [cont.]

There is no human institution or relationship that is immune to the onslaught epitomized by the above article:

• A British administrative judge fines a London hair salon 4,000 pounds because its owner declined to hire a scarf-wearing Muslim woman as a hair dresser.

• Catholic adoption agencies in Britain and Massachusetts are forced to adopt children to homosexual couples, since to refuse to do so is to deny homosexuals equal treatment.

• The California Supreme Court declares that the state must marry homosexual couples, based on the principle that it is a violation of the equal dignity of all human beings not to allow two people of the same sex to marry each other. (By the way, what argument would Robert Spencer have against this ruling, since his constantly reiterated credo, making him sound like Bob Dylan back when he was still so much older, is the “equality of dignity of all people”?)

• And now ordinary parental discipline, the very relationship between a father and his minor child, is barred by a court.

• According to the Christian Science Monitor, the next theater in the equality war will be to require churches to marry homosexuals, on the threat of losing their tax exempt status.

Is it not starting to become clear, even to naive right-liberals, that liberalism itself—meaning the equal treatment of all people as the ruling principle of human existence—is a monster that will keep intruding itself into every human society, every human institution, every human relationship, and the most ordinary human freedoms, until all these things are destroyed, or until liberalism itself is destroyed?

- end of initial entry -

Mark K. writes:

If liberalism is in waging a Blitzkrieg against the West, then what is conservatism—the Maginot line?

LA replies:

Good one.

Roberrt B. writes:

But, the Maginot Line failed because it could not “turn around” and face the enemy that was now to its rear. Thus, I hope we are not the “Maginot Line” of our culture, if we are, we, like the French line of defense, we are an anachronism.

LA replies:

I (and I think Mark K.) meant conventional conservatism, which is impotent to slow the advance of liberalism.

Robert B. replies:

Well, then it applies to them—since they have failed to stop the invaders and cannot now turn to face them, all they can do—the best they can do, is McCain. And its not enough, not by a long shot. And so, like the French, the Vichy French, they have become like their invader.

Shrewsbury writes:

One indeed is getting the feeling of an ever more vicious liberal blitzkrieg on all fronts, but an article at the National Post makes the field-trip case seem somewhat less outrageous than at first blush. Also, whilst the reporter does not so state, it is clear that the case was actually brought by the girl’s mother, as part of a long-standing custody fight.

LA replies:

I’ve read the article and I don’t see how it mitigates anything about this case. Yes, some are saying the case is so unusual that it cannot serve as precedent for other cases attacking parental discipline. But the fact remains that it did attack parental discipline, and with this consequence:

The father, who is appealing the decision, was “devastated” by the ruling, and is refusing to take his daughter back “because he has no authority over her.”

Shrewsbury writes:

You wrote:

But the fact remains that it did attack parental discipline, and with this consequence: The father, who is appealing the decision, was “devastated” by the ruling, and is refusing to take his daughter back “because he has no authority over her.

Quite, but, can’t you see, what was really at issue before the court was which parent would be permitted to set the rules. The little brat left her father for her mother because she preferred her mother’s regime, and the court allowed it. Shrewsbury is with you 100% on the blitzkrieg theme, he just thinks this particular case may be a somewhat iffy instance to use as a synechdoche for it (as they would say at NRO).

LA replies:

“Synechdoche” is a perfectly good word and I respectfully protest Shrewsbury’s attempt to taint it through association with NRO.

As for his substantive point, I must be thick …

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 18, 2008 09:46 PM | Send