An open letter to victims of sexual assault

Sorry for the ONE YEAR LONG delay in writing. I am working on a ton of new projects, which includes retiring this blog for a brand new one. Details coming soon!

[This is kind of obvious, but trigger warning for discussions of sexual assault]

Dear Jane Does,

I hope this finds you well. Sadly, it probably doesn't. What a terrible few weeks, huh? Ugh. So horrible.

I don't need to update you on Steubenville, Rehtaeh Parsons or Audrie Pott. You've heard about them. You've read about their stories on every Facebook timeline, Twitter feed, news story, etc. Sure, it's great that their stories are getting coverage but damn, you wish they'd talk about something else, right? Listening to that stuff is tough as fuck. Hits way too close to home.

Thankfully, some people are getting the story right. Melissa Harris-Perry, a rockstar in her own right, penned a beautiful open letter to Steubenville's Jane Doe. If you want some extra support, you can check it out here.

I want you to know that I am sorry, too. To echo the powerful words of Melissa, I am so fucking sorry that we live in a world in which the heinous things you experienced are a reality. I send you a thousand apologies every single day.

You are not alone. Not just because there are tons of people in this world fighting for justice for you, but because there are tons of people in this world just like you. Conservative estimates put 1 in 4 womyn in the category of sexual assault survivors. 1 in 4. There are people in your school, at your workplace, in your synagogue who carry the same weight that you do. Sadly, some of the people who've reacted badly to your disclosure are probably carrying that weight, too. 

But I want you to know that I respect you.

I respect what you did then and what you've done since. I respect your decision to punch him out, to not have screamed, to have told everyone you know, to have told no one. I respect your decision to report it to the police, to have not reported it to the police. I respect your right to have your experience(s) define you; to reject the very notion that it's a part of who you are.

I respect you. I respect your right to navigate this world in whatever way feels right for you. You have rights. You matter.

Your experience matters, even if the police said it didn't; even if your family didn't believe you; even if your friends weren't there when it mattered.

Your life matters. You matter. 

I don't want you to think that we only care about Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons or Audrie Pott because they're dead. People cared about them when they were with us.  People care about you. Yes, you. Right now. This very second. There are people who care very, very deeply for you.


You are entitled to justice and there are people in this world who spend every waking second fighting for that justice.

I want you on this Earth. I want your abusers brought to justice and I want the pain to stop. And I commit to doing everything in my power to ending the bullshit that has traumatized too many of us.

I'm sorry for what happened to you. But an apology means shit without action. So, please know that I commit to keeping up the fight for justice. That means I will commit to talk about sexual assault, even when it makes people squirmy. I will call out people who argue that rape jokes are funny, that womyn lie about their rape and that rapists are 'good dudes who make decisions'. I will call out journalists who care more about the 'ruined lives' of our perpetrators than the trauma they've inflicted on us. I will educate those in my life on how to be an effective bystander and what it means to be an ally. I will continue to speak the truth about rape culture and will always refuse to be silenced.

You deserve that much.

The world need not be this ugly.

We deserve better.

So please, hold on.

“Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”- Arundhati Roy

In solidarity, rage and love,

- FC

What I wish people understood about women who've been sexually assaulted

I haven't updated since October?! My bad!

As a support worker for survivors of sexual violence, a feminist academic and a friend to many womyn (and therefore, survivors!), I find myself having the same conversations over and over.

[TRIGGER WARNING for discussions of sexual assault... obviously.]

So here it is.

I wish people understood that women who've been sexually assaulted:

1- Are not fabergé eggs: Womyn who've been sexually assaulted are not inherently fragile and ready to break(down) at any minute. Of course, the time when they start to heal is not an ideal time and they're probably not feeling their best. But if at least 1 in 4 womyn will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime and humankind has existed for centuries and centuries, clearly womyn have found ways to cope and continue living their lives.

It's problematic at best and sexist at its worse to assume that womyn who've been sexually assaulted are forever 'broken' and should therefore be treated like children.

2- Are not going to react in the ways you expect or hope: The amount of people who've told me that their disclosure of sexual assault was dismissed because they didn't 'act like someone who has just been assaulted' is downright depressing. When someone is assaulted, they might pull a CSI victim and break down in tears, they might bury it deep and deny it, they might speak about it non-stop, they might never speak of it again. They might abstain from all sexual activity, they might sleep with anything that moves, they might quit their job or go back to work the next day. They might drink/smoke it away, they might become macrobiotic vegans.

It is absolutely absurd that we throw out all logic about the uniqueness of people when it comes to sexual assault responses.

3- Owe you absolutely nothing: Just because I've told you about my experience of trauma, that doesn't mean that I now owe you every detail of my assault(s), every detail of my therapy session, etc. To pry for more information is both inappropriate and fucking creepy.

4- Want their power back: Sexual assault is not about sex; it's about power. To assume that men sexually assault because they can't control their sexual urges it not only illogical but also offensive to men.

And so when someone is sexually assaulted, they are dealing with the fact that their power, bodily integrity and agency have been violated. And so telling them what they need to do and insisting you know what's best is not only annoying but also contributing to their disempowerment. If I've learned anything in my years as a support worker, it's that the vast majority of womyn who've been sexually assaulted and who seek out help are looking for validation, resources and the space to vent. They know what's best for them and the course of action they should take, they just want you to validate their choices and provide them with any necessary resource information.

5- Don't need your judgment: They don't need you to question why they accepted a ride with that guy, why they dressed that way, why they drank so much, why they went back to him, why they didn't report, why they did report, why they waited weeks to tell you, why they didn't self-defense classes, why they didn't leave the party, why they invited him inside their apartment, etc.

Womyn who've been sexually assaulted don't need your judgment: Society is doing that part just fine, thanks.

Why we need to care about DSK's charges being dropped

TRIGGER WARNING: This post discusses sexual assault in concrete and theoretical ways.

I recognize that I've been an incredibly lazy blogger as of late. I apologize about that. I've been extremely busy.

And then beloved Jack Layton died and I've been reeling.

But one thing that's gotten be riled up as of late is the entire case of DSK.

Unless you have the pleasure of living under a rock, you've heard about Dominique Straus-Kahn. Even my last blog post was about the joy of being famous, referring in part to DSK's treatment even though he face(d) serious charges of sexual assault.

Since that last post, the victim in this whole story as come forward. We now know her Nafissatou Diallo, an immigrant womyn of colour who is also a single mother and chambermaid in a New York hotel. She came forward and told her story.

She says that she walked in to clean DSK's room and found him partially undressed/exposing himself. She apologized, he told her she didn't have to and then sexually assaulted her.

DSK has since done what most men do in those situations do: Claimed it was consensual.

It was recently announced that all charges against DSK in the United States have been dropped because of inconsistencies on the part of Ms. Diallo. He will however go on to face similar charges in France for a sexual assault that he committed against a journalist there. Or rather, is "alleged" to have committed.

And that's where I start feeling a little.... stabby.

As an outspoken advocate against sexual violence and as someone who works as a front-line, support worker, Ms. Diallo's story is all to damn common.

On the one hand, you have a poor, single mother who also happens to be an immigrant of colour. On the other, you have a rich, powerful and 'important' man. In many circumstances, people like DSK would deny having any 'sexual relations with that womyn' (Sound familiar?) But in this case, like in Clinton's case, once you get to the point where all evidence leads to some sexual contact, then they play the 'Cried rape' card.

"It was entirely consensual!" they say "It makes total sense that a womyn who makes barely over minimum wage in a precarious job would risk it all to bone me, even though it was not until she saw my face on TV that she knew I was famous. And even though I'm a married rich powerful man, it makes total sense that she would just walk into my room and say 'I WANT TO SUCK YOUR COCK' and then go home. Yup that makes perfect sense".

Let's not kid ourselves folks. That is exactly what DSK is saying. I'm just doing you the favour of sparing you the BS elements of it.

Meanwhile, DSK's wife diligently stands by his side, even though at best, he had oral sex with a complete stranger in a hotel room and at worst, he sexually assaulted her.

"But! But! He should still be in the running for France's President and we should definitely be supporting him, because 'bitches be lyin'."

This narrative happens over and over and over. And then we wonder why 8 womyn a day are sexually assaulted in Ottawa and only 1 reports it to the police. (Source: OCTEVAW)

Because it doesn't matter if you're white, of colour, rich, poor, able bodied, disAbled, queer, straight, etc. It doesn't even really matter if he is either. (Although that's not always the case, particularly around men of colour, queer men and men with disAbilities or mental illnesses, but that's a whole other story).

It doesn't matter what the circumstances are because 'bitches by lying' and 'men getting framed'. ALL THE TIME.

And so in this case, you have a womyn saying she was sexually assaulted by a complete stranger. She got a high powered lawyer, had a publicity machine and she STILL wasn't believed. So do you think that someone who was assaulted by their partner/coach/professor/parent is going to be believed? What if that person was intoxicated? Good luck with that.

Nobody knows for sure what happened except for Ms. Diallo and DSK. Let me clear about that. I cannot prove that she was sexually assaulted just like I can't prove that he didn't. What I can say is that the way in which we talk about this case says a great deal about the culture we live in and the way we treat survivors.

Language is important. I wish I was half as eloquent as fabulous anti-violence advocate Jackson Katz but since I am not, I will let him say it for me "Every time we call [Ms. Diallo] an accuser, we undermine her credibility and bolster [DSK's]". AMEN.

I know that personally, I use the term 'survivor' but I know that's not legally appropriate or universal. I use the term 'survivor' for very political reasons, but also because it's what people who've been sexually assaulted have asked me to refer to them as. So I listen. But I know that we can't all use that term and that's fine.

But in this case, I'll take victim 100x before 'accuser'. Using the term 'accuser' in the case of DSK is the equivalent of the time the New York Post called her a 'hooker', even though they had absolutely no proof she was a sex worker. (Newsflash: She isn't).

Why is that we insist that DSK is innocent until proven guilty but Ms. Diallo? "Oh clearly she's a lying, money grubbing prostitute who is accusing him of a crime he didn't commit!"

The double standard is so blatantly obvious that it's shocking how rarely it is mentioned.

Yes, in strictly legal terms, he is accused of a crime by Ms. Diallo and that makes Ms. Diallo the accuser. I understand this. But let's not pretend that legally, socially or otherwise, we treat sexual assault as we do other crimes. We just don't. When people say they've been robbed and have 'proof' that their items are stolen, do we say 'The supposed victim of a robbery'? No, we don't. Even though people make up that their items were stolen, their houses were burnt down, their cars were jacked, etc. So if we treat the accused of sexual assault with kid gloves, why don't we do the same for the 'victims' of sexual assault?

All in all, the DSK case leaves me feeling sad.

There are no winners here. Well, except for the patriarchy, of course. In this case, the patriarchy keeps on marchin' on.

Rape Culture 101

[EXTREME TRIGGER WARNING for discussion of sexual assault, rape and violence. Assume a trigger warning for this entire post and all links within it]

I’ve been thinking about writing a post on ‘rape culture’ for a while but after scanning the news today, I feel like I have no other choice.

I did a little search through my Facebook and Twitter feeds and this is what I found in ten minutes:

- Nurse jailed for sexual assault in Iqaluit

- Sex worker found dead in Caledon in an article that speaks more about her occupation than humanity

- Maclean’s runs an ‘amazing’ “Escort vs. Prostitute” ‘joke’ column that includes the ‘fact’ that escorts like horses and prostitutes look like them. (I’d link to it but 1- it’s been pulled down thanks to activism on Twitter and 2- I don’t want to give Maclean’s anymore traffic)

- Youth pastor had sex with queer teens to ‘cure them of their homosexuality’.

And I’m sure it’ll just get worse as the day goes on.

But even in the context of all this BULLSHIT, I still hear tons of rape apologists and flat out haters claiming that the term ‘rape culture’ is dramatic and exaggerated. As someone who routinely complains about rape culture and the war on womyn around the world, I’m used to hearing this kinda stuff. But my goodness, does it ever piss me off.

Part of the insidious nature of rape culture is that it’s taboo to even talk about it. So when I hear the haters and sceptics, I think to myself “Maybe they just don’t know. They don’t get it because they’ve never had it explained to them”.

So let me explain.

Since the internet age has completely killed people’s attention spans, I decided to make a handy little list for y’all:

Rape Culture is the creation and maintenance of an environment where rape is condoned and where those affected by it are systemically silenced.

Rape culture is

- The fact that 1 in 4 Canadian womyn will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime

- Studies have found between 80-100% of womyn have experienced street harassment at least once in their life

- The fact that this street harassment is normalized

- The fact that it’s often referred to as ‘cat calling’, which not only makes no logical sense but reaffirms that womyn are deemed less than human

- That a womyn makes an incredibly racist video attacking ‘Asian students’ and rather than challenge her for her racist views or her absolutely vile comments, the internet trolls make threats of rape

- In expressions like “I just raped that exam” or “Wow, we got raped by that team” when referring to victory or defeat

- The fact that we’d rather discuss the details of someone’s ‘escort’ girlfriend than the actual scandal, which is scandalous contracts for much needed water treatment on reserves

- The fact that a 21^st century university institution chose to blame a survivor of sexual assault for her own assault, legally stating that she ‘failed to take any steps to protect herself’

- The fact that every day in Ottawa, 8 womyn are sexually assaulted and only 1 reports it to the police

- This and this and every other music video, movie or advertising campaign that glorifies stalking

- The fact that Harper’s “Economic Action Plan” built more animal shelters than womyn’s shelters

- Journalists who create torture porn out of news stories

- The fact that Canada sits around 21% womyn in the House of Commons (How does that relate to rape culture, you say? Well rape culture is inextricably linked to sexism and the entire notion of ‘keeping womyn down’ and ‘in their place’. And time and time again, we’ve seen that ‘their place’ ain’t the House of Commons, it ain’t in the public sphere and it ain’t about making noise)

Rape culture is viewing sexual assault as a rite of passage for womyn.

Rape culture is the fact that more people know about "Womyn crying rape" than they do about "Rape culture" or "Trigger Warning".

It is the fact that we only care about the sexual assault of men because society is homophobic; we don’t care about the violation of boys but the fact that they were the subject of a homophobic act.

Rape culture continues to exist because it benefits those in power. It keeps womyn out of politics, out of the media, sports and unions. It keeps police, lawyers, insurance companies and advertisers in business. It allows men to climb ladders on the backs of womyn and call it ‘meritocracy’.

Rape culture is alive and well in the hearts of those who read about it and roll their eyes, rather than their sleeves.

Fact Over Fiction

As you know, I'm one of the people who has been going on and on about how killing the mandatory long-form census is a bad, bad idea.

To recap, killing it is so, very, bad because we need quality, tried and true, statistics in order to make good public policy. You can't make sound policy based on wonky facts or worse yet, no statistics at all.

But I knew that the reasoning for smashing the mandatory form had nothing to do with the so-called desire to protect 'civilian privacy'. I knew they had something up their sleeve.

The conspiracy theorist in me thought it was that they could shoot down demands for social justice issues under the guise of "You need research/data to back up that so-called claim of yours, Missy". And since they're hacking away at the census and de-funding social justice research groups, a claim of injustice would be harder to 'prove'.

Now the truth has come out: The Conservatives just don't like facts. Nope, they don't like 'em one bit.

Proof: Treasury Board President Stockwell Day has said that despite crime statistics going down, they are going to increase spending on prisons. His reasoning? "crime statistics are not accurate".

Now, if this was coming out of the mouth of anyone else, I just might believe it. Anyone who works as a front-line worker will tell you that rates of sexual assault, criminal harassment (stalking) and domestic violence are way, way higher than any statistic out there. Crimes such as these are highly under reported.

But a group as misogynist and anti-womyn as the Conservatives saying this? Sounds to me like more hogwash in an attempt to push a 'law and order' agenda. Let's not for one second fool ourselves into thinking they care about putting rapists, wife beaters and stalkers in jail. Do yourself a favour on that one.

Yet again, I don't know why I'm surprised by any of this. Of course Stockwell Day doesn't believe in facts - he's a fucking creationist!

No Honour in Misogyny

Rona Ambrose, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, spoke on Monday about wanting to include 'honour killings' in the Criminal Code.

Me, and lots of other peeps, are opposed to this.

First and foremost, it's not necessary, from a logistical point of view.

"Three law professors said the first-degree murder provisions of the Criminal Code already contain all the tools needed to prosecute and punish those who commit "honour killings" and they knew of no Canadian judge or jury who treated cultural family "honour" as a mitigating factor in sentencing." (National Post)

So it's clear from the outset that this is ideological and in no way a real "Crime and Punishment" agenda. It wouldn't be necessary to get a conviction and it wouldn't change sentencing.

Before I move on though, none of this should matter. When discussing issues around a specific group (and let's be honest, this is targeting a specific group of people), how about discussing that issue with them?

In this case, it would be the Canadian Council on Muslim Women. And they don't agree with adding it to the Criminal Code for reasons that I 100% support.

"We as an organization don't want the term honour killing used in Canada because it's making it exotic, something alien, and foreign, and people are using that as a rationale to understand the murders. Let's not go that route. A murder is a murder. Let's not separate us as new immigrants or ethnic groups from the rest of Canadian women. It doesn't matter which culture, which religion or which ethnic origin we come from, the same laws should apply to us." (National Post)

The Conservative Government wants to appear as though they are tough on crime (which they are) but also that they do care about the lady folk. Everyone (except the Cons) knows that the party has been horrid to womyn in Canada and so they've turned the gaze 'elsewhere' and made it about 'saving the womyn of the world'. And in this case, womyn of the world who come to Canada.

It's total bullshit.

As a Canadian-born feminist, I must also say that it offends me to no end that people are up in arms about 'honour killings' but sensationalize or worse yet, barely discuss the murders of womyn as a whole.

In Canada, we have over 520 missing and murdered aboriginal womyn. Just today we heard about a 61 year old womyn who was sexually assaulted and almost died while visiting a friend's grave. (I would link to the story but it's really awful, so feel free to Google it yourself if you're wanting some salacious details). Eight womyn are sexually assaulted a day in Canada's capital city.

Womyn across the country are assaulted, kidnapped and murdered on a daily basis often because they have 'wronged' a partner, taken children away from abusers, or done something in some way that resists (or attempts to resist) someone's power. More often than not, womyn are murdered because they are womyn. And quite frankly, just existing for many womyn is an assault on some people's honour. But we don't call those honour killings. Hell, we don't even call them hate crimes. It's just - one more murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, battery, etc.

The root of 'honour killings' and the vast majority of violence against womyn is misogyny. Unless they're going to include that in the Criminal Code and start targeting the real roots of misogyny, which include an emphasis on 'crime and punishment' rather than social services, then the label of 'honour killings' does nothing but perpetuate racism and isolation of immigrant communities.

Rona and her pack of Conservative thugs should focus instead of attacking all roots of violence and using existing mechanisms rather than making stuff up that may sound fancy but doesn't mean shit.

Independent Police Review of G8/G20

Ask (scream, shout and protest) and you shall receive.

Police State?

CBC's Natasha Fatah has an interesting take.

Dating Violence on the Rise in Canada

A new Statistics Canada report finds that rates of reported dating violence are on the rise, for both womyn and men. I say reported because the study is quick to point out that the rates are probably higher across the board because people so rarely report.

Unfortunately, this information is not surprising to me on its own. The fact that teenage girls experience 10x more dating violence than their male counterparts is not news to those of us that are paying attention but it's 'nice' to have solid statistics to back up what advocates are saying on a daily basis.

One aspect that I hope doesn't get lost in all this is that the majority of incidents occurred after the relationship had ended. So when we hear "Why won't she just leave him?" for the upteenth time, you can point to this statistic to demonstrate why womyn don't leave abusive situations.

The relationship might be awful on its own but many womyn choose to stay because they know that leaving will only make it worse.

Here's hoping those with the power to do so, take this report seriously and start enacting some serious work to combat it.

Reason #31 I Am Not a Lawyer

So a computer tech went to this guy's house to fix his internet connection and noticed that the guy had sketchy icons on his computer which included the words "Lolita Porn" and "Lolita XXX". He also noticed that webcam was set up and pointed towards a little girl who was playing in the room.

Dude came back the next day to finish fixing the computer and noticed that the icons were gone and the webcam was moved.

Tech man clearly knew something was up, so reported it to the authorities.

Well the man with the questionable computer content and behaviour has been let off by the Supreme Court of Canada because apparently the police didn't have enough evidence to issue a search warrant. Furthermore, apparently, having clearly sketchy icons on your computer and a camera pointed towards your young child isn't enough evidence because "The court found that the information used to obtain the warrant failed to mention the child was fully clothed and there were no signs of abuse when the technician visited the home." (CBC.ca)

Let's break this down for a second.

Clearly this guy isn't too smart for having left the icons on his computer but he's obviously not STUPID enough to let his child be filmed in the nude while a technician is there. This should be obvious to anyone and therefore, the fact that the child was clothed at that time shouldn't be enough to dismiss the evidence.

And the signs of abuse thing is also questionable because if the child was fully clothed and playing with toys and you're just a computer technician and not a trained criminologist, then you're obviously not going to know all there is to know. The man went on intuition, for Pete's Sake. Intuition that they are hoping to become law in Alberta, where a politician is pushing for legislation forcing anyone who witnesses child pornography, comes across it or suspects that it is being made/used, report it to authorities.

Cases like this aren't exactly encouraging people to report suspicious activity.

However my issue here is how the law misses the obvious in favour of tripping over the small things. The Supreme Court didn't say that the guy wasn't a perv, or wasn't in the wrong, they were saying that no case could go forward because the search warrant was not okay. This is what I don't understand.

Obviously police work should have made sure to cross their Ts and dot their Is to ensure crap like this doesn't happen but it makes me sick to see people not even arguing that they are innocent but simply arguing that "Hey, I know you found sketchy stuff in my house, but you had no right to come into my house, so you can't mention it".

And in this case, we're not talking about 'sketchy stuff' like a home grow-op, we're talking about child pornography.

Jeez Louise!

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

The Good: "Africville Apology Coming"

Residents of a black diaspora/suburb in Nova Scotia were kicked out of their neighbourhood in the 60s under the pretense of building a bridge. In reality, it was systemic racism aimed at "cleaning up" Halifax. Congratulations to the former residents of Africville on your victory!

The Bad: "Women Lose Ground in Push for Equality: Report"

Anyone who has been paying any attention didn't need this report to confirm that womyn have been sliding backwards in Canada since the Conservatives got into power. (Although the Liberals have been no better...)

Do yourself a favour: Do not read the comments on that article. In 24 hours online, it has over 500 comments and the vast majority prove what this report is saying: womyn have a long way to go.

The Ugly: "Woman Who Traded Kids for Pet Bird Sentenced"

That's just fucked.

Condoning Anti-Choice Violence

Unfortunately, as we all recall, a certain douchebag in the US shot Dr. George Tiller point blank in the face while in Church, as some sort of way to “protect unborn babies”. Dr Tiller was one of the few late-term abortion providers in the US but thankfully, he’s not the only one.

From the beginning, this was a clear case of guilty, guilty, guilty. Everyone in the church pews witnessed it, the guy himself confessed to the media and to the authorities. But now, things have gotten not only murky but incredibly scary.

The judge is allowing the defence to argue “voluntary manslaughter” rather than the Captain Obvious charge of first-degree murder.

“Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." A conviction could bring a prison sentence closer to five years, instead of a life term for first-degree murder.” (CBC.ca)

So the judge is allowing the defense team to say “Well, he honestly believed that by killing Dr. Tiller in the middle of Church, while he peacefully attended mass, he was saving millions of so-called unborn babies.” Thanks to this judge’s decision, a legal defense team can actually make this a legal fucking defense.

CLEARLY this has reproductive freedom fighters losing their bananas because this is setting a very dangerous precedent. Fringe anti-choice groups have actually said this exact thing; that this is setting a precedent that would encourage other anti-choicers to commit acts of violence and get a lesser charge.

Although the judge has only allowed the defense to present this and has not in any way said yay or nay on the actual defense, the damage has already been done. And quite frankly, it’s a slippery slope that affects far more than crimes against abortion providers.

Wife cheats on you? “Well, your honour, I honestly believed that what she did was harming our children because we are a good (insert crap here) family and she was a negative influence. So I shot her”.

Hey, the underwear terrorist that attempted to blow up a US plane probably really believed in what he was doing, too and probably justifies his actions, too. And the list goes on and on.
And when abortion clinics are already hotbeds of violence, and when clinic workers and doctors are systematically targeted by anti-choice activists, us pro-choice folk have reason to be horrified at this latest news.

Why he is even being allowed to mount a defense, I have no idea. But then again, there’s a reason I’m not a lawyer. When it comes to the law, it’s not a matter of right or wrong but how you spin, spin, spin.

Captain Obvious Strikes Again

You can also file these two stories under "It's about fucking time".

First, Canada is now finally proposing new rules for the live-in caretaker program. For those of you who are unaware, the Live-In Caregiver Program is one of the few ways that womyn are able to immigrate to Canada and the system is incredibly exploitative. The rules and demands on the womyn are incredibly high whereas those who are enlisting their services have very little to no monitoring, rules or necessary criteria.

Womyn come to Canada through the Program and have to live in an employer's home for what used to be 2 years and then they can apply for residency. This is obviously putting womyn into precarious situations where if they are subject to abuse, exploitation or neglect by their employers, they often have no means or resources to get out because they need to maintain steady work in order to be eligible for residency. These new proposed regulations would mean that womyn have up to 4 years to complete the 2 years of work. "In addition, they will no longer have to undergo a second medical examination when they apply, and employers wanting to hire a nanny from overseas will have to pick up the travel costs and provide medical coverage until they are eligible for provincial health plans."(CBC.ca)

I generally think that Citizenship and Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney is a Grade-A douche but this is good and long overdue, news.

And in news that is so incredibly surreal, I still haven't quite processed it yet, "P.E.I. will soon have legislation allowing medical professionals to apologize to patients when something goes wrong without worrying it could haunt them in court."(CBC.ca) Currently, it seems, in P.E.I, if a doctor apologizes for something, it's considered an admission of guilt in court and will screw them if they are sued for malpractice.

I'm not naïve to the ways of the legal system, which often runs completely contradictory to common sense but Geez Louise... The fact that politicians are spending time on a Bill like this rather than other important things like, you know, Climate Change, poverty, violence, etc. is mind-boggling. You hear shit like this and no wonder people have completely tuned out of the political world. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that this is finally going to be enacted into legislation but the fact that it even needs to happen is 10 levels of sad.

Update - Quebec is Suing Mad, too

Looks like Quebec has jumped on the bandwagon, too.

Smoking Out Big Tobacco

The Province of Ontario is joining British Columbia and New Brunswick in suing the big tobacco companies in order to recover money they've spent on tobacco related illnesses/deaths.

Now before I go on, let me establish a few things.

1- I am incredibly anti-smoking.
2- I have never smoked a day in my life.
3- I know and love people who smoke.
4- I know and love people who have suffered serious side effects (including death) as a result of tobacco.

And yet I'm left scratching my head about this lawsuit.

The Province is suing for 50 billion dollars; an amount they say they've spent on treating tobacco related illnesses since 1955. I actually think that amount is too low. I also think that people have known about the adverse effects of tobacco since 1975... So there's a 20 year window where personal accountability doesn't really come into play because people were just rolling with what the scientific data at the time was saying, which was that it wasn't that bad. Hell, even doctors were advertising the stuff!

So for that 20 or so year window, the tobacco companies knew it was bad but people didn't and so I understand that there's a serious accountability issue there.

But where's the personal accountability after that? What about between the 70s and now?

In our Health Care system, being the public system that is, we don't formally discriminate against illnesses. By that I mean that if you're suffering serious emphysema and you've been a- pack-a day smoker, the Health Care system can't say "Oh well, that was stupid, now deal with it on your own"; they've got to do their best to help you. So I understand that the Health Care system is stuck between Big Tobacco and Consumers. And I also understand that the Health Care System is you and me and everyone else living and paying taxes in Ontario. So it's my money that's being spent on big tobacco's side effects.

BUT it's also the Government, both Federally and Provincially, that monitors and governs the rules around Big Tobacco in this country. And so it seems incredibly short-sighted to be benefiting from the taxes and sales of tobacco, and then at the end of the line, suing them to recuperate the amount you've spent on the side effects in between.

The Government of Canada, in general, has such a backwards way of looking at the tobacco industry, much like alcohol and gambling. They benefit up front and then bitch about the after effects; after effects which were clearly foreseeable.

And suing Big Industry to recuperate what is essentially our money just doesn't seem like the right way to do it. Sure it looks incredibly aggressive and anti-corporate and therefore has a nice Erin Brockovich, David and Goliath vibe to it. But upon closer look, it just comes off as greedy and corporate as Big Tobacco itself.

Update

So in a twist of painful irony, someone else has been charged with drinking and driving in Quebec.

The womyn, who had 4 small children with her in the car, was charged 2000$. "She is also on probation for a year and has had her driver's licence suspended for the same length of time and her car has been impounded for 30 days." (CBC)

I realize that longer sentences are not necessarily a deterrent but they do send a message and in this country, when it comes to drinking and driving, our current message is "slap on the wrist".

Once again, I call bullshit.

I Call Bullshit

Man with 19 drinking and driving convictions and 114 prior convictions is not a dangerous offender... apparently.

Because You Can't spell "Blame" Without "Lame"

Now it's time for my favourite part of the evening: The Blame Game!

First on the list, Carleton University and their epic fuck-up: "Carleton University Accused of Victim-Blaming"

Next up: "9 year old initiated sex acts, child molester claims". He claims that she came on to him and he didn't want her to feel "rejected".

And finally: A cab driver in the city of Ottawa has been charged with sexually assaulting a passenger. The driver claims the womyn, who had 10-12 beers before getting into the cab, "came on to him" and he didn't want her to tell his boss that he had failed to "please her". He was given a whopping 2 months of house arrest. The sentence was so low because the judge "considered" that "the sexual assault Majli was convicted of was not the most serious"' and because she was drunk, they couldn't "prove" that he had not only kissed her, but penetrated her as well.

And the winner is... The City of Ottawa! The Capital of Canada; bastion of all things democratic. Yet in the past 2 months, all of these amazing victim-blaming stories have come out.

Studying at night? To blame
Being a regular 9 year old in the presence of a child molester? To blame
Taking a fucking cab home because you're aware that you're too drunk to drive? To blame.

In the City of Ottawa, that's how we roll.

Is there an Echo in the Building?

And the "C" word strikes again!

Keeping in mind that the source isn’t exactly impartial but, a Toronto lawyer has publicly come out in support of the increasing numbers of womyn who are being laid off while on Maternity Leave.

The excuse given? The economy.

Technically, it’s illegal to lay someone off when they are on Mat Leave. That’s the whole point; that you help society reproduce while we hold down the fort until you come back. BUT! If the company is “doing multiple lay offs” then its okay. And what is happening is that while womyn are away, the new person they hired in the interim is cheaper because they’ve just started and so the company would rather keep someone with less seniority than pay the rates of the womyn who left.

Wow.

I guess the only solution is for babies to make and raise themselves. Well, we could socialize people to be equal partners in the child raising department and create child friendly work environments but the first solution is probably more likely.

Misdirected Anger

So I have purposely avoided discussing the "alleged" assault of popstar Rihanna by fellow popstar Chris Brown.

I've purposely stood back since the very beginning because I felt like it was not the place of people who are not involved to "weigh in" on what they think. Sure, the police report was leaked and so were photos of her bruised and beaten up face, but neither of these should have been released to the public in my opinion and asshole gossip bloggers should not have published them. But we still don't "know" the situation nor do we "know" them.

Rihanna is not even her real name. So what does that tell you?

I was particularly disgusted with people weighing in on the rumour (and yes, it was only a rumour. To this day, Rihanna has never issued a statement regarding the incident) that Rihanna "took back" Chris Brown and attempted to reconcile their relationship. Bloggers, journalists, talk show hosts and everyday people went ballistic on Rihanna, asking her what kind of message she was sending to "her fans", etc.

I refuse to comment on this aspect because it's a rumour and I don't know Rihanna or her situation/politics/feelings and so I am way overstepping my boundaries by casting judgement here.

I did appreciate how some commenters took this is as an opportunity to discuss teen violence and how this particular incident is but the tip of the iceberg. Teen violence is rampant and so rarely talked about. And so for people to take the discussion in this direction was a positive step, in my opinion.

But the reason why I feel the need to pipe in now is that I've officially snapped on the Judgy McJudgerson folks out there. Commentator, after commentator, after commentator was quick to point the finger at Rihanna for possibly having wanted to reconcile with Chris Brown, as I've stated above. People were losing their minds, totally ouraged and "disgusted" with her.

And yet, Chris Brown turned himself in to police, issued a statement admitting that he was involved and was just in court last week to plead not guilty.

So, when people decide that it's their business to get involved in the business of others, why are they losing their shit over a rumour on Rihanna's part and yet letting this one slide?

Admittedly, not everyone is letting this second part slide. But I'm not seeing the angry outbursts, television segments and blogger comments flooding this one, when I saw exactly that in regards to Rihanna.

Using myself as an example, I spoke on the radio about violence against womyn and was asked to comment on the "fact" that Rihanna wanted to reconcile with Chris Brown and yet my phone hasn't rang once about his not guilty plea.

Chris Brown turns himself into police for battery and uttering threats and yet his CD sales remain steady. So the writing is on the wall here, people.

Why is that Rihanna "possibly" returning to Chris Brown is a disgusting example to her fans and yet Chris Brown admitting that he took part in an assault and then pleading not guilty is not?
What kind of example is he setting? That it's okay to assault your girlfriend and then act like you did nothing wrong?

There is so much wrong with Chris Brown's not guilty plea. So many concrete, proven things wrong with this. And yet, a rumour smeared Rihanna's reputation.

Somebody explain this to me.

Like so many cases of violence against womyn that I have witnessed in my short lifetime, the onus always falls on the womyn involved. Why aren't we turning the focus to the men?

Why aren't people directing their anger about domestic violence at the men involved?

** I usually post to a lot more secondary articles to back up what I'm saying but 90% of articles featuring this story and the reactions I'm mentioning also post the police photo of Rihanna and I do not want to be a part of reproducing that image on the internet.