Potential Of Womens' Only Cabs In NB Gets Dudes MAD!!!!

Not the most graceful post title to be sure, but I'm supposed to be on vacation here, anyways. So, let's get right to it. As usual, here's the link to the CBC story. I'll give you the skinny. This dude in Saint John, David Barnes, realizes that for some women, getting into a cab with a dudely driver can be a scary thing. You're in an enclosed environment with a dude you don't know for an undefined period of time. Alone. No duh that gives lots of women the willies. Especially when you consider how common sexual assault by cab drivers is. So, this dude isn't a feminist. He isn't trying to make a statement. He just noticed how female-only cabs seem to have caught on over in Europe, and probably wants to make a buck or two doing it over here. Because there's nothing like a dude cashing in on the fact that women are afraid of men to really make you aware of the "feminized society" that we live in.

And then there's the comments. And they are BAD. Apparently, just the thought, the mere mention of possibly, maybe, sometime, somewhere starting a female-only cab service in this country is equatable with passing a law that it's now legal to shoot dudes' dicks off after five on Thursdays. Dudes are up in fucking arms about how "misandric" this new service would be. "It'd put male cab drivers out of business!" "How's a dude supposed to get home if the cabs are only picking up chicks?" "You know, one time, Karla Homolka killed a dude, so that proves that dudes aren't the only violent ones!" You know the kind of bullshit that gets spouted by the MRA fucks that mostly populate the CBC comment threads.

But, there was one comment I read that really made my skin crawl and made me realize just what kind of heartless, depraved FUCKWADS are shitting on womens' issues on the CBC. It was a reply to a comment made by someone called FatherJones. (As an aside FatherJones, like Mother Jones? If so, I think that's kinda neat.) Anyways, Jones says:

A dear friend of mine was badly beaten and sexually assaulted by a cab driver. It's sadly not that uncommon. The police didn't really do anything and acted like she deserved it because she had been drinking. It's not just the drivers make women feel unsafe, it's knowing there will be no justice if something does happen that compiles it.

To which one FrancoPwned (lame, dude, just fucking lame) replies:

I say links to the news story or I didn't happen.

And, of course, all the other little misogynists on the CBC just back this dude up wholeheartedly. And all I can think is "... wow, just fucking wow. So THIS is what it's come to." And what if a link was provided? I'm sure this dude would've found some other reason to call Jones a liar. But, he doesn't get what he's really doing here. Because that's the power of dudely dudes. If they want to make something that happened go away, then they just collectively don't believe it. And, poof! It's gone. That's how the legal system works, isn't it? Because no one ever gets convicted! The rapists always get away with it! Jones tells an anecdotal story to illustrate just why women's-only cabs are a good idea, something terrible that happened to his dear friend (or perhaps more, maybe his spouse, maybe his daughter, who knows if he's protecting the victim's identity) and FrancoFuk'd there shits all over it. Because in his mind, that story can't be true. If it were, well that would ruin all his logical dudely arguments, so false it must be! And, true to form, other dudes come out of the woodwork to back him up. And what does that mean? That means that FatherJones, and potentially his dear friend that was assaulted, have to relive all the pain of that incident as well as the pain of probably not being believed the first time around. And Franco just thinks he's fighting the good fight.

Well, I say fuck that. I say that dudes ARE fucking scary, and I don't blame any woman that doesn't want to get into a cab with one, or sit next to one on a bus, or get into an empty elevator with one, or whatever else. I mean, I am a fucking dude, and I'm still scared of them a good ninety-nine percent of the time. So, me, I'm all for women's-only cabs. And women's-only gyms. And whatever else. And I don't think it's "misandric", I think it's just fucking smart. Dudes are shitty. Ladies, stay away from them whenever you can, however you can until you're damn sure that they're safe. And even then, keep your keys handy. Let the hate mail begin. See you all in 2012.

Heroic Dude A Hero! Status Of Victim and Attacker Unimportant...

If you read Canadian news by major metropolitan area (i.e. Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto etc.) rather than just reading a country-wide overview, you can find some pretty surprising stories, more often than not, more in line with what the general populace would and should need to know about. I mean, there's also a lot of local fluff pieces, but a lot of the time, the country-wide headlines don't tell you about what you really need to know. I like using the nation's capital as an example, because in terms of sucking, it really sucks. On many, many levels. One of those levels is Ottawas' public transit system, O.C. Transpo. O.C. Transpo is in the Ottawa news just about every day. They run the most expensive public transit system in the country (twelfth in the world, I believe) and deliver some of the worst service in the entire country as well. Apparently, their union has a stranglehold on the mayor's office and subsequently, on Ottawas' transit-riding populace. Most Ottawa citizens that have ever taken a city bus are worse off for it, and the drivers threaten the city with strikes on a yearly basis, while fare rates are increased twice to thrice per year.

I'm not anti-union. But, there ARE corrupt unions out there. It seems to me, that over in Ottawa, O.C. Transpo's one of them.

But, this post isn't about how shitty Ottawa's public transit is. No, this is about how an Ottawa bus driver is being touted as a hero for really, from what it sounds like, doing the bare minimum to help a woman in trouble. The story can be found here, but I'll run it down for you anyways.

On October 4th, bus driver Michel Laurin was gearing up to start his route. While heading to his bus or whatever, he came across a young woman who had just been beaten, raped and robbed and was lying on the ground, just outside the car in which her assailant was still sitting. Being a heroic dude of dudely action, Laurin yelled at the woman to "come to me, to get out of the way." From a safe distance, of course. The attacker, realizing he'd been spotted, fled the scene. Laurin caught the license plate number and called the cops. Let me digress for one second here.

Laurin's an older dude, judging by his picture. I guess I shouldn't expect that he'd rush the car, rip the door off its' hinges and beat the shit out of the rapist. And, sticking around to help, getting the license plate number and calling the cops is more than a lot of people would've done. A lot of people would've just walked on by, ignored the situation, not gotten involved. That's not my beef with this story. Laurin did the right thing. Does that make him a hero? Or, did he just do something human? I don't know if it's for me to decide. I'm not tooting this dudes' horn, I'm just trying to report the facts as I understand them.

Anyways, so the cops showed up, took the info and presumably got the woman to a hospital, but I don't know, because that's where the story stops giving a shit about her. And her assailant, who apparently hasn't been caught yet, even though the cops have his plate number. No, the status of the attacker and victim both are unknown, but what I do know is that apparently Michel Laurin is a honest to goodness hero for calling the cops. He got an award. And the transit union of Ottawa is using this story to get positive publicity for their otherwise hated bus drivers. Isn't that nice? That woman could've died from her injuries and we have no fucking idea. Because what this story is saying is: that's not the real story here. The REAL story is one of dudely heroics and quick-man-thinking! The writer should be fucking ashamed! Who the fuck uses a brutal rape and beating as a goddamn backdrop to an "extraordinary citizen" piece?!?!

Only one or two of the comments pick up on this line of thinking. Most people are too busy metaphorically patting this dude on the back to wonder what happened to the victim, or why the police haven't caught the rapist, or why it took two and a half MONTHS for anyone to hear about this assault in the first place. It's depressing. The news media is oftentimes guilty of the objectification of women, but to turn a human's tragedy into a pedestal upon which to shine the spotlight on a 'hero' who's only act of heroism should be considered basic human decency and to not even follow up on her (the victims') condition in the aftermath of all of this is just reprehensible. But, it happens all the time in the news. If something happens, and both men and women are involved, the bulk of the coverage will be spent on the men, while the women will be reduced to mere sidebar mentions. Unless, of course, they're just shown as whatever photos some pervert decided to take from their Facebook pages.

The long and short of it is, the news, like most every other form of media in today's world, still views men as more important than women, still views women as mere objects for the servitude and gratification of men and will shirk proper coverage of stories to either glorify the men they deem 'heroic' or dehumanize women who would otherwise be human beings.

Laziness, Nimbostratus Style

Don't really feel like writing a proper post today, but here's a few articles that've caught my eye. Feel free to engage in such activities like clicking on links, reading articles and coming back here to discuss.


Teens in superhero garb confront online predators

Benetton pulls ad with Pope kissing imam

RCMP harassment claims to be investigated

I'll have something longer and better written soon, folks! Thanks for putting up with the spotty posting as of late (as of always). 

CBC: Canadas' Secret Misogyny Meetingplace?

Today, the CBC published an article which they've published before about Canadian women being politically stifled. No doy. I'm not going to point out the obvious here. In terms of equal representation in our major political parties, we're pathetic. We rank behind places such as Burundi, Latvia and Guyana, which are supposedly more backwards than the liberal, modern, equality-for-all-type haven Canada touts itself as. Look at who our leader is. This is on the verge of becoming a dead horse for me.

What I want to point out, however, is that every time the CBC posts an article that has anything to do with women's rights, equality or anything of the sort, these (presumably) white-dude trolls come out of the woodwork to shit all over it. Where do they all come from? Why do they all flock to the CBC? How do they have the time?

Listen to some of the few comments, unedited and in their original form, posted so far on this particular article:

Women are still considered an "under-represented" group by the federal public service yet they make up 55% to men at 45% a 10% difference and I was denied applying to a job a couple weeks ago because it was only open to women and other under-represented groups. I think this needs to change for one, gender equality should go both ways.

As to politics more women should run, perhaps men are more interested in politics thus more run? I vote for the best person, be it a woman or a man as fo most people now so the only issue I can see is getting more women interested in it.

 Says "Darexc". Here's a short but sweet one:

People vote for the best PERSON and that's how you get elected.

 Thanks "Kritterz" for that tired old fucking line of bullshit.

If you want to enter a trades program, as a women you can get full funding. Not as a man. Go figure.

 "DaleMartell" ignores most, if not all of the facts here. Nice one, dude.

so long as women have babies... this isn't going to change

good luck with that!

This gem posted by a dude with the handle of "Anti-Establishment". Just as an aside, what do you wanna bet that Mr."Anti-Establishment" just loves him some high-budget pornography? And then, there's the worst of what's posted so far:

Most women are smart enough not to get into politics that's why!

 You can thank a dude by the handle of "SayWhatThe" for that one. This is what I mean. And, to be truthful, these are pretty tame in comparison the blatant woman-bashing that usually goes on in the CBC comments. These comments are supposed to be moderated under strict guidelines ( found here) and if you'll look at what to always avoid as a commenter, let's see if you can spot anything that might be amiss:

Always avoid:

• Lengthy excerpts from other posts. We want to hear your own opinion.
• Racist, sexist and offensive language.
• Personal attacks and defamatory statements.
• Breaking copyright rules (that includes copying and pasting excerpts from other sites without permission and attribution).
• Violating someone’s privacy.
• Threats or suggesting committing a criminal act.
• Insensitive comments regarding the death or injury of private individuals, especially children.
• Posting your message in all CAPS (this makes it difficult to read and in online speak is considered yelling).
• Posting press releases and commercial promotions.

 Above boldface emphasis mine. However, the majority of comments I read on the CBC are racist, sexist and offensive, I have seen commenters post personal attacks against other commenters as well as post defamatory statements, and hardly anyone is civil. The policies clearly state that "If you violate any of these rules, then your comment will not be posted and your account may be suspended." But, some of these people post comment after comment after comment, even gaining the rank of so-called 'Trusted Members', which I interpret as meaning that their comments go unmoderated altogether. Who does this moderating? Why have these policies if they're so obviously ignored? Why do my posts never seem to make it through, even though they are NOT in violation of the commenting guidelines?

The CBC is touted as "liberal media" which is a bullshit label, I suppose, but would lead some to believe that they (the CBC) are more enlightened, more tolerant and that their readers/viewers would follow suit. Canada has many more Conservative media options than true liberal ones, but the CBC isn't really making the grade. I know that "liberal" is kind of an iffy term, in the sense that a lot of liberal dudes hate women just as much as conservative dudes, but what I mean to say is that I guess with Sun Media and the National Post and all the other crappy news sources out there, I want to expect more from the CBC. I want them to stand up for equality. I want them to at least enforce their fucking comment policy! I don't know if this is really an issue of the greatest importance, but it irks me to no fucking end whenever I go a-searching for news during the day. I guess it just goes to show that when dudes have the opportunity to talk shit about women, the venue just really doesn't fucking matter to them. And that's goddamn depressing. Because like I said, the comments I posted above are just the tip of the iceberg. I have read comments of a truly disturbing, threatening, disgusting, frightening and violent hateful nature on the CBC. I just don't know how most dudes can hate women so fucking much that they will derail a comment thread about a raped or murdered girl just to get their hateful point across. The backlash against women is getting stronger in this country every day. If this is the type of commentary we see in our "liberal media", then I'm even more afraid than ever about what the future holds.  

Oh Trost, You Remarkable Dipshit...

Just a quick addendum to yesterdays' post. IPPF speaks out about Brad Trosts' ill-informed rants concerning why they should get no government monies. All the info is here, but the gist of it is that if they get money for family planning and contraception, then they will most likely have to perform less abortions. How's that sit with you, Brad?

Well, I dunno... I'm still a fucking dipshit.

Great then.

Has Anyone Even Asked?

Trigger Warning for rape discussion of brutality

The UK riots of the past week can be summed up in one word: terrifying. However, summing up anything in one word is problematic. One word is never enough, one word only conveys one point of view, and as usual, the point of view is that of the white, heterosexual male. Riots are frightening, horrible things, terrible for victims and innocent bystanders, but from the reports you're led to believe that causalities are few and the majority of damage has been done to property. I believe this to be a falsehood, because if it's predominately young men rioting, then you can bet that they're raping, too. Because, as we all remember, men will rape in the streets even in times of celebration.

The stories now are of reaction. How Britain will clean up, regroup, and change as a result of the riots, trying to find it's 'moral compass'. Prime Minister David Cameron says:

"This has been a wake-up call for our country. Social problems that have been festering for decades have exploded in our face," Cameron said in his prepared remarks for a planned Monday morning speech. "Do we have the determination to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations?"

Okay, player. Fair enough. But are the riots even really being reported on accurately? And just who are you talking about when you say 'social problems' and 'moral collapse'? Are you talking about what happened to this girl? 

This is just about the only case of rape or sexual assault I could find concerning the UK riots. I find this highly suspect. A riot is an event that violent, heterosexual men revel in. Destruction, physical violence, power, trying to exert dominance over authority... you're telling me that isn't a recipe for rape? And yet, in the middle of a week's worth of rioting, there is only one case of sexual assault? And I had to search very specifically for it? I'm not naive enough to believe that the case I mentioned previously and will discuss momentarily is the only, isolated incident, so that means either other cases of rape during the UK riots are deliberately being covered up, or nobody gives enough of a shit to report them.

During the UK riots, a fifteen year old boy robbed and raped a thirteen year old girl. After demanding the girl hand over her cell phone, he asked "for a kiss". When the girl refused, he dragged her down an alley, threw her onto a pile of broken glass and garbage and raped her. Of course, the media paints the rapist in a sympathetic light. During the hearing the poor boy appeared "close to tears" and is described as "vulnerable and troubled". Let's examine that for a moment. The rapist was close to tears, vulnerable and troubled? Well, if I might to so bold as to ask, WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIM??? I'll bet she was a lot closer to tears than he was, as they were probably running down her face non-stop since the asshole raped her. I'll bet she's more vulnerable now than ever, since she's now a victim and is broken mentally and spiritually forever. I'll bet she's more troubled than this little shit could ever be, as she now has to see the world for what it really is, far younger than she should have to. But, of course, the poor boy, this must be so hard on him.

Want to hear a quote from the boys' mum, who is described as a "devoutly religious nurse"? I'm sure you do.

"We can't quite believe this. We are a good family with Christian values. He is not from a broken home."

 Ha. Because only people without "good Christian values" that aren't from broken homes ever rape. Here's another good one, this time from an uninvolved neighbor, doing the good neighbor victim-blamey thing, I've talked about before.

"The family are completely shocked by what has happened and feel very ashamed. The parents are hard-working members of a close-knit community and tried to do the best for their son. They were very strict with him - perhaps that's why he rebelled and fell in with bad company."

Gimme a goddamn break. This even takes a stab at blaming the parents, but let me point this out, just in case you're not paying full attention:

Nobody is blaming the rapist.

People are blaming the victim. People are blaming the riots. People are blaming the parents. People are blaming society (I can almost get behind that one), but nobody is looking directly at the rapist. How many times does THAT have to happen before people wise up and realize that this shit does not happen in a goddamn vacuum? 


Let me also point out that if one in four women are raped during "normal, everyday conditions", then it stands to reason that during a riot, that number would rise. And even if only 40% of victims report their rape during "normal, everyday conditions", then it stands to reason that due to increased rape during a riot, the number of reported rapes would also rise. So, how is it that we're only hearing about this one? Once again, let me reiterate, I'm not naive enough to believe that this is the one and only, isolated case of rape or sexual assault that has happened during the UK riots. Nobody seems to be telling about any others, and I had to dig to find out about this one, so this brings me round and about to the title of this post: Has anyone even asked? Does anyone in a position of news authority even care? Is there not interest in reporting the riots from this angle? People need to know. People deserve to know. And, in the very, very, VERY slim chance that there was only one case of rape or sexual assault during the riots, wouldn't THAT be a phenomenon worth reporting, too? Of course, I don't believe that, but either way, shouldn't someone, somewhere be asking what happened to women during the UK riots? I know I'm asking. If you're reading me, you're probably the type to ask these questions, too. Who will answer us?

This Could Have Been Prevented

This is just truly chilling. One of the most frightening stories I've read in some time. On February 12th, 2011, Valerie Wolski, a caregiver with the Canadian Mental Health Association in Camrose, Alberta, was found strangled to death in the home of Terrence Wade Saddleback, the man she was assisting with day-to-day activities. She was alone with him when the attack happened. According to professionals, Saddleback has severe mental impairments. He can barely converse beyond 'hello' and 'goodbye', is illiterate, only knows simple verbal commands, can do no math, and does not know what month or year it is. What is also known about him, something that Valerie Wolski should have been told, is that Saddleback has a long history of violent outbursts and sexual attacks on women and children. Graham Jones, Saddlebacks' court-appointed guardian tried to (halfheartedly) warn the Canadian Mental Health Association of the risk of assigning a woman to care for Saddleback, after a 2009 attack on another female caregiver in a group home in Wetaskiwin, Alberta. Five RCMP officers and a male caregiver were needed to subdue Saddleback, who was subsequently tranquilized and hospitalized. Although under heavy sedation, due to the risk he presented, Saddleback was assigned an RCMP officer to watch him. The officer was armed with a taser at all times.

After staying hospitalized for a year, the Canadian Mental Health Association decided to release Saddleback into one of their homes, providing him with round the clock care. During his year of hospitalization, Saddleback had grabbed staff by the hair and shook them, grabbed a male patient by the back of the neck, became sexually excited and masturbated in the presence of children, even went so far as to take hold of a child in the patient lounge area and kiss him on the back of the neck. These details came to light in a report that was recently released by judge William Andreassen, written by psychiatrist Christopher Green. These details were known. So too, was known that guardian Graham Jones, upon learning of the Canadian Mental Health Associations' decision to release Saddleback, told officials that:

"Terrence is capable of getting out of control, [that] sort of thing. Are you aware of that? And it was just snuffed off … I said something like I hope it's not females that are looking after Terrence. He relates better to men and he respects them more."

So, why was Wolski assigned to Saddleback? Why was she allowed to be alone with him? Why did it come to this? The psychiatric report, which can be found here, is unsettling, chilling. Everyone knew that Saddleback was unstable, that he preferred to attack women, that he was sexually attracted to children, and yet no precautions were taken to ensure Wolskis' safety. She was sent into a dangerous and ultimately fatal situation without all the knowledge that might have saved her life.

Is Saddleback truly unfit to stand trial? I don't know. He killed a woman, and if what I can glean from his ramblings is correct, he tried to sexually assault her, she told him no and tried to stop him, he became violent and pulled her hair, pushed her, hit her and ultimately strangled her to death. There needs to be some kind of punishment. However, there are others in this case that are fit to stand trial. Whoever assigned Wolski to Saddleback, whoever let her believe that she could be alone with him, whoever withheld all the pertinent details from her is guilty of her death as well. And that person, or those people should be on trial as well. Why wasn't she briefed, forewarned, protected? Is this a case of men or the patriarchy willingly not seeing the danger that other men pose to women? I believe that at some level that comes into play. What will be done about this? Where is the justice for Wolski? Someone has to be held accountable for her death. I'm looking at the Canadian Mental Health Association just as much as I'm looking at Saddleback. This brave caregiver should not die in vain. We need better screening and full transparency when assigning caregivers to mentally unstable individuals. A female caregiver simply should have never been sent into this situation alone, if at all. I am in no way implying that women should not be caregivers for mentally unstable patients, but if said patient has a history of violence toward female caregivers, and the caregiver is not notified of this, then I believe an offense has taken place. Had Wolski known everything up front, perhaps she could have refused the placement. Perhaps she could have brought another caregiver with her, so as not to be alone with Saddleback. Perhaps she would not be dead today.

Does The CBC Give A Shit About Local Women?

A quick one.

The title of this post may be a bit confusing, but follow me here. If you're a Canadian citizen (poor you, I know, me too) your major news networks/news sites probably include the CBC and CTV. So, I invite you to click away for a minute and view the local news about your town or city on both those sites. Do you see any difference? I do. CTV local news usually makes it a point to report any kind of sexual assault or rape that happens in their local news. The CBC... not so much. Why is this? I can only speculate. When I Googled "CBC is sexist" or "CBC hates women" I didn't get much. But, take a look at the difference in local stories. Obviously there's a lot of overlap, but let's use our nations' capital as an example, especially due to the alarming number of sexual assault and rape cases in Ottawa.

While CTV, in their latest news column is helpfully making women aware of two daylight sexual assaults in as many days, the CBC mentions these attacks no where. This isn't the first time I've seen this trend. Unless a rape or sexual assault is unusually violent or involves a minor (and even this fact is debatable), the CBC won't bother with it. This is folly, at least, and dangerous omission, possibly fueled by misogyny and the "bro code" at worst. I believe the reasoning lies somewhere closer to the worse end of the spectrum.

Women have the right to know what's going on in their communities, and our news sources should be informing them about possible threats to their safety. Rather than the ever-increasing amount of fluff news garbage and entertainment and sports, the status of our communities should be priority one. Some regions of the country are in danger of losing local news altogether. It's hard enough to get straight answers about the city around you even with our so-so local news coverage. What'll happen when it's gone altogether? 

Stalemate

Sorry for the sporadic posting. Things have been busy and I've had to shy away from blogging for a while. That and I've been reading The Dialectic of Sex by Shulamith Firestone. But, here I am with a few things in the news I'd like to talk about. There's going to be a common thread here, I think. That thread is that I can't believe that here in the year 2011 we have still only reached this level of advancement as a society.

New York has legalized gay marriage. That IS great news, no doubt about it. The state has become the sixth in all of the U.S. of A to do so. Sixth. They have what, forty maybe fifty states down there? Six? That's fucking it? I can't believe that being gay is still such a taboo. That governments, state governments down there and federal governments up here still believe they have the right to determine who can marry whom in terms of sexuality. And Canada can claim it's soooo progressive, but our nationwide gay marriage law only passed in 2005. Vic Toews is still reeling. Isn't it funny when privileged white dudes tell you that no one is oppressed anymore but them? Six fucking states. Unbelievable.

The Conservative (Harper) government hates unions. Waves of shock and surprise wash over the nation. Then everyone realizes that Herr Harper hates people having rights that he didn't give them. Surprise goes away. Film at never. Seriously though, Harper's brash style of "Get-the-fuck-out-of-my-way governing" is being too readily accepted by the vast majority of Canadians, even the ones that didn't vote Conservative. Listen to how smug he is:

"We know what side the public was on and I think today Members of Parliament on the other side finally start to get that message," Harper said Saturday night outside the Commons.

Baaaaaarf. You know what side the public was on? Nobody asked me. Nobody ever asks me. I'm never a part of the surveys or the opinion polls or any of that shit that tells me what I think and want. Now, I'm not saying that some unions these days aren't corrupt. But, we should all be standing firmly behind workers' rights. Unions were a hard fought-for right, one that needs to be straightened out certainly, but a right that is to this day necessary for the protection of the working class. At least the NDP stood up for those rights. I wasn't sure what they'd do after they stopped being Socialists. Boogy-boogy, scary socialism!

Here's something that I don't understand. When teaching schoolchildren to sing, why does the instructor have to touch them? Answer, he doesn't. This guy, Uwe Lieflander, would rather step down and stop teaching choir than do it without being able to touch his students as he pleases. So, obviously he's not teaching for the love of music. You don't have to touch a kid to make him/her sing better. There is no need for that. On my understanding of Royal Conservatory vocal training, contact is completely unnecessary. This guy just wants to touch kids. And what blows my mind is that some parents are in his corner!

"He's found ways to demonstrate with touch — which is really taboo, unfortunately — how to get these kids fired up," 

says Mrs. Cummings, whose son was in the choir. I don't know, but if I had kids, I wouldn't want anyone getting them "fired up" about anything through the power of touch. Hands off. If these are his methods and people are going to bat for him, then how are the children supposed to refuse him if he makes them feel uncomfortable, or worse inevitably tries something? I don't understand how anyone can see this as anything but a giant violation of the children's rights and safety. I fucking hate people. So much.

It goes on and on. Abortion rights being debated and taken away every day. Prostitution being fought for. Pornography becoming more protected as freedom of speech. The rights of women and children slip further and further away every day. Why? How? In this age of supposed enlightenment and freedom, why are so few enlightened and even fewer free? Why can't we fix this broken system? Why are white males still the top of the food chain when they're so obviously outnumbered? The planet has finally had enough of us, and we're going to be wiped out as a race unless things change drastically. Does anyone want this age of suffering and oppression to be our legacy?

Newz And Noteworthy

Welcome back class. I hope you all had a nice weekend. There's plenty to discuss, so let's get right down to it.

Okay, first and foremost, the Vancouver riots, which I touched on in my last post. Disgusting. Absolutely horrendous behavior. And I get a kick out of the 'anarchists' being blamed, again, just like they were for the G20 riots. What a load of horseshit. At least the citizens of Vancouver are banding together to clean up the streets and identify the rioters. That wouldn't happen in Ontario, land of the meh. What really burns my ass is stuff like this. This little snot, who's only apologizing because he got caught on film and wants to save his scholarship chances almost deserves an Academy Award for least-believable performance. I love how he's got Doctor Daddy in the background with him. Yup, I'm sure this privileged little puke is going to face biiiiig consequences at home:

Dr. Dad: "You can't shame our family's good name like that by rioting and getting caught! What will the lodge brothers think?"
Snot: "But Dad, I already apologized at that press conference you called for me...."
Dr. Dad: "Can it! That's not good enough! You can only drive the SUV for a whole week! Leave the Porsche in the garage!" 
Snot: "You're such a dictator! Jeez! All I did was try to blow up a police car, which could've injured or killed literally hundreds of nearby people!" 

I can't even begin to explain how much I hate fakers like this self-entitled douchebro and his crocodile tears. I'm not going to waste one more second on him, but I think my new assistant might have something to add, isn't that right?

TIGER FUCKIN' UPPERCUT!!!

 

Thank you Sagat, that'll do.

Secondly, the Ontario Supreme Court has not yet decided that Ontario prostitution laws will remain unchanged for the foreseeable future, but it seems that's where the ruling is going to go. If this is indeed the case, thank you. Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, thank you. But I'm curious as to why the arbitration is being kept so hush-hush. I guess they're saving the coverage for when the final ruling is announced.

As of Friday, June 17th, 2011, First Nations peoples are covered under the Human Rights Act. It's about fucking time. Sheila Fraser and Paul Martin have known that the conditions that First Nations people live in are absurdly bad, coming close to third world. So, this is a step in a very positive direction. As is usually the case in these types of things, white people are worried who will foot the bill for any human rights claims that might come in from First Nations communities. Partial fail, ruling class, partial fail.

The NDP seems to be the new Liberal Party of Canada, quickly eschewing all values which drew many of their supporters to the party in the first place. What is wrong with socialism, exactly? Public schools and libraries? The healthcare system we throw in the face of other nations? We're not even talking about Marxist Socialism here, just the palatable form of socialism that even staunch nationalists love. No, it's because socialism is connected in the minds of most to Communism, and in most peoples' minds Communism = EVIL!!!! Bullshit. The NDP is pandering to the wishy-washy masses, trying to offend no one and keep their official opposition status at the expense of their beliefs, if indeed their beliefs were ever truly reflected in their platform. Canada needs a true leftist party represented in the Commons, now more so than ever. The NDP was supposed to be that party. More and more every day, however, it seems we've been cheated into a right-versus-central party situation yet again.

There's lots more that happened these past few days, but I can't go on and on forever here, and I'll need what to write about for the rest of the week, so I'll leave it at that for now. I know it was kind of a slapped together post, but it's Monday. And I'm sleepy. Forgive me and I'll shape up for the rest of the week. Promise.

A Second Flush On Yesterdays' Shitty News

The debate over Ontario's prostitution laws began yesterday, and it's all I've really been able to think about. This province, this country is about to go to shit. If these new laws are passed, everything is over. Ontario, and quite possibly the whole of Canada will become the globes' newest sex-tourism hotspot. The new Las Vegas, the new Amsterdam. Women here will not be safe despite what the advocates for legalized prostitution will tell you. Women are not safe now, and their safety will be further compromised. Men will not treat prostitutes any better and as a result of these laws, men will treat women who are not prostitutes worse. Men will leave their families. Men will bankrupt themselves. Crime will skyrocket. Drug use and drug trafficking, human slavery and human trafficking will skyrocket. STD rates will skyrocket. Child abuse and kidnapping will skyrocket as attitudes become more perverse and a demand for the bodies of new women and new children fast becomes impossible to keep up with. There is nothing "liberal" about regulating human slavery. There is nothing "progressive" about keeping women and children firmly entrenched in their sex-class roles. There will come no good from decriminalizing prostitution unless the johns and pimps are cracked down upon. The men who buy and sell women need to be held responsible for the suffering they impose. Most women (99.9%, to be fucking SURE) do not choose to be prostitutes. More often this choice is made for them by the men in their life, through mind and soul crushing sexual abuse, rape, incest, forced poverty, forced drug addiction. This is not a victimless crime, as one dominatrix seems to want us all to believe.

Please Ontario government, don't do this. I'm begging you. Don't do this to the women of this province, of this country. Do the damn research. Stopping these new prostitution laws might be the only thing a Conservative majority ever does that I'll agree with. Harper, you can't be for this, not with your religious right backing. Do the right thing, even if you don't agree with why you're doing it. Save these women, don't doom them to continue this lifestyle of slavery.

Please.

Don't kill these women.

Did I Mention It's About To Get Bad? Because It's About To Get Bad.

Well, as of today Ontario's prostitution laws go back under review and I have little to no hope that things will be altered for the better, or even left as they are now. The proposed changes serve to decriminalize communicating for the purposes of prostitution, allow one to live off the avails of prostitution (while being taxed legally, of course) and legally run a brothel or bawdy house.

Any pause in my writing can be attributed to me running to the toilet and vomiting furiously.

There are a whole bunch of folks clamoring for the change in these laws, crying about how Canada has been a puritanical, prudish "Nanny State" for far too long. These folks will tell you that prostitution is the worlds' oldest profession, that it's not going anywhere anyways, that what happens between two consenting adults is their own business and blah blah blah. The same lines of repetitive rhetoric that get sloshed around in the early minutes of any defense of prostitution conversation. When pressed a little harder, these  people will tell you that these "new and progressive" laws will make things safer for prostituted women! Ah ha! So it's the safety of the women that we're worried about! Of course, how fucking stupid of me. I know, as most people do that prostituted women live a life of extraordinary danger. Rene Ross, the executive director of Stepping Stone in Halifax, a sex trade support and advocacy group knows that, too. Quoth Rene:

"Countless attempted murders, a few murders, rapes, forcible confinement — we need to come together and realize sex workers are people and are entitled to have some safety just like everybody else." 

A few murders? A FEW fucking murders, Rene? I guess there've been a few casualties of war since that started, too? Fuck you. But, the point is made. The life of a prostituted woman is in near-constant danger. A level of danger that surpasses the already unacceptable level of danger in most women's lives. Knowing that, one may come to the conclusion that being a prostitute is dangerous. So, to help with that danger, these new laws will get women off the street! Away from the dark alleys and cold street corners! Close to telephones and panic buttons so that the authorities, who are always on the side of these unfortunate women can be alerted if need be. That's how these laws will protect prostitutes, by getting them off the mean streets and indoors where they're safe.

But no one has ever been killed or beaten or raped by a street.

Prostitutes get beaten by cops. Prostitutes get killed by pimps. Prostitutes get raped by johns. Prostitution is abuse of women by men. To decriminalize prostitution would be to legalize this abuse. To say to the johns and the pimps and the traffickers "Come on and flock to Ontario! You need not fear here!" But the women would still need to fear. Legal prostitution would mean an increase in demand. Which would mean an increase in supply. Which would mean more trafficking, more kidnapping, more forced women. Women who lost regular jobs could be denied employment insurance due to the fact that there is viable, legal sex work for them to do. Men would become more brazen, more violent as their appetites turn towards ever more perverse acts and situations, just as they do with the pornography they use with intention of acting it out on the prostitutes they buy. Amsterdam is working to reverse the damage done by legalization. We're about to make the same mistake.

The Swedish model, adopted also by Iceland and Norway, criminalizes the johns, the buyers of women. With the men as the criminals, they are reluctant to purchase. This makes traffickers stay away and keeps women safer. If there is no demand, there need be no supply. The best way to keep prostitutes safe is to make men not want to rape them in the first place. And if the only way to do that is to threaten men with jail time and fines, then so be it. Women will truly be safe(er) when there is no more prostitution whatsoever. Until such time when men stop selling women to other men, we should be looking for the most effective ways to keep said women, indeed all women safe. Ontario's proposed law changes do not do that.

This has the potential to be one of the most frightening decisions made in the province of Ontario during my lifetime. And I feel as though this decision will be made to look like a women's rights issue. Like legalization will grant women some sort of freedom they've been clamoring for. Like so many little girls dream of growing up to be prostitutes and who are we to tell them no? This is bullshit of the highest grade. This decision is being made for men, by men and I feel I already know what the outcome will be. If these law changes pass it will be no exaggeration to say that Ontario hates women. I can only hope that not all provinces will follow suit. Canada can't even keep up with the level of human trafficking that's going on now. What would that future hold for us?

A Few Thoughts And Articles

Well, there's no one topic I'm going to address today, and in light of the weight of recent posts, I think I'll hit a lighter vein, just for this post. More hard-hitting Nimbostratus-style journalism to come, worry not.

First of all, wanna see something cool?

Yup, that lobster is blue.

You can read the whole story about this neat-o blue lobster here.

TW for homophobia

Next up, I have a story that has ended seemingly well, but illustrates the amount of hetero-normative privilege that still exists in all levels of society.  Alvaro Orozco, who is now 25, left his home in Nicaragua at age 12 due to the fact that homosexuality was outlawed. In fact, the country only legalized homosexuality in 2008, roughly four years after Orozco fled. Fled the oppressive country that denied him the right to publicly express his sexuality. Fled the shaming and violence his community would have most certainly wrought upon him had he made his sexuality public. Fled the beatings and death threats his own father inflicted on him, while still just a child. His story is not unique, not, I'm sure, in Nicaragua, not here in Canada, where we are supposedly more tolerant, more accepting of those who are not "hetero-normative" as if that should even be a description of a human being.

To get back to the story, Orozco left his home with only a grade school education, hitchhiked across Central America and then entered the United States by swimming across the Rio Grande. Upon entering the United States, he was quickly arrested and detained, released only upon promising to return to Nicaragua. The United States, land of the free, home of the brave would not grant this brave young person his freedom, they would only send him back to his doom.

Orozco would not return. He found asylum in a church, then fled to Canada to apply for refugee status in 2005. His claim was denied however, due to the fact that his sexuality was called into question as he never pursued any homosexual relationships while in the United States. That's right, I mean, even though you're being detained and forced back to the country that would most certainly see you dead just for being you, shouldn't you at least have time to head down to the local gay bar and gay it up so that we can see you're truly gay? I mean if you want to stay up here in the "True North Strong and Free", you'd had better show us that you really need to be here. Isn't that what being a refugee is all about? Once again, it seems that this strong young person, who faced overwhelming odds to get here, would be denied his freedom.

Supporters for Orozco rallied on his behalf as he stayed illegally in Canada, hoping and begging for his freedom. He was finally granted it. Citizenship and Immigration Canada bestowed unto him his permanent resident status on "humanitarian" grounds. Now, this is great news for Orozco, who may now stay in Canada and pursue his dreams. He says he will go to high school, then university to pursue his dreams of architecture. I wish him well. But the length of time apparently required to make this decision and the grounds on which the delay were based are utterly ludicrous. Orozco fled Nicaragua's oppressive homophobic atmosphere, to come to Canada and be greeted with a more "civilized" version of that same homophobia. Asking a refugee, a person on the run, a person under the threat of being returned to a place that would see him dead for his sexuality to prove that very sexuality to save his life is unacceptable. If we are to be as tolerant as we claim to be up here in Canada, this kind of garbage must be stopped. Which is not to say that false refugee claims are never made, but how can one be expected to prove their sexuality while on the lamb? One's mind is on escaping capture and deportment, not on finding ones' soul mate! Amidst the triumph of one individual, the whole system should learn a lesson so that the lives of all LGBT peoples can be improved. The Conservative government should take notes... as if.

And finally, the government is back to work, with the Throne Speech today and the election of a new Speaker yesterday. So, our whitebread Conservative Governor General can say his little speech and our brand-new white male Conservative Speaker of the House can take his seat for the first time. Hoorah. The deck is stacked completely in Herr Harpers' favor now. I can't be the only one that sees this. As a matter of fact, I know I'm not the only one that see this. I'm bracing myself for what this new term will deliver upon the populace. Since I'm not a rich Albertan oil baron, I'm not expecting much personally, but I'm even more frightened at what's in store for the non-white, non-male, non hetero portions of the populace. Let's all hope for the best.

Unbiased News, I Hardly Knew Ye....

Before I get to the real meat and potatoes of this post, you wanna see the most token "article" about a "women's interest" story ever? Well, here you go. At least CTV had the decency to cover the Clothesline Project. The CBC didn't even give it a mention. Thanks CBC! I know how you hate to dirty your hands with that lady stuff, seeing as you're 'Liberal media' and all. Which brings me to....

While watching television with my partner last night, we stumbled across a channel we usually flip over. We probably would have if not for the "stunning" editorial being shat out of the mouth of one Ezra Levant, my new worst enemy, on the offending channel, the Sun News Network. Now, most people in Canada know the Sun papers, the rag that comes in the red boxes, it's primarily a glorified sports section with a bunch of right-wing editorials and a bunch of nudey pictures thrown in, all wrapped up in a third grade reading level. The Sun is basically the cheapest lad mag you can get in Canada, and there's a new one every day. Whoopee! The Sun papers are owned by Sun Media (owner of a multitude of tabloid "newspapers" such as the Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver Suns, as well as Le Journals de Montreal, Quebec et Sherbrooke, and the 24 Hours mini-paper), which in turn is owned by Quebecor Media. The Sun papers in Canada are the sister paper of a full on pornographic British "newspaper", just so's you know. But I digress.

So, now the Sun has a news channel. A channel calling itself "lively", "unapologetically patriotic," and "less politically correct" than its' competition, most notably the CBC and CTV news networks, which the Sun Propaganda Network accuses of being "uninspired", "liberal-biased" and the reason "so many Canadians turn to U.S. news channels for their news.".

I have never watched Fox News or CNN for anything other than laughs. Why would I? I live in Canada, and those channels aren't going to tell me shit about shit that affects me directly. Now the CBC and CTV often spend lots more time on world news and sports than the news at home, but at least they cover the news at home and each has local news options for stories about my (and your) community. So, I call bullshit there. But, that's only one in a series of many, I assure you.

Sun News Media has taken on, with false and token begrudgement, the moniker of "Fox News North", and while disputing the name itself, they say that they only are trying to keep the feel of the broadcasts "irreverent" and "provocative". Which as we all know are synonyms for prejudiced and pornographic respectively. So, whether it's sickeningly right-wing editorial show after right-wing editorial show or "Sunshine-Girl" turned newscasters, all of a certain age and body type that for some reason aren't allowed to wear anything with sleeves, you know what to expect from the Sun Bullshit Garbage Network. Something for everyone, as long as you're a white, cisgendered, monotheistic-worshipping male.

Where did this channel come from? Why is it on my T.V? These questions raced through my mind as I projectile vomited at Ezra Levant and Kathy Shaidle on my screen telling me why political correctness and the Human Rights Commission is turning Canada into some kind of thought-policed Orwellian state. Well, it turns out that there are rumors that CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein was under pressure from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to resign from the commission and take another government position, such as an ambassadorship, in order to facilitate Sun News getting its desired license. I know, Herr Harper doing everything in his considerable power to get a right-wing Canadian Fox News clone on the air? Why that's INCONCEIVABLE!

The network was absolutely disgusting in its' obvious right-wing bias during election coverage and even after when Ezra slammed a member of another news network for apparently showing her bias when shedding a tear at the Liberal aftermath and Michael Ignatieffs' decision to step down as leader. All without a hint of irony. And, as I watched yet another editorial rant begin, this time about the 'Nanny State' not letting Canadians eat and drink whatever they damn well please, I began to feel frightened. And as that editorial gave way to one about the woman in Saudi Arabia jailed for daring to drive a car, I had just the slightest glimmer of hope as the patriarchal laws of Saudi were brought into question (as if we're so much better here. Right.) Up until Canadian women were chastised by the pundit for "wasting their time on silly Slutwalks and being offended over trivial things a Toronto cop said, rather than helping their sisters overseas(!)" Really dude? So, what the fuck have YOU done for women overseas in Muslim nations? Jack shit? I fucking thought so. Like Canadian women, who barely have a hold of any rights here in the Great White Male North can just march on over to Saudi and get the monarchy to settle the fuck down with the misogyny, if only they'd mobilize. The audacity was too much. To put the onus on women here for the suffering of women there is unacceptable. Fuck you very much Sun Misogyny Patriarchy-Fest Neo-Nazi Klan Network. I'll be keeping an eye on some of their (male, natch) editorial pundits, but I can't even bear to see the poor, plastic women that they have doing their news. It makes me sad, the hold that the media networks have on their female anchors, making them look this way, dress this way, have this procedure, all for the hope of gaining male viewership. It makes me sad that dudes fall for it, demand it, want it. The whole channel is one big garbage fart. And this is what news is coming to....