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!

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

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,

Mobbing the Vote

Happy Easter Everybody!

I guess it's about time that I posted a little bit about our current election. I just haven't been inspired to this time; until now.

There really hasn't been much of a campaign in my opinion. It seems to me to be mostly a scare campaign with each major party trying to scare you out of voting for the other. Perhaps I've missed the boat, but all the ads and all the headlines seem to be more about the same old stuff: Harper's evil (which of course we know is true, you can see it in his eyes) and wants to kill healthcare, Ignatieff is not really Canadian because he spent too long away from Canada (in the States and England) and only came back to be Prime Minister, and Layton is all about the 'ordinary' Canadians ('cuz anyone who has a post secondary education or is middle-class doesn't really count).

If you actually go to the Liberal and NDP sites and read their platforms they have some interesting stuff that isn't negative about the other guys (not a casual use of the word). Iggy wants to help us with childcare and education. They both want to help with job creation and healthcare. I'm not going to reprint their entire platforms for you, but you can follow the links if you're interested. If you go to the Conservative site, the first thing you see is a negative blurb about one of the other leaders. Nice.

Regardless, I'm pretty tired of hearing negative advertising myself. They all do it and they're all acting like children in my opinion. If they can't get elected on their own merits, then they're clearly not worthy of election. However I know that politics is all about the negative advertising now because that's what we respond to apparently. What does that say about us, the electorate? I don't think it says anything good.

It's a shame that the only candidates we have to choose from are name-calling, power-hungry adolescents who don't seem to have our best interests in mind. If they really did, they wouldn't behave the way they do. They would actually accomplish things when they got elected. They would try to work together despite their differences for the benefit of the people (you know, the people for whom they work). It's clear that our system has broken down to the point where those who have either been elected to or who work for the government in the bureaucracy have forgotten that they are supposed to be working for the people. It should be viewed as a privilege to serve in public office, but instead it seems from the actions of those who are currently elected officials that the prevailing attitude is rather one of entitlement to rule and behave badly - and not be held accountable.

Our elected officials in Ottawa do not believe that their spending of public money should be subject to audit. They expect to have their cake and eat it too. And we let them.

So the original point of this post was about a relatively new phenomenon: vote mobs. In case you don't know what one is here's a link to an article about the first ever. Ah, to be young again! These are happening all over the country and I say good on 'em! They're good clean fun and they get the message out: go vote!

Today's particular post was inspired by a different kind of article though. Not surprisingly it was a negative article by a former Stephen Harper lackey who thinks that vote mobs are bad. Why? Because it would be just awful to have a bunch of uninformed kids running around exercising their rights and making decisions regarding who should run our country. Umm, okay (that's sarcasm just in case it didn't translate well).

I guess we should start giving every person who votes a test before they do so to ensure that they know why they're voting for the candidates they're choosing. Perhaps we should start verifying education documents as well. We wouldn't want people of any age really who are uninformed making decisions about important things. Maybe we should just take the decision-making out of the hands of the people altogether because really, they can't be trusted to make the right decisions: they don't have all the relevant facts. (Again with the sarcasm, sorry, I just can't help myself.)

Obviously I think vote mobs are a good thing. They look fun, they seem harmless and they're inspiring. If even half of those people vote, then that's fabulous as far as I'm concerned. Sorry if my little rant was a little meander-y, but that's just how I'm rolling today.

Have a good long weekend and drive safe! Peace out!

Abortion? Again???

Why People Why????

Have they nothing better to do with their time? Seriously? Are there not more important issues concerning their constituents that they should be worried about? I think yes. Child poverty, health care, education, the military action in Afghanistan: these are but a few of the issues that are current, urgent and far more real than what some of our MPs seem to be spending their time and our money on.

According to a story in The Toronto Star today, some people are under the misapprehension that there is still such a thing as an 'abortion debate' in Canada. Are they not aware of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? According to section 7:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

As far as I'm concerned, this means I'm allowed to do whatever is necessary to secure my life as it is and I have the right not to be deprived of that right. Of course, I also must not be depriving any other person who also has a life and is entitled to the same rights.

Further, according to section 15:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

This means that I cannot be discriminated against because I am a woman. Since only women can have abortions, then it follows (granted in a somewhat odd fashion) that preventing women from having abortions is discriminating against them.

Women have just as much right to self-determination as men do. Period. When are these people going to catch up? The so-called abortion debate is sooo twenty years ago. Or maybe they just can't come up with solutions to real problems so since they feel a need to be in the news, they figure they'll push our buttons about this.

Hmpf!

Peace out peeps,
Lesle

To Vote or Not to Vote

Hello friends,

A friend of mine forwarded this to me recently and I felt impelled to post it. The original author of the message is from the US, but the message is pretty universal.

Women friends and family please read this to the end as it is important and a part of our struggle for equality!

Let's honour these brave and daring women by voting and acknowledging them for our freedoms. Thank you for taking the time.

Remember, the vote for women was a massive struggle. See the movie, Iron Jawed Angels. It will inspire you to vote!

WHY WOMEN SHOULD VOTE




This is the story of our Grandmothers and Great-grandmothers; they lived only 90 years ago.

Remember, it was not until 1920 that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote.

(In Canada full enfranchisement was not to come until 1918, when the Dominion (federal) parliament passed an act giving women the vote. The remaining provinces quickly followed suit, except for Quebec, which did not do so until 1940. Agnes Macphail became the first woman elected to the Dominion Parliament in 1921.)



These women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking for the vote.

And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of 'obstructing sidewalk traffic.'



(Lucy Burns)

They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air.



(Dora Lewis)

They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack.

Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women. Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because
they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote. For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms.



(Alice Paul)

When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.

So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because--why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?

Last week, there was a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie 'Iron Jawed Angels.' It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. We need the reminder.

Voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.

My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry. She was--with herself. 'One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie,' she said. 'What would those women think of the way I use, or don't use, my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn.' The
right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her 'all over again.'

HBO released the movie on video and DVD . I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum I want it shown on Bunco [sic] night, too, and anywhere else women gather. I realize this isn't our usual idea of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock therapy is in order.

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy.

The doctor admonished the men: 'Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.'

Please, if you are so inclined, pass this on to all the women you know.
We need to get out and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very courageous women. Whether you vote liberal, conservative, green, new democratic, democratic, republican or independent party - remember to vote.

Please remember to vote on October 14th friends! I don't feel that we're entitled to complain unless we are willing to participate in our social contract. Like the author of this piece, I won't presume to tell you how to vote (your conscience should guide you in that regard), I just want you to vote.

Thanks for reading & drive safe peeps,

Highway of Heroes

Good evening my friends,

I hope you are all well and ready for another exciting election season! ;)

Before I start in on our wonderful political landscape, I wanted to write about our 'Highway of Heroes'. I'm not sure how familiar anyone is with that name so I'll explain: sometime last year it was decided that a stretch of the 401 (or, more formally, the Macdonald-Cartier freeway) should be sub-named in honour of our deceased soldiers returning from Afghanistan. The stretch from Trenton to Toronto was chosen because the soldiers' bodies are flown to Trenton then transported via the freeway to Toronto.

I'm not writing this post about war, or about whether or not our soldiers should be there. It's not up to them where they go; they are brave enough to join our military and they are heroes regardless of what happens. This post is about us. The people who stay here. The people for whom the soldiers fight. The people who do not even think about those soldiers most of the time. I have a tendency to be somewhat cynical about us. Sometimes it seems as though we are heading quickly into hell in a hand-basket without any signs of slowing down. However, every now and then something happens and I feel as though there may be hope.

The highway of heroes gives me hope. If you haven't been on it or around it when soldiers have been coming home then you're missing something. Sorry. Twice in the past week I've been on the 401 when soldiers were coming home (which is probably why I'm writing this now). It makes me sad to think that twice in the past week we've lost Canadian soldiers, but it gives me hope to see all of the people who turn up to show their respect just by standing on an overpass and waving a flag. The first time I experienced it I didn't know what was going on because there were only police vehicles and personnel, firetrucks and fighters and other emergency personnel. The vehicles' lights were all flashing. We only found out later (from a firefighter) that they were showing their solidarity and respect in the best way they could think of.

The emergency personnel still come and flash their lights, but the overpasses are all crowded with ordinary citizens now from end to end. They hang the maple leaf flags overhead and they stand in silent vigil. It reminded me this past week that society is not wholly lost. There are still good citizens who care about what happens to others and about the good deeds done by those who have given their lives to protect ours (however remote that may seem).

I may not drink beer or play hockey, but I am Canadian and I am proud to be so.

Thanks for coming out, and drive safe peeps,

Dr. Morgantaler, I presume?

Greetings loyal friends and readers.

Happy summer to you all! Well at least to those of you living in the northern hemisphere. To those who do not, I wish a jolly cozy winter!

Enough with the niceties though. I've been thinking a fair amount recently about the appointment of Dr. Henry Morgantaler to the Order of Canada.

As you may expect, I think that this was an appropriate decision. If you know anything about his history, you don't need me to explain why, or if you read the story in the link, you also don't need me to explain why. I will simply state here that Dr. Morgantaler was perhaps the single most important figure in Canada's road to legalizing abortion.

What I've been thinking about though isn't really about what Dr. Morgantaler has done, or why I feel he is so worthy of one of our country's greatest honours. I was thinking about the other members of the Order, a former lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, Gilbert Finn, a B.C. Priest, and a charity organization whose founder received the award posthumously, the Madonna House, who have either returned their awards or have stated publicly that they are going to because the Order has been 'degraded', 'devalued' and 'tarnished' by Morgantaler's membership.

Why am I focussed on this you ask? Predominantly because Canadians are, in general, polite, and the actions mentioned above are not at all polite. Why were they doing this? What was their motivation? Clearly this was a good opportunity for at least one or two of these people to get another fifteen minutes of fame. I'm torn on how to feel about the Madonna House people's motivation. The award wasn't really theirs. Who are they to give it back? Regardless, it struck me that people have become so entirely self-centred and self-serving that it doesn't seem to matter that they are insulting our country. They have been granted one of the highest distinctions available in our country and they are publicly throwing it back in our faces and spitting on it. Figuratively of course. Who would even do that with a gift you didn't really want? Did no one teach them manners? It's as though they were invited to a party and arrived and found out that someone they don't like was also invited so they make a big fuss about not staying, but they're probably going to take their loot bags with them.

It's one thing for anti-abortion activists to protest in front of Rideau Hall. People are always protesting something (they clearly have known no real hardship in their lives and thus need some excitement) and they will continue to do so until they get what they want (which will never happen). It is a whole other thing for someone who has done good works and has been recognized by the government as such to publicly protest the government's decisions in such a gross and childish manner.

If they felt this strongly about abortion then why did they accept the awards in the first place? Abortion was legalized by the government, not by Dr. Morgantaler. If it's abortion they abhor, they should be protesting at abortion clinics or at the legislative buildings in Ottawa. That's where abortion became legal. Instead, they're simply discriminating against one man who was brave enough to stand up for what he believed in to the point of incarceration, death threats and attempts on his life.

As far as I'm concerned the abortion issue is closed. Any person should have the right to self-determination. That is a basic human right in Canada. Abortion became legal in 1988. Twenty years ago it was decided that a woman should not have to ask a committee for permission. It took a long time to get to that point. Dr. Morgantaler was instrumental in that process. He was a key figure and a leader in his field. He deserves the Order of Canada just as much as Wayne Gretzky.

Thanks for stopping by!

Drive safe peeps,

Inaction is a Choice Too

Hello beautiful people,

This may seem a little bit long, but I think it's worth watching. A friend of mine sent it to me. (Yes, I'm on my little soapbox again! ;)



Hope you enjoy it!

Election Day Approacheth in Ontario

Greetings Good Peoples,

I hope you are all well, and I would like to thank any of you who are actually still clicking on my little blog occasionally to see whether or not my writer's block has ended yet.

I'm hoping it has. I have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to start blogging again, but those posts are still in draft form and are still incomplete.

Anyway, if there's one thing that may spur me into action, it is an election! Ontario is having a provincial election tomorrow and I'd like to urge all of you Ontarians to vote. As any of my regular readers may know, I am a huge supporter of participating in the electoral process; which, for most people, means voting. I don't even view the right to vote as a privilege (which it may be for some who do not possess it), I view it as an obligation. It is a duty to which we, as participants in our social contracts, are bound. How can we expect our political representatives to know what we want if we don't tell them? Further, how do we know which representative will best represent us if we don't get involved and find out what they (or their party) stand for?

This particular vote is especially important because it contains a referendum (yes! we can have them too!). If this is news to you (and you're an Ontarian) I urge you to visit YourBigDecision to see what all the hoopla is about. I'm not going to explain everything here, but the government is asking its citizens whether we want to keep our current electoral system (first-past-the-post) or if we want to change to a mixed system which involves both first-past-the-post and mixed-member-proportional. Please click on the link for further explanation of these. I don't want to explain these options in a perhaps slanted way.

As of this time, I have still not decided how I am going to mark my ballot tomorrow, but mark it I will, and I will do so with the knowledge that I have done all that I could to determine what I think are the best options for our province.

Thanks again for your time, and thanks for your patience.

Drive safe peeps,
Lesle

Taxes! Taxes! Taxes!

Hi Everybody,

It's that time of year again... Nope, not spring, because as the weather has just reminded us here in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area), we really can't rely on the past to help us figure out the weather's behaviour in the present (maybe it's supposed to be spring, but no... some more snow for us). No, now is the time when all the little accountants start sharpening their little pencils and stacking up the rolls of adding machine paper (I don't really know the name of that paper, sorry). It's Tax Season folks!!!

Aren't you all excited? I am! Well, I was, but I got my refund two weeks ago, so my excitement has subsided a little. I have safely tucked most of it away (no I'm not telling where!). I am kidding about getting really excited about tax time; slightly. Taxes are so easy now if you use software and file on-line that it literally takes only a week (maybe two if you file closer to the deadline) to get your assessment. If you have arranged for direct deposit, and you're getting a refund of your hard-earned money, then the money is in your account before you even get the paper assessment.

But I digress. My excitement was not why I wanted to discuss taxes today. A friend of mine sent me an email today that reminded me that I've wanted to discuss taxes before (but clearly had not gotten around to it). This is what she sent me:

Explaining Taxation

Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean?

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1
* The sixth would pay $3
* The seventh would pay $7
* The eighth would pay $12
* The ninth would pay $18
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings... the least proportionate savings)

Each of the six paying customers was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings: "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

As a consequence, the first nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Okay, that may be a slightly heavy-handed example, but it's essentially true. As much of a socialist as I am (sort of), I am not a fanatic and I do understand money management. People (media, politicians) like to grab headlines, but the bottom line is that a tax cut is not 'free money' for anyone. It simply means that the amount of taxes we have to pay is proportionately less. That's why they call refunds; refunds. We're getting our money back. It was our money to begin with. It may seem as though the wealthy are getting a break when others are not (or are not getting much of one), but only because they were paying more originally. If we're not paying any taxes, then there is nothing to refund. If we're paying some, then we'll get some back, and if we pay lots, we'll get more back.

The bottom line for me is that I support paying taxes. I don't think I've ever complained about it, and I know several others who feel the same way. I think that we need to pay taxes to keep our social services alive and well. Yes, I am aware that there are some serious problems with our social services in Canada, and I am also aware that the more wealthy you are, the more opportunites your accountant will find to save you tax money. But, the wealthy (and businesses) still pay more in taxes than middle income or low income earners, and when there is a cut, the dollar value looks better for the wealthiest, even if the percentage doesn't.

When you enter into a social contract, there are benefits to be gained and there are obligations imposed. The taxes are one of the obligations we must meet so that we can benefit from living in one of the most developed nations in the world. Benefits like socialized healthcare and welfare, and passable roads and clean drinking water running hot and cold from our taps inside our homes (for the most part; if you don't have a home, you're probably not paying taxes).

I hope this little post of mine hasn't offended anyone!

Drive safe peeps!

Quandary over a Quagmire

Hello Friends,

I hope you are all well. I have had a somewhat tumultuous couple of weeks and have not been able to devote any time to blogging for a little while, but I've managed to squeeze a little time in now.

Updates:

The provincial Liberals in Quebec won the election, but barely. It was a very close race and I'm sure many people were biting their nails last Monday. The Liberals have formed a minority government, with the new guys, wild card party Action Democratique du Quebec (ADQ), forming the opposition. By the way, I must print a correction to my former post: the ADQ has not clearly and unequivocally stated that theirs is a party of separatists. I apologize for the misinformation. So, the newly formed government in Quebec is tenuous at best, but we'll have to keep watching to see how things unfold in the next little while.

Thank you to everyone for all your support of the WWF and my annual climb up the CN Tower!!! You are all very generous and kind! I promise to make it to the top and make you all proud.

I'm sure you're all wondering what any of that has to do with the title of my post today, and frankly, it has nothing to do with it. However, the reason I was prompted to write today was by a quandary. In fact, a quandary over a potential quagmire.

A friend of mine sent me an email, complete with not just one, but two, YouTube Links (the second one just includes interviews with people on the street) regarding this issue today.

The net of these are that the 'government' has decided to build a landfill in Tiny Township (yes, that really is its name, and yes, it's in Ontario). I know, we all make garbage, we all have to deal with it somehow. However, the quandary arises in this situation when we discover that the purest water on earth (literally) originates from Arteysian wells there. It's one thing to dump garbage in a place where the water is already tainted or the soil has already been contaminated, but the purest water on earth? One of the reasons they want to use this land is because of the unique formulation of clay which results in a super efficient filtering system (that's my paraphrase, not to be quoted) which will, theoretically, help with the breaking down of the garbage etc. eventually. However, it is precisely that filtering system which produces the purest water on earth, and if the filters get all clogged up with garbage, how effective will they be on the water? All indicators are that they will not be effective at all any more.

So what do we think about this? The people in Tiny Township don't want their water tainted, but we keep making more and more garbage and we have to have places to put it don't we? The citizens there have agreed to have a landfill built in their (county?), but they disagree with the location chosen. Should the local residents not be able to have a vote in this type of decision? I clearly don't have all the answers, but it doesn't look to me as though this is your typical 'not in my backyard' situation. I think maybe the government (whichever level it is) should listen to the residents (because the citizens are the people for whom the elected officials work) and try to come up with a solution that doesn't involve polluting the purest water on earth.

I know it's difficult to know where to draw the line. If we accede to this request, then how many local environmental groups will we have given ammunition to? It may open a Pandora's box of sorts that we don't want to have to face. However, just because we want to avoid confrontation doesn't mean that we shouldn't do the right thing. We should not make decisions based on what the results may lead to in other cases; we should make these decisions on the particulars of each case in point.

One of the best things about being Canadian is that we have a fabulous country. I mean geographically, or geophysically. Ours is a beautiful land. We have tonnes of water. Some of it is pure, some of it is not so pure (e.g. Lake Ontario). That doesn't mean that we should deliberately poison some just because we have more and it's the most politically expedient solution.

Rant over for today folks.

Drive safe & car pool when you can peeps,

International Women's Day '07 - Epilogue

Sorry to bug you twice in one day friends, but I was catching up on news and found this headline: Witness at Sask sex assault trial testifies girl made first moves on him , so of course I had to click on it.

If you don't want to make the effort to click on the link, here's a quick summary: three men (white men in their mid-twenties) have been accused of gang-raping a twelve year-old aboriginal girl. They picked her up on the steps of some bar, she had just run away from home, they drove out into the country and they gave her beer (four of them I think). But she started it. She was the aggressor.

This is why we need an International Women's Day.

Peace out peeps,

Quebec Votes 2007

Good Rainy Morning to you!

I don't know what it's like where you are, but it's raining like crazy here in the Big Smoke. It was sunny when I was driving to work, then about an hour later it was pouring, then it stopped, then it was pouring, now it's drizzling... Like I said, crazy! However, the temperature is a balmy 14 degrees Celsius and I am pretty pleased with that. I think we may be on the road to spring!

So, with spring in mind, I'd like to point out a little something to my faithful friends: Quebec is having a provincial election on Monday and apparently, the Liberals may not win! Follow along with the CBC to keep tabs on the nail-biting, mud-slinging, name-calling race.

Some of you who are Canadian, will understand what it means for the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) not to win the provincial election: the issue of separation will once again rear its ugly head. If the Liberals are not elected to government, then (most likely) the Parti Quebecois (PQ) will be elected; although that is also not guaranteed any longer because there is a relatively new player, the Action Democratique de Quebec (ADQ), that is right up at the top of the polls with the other two. Both the PQ and the ADQ are sovereigntist parties. Therefore, if either of these two form the provincial government in Quebec, there will be more, and louder, and more insistent talk of referendums and separating from the rest of Canada.

The rest of Canada (as far as I know) doesn't want them to separate; aside from the whole 'losing a vital part of your country and its history' thing, we'd be cutting our country in half and that would mess up our maps. Thus, I will be following the results on Monday as closely as I can. I'll have to do it in French, but that's cool; they say better stuff in French anyway.

I'm not sure how many of you knew about the upcoming election, or the platforms of the parties or how the race was going, or anything like that. As I was reading the French language articles on canoe.ca from Quebec I began to realize that I should have been aware of more than I was. There's a lot of stuff going on in our country that we don't know about because we don't read their newspapers, or watch local French news, etc. It occurred to me that if we (the rest of Canada) always wait until the horse has left before closing the barn door (so to speak) then we're not going to be able to have any credibility with the Quebecois. Or, to put it more simply: Most of us are going to wait until a separatist party is elected before we even think about the fact that a large amount of people in Quebec are willing to separate from Canada.

I don't think that's a good idea. I know it seems as though there is nothing we, the rest of Canada, can do since we don't get to vote in a referendum, but perhaps we're wrong. What if we did think about it more? What if we tried to make it an issue with our MPs? What if we told them that we wanted Quebec to be a part of Canada and that we wanted making that happen a priority? Isn't that what government is for? Aren't the elected officials supposed to represent the will of the people? Are we not obligated to take an active role in public life in some way as part of our social contract? Yes. To all of those questions. If we want something to be done, we should not wait until the milk is spilling to start crying about it. We should be working pre-emptively to try to prevent the milk jug from tipping over in the first place.

I am as guilty as the next person. It wasn't until my friend from Quebec pointed these articles out to me that I woke up to the realization that all sorts of wierd political stuff is going on in Quebec right now and that a separatist party just might win the election on Monday.

We (the rest of Canada) may be 'tired' of hearing about Quebec's distinct society, or some of us may think they should just let it go because they've had two referendums and lost both; but at least the Quebecois care about their nation and their politics. That's more than you can say for most of the rest of us. (I'm not suggesting that their position is a good one.) Would we all get out and vote if we were allowed to vote in the referendum? I'm not sure that all of the people I know would.

Rant over for today, thanks for coming along for the ride!

Drive safe peeps,

International Women's Day '07

Hi,

Today is International Women's Day. This year marks the 30th Anniversary and our theme in Canada is Ending Violence Against Women: Action for Real Results (well, that might be the theme for the whole world, but don't quote me on that).

I am all for that! (As an aside, I am all for ending violence against everyone, but that's a whole other post.) In fact, I'm sure most of you reading this are supportive of this year's theme; otherwise you probably wouldn't be reading my blog and you probably wouldn't like me much. So, great! Now what do we do?

First, how many of you knew it was International Women's day today? Or that it is International Women's Week (March 4th - 10th)? I'm not entirely sure how I know, but I have a good memory. You don't have to answer, it's a rhetorical question. Second, how many of us (social workers & teachers excepted) have any idea what to do about ending violence against women? Sure, if we're actually being violent towards women in our lives, we could stop that, but what if we're not? What if we don't know anyone (that we are aware of) who is a victim of violence (domestic or otherwise)? What is the average person to do? Third (and last), why do women need an international day? Women are alive, empowered, celebrated, exploited, oppressed, mutilated, beaten and murdered every day. Why make one special?

Since you're not actually here to answer my questions, I'm going answer them for you to the best of my humble abilities. I'm going to bet that most of you (> 65% of you) did not know that today is International Women's Day. I know that it is today because I possess a good liberal arts education (something that can never be repossessed and is worth way more than most people give it credit for) from a world-class university. I know because I try to be socially aware of issues affecting Canadians, and women and society in general. I know because I read a lot.

Second, how do we (the average Janes and Joes) end violence against women if we're not actually committing it? That's a good question... and I'm guessing that most of you don't have an answer to that one either. So how do we take action for real results? If you read the articles you can find on the web, it seems that most of the people in the western world are saying the same things... they're pledging to do more to close the gender gap and the wage gap. The men in countries with slightly less equality are going to make a more concerted effort to stop violating women and girls. They're going to try not to use acid to disfigure women and girls as a form of punishment. (Hmmm...) But what can we do? How do we close the wage gap? How do we end the exploitation of women and girls? How do we change a global way of thinking? I still don't have an answer for that one folks, and I don't think that anyone else does yet either. If you can come up with one, I would really like to hear it.

Thirdly, why do women need an international day? Men don't have an international day. What's so special about us? Well, what's not? We're not asking anyone to get us cards, so this isn't like a Hallmark holiday. Why do we need a day? It's kind of like celebrating Valentine's Day only a lot more important. We (everybody in the world) need to be reminded that women have been subserviant to men for all of human history and while some of us (western women) have attained a number of rights, many more of us have not. We need to be reminded that women are subjected to violence of all types every day. We need to be reminded not to shut our eyes and ears to the signs of violence happening around us every day. We need to be reminded that women are still seen as subservient to men, even in western society, and will continue to be so until everyone acknowledges the oppression and subservience and recognizes that people are people and deserve equal rights and treatment regardless of gender (ethnicity, religious belief, etc.). Men don't need an international day because they have everything: they have all the power and all the rights. We don't need to be reminded of that. They're the ones we had to ask permission from when we wanted the right to vote, or own land, or attend universities.

So, please at least help by making sure that your words and actions do not lead to violence or oppression in any way. Even if you're not always aware of it, just laughing at the jokes conveys the message that you agree with the subject matter. Watching the movies and buying the magazines is directly supporting the oppression and sexual subservience of women. I don't intend to sound too preachy, but I don't think I can put this any other way.

Happy International Women's Day my friends!

Drive safe peeps,

A Fitting End for a Dictator?

Good Morning Friends and Countrypeople (and Citypeople too ; )

Perhaps you'll all know this by now, but just in case reading my little blog is more imperative than reading real news, I will provide a bit of my own news coverage today. According to Iraqi news media, Saddam Hussein was hanged just around 0600 local time on Saturday (their local time, not mine).

Here are some links if you want all the salacious details...

From the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/29/saddam-dead.html

From the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218485.stm

I'm pretty sure that everyone who's ever read an article or seen a story on Saddam has an opinion about him and his 'crimes against humanity'. I would never deny that he has committed any: I don't really know. He has been found guilty in a court of law (I won't deal with the legality of that court here, it's not my purpose), and thus (according to our social contract) he should be punished for his actions.

My topic for today is: What should that punishment be?

The question is whether or not any of our crimes should be dealt with by death. I'm not personally a fan of the death penalty. I don't believe that 'an eye for an eye' brings justice to anyone concerned. If I steal from you, taking my hand will not return your goods, it will only serve to fulfill your sense of vengeance, and cause more animosity and resentment (and perhaps more need for crime) in the world. It has nothing to do with justice. Revenge is not justice. If I kill your child, I have committed a wrong and I deserve to be punished. Is it right then to do the exact same thing in return to me? Is it okay just because it is state-sanctioned? Again, it is essentially just vengeance. I am not going to split hairs and discuss whether or not innocent people may be executed by mistake. I'm just talking about the guilty ones here (this is theoretical). Even if I am guilty: there is incontrovertible proof, and I have confessed to premeditated murder, how is it just to do the same to me? Capital punishment is clearly premeditated. It is the deliberate taking of a human life. It is not just.

However, if you're not worried about justice and you're simply practical, then you might be in favour of capital punishment for the following reasons: as a deterrent (to others), as a method of removing the offender from society completely, and as an efficient way to deal with criminals (especially tryannical dictators perhaps). I think that it is relatively safe to say that we (as a society) have not been sucessful at rehabilitating criminals after a certain developmental stage (in fact, some stats show that prison is where many criminals become better criminals), so yes, the cost of incarcerating criminals can be a factor if you are more concerned with the bottom line than with justice. The bottom line ($), of course, being the end-all and be-all in the capitalist world. (Wow, I used the word criminals 4 times in one sentence!)

I'm sure that many of us have heard the same arguments (as listed above) for capital punishment, plus others perhaps. I've also heard people say that they were only in favour of the death penalty in extreme cases (e.g. Clifford Robert Olson). The biggest problem with that argument though is that it's difficult to draw a line. What exactly constitues an extreme case? Is it the depravity of the crime? Is it the number of deaths the person is responsible for? Is it the intent? And who decides where these lines are drawn? Can they be discretionary? What about Saddam and his crimes against humanity? What was his intent? Does he qualify as a serial killer? Did he actually kill people?

I'm not suggesting that Saddam Hussein is not guilty of anything or that he should not be punished. I'm simply suggesting that we do not have the answers to these questions. I'm also suggesting that the premeditated killing of people is never just, regardless of the cost of incarceration. When we let vengeance rule, we are allowing ourselves to be ruled by a 'mob mentality'. I've been told that I'm naive and that I would think differently if I had kids. Who can say? I can, however, say that exacting revenge as a society upon a criminal in a time where we need not do so to protect ourselves from that person (as an immediate threat) does not feel at all like enlightenment to me. In fact, it seems to be very visceral, violent and blood-thirsty. Especially when the dictator is hanged.

That's all for now!

Drive safe peeps,

George Stroumboulopoulos Plays Softball with Belinda

Greetings Good People,

I know, it's been a while, but you know me... I've been busy getting lost in the dark. So, I apologize and I would sincerely appreciate your forgiveness.

Moving on... CBC's The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos began its new season last week (how very exciting!) and like a good little Canadian, I've been watching it. Partly because it's Canadian, and partly because George amuses me; he makes me smile and frankly, I can use all the help I can get these days climbing back up out of the dark place. But I digress.

One of his first guests was Belinda Stronach and he did bring up the Tie Domi affair, but he let her off easily. She practically admitted it and he just let the statement float by without pouncing on it (la la la... I'm not listening). If you want to watch the whole interview, you can view it here:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1075

One of the points George made is that everyone is concerned about her personal life (i.e. whom she's dating) because she's a woman. However, I think that's wrong. He mentioned the next day after receiving email about it that he wasn't going to ask because he wouldn't ask a man. Well, isn't that nice and polite of him? I guess that's why we all love him so much. How very Canadian.

However, as a woman, I'd like to know why he didn't ask her why she thinks it's okay to commit adultery. I am nowhere near being a Conservative, nor am I a member of the religious right, but seriously folks: she practically admitted to being an adulterer on national television and George let it go. Yes, I know it happens all the time, and I know that you shouldn't judge someone until you've walked a day in her shoes, but she is one of the most powerful women in Canada and is supposed to be a role model for young women. What kind of a message is she sending? I seriously don't care about whom Belinda is dating, but could she not wait to go out in public with him until the separation papers were filed? Yes, I am holding her to a higher standard. It may seem unfair, but that's part of what you get when you sign up for the job. She is an elected official. I think George was going easy on her specifically because she is a woman and a newbie at politics. She's not ready for prime time and he knew it. Doesn't he realize that it's more insulting to treat someone with kid gloves than it is to give them a place at the grown-ups' table and let them take their lumps like everyone else? Maybe Belinda doesn't mind being babied because she's a woman and a newbie, but it bothers me. And yes, I would feel the same way about a single male politician committing adultery and admitting to it on national television.

Aside from the whole role model aspect, it bothers me that Belinda is a cheater. She broke the code. It's one of those unwritten female rules: you don't cheat with someone else's guy, even if you don't like her. You wouldn't want it to happen to you. If he wants you enough, he should break up with her first; if he doesn't then he's not worth it. Because if he's willing to cheat on her, then he's willing to cheat on you. I used to respect Belinda; I don't anymore.

For a little while I thought maybe George had lost more than his nose-ring. Then I saw him interview Iggy, and then Charles McVety and I regained a little faith. I will continue to watch Gemini-award-winning George. He makes me laugh and he interviews interesting people.

Thanks for dropping by.

Peace out peeps,

end internet child abuse: the light a million candles project

From Cold Desert via raincoaster... pass it on

The innocent victims of Internet child abuse cannot speak for themselves.

But you can.

With your help, we can eradicate this evil trade.

We do not need your money.

We need you to light a candle of support.

We’re aiming to light at least One Million Candles by December 31, 2006.

This petition will be used to encourage governments, politicians, financial institutions, payment organisations, Internet service providers, technology companies and law enforcement agencies to eradicate the commercial viability of online child abuse.

They have the power to work together. You have the power to get them to take action.
Please light your candle at lightamillioncandles.com.

Together, we can destroy the commercial viability of Internet child abuse sites that are destroying the lives of innocent children.