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.

Ahh, to be famous...

**Trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault, rape and victim blaming**

What do the President of the IMF, the former Governor of California, an information 'freedom fighter' and a Hollywood Director have in common? Why, sexual assault of course!

I know what you're thinking. "No, no Ms. FC, you mean sexual assault accusations." Ahh yes, pardon me! Rape accusations thrown at famous men because womyn are opportunistic whores. Ahh yes, my bad.

So the President of the IMF, Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) has been arrested on charges of at least 1 sexual assault of a hotel room cleaning staff. He's also been accused of sexually assaulting at least 1 journalist a few years ago. In fact, Mr. DSK was known as being quite the 'charmer'.

Then you've got the Governator himself who is not only filing for divorce from his Democratic wife Maria Shriver over allegations of cheating (and fathering a 'love child'), he also has a well documented history of being well... grabby.

Julian Assange was accused of sexually assaulting two womyn, but we all know that didn't happen because he's a lefty who wants to take down the greedy government, so it's clearly all just a big old conspiracy to take him down.

And Roman Polanski? Look dude might have anally raped a young girl that he had plied with drugs, but her mom shouldn't have let her come over anyway and it was such a long time ago. Plus, have you seen Chinatown? Cinematic gold!

FYI - This list fails to include athletes, although we could easily talk about Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger, and Check-Out-Photos-Of-My-Dick Brett Favre.

See, when it comes to sexual assault, you're pretty much off the hook to begin with, but if you happen to be famous? You're in the clear, my dear!

Every time these 'scandals' come out, we hear the same victim-blaming bullshit, we have other 'celebrities' coming out to 'support them' and we have this whole conspiracy theory machine that states that they're being unfairly scrutinized because they're rich and famous.

To which I say - so what?

Why are we appalled that Paris Hilton only spent a few days in jail for drinking and driving but we're downright infuriated that DSK's case is being investigated at all?

Sexual assault, unlike most crimes, is rife with stereotypes. There are stereotypes around who commits sexual assault, who is actually sexually assaulted, who 'cries rape', etc.

According to the myths, who commits sexual assaults? Well, old men with mental illnesses, of course! They are always strangers to the victim in question, have some sort of sick sexual fetish and in many cases are a person of colour/Queer/disAbled, etc.

Does that mean that never fits the profile? Absolutely not. But the % of people who sexually assault who fit this very narrow and specific profile is slim.

And because we continue to perpetuate this same sadistic bullshit, we are equally appalled by the profile of the rapist as we are by the crimes themselves.

Need I remind you of Colonel Russell Williams? People were SHOCKED that a decorated Colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces committed such heinous crimes and yet, it makes perfect sense. Here is a man with ample amounts of power who leads a secretive life where people who know him fully understand that they don't really know him. Not to mention how he was trained to do just that.

And because we continue to perpetuate the stereotype of who is a rapist we continue to victim blame those who are assaulted by someone who doesn't 'fit the profile', because we just don't believe someone like them could do something like that.

Newsflash, skeptics: Rapists come in every size and flavour. They are decorated military colonels, actors, directors, governors, weight lifters, city councillors, janitors, fathers, sons, cousins, colleagues and people of every background, ethnicity, age, socio-economic status, ability and sexual orientation.

Maybe we don't want to believe this because it's too scary to think about. Maybe we want to believe that rapists are easy to spot so that we can sleep better at night, knowing that our radar is on the right people. But this isn't helping anybody.

This mentality is blaming womyn unnecessarily, it's framing men of colour/queer men/ disAbled men/ poor men as sexual predators and it's allowing rich, entitled, privileged piece of shit dudes walk away, consequence free.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world in which we let people get away with sexual assault just because they wear a nice suit and have cushy bank accounts. I gotta believe that we are better than this.

** I'm willfully interchanging the words sexual assault and rape here just for the sake of being concise **

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.

So you're an activist. Now what?

Please pardon the absence, folks. It's almost February and it's my first post for 2011. Eek! But it was a much needed hiatus and re-evaluation. So Blogosphere - Fear not (Or fear muchly!) because FC is baaaaaaaack.

And thinking about activism.

As someone who spends 90% of her time doing activism of some kind, I've had plenty of time to ponder the pros and cons of left-wing-so-called-progressive circles. And I keep coming back to the same two gripes: egos and impatience.

Egos

The biggest problem I've seen in these circles is the issue of egos. Many of these circles view 'collectivity' and consensus decision making as the be-all, end-all of anti-oppression organizing. Hierarchy is seen as inherently evil and oppressive and the pursuit of a 'collective' is the marker of a 'legit' organization.

You can probably discover from my tone that I ain't buying it. Haters, hear me out.

I think it's an admirable pursuit - I really, truly, genuinely do. But I think it's BS in practice.

Much like white, Western folks espousing the virtues of communism without clearly reading a history book, I think the idea of 'collective or bust' is idealistic and quite frankly, ridiculous.

I want to believe in collectives, I do! I work in many such environments and when I read the stuff on paper, I get really excited about the possibilities. But then I actually step into them and see that these same collectivity-loving-folk are as hierarchical and power hungry as dudes on Bay Street.

Collectivity will never work until people get over themselves. Not to sound all "Back in the good old days..." but there really was a time when activism was about more than a photo op or having a popular Twitter feed. More and more lately, I've been seeing a shift towards visual markers of 'legit' and 'radical' which make people competitive. It's a dog eat dog game of trying to one-up each other with one person screaming "GOTCHA!" when they feel that they've really nailed the other person to the floor.

People are more interested in appearing legit and in being the "best goddamn ally the world has ever seen" than in actually being legit. And so on one hand, they are criticizing societal power structures and then re-creating them in their own way.

It reminds me of this girl I met once in my undergrad. (Which sounds pompous as fuck, I apologize). She had all the visual markers of 'legit'. She was a white girl with dreads, a nose ring, Blundstone boots, corduroy pants and a vintage cardigan. She was shooting the shit with another classmate when they said "Omg, you went to such-and-such alternative school?!" and she sheepishly replied "Yup." The other classmate was clearly impressed and they chit chatted back and forth until she eventually said "Oh, it was like every other school except that instead of bullying the kids who were goth or queer, we bullied the kids who read Seventeen Magazine and watched MTV".

See what I'm getting at?

This pursuit to be the ultimate 'radical' is actually extremely detrimental to the cause. Which leads me to my second issue.

Impatience

Far too often, people come to a realization, make a discovery, get accepted into the organization/circle/clique and then act as though that knowledge always existed within them. They don't acknowledge that this is new, that they are newbies or that they are even struggling with it. Instead, they adopt the dogma and in turn, lack empathy for those not in the know.

Rather than admitting that they had their own racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic tendencies (either previously or currently, as we all do) they act as though their new found knowledge is old wisdom. And then a newbie comes along or someone from outside the activist circle who asks a genuine question or slips up and says something awful and rather than seeing it as a teaching moment or an opportunity to enlighten someone, it becomes "OMG, just fucking Google it, you jerk with unchecked privilege".
(I'm paraphrasing...)

How is that making the world a better place?

Call me naive, but I thought that was the whole point of this progressive-train we are riding. It sounds simplistic but isn't that our ultimate goal? To make the world less shitty? Well, how are we going to go about doing that when we create dogmatic politics that are inherently about who is good enough and who is not?

From my (albeit limited, I suppose) experience in doing feminist-social-justice activism, too many people live within the circle and ONLY the circle. Sure, it's nice and cozy and (sometimes, if you're lucky) anti-oppressive and safe. For some people, those circles are a means for survival. And that's a-okay. In fact, that's beautiful.

But sometimes, we need to step outside those circles or heck, even broaden them, open the door a bit, let some air in. We need to live in the 'real world' in order to change it. We have to at least straddle both sides. And we need to have a patience with those who ask the newbie questions that we've heard so many times that they've become nails on a chalkboard. But if we don't take the time to answer them, challenge those people in a respectful way and engage them in a dialogue, then we not only missed an opportunity to challenge someone, we perpetuated a stereotype about who we are.

Now I get it. We're exhausted and we're tired of having the same conversations over and over and over. I get it. (Seriously... I get it). But if it's getting to the point where answering a question, offering someone a good article or clarifying a point makes you rip someone's head off, then maybe you should do us all a favour and take a fucking break.

It's easy for the world to ignore us and our demands when we're written off as cliquish, self-interested and egotistical. And at this point, I'm not convinced we're not.

Things You Should Know About Canadians

For those of you who read this blog and are not a Canuck, let me help you understand my people.

1- We come off as awful nice (and we are!) but we crack under pressure and well... cheat.

2- We're allergic to everything.

3- We're really good at satire. So good that we have this epic brain drain where our funny talent heads south. But our neighbours to the south often get this idea that because they've got Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, that they've got satire in their blood. No way, my friend. We do it right.

That is all for today's lesson.

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!

Why the Mandatory Long Form Census Matters

Reasons why cutting it is really, really stupid:

1- The "Leave-People's-Bedrooms-Out-Of-This" is less Trudeau-Chic as it is just plain bad policy making.

2- The "We Need to Trim The Bureaucratic Fat" argument is just... silly.

3- It screws over First Nations.

4- And well, the decision to cut it clearly didn't involve consulting with those who actually know what they're talking about.

This might seem like a ridiculously petty 'scandal' but it's very telling of the political climate that Canadians are living in.

If we keep cutting funding to organizations that the government doesn't agree with, and cutting important research and cutting important statistical information, then people won't know what they don't know.

And that's a serious problem.

Vatican FAIL... again.

The Vatican has come out and said that child abuse in the Church is a major no-no. That is awesome.

Not so awesome? Equating the abuse of children in the church with ordaining womyn.

Yeah, apparently it's equally as sinful to ordain a womyn as it is to molest a child.

Oh, Church Logic. Isn't it grand?

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.

I am an activist

I am an activist.

I am a proud, active, social justice activist who fights, day in and day out, for a more just society. I am deeply invested in anti-oppressive politics and am passionate about educating as many people as possible.

Because of all this, I have clearly had a very, very busy weekend. The G8/G20 has forced me to once again re-evaluate my politics, my tactics and quite frankly, my allies.

A few things first:

- I chose not to attend the G8/G20 demonstrations. I make this distinction because I believe there is a clear difference between people like myself who chose not to participate in such events and those who want to attend them but cannot.

- I am highly privileged and could afford to get arrested without enduring serious harm to my physical or political self. In fact, in many of the activist circles I run in, getting arrested would actually give me some serious cred.

Like every annoying intellect worth their salt, I have more questions than answers when it comes to Gs activism but at least I'm honest about not knowing it all.

First confession: I used to be unequivocally opposed to violent protesting and thought that anyone who refuses to show their face during a protest was a coward who was unworthy of the activist title.

Then I listened to Harsha Walia speak about the diversity of tactics. You should, too. You should also note, however, that after her amazing talk about the importance of all types of activism for all issues, the camera pulls back and you see that she is wearing Nike shoes. This should also be discussed.

I agree with Harsha and the principle of a diversity of tactics. I firmly, firmly believe that diversifying tactics is the only way that change will occur. I also now understand the politics of the "Black Block" and those who engage in Block like tactics.

Black Block et al, take note: The revolution will not happen from a burning cop car. Nor will it come from the shouts of "Fuck the police" or the shattering of bank windows (more on this later).

Nor will it happen from letter writing or lobbying alone. Not only is bureaucracy light years behind civilization, even decent, well timed laws or policies cannot single handily change the minds of individuals and create great change.

Change will happen when the grassroots meet the Ivory Tower and people below and above are speaking the same language.

The issues must be attacked from all sides at all times so that different people, with different approaches and different perspectives, are all receiving the same message.

Womyn have achieved a certain level of equity in society not because we fought for the right to vote. Nor is it because of conscious raising groups. It took both. It took womyn on the ground, building solidarity, educating our brothers and sisters about the reality of our lives and it took policies and laws that allowed us to be represented and created opportunities for retribution when our personhood was ignored.

And so my use of lobbying techniques for the G8/G20 go hand-in-hand with those who took to the streets over the weekend, said "Whose streets? Our streets!" and held their placards high.

Second confession: I am not a communist nor do I believe in anarchy. But I am not a pacifist. (I'm also not a terrorist).

I think police are a necessary evil, much like taxes and fluoride toothpaste. I think shouting "pigs" and vandalising stores/banks is short sighted and ineffective.

In the case of the police, good old Rex Murphy made the unfortunate comment that the #1 ally of the Black Block is Stephen Harper, and I believe him. The Black Block and the violent protesters over the weekend simply worked to justify the excessive police state at the Gs (and it was excessive. More arrests this weekend than during the entire FLQ crisis!)

When I speak of violence, I do not, in any way, shape or form include those who used violence in self-defense, in an attempt to protect their friends/allies or as a means of survival when being unlawfully attacked. As I said, I am not a pacifist.

But the BB knows full well that they get plenty of media attention, which was reflected in an iconic photograph (that I, of course, can no longer find... But I'm working on it!) where a member of the Black Block is charging a Starbucks window, staring at camera crews who number in the dozens. It has been argued that this is the point - drawing attention to the issues and forcing people to witness what violence against society looks like.

But what about those who protested with their faces shown, who engaged in the 'critical mass' bike ride or who marched with tambourines and placards? The irony, of course, is that many people who support the Black Block tactics also posted to various articles saying "What the media ignored: 25, 000 peaceful protesters". But many of them ignored it themselves.

Whether you are an activist or a member of the media (or the elite!), we must all acknowledge the 25,000+ protesters who came out en masse, in solidarity and chanted for queer rights, womyn's rights, animal rights, civilian liberties, etc.

I monitor the CBC quite heavily, either radio, internet or television, because quite frankly, my taxes pay for that shit. And as much as I love to hate on the media for their ignorance or selective listening, they have been quite excellent at giving voice to the protesters who came out with serious issues and clear messages. This is reflected in their photo galleries, for example, which gave room for images of protesters and their messages. And not simply pictures of them being arrested.

(Of course, I would argue that much of the press around the security state is because so many journalists were unlawfully detained and so like most people, when one of their own is affected, they take notice.)

All of which to say that insisting that violence demonstrations are necessary to get the message out has been proven false.

Why do I think vandalising stores and banks is ineffective?

Just look at BP. BP has created one of the, if not the, worst oil disaster in history. BP is evil, evil, evil. But independent retailers who carry the BP name are being hit really, damn, hard. Of course, their entire livelihood is built upon the exploitation of mother nature and so one could certainly argue that they are a liability in the fight against oil. Sure. But do you think the individual people who work there are concerned about that right now?

Individual workers at gas stations have had their hours cut or are being laid off because people are boycotting BP for its disaster.

I support the boycotting of BP but I also can't ignore those that are suffering from that. (And let's not pretend that people who pump the gas at the station are rolling in dough, either).

The same goes with the Starbucks and other stores in Toronto. First off, not only major corporations were hit. There is plenty of footage of people vandalising things like local antique stores, so there's that issue.

But let's take Starbucks.

Starbucks is indeed a ubiquitous, yuppie extravaganza that charges a fortune for a fancy coffee. Starbucks is a clear target. Yes, nobody was hurt and a window pane has no feelings. Many, many more people are affected by a brutal police force, violence from the state, state-waged war, etc. Abso-fucking-lutely.

But how can you claim to be fighting for the little guy/gal when you're destroying their store front and therefore keeping them away from their job? Do you think 'barristas' make enough money that they can afford time off work without pay? Most barristas I know are students or lower-class people working for tips.

What about those that were not directly affected by the vandalism but whose customers were scared away by the violence and didn't show up?

We can hate on capitalism all we want and there are great arguments for doing so, but that doesn't change right now. Right now, people are relying on 'capialist pig' jobs to pay their rent, to finance their education, to feed their children.

Hell, how many activists do we all know who stick it to the Man while bagging groceries, selling coffee or stocking shelves?

A diversity of tactics is necessary but so is the respect and understanding of those who do not agree with violence as a method of resistance. As activists, we need to understand that many people cannot engage in violent resistance, even if they want to. Deportation, state scooping up of children, lack of employment opportunities, inaccessibility, etc are all realities for many activists. To assume that only those who knowingly risk arrest are 'legitimate' activists is short sighted and detrimental to the movement. People use various tactics for various reasons and respect needs to go in every direction.

Personally? I choose not to participate in events or forms of resistance that could lead to arrest because much of the work I do requires a clean police check. I'm not being boastful when I say that I do excellent work with children and I could not do that work if I have been arrested. I could argue with my activist friends about the merits of a record of civil disobedience but it would automatically close many doors for me in the work that I do.

I may by highly privileged but I am also able to use that privilege and education to move others to action because I do not engage in violent resistance. This is a choice that I choose, without constraint, to make.

I do not expect this to be every one's politics but I suppose my hope is that others take these politics into account in their own work. I recognize direct action and hope that direct action recognizes my seemingly 'pacifist' methods.

Real change, as I said, will come when the top meets the bottom. I recently heard the term 'movable middle' to describe the vast majority of Canadians who are 'sitting on the fence' and can be moved to either side. These are the people that I actively pursue. These are the people that I think hold the key to the future.

I am not one of these people. I am firm in my beliefs, militant even, and I cannot be persuaded to be anti-choice, anti-immigration, etc. But I can work really, damn, hard to reach those that can be persuaded.

And in my experience, I am able to reach those people because I engage in tactics that are accessible, lack intimidation and take into account their experiences and perspectives.

My work alone will not accomplish much. I need bureaucrats and the Black Block on my side, too.

Lastly (I told you I've had to do a lot of thinking), as activists, we need to constantly remind ourselves that the state wins when we fight amongst each other. It's an age old tactic of the privileged to get the oppressed fighting amongst themselves so that they don't fight them.

My one hope is that the debates amongst activist circles right now remain dialogues and that they serve to strengthen us and not divide us.

While we're attacking each other (and windows), the oppressors carry on.

Oh Canada, Our Home On Native Land

And apparently, the land of the free... or something.

Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the opening of the "Truth and Reconciliation" talks in regards to Indian Residential Schools. (Also, a little reality check on that one as well: We have more First Nations children in care today than we ever did in residential schools. So the idea that it's over and done with, let's-just-do-these-talks-and-then-move-on-from-the-issue is bullshit).

Then we have a father and son who have finally pled guilty to murdering Aqsa Parvez, a 16 year old from Mississauga who was rebelling against her family's stronghold. It's been called 'an honour killing'; a term that is contested by both feminists and non-feminists alike.

Just this past week, another young womyn was attacked by her family, this time her mother, for a so-called shaming of the family's honour. Thankfully, the womyn in this case will survive her injuries.

Oh and we're apparently jumping on the bandwagon of hating on people who call out Israel. Apparently calling out violence against Palestine means you're 'anti-semitic'. NDP MP Libby Davies called out the very obvious fact that criticizing Israel is not something that is done by Canada's Parliament and that many people who support Palestine are silenced or threatened. In saying this, what's happened to ole Davies? She's being threatened.

Where the fuck has Canada gone and what the hell is replacing it?

Reproductive Justice FAIL

"No Abortion in Canada's Maternal Health Plan" for the G8 (Cbc.ca)

Because apparently in 2010, we still think we can talk about reproductive and maternal health without discussing contraception, which includes abortion. (Yes, abortion is a form of contraception. Many people, including pro-choicers, shy away from saying this but it's true! Contraception is for preventing baby making and that's what abortion, like Plan B, like condoms, does).

Anyway...

Canada is getting an all around "F" in the reproductive health department lately.

Ontario had an amazing new sex-education curriculum ready to roll out but are now back-pedaling and 'doing reviews'. Apparently teaching about sexual orientation in grade 3 and teaching masturbation in grade 6 is scandalous and 'should be the responsibility of the parents to do'.

The Ontario Liberals are getting lambasted for this (thankfully) so I won't dissect it to death, because it's already been done. Read this amazing G&M editorial instead.

When did Canada get some anti-sex and shitty?

Too Many Jerks, Not Enough Time

1- Ann Coulter was warned to watch her language for her talk at the University of Ottawa. Didn't like it and is now 'filing a Human Rights Complaint'. Except we all know that would require Ann knowing what human rights are. (And don't right-wing nutbags always bitch that the HRC is biased towards Conservatives? Pick a side and stick with it, asshats).

2- The Conservative Party wants to push "Maternal Health" at the G8 summit but refuse to consider abortion or birth control in their framework. The Liberals pushed for 'birth control' to be added and then when it went to vote, it got defeated... by fucking Liberals. Jesus H. Christ. I can't even form a sentence to comment on that, it's so bad

3- A bad story turned good: A Calgary Based Condo project promoted their project with some of the most vile and sexist advertising I've seen in a long while. It included gems like "A $20,000 down payment is as easy as a 25-year-old scotch, or a 25-year-old blonde on a 25-year-old scotch. Get on it." Yeah, just amazing. What is amazing though is that the ads were mostly posted in men's washrooms and *surprise surprise* some awesome men were incredibly offended.

And so, major props to Will Knoll from Calgary who took photos of the ads and posted them online to publicly shame the company and get people to boycott them. It worked and the ads were pulled.

Now I'm not usually a fan of raising a stink about advertising because it's usually offensive on purpose and all about giving them publicity, but in this case, the company was specifically targeting men and was not a major campaign and so 'being offensive' and 'cutting edge' was not their goal, necessarily. They honestly thought that dudes taking a leak in clubs would see this, think it's witty and clever and buy a condo. So raising a stink in this case not only had the ads pulled and therefore dudes didn't have to stare at their ignorant crap, but it's also a shot to PR and marketing folks who think that all men are ignorant chauvinists who fall for any BS advertising that talks about ladies and booty.

Thanks to that one particular man and all other men who took a stand not only against sexual assault and womyn (which is what 'getting someone drunk to fuck them' is - it's sexual assault) but also for taking a stand against the BS of hypermasculinity.

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.

"Vancouver Games Quickly Turn Sour for Quebec"

Well, that headline SHOULD read “Quickly Turn Sour for French-Canadians” because the argument is that the opening ceremonies and the overall 2010 Olympics are predominantly English.

Fair statement, in my opinion.

Not fair? Constantly equating French Canada with Quebec. These are not synonymous.

And when I say this, I’m not only pointing the finger at the Square Heads of Canada, but at Quebecers, too! In fact, La Belle Province is the absolute worst for this, which doesn’t really help their argument. If in arguing for the visibility of your identity, you must render another identity invisible, then your argument doesn’t really hold much water.

Speaking of Trends...

I guess from now on, you can rely on me to keep you posted as to What’s Hot and What’s Not in Canada.

What’s Hot? Prorogation! Not only has Harper done it two years in a row, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is in on the fun, too!

Admittedly it’s for far less time and it doesn’t affect the country as a whole, but Ontario is the most populated province, so you could argue it affects enough people for it to matter. I certainly would.

What’s Not? Caring, apparently. I’m calling hypocrisy on the Left-Wingers. Why are we protesting in the streets about Conservatives proroguing but letting it slide when it’s the Liberals? Is it because Harper is a Neo-Con? Is it because he’s done it twice already? Or is it because we just don’t like the guy?

Either way, I call bullshit on both Harper and McGuinty.

How many times do I have to say this: Perogies, not Proroguing!

An Open Letter to Online Commentators Everywhere

Dear Readers of Online News Articles,

Shut the fuck up. No, seriously.

Now in case this takes you by surprise, please, let me explain.

Online commentators used to be a rare breed; oh how I long for those days. Recently, online news portals have decided that they are going to “bring it to the people” and allow any asshole and their neighbour to comment on such things as an earthquake in Haiti, a white collar crime case or the Montreal Massacre.

In theory, this could be a great way to give people a voice. Let’s be honest; whether people comment or not, they typically have some sort of opinion on the matter. So why not share w/ the world, open up discussion and…. That’s where it falls apart.

Dimwits, like yourself Mr. “Canuck-for-a-buck” or “NeoConfromPEI” make ridiculously sexist, racist, xenophobic, classist, etc etc etc remarks under the anonymous guise of the internet identity. You’re not interested in having a discussion. Nope, you’re interested in flaming the shit out of the situation and/or offloading your years of intolerance on the World Wide Web.

Instead of being an intelligent human being who thinks things through, you shoot from the hip, like the Maverick that you are and give us gems like “The Liberals are behind this, AS USUAL” or “I say lock ‘em up and throw away the key” or my favourite “Deport their asses!” Ahh, from the mouths of babes.

Take December 6th, for example. It’s the National Day of Action and Remembrance for Violence against Womyn. Pretty significant day. This past year marked the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre and as usual, right-wing asshole “journalists” laid down editorial after editorial blasting “feminists” for exploiting “one day into a tirade against all men”. Because apparently, Marc Lepine is one insane asshole and every other misogynist is a stand-up guy.

This year, you online commentators took it to another level and brought 21st century Islamaphobia into the picture. How delightful! Now, I obviously blame the journalists in question who fail to put 2 and 2 together and actually understand the gravity of violence against womyn, but that’s another story. Today, my friend, is about you. You and your incessant douchebaggery.

Apparently Marc Lepine was not a product of an environment and culture that condoned violence against womyn. Even though he left a note explaining in detail how he hated feminists and how he was conducting the massacre in order to seek revenge on the womyn who had apparently “stolen his position” at the school, this isn’t good enough for the online commentators of the world. Nope, apparently Marc Lepine did was he did because he was a Muslim.

News to me.

Oh and I would link to your fabulous comments but truthfully, I don’t want to draw more attention to them and hey, you don’t need evidence to make your points so I guess I don’t either.

To conclude, online hate mongers, please consider one of two things. First, enroll in some sort of educational program, whether formal or informal and educate yourselves about the ways of the world. Find out about the history of the conflict in the Middle East, systemic discrimination in Canada (Yes, in Canada), find out how the political system works, read some Canadian history. Hell, just read a fucking book. (Non-fiction, please).

Or two, get off the news sites and get back to World of Warcraft. Your hobbits surely miss you.

Sincerely,

- Feminist Catalyst

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.

Apples Meet Oranges

Transcript from today's Question Period.

_______

Nicole Demers (Laval, QC, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister responsible for Status of Women refused to denounce the unacceptable statements made by a Conservative MP who implied that abortions contribute to the development of breast cancer. Besides being wrong medically, this assertion is meant to make women feel guilty. We would expect that the minister would defend women and the right to abortion with vigour rather than saying things worthy of Sarah Palin. When will the minister stop protecting the dinosaurs in her party to the detriment of women's right?

Hon. Helena Guergis (Minister of State for Status of Women): --Very clearly in the house yesterday, this member is actually fully aware that there are elected members in this house who have said very similar things at different times. Members in this house represent their constituencies and they are free to have any opinion that they choose to. It does not mean it represents the government. But please let me highlight one of our most recent achievements to protect women across the country. Recently we revised our citizenship guide. I would like to recognize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for the great work he's done in specifically outlining that barbaric practices like female genital mutilation are not tolerated in Canada.

_________

This is ten levels of wrong.

So Many Stories, So Little Time

It’s been an incredibly interesting news day, today. So interesting that I could easily write 4-5 different posts. Instead, I’m going to do a round-up for you.

“Calgary Family Negotiates Homework Ban” – Headline pretty much says it best. A two child household was tired of spending hours on what they saw as “busy work” and so they negotiated with the school to only have them be marked on work they do in class. I think occasional homework is fine but only in high schools. Children need to be engaged in life and homelife in particular and so I say, go Calgary family!

“Better family planning could curb climate change: UN”- A new report by the UN Population Fund suggests making condoms and other family planning services more available will help combat global warming by reducing the world's population. Sex education around the world needs some serious, serious love (pun fully intended) and so whatever the reason, I say bring it on.

“Florida snowbirds take risks with HIV: study” - One more time with feeling, we need better sex education. A recent study has found Canadians age 50+ have skyrocketing rates of HIV, in particular those who vacation in Florida for the winter. The reason being that many of them go down to Florida and live the swinging single life, getting it on and being carefree without protection and thus end up with HIV. The rate of condom use for this age group is dismal. But part of the reason is that if you don’t get quality sex education when you’re young, you probably won’t get it all and yes, people over 50+ still get laid.

Add on that most people only use protection to avoid pregnancy and you’ve got menopausal womyn thinking “I don’t need protection now; I’m good to go!” They’re good alright; at getting the HIV.

And finally,

“McGill anti-abortion student group suspended” - Now, let the record state that I fully support an anti-choice organization's right to express their viewpoints. FULLY. However, in the case of McGill and other similar incidents, the anti-choice organizers were willfully spreading medical misinformation and postering campuses with graphic images in places where people had no choice but to see it. In McGill’s case, after many complaints from students, the McGill student association has suspended their official club status until they can reach some sort of resolution with the student council. Squashing freedom of expression? Not in my view.