By Dale
In Canada, a man has been ordered to pay $175,000 Canadian dollars (177,757 US$) every month to his ex-wife.
A $175,000 reward, renewed every month, just for divorcing your husband — what an incentive for divorce. Why do our leaders allow laws that bring about the destruction of families? Of course, many feminists would define “family” to include female-lead homes that are without a father, so I suppose they see this as simply replacing one family with another. Surely at least a small number of feminists would be honest enough to admit that children are better off with their father however. And if a child is better off with their father, then giving an incentive to divorce is obviously bad for society. Fortunately, in this case the children were already grown; the youngest is now 17. There is therefore no legitimate need for child support, especially given the ex-wife is now “earning” $175,000 per month. But that did not stop her from asking. How many females have seared their conscience by greed to such an extent that they can show this complete lack of shame? To be fair, perhaps she asked for child support before knowing how much alimony she could take.
What makes this situation even worse however is that they had an agreement regarding alimony, signed 15 years ago. The female judge chose to ignore it, thus encouraging other females to consider divorcing their husbands too. According to the article linked to above, the judge said:
while the agreement may have seemed fair to Michael McCain when it was signed in 1997, over time it had become “unconscionable.”
Funny, I thought the whole point of a written contract was to guarantee certain conditions and payments, regardless of future events. If I buy a car with a contract that says I will pay $500 per month for five years, then I must pay that amount. If I smash up the car and can no longer drive it, I still have to pay. If the car is stolen, and I therefore no longer have the benefit of the car, I still have to pay. I signed a contract. But, I believe in personal accountability for one’s actions and decisions. The average female may lack this maturity.
The Bible certainly gives some hints in this respect, such as allowing a father or husband to cancel a promise or agreement a woman has given (Numbers 30:1-16). Since females are abandoning their husbands for the state (through welfare, affirmative action, etc.), from one perspective it makes sense that the new “husband”, the state, would think they have the right to cancel her agreements. Of course, the Bible makes no allowance for this perversion; only a father or husband were to have this authority to cancel her agreements.
Insisting upon treating females as equals in all ways, but then also allowing females to be treated as foolish children who need to be protected by the state from the consequences of their agreements provides a foolishness encouragement to females to divorce. If she were treated only as an equal, she would be required to fulfill her obligations as wife and be punished (e.g. loss of the children and the use of the ex-husband’s wealth) if she violated the marriage agreement or abandoned the family. If she were treated only as an immature person, she would not have the ability to decide to leave her husband while also taking her children away from the only mature parent they have. If she were treated only as an immature person, she also would not be able to take the husband’s resources away, to be spent according to her immature decisions. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the Bible required that the family’s wealth be given to the sons; the wife or ex-wife was to receive nothing on the death of the father. (And yes, children were to care for their parents. But the wealth was under the control of the sons, not the mother.)
Daughters also were to receive nothing on the father’s death, unless the man had no sons. Even then however, the wealth was not permanently hers; as soon as she married, it was treated as her husband’s property, to be given to his sons on his death.
When choosing to ignore the agreement, the judge also considered the excuse that the now-ex-wife may have been compelled to sign the contract; i.e. under duress. This is one point I can agree with, at least in principle. Unfortunately, the judge also mentioned that some experiences of the marriage “must have been very hurtful”. So what? If I feel hurt that I have to pay $500 per month, should my feelings therefore invalidate the contract? Including this nonsense in her ruling may have the effect of adding that as a valid reason to case law that will be considered for future cases. A lawyer would know better than myself the consequences of including this in the ruling. It seems to me that this encourages divorce by allowing females to claim “hurt feelings” as a way to expedite the divorce and get more money as a reward for divorce.
And by the way, this “unconscionable” contract provided that the ex-wife would be paid seven million dollars, plus be given the former family home. I am not sure too many mature people would see that as cause for distress.
Sometimes it is necessary to push a principle to an extreme before a person will see the foolishness in the principle. Surely alimony in the amount of $175,000 per month is sufficient to demonstrate the foolishness of our laws that give an incentive for divorce.
It seems to me that the best way to have strong marriages is to abandon our feminist laws, and submit to the unchanging family laws we find from God in the Bible. Given our “individual rights” culture however, the humility and submission this would require will be difficult for many. But do we really think that our way is better?
On a personal note, I wonder if the agreement between the man and his now-ex-wife would have had a better chance to be honoured if it had been signed before marriage (prenuptial). Should I be considering marriage even with a prenuptial agreement? And exactly how hopeful / unwise does a man have to be, to allow him to be aware of these laws that encourage divorce without cause, and yet marry without a prenuptial agreement anyway? And yes, when I was in my 20s I was willing, even eager, to do exactly that. So consider me as part of the problem, at least in the past.
Sometimes I just want to scream… or at least give up on the idea of marriage.
{ 44 comments… read them below or add one }
Sometimes I just want to scream… or at least give up on the idea of marriage.
Just give up on the idea of marriage. Although I’m an American, your article about what happened to Michael McCain is enough disincentive to marry if you have a quarter of a brain.
My grandfather knew the McCain brothers when they were first starting their food business. It’s amazing to see that in a generation, that family has earned so much wealth that 100,000+ a month expenses are the norm. Grandpa wouldn’t have believed it, as they were just starting out when they came out West to look at Grandpa’s brand new cold storage facility, which was part of what made a frozen food empire possible.
I don’t see what was wrong with the original agreement between the wife and the husband, that was signed at the insistence of the husband’s father. It seems greedy to sign an agreement accepting $7 million plus a house and 2 cottages, and then ask for more later on. If she’s now happy with the monthly $175k, can I have one of the cottages?
Just don’t marry…at least not in Canada.
Do men really have an “individual rights” cutlure?
Seems like we have more of the responsibilities and less of the “rights”.
This is the doubleling down on misandry thing that is happening now. With fewer marriages and more women getting into positions of power they are out to correct wrongs. This judge was someone that made it to the combat zone in the last couple days of the war and is now shooting prisoners. Right now the US is tapped out and they want to disarm the public so they can have a book burning starting with the bible and then the constituion and declaration of independence. The socialist countries are in full misandry right now with italy awarding some chick 50 million a month.
Women claim they don’t want to be labelled, “girls” (female children) on a procedural basis but they insist on being described as children on a substantive basis.
A woman’s word is worth nothing: it’s government policy.
The Scripture Dale quoted gave rise over 1500 years ago to a legal doctrine quoted in Latin as an inference from those same Scriptures: “Qui tacet consentir videtir.” (spelling?) “The one who is silent gives consent.”
The doctrine arises as follows: as long as there is a discussion pattern about a matter, any void therein constitutes a permission. As such, there must be a donut in order for there to be a hole.
The relevant discussion and even evidence in writing constitute the donut and as such, there is consent. The multi-millenia doctrine has been substantive (and selectively) overturned by child women of the West (and more–most like women’s India…).
The objectors to the women’s vote over the centuries have been proven 100% accurate in their predictions as to the ill effect of the feminine vote, family destruction, parasitism, domestic violence…
Women’s Canada (the frauenreich of the north where I live) is exactly that. May God judge those children harshly, here below and forever more.
It would appear that my previous attempt to post failed . . .
“but then also allowing females to be treated as foolish children who need to be protected by the state from the consequences of their agreements provides a foolishness encouragement to females to divorce”
This is the perfect example of a ‘moral hazard’, one of many that in amerika we have replicated ad nauseum. What it does though, is to demonstrate that ‘Gold Digging’ has become firmly entrenched in society.
Personally, I’m in favor of kicking the beotches to the curb with the closes on their backs. No alimony, no chillimony, no on-going transfer payments of any kind. Divorce should mean divorce. Attaching transfer payments to the process only corrupts it further . . .
After I read in the National Post the account of this divorce, and the fact that the wife was already being rewarded a very generous alimony payout as well extra benefits on top of the pre-negotiated payout, but this judge–female–chose to void an entire contract, which, knowing how wealthy the McCain family is, you can be sure was an airtight and thorough contract done by a good lawyer, was stupefying.
After reading the details I truly felt as if there is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. It really made me frighteningly confused as to what I should do if I hope to someday marry.
I am glad you picked up this particular divorce affair; no one else seems to be commenting on it yet in the Red Pill Sphere, but its implications are heavy and telling.
Modern marriage is only a way for a man to put himself into financial slavery. The law no longer supports or enforces any of a man’s rights. Consider how courts often ignore the pleas of men who: want to have visitation rights enforced, want to block the mother from moving the children out of state, and want to use DNA evidence proving the children were not fathered by him, thus releasing him from child support… the list is a long one. Just avoid marriage completely — it’s the only sane thing for a man to do.
what an incentive for divorce. Why do our leaders allow laws that bring about the destruction of families?
Well there’s Jobs , bigger Government , Power . And Money Lots of Money . All this Money goes Into Social services , How it come s out is a different story . Its like having a bank account that Takes 4% off of the Banks Total Business .
In America Funding is Doubled if a certain % in in rears so, They make that Happen .
Also, Employment is taxed , Its like taking 39 % of the top for yourself Although we can’t invest as Americans in that Corporations Buy contracts and Make a bundle off HHS and other services .
Some of this funding even goes back into Political Coffers . I can go on for days on the corruption but, I’m starting to puck a little .
Don’t forget Jobs and family services . A monopoly on the workplace is Gold . Free slaves .
Judges and court officials make backroom deals with corporations for Jobs and then get kick backs . Also the prison system kick backs are a big part of Modern Day slavery .
Its complex I know I have seen It all up close and personal .
I felt like some carnival music should have been Playing in the background of that last rant . Like the DNA sequence in Jurassic Park , Ha kids , Government corruption can be fun and easy .
Also I forgot about Dept of the elderly witch is a all together A Money pit .
All under the heading of HHS .
According to most extremely smug Canadians there’s no systemic injustice against men or any other group in Canada’s legal system. Canada is a shining beacon of justice that all the world, particularly Americans, would be well advised to follow. Being this smug it’s inevitable Canadians as a whole would be profoundly ignorant of how far reaching is the devastation wrought by feminist family law north of the 49th parallel.
It’s exactly this smug ignorance that enabled feminism to grow into such a ferocious cancer in Canuckistan that so many men driven to the manosphere in search of an antidote are Canadian. Canadians have a false sense of superiority, at the root of which is a deeply held belief that Canadians are too enlightened and being too “reasonable” are too willing to compromise for there to be any diametrically opposed and fundamentally competing interests in Canadian society. Canadians will always work towards the greater good that benefits all citizens they reason. It’s inconceivable that as Canadians feminists in Canada might be pursuing a supremacist agenda that leaves room only for the utter subjugation of men and boys, and that targets outcomes which stand in direct opposition to the greater good. This can’t be the truth because there are no supremacists in Canada. Canada just doesn’t breed sociopaths like that, particularly not the kind of feminists who within their little sphere of influence would work exclusively towards their own ends with all the intensity of a Hitler or a Stalin, and with just as little conscience to restrain them. If Canadian feminists are upset they must have legitimate cause to see themselves as victims. Everyone can get along with enough compromise and being “privileged” men shouldn’t feel targeted if compromise should start with them giving up rights. It’s only natural. Men just need to listen well enough to figure out where compromise can allow feminists as “victims” to enjoy the same rights everyone else does.
To Canadians this belief is so obviously right there’s no need to question it. Having faith that feminists will be reasonable and will stop asking for more concessions once their needs have been met, it’s impossible for many Canadians to even begin to conceive of how thoroughly the legal, educational, and political system has been corrupted and warped by a feminism that is simply insatiable. The result is a climate so misandrist feminists feel entitled to block audience members from even hearing Warren Farrell speak at the University of Toronto about the problems facing men and boys. To these feminists men shouldn’t be permitted to judge for themselves whether Mr. Farrell’s arguments were justified. Theirs is the same rabid feminism that caused women’s shelter founder Erin Pizzey to say that for gender politics:
The degree to which feminism runs unchecked in Canada is astounding. In Ontario, the Family Law division of the governing bar association (called the Law Society) is almost exclusively composed of women. In fact it’s led by a woman who’s been publicly identified by at least once source as lesbian. Not that there’s any issue with a lesbian practicing family law, but governing bodies of the legal profession conceivably might have influence on proposals for family law reform. If there’s any value in having lawyers in those positions be representative of the overwhelmingly heterosexual couples who must must use those laws to deal with custody, access, and property issues post-divorce, then this lack of representation by heterosexual men is not only a serious concern, but one that’s reached crisis proportions. Especially when even with the deck so slanted heavily in feminism’s favour every one of these lawyers seems to believe the law is not yet anywhere NEAR feminist enough.
Rule of law itself is eroded whenever women are granted political power. Men become second class citizens.
Nullification of legal agreements, the elimination of the principle of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” in campus rape cases, “positive” discrimination written into law, etc. all point to a perversion of rule of law by “feminist jurisprudence”.
If the law is redefined as whatever a woman judge “feels” it should be to benefit other women, then men will be better off under anarchy.
@Anonymous
>a deeply held belief that Canadians are too enlightened and
>being too “reasonable” are too willing to compromise
I dunno… I agree that many Canadians seem to be pretty arrogant with respect to thinking they are smarter/better than the “unenlightened” Americans. Which is a little funny when you consider that one of the reasons many Canadians think they are better is the perception that Americans are arrogant
Canadian federal politics is a three-party system however, and there is plenty of opposition and clashes. I do not see much cooperation between political parties. For the first time in four (or is it five?) elections, we have a majority government that can proceed with an agenda (whether good or bad) without the need to worry about the constant squabbling.
But you unfortunately make a very true, and depressing, point — if we will not even allow ourselves to be aware of the problem, we are certainly not going to be fixing it any time soon.
Anonymous January 14, 2013 at 20:25
You are making things up. I don’t know a single Canadian who says this. Every Canadian I have ever met says Canada is WORSE than the US.
@greyghost
>The socialist countries are in full misandry right now with
>italy awarding some chick 50 million a month.
50 million euros… I can’t even conceive of how you would spend that much in a month. Although the McCain divorce article mentioned $30,000 per month on clothes… that makes just as little sense. Of course, I’m the guy that whines about paying more than $100 for a pair of shoes that I intend to use for 3 years
We just live in a society that is run by ratchet bitches and white knight male-guilt faggots. A lot of dumb broads see the government as their husband and daddy, over their own daddy.
Seems like this feminazi/mangina disease it spreading worldwide. As long as they continue to exist and run society, things will continue to go downhill.
While i agree with nearly everything said in the article and by other commenters, i think in this particular case the court and especially the judge is not to blame.
The husband was plain and simple stupid. With this kind of money he should have signed a prenup back in 1981 and the problem would never have occurred. If the elder McCain wouldn’t have threatened his kids with disinheritance in a verifiable manner the now ex-wife wouldn’t have been able to claim “subtle and psychological” duress.
They made so many mistakes that i’m not sure if their lawyers had been stupid or if they simply did not listen to them…
Yes, the ex-wife is a greedy and ungrateful bitch, by all means, the assets she would have gotten through the contract are more than reasonable. She wanted even more than the judge granted her:
“However, she denied Christine McCain’s claim for child support, saying the spousal payments should cover the costs incurred by the two youngest children during their visits.”
No one is forced to marry and if marriage is that desirable it should never be done without a prenup setup by a capable lawyer. Marriage is nothing else than a legally binding contract between the couple and the government. The government grants you certain privileges if you are married but expects on the other hand that the couple takes care of each other financially even in the case of divorce. You don’t buy a house or a car without reading through the fine print, why making marriage an exemption?
They had a prenup and the court threw it out!! She said she signed it because it was the only way the man’s father, the patriarch, would allow them to get married. So beware!! Not even a prenup is bullet proof.
@anonymouse
You’re either associating with very few Canadians, or you’re imposing your own views and aren’t truly listening to what Canadians are saying. Starting with healthcare, moving through education, and ending with Canada’s supposed “moral superiority”, Canadians generally rate Canada much higher than the US and completely dismiss all the innovation, leadership, and entrepreneurship in the US as not related to any merits of the American political system or culture, but simply a matter of their “bigger population”.
@Freckled
You’re either a troll or you haven’t been listening to any of the countless stories you’ve read on this site. Read Canlii.org. Courts always find an excuse to be feminist.
Marriage is not an enforceable contract for men. If you’re not a troll this is the exact kind of dangerous willful ignorance that allowed feminism to completely infect Canada.
@Dale
Thanks for your reply. I agree that sure there’s “plenty of opposition and clashes” in which politicians in Canada’s “federal three-party system” argue what is best for Canadians as a whole. But there’s a big difference between arguing what’s best for everyone, and arguing that as far as fundamental ideological differences among various segments of Canadian society (such as men and feminists) there is no such thing as “best for everyone”. When two groups are diametrically opposed any government solution will unfairly benefit one side and injure the other. This is why acknowledging fundamental and competing differences is to argue that government should just step out of our lives. Most Canadians believe the government is essentially a benign force that benefits all, so for them this thinking is heretical. Far more Americans believe the opposite. For many Canadians who don’t recognize that this belief in smaller government is a good part of what makes America so innovative and entrepreneurial, American rejection of big government and the supposed “greater good” that only big government is capable of (especially re. healthcare) labels American’s as selfish.
The National Post article did highlight something however that I’d love to read more about. Just a generation or so ago men used to dream of starting a family business which after he was blessed with children would be renamed “and Sons”. Now generational family businesses have all but disappeared. For all except the super rich generational wealth has disappeared too. A good part of the reason why are divorce laws which have eliminated a man’s ability to protect his legacy for his children. Has anyone written at length about the impact of this social engineering and redistribution of wealth?
This is a problem not so much with the law, but with its execution. There should be no grounds to throw out a pre-nup. None, zero, nada. The process allows for both parties to do discovery before signing the documents. The law is not written such that a judge can throw it out as they want, its just what they do, and the higher courts don’t want precedent that doesn’t allow them this immense power, so if they don’t like the ruling, they will find a technicality that won’t take that power away from them to overturn the ruling. There is no excuse for alimony in the modern western world.
@ Anonymous
I can assure you that i am not a troll and that i read the stories on this site. I do agree with you. Family courts are full of female judges, who in turn, more often than not, rule in favor of the women. That is inexcusable behavior.
You wrote “Marriage is not an enforceable contract for men”. I did not say otherwise.
I really need to clarify what i meant exactly. I take Germany as an example because i know the legal system there and Germany is – similar to Canada – a welfare state.
A marriage is only legally binding in Germany if it is done by a civil ceremony (thanks to Bismarck and his fight with the catholic church). Meaning you can marry in church as often as you want without any consequences.
If your marriage is done by civil ceremony the state grants you certain privileges. You are allowed to have the same last name, you get better conditions for loans if you want to build or buy a home (not always) and the most important reason, the better earning partner is eligible for a better tax class (that can make a difference of several thousand euro per year you don’t have to pay the state). Those privileges come with a price. The state does not want to have to take care of you after a divorce as a charity case. That’s why the state always tries to hold one person responsible for paying for the other, especially in case of a divorce. The state is never a fairy godmother who only wants the best for you. The state wants your best, meaning your money.
You can prevent most of the financial results of a divorce by signing a pre-nup. A pre-nup has to be signed before the marriage takes place otherwise it is a worthless piece of paper.
This is the case in Canada too. The husband in question married the now ex-wife in 1981 without a pre-nup. The agreement in question was signed in 1997. An agreement signed during a marriage is nearly always void.
They had a prenup and the court threw it out!! She said she signed it because it was the only way the man’s father, the patriarch, would allow them to get married. So beware!! Not even a prenup is bullet proof.
This is hardly news, unfortunately. “He wouldn’t marry me unless I signed that!” counts as a contract under duress. Which is why it’s the smart play to never marry, at least under the laws and regime that pertains in “western” countries. Some folks get lucky, but do you really want to play Russian Roulette with 3/6 chambers filled?
Jewish men have feminist trying to get separataion of religious and secular laws mutated to get what they want. Because Courts have ruled that forcing a Jewish husband to grant a “get” violates separation of churc and state clause, feminist sympathisers have tried to change divorce document that husband must grant a “get” Wikipedia link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_(divorce_document)
I was married to a Canadian. Never again! The way she and her family thinks is completely warped and dangerous. No Way!
O.T
hey,
Spearhead has got to do an article on this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/scientists-rewrite-rules-of-human-reproduction-7624708.html
We need more stories like this. If for no other reason than these are the issues that help suffocate the few remaining embers of marriage burning in the minds of men. I bet you 10,000 men read this story, this very story, and swore on the spot, either consciously or subconsciously, never to marry.
And as the question of why the government, courts included, allow such travesties of justice to be perpetrated, the answer is simple. The government thrives on misery, suffering, poverty, and societal decay. What better way to reach these goals than to obliterate fatherhood…the only real competitor that government truly has.
Thanks to so many for above comments. I must agree that Canadians do show a profound smugness with regard to any who are not inlight with the femifascism of the Canadian society/state. Such certainly is the case vis-a-vis the USA.
Varioius peoples show smugness in various ways. Americans admittedly do but the Canadian version of smugness is to deny its existence entirely. Official Canadianism is the worst. It’s lefty, feminist, parasitic, unintelligent, unaccountable, threatening, massively government-funded and union-funded…
Yes, as a resident of Canada (I cannot claim citizenship–I’m male, a gender foreigner, stateless…), I can agree with the comments made by writers on this topic. Thanks for pointing out yet another real, Canadian arrogance.
In true feminist fashion, when the frauenreich of women’s Canada goes bankrupt, one can bet that those responsible for its bankruptcy will claim that it was because of non-Canadian determinism. The coming bankruptcy is a direct result of the nonwisdom/arrogance/nose-in-the-air/unaccountability/entitlementism of so much which is Canadian.
The most smug Canadians are our leftists. Unfortunately, in urban centres, in Canada, the overwhelming majority are leftist. Anonymous is spot on about feminism in Canada. Female supremecism is rampant. I’ve been though the family courts here – run by feminists and gays. Been there, bought the t-shirt. Men, especially white men, are universally loathed. Masculinity is only allowed within the confines of the hockey rink
I fuxking hate what my country has become. Not coincidentally, prostitution is rampant and the sexual outlet for most young men is the strip club, which is little more than a brothel. Massage parlours and escort agencies abound. We consume more pot than Jamaica. Our women are nasty feminist bitches, and spinsterhood is rampant as well. You want an example of how feminism has hurt families and left women alone, desolate and childless, look no further than my shithole of a country.
@nugganu
Don’t feel alone. As far as I’m concerned, you just summed up the USA. It is strange to think (resultant our experiences) that so many of us men have come to perceive our women as threatening and dangerous enemies to stay clear from or at best, protect ourselves against. But, on the other hand, men have been warning other men out the treacherous nature of women since the beginning of time. I still believe the bulk of women can be made (on the overall) virtuous, but only so long as men maintain authority over them. What that means at the bottom line is that we must reject the word equal to compare the sexes and replace it with different. Everything evil begins with that word. The moment it is accepted to describe us is the moment women become our competitors instead of partners. And they will compete for everything including authority. It is then a short step until they become our enemies. We tune out resultant the bitching etc. and they go insane without their natural anchors, the patriarchic male.
” In an affidavit, McCain said his father “made no secret of his unshakeable desire to pass on his wealth through generations of his bloodline, not fragmented by marital breakups.” ”
So you can have that desire, be unshakable about it, and draw up contracts all you want, it is all powerless against a feminazi judge.
She (or he) will twist, turn, spin and bend the law in every possible and impossible way, so that the “law of all laws” will be ruled: The Woman Must Always Win.
If a contract is very beneficial for a woman, it is enforced by law, up to the smallest detail.
But if the contract can be used as a leverage, to force even more money out of the man, then that route is followed, obviously.
The court will always search to find the maximum profit for the woman.
Depending on the situation, this can mean enforcement of the contract, or use the contract as leverage for even more profits for the woman, or just throw the contract out of the window, and use a different strategy.
A man has no other choice than to stay away from women, because for a man, it is a no-win situation.
And if you come in contact with a woman, treat her like the poison snake she is: handle with extreme caution.
Cash and prizes! Divorce that “beta” schlub and make him pay for your life picking up guys in bars now!
Hurts to hear Anon say it but it is true.
I am a Canadian and when Erin Pizzey says she would never return there on a speaking tour you know we are fucked. Just look at the U of T and the Ann Coulter fiasco. Say what you want about Coulter she had a right to speak at the University of Ottawa and when they cancelled her speech because they could not guarantee her safety well you know this country is fucked. I am interested to hear Mr Price’s thoughts on this vis a vis the feminist stronghold we have become as he seems to have now spent some time up in Canada
There are a whole bunch of other country’s that have an interest in American politics . There interest does not make them American by proxy .
We need to slam the door on these intrusive Nemesis . With force if needed . This should be the Cry of domestic terrorism . Pre 1980 we would just label them Spy .
Trying to worm their ways into our society is a crime . Obama needs to get his head out of his ass and stomp back the tide of Canadian and English terrorism in American Politics .
Didn’t we have to fight them a few times before for being intrusive . They will never get it . Cunts all of them .
They Have no right to discuss are system in any venue .
…..Canada is just as feminist as the USA. Yes the cities are filled with mindless, arrogant, ignorant liberals but we DO have more liberty than the US.
^^Sorry for not finishing that;
America is further down the road of tyranny than we are up here. The Patriot Act, FEMA, DHS, NDAA etc. tell me the US government is preparing for some hardcore confrontation with Americans in the coming years. American law enforcement has become very militarized.
All political parties in both nations serve the totalitarian oligarchs and their plans to destroy the pillars of society, …..family, gender, race, nation etc. so we could be rolled into their plans for a socialist world government. Feminism is part of this long term plan. It was created and financed by the oligarchs (Rockefeller foundation) to accomplish a number of goals.
- to destroy the cultural fabric of the west by breaking up families (atomization)
- to lower the birth rate
- to de-humanize and de-motivate men
This article screams “MEN DO NOT GET MARRIED”. MARRIAGE IS A WASTE OF TIME FOR MEN. The feminist laws will undermine your marriage and devour you like a shark eats a fish.
Any Canadian male who has been through family court can assure you that Canada is one fucked-up feminist shit-hole. Men long ago lost any right to be presumed equal under the law; criminal and family law are filled with obvious anti-male, pro-female discrimination.
For example, check out the definitions of male vs female parent under Alberta law, or the federal criminal code to see what happens to men and women who kill their infant children.
This is just the law, it doesn’t even begin to cover what actually happens when the law is ‘applied’ in the courts.
Rather than engage in debate over who is smug and superior, which country is better or worse, we’d be better off mourning the loss of liberty, truth and justice in both our nations, and figuring out what the hell we can do about it.
This will cause allot of Canadian men to go MGTOW.
Those are some good biblical principals,when it comes to marriage.
A judge can decide that ANY contract is not fair and change it/declare it void. It’s not just prenups. Contracts are never 100% binding, sorry.
And if you read the linked article it seems like the contract was coerced, and those are never valid.
I think Mr. McCain was a bit manipulative and, really, a contract signed under those conditions is questionable. Both genders lost in this one.
BOHICA!