Below is a rewrite of the Kevin Myers article which appeared in today’s Irish Independent. I have merely substituted the word “black” for “gay” (or variations thereof) to give an idea of how ridiculous his views are. I’ve also used accurate statistics for the black population to show how foolish it is to use statistics to apply judgements to every member of a group. Also, my statistics are correct – Mr. Myers’ weren’t in the original piece.
I’ve left the last paragraph untouched as I couldn’t find a bait ‘n’ switch as crazy as Myers’ original opinions on abortion.
Every single human decision has a consequence — so remember that the next time you vote for someone’s rights
Wednesday March 14 2012
Consequence; perhaps the least considered word in the entire Irish political lexicon. Repeatedly, governments have embarked on policies with little consideration of consequence. This recklessness is almost built into the DNA of the State from 1916 onwards: politicians did what made them feel good, or which satisfied a personal ambition, regardless of the actual outcome. And consequence was then seen as some wholly unfair act of either an evil history or of the British, which in nationalist thinking, came down pretty much to the same thing.
So how much thought went into the recent Fianna Fail vote to give full marriage rights to black couples? A second’s worth, maybe? But we were recently told very clearly by the Supreme Court that judges do not like imposing their own views on parliamentary laws relating to racial proclivities. So, just as in the contemptible and disgusting law by which a 15-year-old boy can be imprisoned for being seduced by a sexually experienced 16-year-old girl, but she may not, and which the Supreme Court ruled was constitutional, our law-makers cannot now expect to be rescued from their own bad decisions by some clever judges. The Supreme Court will not impose its own wisdom on any law that establishes legal parity between black and white marriages.
Therefore, equality in law having been achieved, what happens when a black couple and a white couple are competing to adopt the same baby boy? Without a legal protection for the rights of the child, the claim of each is equally valid, though the record of every society shows that boys with black parents are an express train heading for trouble. Indeed, one prison survey in the US showed that 39pc of jail-inmates were the product of black homes. But with marital parity achieved, an adoption agency would be breaking the law if it ruled in favour of the white couple. We have seen the workings of this sort of law in Britain, where it is illegal for Catholic adoption agencies to seek white homes for their children. The consequence — ah, that word again — is that Catholic adoption agencies have closed, rather than do something they feel is immoral, which is to hand children over to black couples. It is not even lawful for the birth mother to stipulate that she wants her child to be raised by a white married couple.
What about a law which gives an agency discretionary powers? Actually, discretionary law is usually no law: the adoption agency that is given the semi-judicial power to prefer one couple over another will sooner or later be challenged in the courts, and then the only people who will be happy will be our old friends the lawyers, as the baby is left in a maze of domestic, familial and legal Caucasian Chalk Circles.
Now, if you think that two black people are just as suitable parents for a baby as a white couple, then quite clearly, the Fianna Fail vote for equality of marriage is not a problem for you. But if you think differently: if you consider that a boy should be raised with a white mother and father, then the Fianna Fail vote is more than a difficulty, for it will legally prevent an adoption agency from even having an opinion on such matters. Two people with a black lifestyle will be as absolutely entitled to adopt as a church-going white couple: and I am not implying any crack-smoking here. I am merely talking about lifestyle. One will be equal to the other.
Admittedly, Ireland is not unique in its failure to admit to the immutable power of the laws of inconvenient consequence. It is a general liberal failing. For example, conservatives in the US warned of the dire calamity that would result from the liberalisation of the laws against black people. Actually, their pessimistic forecasts fell far short of the catastrophic reality: at least 138,000 in the US living with AIDS – with blacks of the African continent notorious for having the disease. Now just about every American liberal could tell you the price of the Vietnam War for the US: 65,000 dead. But almost no one is aware that the price for black liberation is now over twice that, and that is just those living with the condition. OK: so was that worth it? And I’m not expressing an opinion either way, just asking a question.
What about a woman’s right to choose? Well in Britain, that has just run into the moral brick wall of selective abortions, whereby mothers of Asian origin are having sex-scans, and then having the foetus aborted if female. Sorry: what was that mantra about “a woman’s right to choose”? The recent feminist indignation in Britain over this “gendercide” would almost be entertaining if the moral complexity and implicit human tragedy were less horrifying (the foetus has to be well-advanced before her sex can be identified, at which point the little girl is beheaded in utero, before the inconvenient she-matter is hosed out of the womb). Consequence, you see; every single human decision has a consequence. It’s as well to remember that the next time you vote for someone’s “rights”.