An interesting exchange regarding legalization of prostitution

**WARNING** Very long post follows, with copies of email exchanges between myself and another person. If you're not interested, or can't be bothered, please feel free not to read it. "tl;dr" responses will be evidence only of your lack of comprehension of this simple warning :)



Background:



Canada's Supreme Court recently struck down Canadian anti-prostitution laws, arguing that those laws subjected prostitutes to an increased level of danger. Personally, I think this is a great thing. The day after the judgement, the following editorial, taking the anti-legalization position, appeared in one of Canada's national newspapers, The National Post:

Quote:

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that offences to the Criminal Code around prostitution are unconstitutional, reversing a 1990 SCC ruling stating that elimination of prostitution through law enforcement was a valid position. What happened to change their minds? Not the squalid trade in human flesh, which has not changed in 23 (or 2,300) years. No, it is cultural attitudes, already liberal in 1990, that have shifted further toward the libertarian perspective, which regards “sex workers” through a morally neutral lens as a fact of social life, a profession like any other, freely chosen by adults who know their own mind, and requiring nothing more than light regulation to curtail the spread of disease. This happy-clappy view of prostitution has been persuasively marketed to the public through the slick rhetoric of theory-dependent pundits and by the selection bias behind those appearing in the media as representative of the trade: a tiny minority of articulate, self-possessed members of prostitution’s “high-track” — the canny, self-protective and strictly opportunistic 10% of the profession — whose earthy personalities and peppy, sorority-sister narratives project the benign image our credulous liberal elites wish to associate with “the life.” ~~ snip ~~ read the rest at the original site ~~

I felt that this was a rather gross misrepresentation of the reasons why the Supreme Court made it's decision; and as the author's email address was provided with the article, I ventured to send her a response. I didn't expect to get anything back from her, but to my surprise, she responded, and we've had a rather enlightening (if depressing) exchange.



Following are our emails to each other. I fully admit, in retrospect, that some of my arguments were not expressed in the best way, and some relied on assumptions that I didn't actually prove. It's not my best work; but I still think it comes out heads and shoulders above my opponent's responses. I share this here simply for another peek inside the "conservative Christian mind".



My first email:

Quote:

Dear Barbara, I'm sure that lots of people will be writing to you about your recent National Post article. I quite heartily disagree with your position, and hope that I could get some further feedback from you in regards to my arguments. First, a little about my credentials in this regard. I'm a male (which some would argue would disqualify me from entering the argument, or at least minimize the relevance of my opinion...but I disagree, as I will argue). I'm Canadian, born and raised in rural Ontario, but have been living and working in China for 20 years. While in university, I did volunteer work to help street kids and the homeless, including trying to help prostitutes get off the street. In China, besides establishing my own successful businesses (www.newleadersgroup.com and www.absoluteexecutive.com), I've also established a non-profit organization that works with a Chinese ethnic minority, the Mosuo (www.mosuoproject.org). They're a fascinating culture, one of the last remaining matriarchal cultures on the planet. They also live in one of the most remote and poorest areas of China; the average annual income there is the equivalent of around $100-$150. Among the many projects we do (including education, economic development, environmental protection, cultural preservation, etc.) are projects to get Mosuo girls out of prostitution (or keep them from ever entering it to begin with). As with many impoverished areas, young Mosuo girls are easily led away to the 'big city' to work as prostitutes, because they see no other options to make money. Some become prostitutes knowingly; others are deceived or forced into it. I've witnessed personally the terrible results that many of these girls face -- getting AIDS, becoming drug addicts, committing suicide, etc. So believe me...I am absolutely opposed to women being forced into prostitution. And I've worked hard to help women get out of those situations. Now, let me point out that in China, prostitution is 100% illegal. Yet despite being illegal, and despite having strict punishments for both prostitutes and pimps, it not only flourishes, but the abuses faced by Chinese prostitutes are far worse, and far more common, than those faced by Canadian prostitutes. Which brings me to the reasons why I disagree so strongly with you: 1) Your entire article is a straw man argument. The Supreme Court didn't decide to overturn the prostitution laws because they "bought into a happy tale" about how wonderful being a prostitute is. Quite the contrary, the predominant reason for their decision was to minimize the danger faced by prostitutes themselves. I don't quite understand how you can even try to make the argument you do, when the very foundation of this ruling is that prostitutes face significant risk of violence and personal harm. How, exactly, do you come to interpret that as a "happy tale"? In fact, your article doesn't even attempt to address this core issue; instead, you take an argument that has little to do with the Supreme Court's reasons for it's ruling, and try to use that to show that they were wrong -- the very definition of a straw man argument. I can only assume that either A) you didn't really read or understand the ruling, or B) you engaged in deliberately deceptive arguments in order to make your case. Neither of those assumptions paints you in a terribly positive light. 2) You note in your article that in those countries where prostitution has been legalized, rates of prostitution have increased. True enough. But you fail to note that in those same countries, the percentage of prostitutes with sexually transmitted diseases has increased significantly; that violence towards prostitutes has decreased; etc. Again, it is a not-uncommon trait of the disingenuous debater to cherry-pick their data, using only that data which supports their argument, and ignoring everything else. 3) Even worse, while pointing out the many problems with prostitution -- and in this regard, I mostly agree with you, there are a great many problems attendant with prostitution -- you fail entirely to demonstrate how not legalizing prostitution accomplishes anything more. In fact, many of the countries that have the strictest laws against prostitution (like China) also have the greatest rates of abuse towards prostitutes. Why is this? Becausewhen prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are much more afraid to go seek the help of the legal authorities when they are abused...because they risk being arrested, and getting a criminal record themselves. But when prostitution is legal, the same women can feel much safer to seek legal assistance, medical assistance, etc. My god -- prostitution has been illegal for hundreds/thousands of years, and the problem hasn't even slightly improved under such draconian laws. What's that definition of insanity -- "Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results"? You express concern for these women, yet you propose upholding a system that hasn't done a damn thing to improve their situation. If you're going to criticize attempts to legalize prostitution, at least make an honest effort to present a viable alternative. "Keep doing things the way we are" very obviously is not working. 4) Another glaring oversight is the fact that your article consistently refers to prostitutes only as female. As you'll be well aware, many men also become prostitutes...and can face many of the same problems, or even worse. Not only do they face the same abuses, but the social stigma of being a gay male prostitute is even worse than that of being a female prostitute. You attempt to frame this as a "women's issue"...but it's not. Male prostitutes are just as affected by these laws as females are. Male prostitutes may be fewer in number; but that doesn't render their abuses or problems irrelevant or unimportant. 5) Here's how I see it. First, prostitution is always going to exist. This is a plain fact, fully supported by the evidence of thousands of years of history. Any argument based on the idea of eliminating prostitution is fundamentally flawed, it is pointless, the argument of an idealist with no footing in reality. Given that fact, the goal should not be to stop prostitution, but to minimize the worst effects of prostitution. What are the worst effects? A) Drug use -- when illegal, prostitutes are far less likely to seek assistance. Legalization of prostitution (and yes, legalization of drugs, too) means it is much easier for women to seek assistance, without worrying about facing legal ramifications simply for seeking help. B) Violence -- ditto with A) C) Being forced into prostitution -- similar to above, women are far more likely to report abuse and seek assistance if they don't have to worry about potentially facing criminal charges themselves. D) Organized crime -- at present, the vast majority of financial income for organized crime comes from illegal prostitution, and illegal drugs. Legalize prostitution (but make it illegal to work as a pimp, selling women to others), and a huge source of their income is removed. It hurts the real criminals, while benefiting the prostitutes, who can safely seek assistance from the authorities. If you disagree, rather than resorting to straw man arguments, or arguing for existing policies that have obviously failed to address any of the main issues facing prostitutes, please present me with an alternative that does more to accomplish the above goals than legalization of prostitution will. Your argument seems to rely almost exclusively on the issue of how many women are prostitutes (and thus, you conclude that having an increase in prostitution in countries that have legalized it is "bad"); I'd contend that the most important measure is not the number of women (and men) who become prostitutes, but rather the percentage of those women (and men) who face the risks and dangers I listed above. Legalizing prostitution, while perhaps increasing the number of prostitutes, has been demonstrably proven to lessen the risks and dangers faced by those women (and men). In the end, I find your article full of plenty of rhetoric, and claims of concern for the abuses faced by these women; yet I see absolutely nothing in your proposal that takes even the first step towards improving their situation. It is, essentially, an emotional "I don't like it, therefore it's wrong" argument. To borrow from a much better writer than myself, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." To conclude -- I re-emphasize my challenge to you. Take all the problems you listed in your article. And demonstrate to me how your solution accomplishes anything to reduce or minimize those problems. Not just idle speculation, but based on actual facts. Because all the facts that I can find indicate that A) the current system has failed miserably, and there is virtually no evidence that criminalization reduces either prostitution, or the abuses related to it, and B) that legalization of prostitution has yielded demonstrable benefits to the women (and men) involved, in terms of reduced rates of sexual disease, reduced rates of violence, etc. Regards, John Lombard

Her first response:

Quote:

You have cherrypicked from my column. I have no objection to trying other methods and noted that criminalization of customers seems to work in Norway and Sweden to diminish trafficking. But criminalization there must be in order to give the police the tools to fight the other kinds of crime that flourish around prosititution. Once the police can't be pro-active, the onus falls on the women to report abuse. Women in sex trafficking operations don't report abuse for all the reasons you know. Men get breast cancer too, but let's get real on numbers. The only people who will be safer with this ruling are those women who are already tough, smart, pro-active in their own security and legal citizens. The kind that were paraded before th emedia and who launched the challenge in the first place. They are not representative. The rest will remain in their invisible chains, only this time without police nosing around to even give them a chance of escape. I am sure you know a great deal more than I do about this subject in general. But my job is to suss out the general cultural attitudes that influence the way judges think. Twenty years ago judges assumed marriage was the union of a man and a woman. Suddenly they discovered the "right" of gays to get married. What happened? New data? New stats? No. Their attitude changed along with everyone else's - or every liberal's. Same here. They are not decriminalizing to make women safer. They are decriminalizing because they feel uncomfortable "judging" women in the sex trade. That is my take on the judgment. I am well aware of the fact that legal or illegal, the sex trade will go on. It is a question of whether those in it are free agents or not. You can regulate legal prostitutes, but that won't do anything for the those being sex trafficked. Something has to be criminalized for police to get at the bad guys. I don't care whether it is the prostitutes or the Johns and made that clear. The rest was a cultural observation which I believe is spot on. Barbara

My subsequent response (note that she is, to her credit, a much more concise writer than me...;)

Quote:

Barbara, Thank you for the response...it is greatly appreciated (even though, obviously, I disagree). First, in regards to "cherry-picking", can you please tell me in what regard I cherry-picked? Your fundamental claim, in the title and the body of your piece, was that the Supreme Court fell for a "happy tale" about the wonderful life of prostitution. As I pointed out, this is very, very far from the case -- that their ruling was based primarily on decreasing danger to prostitutes. The very recognition that they face such danger puts the lie to the claim that they "fell for a happy tale". I would appreciate if you could cite actual evidence that their ruling was made because they thought it was a "happy tale", as opposed to being done to try to minimize the very real dangers that prostitutes face. Or, if you insist that I'm "cherry picking", to demonstrate that this was not the argument you were making. And decriminalization of prostitution doesn't mean decriminalization of physical violence, psychological abuse, forcing people into prostitution against their will, etc. These laws already exist, and are not in any way affected by decriminalizing prostitution. So I truly don't understand your claim about "Once the police can't be pro-active, the onus falls on the women to report abuse." Not only can police be more pro-active, but prostitutes are far more likely to be cooperative with them, as they face no fear of prosecution. "Men get breast cancer too". Wow. Have you ever actually worked with prostitutes? The situation for male prostitutes is often worse than that for female prostitutes, for the very reason of the dismissive attitude that you have just expressed. I find it incredible that in an article where you are claiming to champion the rights of prostitutes, that you dismiss a whole segment of that population as essentially irrelevant to the discussion. In regards to your next quote: The only people who will be safer with this ruling are those women who are already tough, smart, pro-active in their own security and legal citizens. The kind that were paraded before th emedia and who launched the challenge in the first place. They are not representative. The rest will remain in their invisible chains, only this time without police nosing around to even give them a chance of escape. Actually, it's pretty much the opposite. The police will no longer be chasing after prostitutes. They'll be able to devote more resources to chasing down pimps. You'll note that the changes to the law don't make it legal to be a pimp. Nor does it make it legal to force women into prostitution. The police will be able to devote more resources to focusing on real abuses (which are all still illegal) -- bringing prostitutes into Canada illegally. Physically and psychologically abusing women. Where on earth do you get the idea that decriminalizing prostitution means that police ignore all the troubles? All of the abuses that you list are still 100% illegal! And now, instead of harassing and hunting down the prostitutes, the police can focus more energy where it needs to be...on the people guilty of perpetrating the worst abuses. With the added benefit that many prostitutes will now be more willing to work with and help the police in accomplishing that goal. "They are not decriminalizing to make women safer. They are decriminalizing because they feel uncomfortable "judging" women in the sex trade. That is my take on the judgment. " So...let me get this straight...they made this ruling because they're "uncomfortable judging women in the sex trade"...so that means that you are comfortable judging women in the sex trade? I'm sure that's not your intended meaning...but it demonstrates the fundamental flaw in your argument. That "not judging" the women doesn't automatically make you a liberal. In fact, I'd say it's the very opposite. That it was those older, more patriarchal attitudes that blamed women for prostitution, and treated them as criminals rather than as victims, that is the primary reason we have laws that make prostitution illegal. It's a step forward that we are no longer blaming the victims, and saying that they have an equal right to protection that everyone else has, and to stop judging them and treating them as second-rate citizens. Again -- everything I see from you is opinion. You yourself state that "that is my take on the judgement". Your opinion. Opinion is not fact. I would, again, appreciate you presenting me with actual facts. Facts that support your contention that legalizing prostitution means police will do less to protect prostitutes (a claim that is falsified by the experience of countries that have, in fact, legalized it). Again, let me point out that I'm not saying it will decrease the number of prostitutes, but rather that it will increase protection for prostitutes. One of the most telling factors to me in this debate, as I read arguments on both sides, is that your side of the argument needs to rely mostly on opinion and appeal to "traditional values" (the same values that not long ago regarded prostitutes as evil purveyors of immorality seeking to seduce men into transgression...rather than as the victims they are). While the other side is able to refer to plentiful actual evidence that supports their stance. And that, in the end, is why the Supreme Court made the judgement it did. Because the anti-criminalization side had more actual evidence to support their claim, while the pro-criminalization side relied primarily on appeals to emotion and claims of morality. In China, sadly, I still see the "traditional values" to which you seem to be championing Patriarchal values where female prostitutes are considered de facto guilty by merit of the fact that they are prostitutes. Where the authorities most definitely are not afraid of "judging" those women. They judge them as worthless, as criminals, and immoral trash. I'd far rather the attitude of the Canadian Supreme Courts -- that judge them as equal to all other Canadians under the law, as victims who deserve help and support. But that's just me. Regards, John Lombard

Her response (by this time, getting even more shorter...and pretty much abandoning all her previous arguments in favor of the "it's immoral and I don't like it" position):

Quote:

There is no gay "right" to marriage. There was a need for liberals to feel comfortable about gays being "equal". They were therefore prepared to reinvent marriage as something it never was to accommodate them. They changed marriage from an institution safeguarding children to an institution celebrating love, something that does not need an institution to be celebrated. So my analogy is actually a good one according to my principles and understanding of what is valuable to society - strong families as the foundational building block - and what is merely a sop to liberal self-admiration. It is the same with prostitution. The need to escape moral judgment of anyone's "lifestyle" is so pressing, the idea of criminalization obscures the fact that the practice is - you know - immoral. That most women do it of necessity is very sad and we must help them to achieve some dignity in their lives. But to protest that there is any dignity in the renting out of one's body parts as a general rule (there are therapeutic and compassionate-case exceptions) is simply ludicrous and a triumph of theory over reality.

And my final (and again fairly lengthy) response to her:

Quote:

Dear Barbara, Again, thanks for taking the time to respond. We are, obviously, ideologically opposed, and it's unlikely we'll ever reach a point of agreement. So let me finish with a few points from my perspective: 1) Yes, I am a "liberal". And I'm proud of it. As a "liberal", I've spent much of my life working directly with prostitutes -- both male and female -- to help them escape a terrible situation. I've invested my own money into building skill training centers in the Chinese Himalayas, to teach local women there skills that they can use to make money, to give them a viable alternative to prostitution. I've personally helped a number of girls (some as young as 14) to not only get out of prostitution, but to complete their education. If you need proof of this, I can't provide anything absolute, beyond A) the website I linked to in my first email, www.mosuoproject.org, which outlines the different things we do, and B) an interview in National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk...o-fathers.html) in which I am interviewed and quoted. It doesn't mention prostitution, but it does establish fairly clearly that I am who I say I am. For you, as a "conservative"...how many of these poor women about whom you are so concerned have you actually, personally helped? How many of them have you gone and spent a few days with them, understanding their lives, the reasons they made their decisions, etc.? How much personal sacrifice have you made to try to help them? Because from what I can see, the job of the "conservative" is to make moral proclamations from the comfort of their living room. And as the saying goes -- if you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. 2) I revel in the history of "liberal" causes. First, let's define "liberal" and "conservative" a little here. "Conservatives" tend to pride themselves on adhering to "traditional values", championing "good moral values", and upholding the "status quo" (and tend to like to use the Bible to justify their position). "Liberals", on the other hand, tend to be those who have the audacity to question the status quo, who are at the forefront of demanding change, who have the temerity to claim that your "good moral values" aren't that terribly good. The vast majority of major social change in our society has come at the hands of "liberals", who had to fight tooth and nail with "conservatives" who wanted to maintain the status quo. Slavery? Liberals fought to abolish it, conservatives fought to maintain it (using arguments such as "tradition", "status quo", "the natural order", etc.). Civil rights and equality for blacks? Liberals fought to make blacks equal, conservatives fought against it ("Letting blacks into school with our white children will cause too many problems" or "Black men can't control their sexual impulses, we don't want them raping our white girls"). How about equality for women? It was the conservatives -- people exactly like you -- who argued that the Bible says it is wrong to put women in positions of leadership, it is "unnatural" for women to have equal status with men, and that it will "cause irreparable damage to societyif we make women equal with men." Of course, today, most conservatives agree that slavery was wrong, segregation was wrong, not giving women equal status was wrong, etc. Why is that? Simple -- because of the result of the evil "liberals" of the past, you have grown up in a society where those things are considered as wrong. Today's "status quo" is that blacks, women, and other such groups are equal. And, by that same token, your grandchildren will grow up in a society where gays are equal, and where prostitutes are fully deserving of equal protection under the law, regardless of some conservative's moral objections to it. And your grandchildren will view gay rights, and issues surrounding prostitution, in the same way that you view slavery and racial segregation today. Your ability to express yourself equally with men, to get the same education as men, to have the same employment opportunities as men -- those are all due, in large part, to those evil "liberals". So I am proud of being a liberal. I share a common history with people who have fought for equality, against the voices and efforts of self-serving hypocritical bigots, who tried to insist that their personal moral standards dictated that certain segments of society did not deserve equality with everyone else. 3) Your position is, itself, hypocritical. I know that you'll take offense at this, and deny it -- so allow me to explain why I say this. You take the position that you are concerned about the abuses faced by women who are prostitutes. You claim that it is your desire to help or protect them. Yet your subsequent comments demonstrate that this is not true. That for you, it is a purely moral position, in which the dangers risked by prostitutes is relevant only insofar as it serves to support your personal beliefs. Allow me to illustrate the fundamental difference between your argument, and mine. Let's start with a fact that I believe both of us can agree on. Around 80% of prostitutes express the desire to leave prostitution, they wish they were not in this situation. Now, let's take two different situations: in the first situation, decriminalization of prostitution leads to over 90% of prostitutes expressing the desire to leave...in other words, the situation for prostitutes gets even worse, there is even more abuse. In the second situation, decriminalization of prostitution leads to 60% of prostitutes expressing the desire to leave...in other words, the situation for prostitutes has improved, there is less danger, less abuse. How would you and I react to each situation? In the first situation, both of us would, I suspect, agree with each other. This would serve as quantifiable proof that decriminalization of prostitution had failed. And I, for one, would be more than willing to reconsider my position, and look at alternatives. But in the second situation...while I would hold it up as proof that decriminalization worked, I'm certain that you (and your ilk) would still proclaim that it was proof that decriminalization is wrong; most likely, you'd say something along the line that "by decreasing the dangers, you've made prostitution more attractive, so more women will want to become prostitutes. Therefore, decriminalization is obviously wrong". I doubt that you even see the problem here, so let me make it explicitly clear. In my case, I'm willing to re-examine my position, based on actual evidence. But for you...even if the evidence indicated 100% that decriminalization would decrease harm and danger to prostitutes, you would still oppose it. It doesn't matter if harm and danger to prostitutes increases, or decreases...to you, it is simply "wrong", and regardless of what results there are, you will interpret those results in a manner to support your own opinion. Your personal theories of morality trump the actual real danger and suffering faced by these prostitutes. 4) As is the case with so many conservatives, you have to rely on lies, deception, and half-truths to make your case. The entire article that you wrote about why the Supreme Court was wrong is a complete exercise in deception, as I've pointed out in two emails to you. I've challenged you multiple times to present me with actual evidence to support your claims...and all that you do is respond with more opinions. You are incapable of providing proof of the claims you made in your article, because your claims are, quite simply, false. The Supreme Court made it's decision based primarily on the issue of the potential danger faced by prostitutes, and the principle that prostitutes are just as deserving of being protected from violence as any other member of our society. The Supreme Court further decided that prostitutes face greater danger when prostitution is illegal, than when it is legal. And that therefore, current Canadian laws result in greater danger and violence towards prostitutes, leading to the conclusion that those laws are wrong. Just as it would be wrong if Canada had laws that made women more unsafe, or blacks, or any other such group. Your claim that the Supreme Court "bought into a happy tale" is absolutely, completely, and demonstrably wrong. In fact, the Supreme Court went to great lengths to list the specific dangers and abuses that prostitutes face. Rape, drug abuse, suicide, forced sexual slavery, kidnapping, etc. What part of that sounds to you like a "prostitute's happy tale"?!? I, an "evil liberal" who is seeking the downfall of society -- I'm actively working with prostitutes, trying to help them get out of the terrible situations they've found themselves in. You, the "morally motivated conservative", aren't doing a damn thing to help those women that I can see, beyond pontificating from a virtual pulpit, using claims that are demonstrably untrue, deliberate distorting the facts. Am I proud of being liberal? Damn right I am. I'd far rather lay claim to a history with a group that has been at the forefront of pushing for positive social change, than to identify with a group that has consistently resisted that change, and used trumped-up claims of morality or social stability to justify abuse and marginalization of different segments of our society. I'm sure that you'll disagree -- that's the nature of such things. I see no need for you to respond further, unless you really wish to do so. It is obvious that we will never reach a point of agreement; and equally obvious to me that you have no desire to have a really honest discussion. I've twice pointed out how completely wrong the claims in your initial article are, and challenged you to respond with proof to support your claim -- and you've entirely failed to do so (because, as you well know, there is no such proof). I've challenged you to provide evidence that criminalization of prostitution prevents the abuses that you yourself claim are so terrible -- and you've entirely failed to do so (again, because as you well know, our entire history of making prostitution illegal has more than adequately demonstrated it doesn't do the first thing to help those women). All I will get from you is opinions, based on a platform of moral platitudes that sound distressingly similar to the "moral arguments" that conservatives of the past used to justify slavery, segregation, and treating women as second-class citizens. I appreciate your willingness to participate in this exchange, if only to give me a little more insight into the "conservative mind". And I'm sure that my responses will likewise confirm your opinions of the "evil liberals". Just let me finish with one final challenge. If you really, truly care about these women as much as you claim...get off your chair, step away from your computer, and actually get out there and get your hands dirty helping them. Because in the end, the greatest benefit for those women and men who are caught unwillingly in a life of prostitution isn't passing laws to either legalize or criminalize prostitution. It lays in the average person, in our society's sense of social responsibility to help them. You really care about prostitutes? Going out and meeting them, helping to get them off the street, helping them find alternatives to prostitution...that will accomplish more than a whole ream of articles about why prostitution should be illegal. If you're not willing to do that...then I say you lose the right to even have a voice in the debate. You're just another moralist pontificating from the comfort of their home, pronouncing judgment on others without ever having to actually invest yourself in the lives of those you claim to want to help. Regards, John Lombard

I am waiting to see if there will be any further response from her; I suspect there will be, if only to claim that it was conservatives who fought for freedom for slaves and women, and that liberals are responsible for all society's evils.

via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=270675&goto=newpost