Contempt Party and femicide

This is DJ's ongoing reflection regarding the Contempt Party government & its *Hard-On Crime* Omnibus Bill.

I believe that it will encourage police forces and the court system to shift resources away from investigating and prosecuting crimes against women and children. Since the Cons' Crime Bill will significantly reward cops for the number of arrests leading to convictions, they will only pursue criminals that are "easy" to catch.

Did you see *Justice* minister Nicholson's weasel performance a couple of weeks ago?

He evaded questions regarding costs and priorities but kept using buzz words to create the impression that the Cons care about preventing violence against women.

The inevitable result of this re-engineering of the legal system will be a vicious circle of fewer and fewer women reporting criminal assaults that are inflicted upon them, and less investigations and prosecutions of their assailants. These violent men will get the message they can and they will continue to sexually terrorize and harm women and children.

Consider what is happening in the US. With diminished funding and resources, the states and the municipalities are trying to dump the responsibility for charging spouses with *domestic abuse* on the other jurisdiction, which means violent criminals walk, unchallenged.

[...]domestic violence advocates in Topeka say it’s already putting vulnerable people at increased risk. Since the county stopped prosecuting the crimes on September 8th, it has turned back 30 domestic violence cases. Sixteen people have been arrested for misdemeanor domestic battery and then released from the county jail after charges weren’t filed. “Letting abusive partners out of jail with no consequences puts victims in incredibly dangerous positions,” said Becky Dickinson of the YWCA. “The abuser will often become more violent in an attempt to regain control.” The YMCA also said that some survivors associated with their Center for Safety and Empowerment were afraid for their safety if the dispute wasn’t resolved soon.

PMSHithead and his party of Cons have taken the craft of lying to new depths. Under their watch, expect the usual deliberate obfuscation and political theatre that focuses on so-called "honour" killings and disregards systemic violence against women and children.

Update: Kevin Page, Parliament's independent budget officer has some choice words about the cost of the Cons' *Hard-On Crime* bill.

The Conservatives say their massive new crime bill, which includes nine separate pieces of legislation, will cost $78.5 million over five years, part of bigger justice agenda the government says will cost $2.7 billion.

But Page, who has been asked by the Opposition parties to cost out the bill by mid-November, told The Canadian Press the government estimate includes no methodology, no supporting information and no provincial costs. Nor can Page find the $2.7 billion expenditure listed in any federal budget of the past two years.

Reality Check memo to Jason Kenney:

The ideologically-laden term *christian* is ∧NOT∧ the opposite of the weasel-word *barbaric*.

There's a colloquial expression - s'enfarger dans les fleurs du tapis - that perfectly describes the LPC blunder with regard to criticism of the Harper Regime's revised immigration & citizenship guide. From here:

Liberal MP Justin Trudeau said the government should not call honour killings "barbaric" in a study guide for would-be Canadian citizens.

This is the contentious section: "Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, 'honour killings,' female genital mutilation, forced marriage or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada's criminal laws."

Many fundamentalist gynophobes justify traditions of violence against women and girls by using religious tirades inspired by man-made exegetic ideology, which is based on old testament, gospel or qu'ran texts.

It would be more precise to state in the citizenship guide that crimes against women will be prosecuted and none can be justified by using religious beliefs.

But that might be offensive to the ReformaTory evangelical supporters so MinJKenney pre-emptively charges all newcomers' foreign "cultural practices" by comparing them to the *barbaric* carnage perpetrated by Crusaders and Inquisitors in medieval Europe.

Oh. Wait.

And in other MinJKenney news, here:

According to [No One is Illegal] "Approximately 25 of us, including many recent immigrants, came to protest and challenge this repressive Minister of Censorship and Deportation. It is clear that he only wanted a photo-op as part of his so-called ethnic media strategy. He hid out the whole time while we waited and surrounded the door in anticipation of his arrival. Instead, he had over ten police officers violently remove us and two people were repeatedly threatened with arrest. Apparently we have the right to protest outside but not to actually challenge and question him to his face"[...].

After the ceremony, MP Kenney described No One Is Illegal as a "bunch of extremists who don't think we should deport criminals from Canada."

That's quite amusing, MinJKenney©™, since your obfuscating Harper Regime colleagues Cannon and Nicholson seem reluctant to charge members of the Ben Ali clan and freeze their assets which is money stolen from the Tunisian people. Or unwilling to deport those criminals, as required.

"Honour" killing and the men who enjoy writing about it.

J. Kay, for instance.

I am hardly the first pundit to bemoan the lack of Western feminists who’ve shown any interest in this gendered genocide. Most are too busy denouncing the phallocentricity of free trade and unregistered guns to mourn the killing of 20,000 women every year for the crime of falling in love, having boyfriends, bearing children — which is to say, being human.

And you're hardly the only lying prevaricating dickhead schmuck to proclaim this as though it were self-evident.

When we've blogged about "honour" killing we observed that many men who commit these atrocities justify their actions by invoking the patriarchal 'honour' codes of their own religious, political or cultural ideology beliefs.

Not all of the killers, it should be emphasized, are Muslim: There are some Christians and Hindus in this mix.

What? No jewish "honour" killings? Perhaps you should check in with jewish feminists - if you're on speaking terms with any of them - to find out what forms of femicide occur in strict Orthodox groups.

In previous centuries, the Vatican Taliban validated acknowledged "honour" killings by elevating to sainthood some of the women murdered - and only if it could be proven that they were still virgins.

So I say this in the most respectful & concerned way: Go fuck yourself JK. It sounds like you need a good one and since most sane women wouldn't touch a hateful gynophobe like you with a ten-foot pole and your mama Barbara would rip your balls off if she learned you purchased the services of a sex worker, your options are: one or both hands.

"Honour" killings and the murderer.

Last weekend I heard an interesting fact from a physician friend who works part-time as coroner in Toronto.

She told me the following: when police are called to the scene of an apparent death by hanging and the victim is a woman, they won't assume it was self-inflicted. The body will be removed with cord, rope, or materials seemingly used to cause death left intact so that the evidence can be examined by an expert. It appears that a high percentage of femicides by strangulation are covered up with evidence planted to suggest suicide. There are some knots that can't be tied by oneself. Post-mortem trauma is different, and a forensic scientist can identify the markers of physical injuries that distinguish a garroting inflicted by a second party.

Bad luck for Chris Little, then. His scheme to pin the "honour" killing of his estranged wife on someone else was doomed from the moment he started planning the double murders.

His defense lawyer John Rosen took an approach that required the demonstration that his client's estranged wife had "cheated" on him before they wed, during their marriage and after they separated. Rosen was hoping to show the jury that Little remained dispassionate about his partner's actions and to infer it was the "wronged" woman who had killed Julie Crocker.

The judge did not allow the prosecution to present character witnesses who would have countered Rosen's claims regarding Crocker and Menendez, nor evidence that would have revealed other aspect of Little's criminal behaviour, because the police obtained it in circumstances that violated Chris Little's Charter Rights.

... the jury didn't hear that Little apparently drugged and sexually assaulted Crocker while she was unconscious, something which was revealed in a court document obtained by The Star.

The jury also never saw the video of the attack, which police found hidden in a basement ceiling of the home where Crocker was murdered. Justice Michelle Fuerst ruled that York Regional Police violated Little's Charter rights in the search that unearthed the video and a pin-hole camera. Exactly when the apparent drugging and sexual assault occurred is not clear.

There are of course like-minded men who claim that Little was unjustly accused and unfairly held accountable for crimes that Crocker provoked with her "immoral" behaviour. That was the line of defense Little's lawyer pursued, and the comments posted wherever accounts of the trial were published are from men who believe that Little is innocent and/or justified in his actions. Those men probably wish Canada still had judeo-christian laws that would justify their particular sociopathic feelings towards women.

And the Maurice Vellacott Award goes to ...

those manly, virile, and likely R.E.A.L. fathers4justice fellows commenting after the CBC news story about Christopher Little being found guilty on two counts of first-degree murder.

The erudite:

Murder is horrible for everyone.......cheating is alos horrible, against the law in many places(I know Iknow not here). Many posters are saying that the cheating is irrelevant? Are u nuts? Being cheated on puts people in horrible mental states...our society's way of thinking is still too primitive to understand this fact. I am not defending this murder or saying I am an advanced thinker (lol), but seriously....do you expect people to behave civily after this? This is assuming they were together since CBC stated she was having an afair....

The conspiracy theorist:

Maybe the two women were having the affair. It makes no sense for him to have killed both of them. Had he killed his wife for the affair it might make sense, had he killed her lover it might make sense. But why bother to kill the ex wife of the lover. How would that make any sense. Something is not right about this one.

The men's rights advocate:

What substantial evidence did the jury have that convicted Chris Little of this this double murder without a doubt?

And his sidekick:

I am a female and currently knows of a single father involved with the Ontario Justice system in a family law matter. The biasness towards the single father is beyond believable for 2009. I do not believe that there is evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt in the Chris Little case. In regards to the evidence against Chris Little, infidelity causes a person to do strange things. However, I do not believe he committed a double murder.

The wimminz-are-more-evul dude:

If it had been a woman who'd killed her cheating husband, what do you want to bet that the sentence wouldn't have been nearly as harsh? She probably would have cried in the court room about how upset she was, claimed he was abusive, that she let her emotions get the better of her and didn't know what she was doing, etc., and probably would have only been charged with manslaughter and got parole!

Yeah, dude. Violent men never get just a little slap on the wrist for vicious crimes they committed.

And finally, last but not least, Mr Misconstrue-and-blame-the-gold-digging-unfit-mother-bitch-who-got-what-she-deserved:

Let me see you cheat on the guy, bring you girlfriend to the matrimonial home as possible witness so you can protect your finical interest encase the guy assaults you, but you miscalculated this guys rage and you lost your life and the life of your girl friend, thank god the children were not harmed.

Christopher Little was found guilty of planning and carrying out the "honour" killing of his estranged spouse and he was also found guilty of killing a second woman as a means to evade responsibility for his actions.

The Gynophobe Award is named after Maurice Vellacott in recognition of his recent public statements regarding abortion, namely that it is used as "part of a male agenda to have women more sexually available". Vellacott, a former pastor, claims that women tell him "stories of being badgered, harassed and coerced into getting their abortion by boyfriends, partners, parents and employers". Maurice likes women when they're victims.

When women make choices that he doesn't approve, he says that those are not "real choices".

Uppidate: More on MV's warped perspective, one that emphasizes the victimhood of women and the predatory nature of the male gender. Huh? And neocons like Blob Blogging Wingnut and R.E.A.L. women call pro-choice feminists "men-haters"? Grand merci, big city lib.

YWCA document gets little or no attention.

Perhaps they should have chosen a headline that screeched "honour" killings!

But unlike the rabid and pathologically anti-feminist Naomi Lakritz and Barbara Kay, the women of the YWCA don't profit from peddling cheap shots at human misery.

No, they're more the 'roll-up-your-sleeves and pitch in to help' type of gals. In this October 13 media release, they say:

A new report by YWCA Canada, the country's largest provider of shelter for women, calls on all three levels of government to coordinate policies on violence against women. Life Beyond Shelter, released today by YWCAs across the country, points to the causal connection between domestic violence and women's homelessness, highlighting poverty, housing, the legal environment, life in the North and the exclusion of marginalized women as critical barriers for women seeking to move beyond violence.

"Over 100,000 women and children enter shelters in Canada annually," says Paulette Senior, CEO of YWCA Canada. "They leave their homes, communities and jobs in a courageous effort to build a new life. And what happens once they leave the shelter? It's a long story of poverty, a struggle to provide for their children, and constant risk of homelessness. It doesn't have to be this way. This report is a game plan for change with a very clear message."

Life Beyond Shelter cites the implementation of coordinated policies at all three levels of government and across parallel jurisdictions as the only possibility for an effective national response. Policies must recognize the realities and vulnerabilities of women in Canada's north, and address the needs of Aboriginal women nationwide.

"Women and children need to live safely beyond shelter, with dignity, without fear of stalking, abuse and homelessness," says principal report researcher and family law expert Pamela Cross, "to achieve that, it is absolutely necessary for people at every level of government to collaborate."

"Shelters are the first and most immediate line of defence, but shelter is not a permanent solution," says Ann Decter, YWCA Canada's Director of Advocacy and Public Policy. "We need to stop violence before it starts, the same way we take the keys out of the hands of a driver who's been drinking. We need a broad change in attitude. Tens of thousands of women and children should not be forced into shelter each year."

Canada's YWCAs have a strong history of advocacy for women who find themselves in difficult circumstances. And the women's Ys have evolved, expanding the foundation of their volunteer membership and directing those resources to places where they're needed.