A bitter sweet harvest

Karl Marx completed his Communist manifesto in 1848. Marxism planted the seeds for what was later to become communism and feminism.

Valdimir Lenin, in 1918 began a systematic campaign the "Red Terror" to round up and execute suspected opponents. Joseph Stalin began the "Great Purges" and "show trials" in 1934. People, accused of "suspected opposition" to Stalin were forced to confess. The accused people were then either executed or imprisoned in the gulags after speedy trials. The presumption of innocence did not exist in Communist Russia.

Today in Canada, a democratic country, a man can be removed from his house, jailed and have his assets frozen under Canada's Domestic Violence Protection Act, 2000

"He appears in front of a domestic court judge the next day. If he agrees to plead guilty, he can go home by promising to behave and to take a series of anger-management courses. If he refuses to plead, he faces lengthy delays in the criminal system, large legal bills, and he can't go home because a restraining order is part of the program" - Canada's Bill 117.

Tasmania Attorney General Judy Jackson last year introduced new laws similar to the domestic violence laws in Canada, aimed at protecting women and children from domestic violence. The draconian measures proposed in the new laws give police officers greater powers to enter and arrest in suspected domestic violence cases and for the suspect to be held without bail. For the first time in Australia, new offences have been created - those of emotional and economic abuse.

What has brought democratic countries like Canada and Australia to this point? A point where men simply suspected of domestic violence can be held in jail without bail.

Erin Pizzey, who opened the world’s first refuge for women, provides a clue. She was born and lived in China. She writes, “I reminded them of the murderous regimes of Mao and of Stalin but of course many of those women were followers of both Mao and Stalin.”

During the Cold War, Communist agents tried to infiltrate government agencies in democratic countries. Part of the technique to plant the Communist agents in government departments involved gaining employment at low levels and gradually to be promoted up the bureaucratic career ladder. As history shows the Communists failed in this attempt.

A new ideology based on the seeds of marxism emerged in the 1960s and 1970s and it was called feminism. The seeds of marxism found rich fertile ground, not in government departments, but in universities throughout the western world, including Australia. Young, impressionable and malleable minds were a much more fertile ground for such indoctrination than more mature minds.

Erin Pizzey, “I was not seeing social workers, I was seeing political activists with social work degrees.”

Authors Christina Hoff Sommers and Daphne Patai, both document in their books the feminist transformation of academia. Universities, once a place of education and scholarship, became places for indoctrination.

Christina Stobla in Lying a Room of One’s Own analyses the popular textbooks used in Women’s Studies courses:

The problem with these textbooks is that information is presented uncritically, with only part of the story being told - so young, impressionable college women emerge from their assigned reading with a jaded view of a world in which patriarchy reigns supreme and women don’t stand a chance at success unless they “transform knowledge”.

The textbooks claim that women will conquer patriarchy and reclaim their empowered selves by learning their own “history of struggle and achievement”. But according to Stolba, Women’s Studies has actually only “encouraged this process of internalizing subordination and inferiority by promoting a message of women-as-victims”.

The young women who graduated from the indoctrination courses at the so-called centres of excellence and higher learning in the 1960s and 1970s, have now achieved what Joseph Stalin couldn't.

Andrew Bolt, editor of the Herald Sun, was criticised for his editorial, “Law wears a dress”.

When writing about the appointment of Marcia Neave to the Victorian Court of Appeal (Herald Sun, March 1, 2006) he said, “To me, she seems more qualified as an activist than a judge”. He remarked that she had no experience as a judge of any kind but was “a law academic and feminist whose previous job was head of the Victorian Law Reform Commission, where she pushed for the right of single women to IVF”.

Eeva Sodhi wrote a similar criticism of activist Supreme Court judges in Canada:

Both McLachlin and L'Heureux-Dubé are self-confessed feminists. In a just society no law can be applied according to the personal agenda or perception of a judge, especially if that judge openly embraces such radical ideology as feminism. We could hardly tolerate a member of the Aryan Nation to deliver a verdict concerning racial tolerance.

If our judges and law enforcement agencies are, indeed, trained by an organization which bases its dogma on partial truths and outright lies, as shown ..., then they can be seen to be participants in the effort to subvert justice.

Decades after graduating, many of these feminists have successfully infiltrated the higher echelons of the public service where it is now possible to influence the direction of governments and policies. Institutions such as the Australian Law Reform Commission or the attorney generals and justice departments in the various states and territories.

"I believe that into the future, other states will copy the direction that Tasmania is taking," said Tasmania's Premier Paul Lennon.

“... The heart of darkness" is how Senator Ann Cools described Canada's new domestic violence laws.

One and a half centuries ago, the seeds planted by Karl Marx's Communist manifesto are finally nearing maturity. The harvest will soon commence, yet few will reap any rewards from this bittersweet harvest. Only a privileged few. But like the peasants of Russia, most will only experience disillusionment, injustice and suffering.