Language: Русский     Français     Anglais     Search:

Professor Stephen Baskerville: human rights and the sexual agenda in the West

Date de publication: 08.07.2014



"Human Rights and the Sexual Agenda in the West"

 

 

Stephen Baskerville

 

 

Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College, Virginia

Institute of Democracy and Cooperation (Paris, 8 July 2014)

 

  Western societies have long and rightly prided themselves on their defense of the rights of the individual against the power of the state.  The Anglophone nations in particular developed, early on, a culture that fiercely defended the rights of the individual and created the concept of constitutional or limited government.  This culture has given the world Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, and the English and American bills of rights.  Nor is this legacy merely cultural, but it has been accompanied by the creation of enduring institutions which ensured that these rights – God-given as they were believed to be – would not remain mere abstractions:  the English Common Law, decentralized law-enforcement authorities like sheriffs and justices of the peace, representative Parliaments (some might add the established Church of England, and others might include dissenters from that Church).[i]

  As both a citizen of the United States and a subject of the United Kingdom, I fully share this pride.

  Yet today, at the risk of seeming to validate, in modified form, the quasi-Marxist prophecy that the individual freedom of the liberal west contains the seeds of its own destruction, it is clear that a threat to these rights emanates from the west and in particular from the Anglophone nations themselves – possibly from this very legacy of freedom.

  This threat is often depicted as a matter of cultural and moral decadence, but it is much more:  It is increasingly political as well.  As if the world has not learned the lessons of the previous century, this threat takes the form of yet another radical political ideology.  Yet it is not socialist or communist or fascist or nationalist or religious, though it has roots in all these radicalisms.  It takes a new form:  it is based on the relations of sexuality, the family, and “gender.”

  The power of this ideology can be seen in the astonishing speed with which the public agenda of the western world and beyond has come to be dominated by what Newsweek magazine calls “the politics of sex.”[ii]  Demands to recognize same-sex marriage are only the most recent manifestation of this trend, which entails much more than the familiar sexualization of culture.  What we are seeing is the emergence of an expansive political agenda and ideology that derives its power from sexuality.

  Elite opinion has been remarkably slow to recognize this new form of radical ideology, both feminist and, to coin a term, homosexual-ist.  But this may be changing.  Militant demands for various forms of sexual freedom – what Helen Alvare calls “sexualityism” – increasingly dominate the politics of the left.  “There has been a massive expansion of ‘sexual liberty’ on a nationwide scale,” she writes.  “The federal government is seeking to expand sexualityism.” [iii] 

  But there is much more to the new sexual politics than sexual license.  Ubiquitous demands for “power” and “empowerment” reveal that what has emerged is a true ideology that uses sexual leverage as a political weapon.  One sympathetic scholar terms it “the ideology of the erotic.”[iv]  This ideology reformulates the older socialist battle cry of “social justice” into more far-reaching demands for what is now being called “erotic justice,” which does not hesitate to enlist the criminal justice system.[v]

  While this trend has already been institutionalized on a number of fronts that have reached public attention, others have hardly been perceived, let alone challenged.

  Both feminism and the newer homosexualist ideology that adopts its methods began with apparently modest claims: feminists to legal equality with men; homosexuals to be left alone in private.  It is now apparent that these agendas encompass far more than meets the eye and that we have opened a Pandora’s box of demands and urges that, like sex itself (and political power), are virtually insatiable.

  “Sex is always political,” according to this doctrine, because some are said to be inflicting “sexual oppression” by denying others their “sexual rights.” To procure these rights, the oppressed are organizing “movements of resistance” to claim their “sexual citizenship” and “sexual self-determination.”  Sexual rights are said to be “inextricable from economic, social, cultural, and political rights,” and these are “rights that are protected by the state.”  Sexual oppressors use “hierarchies of sexual value” such as religion and traditional sexual morality that “function in much the same ways as do ideological systems of racism.”  What is demanded now is “a more radical sexual politics capable of calling into question inequality or oppression in sexual relations or in articulating a vision of sexual self-determination and freedom” and launching a full-scale “cultural revolution.” [vi]  

  This is no longer the rhetoric of marginal extremists.  The agenda of sexual liberation now pervades virtually all western social and political institutions: universities, schools, charities, medicine, corporations, unions, foundations, judiciaries, churches, governments, international organizations – with hardly a word of challenge, all have become thoroughly saturated with the politics of sex. No other matrix of issues exercises remotely as influential an impact on our culture, politics, and daily lives, and yet none has been so astonishingly exempt from critical examination by journalists or scholars.

  Included in the politicization of sexuality is the politicization of its product – children – and the use of children as instruments and weapons for adults to acquire power.  This is often presented in the name of “children’s rights,” with corollary limitations on parental rights.  Homeschoolers are the primary target, but the confiscation of children from legally innocent parents by government officials is now widespread throughout the West, along with the number of mechanisms by which it is effected. [vii]

  Children are used to rationalize an array of coercive policy innovations: from mandatory seat-belt laws to tobacco and gun lawsuits to welfare programs and international treaties. If one wishes to enact measures that effectively govern the intimate private lives of adults, the way to neutralize opposition is to present them as being “for the children.”

  Throughout the west and beyond, sex is now the polarity, more than any other, that defines our ideological alignments.  “Most of the reasons” for differences between the Christianity of the affluent countries and the poor “involve disputes over gender and sexuality,” writes Philip Jenkins. “These have proved the defining issues that separate progressives and conservatives, ecclesiastical left and right.”[viii] Something similar could be said of the secular political left and right, though the mention of religious politics is significant (and I will return to it).

 

  Individual Freedom?

  As with most ideologies, the camel’s nose that begins the process consists of demands for expanded individual freedom, the right to set aside or ignore established values or authority, and to engage in some previously forbidden behavior.

  It is important to note that these initial demands are demands for increased freedom and are largely “negative” – that is, they involve demands to be free from restrictions by the state or from traditional norms and moral and religious opprobrium.  As such, they quickly gain widespread acceptance from across the spectrum of liberal society and lay claim to the status of “human rights” – especially the negative “first generation” rights that claim only to be left free from official interference in individual freedom.  Those with reservations about the wisdom of this greater freedom have difficulty articulating precisely why or justifying why the old restrictions should not be removed, and they are thus placed in the position of simply lamenting and bemoaning the deterioration of “culture” and “morality” of some mythical idyllic past in favor of unrestricted individualism.

  If this were then end of it, there would be little quarrel.  Indeed, the perception that this  indeed is the sum total of problem has meant that there has been little opposition – at least from those of us in the Anglophone west.  But it does not stop there.  As with other deadly ideologies, the demand for negative freedoms is but the prelude for much more far-reaching government actions restricting the freedom of others.  This process can be subtle and paradoxical and is not always easy to perceive. 

 

  Religious Freedom

  Only recently has this threat to freedom begun to receive some attention in the mainstream media because of the restrictions it has placed on religious freedom. The Obama administration’s healthcare program has focused public attention on the implications for religious freedom of a plan that, for the first time ever, requires American citizens to buy products that violate their consciences as a cost of living in their own country. The new policies are far less about health than they are about sex. This includes not only mandating compulsory financial support for abortion and contraception – which has received the most attention – but also enabling and proliferating single-motherhood, whose advocates are the foremost constituency and promoters of the program. [ix]

  But these requirements are only the latest development in a trend which increasingly pits sexual liberty against religious liberty.  In the Western democracies, almost all major restrictions on religious freedom now come from the expanding sexual agenda:[x]

street preachers have been arrested for expressing convictions about sexual morality;

government clerks and registrars have been forced out of their employment for refusing to officiate same-sex marriages; 

business owners and professionals have been sued and put out of business for refusing business that violates their consciences;

Catholic adoption agencies have been closed because they refuse to place children with same-sex couples; 

Christian firemen have been ordered to participate in political demonstrations that mock their religion and police to display political symbols in police stations;homeschoolers have lost their children to school authorities implementing an increasingly sexualized curriculum;[xi]

directives from the European Union would allow private citizens to be punished financially for expressing their religious and political convictions about sexual issues.[xii] 

  “Christianity is…under pressure from a form of secularism, particularly in Europe,” according to the United Nations Economic and Social Council.  “This form of prejudice against Christians or ideas based on religion, which exists both in Europe and in the United States, mainly concerns questions relating to sex, marriage, and the family, on which the Catholic, Muslim, and Orthodox churches have taken stands.[xiii] 

  If expressing moral convictions now constitutes “discrimination” against sexual radicals, it is hardly an exaggeration to suggest that sexual freedom and religious freedom now stand eyeball-to-eyeball in a direct confrontation in which no compromise appears possible.

  Advocates of sexual liberation – some with official, taxpayer-funded positions – themselves openly describe Christian and other religious beliefs as direct impediments to their freedom.  “Cultural and religious values cannot be allowed to undermine the universality of women’s rights,” declares a United Nations committee.  Another UN body reports that no middle ground is possible and that religious freedom and sexual liberation are simply incompatible and mutually exclusive.  “In all countries, the most significant factors inhibiting women’s ability to participate in public life have been the cultural framework of values and religious beliefs,” it states.  “True gender equality [does] not allow for varying interpretations of obligations under international legal norms depending on internal religious rules, traditions, and customs.”[xiv] Those whose religious rules, traditions, and customs conflict with the UN committee’s view of women’s rights apparently must find new religious rules, traditions, and customs.

 

  The New Gender Crimes:  The Political Honeytrap

  But religious freedom is only the most recent and visible point of contention. The sexual agenda’s implications for freedom extend well beyond religious expression – though here as elsewhere religious freedom comprehends others.  Following its predecessors, the Sexual Revolution’s promise of a new age of freedom is already manifesting itself in a new authoritarianism.

  Since the inception of their revolution – and well beneath the media radar screen – sexual militants have been creating a vast panoply of new crimes and expanded redefinitions of existing crimes – all involving sexual relations:  “rape,” “sexual assault,” “domestic violence,” “sexual harassment,” “bullying,” “stalking,” “child abuse,” “sex trafficking,” and more. No one really understands what these crimes are or even what these terms mean because they are intentionally vague and because they are constantly being redefined and expanded.  They bear almost no relation to what is suggested by the inflammatory language:  “rape” that includes consensual sex and in many instances is no more than that;[xv] domestic “violence” that involves no violence or physical contact or threat of it;[xvi] sexual “harassment” that can mean anything, from simple flirtation to unauthorized opinions about morality or politics;[xvii] “child abuse” that is routine parental discipline or homeschooling or fabricated altogether to win advantages in divorce court;[xviii] “bullying” that is so vague as to be meaningless or involves criticism of the homosexual political agenda or other differences of belief and opinion; “stalking” that is involuntarily divorced fathers trying to see their own children;[xix] and much more.

  These new gender crimes have been created not despite the new sexual freedom but as the inseparable corollary to it. For what is striking about the new crimes is that they operate alongside and in concert with the new freedoms.  What may be the most significant – and again, the least noticed – feature of gender crimes is how smoothly they combine expanded sexual freedom with diminished civic freedom: sexual liberation with political repression.

  Some have observed the paradox of sexual militants encouraging casual sex while simultaneously searching for new ways to punish heterosexual men for sexual acts – without understanding the dynamic that connects the two.  While women’s studies professors bang pots and blow whistles at anti-rape rallies,” observes Heather MacDonald, “in the dorm next door, freshman counselors and deans pass out tips for better orgasms and the use of sex toys.”[xx]

  Yet there is nothing paradoxical about it:  Sex is a powerful political weapon.

  The crime usually begins as some new sexual freedom demanded in strident terms as necessary to liberate women or homosexuals from some “oppression” – though crucially, the new freedom is also enticing to men, especially young men with strong libidos and few responsibilities.  This then degenerates into a corollary criminal accusation against (usually) the man who takes the bait by indulging in the newly permitted pleasure:

Recreational sex in the evening turns into accusations of “rape” in the morning, even when it was entirely consensual.  (This is especially rampant on college campuses.)[xxi

Demands for access to workplaces, universities, the military, and other previously male venues invite accusations of sexual “harassment” against the men when sexual relations inevitably develop (and often turn sour), regardless of who initiates them.

Cohabitation and “no-fault” divorce are demanded to liberate women from “patriarchal” marriage but quickly generate accusations of male abandonment (even when the woman severs the relationship), as well as domestic “violence” and “child abuse,” in order to procure custody of children and the financial awards and assets that accompany them. 

Defiant declarations that women do not need men for financial support quickly give way to demands to arrest and incarcerate without trial men who do not provide women with adequate income in the form of alimony or child support. 

Assertions that women do not need men for protection soon produce hysterical outcries for intrusive police powers, innovative punishments, and expanded penal institutions to punish ever-proliferating and loosely-defined forms of “violence against women,” even when no physical contact or threat of it is involved. 

The proclaimed right to raise children outside wedlock and without fathers to protect and discipline them soon turns into demands to prosecute adolescents and even children for “bullying” one another and eventually for real crime. 

The demanded right to engage in homosexual acts and public sexual displays translates almost automatically into the power to arrest or otherwise stop the mouths of preachers, “bullies,” and anyone else who objects or ridicules or impinges on homosexuals’ “feelings” or “pride”. 

Calls to legalize prostitution feed hysteria to find and prosecute unnamed “sex traffickers.”

The right to breastfeed publicly without government restriction becomes the power to punish employers who try to impose limits in private workplaces and individuals who privately express discomfort.

Demands for unisex bathing and toilet facilities in university residences lead to… – well, any young man lacking the intelligence to detect the trap awaiting him there may not belong in a university in the first place.

  Here once again, progressive political doctrines have not eliminated a “gender stereotype,” as we were promised; they have merely politicized it – in this case that of the temptress, the seductress who lures men into a “honeytrap” by offers of sexual pleasure before springing a trap that today can mean decades in prison.

  Here too, we also see the familiar pattern of how radical political movements create the very problems they then re-package as grievances, and which then serve to rationalize increased “empowerment” and repression against opponents.[xxii] “Utopians are actually multiplying the social problems they claim to be solving,” notes Bryce Christensen. “Gender-neutering utopians adroitly turn the social problems they cause into a justification for seizing yet more power.” [xxiii] 

  Here the “negative” rights to be left free from government interference elide almost imperceptibly into the “positive” rights to demand government measures restricting the freedom of others. In each case what is presented as an individual’s “right” to exercise a new sexual freedom without restriction by the state quickly translates, by a sleight-of-hand that few perceive or question, into a government power to punish – including arrest and incarceration – anyone who falls afoul of the new freedom. This is precisely the logic that mediated the transition from the Rights of Man to the Reign of Terror.  Antoine de St. Just could have been speaking for the Sexual rather than the French Revolution when he declared, “No freedom for the enemies of freedom!” Today we might rephrase this dictum (as the writings of John Laughland clearly demonstrate): “No human rights for the enemies of human rights.”

  But this new ideology is potentially far more intrusive than the radical ideologies of the past, for it promises to criminalize intimacy and private life.  It began, subtly enough, with what is by far the most draconian punishments meted out by the new sexual gendarmes – and the most repressive government machinery ever created in the United States:  the unilateral and involuntary divorce apparat, government’s purpose-built mechanism for dismembering families, seizing control over the private lives of innocent people and their children, summarily confiscating property, and criminalizing the embodiments of the hated “patriarchy”: fathers. This creation of the feminist bar associations[xxiv] was enacted throughout the Western world, mostly by stealth and with no public debate, beginning in 1969 at the height of the Sexual Revolution.  The oxymoronic innovation of “no-fault” justice allows legally unimpeachable citizens – completely innocent of any legal infraction – to be summarily evicted from their homes, separated from their children, expropriated of everything they possess, and incarcerated indefinitely without trial.  Simply by filing for divorce, a discontented spouse acting without any legal grounds instantly places the lives of her entire family under government supervision: The children immediately become effective wards of the courts and social service agencies, and the father is summarily placed under the supervision of the penal apparatus – without anyone having committed any legally actionable infraction. There are no formal charges, no indictments, no juries, no trials, no acquittals, and most strikingly, no records of the resulting incarcerations. [xxv] 

  But the divorce machinery is only one example of how sexual radicalism dramatically expands the reach of police powers and penal institutions. It is well known that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world apart from North Korean, though this startling fact is seldom explained. Though radicals attribute this fact to “racism” and “capitalism,” this is certainly an optical illusion concealing the likelihood that it is the work of the radicals themselves.

  To begin with, it has long been established in the scientific literature that every major social pathology – including violent crime, substance abuse, and truancy – is attributable to single-parent homes and fatherless children more than any other factor, including race and class.

  But further, in an unusual scholarly investigation, Marie Gottschalk attributes exploding American prison populations (and the UK and other Anglophone nations are not far behind) not to conservative law-and-order programs but to aggressive feminist campaigns in the name of rape and domestic violence. “The women’s movement became a vanguard of conservative law-and-order politics,” she writes (invoking the ideologically acceptable terms). “Women’s organisations played a central role in the consolidation of this conservative victims’ rights movement that emerged in the 1970s.”[xxvi]

  Though she labels it “conservative,” conservatives who support mass incarceration, especially of “sex offenders,” seldom understand what they are defending.

  These and other new gender crimes are rapidly debasing our understanding of justice and criminalizing the population.  Even as they perceive the unmistakable logic unfolding, the Sexual Revolution’s most severe critics still insist that “the women’s movement has produced no gulags – not yet, anyway.”[xxvii]

  But the Sexual Revolution’s most severe critics are not well informed.

  These new and loosely-defined crimes have politicized law enforcement and criminal justice, rendered the law vague and subjective, by-passed and eroded due process protections for the accused, and criminalized and incarcerated vast numbers of men and some women who had no inkling that they were committing a crime.  Until recently, few had ever heard of most of these crimes and even now no one can really understand what they mean because no definitions exist.

  Seldom are these quasi-crimes adjudicated by trials or juries in standard courts.[xxviii]  Instead guilt (but seldom innocence) is summarily pronounced by specialized judges or, increasingly, various quasi-judges: “judges surrogate,” lawyers, social workers, school administrators, campus tribunals, welfare officials, and other petty functionaries and political operatives with a vested interest in accumulating offenders to administer. Accusers are identified as “victims” in officials documents, and the accused are publicly labeled not only by media but even by law enforcement officials themselves with terms that presume guilt – “perpetrators” “abusers,” “batterers,” “bullies,” “harassers,” “deadbeats,” “traffickers,” and more – even before they are tried (if they are tried). The distinction between crime and ordinary conflict is blurred or eliminated by “the glorification of feeling,”[xxix] with clear acts of criminal violence (for which existing criminal law has always provided) intermingled with open-ended terms like “abuse” and “exploitation” to suggest that anything that might fall under these vague but opprobrious terms is likewise a crime for which someone must be arrested.  The crime is often defined subjectively, according to the judgement or “feelings” of the accuser, and guilt is determined not by the objective act of the accused but by the subjective state-of-mind of the accuser – not only whether she gave “consent” but whether she felt “fear.”  Guilt can be defined by the accuser feeling “offended,” making the accused guilty by definition. [xxx]

  Convictions and high conviction rates are presented as goals to be pursued for their own sake, regardless of the merits or evidence in particular cases.[xxxi] Proceedings are rigged with paid “victim-advocates” (usually professional feminists) hired to testify against defendants they do not know and about whose alleged guilt they have no first-hand knowledge in order to secure conviction and maximum punishment.[xxxii] Yet the accused are given no equivalent advocate-witnesses to testify for them and often no opportunity even to speak on their own behalf.  Throughout, the presumption of innocence has been inverted into a presumption of guilt, and knowingly false accusations are unpunished and even encouraged.[xxxiii] Government campaigns claim to “raise awareness” of unnamed nonviolent malefactors said to be guilty of nebulous new crimes which no one really understands.  Yet government statistics purporting to quantify the existence of these crimes are based not on verifiable convictions but on “reports” that are “confirmed” not by convictions in jury trials but by the decree of judges and sometimes simply by civil servants such as social workers. The statistics and reports are also based on definitions so vague that it is not clear what if anything is being reported.[xxxiv] Accusers’ are officially “certified” as “victims” by civil servants, such as welfare agencies, with no judicial proceeding, implicitly entitling the officially certified victim to have her alleged (or quasi-certified) victimizer punished.  For many incarcerations, government statistics and documentation, which in the United States and other free societies are required by law, are not published and do not exist.[xxxv]  Accusers can profit financially by their accusations, by looting the accused with lawsuits, even without supplying any proof of a crime, as can third parties such as lawyers and feminist or homosexual pressure groups. [xxxvi]

  The innocent are easily railroaded into prison because the alleged crimes and the accusations arising from them encounter no opposition.  Few are willing to place themselves in a position of appearing to defend “sex crimes” or accused “sex offenders.” One-sided, government-funded “awareness” campaigns that vilify groups en masse – “abusers,” “batterers,” “harassers,” “deadbeats,” “bullies,” “stalkers,” “traffickers” (all reminiscent of Communist campaigns against “counter-revolutionaries”) – intimidate anyone who dares challenge the government line and generate public hysteria that makes fair trials impossible for those actually accused of belonging to these categories. Accusations quickly become available as weapons to be used in personal and political vendettas. Patently false and petty accusations are processed because they rationalize budgets of feminized and sexualized law-enforcement agencies by turning law-abiding citizens into safe, nonviolent criminals for female and homosexual policepersons to arrest. [xxxviiThe result is a spiral of silence by journalists, scholars, and other presumed watchdogs. Far from questioning the accusations, conservatives credulously hasten to add their voices to the radical mob in condemning “crimes” of which they have little understanding. One need only observe the zeal with which conservative political operatives abandon traditional stigmas against quaint, old-fashioned concepts like adultery or fornication and adopt sexualized agitprop jargon, whose full implications they cannot possibly understand, when they accuse President Bill Clinton of “sexual harassment” or Muslims of “homophobia.”

  While ideologues always demand “rights,” “freedom,” and of course “equality,” the central emotion on which they all thrive is resentment. Whether it is Communism, Fascism, Islamism, or sexual radicalism -- all are driven by a burning sense of grievance.  Whether the resentments are justified is impossible to sort out, for the resentment is directed not at individuals – who can be formally charged and tried for specific and recognized offenses – but against groups en masse: the bourgeoisie, Jews, Christianity, men and heterosexuals, against whom – as Vladimir Tismaneanu has recently reminded us -- new crimes must be devised to punish them collectively. 

 We have seen this before. Whenever the intellectuals find a new fad and become intoxicated with their own moral and intellectual superiority to the point of excluding or silencing or intimidating all opposing voices, there can only be one outcome: prisons and death. 

 


[i] A recent and eloquent (if a little self-congratulatory) statement of this is Daniel Hannan.[ii] See http://www.rojaksite.com/newsweek-politics-of-sex/

[iii] Helen Alvare, “The White House and Sexualityism,” Public Discourse, 16 July 2012; Gerard Bradley, “What’s Behind the HHS Mandate?Public Discourse, 5 June 2012. 

[iv] Richard G. Parker, Bodies, Pleasures, and Passions: Sexual Culture in Contemporary Brazil, (Nashville, Vanderbilt University Press, 2009), 111. 

[v] Sonia Corrêa, Rosalind Petchesky, and Richard Parker, Sexuality, Health, and Human Rights (Abingdon: Routledge, 2008), 4-5.

[vi] Ibid., 4-5, 24, 26, 27, 29-30, 93; Richard Parker, Rosalind Petchesky and Robert Sember (eds.) Sex Politics: Reports from the Front Lines (n.p.: Sexuality Policy Watch, n.d.,), 9, 20. This publication and the previous book are funded by major foundations, including Ford, MacArthur, and the Open Society Institute.

 [vii] Stephen Krason, “The Mondale Act and Its Aftermath: An Overview of Forty Years of American Law, Public Policy, and Governmental Response to Child Abuse and Neglect,” excerpt from his edited book, Child Abuse, Family Rights, and the Child Protective System: A Critical Analysis from Law, Ethics, and Catholic Social Teaching (Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, forthcoming 2013).

[viii] Philip Jenkins, The New Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 246.

[ix] Unmarried Women on Health Care: Unmarried Women Driving Change on Leading Domestic Issue, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner internet site (8 August 2007). 

[x] Stephen Baskerville, “The Sexual Agenda and Religious Freedom,” International Journal for Religious Freedom, vol. 4, no. 2 (2011).

[xi] Mike Donnelly, “Religious Freedom in Education,” International Journal for Religious Freedom, vol. 4, no. 2 (2011).

[xii] Paul Coleman and Roger Kiska, “The Proposed EU ‘Equal Treatment’ Directive,” International Journal for Religious Freedom, vol. 5, no. 1 (2012).

[xiii] Quoted in Shadow Report, 2005-2010 (Vienna: Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe, 2010), 11 (http://tinyurl.com/2wvteq5).

[xiv] United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women, General Recommendations Made by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. No. 19, 11th session (1992), Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. 13th sess., A/49/38 (New York:  UN Women, 1994), 39.

[xv] Stephen Baskerville, “Feminist Gulag: No Prosecution Necessary,” The New American, January 2010, and “Julian Assange’s Political Honeytrap,” The American Conservative, online edition, 25 February 2011.

[xvi] Baskerville, Taken Into Custody, ch. 4; David Heleniak, “The New Star Chamber,” Rutgers Law Review, vol. 57, no. 3 (Spring 2005).

[xvii] Daphne Patai, Heterophobia:  Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998); Christina Hoff Sommers, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 53-58, 64-71.

[xviii] Krason, “Mondale Act”; Baskerville, Taken Into Custody, ch. 4.

[xix] Ibid., 179, 184.

[xx] Heather MacDonald, “The Campus Rape Myth,” City Journal, vol. 18, no. 1 (Winter 2008).

[xxi] Campus tribunals are the only example that has received substantial attention, though they constitute a tiny part, and the “nightmare” that the accused face there is very mild compared to what takes place in courts that can incarcerate.  The term is from Judith Grossman, “A Mother, a Feminist, Aghast,” Wall Street Journal, 16 April 2013. Likewise, “The Rape 'Epidemic' Doesn't Actually Exist,” US News, 24 October 2013For a scholarly treatment, Stephen Henrick, “A Hostile Environment for Student Defendants: Title IX and Sexual Assault on College Campuses,” Northern Kentucky Law Review, vol. 40, no. 1 (2013), 49-92. 

[xxii] The classic treatment is Milovan Djilas, The New Class (New York, Praeger, 1958), 37. 

[xxiii] “The End of Gender Sanity in American Public Life,” Modern Age, vol. 49, no. 4 (Fall 2007), 412.

[xxiv] National Association of Women Lawyers internet site: http://www.abanet.org/nawl/about/history.html, accessed 6 November 2004.  I am grateful to Judy Parejko for this reference. 

[xxv] Stephen Baskerville, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Nashville: Cumberland House), ch. 1. For incarcerations, see Rebecca May and Marguerite Roulet, “A Look at Arrests of Low-Income Fathers for Child Support Nonpayment: Enforcement, Court and Program Practices,” Center for Family Policy and Practice (Madison, Wisconsin: January 2005), 6, 9, 11, 41, 42, 43, 44.

[xxvi] Marie Gottschalk, The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 115-116.

[xxvii] Carol Iannone, “The ‘Good Feminism’ Delusion,” Modern Age, vol. 49, no. 4 (Fall 2007), 383. 

[xxviii] “We mean [by the rule of law], in the first place, that no man is punishable or can be made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land.  A.V. Dicey, quoted in John Laughland, A History of Political Trials (Oxford: Peter Lang), 7 (emphasis added).

[xxix] Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006), 202-203.

[xxx] Coleman and Kiska, “Proposed EU Directive.”

[xxxi] Christina Patterson, “It's Miliband, Not Clarke, Who Should Be Ashamed,” The Independent, 19 May 2011.

[xxxii] Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case (New York: Thomas Dunne, 2007), 377.

[xxxiii] Baskerville, Taken Into Custody, ch. 4 and passim.

[xxxiv] Ibid., ch. 3.

[xxxv] May and Roulet, “Look at Arrests.”

[xxxvi] Coleman and Kiska, “Proposed EU Directive.”

[xxxvii]Wrong Arm of the Law,” leading column, Daily Telegraph, 31 July 2012; “Christian Preacher Vows to Fight…,” Daily Mail, 2 May 2010.



Publications      Research      News

Photos

19.12.2017

Conference on the "populist wave" in Central Europe (IDC, 19 December 2017)
08.11.2017

The Russian revolution and the civil war (IDC, 8 November 2017)
21.09.2017

Conference at IDC on the Korean crisis (21 September 2017)
12.07.2017

"Trump and Macron on Syria: what is new?" Conference at IDC, 12 July 2017
21.06.2017

Conference on the end of globaliation, 21 June 2017
24.05.2017

Conference in the Vatican on Catholics and Orthodox (24 May 2017)

Videos


John Laughland discusses the Catalan referendum on RT (4 October 2017)



John Laughland discusses NATO expansion on TRT World TV (31 July 2017)