Isn't it interesting!!
A day after Gilles Duceppe stated that the "honey moon is over" for Harper, the PM comes out and announces a $110 million dollar funding initiative for Quebec City. This money is set aside to help the city celebrate and promote the fact that it is turning 400 years old in 2008.
All I can say to that is why can't I have a $110 million dollar birthday party? Ohhh that isn't what I really wanted to say. What I do want to say is that I suppose Harper still has his heart set on Quebec. He wants to make inroads there.
Silly Gilles though is making some pretty funny remarks which could make it easier for the Cons to achieve their mission of taking over a province like Quebec. He was recently reported saying that Canada should consider adopting a common currency. While I'm not sure that I agree with this 100%, adopting an "American dollar" in a nation trying to separate itself from the debacle that is US politics isn't exactly the smartest thing to say. I would say that I do like the idea of having a common currency. They have one in Europe so why can't we here! My only problem is I wouldn't want my money to only have American Presidents on it. If we were to do the whole sharing the currency thing with the rest of North America it would have to have some Presidents and Prime Ministers from the three nations. But I digress.
Either way I smell an election before we are ready as I've stated before. Should prove to be an interesting couple of months a head of us.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
A Fall Election?
So Gilles Duceppe has said recently that he is ready to fight Harper in Quebec. Which means he's pretty much done with keeping the Cons in their safe little happy bubble. Garth Turner was recently quoted as saying that the Cons are the only ones ready for an election. The big question is: Is Canada ready for another Federal election?--especially Ontario with their election coming up in end of the fall 2007.
There is nothing more in this world that I want then to see the Cons fall to an election. Stephen Harper is one scary man. However, I'm not sure that we can afford to keep calling elections every year. Pretty soon all parties will be broke and we're going to be stuck with a government that comes to power because the only ones voting are the die hard folks. If elections are called every year or every 6 months the voter turnout rate will be soooooo low.
On other election news, Elizabeth May is the leader of the Greens. The only party at the present moment without a leader is the Libs. If we were to go to an election we'd have Bill Graham running until the leader was decided which would really give the Cons the majority they want. Maybe the Libs should consider choosing their leader earlier.
Sometimes these political matters get me extremely fired up.
So Gilles Duceppe has said recently that he is ready to fight Harper in Quebec. Which means he's pretty much done with keeping the Cons in their safe little happy bubble. Garth Turner was recently quoted as saying that the Cons are the only ones ready for an election. The big question is: Is Canada ready for another Federal election?--especially Ontario with their election coming up in end of the fall 2007.
There is nothing more in this world that I want then to see the Cons fall to an election. Stephen Harper is one scary man. However, I'm not sure that we can afford to keep calling elections every year. Pretty soon all parties will be broke and we're going to be stuck with a government that comes to power because the only ones voting are the die hard folks. If elections are called every year or every 6 months the voter turnout rate will be soooooo low.
On other election news, Elizabeth May is the leader of the Greens. The only party at the present moment without a leader is the Libs. If we were to go to an election we'd have Bill Graham running until the leader was decided which would really give the Cons the majority they want. Maybe the Libs should consider choosing their leader earlier.
Sometimes these political matters get me extremely fired up.
Friday, August 25, 2006
I rarely post on the US however this seems important.
I rarely like to post on the US for a few reasons. One being I'm Canadian so what happens in the US has no bearing on my daily life. Another is I hate the administration and the Bush doctrine and I would be writing endlessly and I don't want to become obsessed with it. Finally the politics in the US seem way to right wing for a lefty--some almost say commie--like myself.
However, I find this is an important issue that needs to have dialogue. The US has just passed a slight victory for women's right to self govern around her reproduction. They have passed a bill allowing the morning after pill--Plan B--to be sold over the counter. However, there are restrictions on who the sale will go to. I think this is great that Plan B is now available without prescription. I find it difficult to put the age restriction on it as 16 and 17 year olds require access just as much as those older.
The argument from the right is that by allowing Plan B to be sold over the counter it will allow a path for promiscuous behaviours. This is utter and total crap. Teens are going to have sex despite there being Plan B or abortion available. I think it's high time the right thinks about the kids over all health--this includes emotional, social and spiritual health--and think about how an unplanned pregnancy can affect a youth or woman for that matter. By forcing a person to carry a child to full term you create more emotional duress then is necessary. The right would say well why not give that child up for adoption to a parent who is willing to love and care for that child. That's easy for a person to say when they are sitting without child. What they fail to realize is the bond a mother has with her child. Giving away a child creates emotional stress. The right also argues that this pill is the "abortion" pill. This pill is in no way an abortion pill. It is a concentrated amount of similar hormones found in regular pills that when taken early enough has a higher chance of not creating a pregnancy. If the person takes the pill after conception then the pill has no effect whatsoever. This argument is moot.
All I know is I don't want the government involved in my right to choose when I will have a child, or if I will have a child. While my choice is not to have an abortion it boils down to MY choice, not the will of the government and not the will of some entity I don't believe in. I did have the morning after pill available to me as my doctor wrote me a prescription before it was available over the counter here. I believe I used it once when a condom broke and I was fortunate enough not to get pregnant at that time. What would have happened had it not been available? Would I have gotten pregnant? Well that's one of those IF kind of scenarios that we will never know the answer to. All I know is that my doctor ensured my right to choose which is more than I can say for the American government.
Sure 18 years and up have the right to buy the drug but screw the youth and their natural sexual curiosity. I love how adults try to dictate when and how youth should engage in something that comes very natural. Lets arm them with great choices, all the information available about healthy sexuality and allow them to make the decisions based on the information. How are we to create autonomy when we hinder any choice?
I rarely like to post on the US for a few reasons. One being I'm Canadian so what happens in the US has no bearing on my daily life. Another is I hate the administration and the Bush doctrine and I would be writing endlessly and I don't want to become obsessed with it. Finally the politics in the US seem way to right wing for a lefty--some almost say commie--like myself.
However, I find this is an important issue that needs to have dialogue. The US has just passed a slight victory for women's right to self govern around her reproduction. They have passed a bill allowing the morning after pill--Plan B--to be sold over the counter. However, there are restrictions on who the sale will go to. I think this is great that Plan B is now available without prescription. I find it difficult to put the age restriction on it as 16 and 17 year olds require access just as much as those older.
The argument from the right is that by allowing Plan B to be sold over the counter it will allow a path for promiscuous behaviours. This is utter and total crap. Teens are going to have sex despite there being Plan B or abortion available. I think it's high time the right thinks about the kids over all health--this includes emotional, social and spiritual health--and think about how an unplanned pregnancy can affect a youth or woman for that matter. By forcing a person to carry a child to full term you create more emotional duress then is necessary. The right would say well why not give that child up for adoption to a parent who is willing to love and care for that child. That's easy for a person to say when they are sitting without child. What they fail to realize is the bond a mother has with her child. Giving away a child creates emotional stress. The right also argues that this pill is the "abortion" pill. This pill is in no way an abortion pill. It is a concentrated amount of similar hormones found in regular pills that when taken early enough has a higher chance of not creating a pregnancy. If the person takes the pill after conception then the pill has no effect whatsoever. This argument is moot.
All I know is I don't want the government involved in my right to choose when I will have a child, or if I will have a child. While my choice is not to have an abortion it boils down to MY choice, not the will of the government and not the will of some entity I don't believe in. I did have the morning after pill available to me as my doctor wrote me a prescription before it was available over the counter here. I believe I used it once when a condom broke and I was fortunate enough not to get pregnant at that time. What would have happened had it not been available? Would I have gotten pregnant? Well that's one of those IF kind of scenarios that we will never know the answer to. All I know is that my doctor ensured my right to choose which is more than I can say for the American government.
Sure 18 years and up have the right to buy the drug but screw the youth and their natural sexual curiosity. I love how adults try to dictate when and how youth should engage in something that comes very natural. Lets arm them with great choices, all the information available about healthy sexuality and allow them to make the decisions based on the information. How are we to create autonomy when we hinder any choice?
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Oh my Lord what is our government and media coming to?
So of course I was upset about the release from Mr. Toews about the possibility of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 10. However I think I'm even more irked by an article written by Colby Cosh for the National Post.
In it he argues that England lowered their age to 10 after the James Bulger case so Canada should too. What he misunderstands is that the case of James Bulger is an extreme case and as such should be treated on an individual basis. Most 10 year olds do not set out to murder other people nor do they set out to steal, rob or assault other people. What the author also fails to realize is how this kind of tragedy does happen. Furthermore, he fails to realize that the European Court of Human Rights recognized that the trial was unfair.
Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were two very disturbed young 10 year olds who have since being found guilty and received some of the best treatment that English funds can provide. They were taken away from their families and placed in secure treatment facilities where they were subjected to dealing with their issues. What the world did was turn these boys into monsters. Sure their act was monstrous. What they did to James Bulger is inexcusable and despicable yet at the time of their age an alternative solution should have been sought. They did receive treatment instead of incarceration; I'm just not sure they should have stood trial for their crimes. If anything they should have just been placed directly in treatment and the age of responsibility in the UK should have remained at 12.
That's just the small thing that bothered me about the article. The James Bulger case was extreme and shouldn't be used as an argument that 10 year olds are capable of a vicious crime. The big thing that bothered me about the article was the following statement:
Now he wants to take kids away from their parents because the liberal idea is to rehabilitate and not incarcerate? I'm not arguing that the liberal policy has been to use the state as a substitute parent. What I am concerned about though is continuing down the path that puts the state in charge of parenting. There are some really crappy parents out there that should have their children taken away from them. The ones who abuse their child physically, sexually, emotionally, and are extemely neglectful should have their rights as parents taken away from them. However there are some very loving parents out there who would love to have the skills and resources to raise their child(ren) yet because they are deemed undesirable don't get the help they require. Because they lack the skills or resources they are sometimes deemed incapable of parenting and have their child taken away.
What the government needs to do in the next couple of years is communicate between all the ministries--both provincially and federally--to discuss how better to serve children and families. This needs to occur if they truly want to have crime prevention so that "10 year old" criminals are only kept to the extreme ends of the scale and not a regular occurrence.
The article in question is this http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=56990d41-5502-4b25-8fa6-6855258c2e95&k=97318&p=1
So of course I was upset about the release from Mr. Toews about the possibility of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 10. However I think I'm even more irked by an article written by Colby Cosh for the National Post.
In it he argues that England lowered their age to 10 after the James Bulger case so Canada should too. What he misunderstands is that the case of James Bulger is an extreme case and as such should be treated on an individual basis. Most 10 year olds do not set out to murder other people nor do they set out to steal, rob or assault other people. What the author also fails to realize is how this kind of tragedy does happen. Furthermore, he fails to realize that the European Court of Human Rights recognized that the trial was unfair.
Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were two very disturbed young 10 year olds who have since being found guilty and received some of the best treatment that English funds can provide. They were taken away from their families and placed in secure treatment facilities where they were subjected to dealing with their issues. What the world did was turn these boys into monsters. Sure their act was monstrous. What they did to James Bulger is inexcusable and despicable yet at the time of their age an alternative solution should have been sought. They did receive treatment instead of incarceration; I'm just not sure they should have stood trial for their crimes. If anything they should have just been placed directly in treatment and the age of responsibility in the UK should have remained at 12.
That's just the small thing that bothered me about the article. The James Bulger case was extreme and shouldn't be used as an argument that 10 year olds are capable of a vicious crime. The big thing that bothered me about the article was the following statement:
In fact, as Toews made clear in a follow-up letter to newspapers yesterday,
he was motivated by the liberal tendency to regard the state as a substitute
parent, not by the conservative instinct to punish.
Now he wants to take kids away from their parents because the liberal idea is to rehabilitate and not incarcerate? I'm not arguing that the liberal policy has been to use the state as a substitute parent. What I am concerned about though is continuing down the path that puts the state in charge of parenting. There are some really crappy parents out there that should have their children taken away from them. The ones who abuse their child physically, sexually, emotionally, and are extemely neglectful should have their rights as parents taken away from them. However there are some very loving parents out there who would love to have the skills and resources to raise their child(ren) yet because they are deemed undesirable don't get the help they require. Because they lack the skills or resources they are sometimes deemed incapable of parenting and have their child taken away.
What the government needs to do in the next couple of years is communicate between all the ministries--both provincially and federally--to discuss how better to serve children and families. This needs to occur if they truly want to have crime prevention so that "10 year old" criminals are only kept to the extreme ends of the scale and not a regular occurrence.
The article in question is this http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=56990d41-5502-4b25-8fa6-6855258c2e95&k=97318&p=1
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Spotlight yet again on Mr. Toews!
Oh Vic you couldn't handle the spotlight going off you for a brief moment while I talked briefly about your boss Harper. So you put yourself back into the spotlight by making a bizarre statement. You claim that the YCJA age of responsibility should be lowered to the age of 10. Oh silly Vic don't you know that kind of statement is just absurd.
First you want to criminalize normal and healthy teenage sexuality, then you want to increase jail sentences for kids involved in criminal activity instead of looking at the root, now you want to lower the age so you can involve kids in the system at an earlier age. What do you have against children? Did you have a good childhood? Or was it you have had a criminal act committed against you by a youth and now you want to make every single youth in this country accountable to you?
He claims that the judge should have jurisdiction over how to proceed with kids who have come into contact with the law at the age of 10 instead of the social service industry. Because really a 10 year old understands the laws of the land.
Vic, I wonder if you have any inkling of what is occurring in the world of kids and teenagers. I wonder if you get that in order to combat criminal activity you have to look at alternative means instead of insisting on criminalizing and jailing kids. If you truly want to re-direct kids than your government would have to look at funding programs that take kids off the streets, you have to look at increasing income levels/education levels of the disenfranchised people of this nation and your government has to be replaced period.
Seriously I can't understand how in this world this country ever voted in the government that it has. There has to be a fall in the government soon. I have to stop this government, I have to choose a party, I have to run god damn it!
Oh Vic you couldn't handle the spotlight going off you for a brief moment while I talked briefly about your boss Harper. So you put yourself back into the spotlight by making a bizarre statement. You claim that the YCJA age of responsibility should be lowered to the age of 10. Oh silly Vic don't you know that kind of statement is just absurd.
First you want to criminalize normal and healthy teenage sexuality, then you want to increase jail sentences for kids involved in criminal activity instead of looking at the root, now you want to lower the age so you can involve kids in the system at an earlier age. What do you have against children? Did you have a good childhood? Or was it you have had a criminal act committed against you by a youth and now you want to make every single youth in this country accountable to you?
He claims that the judge should have jurisdiction over how to proceed with kids who have come into contact with the law at the age of 10 instead of the social service industry. Because really a 10 year old understands the laws of the land.
Vic, I wonder if you have any inkling of what is occurring in the world of kids and teenagers. I wonder if you get that in order to combat criminal activity you have to look at alternative means instead of insisting on criminalizing and jailing kids. If you truly want to re-direct kids than your government would have to look at funding programs that take kids off the streets, you have to look at increasing income levels/education levels of the disenfranchised people of this nation and your government has to be replaced period.
Seriously I can't understand how in this world this country ever voted in the government that it has. There has to be a fall in the government soon. I have to stop this government, I have to choose a party, I have to run god damn it!
Monday, August 14, 2006
So how is the Artic Soverienty more important than AIDS?
Yeah yeah I know that the Artic issue is a sticky and important issue for Canada. I get that, I also get that Canadian's are concerned about it as it can affect future revenues for Canada. I also get that Jean Chretien didn't attend the AIDS conference in Vancouver back in 1996. Here's the thing though, Jean Chretien had a majority government and they were safe in their seat. What Harper has missed is the opportunity to show that he can attempt to be a compassionate man. By deciding to not attend the 16th Annual HIV/AIDS conference and instead taking a trip north to an area that will be there next week with the same issue he has solidified the thought that this man has no great leadership qualities.
He also shows me that he doesn't want to be Prime Minister. This would have been a golden opportunity to show the nation that he can be a great leader. With his absentee from the conference it shows that he doesn't have the stuff to be a great leader or win over votes. A strong leader would attend even if there was a chance that he could be booed. Microsoft creator Bill Gates was booed but he still went forth and stated his position. He was booed because of the ABC model which is a another issue to discuss. Harper also doesn't understand Canadians. Yes security is an issue for Canadians but time and time over Health Care has been the issue on the forefront of every Canadian's mind. How much more of a health care issue is AIDS? I say it's a mis-judgement on Stephen's part to mistake what is important for Canadians. SO Stephen I forgive you. Even if the world at large thinks you're a complete and idiotic moron for sending snakey looking Clement.....that guy is creepier looking than Stephen.
Yeah yeah I know that the Artic issue is a sticky and important issue for Canada. I get that, I also get that Canadian's are concerned about it as it can affect future revenues for Canada. I also get that Jean Chretien didn't attend the AIDS conference in Vancouver back in 1996. Here's the thing though, Jean Chretien had a majority government and they were safe in their seat. What Harper has missed is the opportunity to show that he can attempt to be a compassionate man. By deciding to not attend the 16th Annual HIV/AIDS conference and instead taking a trip north to an area that will be there next week with the same issue he has solidified the thought that this man has no great leadership qualities.
He also shows me that he doesn't want to be Prime Minister. This would have been a golden opportunity to show the nation that he can be a great leader. With his absentee from the conference it shows that he doesn't have the stuff to be a great leader or win over votes. A strong leader would attend even if there was a chance that he could be booed. Microsoft creator Bill Gates was booed but he still went forth and stated his position. He was booed because of the ABC model which is a another issue to discuss. Harper also doesn't understand Canadians. Yes security is an issue for Canadians but time and time over Health Care has been the issue on the forefront of every Canadian's mind. How much more of a health care issue is AIDS? I say it's a mis-judgement on Stephen's part to mistake what is important for Canadians. SO Stephen I forgive you. Even if the world at large thinks you're a complete and idiotic moron for sending snakey looking Clement.....that guy is creepier looking than Stephen.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Stephen Lewis' fight against HIV/AIDS
This man always seems to amaze me. He is brilliant and kind and gets it. An extremely intelligent and well read and spoken man I can't help but feel a kinship. Unfortunately I don't have the power this man does but one day my good readers one day I will have his power of his persuasion.
I wonder why he doesn't ever consider running for Prime Minister. I'd vote for him in a flash second. It's probably because he doesn't want the drama that goes along with it, yet he's deeply embedded in the drama in the UN.
Anywho, the reason I am writing about this man is because he's on a mission! And I stand behind this man. The question is does our ever fragile Prime Minister? Probably not as this would never be a concern to Harper. Either way find out more at the following link.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/060809/x080928.html
This man always seems to amaze me. He is brilliant and kind and gets it. An extremely intelligent and well read and spoken man I can't help but feel a kinship. Unfortunately I don't have the power this man does but one day my good readers one day I will have his power of his persuasion.
I wonder why he doesn't ever consider running for Prime Minister. I'd vote for him in a flash second. It's probably because he doesn't want the drama that goes along with it, yet he's deeply embedded in the drama in the UN.
Anywho, the reason I am writing about this man is because he's on a mission! And I stand behind this man. The question is does our ever fragile Prime Minister? Probably not as this would never be a concern to Harper. Either way find out more at the following link.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/060809/x080928.html
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
July 31, 2006
Yet another failure in the justice system
As many of my readers know I have been very honest on how I think sex offences should be dealt with in the court system. I have always been of the belief that sex offenders, especially serial sex offenders, should be dealt with the same manner as that of a person who commits murder. Yet the laws of this land do not see it that way.
This whole belief is reinforced yet again with the latest Amber Alert. A 10 year old boy from Saskatchewan, Zachary Miller, was abducted by a known pedophile. This man has been convicted numerous times for his crimes against children. Peter Whitmore is his name, and apparently he has spent a few times in jail for his sexual fascination with children.
In 1993, he was convicted of abduction and five sexual offences involving four young boys in Toronto. He spent a year and four months in custody.
Nine days after his release he took an eight-year-old girl from Guelph, Ont., to Toronto and was sentenced to more than four and a half years in jail.
Less than a month after his November 2000 release, he was found in a downtown Toronto motel with a 13-year-old boy. He was sentenced to one year in jail.
In 2002, a judge in Toronto sentenced him to three years in jail for probation violations because he fled to British Columbia after being found in the company of a five-year-old boy.
The violations included the fact he was carrying a “rape kit” in his backpack while in B.C. It contained latex gloves, pictures of young children, tubes of jelly lubricant, duct tape, a sleeping bag and plastic zipper ties that can be used as handcuffs.
My question is this. How is it that this man who has over time shown no form of rehabilitation, nor any sign of desire to stop his actions, allowed to walk around a free man. Why is it that sexual offences--especially those committed against children--are not considered to be so heinous that they deserve the same sanctions as a person who kills another human being? How is it not considered a murder? When a sexual violation occurs it kills off any innocence within a child, it kills off any dignity within a person and it is one of the most invasive crimes out there yet for abducting and raping a child a person gets four and a half years in jail. This is a grave mis-justice to women and children across this nation(I say this as the rate of grown males coming forward for sex offences committed againsts them that it's so low) that it makes me so sick to my stomach. I think law makers should be ashamed of themselves.
Mark my words, if Zachary dies as a result of this man you can bet your bottom dollar that people out there are going to go to war on Vic Toews. If he is ever to win me over than he better change the laws on this issue. Not that he would ever win me over as currently he's hell bent on coming down on people who carry guns or kids who have consensual sex with their peers before the proposed new age of consent. Again this issue will get swept under the rug because the government is more concerned with other issues. Screw the vulnerable people of this nation. That's always been the position of the Conservative government.
Yet another failure in the justice system
As many of my readers know I have been very honest on how I think sex offences should be dealt with in the court system. I have always been of the belief that sex offenders, especially serial sex offenders, should be dealt with the same manner as that of a person who commits murder. Yet the laws of this land do not see it that way.
This whole belief is reinforced yet again with the latest Amber Alert. A 10 year old boy from Saskatchewan, Zachary Miller, was abducted by a known pedophile. This man has been convicted numerous times for his crimes against children. Peter Whitmore is his name, and apparently he has spent a few times in jail for his sexual fascination with children.
In 1993, he was convicted of abduction and five sexual offences involving four young boys in Toronto. He spent a year and four months in custody.
Nine days after his release he took an eight-year-old girl from Guelph, Ont., to Toronto and was sentenced to more than four and a half years in jail.
Less than a month after his November 2000 release, he was found in a downtown Toronto motel with a 13-year-old boy. He was sentenced to one year in jail.
In 2002, a judge in Toronto sentenced him to three years in jail for probation violations because he fled to British Columbia after being found in the company of a five-year-old boy.
The violations included the fact he was carrying a “rape kit” in his backpack while in B.C. It contained latex gloves, pictures of young children, tubes of jelly lubricant, duct tape, a sleeping bag and plastic zipper ties that can be used as handcuffs.
My question is this. How is it that this man who has over time shown no form of rehabilitation, nor any sign of desire to stop his actions, allowed to walk around a free man. Why is it that sexual offences--especially those committed against children--are not considered to be so heinous that they deserve the same sanctions as a person who kills another human being? How is it not considered a murder? When a sexual violation occurs it kills off any innocence within a child, it kills off any dignity within a person and it is one of the most invasive crimes out there yet for abducting and raping a child a person gets four and a half years in jail. This is a grave mis-justice to women and children across this nation(I say this as the rate of grown males coming forward for sex offences committed againsts them that it's so low) that it makes me so sick to my stomach. I think law makers should be ashamed of themselves.
Mark my words, if Zachary dies as a result of this man you can bet your bottom dollar that people out there are going to go to war on Vic Toews. If he is ever to win me over than he better change the laws on this issue. Not that he would ever win me over as currently he's hell bent on coming down on people who carry guns or kids who have consensual sex with their peers before the proposed new age of consent. Again this issue will get swept under the rug because the government is more concerned with other issues. Screw the vulnerable people of this nation. That's always been the position of the Conservative government.
June 23
I stand corrected!
After a bit of research who knew that the man who is our Justice Minister was a lawyer.....how his thought process has led to his distain for youth is beyond me? I guess he just doesn't get kids...or youth for that matter...and the hard nose approach just doesn't work all the time!
Well I've found my new target
Mr. Harper you make it so easy for a person of my intelligence to write about your government. I think my new found interest is not in you Mr. Harper--not that you will ever be too far from my thoughts--but in your very own Justice Minister Vic Toews.
Mr. Toews said he is concerned that the Supreme Court appears to have stated that deterrence is no longer a principle of sentencing.
This was his thoughts after the Supreme Court of Canada made up of judges who have practiced law for many years including overseeing courtrooms on various levels made the decision that youth crime in it's very nature does not need the custody based approach to deterring youth from engaging in criminal activity.
I wonder if this man was ever a teenager? First he wants to raise the age of sexual consent to 16 and now he wants to put kids in jail for crimes that generally are kids just getting caught doing stupid stuff. I'm not saying that kids who commit violent acts should not be held accountable for their actions but the vast majority of crimes before the youth courts are for minor things. It's only the media's high coverage of the violent crimes that make it appear to be more than average.
"Accountability and responsibility for serious crimes needs to be enforced in our youth justice system."
And Mr. Toews this is addressed in the YCJA. Youth who do commit serious crimes can be charged as adults. However using the adult sentance approach is not enforced often and nor should it be. Using an adult sentance should only occur in very serious criminal activities like the two young ladies who killed their mother in Mississauga. Those two ladies will be getting an adult sentance as they should for their crimes as they show no remorse for their actions and the planning that took place in order to carry out their activity is enough to warrant the adult sentance.
The Supreme Court ruling is not questioning the sentances that are enforced but if holding kids in jails is a viable means of detering further criminal activity. What the Supreme court ruling recognizes is that young offenders should be treated differently than adult offenders. They recognize that the YCJA is moving towards a more restorative justice approach instead of an incarceration. As such it is asking the courts not to place kids in custody as a deterrent to further criminal activity.
The restorative approach also holds kids accountable for their actions. Justice circles are a key component to the approach. By having kids face their victims they are held accountable to those people and they must take responsibility for their actions. It also makes kids accountable to their community. Restorative justice is all about community and the connections one has with their community. So how is this ruling a bad ruling I ask Mr. Toews?
Mr. Toews noted that the Conservative government has promised to review the youth justice legislation.
There is no need to review the youth justice act. The act is still young. It's only been enacted since April 1st, 2003. Give it time to get the glitches out. It's a more progressive approach to dealing with youth criminal activity and reviewing it would be a throw back to a time when young offenders were treated as adults.
After reading the book I did on boot camps--especially those in the US--I am only encouraged to fight harder for youth and Mr. Toews you are my spark underneath this fire.
I stand corrected!
After a bit of research who knew that the man who is our Justice Minister was a lawyer.....how his thought process has led to his distain for youth is beyond me? I guess he just doesn't get kids...or youth for that matter...and the hard nose approach just doesn't work all the time!
Well I've found my new target
Mr. Harper you make it so easy for a person of my intelligence to write about your government. I think my new found interest is not in you Mr. Harper--not that you will ever be too far from my thoughts--but in your very own Justice Minister Vic Toews.
Mr. Toews said he is concerned that the Supreme Court appears to have stated that deterrence is no longer a principle of sentencing.
This was his thoughts after the Supreme Court of Canada made up of judges who have practiced law for many years including overseeing courtrooms on various levels made the decision that youth crime in it's very nature does not need the custody based approach to deterring youth from engaging in criminal activity.
I wonder if this man was ever a teenager? First he wants to raise the age of sexual consent to 16 and now he wants to put kids in jail for crimes that generally are kids just getting caught doing stupid stuff. I'm not saying that kids who commit violent acts should not be held accountable for their actions but the vast majority of crimes before the youth courts are for minor things. It's only the media's high coverage of the violent crimes that make it appear to be more than average.
"Accountability and responsibility for serious crimes needs to be enforced in our youth justice system."
And Mr. Toews this is addressed in the YCJA. Youth who do commit serious crimes can be charged as adults. However using the adult sentance approach is not enforced often and nor should it be. Using an adult sentance should only occur in very serious criminal activities like the two young ladies who killed their mother in Mississauga. Those two ladies will be getting an adult sentance as they should for their crimes as they show no remorse for their actions and the planning that took place in order to carry out their activity is enough to warrant the adult sentance.
The Supreme Court ruling is not questioning the sentances that are enforced but if holding kids in jails is a viable means of detering further criminal activity. What the Supreme court ruling recognizes is that young offenders should be treated differently than adult offenders. They recognize that the YCJA is moving towards a more restorative justice approach instead of an incarceration. As such it is asking the courts not to place kids in custody as a deterrent to further criminal activity.
The restorative approach also holds kids accountable for their actions. Justice circles are a key component to the approach. By having kids face their victims they are held accountable to those people and they must take responsibility for their actions. It also makes kids accountable to their community. Restorative justice is all about community and the connections one has with their community. So how is this ruling a bad ruling I ask Mr. Toews?
Mr. Toews noted that the Conservative government has promised to review the youth justice legislation.
There is no need to review the youth justice act. The act is still young. It's only been enacted since April 1st, 2003. Give it time to get the glitches out. It's a more progressive approach to dealing with youth criminal activity and reviewing it would be a throw back to a time when young offenders were treated as adults.
After reading the book I did on boot camps--especially those in the US--I am only encouraged to fight harder for youth and Mr. Toews you are my spark underneath this fire.
June 22, 2006
Oh those Silly Conservatives
Oh Harper Oh Harper.....how a fool you appear. I wonder oh wonder how in the hell you choose your cabinet ministers?? Vic Toews is an old fuddy duddy who doesn't get the law yet you place him in a very law oriented posting. If the man really understood the law than maybe the moron would not be introducing a Bill that is a "feel good" Bill.
Victor Toews is introducing a Bill in the house of commons that is redundant. He plans to introduce a Bill that would raise the age of sexual consent to 16. Most Canadians are un-aware that the current age of consent is 14. They are also un-aware of the laws out there that protect the youth from predators.This Bill that is being tabled is nothing but media ratings for the Conservatives and no one with a smart brain is going to buy into the crap they are trying to put forward. Or so one would hope.
"More and more, ordinary Canadians are concerned about the growing problem of child sexual predators, especially in the Internet age. They have looked to this government to take whatever steps it can to address the issue."--Vic Toews
Does he truly think we are idiots. Yes we are concerned about child sexual predator problems but do you really think that raising the age of consent is going to curb that? How is raising the age of consent to 16 going to effectively stop sexual predators? Unfortunately sexual predators will always be around even if the age of consent is raised.
Now I'm not saying it shouldn't be raised, however I understand youth and their sexuality. I understand them because I work with youth on a daily basis and I have to educate youth about healthy sexuality. Raising the age of consent will only criminalize their normal sexual development. The Bill being tabled has the "near-age excemption of 5 years" clause. However, this is a moot point. The reason for this clause is so that someone say the age of 14 could be in a sexual relationship with someone who is 19. As stated earlier it's a moot point as the bill already protects kids who are similar in peer age. Youth who are 14 years of age engaging in a sexual relationship with their peers is fine by the letter of the law but if that peer is in a position of power than they can be charged with a sexual offence. That means it can target pimps and music teachers and mentors and who ever else is in a position of power. The law already works to protect youth from exploitation.
There are also laws to protect against internet luring and child pornography. So how is raising the age of consent going to protect even further? If anything it's going to criminalize normal teenage sexual behaviour because a conservative government is more afraid of youth having sex than with the increasing violence. What is sooo wrong in this day and age with normal healthy adolescent sexual behaviour? Why would you want to criminalize the behaviour. By criminalizing the behaviour you send it underground. By sending it underground you increase the statistics on teenage pregnancies and STD's. What our tax paying dollars should go on instead of waisting it on a law that is a "feel good" law is educating youth about healthy sexuality. By educating youth you give them informed choices. With informed choices you give better statistics. You also increase the likelihood that those informed choices include waiting until they are older. Besides while there is a small minority of youth out there who have engaged in sexual intercourse before the age of 16 the average youth waits until at least 16 to loose their virginity.
So I ask again Mr. Harper where oh where do you pick you Ministers? How is this man still Prime Minister? Most importantly how is it that other Parties have bought into this mumble jumble of a ratings fest for the Conservatives? Why are they not challenging them on this issue? How is the media not educating people on the already exhisting laws? Do I have to do everything myself??? Unfortantely it is looking to be the case.
Oh those Silly Conservatives
Oh Harper Oh Harper.....how a fool you appear. I wonder oh wonder how in the hell you choose your cabinet ministers?? Vic Toews is an old fuddy duddy who doesn't get the law yet you place him in a very law oriented posting. If the man really understood the law than maybe the moron would not be introducing a Bill that is a "feel good" Bill.
Victor Toews is introducing a Bill in the house of commons that is redundant. He plans to introduce a Bill that would raise the age of sexual consent to 16. Most Canadians are un-aware that the current age of consent is 14. They are also un-aware of the laws out there that protect the youth from predators.This Bill that is being tabled is nothing but media ratings for the Conservatives and no one with a smart brain is going to buy into the crap they are trying to put forward. Or so one would hope.
"More and more, ordinary Canadians are concerned about the growing problem of child sexual predators, especially in the Internet age. They have looked to this government to take whatever steps it can to address the issue."--Vic Toews
Does he truly think we are idiots. Yes we are concerned about child sexual predator problems but do you really think that raising the age of consent is going to curb that? How is raising the age of consent to 16 going to effectively stop sexual predators? Unfortunately sexual predators will always be around even if the age of consent is raised.
Now I'm not saying it shouldn't be raised, however I understand youth and their sexuality. I understand them because I work with youth on a daily basis and I have to educate youth about healthy sexuality. Raising the age of consent will only criminalize their normal sexual development. The Bill being tabled has the "near-age excemption of 5 years" clause. However, this is a moot point. The reason for this clause is so that someone say the age of 14 could be in a sexual relationship with someone who is 19. As stated earlier it's a moot point as the bill already protects kids who are similar in peer age. Youth who are 14 years of age engaging in a sexual relationship with their peers is fine by the letter of the law but if that peer is in a position of power than they can be charged with a sexual offence. That means it can target pimps and music teachers and mentors and who ever else is in a position of power. The law already works to protect youth from exploitation.
There are also laws to protect against internet luring and child pornography. So how is raising the age of consent going to protect even further? If anything it's going to criminalize normal teenage sexual behaviour because a conservative government is more afraid of youth having sex than with the increasing violence. What is sooo wrong in this day and age with normal healthy adolescent sexual behaviour? Why would you want to criminalize the behaviour. By criminalizing the behaviour you send it underground. By sending it underground you increase the statistics on teenage pregnancies and STD's. What our tax paying dollars should go on instead of waisting it on a law that is a "feel good" law is educating youth about healthy sexuality. By educating youth you give them informed choices. With informed choices you give better statistics. You also increase the likelihood that those informed choices include waiting until they are older. Besides while there is a small minority of youth out there who have engaged in sexual intercourse before the age of 16 the average youth waits until at least 16 to loose their virginity.
So I ask again Mr. Harper where oh where do you pick you Ministers? How is this man still Prime Minister? Most importantly how is it that other Parties have bought into this mumble jumble of a ratings fest for the Conservatives? Why are they not challenging them on this issue? How is the media not educating people on the already exhisting laws? Do I have to do everything myself??? Unfortantely it is looking to be the case.
May 04, 2006
No Past to Speak Of
My final entry of the evening.
The second film we saw as part of the double bill last night was No Past to Speak Of: A story of infant rape in South Africa. This was a heart wrenching and very saddening documentary about an issue that is happening and continues to happen in RSA which is being kept within the borders of the country. It was not until a woman named Claudia Ford made it an international issue.
I first found out about infant rape in South Africa a few years ago while watching Oprah. I know I know, what in the heck was I watching the Oprah Winfrey show for?? Well I guess it was in my unemployed stage of life, or just before I left for China stage in my life, I can't really remember when so I was watching a lot of tele at that point. Either way I first became informed about this issue during one of her shows. Claudia Ford made an appearance to speak about the horror that was happening in Johannesburg.
This documentary is the story of how Claudia came to care for the youngest rape victim and to eventually adopt this beautiful girl named Vyanna. She, Vyanna, was only 5 months old when she was discovered by police and taken to the hospital after being brutelly raped. The news of the rape made headlines all over RSA yet didn't really filter out into the international arena. It did if you were looking for news out of RSA but the average person doesn't read the international headlines all that often. Or maybe this is a North American phenomenom. Either way the story broke and discussions eventually came about the "root" causes of infant rape.
What I liked about this movie is it debunked the media myth that the men were doing the rape as part of the belief system that having sex with a virgin will cure them of HIV/AIDs. This film really dug deeper into the issue and pointed to many reasons why the people were committing these horrific crimes. I say people because as it explored the issue more it was discovered that not only were men committing the act itself but women were selling their babies and there have been stories of male children--11 to 14--also raping younger children. It's something that is being swept under the rug in RSA. Claudia Ford is trying to bring attention to the issue by telling her story and Vyanna's story.
Something that really stuck in my head was how Claudia made the distinction between infant rape and pedofilia. I think this is really important for people to understand as infant rape is an act that does not require much time and care to the process. It just happens. Pedofilia on the other hand is a very calculated process. Grooming must take place in order for the person to violate that child sexually. Infant rape is also an act of pure anger and hatred, the men are not attracted to the babies. Pedofiles are attracted to their victims, sexually and romantically. Infant rapists do it because they can, pedofiles do it because they think they are in love.
For more information on this film check out the following site:
http://www.filmstransit.com/No_past_speak.html
This film is defintely not for the faint of heart. It's tough subject matter!!
CottonLand
Second entry for the evening.
So last night was Peter's birthday. For his birthday I took him to see a double bill at the Hot Doc's festival currently happening in the Annex in the big city.
The first screening we was a doc about Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. The title of the doc was Cotton Land. It was definitely an interesting documentary.
The premise of the doc was about the problem currently killing off the community. That problem is the addiction to OxyContin. For those of you not familiar with Glace Bay, it use to be a coal mining town but when the coal industry faltered the town folk lost their livelihood. This town was very dependent on the coal and steel industry. It use to be a prosperous town but now it is slowly becoming a town of addicts. The non-addicts are leaving the town to find a better life for themselves.
The story of the addiction is told through the eyes of a former addict living in that town. He speaks with three friends throughout the film. Two of these friends are clean and the third was still addicted, using and waiting to enter a methodone clinic program. The film touched on the history of the town and it's decline. It also talked about how easily available the drug became and the lack of education around the possibility of becoming addicted to this prescription drug.
I have seen how this drug can destroy families and people's lives. This film put what I have seen on the big screen and it's great that the message about oxycontins or OC's or cottoncandies or green monsters is very much like heroin. I liked how the film got to the root without blaming any one particular reason for the problem. I also liked how it talked about various solutions without being condenscending.
I highly recommend this treat if you are interested in understanding about the process of addiction, or if you are interested in just educating yourself about various social issues around Canada.
For more info see the following site:
http://www.nfb.ca/trouverunfilm/fichefilm.php?id=52109&v=h&lg=en&exp=
No Past to Speak Of
My final entry of the evening.
The second film we saw as part of the double bill last night was No Past to Speak Of: A story of infant rape in South Africa. This was a heart wrenching and very saddening documentary about an issue that is happening and continues to happen in RSA which is being kept within the borders of the country. It was not until a woman named Claudia Ford made it an international issue.
I first found out about infant rape in South Africa a few years ago while watching Oprah. I know I know, what in the heck was I watching the Oprah Winfrey show for?? Well I guess it was in my unemployed stage of life, or just before I left for China stage in my life, I can't really remember when so I was watching a lot of tele at that point. Either way I first became informed about this issue during one of her shows. Claudia Ford made an appearance to speak about the horror that was happening in Johannesburg.
This documentary is the story of how Claudia came to care for the youngest rape victim and to eventually adopt this beautiful girl named Vyanna. She, Vyanna, was only 5 months old when she was discovered by police and taken to the hospital after being brutelly raped. The news of the rape made headlines all over RSA yet didn't really filter out into the international arena. It did if you were looking for news out of RSA but the average person doesn't read the international headlines all that often. Or maybe this is a North American phenomenom. Either way the story broke and discussions eventually came about the "root" causes of infant rape.
What I liked about this movie is it debunked the media myth that the men were doing the rape as part of the belief system that having sex with a virgin will cure them of HIV/AIDs. This film really dug deeper into the issue and pointed to many reasons why the people were committing these horrific crimes. I say people because as it explored the issue more it was discovered that not only were men committing the act itself but women were selling their babies and there have been stories of male children--11 to 14--also raping younger children. It's something that is being swept under the rug in RSA. Claudia Ford is trying to bring attention to the issue by telling her story and Vyanna's story.
Something that really stuck in my head was how Claudia made the distinction between infant rape and pedofilia. I think this is really important for people to understand as infant rape is an act that does not require much time and care to the process. It just happens. Pedofilia on the other hand is a very calculated process. Grooming must take place in order for the person to violate that child sexually. Infant rape is also an act of pure anger and hatred, the men are not attracted to the babies. Pedofiles are attracted to their victims, sexually and romantically. Infant rapists do it because they can, pedofiles do it because they think they are in love.
For more information on this film check out the following site:
http://www.filmstransit.com/No_past_speak.html
This film is defintely not for the faint of heart. It's tough subject matter!!
CottonLand
Second entry for the evening.
So last night was Peter's birthday. For his birthday I took him to see a double bill at the Hot Doc's festival currently happening in the Annex in the big city.
The first screening we was a doc about Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. The title of the doc was Cotton Land. It was definitely an interesting documentary.
The premise of the doc was about the problem currently killing off the community. That problem is the addiction to OxyContin. For those of you not familiar with Glace Bay, it use to be a coal mining town but when the coal industry faltered the town folk lost their livelihood. This town was very dependent on the coal and steel industry. It use to be a prosperous town but now it is slowly becoming a town of addicts. The non-addicts are leaving the town to find a better life for themselves.
The story of the addiction is told through the eyes of a former addict living in that town. He speaks with three friends throughout the film. Two of these friends are clean and the third was still addicted, using and waiting to enter a methodone clinic program. The film touched on the history of the town and it's decline. It also talked about how easily available the drug became and the lack of education around the possibility of becoming addicted to this prescription drug.
I have seen how this drug can destroy families and people's lives. This film put what I have seen on the big screen and it's great that the message about oxycontins or OC's or cottoncandies or green monsters is very much like heroin. I liked how the film got to the root without blaming any one particular reason for the problem. I also liked how it talked about various solutions without being condenscending.
I highly recommend this treat if you are interested in understanding about the process of addiction, or if you are interested in just educating yourself about various social issues around Canada.
For more info see the following site:
http://www.nfb.ca/trouverunfilm/fichefilm.php?id=52109&v=h&lg=en&exp=
April 30, 2006
My mind is a wondering
So the other day my mind got wondering and I know this can be a very dangerous thing. Whilst reading a news item I could not help but become irate...well not really irate as that can be a very dangerous word, more like furious. I was reading up on a case that is before the court. The case involves 16 youth who were charged in sexual harrassment and general harrassment that took place over a year against a girl. These 16 youth and girl all attended the same school in Toronto. This case is complex as the girl is white and all 16 youth charged are black. Not only is it controversial in that manner but it's complex due to it being high school students and what constitutes harrassment vs bullying. In my honest opinion there should be no differentiating the two. Bullying is harrassment and should be treated as such, however there is a school of thought that bullying is a normal part of growing up. Being harrassed should never be a part of growing up and allowing it to be normalized is sending the wrong message.
The news article I was reading infuriated me because of the comment made by one of the mothers of the accused. The accused was given a peace bond for a year. What this entails is that the accused does not admit to any guilt and must remain an upstanding citizen for a year, have no contact with the victim and not step foot in the school. This seemed an okay sentance for the accused part in the crime--and it is a crime to be a bully. The mother had the nerve to say the following "I'm just tired of coming here. I'm fed up. I just wanted it to be over. It's been a big stress for me, finding lawyers, getting her out of school. She had nightmares being in jail for one night." What kind of statement is that. What about the victim. Being terrorized for a year? Having to go to the school after having 16 of her peers charged with harrassment? What about the family of the victim having to deal with everything that resulted of this girl charging the 16 youth? I guess it's no wonder that the accused is the way that she is. Having a mother not admitting that there is a problem and placing the blame else where. Like seriously take responsibility for your actions folks.
Now off that thought path and on the the next one. Yet again I was reading another article in The Walrus. It was on the pending bird flu pandemic. As I was reading the article it touched on the Spanish Flu and how it wiped out a large portion of the population. My mind began to wonder at this point. What if the Spanish flu was mother natures funny little way of saying "Slow down on the population growth!!" The majority of those who fell ill were in really good health and young. What if the Avain Flu is our generation of the Spanish Flu?
What if mother nature is telling us to slow down on the population growth? It is hitting Asia first, which is a highly populous area. I wonder if an evolutionist or evolutionary biologist has ever thought this through? Probably not as that would require them to believe in something outside of the realm of science.
Either way mind will wonder as I read articles
My mind is a wondering
So the other day my mind got wondering and I know this can be a very dangerous thing. Whilst reading a news item I could not help but become irate...well not really irate as that can be a very dangerous word, more like furious. I was reading up on a case that is before the court. The case involves 16 youth who were charged in sexual harrassment and general harrassment that took place over a year against a girl. These 16 youth and girl all attended the same school in Toronto. This case is complex as the girl is white and all 16 youth charged are black. Not only is it controversial in that manner but it's complex due to it being high school students and what constitutes harrassment vs bullying. In my honest opinion there should be no differentiating the two. Bullying is harrassment and should be treated as such, however there is a school of thought that bullying is a normal part of growing up. Being harrassed should never be a part of growing up and allowing it to be normalized is sending the wrong message.
The news article I was reading infuriated me because of the comment made by one of the mothers of the accused. The accused was given a peace bond for a year. What this entails is that the accused does not admit to any guilt and must remain an upstanding citizen for a year, have no contact with the victim and not step foot in the school. This seemed an okay sentance for the accused part in the crime--and it is a crime to be a bully. The mother had the nerve to say the following "I'm just tired of coming here. I'm fed up. I just wanted it to be over. It's been a big stress for me, finding lawyers, getting her out of school. She had nightmares being in jail for one night." What kind of statement is that. What about the victim. Being terrorized for a year? Having to go to the school after having 16 of her peers charged with harrassment? What about the family of the victim having to deal with everything that resulted of this girl charging the 16 youth? I guess it's no wonder that the accused is the way that she is. Having a mother not admitting that there is a problem and placing the blame else where. Like seriously take responsibility for your actions folks.
Now off that thought path and on the the next one. Yet again I was reading another article in The Walrus. It was on the pending bird flu pandemic. As I was reading the article it touched on the Spanish Flu and how it wiped out a large portion of the population. My mind began to wonder at this point. What if the Spanish flu was mother natures funny little way of saying "Slow down on the population growth!!" The majority of those who fell ill were in really good health and young. What if the Avain Flu is our generation of the Spanish Flu?
What if mother nature is telling us to slow down on the population growth? It is hitting Asia first, which is a highly populous area. I wonder if an evolutionist or evolutionary biologist has ever thought this through? Probably not as that would require them to believe in something outside of the realm of science.
Either way mind will wonder as I read articles
March 06, 2006
So much for celebrations
March the 8th is International Women's Day. It is a day marked by women's groups around the world and fully supported by the United Nations. This is usually a day to celebrate all that women have achieved in this world to date. Yet as this day approaches there have been a few setbacks in the equality fight.
Today I was reading the newspaper at work. As I read it I found it disturbing that yet again another family is totally destroyed by homicide. A woman and her two young children were murdered over the weekend by her husband. A few days before that another woman and her two children were murdered and the husband is suspected. I wonder how much the Canadian governement has taken into consideration the recommendations that came from the Hadley Inquest in 2002? I wonder how women and children are protected from the men that are suppose to love them? I know from my own experience within the field and working with vulnerable children getting the help and resources they need is difficult. I imagine it's just as frustrating to find resources available for women in very difficult situtaions. Not to say that domestic violence doesn't happen to men, but more often than not it is a woman who is victimized in this situation.
Not only is that the setback I read about today in the news but a bigger and more pressing setback is the decision of Roe vs Wade. In South Dakota the Governor signed a law banning all abortions except that in which the doctor deems the women's life is in danger as a result of her pregnancy. The ban does not make exceptions for women who become pregnant as a result of a rape or incest. What a big slap in the face of a woman. Not only does she NOT have a choice in what she is going to do to her body but lets revictimize her by not allowing her to remove something from her body she had no control over ever entering it. What is Governor Rounds thinking?
Either way this year's International Women's Day should bring about awareness more so than ever in the steps people are taking backwards with respect to equality period!!
So much for celebrations
March the 8th is International Women's Day. It is a day marked by women's groups around the world and fully supported by the United Nations. This is usually a day to celebrate all that women have achieved in this world to date. Yet as this day approaches there have been a few setbacks in the equality fight.
Today I was reading the newspaper at work. As I read it I found it disturbing that yet again another family is totally destroyed by homicide. A woman and her two young children were murdered over the weekend by her husband. A few days before that another woman and her two children were murdered and the husband is suspected. I wonder how much the Canadian governement has taken into consideration the recommendations that came from the Hadley Inquest in 2002? I wonder how women and children are protected from the men that are suppose to love them? I know from my own experience within the field and working with vulnerable children getting the help and resources they need is difficult. I imagine it's just as frustrating to find resources available for women in very difficult situtaions. Not to say that domestic violence doesn't happen to men, but more often than not it is a woman who is victimized in this situation.
Not only is that the setback I read about today in the news but a bigger and more pressing setback is the decision of Roe vs Wade. In South Dakota the Governor signed a law banning all abortions except that in which the doctor deems the women's life is in danger as a result of her pregnancy. The ban does not make exceptions for women who become pregnant as a result of a rape or incest. What a big slap in the face of a woman. Not only does she NOT have a choice in what she is going to do to her body but lets revictimize her by not allowing her to remove something from her body she had no control over ever entering it. What is Governor Rounds thinking?
Either way this year's International Women's Day should bring about awareness more so than ever in the steps people are taking backwards with respect to equality period!!
March 21, 2006
Hello out there in Cyberspace land!
So I logged on today to find a comment from a stranger....or someone who may not be a stranger but not putting down their name on the comment (see previous blog entry and comment). So to my fan base....a big hello and sorry for not keeping the blog entries up to date. I shall attempt to keep posting away.
Lets get to the buisness at hand. I was at work today and read the lovely Hamilton Spectator. Not exactly a thrilling newspaper but it is free and I had free time. There seemed to be a theme to the paper today. It touched on a subject I am very much passionate about. That is domestic violence--and more particular violence committed against children. I think the paper was focused on this issue today because of the murder of a 9 year old Brantford boy and the fatal stabbings of his mother and sister by a man who is suppose to love them. There was an editorial in this newspaper that irked me a bit. It was a bit one sided about the issue. It claimed that the women in these relationships(and it generally is women and children--not to say it does not happen to men but the rates are lower in comparison) were not being protected by the system that they sought out for assistance. I'm not saying that this writer was not right in her accussation of the system, but lets take a look at the women in these relationships for a minute. By the time the women do ask for the assistance it is borderline too late. These women are so intrenched in the abuse that they don't see it is wrong on so many levels. Even with the education we have today and the push to bring it to the forefront a lot of these women are ill educated, young and naive. They just don't have the life experience or support to understand that it's okay to be by one self. Not only is it almost too late for these women to get out but getting out is most difficult. Escaping is often a life and death situation and for the lucky it's life.
Which brings me to my point. Domestic homicide, as it's now called, has been in the news in the past few years. This is a result of high profile cases in the news. Most recently the two in Brantford. It's tragic what has happened to these familes as a result of rage and anger. That is why the government needs to step up. They need to give police and frontline social workers and other social service agencies the power to step in for these women and children. They need to get tougher and swifter on these perpetrators of violence against women and children. They need to speed up the justice process so that these women and children can move forward and not live in fear. Some may say that it's the right of the would be perpetrators to have their due process but with the predictors we have in today's society for the occurence of these crimes due process can happen much faster. A whole unit within the justice system can be specifically designated for this purpose. I just don't understand why more women and children have to die because of the lack of understanding and compassion from the law makers.
Now to step off my soap box and on to another one. I was linked to a site recently http://www.invisiblechildren.com/ that I think everyone should at least check out. As some of you know I'm pretty passionate about children and youth issues be it locally as the above soap box demonstrates or internationally as this one will demonstrate. I have yet to see this movie but I have written the director to see if a screening is coming to Canada. From the little teaser and trailler it looks well worth the screening. If I can organize a screening or two in Canada I will keep you posted.
Alright off both soap boxes. Back to reality. Back to my daily mussings over flip flops--which by the way I saw a whole selection of colours in Old Navy that I must get--and my daughter! And the occasional mussing over a boy--Geek Boy!
Hello out there in Cyberspace land!
So I logged on today to find a comment from a stranger....or someone who may not be a stranger but not putting down their name on the comment (see previous blog entry and comment). So to my fan base....a big hello and sorry for not keeping the blog entries up to date. I shall attempt to keep posting away.
Lets get to the buisness at hand. I was at work today and read the lovely Hamilton Spectator. Not exactly a thrilling newspaper but it is free and I had free time. There seemed to be a theme to the paper today. It touched on a subject I am very much passionate about. That is domestic violence--and more particular violence committed against children. I think the paper was focused on this issue today because of the murder of a 9 year old Brantford boy and the fatal stabbings of his mother and sister by a man who is suppose to love them. There was an editorial in this newspaper that irked me a bit. It was a bit one sided about the issue. It claimed that the women in these relationships(and it generally is women and children--not to say it does not happen to men but the rates are lower in comparison) were not being protected by the system that they sought out for assistance. I'm not saying that this writer was not right in her accussation of the system, but lets take a look at the women in these relationships for a minute. By the time the women do ask for the assistance it is borderline too late. These women are so intrenched in the abuse that they don't see it is wrong on so many levels. Even with the education we have today and the push to bring it to the forefront a lot of these women are ill educated, young and naive. They just don't have the life experience or support to understand that it's okay to be by one self. Not only is it almost too late for these women to get out but getting out is most difficult. Escaping is often a life and death situation and for the lucky it's life.
Which brings me to my point. Domestic homicide, as it's now called, has been in the news in the past few years. This is a result of high profile cases in the news. Most recently the two in Brantford. It's tragic what has happened to these familes as a result of rage and anger. That is why the government needs to step up. They need to give police and frontline social workers and other social service agencies the power to step in for these women and children. They need to get tougher and swifter on these perpetrators of violence against women and children. They need to speed up the justice process so that these women and children can move forward and not live in fear. Some may say that it's the right of the would be perpetrators to have their due process but with the predictors we have in today's society for the occurence of these crimes due process can happen much faster. A whole unit within the justice system can be specifically designated for this purpose. I just don't understand why more women and children have to die because of the lack of understanding and compassion from the law makers.
Now to step off my soap box and on to another one. I was linked to a site recently http://www.invisiblechildren.com/ that I think everyone should at least check out. As some of you know I'm pretty passionate about children and youth issues be it locally as the above soap box demonstrates or internationally as this one will demonstrate. I have yet to see this movie but I have written the director to see if a screening is coming to Canada. From the little teaser and trailler it looks well worth the screening. If I can organize a screening or two in Canada I will keep you posted.
Alright off both soap boxes. Back to reality. Back to my daily mussings over flip flops--which by the way I saw a whole selection of colours in Old Navy that I must get--and my daughter! And the occasional mussing over a boy--Geek Boy!
December 06, 2005
I can't believe it's been 16 years!
Since Marc Lepine entered L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal with a mission to kill women who he percieved to be the 'enemy'. Those 14 women serve us a reminder that we've still got plenty to do in order to protect those who are vulnerable.
While I don't condone what occured one must look into Marc's past and understand what brought him so much rage that he felt the only viable option was to go into the school and attack those who he felt were the one's stopping him from ever reaching his full potential. Like many people who commit very violent acts Marc was victimized in his vulnerable state. He was abused by his father, he witnessed spousal abuse and dealt with cultural clashes--his father being a muslim arab and his mother being a former christian nun growing up in a Montreal society. Over the years he was rejected from various aspects of society. Many of his girlfriends did not last very long in the relationship, he was not "suitable" for the Canadian Armed Forces and the final blow being rejected from L'Ecole Polytechinique in Montreal. His hatred of women was born from his father's nurture. He listened numerous times to his father's belief that women were the spawn of evil. From this type of upbringing it's no wonder that the stressor that triggered the uncontrollable rage was his faulty perception that women were getting special treatment.
This incident has brought about some awareness to the struggles of children and women around the world and more specifically Canada. I know what barriers the vulnerable face. There is plenty of awareness going on but not enough action being sought to prevent the violence against the disenfranchised. In Ontario this past year there have been 22 murders at the hands of abusive spouses. One was in my own community. While this generally falls under the umbrella of violence against women and children I'd like to expand this umbrella. While the majority of reported violence is against women and children there is a growing trend for men to report abuse at the hands of people they trusted or trust. Spousal abuse does not just happen to women. While physical abuse is more common among women it is not only restricted to them. I think it's safe to say that for most men the abuse they encounter is more emotional. Women are generally social, emotional and psychological abusers. Women are social bullies while men are physical bullies. It's the way our brains are wired. And the way we are socialized. It is with that knowledge that one can use to empower those involved in bringing about change.
There is a lot to be done yet in this area of anti-social phenomenoms. There has to be change at all levels of the sociatal spectrum. Governments have to change their approach, communities have to change their approach, families have to change their approach and the individual has to change their approach. There has to be a shift to create a kinder, gentler and very honest society. This takes time and awareness of the issue is a start. That is why on this date every year I make note to challenge beliefs put forward by unkind, ungentle and dishonest people. With challenge comes change. Change is good!
I can't believe it's been 16 years!
Since Marc Lepine entered L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal with a mission to kill women who he percieved to be the 'enemy'. Those 14 women serve us a reminder that we've still got plenty to do in order to protect those who are vulnerable.
While I don't condone what occured one must look into Marc's past and understand what brought him so much rage that he felt the only viable option was to go into the school and attack those who he felt were the one's stopping him from ever reaching his full potential. Like many people who commit very violent acts Marc was victimized in his vulnerable state. He was abused by his father, he witnessed spousal abuse and dealt with cultural clashes--his father being a muslim arab and his mother being a former christian nun growing up in a Montreal society. Over the years he was rejected from various aspects of society. Many of his girlfriends did not last very long in the relationship, he was not "suitable" for the Canadian Armed Forces and the final blow being rejected from L'Ecole Polytechinique in Montreal. His hatred of women was born from his father's nurture. He listened numerous times to his father's belief that women were the spawn of evil. From this type of upbringing it's no wonder that the stressor that triggered the uncontrollable rage was his faulty perception that women were getting special treatment.
This incident has brought about some awareness to the struggles of children and women around the world and more specifically Canada. I know what barriers the vulnerable face. There is plenty of awareness going on but not enough action being sought to prevent the violence against the disenfranchised. In Ontario this past year there have been 22 murders at the hands of abusive spouses. One was in my own community. While this generally falls under the umbrella of violence against women and children I'd like to expand this umbrella. While the majority of reported violence is against women and children there is a growing trend for men to report abuse at the hands of people they trusted or trust. Spousal abuse does not just happen to women. While physical abuse is more common among women it is not only restricted to them. I think it's safe to say that for most men the abuse they encounter is more emotional. Women are generally social, emotional and psychological abusers. Women are social bullies while men are physical bullies. It's the way our brains are wired. And the way we are socialized. It is with that knowledge that one can use to empower those involved in bringing about change.
There is a lot to be done yet in this area of anti-social phenomenoms. There has to be change at all levels of the sociatal spectrum. Governments have to change their approach, communities have to change their approach, families have to change their approach and the individual has to change their approach. There has to be a shift to create a kinder, gentler and very honest society. This takes time and awareness of the issue is a start. That is why on this date every year I make note to challenge beliefs put forward by unkind, ungentle and dishonest people. With challenge comes change. Change is good!
December 08, 2005
What is this world coming to?
Today I went to see The Nutcracker with my school. I wasn't suppose to go but I was asked to go because I was wearing dressier pants than the jeans the one EA was wearing today.
My issue with the kids today are this. They lack the etiquette for conducting themselves in proper manner. During intermission I had to tell the kids serveral times to put their feet down. They were in a proper theatre--not a movie one--and they had their feet on the back of the seats in front of them.
During the performance I had to shhhh quite a few of the kids. I was dinged in the head with an object that came from the balcony above us.
I wonder where these kids learn their social skills for situations like this. I can tell you that if I was ever spoken to by a teacher during this kind of event I would have been so embarrased and I would have been concerned about getting a phone call home and the talking too I would have gotten!! I would have been grounded for sure!
I wonder if parents do anything with their children at all. I can't understand why they don't. There are plenty of things one can do in order to teach their child the proper skills one needs for a social setting like that.
If Bailey was ever to act in that matter she would get a severe talking to about what my expectations are! I'm pretty positive that she would not act in that matter! I take her to plenty of places.
What is this world coming to?
Today I went to see The Nutcracker with my school. I wasn't suppose to go but I was asked to go because I was wearing dressier pants than the jeans the one EA was wearing today.
My issue with the kids today are this. They lack the etiquette for conducting themselves in proper manner. During intermission I had to tell the kids serveral times to put their feet down. They were in a proper theatre--not a movie one--and they had their feet on the back of the seats in front of them.
During the performance I had to shhhh quite a few of the kids. I was dinged in the head with an object that came from the balcony above us.
I wonder where these kids learn their social skills for situations like this. I can tell you that if I was ever spoken to by a teacher during this kind of event I would have been so embarrased and I would have been concerned about getting a phone call home and the talking too I would have gotten!! I would have been grounded for sure!
I wonder if parents do anything with their children at all. I can't understand why they don't. There are plenty of things one can do in order to teach their child the proper skills one needs for a social setting like that.
If Bailey was ever to act in that matter she would get a severe talking to about what my expectations are! I'm pretty positive that she would not act in that matter! I take her to plenty of places.
July 15, 2005
Make me sick!
I wake up every morning reading the news. I do this just to keep up with whats happening in Canada and the world. Seeing as despite my distance from the news it affects us as a nation. Anywho, I came across this article that just again irritated and pissed me off.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/15/porner-050715.html
It's about a man in Alberta who sexually assaulted 4 children, and was caught making and distrubting the acts--known to us as Child Porn. What infurriates me is that the man only recieved 14 years for his acts. Just how screwed up is the justice system when a man who violates children in such a way that it will be detramental to their overall well being for life and all he gets is 14 years in total for all acts committed. This is one instant where the government should increase the time spent behind bars for men and women who committ acts such as sexual assault on minors or sexual assault period. I truly and strongly believe that any sexual act against a person that violates them should be held in the same regard as murder. While no actual life is lost persay; a person who is victimized by these acts have lost a part of them, especially children. I have no respect nor patience for men and women who victimize children and youth. These young ones have no way of protecting themselves from these monsters and I truly believe we as a society need to protect these innocents from the monsters that lurk waiting for them.
As a survivor of these vicous acts I know first hand what ramifications happen as a result of these lude and uncalled for acts. While I am still alive and can breath the air that mother nature provides for me a part of me died that day he decided to violate me. NO matter how much I move on with my life, that man will always find a way to make it back into it. Years can go by and I won't have thoughts about it but every now and then something reminds me of that day and I have to do everything in my power to forget it. It's hard.
So I think what I will do is start to take action from now on. I am going to start to lobby the local MP here and get the ball moving on upping the sentance of men and women who violate children. I think we as society have a duty to do this. I also hope to lobby politicians in putting more funding in services that deal with the victims so that a strong support network is built for survivors. As it is I work with child and youth who have been victimized by people all their lives. I share with them my story and how I survived in hopes that they see a positive role model and that not all hope is lost.
Make me sick!
I wake up every morning reading the news. I do this just to keep up with whats happening in Canada and the world. Seeing as despite my distance from the news it affects us as a nation. Anywho, I came across this article that just again irritated and pissed me off.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/15/porner-050715.html
It's about a man in Alberta who sexually assaulted 4 children, and was caught making and distrubting the acts--known to us as Child Porn. What infurriates me is that the man only recieved 14 years for his acts. Just how screwed up is the justice system when a man who violates children in such a way that it will be detramental to their overall well being for life and all he gets is 14 years in total for all acts committed. This is one instant where the government should increase the time spent behind bars for men and women who committ acts such as sexual assault on minors or sexual assault period. I truly and strongly believe that any sexual act against a person that violates them should be held in the same regard as murder. While no actual life is lost persay; a person who is victimized by these acts have lost a part of them, especially children. I have no respect nor patience for men and women who victimize children and youth. These young ones have no way of protecting themselves from these monsters and I truly believe we as a society need to protect these innocents from the monsters that lurk waiting for them.
As a survivor of these vicous acts I know first hand what ramifications happen as a result of these lude and uncalled for acts. While I am still alive and can breath the air that mother nature provides for me a part of me died that day he decided to violate me. NO matter how much I move on with my life, that man will always find a way to make it back into it. Years can go by and I won't have thoughts about it but every now and then something reminds me of that day and I have to do everything in my power to forget it. It's hard.
So I think what I will do is start to take action from now on. I am going to start to lobby the local MP here and get the ball moving on upping the sentance of men and women who violate children. I think we as society have a duty to do this. I also hope to lobby politicians in putting more funding in services that deal with the victims so that a strong support network is built for survivors. As it is I work with child and youth who have been victimized by people all their lives. I share with them my story and how I survived in hopes that they see a positive role model and that not all hope is lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
