Violence Against Women: Why do we still accept it?

Hello my friends!

It's been too long... my fault of course.   I apologize; my only explanation is that I've gone back to school and I find it very demanding of my time.

I hardly know where to begin!  As I start to write this, it is still December 6, 2016.  December 6 is Canada's National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.  (This probably won't actually get posted until the clock ticks past midnight.)  For those of you who may not know why we have such a day, here is a link to a story from today, and for those of you who want more background, here is a link to the Wikipedia page regarding the Montreal Massacre.  14 women were killed and another 13 injured by a man who professed to hate feminists.  He didn't target these women specifically as individuals, he targeted women who were studying to be engineers.  That was 27 years ago.

A friend of mine shared a link today to a Chateleine tweet referring to a story they ran in 1971 about how women who reported rapes were put on trial just as much as, or perhaps more than, their rapists.  45 years later, we're still having this conversation.  Why?

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that most rapes are committed by people with whom we are acquainted?  The spectre of scary men looming in dark alleys is mostly that:  a spectre.  Of course it happens; but the vast majority of rapists are 'normal' guys.  Guys who take you out to dinner (first).  Guys who buy you drinks (to loosen you up).  Guys who expect something in return.  And for the longest time we have accepted that.  We believed that 'nice girls' didn't get raped.  We believed that if you drank too much or if you wore too short a skirt or flirted too much you must have provoked him.  Heck, some people people believed that if you danced too provocatively, you were clearly asking for 'it'.  No one ever pointed out the obvious elephant in the room:  it's all our fault because men are clearly not responsible for their actions.  Wait, haven't I heard this story before?  Oh yeah, in that really old book about Adam and Eve.  It was totally her fault then too (just in case you don't know me, this is sarcasm).

I'm going to throw a bunch of statistics at you now because I occasionally get accused of making unsupportable claims.  Mostly I don't make arguments using statistics because those can always be looked up.  I like to make arguments using logic.  However, since some people don't respond well to logic, I've decided to include some statistics regarding violence against women.  Most of these are from the YWCA Canada and they're gathered from Canadian statistics.

Here's an info graphic (everybody loves pictures right?) from the YWCA in 2012:

More stats from SACHA (the Sexual Assault Centre of Hamilton Area) and I'm including their links to their sources:

Only 5% of survivors report to the police.

One in three women will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime.

One in six men will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime.

39% of Canadian adult women reported having had at least one experience of sexual assault since the age of 16

Only 1 in 3 Canadians understand what sexual consent means.

Over 80% of women with disAbilities will be sexually abused in their lifetime

Sexual assault victimization rates are five times higher for women under the age of 35.

In 99% of sexual assaults, the accused perpetrator is male.

Most perpetrators don’t consider themselves perpetrators.

The perpetrator is known to the victim in 82% of sexual assaults.

Women with disabilities are three times as likely to be sexually assaulted.

The yearly economic costs of sexual violence is $4.8 billion, compared to gun violence at $3.1 billion.

It is estimated that between 15% to 25% of North American college and university-aged women will experience some form of sexual assault during their academic career.[1]

Alcohol is most commonly used drug in drug facilitated sexual assaults.

Only 2-8% of rape claims are false reports.

28% of Canadians say they have been on the receiving end of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, or sexually-charged talk while on the job.

91% of men would like to intervene if they knew someone was in a violent relationship.

Women and girls are five times more likely to experience sexual violence than males.

53% of survivors in a survery responded that they did not report their sexual assault because they were not confident in the police. Two out of three responded that they were not confident in the criminal justice and court system in general.

So, lots of numbers and stuff.  Sorry about that.  I don't usually do that (as I mentioned above), but I guess it's time that I did.  I don't think there's any question anymore about the fact that we live in a 'rape culture'.  Lots of people don't want to call it that.  I totally get that.  It's not a nice thought.  We like to think of ourselves as civilized; and I think to some degree we are.  It's just taking a long time to spread.

Too much of our focus has been on teaching girls how to protect themselves and not enough time (until recently) has been spent on teaching boys respect.  This is changing and I applaud school boards who have implemented systems that incorporate the concept of consent into their curricula.  In Ontario it wasn't easy to implement, but despite fierce opposition, implemented it was.   Here's a link to a blog from the YWCA's Director of Advocacy and Public Policy discussing changing cultures.  It's well written, but I know, my blog post is long enough, so I'll sum up:  the author discusses the change in curriculum as well as the Ontario government's changes to address Violence Against Women in general.  One of the most salient points she makes (I think) is:

“To end rape culture we must create a consent culture,” that’s the message of the petition organized by Grade 8 students Lia Valente and Tessa Hill, which garnered more than 40,000 signatures – including mine – before Premier Wynne announced that consent would be covered in the revised curriculum.

 That petition was started by grade 8 students.  That's awesome.  The overall gist of that post is that change will take time.  We need attitudes to shift and in order for that to happen, we have to start teaching kids about consent.

Whilst I have meandered a bit with this post (sorry, I'm out of practice) my original theme was a discussion about violence against women.  In light of the recent presidential election in the United States, much has been said regarding sexism, misogyny and trust (amongst other things).  At first I was surprised that so many people would support Donald Trump for the nomination; mostly because he seemed to be taking it like a bit of a joke; a lark if you will.  Then he won the nomination.  Whoa, I thought:  clearly I do not have my finger on the pulse of that nation.  Then he kept gaining more and more support.  And really, I totally understand supporting your party.  I totally understand conservative politics versus liberal ideals.  I do.  I get that.  Especially in the United States.  A nation born after a rebellion against a strong (faraway) ruling central government.  I seriously understand decentralized government.  The US doesn't always make sense to me (I still don't understand the electoral college and probably never will) but other people had become leaders without any experience.

What surprised me (and I don't know why I continue to be surprised by people, but I do), was the number of people who still voted for him after he admitted to sexual assault.  This wasn't an allegation (like so many of the others: like the 13 year old girl he allegedly raped).  This wasn't just a media story trying to defame him in some way.  This was him on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women.

By all accounts (his words, his deeds:  on tape, video and voice) Donald Trump is, at the very least a misogynist.  Yet a large number (almost half) of the white women who voted in this election chose him.  And I was surprised; for so many reasons.  Why would they do such a silly thing?  All of the false allegations about Hilary Clinton had been proved false, she had experience, she was articulate, educated, respectful, successful.  I'm sure she's not perfect, but who of us is?

There is no way I can do her justice so I won't try.

What it all comes down to really is that we're still living in a rape culture: and we're okay with it.  Let me say that again:  We're okay with it.  If it doesn't happen to us, then it's okay.  This is the year that a Stanford swimmer got 3 months for 3 counts of rape (in a county jail) because the judge didn't want to negatively affect the young man's life after he raped an unconscious young woman behind a dumpster.

Unfortunately, too many people don't want to admit there's a problem, and if you won't admit there's a problem, then nothing will be done to fix it.  I can't tell you how many men I've met who don't believe that sexism still exists.  I'm tired of arguing with them (I still do sometimes when I don't have too much studying to do).  So many privileged young men refuse to open their eyes and simply can't see beyond their own experiences.  And again, if you won't admit there's a problem, there's nothing for you to fix is there?

That's why we have to start in school.  That's why curricula have to be changed to include the idea of consent.  It's actually a small step, but ideologically, it's a big one.  The more people are willing to acknowledge that there really is a problem, then the sooner we can all resolve it.

Funnily enough, one of the quotes from the 1971 article is remarkably spot on.  It's by the lawyer who was interviewed for the piece:

“Stanley Gershman, a lawyer in his early thirties, goes even further. ‘If society recognized a woman’s right to have love affairs and express herself sexually, and brought up their daughters accordingly, then rape would be seen as an act of violence, punishable as violence,’ he says.

Unfortunately it seems that he was speaking hypothetically.  That shouldn't be a hypothetical:  society should recognize women's rights to self-determination, and rape should be seen as an act of violence, punishable as violence.

I would like to see this happen in my lifetime.  Wouldn't you?

Thanks for reading and drive safe peeps!

If Apple Loses, the Terrorists Win

Hello my friends,

I hope all is well with you! Today is my birthday, so, Happy Birthday to me!

I have been thinking of late about the recent court order obtained by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation which compels Apple to create a new iOS to hack the iPhone of one of the suspects in the 2015 San Bernadino terrorist attack. Apple has of course refused and appealed the order and many other tech companies and experts are uniting to stand with Apple in this argument.

Obviously, I don't think that the government should be able to force any company to do such a thing. The FBI's arguments are spurious at best and the law that the order was based on was written in 1789. Seriously. 1789. A smartphone would have seemed like either magic or something devilish in 1789. No law regarding technology could encompass the security of a smartphone. Here's the link to the Wikipedia article regarding it that even mentions the Apple case and that it should be taken with a grain of salt. But I don't really want to get into the legal arguments here. That's why lawyers make so much money... so they can argue with each other.

I want to discuss why the FBI wants the phone unlocked and why the families of the victims want it too: fear. (The families are also probably angry and hurt and would like some closure.)

Fear is a powerful motivator. Fear can make us do things we might not otherwise do. Things that would seem ridiculous if we had never had reason to fear. Things like force a technological giant to write new software (that doesn't even currently exist) to hack into it's current software and open up the potential (heck it's not a potential it's practically guaranteed) for the US Government and their Patriot Act to access anyone's phone (and all that entails) anytime.

Sure they say they'll only use it this one time... Right. Then it'll happen again. And again.

Of course it won't stop with the FBI. If we're lucky, it will stay in the US. (As if.) If it exists, it will get everywhere. If the US government can compel Apple to do this and give it to them, then why can't Russia? Or China? And if it exists then the hackers will get it too.

The FBI is playing right into the terrorists' hands. What do terrorists want? To cause terror. To instil fear in a population; usually for political purposes. Well they have succeeded. We are afraid of terrorists.

But are we afraid enough to give up all of our civil liberties? The Patriot Act was seen by some as the beginning of a slippery slope, but the government response was: if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear from it. Obviously that's not a quote, but that's the gist. It's called a slippery slope for a reason: once you're on it, it's very difficult to stop sliding down it to the inevitable end (hell, an Orwellian-like state aka 1984, etc.).

I have a tendency to take a situation to the extreme in a hypothetical because it's always a possibility: what's the worst that can happen? Everyone everywhere can lose their privacy. Why? To what end? For the semblance of safety? Giving the government access to our phones won't make anyone anywhere any more safe than anyone currently is. (A much more effective way to keep more people safe would be to take guns away from the citizens of the US but that's not happening is it? But that's a whole different kettle of fish for a different post.)

The FBI wants to access the phone because there 'may' be information relating to other 'potential' terrorist activities or other 'potential' terrorists. They don't even know that there is anything on it for sure and they are willing to risk eroding basic civil liberties... A judge is willing to do this!!!! How scared are they?

We can't live our lives in fear. Terrorists have committed atrocious acts, yes; but we can't allow those few acts to dictate how we govern ourselves or we have already let them win. Wikipedia tells us that the number of people in the US who died in car accidents in 2014 was 32,675. Another statistic I found from START (Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism) indicates that according to the Global Terrorism Database, 3,066 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks from September 11, 2001 through December 31, 2014 (2,902 occurred on September 11, 2001).

I am not suggesting that those 3,066 lives don't matter: all lives matter. But are they worth changing the fabric of society for? Because that's what this argument is about.

Heart disease is the number one killer in North America but potato chips are still legal (as they should be). We are more likely to die from our lifestyle choices (texting while driving, heart attacks, Type II Diabetes, drinking alcohol, smoking) than we are from terrorist attacks but no one is suggesting that our right to make our own nutrition choices be curtailed.

In another post, at another time, we can discuss the idea of privacy in this new world of cameras everywhere, but for now, I respect the right to privacy and your ability to have whatever funny photos you want to keep private, kept private.

Drive safe peeps!

The Social Contract... wait, what?

Hey peeps!  Long time!  Thanks for tuning in!

Yes, I am still around, and I do occasionally think of interesting things, I've just been really busy playing Candy Crush for a while... ;)

All kidding  aside, I finally decided to write something down because a) I find myself with a little spare time this evening, and b) it occurs to me that perhaps not everyone (of the age of majority) in Canada knows that they are indeed participating in a social contract and what that entails.

Thomas Hobbes wrote a good book about the idea of a social contract a few hundred years ago.  It was called Leviathan; famous for it's rather quotable idea (often misquoted) that life 'in a state of nature is... nasty, brutish and short':  

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.^[5]

 Rousseau later wrote a book called (oddly enough) The Social Contract.  Both excellent works as far as I'm concerned. 

To save you the effort of reading them (I know you're busy too), I'll sum up:  in order to enjoy a life free from the constant anxiety found in a state of nature (i.e. free from worry that your neighbour will rise up against you at any time for any reason; free to pursue your pursuits, whatever they may be; free to actually walk around freely, without undue fear) society needed to get together and come up with some kind of agreement.  An agreement that would allow us to feel safe in our homes.  An agreement that it was indeed not cool to attack your neighbour just because you wanted some of the stuff in her house.  An agreement that society could be and should be civilized and that we, as citizens of that society, should work together for the greater good.

Clearly I am paraphrasing A LOT.  And obviously, I've left out a lot about their discussions regarding government  and personal liberties etc., but the essence of a social contract is that we, the people participating in the social contract, agree to do so willingly, for the greater good (our safety and our betterment is included in this greater good too).  And that we give up certain things in exchange for the security the social contract affords us.  Things like the freedom to kill others willy-nilly, or steal their stuff.

So what is this greater good you ask?  I'm glad you asked!  Hobbes mentions some things in the quote above.  Arts, letters (written works), society itself, commerce, exploration, (and I'm going further here now) advancements in technology, education, medicine.  This list could go on ad infinitum.  Essentially the greater good is that which is good for humankind, that which is good for the advancement of the species:  our species.  US.  All of us.  You and me.

One of the reasons that I've been thinking about the the idea of the social contract lately is that we, as a society, seem to have forgotten the idea of a greater good.  I don't know whether or not you've noticed this, but it seems to me that we have become incredibly self-absorbed.  To some degree it may be that we just aren't as polite as we used to be but even beyond that, it's as though nothing else matters but us.  You could call it self-absorbed-ness (I know, that's not a word).

Everyone with access to the internet seems to think that he or she is an expert on something (or everything) and that everyone else in the world needs to know this and should join in (read: follow his or her example).   There is a ridiculous ad being shared on the interwebs by Similac that is supposed to remind us (well, mothers I think) that despite our differences, we all have the same goals, but it really just serves to remind us how extreme we've become in our know-it-all-ness (again, I know it's not a word) and our self-absorbed-ness.  We are so busy surfing the web and trying to tell other people how great we are that we lose sight of what's really important:  the greater good.

There's that term again!  What is up with that?!?  Well, when we're parents, the greater good is raising our children and everything that goes into that.  But then of course, everyone is an expert on that too:  no one agrees on anything, and everyone does their own thing which does no one any good, least of all the children; who, as Whitney Houston told us, are our future.  I jest only slightly.  I really do believe that raising children is a very serious responsibility.  It's why I haven't chosen to do it:  I would probably mess it up.  Before any of you think I'm being judge-y about parents, I'm not:  I admire people who are creating our future.  It is a tough job raising children, and, as is evidenced by that commercial, lots of people are always judging you as a parent.  It is always easier to criticize than to create.

I think one of the reasons that parents in particular seem to have forgotten 'the greater good' is that there is SO much involved in being a parent.  People want to do the best they can.  They want to provide the best life they can for their kids; they want to make sure their kids are as best prepared for the big scary world (which we know from Thomas Hobbes can be nasty, brutish and short) as they can be.  They want to protect them from it for as long as they can, and they want to make sure that they are not hurt by it in any way.  Unfortunately, this is impossible.  No one is perfect.  Life is not perfect.  Life is not fair.  You are never going to prevent your child from ever getting hurt ever; no matter how much research you do.  Regardless of how much you love them and how hard you try:  you can't always protect them from everything.  They have to live in this world.

But in our efforts to protect our children from the nasty brutish world, we seem to have lost sight of why we have a social contract in the first place.  Of course our instincts have always been to protect our children (it's why vaccines were developed in the first place), and now that most of us have never seen first hand what life in a developing nation is like, we have no idea the privilege we've been granted by our ancestors who first created the social contracts which enabled the societies we live in today.

As a result of social contracts, we, Canadians, enjoy one of the best standards of living in the world.  (I know, I've seen the discrepancies.)  With very few exceptions: we have hot and cold running water in our homes; we have national highways and railways from coast to coast to coast.  We have an airline that flies coast to coast to coast.  We have phone service all over the country.  (And we take all of this for granted:  not everyone can get anywhere in their country easily, or phone anyone from anywhere.)  We have universal healthcare (granted it's a little broken, but if you're having a heart attack, you'll be taken care of).  We have universal public education (again, not perfect, but it's pretty good and it's covered by your taxes).  We have labour laws.  We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  We have the right (obligation) to elect our own government, and the right to complain about it.  These are just the basics;  we have world class universities, museums, hospitals, and there is so much more, too much to list.  Compare all of this to life in Hobbes's state of nature:  we would have none of that if no one ever thought beyond what was best for him or herself (or their children).

So what is the actual greater good?  I'm sure people would debate that too.  A little bit of knowledge (and access to Google) can be a dangerous thing.

My short definition of the greater good is the advancement of humankind; not at any cost mind you, but overall.  I know that's easy for me to say when I have no children.  I know that your life changes completely when you have a child and that nothing else seems to be very important anymore (this seems to hold true for people in my life anyway).   

From a slightly distanced perspective (i.e. not a parent) it seems to me that the more import we put on ourselves and our children (i.e. the good of the one or few over the good of the many) the closer we get to being back in a state of nature.

I don't want to live like that.  Do you?

If we've learned anything from Star Trek, it's that Spock is usually right and that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

Until next time, drive safe!

Lesley

Acceptance

Hello my friends,

I know, it's been a long time.  I've been busy; sort of.  Anyhoo, I hope all is well in your worlds.

So I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news regarding the new 'anti-gay law' which has been enacted in Russia.  If you have any questions about the specifics, you could read this AP story which spells things out in a little more detail.  If you don't want to bother reading these, the essentials are that Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993; however this new law criminalizes public expression of support for 'non-traditional' relationships.  Basically, it allows the authorities to fine anyone found to be promoting 'non-traditional' sexual relations to children (people under 18).  It uses the word propaganda, and a couple of the articles I read defined 'non-traditional' as 'those not related to procreation'.

I could not find any mention of incarceration, however, it seems that the government has the right to throw you out of the country if you're not a citizen and you're found propagandizing.  This is not surprising:  any country has the right to throw you out if you're not a citizen and they don't want you there.

The fact that this law was enacted is offensive enough despite not actually criminalizing homosexuality.  If you do a looser search you'll find many stories/articles which claim that 'anti-gay' sentiment in Russia runs very high:  last August Moscow banned gay pride parades for 100 years despite being fined in 2010 by the European court for not allowing them earlier (2006).  You'll also find stories that claim that non-traditional relationships are an affront to 'traditional' Russian values and the Russian Orthodox Church (they never say how, just that they are).  They can wrap it up however they like, it's still discrimination:  it always has been and it is now legal in Russia.

When you hear about this law in the news you also hear about the potential impact it will have on the athletes participating in the 2014 winter Olympics that are being hosted by Russia.  There has been much ado over this.  A couple of well-known celebrities have called for boycotts, and some have even suggested that the games be moved to a different city and country altogether (George Takei suggested Vancouver).  The reasons behind this movement is not just the law itself though:  apparently, the anti-gay sentiment has led to a lot of violence against LGBT people in Russia.  From the Advocate:

"Additionally, a well-known group of Russian neo-Nazis has been luring gay teens in the country with personal ads on gay dating websites, then beating them, humiliating them, and forcing them to come out on video.  

Russian authorities have either ignored or condoned the antigay violence."

So is boycotting the right thing to do?  Of course it is.  Will it happen?  Unfortunately not.  Why  not?  For the same reasons that any type of discrimination still exists:  because we accept it.

Sexism still exists because we accept it.  Racism still exists because we allow it to.  Obviously I don't mean on an individual level:  I don't accept discrimination and it's gotten me into hot water more than once.  But I'm okay with that.  Most of my friends don't accept discrimination either.  What I mean about accepting it is on a societal level.  As a society, we allow discrimination by letting it happen; by not stopping it if it's not happening to us.  All sorts of bad things happen in the world and we shake our heads and say out loud how horrible and unjust life can be, and privately thank whatever powers may be that these things didn't happen to us and we go about our business.

We accept that bad things happen to good people.  We accept that people are going to be mean to other people and hurt other people.  We accept things like rape and murder.  People possessing illicit drugs, and bank robbers get longer sentences in most American states than rapists and people convicted of manslaughter (that's a generalization obviously and it doesn't apply to the one percent).  And we accept discrimination because it's not happening to the majority of us.  Obviously.  When the brave young woman in Stuebenville went to the police after being raped by members of the local high school football team the state attorney general said that, unfortunately, this was just another Friday night and that the culture had to change (don't quote me on that, I can't find a reference but that was the gist).  Without getting too far into one type of discrimination over another, the essence is that these things happen because we let them.  And they're systemic.

So people are going to complain about the human rights violations in Russia, but the countries are still going to go because the people who make the decisions (the people who count the money) are okay with human rights violations (as long as they aren't affected individually).  And if your team is going and you've been training for at least the past four years, you don't want to miss the games if everyone else in your field will be there and the games are still on.  Everyone went to Beijing despite the protests about human rights violations there.

Discrimination is wrong - for so many reasons, on so many levels.  What is happening in Russia is wrong - for so many reasons, on so many levels.  Is any other country going to actually do anything about it?  No.  Nobody wants to stand up and be counted.  No one is going to make those unpopular decisions:  at least not at that level.  Not where and when it counts.

I can't imagine this will make anyone feel any better, but I'll boycott watching the Olympics on principal.  It's a small thing, but it's what I can do.  If anyone else has an idea, please let me know.

Until next time peeps, drive safe!

Bill 115 - Putting Students First?

Hello my friends,

Happy New Year!  Thanks for tuning in!

I've been thinking about this subject for a while now.  As a somewhat disinterested bystander I wasn't following the story too terribly closely at first, assuming that the interested parties would figure themselves out sooner or later.  Well, it's later; much later and they still haven't figured themselves out.  Before I get too far into this please understand, I'm not taking sides.  The point of this post is just to raise a few points and perhaps clarify a few things for some people who may not know the whole story.

For those of you who do not live in Ontario, Bill 115, Putting Students First Act - 2012 was implemented by the current Liberal government as an amendment to the provincial Education Act seemingly because the current (at the time) teacher and support staff agreements were about to expire (on August 31, 2012) and only two unions had reached agreements and signed memoranda of understanding with the government.  Theoretically, this bill was implemented so as to allow for two years free of labour disputes.  While I'll go through the nuts and bolts of the bill in detail below, this is the meat of what the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) had agreed to (and the one upon which the government has based Bill 115):

• Zero per cent salary increases in 2012-13 and 2013-14.
• All teachers will take a 1.5 per cent pay cut in the form of three unpaid professional development days so that younger teachers will continue to move through the grid according to their experience and additional qualifications.
• Agreement to restructure the grid with a view to long-term, sustainable savings.
• Elimination of the current retirement gratuity for payment of unused sick days that was responsible for a $1.7 billion liability for school boards.
• A restructured short-term sick leave plan that would include up to 10 sick days. This sick leave plan would benefit younger teachers by providing income protection for serious illness and improved maternity leave provisions.

 Those of us who aren't government employees read this and think to ourselves "So?  What's the big deal?  Lots of companies have or have had wage freezes.  At least they have jobs."  The vast majority of people who work outside of government have no such thing as banked sick days or even job security anymore, so they have a hard time feeling any empathy towards people who, in their opinion, only work 10 months of the year (with 2 weeks off at Christmas plus March Break) and 7 hours of each day.

I know teachers.  I'm related to teachers.  I like teachers.  And that myth isn't exactly true; but it isn't entirely false either.  They do get most of the summer off.  And they get two weeks off every Christmas plus they get March break off.  But they also work all day, every day.  Even when they're not actually teaching your kids.  They're there before your kids are and they're there after they leave.  They take their work home with them.  They organize the concerts and the sports teams and the school plays.  Sure, that's part of what teachers are expected to do, but they don't do it during class time.  My point here is that I think the public has maybe forgotten that we expect an awful lot from teachers.  I would not trade places with a teacher for the world.  I'm not sure I could manage a whole class of children and I wouldn't want the responsibility these days when parents seem to expect everything and a bag of chips from teachers.

Moving on to Bill 115, lots of the news, tweets, messages etc. seem to focus on this 'work to rule' (my words) protest being about labour rights rather than the actual changes in the agreements.  So, I looked it up.  and since most people probably don't want to read the whole bill (or any of it)  I'll give you the highlights (there is mention that these powers are granted on an exceptional and temporary basis):

• Section 4(1) refers to the types of agreements which the collective bargaining must resemble:  i.e. the one agreed to by the OECTA and the terms must not be inconsistent with that agreement.
• Section 9 is actually called Minister’s advice to Lieutenant Governor in Council.  
• Subsection (1) specifies how the Education Minister can, and should, give orders to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) regarding signing agreements.  Essentially, the Minister must approve of whatever agreement the boards and teachers come up with, and those agreements must resemble the agreement reached with the OECTA.
• Subsection (2) is a little more complex, but it specifies that if the Minister advises the Lieutenant Governor that an agreement does not meet the above-mentioned criteria, then the LG may order just about anything, "(vi)  do anything else that the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines is necessary in the circumstances".  It then goes on to detail what things may need to be done if the Minister advises the LG that a board and a bargaining agent are not going to be able to come to an agreement before the December 31, 2012 deadline:  impose a collective agreement as per above, prohibit strikes, prohibit lockouts and everything associated with those things.  
• The rest of the subsections are mostly legal stuff, nothing earth-shattering.

• Section (10) makes it okay for the LG to impose a collective agreement.  Period.

Whew, that section 9 was killer huh?  So now we're getting to the really good stuff and I won't bore you with lists anymore.  In section (11) the bill states that the Minister can make a complaint to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging a contravention of this Act.  Section (12) follows by declaring that the Minister must be notified of any proceedings relating to this Act including request for judicial review.  Then in section (13) it states that the Labour Relations Act, 1995 applies, except as modified by this Act.  Which sets us up nicely for section (14) wherein we learn the following:

   14.  (1)  The Ontario Labour Relations Board shall not inquire into or make a decision on whether a provision of this Act, a regulation or an order made under subsection 9 (2) is constitutionally valid or is in conflict with the Human Rights Code.

   (2)  An arbitrator or arbitration board shall not inquire into or make a decision on whether a provision of this Act, a regulation or an order made under subsection 9 (2) is constitutionally valid or is in conflict with the Human Rights Code.

Yikes!!!  They can't even complain if their human rights are violated!!!  That would be breaking the law.  Seriously. 

The bill goes on to say that there will be no review by court.  Period.  No orders made or advice given under this Act will be reviewed or arbitrated.  There will be no causes of action resulting from this Act.  There will be no remedy.  There's more after that, but it's legal stuff; this is the meat and potatoes.

So, if someone was taking my rights away, I might be a little miffed too.  Wouldn't you?

Having said all of that, I'd like to go in a different direction now.  When I was first researching this bill, the idea that kept popping into my mind was that while this bill is a Draconian measure, would it have been necessary if the threat of labour disruption wasn't real?  Yes, this bill goes too far in my opinion,  but I think the threat was real.  And why was the threat there in the first place?  Because the government was trying to control spending by implementing the measures listed at the top of this post; and, as I mentioned above, I don't know very many people (outside of the government) who would have a hard time accepting those provisions as long as they still had jobs.  So as much as the teachers want to take the high road and claim that this isn't about money or banking sick days, that's what started it.

That and the fact that they are unionized professionals.  Think about that for a minute.  Roll it around in your mouth.  Professionals.  Because teachers are professionals.  They have to get a second university degree to teach at any level, they have specialties, they have to maintain and continue their education and keep current.  Teachers are professionals.  But they're also in unions.  What's up with that?  Are there any other professionals you can think of who are unionized?  I can't think of any.  The other professionals that come to mind have organizations which are responsible for maintaining their membership, accreditation, discipline when necessary, education etc., but they aren't unions.  The Law Societies, The Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, the Associations of Chartered Accountants, to name but a few. 

At the risk of offending teachers (which is not at all my intent), the rest of the western world is in, at the very least, a recession.  Much of southern Ontario over the past five years has had to deal with the fallout of the collapse of the auto industry and everything that rippled from that and the American banking collapse.  Teachers have been laid off and still there is a threat of strikes or lockouts.  No one wants to lose something that they already have.  That's understandable.  But banking sick days?  Forever?  There are teachers who can't get jobs and the ones who have jobs want to strike because they can't save up their sick days.  Many people don't even get paid when they're sick.  Other professionals get paid for the work they actually do (doctors get paid per client visit, lawyers bill by the hour that they are actually working on your stuff etc.).  They don't get paid a salary and they certainly don't get paid when they don't do anything.

 As I mentioned above, I have the highest regard for teachers, and I am always suspicious of the government.  This legislation is outrageous and while the teachers themselves can't do anything about it, perhaps the taxpayers should:  because if the government can do this to one group of people, then they can of course do it to another group (and you're fooling yourself if you think not).  I have no idea how to go about that at this particular time, so I'll just leave that in your laps for now.

I think that I have rambled enough for today and I will remove myself from my soapbox after saying one more thing:  I think that both sides are wrong and neither is putting students first.  The Minister and the teachers (or at least the organizers of the work stoppages) are antagonizing each other and holding the students hostage. 

Drive safe peeps,