The National Post is not a publication with a whole lot of brain power. It is pure propaganda, and very bad propaganda at that that reminds me of those Canada's cringeworthy attempts at serialized television programs of the 1970s and 80s.
Probably their biggest problem is their absolute hate on women, and like rapists who hire female attorneys as a façade, the Post employs self-loathing females to deliver their biggest salvos against women.
Christie Blatchford is the resident hack for this kind of sophistry.
It is one thing to be controversial, and there is another thing to be a troll, and her style of woman-trolling is usually filled with logical fallacies galore, much like the rest of the Post which has no class, finesse, or deep understanding of the world around them. They constantly whine and wallow how they need money to survive, and yet never think at their own attitude problems as the source of their alienating people.
Take this piece of woman-bashing here:
Christie Blatchford: Can women continue to describe themselves as 'survivors' when courts say otherwise?
Christie Blatchford says this is a trend that makes her 'despair' because it does not allow the men who were deemed not to be guilty to recover their reputations
Yep, the courts never ever make a mistake, and her appeal to authority proves that Canada's educational system isn't all that, particular when it comes to educating journalists in Logic 101.
But the tone deaf white bread thinking has the usual drive-your-tank-through-the-holes problem with it.
If we take this demented reasoning, imagine using the same logic on people who were wrongfully convicted of rape and/or murder, and they keep saying to anyone who will listen that they are innocent, because, they are. They didn't do it. The end.
But tusing Blatchford's fragmented thinking, if the judge says he is a rapist and killer, then he should put up and shut up.
The judge says so, it must be true!
Let the authority do all the heavy thinking and let the journalist be the brainless groupie stenographer.
The cops can get it wrong. The jury can get it wrong. The judge can get it wrong.
All three can get it wrong.
And if someone who was raped says she was raped, even after the judge decrees that his yardstick trumps hers, guess what? She was still raped.
Canada is still a misogynistic country. Men can use being drunk as an excuse to be acquitted of rape, but should the woman who was assaulted be drunk, well, tough luck for her.
Our legal system is not actually based on empirical ways of assessing guilt or innocence. We do not have any standardized way of assessing human behaviour. For instance, our notions of how a victim is "supposed" to behave are Victorian, unrealistic, and not based on any empirical data.
We do not have the courts have any sort of notion of a victim-victimizer dynamic. How many people were abducted, raped, tortured, and given drugs, and held captive long enough that they no longer try to flee. They miss opportunities to get away because their behaviour has been modified by a predator. This is fact, and established in enough cases that we should be absolutely aware that if you are ever abducted and held for any length of time, regardless of your sex and age, the chances are great that you will endure rape and torture from your abuser for years.
But should someone rescue you, you no longer feel shackled to your captor, and you want him to go for jail, as you are reminded of what a liberated person is supposed to behave.
Does it mean these victims weren't victims?
Of course not. It is a form of folie a deux, where the healthy person becomes submissive to the dominant predator. The predator dictates the reality and controls it, and this forms unnatural habits in the victim.
The predator feels entitled and the victim, in a real way, enables these delusions, but not by free choice. It is because one person has set the terms of engagement and has rigged it in their favour to alter the prey's reality.
And this unnatural conditioning doesn't take very long -- all it takes is seconds.
Often, these predators have a lot of experience training victims to be compliant than the victims have experience standing up to predators. It is an uneven fight to begin with.
And predators have charm and know what to say and how to parse their words. Ted Bundy lured his victims with his friendly and smooth demeanour as he also didn't raise alarm bells with authorities for years.
So you have someone who can charm their way out of a jam and convince a judge he is innocent, while the frazzled victim who was ambushed won't be as polished because they aren't as practiced at lying.
And the judge falls for it.
Judges are not gods. They are fallible, and we don't bother to question how the court system is set up, how fair it is, and whether or not there are superior ways to find truths.
A judge may believe a drunk woman who didn't close her legs isn't a victim. We have had enough judges in Canada think that way -- and that judge has no right to tell me whether or not I am a victim. I was there. The judge wasn't.
Blatchford does an awful lot of worrying for those predatory men, who need her meddling as they are incapable of standing up for themselves. She worries about men who are decreed innocent and how people will look at them -- never mind the women whose attackers were convicted, and they are painted as troublemakers, and often still not believed in light of evidence that says they are telling the truth.
But the Post itself's subtext is never trust a woman, and if they hired the sketchy ones, they should remember not everyone is like them.
It sexist subtext runs far and deep at the Post. Take this headline in the Post for instance:
Former hostages Joshua Boyle and his American wife trade abuse accusations in child custody battle
The Guardian had this headline to the same story:
Ex-hostage says husband abused her while family held captive in Afghanistan
The Globe and Mail had the Canadian Press story headlined in this way:
Former hostages Joshua Boyle, Caitlan Coleman in custody battle
And the Toronto Star had the same Canadian Press story with this headline:
Publication ban lifted in Joshua Boyle custody dispute
Notice the difference? The Post cannot just say Boyle is the only one: they have to include his wife as being labelled abusive. Two of the headlines completely bypass it and focus on other details of the case.
But lo and behold? What have we here:
The Ottawa judge who considered the case said she had not seen anything to suggest that Coleman suffers a mental health issue that would affect her ability to parent.
“The court does have evidence, on the other hand, that CC (Caitlan Coleman) is healthily and protectively parenting the children,” the judge noted as she granted Coleman temporary custody of the children.
The judge also granted full temporary custody to Coleman as she moved with the children to the US, and barred Boyle from contacting her.
So why didn't the Post worry about Coleman's rep when the judge made that decree?
Why would they blare that in a headline when she could now forever be seen as a bad person with those accusations?
Because Coleman is a woman, and to the Post, women are all devious little liars.
That may be how things roll at the Post, but it is an archaic mindset of a more oppressive era.
But it ain't reality.
It is one thing to call women who do wrong on the carpet, but to paint all women with the same brush is not news, but propaganda, and hate speech.
An alternative to journalism has no place for games like that. It has room for facts and reason as well as context.
It is not about sucking up to predatory boors to curry favour with them as you hedge your bets that the opposite sex have nothing to offer.
That's not what journalism was ever supposed to be about. It is not a lobby group to prop up the incompetent.
It is about presenting the facts without playing mommy to grown men who make their own messes, and should be expected to clean them up all by themselves.
A true and honest chronicler gives the facts.
Nothing more, and nothing less...