Expect the US Supreme Court, still captured by political activists, to downgrade men’s rights within the decade, with honorary ‘feminist’ males possibly exempt. Other countries would happily follow. And arguably, only President Trump can prevent this dystopian outlook. Which is why the November mid-term election is crucial.
It is conceivable that a future Court decision could be followed by demands for the creation of an ‘Old White Men’ subclass whose members must be licenced to hold public or corporate office or to practice a profession and for recalcitrants to undergo intensive re-education courses in women’s and gender fluidity studies.
Peering into the shadows of the Constitution, as they do before egregiously flouting it, the judges’ first step will be to designate separate evidentiary rules concerning claims of sexual assaults and harassment.
Later, expect quotas concerning employment, company boards, political representation, military enlistment and even for abortion and euthanasia. New rules to create equity for superannuation, pensions, the division of property on divorce and inheritance can also be anticipated. (A general exemption of those of the Islamic faith would be consistent with current Western feminist attitudes.)
Feminists will deny that this will be a form of apartheid, and say that the new status of men will be more similar to the dhimmitude in Islamic countries, which can be explained by apologists as an advanced and enlightened way of dealing with the problems of Christian and Jewish minorities.
This could even involve the levying of a special male tax akin to the jizya tax, although some will argue that much the same result can be achieved under existing divorce and inheritance laws.
The achievement of an early success in downgrading the rights of males, especially the white and heterosexual, could be attributed to the adoption internationally by the cultural Marxists of Lenin’s strategy which was so important in the success of communism. This was in What is to be done? where Lenin had insisted that success depended on the formation of a revolutionary vanguard, a Bolshevik party consisting of the most class-conscious and politically-advanced sections of the proletariat.
The adoption of a similar strategy directed against the male has led to the formation of a political campaign, the #MeToo movement. They are to lead the feminariat in taking political and economic power from the enemy: males and especially white heterosexuals.
Ostensibly started to counter sexual harassment and assault, #MeToo has almost feverishly adopted the tactic of the ‘big lie’ so favoured by totalitarians.
Thus, while the feminist establishment knows that Bettina Arndt is absolutely correct in arguing that the claims of high levels of sexual assault and harassment in the universities are wildly exaggerated, they have seized a tactical advantage in relying on the untruth of the claims.
The key component of the downgrading of men’s rights involves overturning one of the key principles of the rule of law which have prevailed in Australia from 1788, the proposition that an accused person is always presumed innocent until proven guilty.
It is now argued that in any hearing, criminal, civil or political, what is more important is the seriousness of the allegations made by the woman, and not the evidence, including any corroboration that she may rely on.
In this scheme, once the allegation is made, the onus of proof will shift from the complainant to the man who will then have to prove his innocence.
The standard of proof will be far more than being beyond reasonable doubt. It will be the absence of any doubt about his innocence in the minds of those presiding. There will be calls that these include only women, exempt men or Other Genders (OGs), a classification which is not closed.
Eventually, it could be that the problem will be overcome by following what applies to dhimmis under sharia law. This is that at some stage the logical conclusion will be that males should never be allowed to testify or to give evidence against a woman complaining of sexual assault or sexual harassment.
This will follow the Islamic rule that God does not allow infidels to testify against believers.
In the meantime, the leading US feminist Emily Lindin has admitted that she is ‘not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs’ over false allegations of sexual assault or harassment.
Lindin tweeted untruthfully that ‘false allegations VERY rarely happen, so even bringing it up borders on a derailment tactic. It’s a microscopic risk in comparison to the issue at hand (worldwide, systemic oppression of half the population).’
This move to a diminution of men’s rights was stimulated by the failure of the last-minute intervention in 1991 by Anita Hill in the confirmation of the conservative Afro-American lawyer, Clarence Thomas, as a justice of the US Supreme Court. Hill’s case collapsed when she was unable to explain satisfactorily why she had followed Thomas to a second job if as she claimed he had already allegedly harassed her when she was working with him in the earlier job.
Hence the carefully-planned last-minute intervention of Christine Blasey Ford in the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Any lawyer with any experience knows that Ford’s evidence, assisted by a very soft and often interrupted cross examination, is inconsistent, full of holes and not at all credible. Far from achieving a conviction in a criminal court, no responsible authority would even initiate a prosecution or investigation or empanel a grand jury on such frail evidence.
This is only being done for the obvious reason to keep the Supreme Court not as a court applying the Constitution as intended, but as a powerful parallel legislature, one whose legislation is beyond repeal.
If such Supreme Court legislation is to be preserved, the disenfranchisement of white heterosexual males to advance, the borders to be open and manufacturing not to return, employment and the economy not to be so buoyant and even that the US never to be great again, voters must consider carefully what they do in the mid-term elections.
The decision they make will have an impact across the West, just as the other unconstitutional outrages of the US Supreme Court already have.
Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free