You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Canada’ category.
Let’s rewind a little to get the background of what has transpired in this rape/unrape situation.
” On the evening of July 29, 2004, then[a female private in the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve] says she was celebrating the end of a military training course with her fellow reservists, including her mom, and instructors at Debney Armoury on Roper Road when her life took a shocking turn.
It was during those celebrations that she says she was raped.”
(Trigger Warning) – This story is fairly repugnant from beginning to end.
The title of this newspaper article, from the SUN, one of my favorite newspaper chains to hate for their artless casuistry is patriarchal gold – “Career dream shattered“. Not “brutal rape in bathroom stall” or “Female Recruit Assaulted and Raped” … no no nothing like that. That might actually place the focus on the victim, and that clearly, is unacceptable (and worth a post all on its own).
“Officers in the course really need to have their training down because no one knew what to do,” she said.
Let me go out on a limb here and speculate that “no one knew what to do” really meant that is ‘how are we going get out of this situation with Savage’s reputation intact’. The Armed Forces are not exactly known to be a bastion of liberal ideals and progressive thought.
“I was told to seek medical attention before I went to the police. Then, at the base, the nurses explained they didn’t do rape kits, so I had to wait until they were all done for the day before they would take me to the Royal Alex.
“The site nurses didn’t have a kit and said the police had to bring it.”
Some 17 hours after the alleged attack, Santonne says she was finally assessed by a doctor.
Hmm…raped, shuffled around for 17 hours – we certainly do not live in a patriarchal society here.
Her comments:
Now, [she] claims she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and has no intentions of pursuing a career with the military, adding she initially entered the reserves because she was anxious to serve her country and see the world.
“For me, it’s now a lost cause,” she said.
The results of the first trial on January 8th, 2008 (note the time of the rape, was 4 years ago) was a conviction, but watch the defense comments for the set-up…
“An Edmonton soldier was sentenced Monday to three years in prison for raping a young female recruit. Orman Savage, 38, was convicted in August of sexually assaulting the woman during a party following basic training three years ago.
Provincial court Judge Albert Chrumka agreed with Crown prosecutor Avril Herron, who argued that a prison term is the only just sentence for Savage.“
Right on forces of justice! A sorely won victory…?
“Savage and his supporters have steadfastly maintained his innocence throughout the trial. Defence lawyer Brian Beresh said Monday his client will immediately launch an appeal.
“The appeal will be based on what we consider to be procedural unfairness at the trial,” Beresh said.”
I am curious about what procedural unfairness (you will see this material again) really means in the context of this case. As the judge says the defense managed to shoot itself in the foot several times during the trial –
“In his ruling last summer,[Judge] Chrumka called Savage’s testimony at trial “ludicrous” and “concocted.”
“You seem to be your own worst witness,” he said, adding the testimony was “so fanciful it is unbelievable.
“Chrumka said he believed the testimony of the woman, who was 21 when she was attacked.”
The case was appealed and brought before a different court. The previous ruling was overturned and a woman was ‘unraped’.
“A former Edmonton soldier said he feels as if he’s been released from a nightmare after being acquitted Friday on sexual assault charges following an earlier conviction.”
— “All I can say is that I am glad to see that this nightmare is over after five and a half years and to finally see justice actually be done,” Savage said outside court.”
You should not say anything. You found a judge and jury willing to listen to the archetypal anti-woman, rape culture approved, victim-blaming that is so perversely common in our society. Watch and weep…
1. “Savage claimed it was the woman who made sexual advances.”
And therefore got what she deserved because one alleged “yes” cancels out the sobbing, pleading, resisting “no’s” that come after. This is bull-cookies of first fracking order, the legal notion of consent needs to be changed NOW.
2. “The young recruit fell backwards while she was hunched over the toilet, vomiting, Savage told the jury. As he helped her up, she threw her arms around his neck and said, “I’ve been wanting to do this for a long time.” Then she tried to kiss him, Savage said.”
Because it is so obvious that she wants it, oh damn, for sure with all the vomiting retching and other pleasantness that goes along with expunging your stomach contents. It just screams ‘sexy time’.
3. […] defence lawyer Brian Beresh challenged the credibility of the female recruit.
“I would suggest much of her story is like a Hollywood script,” Beresh told jurors. “But she’s written the scenes to be all in her favour.”
Ah yes, here we have the procedural unfairness rearing its ugly head. The last time around we did not actually properly attack the female victim and her integrity; instead we made ourselves look stupid – recall Judge Chrumka’s previous comments: Savage’s testimony at trial [was] “ludicrous” and “concocted.”
How one gets from essentially incriminating oneself to suggesting that the female private’s story is like Hollywood script is really quite beyond me.
The immoral of the story if she’s puking drunk and mumbles something vaguely coherent toward you, its a fracking green light for the frak-fest to begin. Don’t consider the physical context (vomiting in a bathroom stall), her state (drunk enough to lose consciousness and void her stomach), or her rights (not to be used as a piece of meat for your momentary pleasure).
When do we start treating women as fully sentient, autonomous beings – ya know, the default setting for men?
Times are tough, we are in a economic downturn. Solution: Lower Taxes.
Times are great, we are in an economic upturn. Solution: Lower Taxes.
This from our level headed and supposedly fully rational Canadian minister of Finance.
“It has become obvious that Canada was well prepared for the crisis that hit us a year ago — paying down debt in good times, maintaining a prudent financial system and reducing taxes as the U.S. entered into recession in early 2008, to provide both a short-term gain and a long-term advantage,” Flaherty said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Brampton, Ont., Board of Trade.”
What the hell Jim? Is Keynesian Economic Theory a bit of a stretch for you? Or is it something else?
From the budget brought down by Jimbo Flaherty and his Neo-Conservative party.
“Corporate taxes will also be cut — by $14.1 billion over the next five years.
The corporate income tax rate drops by an additional percentage point to 19.5 per cent in 2008, falling in steps to 15 per cent by 2012. By that time, Canada will have the lowest corporate tax rate among the major industrialized economies, the government said.”
It is simply ludicrous. The government needs to raise taxes when times are good so it has the room to cut taxes when times are bad. The current Canadian Government has had but one solution on the issue of taxes: Cut, Cut, Cut, and then cut some more. That friends, is retarded. I mean sure, we all love our tax breaks, but defunding the government so it must cut valuable social services amazingly short sighted.
The business cycle must be regulated by the government for the benefit of the people of Canada. Unfortunately that means tax increasing during the good times, get over it tax-whiners, as it is necessary.
You know that state when you just wake up, before your morning pandiculation and daily ablutions, where your consciousness is really neither here nor there? Just floating, mildly cognizant of your surroundings in a happy grey state?
The people of Alberta are exactly like that, wandering about in a comforting political miasma, becoming activated only when the government decides to make further cuts to education, healthcare or privatize a lucrative public utility. Like dessicated Zombies we moan louder for awhile then fall back into our happy conservative haze knowing that we really cannot change anything and as long as business is happy, we are happy.
On to the vibrant political stage in Alberta ( a whopping 41% turnout last election coronation) we have new contender, new blood, a new vision for the province, we have Danielle Smith and the jack booted fascist Frasier institute stormtroopers Wild Rose Party. Alberta has been in the throes of right wing lunacy since before I was born (38 years and counting) and the prospect of going even further right (with a libertarian outlook to boot, ooooh how I love their batshite-craziness) is about appealing as a warm bowl of cockroaches and milk for breakfast.
For some idea of what Danielle Smith brings to the table lets look at what Keith Brownsey, political scientist at Mount Royal University in Calgary says:
“With vague policies of less government, less taxes, more individual rights and freedoms, the party can have broad appeal, he said. But that changes with Smith because supporters and critics can now point to her track record.
On the campaign trail, Smith challenged provincial changes to oil royalties that she said have sent investment dollars elsewhere.
‘Elsewhere’ being the multi-nationals and assorted corporations that want it *all* instead of just most of the profits from Alberta’s natural resources.
She promises to push individual property rights to the top of the agenda – no land expropriated without due consultation and compensation.
Oh look a meaningless bout of populist hand-waving to con persuade rural voters that the Wild Rose Party really cares about them.
She wants to revamp health care to match models where health providers are paid per job done rather than in a lump sum.
The Americans, currently mired in a pay per job done system are saying that a lump sum payment is the solution. – “Dean also argued that passing some sort of healthcare reform is crucial for Democrats politically if they want to hold onto their majority. He closed the event by arguing for increased compensation for primary care physicians, perhaps even through a salary structure that would allow them to spend more time with patients. “If physicians were paid in a lump sum, rather than by the procedures and tests they perform, we could deliver extraordinary care,” he said.”
Way to go Ms.Smith, already bucking for shiny-awesome Maverick status. *headdesk*
She wants to dump Alberta’s multibillion-dollar carbon capture and storage project as a political boondoggle. Carbon capture, still in its infancy, would see greenhouse gases stored underground but at a hefty cost.
Carbon capture and storage is an amazing lead balloon and energy industry masquerade. We need to update our energy infrastructure. If you have not heard of hydricity find out what we should be doing if we want to live comfortably past the fossil fuel era.
On abortion, Smith said that she is pro-choice and that it should be publicly paid for, but only under hardship or special circumstances – not when it’s used as birth control.
Ah yes, a libertarian that panders to her religious hard right constituency. Squaring libertarian ideals with traditional hard right support is a tough one isn’t it Ms.Smith?
“She’s a leader with a very right-wing track record,” said Brownsey.”
I caught a National Post Blogger’s take on the WRP and Ms.Smith.
“Ms. Smith’s is plainly to the Tories’ right: she looks to the Fraser Institute for health care reform (though vows to respect the Health Act); is skeptical of carbon-curbing efforts since she thinks many Albertans, like her, aren’t totally buying the manmade climate change theory; and promises laws protecting property rights.”
It is a rare day indeed that I agree with anything that comes slithering from the National Post’s direction, but they appropriately framed Ms.Smith as a hard right ideologue who has a marginal grip on reality. Case in point; Ms. Smith’s endorsement of the policies of the Fraser Institute: privatizing health care (CUPE has another take on what our dear neoliberals have to say) and denying climate change are some of the low-lights for your enjoyment.
Progressive politics here we come!
This is just what we need in Alberta to fix our political malaise… gasoline anyone?
Why is it that a death(s) is required before you are taken seriously? Tasers were introduced to the RCMP in 2001. The number of taser related deaths is cataloged here. As early as 2004, Amnesty International had serious concerns about how the taser was being used by Canada’s law enforcement agencies. Robert Dziekanski was allegedly tasered to death by a squad of RCMP officers at the Vancouver International Airport on October 13th, 2007. His crime, being intoxicated, acting disturbed and unable to understand English; in any case not a warrant for the death penalty.
A recent report obtained by the CBC had a few interesting nuggets of information regarding the use of Tasers.
“RCMP officials relied too heavily on information provided by manufacturers when they developed their own stun gun policies and training programs, an independent review concludes.”
Huh, our police in their lust for zap-a-riffic enforcement tools, seems to have went with the best case scenario and used the always unbiased and accurate industry data. No problems there.
Well actually there have been problems. Enough problems to justify a new policy for how tasers are used on people:
“Note, we have lowered the recommended point of aim from centre of mass to lower centre of mass for front shots,” the company[Taser International] says in the bulletin on its website.”When possible, avoiding chest shots with electronic control devices avoids the controversy about whether ECDs [electronic control devices] do or do not affect the human heart,” said the bulletin said.
I do not think the new recommendations go far enough. Robert Dziekanski was shocked multiple times before and after he was restrained. Stunning people repeatedly when they are restrained or hysterical should not be allowed under any circumstance. Being unable to protect yourself while being assaulted with electricity would be stressful for any individual and would put them an undue risk for injury and death (excited delirium is not an acceptable justification for the multiple tasing of a person). Taser use needs to be more highly regulated to protect the public from the use of excessive force.
Let’s stop the anti-vax silliness before it gets started.
—–
I hear this often enough: “Crime is out of control we need more police on the street… or let’s get tougher on crime… or (insert conservative trope here)”
I wonder how much thinking people who say these sorts of things have actually done about the issues of crime and poverty and how they are interrelated. Whoops! I just used a 5 syllable word that, like it or not, it cuts me off from speaking to people who often hold this opinion, and relegates me to talking past them instead. We do not have a common cultural frame of reference and I am written off as a lefty intellectual egg head socialist (Fear not I am neither smart nor witty enough to qualify to be in the liberal intellectual elite) and largely ignored. Talking past one another is a serious problem for both me and the bumpkins ( My apologies I could not resist) whom I attempt to communicate with.
Crime is a problem. (But then again, criminality is on the decline, we should not let reality intervene… it might force us to reconsider our opinions)
The populist response: We need more police, more prisons, and more courtrooms to punish these malcontents and n’er do wells. Society has gone soft on criminals and we need to ‘toughen up’ on crime to fix things.
Okay, so to toughen up on crime we need to spend more public money on jails and police. Where does the money come from? The pubic purse of course and along with more police and jails/legal infrastructure comes the necessary bureaucratic/managerial superstructure. So really, what they are advocating is more government spending and ‘bigger’ government. Government spending and more government and antithetical to what conservatives and populists claim to believe.
More police and more jails often comes with the rallying cry of cuts to welfare and other methods of social assistance because ‘it makes people lazy’. Check. Never mind the facts of the matter. Only a very small percentage of people who are on social assistance cheat the system, most do not. Social assistance helps people avoid grinding poverty. Poverty is the largest cause of our social ills, crime, violence, drug-use are all tied to impoverished people and conditions. I digress though, as welfare and other forms of wealth distribution are inherently evil and must be abolished. Charity will “fix” the problems of the poor.
My response: Crime overall has been on a decline for decades, it certainly should not be ignored as a social issue, but
needs to be framed within the proper non-fear based context. We do not need more police and jail infrastructure. We need more spending on the front lines of social assistance and welfare that directly combats poverty. Poverty is the enemy we need to combat, not crime directly. People who can exist at a modest level within society are less likely to commit crime. If we went after the root cause of crime (poverty) we could stop so much deviancy before it ever started. Improving community supports and schools have measurable paybacks toward the positive health of society.
Yet, I am the bad one because social programs mean taxes. The free ride conservatives give to industry also mean more taxes to pay for the average person as well. In Alberta, the royalty regime is laughably pathetic, with rates at absurdly low values. I digress as I’ve already talked about energy royalties in a previous post.
If you feel crime is getting out of hand in your neighbourhood first ask what can you do as a community to fix the problem. Conservative commentators are forever decrying the lazy welfare state… fine… then lets see these righteous people organizing community watches and ‘take back the night’ campaigns and tackling issues on the community level. Does this happen? Occasionally, but more often, we hear ‘we need to be tough on crime’ and ‘more police’ refrain as if this will actually fix the problem. Forget getting people involved in their community, that smacks of socialism and is a bold assault on self-interest which of course, is at the very core of conservative belief.
So we get more police and build more jails and taxes go up (or more valuable social spending is cut) and government gets bigger.
Populists rarely see this connection and thus are missing out on the sweet irony that laces much of their dogmatism.
I am not sure what possesses people to make the abrupt switch from summer to winter clothing. Well actually I do, the weather in Alberta has been getting steadily colder as we progress toward the icy cold death we know as winter. My point is that I think our response is a little out oof context for the situation we have live in, here in Alberta.
We usually have 6 months of really inhospitable frigid winter weather. Snow/ice/windchill… badness in general. Our bodies are fully covered and rightly so, no questions asked.
However, when the temperature is still well above zero, and there is no snow on the ground. Is dress like this justified?
With footwear like this?
Come on people. We are in a cold weather climate, 3-10 degrees centigrade is *not* cold weather.
I am currently wearing these along with shorts and a t-shirt/shirt combo and am not freezing solid.
Let’s not overreact to the cool weather and embrace what little snow free time we have left.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…