Respectability vs RESPECT: Part Two

This and this are connected.

Different women, separated by class, professional status, age, resources and geography.

The connection between these women: they shared an intimate and sexual space with men who did not respect them. These men, feeling unjustly deprived of 'their' entitlements,  deliberately and malevolently harmed and tried to injure them by exploiting the double standard about women's sexual expression that still persists in this 21st century.

In the case of *Nicole* and *Kim* in Halifax, the vindictive actions of a man who felt justified to impugn the respectability of his ex-lover, and to physically endanger her (and her house-mate) were documented by the victims.  Yet the crown attorney declined to pursue criminal charges for what *Adam* did.

As for Lori Douglas in Winnipeg, the first inquiry that thrust her into public view was dropped but a newly formed Canadian Judicial Council panel will be looking at her case - again.

There was one basic question that was never adequately addressed. Given that Douglas testified she had no knowledge of the proposition Jack King presented to his client — an 'invitation' for Chapman to have sex with her — nor had she consented to his initiative, was her spouse effectively trafficking her, and setting her up to be sexually assaulted as well?

It's a moot point now: King died last April, and that aspect of the complicated inquiry was dropped.

It appears to me that it is these women's respectability that is being judged, rather than the criminal actions of vengeful men.

Remember the Rehtaeh Parsons case?  Media attention put a spotlight on the reluctance of the RCMP to adequately investigate the multifaceted and unrelenting sexualized violence that led to her suicide. It forced the police to bring to justice those responsible for her harassment.

Once again, media attention has stirred the police into some semblance of action.  Kim and Nicole's criminal harasser may yet be brought to trial.

Douglas and her lawyers took legal recourse in order to expose the bullying tactics of the original CJC panel for what they were: unvarnished misogyny.

Last word: this exchange of tweets captures how women's respectability is viewed through a sexist lens and why women are challenging the double standard.

From @fortyfs' timeline, here.

Reminder: Respectability vs RESPECT: Part One.

What about the Children??!11!??

For so-cons, it's aaallll about the children.

The new prostitution bill, C36, among other things, would criminalize the selling of sex anywhere children might reasonably be expected to be present, which given the little buggers' omnipresence is literally anywhere.

Because as pearl-clutching Focus on the Family lady, Andrea Mrozek, says: "Parents don’t want to see massage parlours next to ballet schools."

Though, twitterer Voice of tReason points out there is some overlap.

@canadiancynic @fernhilldammit yeah but ya kinda need a sense of rhythm for both professions

— Voice of tReason (@V_of_tReason) June 14, 2014

The cyber-bullying law, C13, similarly "protects" children.

MacKay said C-13, also known as the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, reflected the government’s commitment "to ensuring that our children are safe from online predators and from online exploitation."

And the practice of warrantless searches by police, savaged by the Supreme Court this week, allows cops to go after evil child pornographers without the inconveeeenience of convincing a judge that there's merit to their hysteria suspicions.

But. When it comes to exposing kids to gory, faked-up photos supposedly of aborted fetuses, protecting the children gets thrown out with the bathwater to preserve, yes, you guessed it, FREE SPEECH.

Oddly, parents who don't seem overly concerned with school-yard prostitution, are quite ticked over traumatizing flyers shoved in their mailboxes for their children to find and freak out over.

Two cities in Canada have been targetted by the Centre for Bioethical Reform, aka the Fetusmobile people, for their frankly named "Face the Children" project.

Parents in Calgary are pissed off and people in Hamilton want a law against the abusive practice.

So, Petey, how about a law called "Protecting Children from Nutbars with Psychotic Fetus Fetishes"?

Hm?

Time to Roast #PeterPeeper

Remember this from February this year?

The Conservative government has abandoned its controversial and much-maligned Internet surveillance bill, legislation it once claimed was crucial to stopping child pornographers.

Less than a year ago support for Bill C-30, the so-called Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, was presented to Canadians by the government as a binary choice.

"He can either stand with us or stand with the child pornographers," Public Safety Minister Vic Toews scolded a Liberal critic in the House of Commons last February.

The comment set off a public fire storm concerning the Internet and personal privacy — a nasty fight that resulted in unsavoury details of Toews' divorce being splashed across the web by a Liberal party operative.

Toews, who introduced the legislation, did not attend Monday's news conference where Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said Bill C-30 is dead.

It's back.

When Justice Minister Peter MacKay unveiled the federal government's proposed cyberbullying law on Wednesday, he touted it as a necessary tool to combat the often hurtful spread of intimate images. To emphasize the underlying point, he made the announcement during national Bullying Awareness Week.

But legal experts were left wondering why a piece of legislation that is meant to rein in online tormentors is also taking on terror suspects and people who steal cable TV signals.

"There is a much larger agenda at play here," says Rob Currie, director of the Law and Technology Institute at Dalhousie University.

Under the banner of anti-cyberbullying measures, the government is "trying to push through a number of things that have to do with law enforcement but nothing to do with cyberbullying."

Like its predecessor, it is deceptively named. They're calling it "Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act'.

It is simply and literally ghoulish, feasting on the corpses of dead girls.

Or as Canadian Cynic put it:

I sincerely, sincerely, sincerely expect the Harper Govt to say, "You're either with us, or you're glad Rehtaeh Parsons is dead."

— CC (@canadiancynic) November 22, 2013

Go read Michael Geist on the details. He winds up with this:

Law enforcement have been asking for some of these provisions for many years and there could be a good debate on the merits of many of the proposed reforms. As this post suggests, some of the provisions raise some serious concerns. Yet the government is signalling that it would prefer to avoid such debates, wrapping up the provisions in the cyber-bullying flag and backtracking on a commitment made earlier this year to not bring forward Criminal Code amendments that were contained in Bill C-30.

We need to put on another protest like #TellVicEverything.

Stephen Lautens has come up with the hashtag #PeterPeeper and a poster.



Let's get to it.