Equality: You Keep Using That Word
It’s possibly the most fashionable word around these days, especially in Australia. Everyone wants it and no-one seems to have it. Every media outlet, organisation and business that wants to look hip is grooming its collective beard and committing to ensuring ‘equality’. Even city councils are in on the act – and who’d ever thought for a moment that councils were not supposed to treat everyone equally? Surely councils are meant to collect the garbage of bigots and libertarians alike?
The Greek philosopher Aristotle had something very interesting to say about all this. He said:
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
And that might be the source of this craze for equality. The various forms of ‘inequality’ being exposed in recent times are actually unequal things – unequal in a necessary way – that have important biological significance in their differences.
This is very easy to see in the marriage debate. Marriage between two men or two women or two gender-neutral beings is not equal to marriage between a man and a woman. This isn’t bigotry or xenophobia or hatred. This is a biological reality. The union of two people other than the traditional couple could be called many things, but marriage is not one of them. But there’s more.
Equality Before the Law.
From the Marriage Equality website:
Fairness and equality are at the heart of Australian society. We believe our laws should reflect these values of which we are most proud. It’s time for all Australians to be treated equally under the law, with the full rights of equal citizenship.
Now, equality under the law is quite different from a general call for equality. ‘Equality under the law’ means freedom from discrimination in the execution of judicial processes. Judicial officers swear to ‘administer the law without fear, favour, affection or ill-will.’ [Source]. Equality ‘under the law’ is meant to ensure that existing human rights are protected, but it doesn’t permit new rights to be invented at the whim of lobby groups. In fact, as former High Court Justice Michael McHugh points out, there is a danger in attempting to provide equal treatment to individuals who are fundamentally different:
… discrimination can arise just as readily from an act which treats as equals those who are different as it can from an act which treats differently persons whose circumstances are not materially different. [Source, footnote 1]
McHugh J admits that trying to apply the law to fundamentally different people can lead to discrimination. And discrimination against conscientious objectors to same-sex ‘marriage’ is one of the main concerns of the No supporters. [Click here to read 55 Consequences of Redefining Marriage].
An Actual Case of Inequality
Along with cases of ‘fair’ inequality (due to biological realities), there are examples of actual inequality being completely overlooked by most activists. For instance, there are Australians – new Australians – who aren’t being treated fairly under the law. Their fundamental rights are not currently protected under the law, and in fact, the law explicitly threatens their existence. It’s likely that the SJWs asking for all Australians to be treated fairly are the very same people who have wilfully ignored the plight of a whole class of vulnerable Australians.
a poem by Simon Camilleri
Through dark and watery passage they arrive
With empty hands,
for all that they possess
Is the desperate desire to survive
And the beating heart within their chest.
They have not come because they had a choice.
Where else on earth are they supposed to flee?
They have no power, no freedom, no voice.
They come to us like an innocent refugee.
But will they find upon their journey’s end
A welcome home? A door open or closed?
Will they meet an enemy or a friend
When our shared humanity is then exposed?
Sure, this is our home, and this is our life,
And they have arrived uninvited,
But how can we turn our backs to their strife?
We can’t close our eyes once they are sighted.
Will we insist on our right to turn them away,
Condemning them unto a watery tomb?
Or will we hashtag “let them stay”
For those tiny refugees in the womb?
[Reprinted with grateful thanks. Click here to visit Simon Camilleri’s blog, Simon Says]
The Right to be Born
The right to life is a universally-accepted right, in fact, it’s the most fundamental right of all. Without it, there can be no equality, no freedom, nothing. Although Australia is signatory to 7 international documents which uphold the right to life, the right to extinguish life is enshrined in law and funded by Medicare. Is some states, such as Victoria and Tasmania, abortion is available on demand even to the day of birth. These same states have also enacted unjust exclusion-zones around abortion facilities, which take freedom of choice away from vulnerable mothers and inhibit the freedom of political communication of pro-life advocates.
It’s very difficult to take seriously the claims of popular brands and organisations that they’re bastions of equality, when they fail to advocate for equality for the unborn.
Feminists behind the push for ‘gender equality’ are certainly not serious about true equality. They’ve spun maternal longings into the wage-gap myth: the desire to spend more time with family equates to less hours in paid work, which means less wages overall paid to women. This is hardly the same thing as The Patriarchy paying women at a lower rate for the same work. [Read more about the gender-gap myth in the US and in Australia.]
The apparent inequality between men and women is another example of biological realities defining two entities as being unequal. So when feminists talk about equality, what they really mean is that they want to be just like men: unable to bear children. This is why the fight for ‘reproductive justice’ aka, abortion on demand, always accompanies the gender equality battle-cry.
But where are the gender equality warriors when the subject of sex-selection abortion comes up?
Nowhere to be seen.
Although death is usually the great leveller – the great equaliser, if you will – when it comes to the death of pre-born children, aborted little girls far outnumber equally-precious aborted little boys. Nicholas Eberstadt wrote in The Global War Against Baby Girls:
Sex-selective abortion is by now so widespread and so frequent that it has come to distort the population composition of the entire human species: this new and medicalized war against baby girls is indeed truly global in scale and scope.
Eberstadt goes on to say:
The consequences of medically abetted mass feticide are far-reaching and manifestly adverse. In populations with unnaturally skewed SRBs, [sex ratio at birth] the very fact that many thousands — or in some cases, millions — of prospective girls and young women have been deliberately eliminated simply because they would have been female establishes a new social reality that inescapably colors the whole realm of human relationships, redefining the role of women as the disfavored sex in nakedly utilitarian terms, and indeed signaling that their very existence is now conditional and contingent.
So women are the disfavoured sex due to gender-selection abortion, and yet feminists have nothing to say about it? Their silence reveals that dealing death is more important than achieving ‘equality’ for women. It’s far easier to grow armpit hair than to rock the boat and demand equality for the unborn. If there are cases of real discrimination against women, then we shouldn’t have to stand on a mountain of baby skulls to make it known.
[The image below shows an abortion supporter, by the way. Credit: LifeNews.com ]
I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Same-sex marriage supporters who are also pro-abortion ask a standard question: If we knew an unborn child was gay, would we abort it? (The answer is NO, of course not.) Pro-life people don’t make distinctions about the quality of life of unborn children – about their potential character, or circumstances or race or religion. To be truly pro-life is to treat each pre-born human person as an equal; a much smaller, more vulnerable equal.
So the next time the word equality is mentioned, we can only hope and pray that the speaker recognises that some forms of inequality are perfectly just. By contrast, discrimination against unborn children is something outrageous and unjust and deadly.
In accordance with s 6(5) of the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Act 2017, this communication was authorised by Kathy Clubb of Melbourne, Vic.
Editor, The Freedoms ProjectClick here to find out more about Kathy