Girls gone wild!

Last week, when Statistics Canada published its latest report on female criminal offenders, the media were quick to jump on the fact that more women were being charged with violent crime.

The rate at which females were charged with violent crimes grew between 1986 and 2005, with the steepest growth occurring before the early 1990s, according to a Statistics Canada study released Monday.

In the same time period, the rate at which female youth aged 12 to 17 were charged for "serious violent crime" more than doubled. The agency reported that the rate rose from 60 female youth charged per 100,000 population in 1986 to 132 in 2005.

Which is fine, since that is what the data showed.

But what the media did not report is, ''serious violent crime'' committed by girls aged 12-17 is actually flat since the mid 1990s and, but for a few upward blips, has been trending downward. What's more, ''common assault'' has been dropping.

(Note that the same is almost exactly true for boys.)

Sure, the StatsCan report is lengthy and does not lend itself to quick digestion.  But what exactly was served by broadcasting what was, essentially, misleading information?

That's why I decided to columnize on this for today's treeware edition.

From the brutal swarming, beating and drowning death of B.C.'s Reena Virk in 1997 to last fall's torture by Nova Scotia girls of another teen, girls have been accused of bullying, burning and battering.

In Toronto, one girl, aged 16 – but 15 at the time of the incident – was denied bail last week in connection with the New Year's Day slaying of 14-year-old Stefanie Rengel. The motive, according to the judge, was "senseless jealousy."

Forget sweet 16. It's now ferocious 15. That's when the charge rate for "crimes against the person" peaks with women.

Of course, in these gotta-have-it times, when the right purse or boyfriend can confer status in the school cafeteria, it's not entirely surprising that girls will bully or brawl.

But that's nothing new. Girls have had "catfights" before.

What's different now is, there are more aggressive female role models out there, from athletes to movie superheroes such as Lara Croft or Kill Bill's Bride character.

So girls will be boys. They, too, resort to justice with a fist.

But is it that simple?

No. Far from it.

In fact, as the research shows, most female offenders are the victims of sexual abuse at home, and/or the products of some pretty awful environments.

Silja J.A. Talvi, author of the recently published Women Behind Bars: The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, writes, "Girls and women enter the criminal justice system with far higher rates of drug abuse, sexual violence, childhood abuse, mental illness, and experiences with homelessness."

In short, these girls are in trouble from the day they were born.

Again, the same issues come up with male offenders who may also be troubled by personality disorders and come from abusive backgrounds. But the indications are that the overwhelming majority of female offenders -- unlike men -- have been sexually assaulted or violently abused.

All this raises questions about how female offenders should be rehabilitated. Women handle problems very differently from men.

For example, in today's news came this story about self-harm -- cutting and the like -- which is violence against oneself.

Almost one in six teenagers "self-harm" - injuring themselves by cutting, burning and other methods as a way of dealing with depression and anxiety, according to a new Canadian study.

Girls are more than twice as likely as boys to engage in self-harm, the research shows.

"People who are not familiar with this field will likely be struck by the level of this behaviour," Mary Nixon, a research associate at the Centre for Youth and Society at the University of Victoria, said in an interview.

"We're trying to raise awareness that it's not uncommon in young people and not related to mental health problems," she said.

A University of Victoria study found that girls are twice as likely as boys to engage in self-harm.

The research, published in today's edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, shows that 17.6 per cent of teenagers self-harm - a number that includes 21 per cent of girls and 8.7 per cent of boys.

Experts say that correctional programs should be developed with women's emotional make-up in mind.

And note that the female offender problem in Canada has its special challenges.

The federal government has already taken special steps, such as building a ''healing lodge'' for aboriginal women, who make up one-quarter of the female prison population. This is from the Correctional Service of Canada's database:

The Aboriginal woman offender is generally 27 years old with a grade nine education and single with two or three children. She has limited education and employment skills and she is usually unemployed at the time of her crime.

Contributing factors that may impact negatively on the life of an Aboriginal female include moving to an urban center (isolation and loneliness). Alcoholism and violence in the family home. Lack of familial support and supervision. Lack of resources (financial). Lack of opportunities to become involved in positive interaction with others.

Generally the Aboriginal offender has experimented with drugs and alcohol at a young age. Often she has become in conflict with the law as a youth and with lack of intervention continues into the adult system. She is likely to leave school at a young age to associate with friends who are street wise. Her abuse of drugs and alcohol continues to the point where she will become a prostitute to continue her addiction. Under the influence of her associates and a negative lifestyle she commits more serious crimes such as robberies, assaults or murder as she becomes more street wise.

She may leave home because she experienced violence (whether she was abused or she witnessed abuse) and her home life has become unbearable. Or she may live under very rigid conditions that she leaves because she wants to become independent. Or she may be lured away by friends who have a life of drugs, alcohol and partying. She may work the streets because she needs money to live on and she does not have the education, skills and training to get a job. She may be subjected to racism, stereotyping and discrimination because of her race and color. However, her experience on the streets becomes violent as she continues to experience sexual, emotional and physical abuse. She is likely to become involved in an abusive relationship. There are usually children born from this relationship and the social, emotional and economic struggle continues. The cycle of an unhealthy family continues.

Statistics show that there is a strong correlation between young female offenders and teen motherhood.

If these women and their babies are not helped, and society not show a better understanding and more compassion for this problem, Canada should hang its head in shame.

But some would argue that you do the crime, you do the time -- and men and women should be treated no differently. To do so would be sexist and discriminatory.

Not me.

I don't see ''girls gone wild'' here. I see just more negative outcomes of the epidemic of  violence against women.

Tainted Love

The magic of music for working out is detailed here, on the extensive Real Age website. It's a freebie and loaded with all sorts of health research and resources.

You have the technology. You can rebuild your workout. You can make it better than it was before. Better, stronger, faster. The key? Music.

If you download something up-tempo onto your digital audio player and slap on those headphones when you cycle, walk, or run, you'll cover 11 percent more ground without even feeling it.

Hey anything to get those muscles moving and the endorphins flowing, right?

Which is why I am always posting music videos. I have over 4,000 songs on the iPod I got from my friend Lisa for my birthday two years ago, and this past weekend my guy gave me an iTouch.

Woo-hoo. Now I can post from everywhere.

Anyway, today's tune suggestion comes from the debonair Ghost of a Flea. I think he shouts out to me because I was the one to turn him on to the Pussycat Dolls back in 2005. But their cover of ''Tainted Love'' with Marc Almond is too chintzy, even for moi.

So here is my preferred version ... the original by Gloria Jones ... as illustrated by You Tuber funknroll.

One more reason I am a recluse

So, you think you have problems avoiding the tart cart at 3 p.m.? Or the bowl of candies on your office mate's desk?

Boo-hoo for you.

I can totally relate to the temptation, believe me.

Just a few minutes ago, one of those office-wide emails landed in my Star inbox. It was from our restaurant critic Amy Pataki, inviting all of us to help ourselves to some freebie chocolate truffles that came in.

Let me tell you, when you work at a newspaper, especially in the Living and Entertainment departments, companies are always sending you loot, much of it edible. When Krispy Kreme launched in Toronto, we were buried in donuts. Every time a chip maker introduces a new flavour, it rains Doritos or Ruffles. If a fast food joint invents a better pizza, it gets sent to us.

Once, back when I was TV critic, I noted in a column that my pal Rita Zekas and I had to watch the Oscars in the office because of our jobs, a chocolate boutique send me a box full of the most exquisite -- and expensive -- movie-themed candies. Another time, I talked of how watching a particular show was as addictive as eating a certain brand of potato chips -- and came in to find a case of the stuff on my desk.

All in the name of marketing, of course.

Anyway, over the weekend, the New York Times tackled the issue of office eating, seeking tips from three people who managed to overcome the lunchroom trap.

I love tortilla chips. I love dark chocolate, too. I just love food. But I’m determined. My co-workers noticed when I lost 10 pounds, which was an incentive to keep going. The company buys lunch for us a lot, and often it’s pizza. When I first started losing weight, I just ate the topping and my salad from home. The last time we had it, I ate an entire slice. But I paid for it: I plateaued for a couple of days.

I don’t deprive myself totally. There’s usually a candy jar in my area, and I grab a piece occasionally. But losing weight is so rewarding that I resist temptation more often than not. I feel better now.

Me, I prefer to stay at home where there's no temptation at all.

Full human beings

In 2005, at Maclean's 100th anniversary bash, I was seated next to Dr. Henry Morgentaler and his wife, Arlene.

We'd never met before.

''My God, for a man of such courage, here is a man of such of fragility,'' is what I thought as he sat down.

I was expecting a giant.

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision, a judgment he risked everything to win.

As he said at the time, "It was a vindication of everything I believed in. For the first time, it gave women the status of full human beings able to make decisions about their own lives.”

Two weeks ago, I issued a Canadian Bloggers for Choice challenge. I am proud to say that my sister and brother bloggers have stepped up to the plate.

I am going to take some time culling through their posts -- and I will be back to update this one as soon as I do.

AND THE BLOGGERS ARE ...

(This is by no means a complete list of those who joined in. If I missed you, please add your link to the comments!)

Dave at The Galloping Beaver has been blogging for choice for what seems like forever. But he didn't run out of stuff to say today, taking the discussion to a whole new level:

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, it has been women fighting for freedom from the male dominance of society which has brought about most of the positive changes we take for granted today. Most young people today would not accept that women in this country at one time were not allowed to vote, were not allowed to own property and were, in fact, considered "minors" under the governance of their husbands with no more rights than their own children.

A simple observation is that the majority of those who oppose a woman's right to make her own decisions regarding her own body are men. The majority of voices in western governments opposing health initiatives for young girls which would protect them in adulthood are, you've got it, men.

Why?

Dominance. And it isn't sustainable.

Too often, when women actually do achieve something nearing equality in some aspect of life, it is framed by a male demand for compliance. True equality always falls a little short of the mark.

Look at make-up of the Canadian federal government ministry. At last count there were 28 ministers in cabinet and 5 outside cabinet. Six are women.

This same government has made a meal out of wreaking havoc on the ability of women to advance to an equal standing in this country.

Dr. Dawg weighs in on the language of the debate here:

"Pro-life" is a disingenuous purr-word that upholds life against those who are...what? "Pro-death?" You mean like supporters of the death penalty? Whoops, most of them are "pro-life." See the problem here?

"Pro-abortion" is what we supporters of reproductive freedom used to be called by the media and, of course, by the "pro-life" folks, who were called "anti-abortion" much of the time by those same media. You've got a "pro," you've got an "anti." Simple.

And wrong. No woman I have ever met supports abortion per se, as a good in itself. Those who have decided to have one don't propose that everyone should do so. State policy that mandates abortion (as in China, with its one-child policy) might arguably be called "pro-abortion," but not the feminist/pro-feminist position.

Last week, Pretty Shaved Ape at Canadian Cynic excoriated The National Post's opinion series on the anniversary. Those posts are here and here -- brilliant but much too bleepable for this blog. Today, the Cynic himself went on the attack, against the Blogging Tories who still don't get it.

Oh, dear ... what with the 20th anniversary of R. v Morgentaler, the Christopaths among Canada's Blogging Tories are outdoing themselves in an absolute frenzy of pearl clutching and panty twisting.

All of the above have been from progressive men.

MWAH!!!

Now for les femmes ...

Unrepentant Old Hippie was, of course, there:

The last twenty years of choice has been accompanied by twenty years of being hassled (and worse) by those who mistakenly think it's their business to dictate our reproductive decisions. The word "debate" keeps coming up: debate? What debate? The "debate" over whether women have the right to self-ownership (makes me sick just to type that) ended on January 28, 1988.

Justice is Woman with a Sword made a stab at it here, with sad words about a demo that didn't attract much support.

Today, a small group of pro-choicers proudly walked in downtown Montréal to remind their fellow citizens of this important date, and show that they want abortion in Canada to remain legal, safe, accessible and free.

Despite our numbers, the event was a success because the participants responded individually to this call for action. They walked in the cold, not because they're part of some group or organization that told them to be there, but because they believe in reproductive freedom.

Creekside takes on the ''fetus fetishists'' here:

(S)ome fetus fetishists, who presumably hope to one day celebrate the supremacy of the state over the individual here, have attempted to mark the occasion by selling anti-abortion billboard ads for buses and shelters in St John's, Fredericton, and Hamilton. The ad was declined on the grounds that it was misleading.

It reads :

    "Nine months… the length of time an abortion is allowed in Canada. Abortion.
    Have we gone too far?"

Yes, fetus fetishists, I'm afraid you have gone too far this time.

A fetus becomes viable at around 20 weeks, no?

According to Statscan, the percentage of Canadian abortions performed at the 20 week mark in 2003 was .7% or 0.007. That's point double-oh-seven.

Needless to say, Birth Pangs didn't stay silent, noting that, just because we have the right to choose, that that right is protected by legislation.

Twenty years ago today, Canada became the only country on the planet without a law on abortion.

Last but not least, my friend Megan -- who got preggers two seconds after her husband returned home from serving in Afghanistan last summer -- has this to say:

As you know, I have a healthy, happy fetus kicking around in my uterus right now, distracting me from all sorts of other important things that I should be doing. And as you also know, this was a planned pregnancy – so it’s safe to assume that I would never have considered terminating it, even for one second.

But a lot of that is down to luck, and to my particular combination of circumstances. I’m tremendously lucky to have a loving, supportive partner, who is as excited as I am, and who can’t wait to be a father. I’m also lucky to have loving supportive family and friends nearby, and lucky to have enough money to raise this child into adulthood. She won’t be getting a car for her 16th birthday (although if all goes well, Sandy and I might just be able to afford one for ourselves by then!), but she will have food, clothing, school trips, Christmas presents, and everything else she needs.

So I’m immensely lucky as a parent…but of course my daughter is going to be the recipient of tremendous good fortune as well. Not only the supportive family and friends mentioned above, but she will also have plenty of food and clean drinking water running freely in her home. And not only will she have this clean water available for drinking and cooking, but she will be able to pour litres and litres of it down the drain as she takes a shower or flushes the toilet. In fact, my daughter will be flushing the toilet with cleaner water than most of the world has to drink – and I hope we can raise her to understand what a privilege that is.

She will also have access to some of the best taxpayer-funded education and healthcare in the world, and if she chooses to go to university, she will have both the rights and the means to make that happen.

But what if you’re not so lucky? What if you’re too young, too poor, too sick, to be able to raise a child? What if you already have six kids, or you live in a country where you don’t have access to enough food, water, or medical care? It’s hard work, this parenting thing, and not everyone has the emotional or financial wherewithal to handle it.

Of course adoption is always an option as well. But I’m discovering that pregnancy is also very hard work – there’s nausea, fatigue, a thousand different kinds of discomfort, crazy hormonal surges, and of course the financial cost of replacing your entire wardrobe as your body expands.

Plus you have to take a ton of time off work for doctor’s appointments. My pregnancy is about as low-risk as they come, and still in the past five months I’ve had six medical appointments and four ultrasounds. And more are scheduled for down the line as well.

I urge you to read her whole post -- and then consider that there are people who would force this on teenage girls, victims of rape and impoverished and desperate women. They say that these women should ''face the consequences'' of their actions, as if they are evil fallen women, as if forcing women into being baby incubators is okay, as if an act of sex should be a life sentence.

One last thing: I notice that many of the people who object to a woman's reproductive rights also are against state-funded daycare. Why is that?

UPPITY DATE: Miss Vicky posts here and also points to Judy Rebick and Politics'n'Poetry.

Oh and I decided to go with an all-Canadian banner at the top of this post.

ONE MORE WITH FEELING: Many more posts included in the comments but I wanted to extend a special shout-out to Aurelia for her very personal post.

And then there's the women like me, the Bitches with the scarlet A on our chest. The ones no member of the public ever wants to discuss, the women who get a fatal or severely disabling prenatal diagnosis and make the hard decision to end the pregnancy of a very much wanted and loved child. We make that decision for the same reason that people decide to stop life support on the elderly, on the fatally ill, on those suffering in agony. Doctors like to pretend that they can save everyone, but sadly, they have limits too. The Catholic Church even recognizes this and allows live born people to decline extraordinary medical measures and simply die in peace, without tubes and machines in every orifice of their body.

But for some odd reason, this kindness and logical acceptance of a dignified death all stops at the door to the womb. Women like me are supposed to become living coffins waiting for the moment when the wrecked and barely functioning hearts of our babies stop. We are supposed to risk dying from preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome to birth dying micropreemies. We are supposed to risk our future fertility and our future children's lives to give birth to chromosomally damaged ones who be stillborn or die shortly after birth.

I've always said that the only thing worse than having a dead baby is not knowing you have a dead baby. Well, even worse---knowing you have a dying child in your uterus and being forced to sit in limbo wondering which day, which hour, which moment the death knell will sound. The psychological torture of that is incomprehensible.

Only a pregnant woman knows.

The Lowdown on dirty pictures

From yesterday's treeware edition, my take on the misogynistic turn that porn has taken.

Understand that, overall, I have no problem with 99 per cent of porn and do not advocate its censorship -- or, indeed, censorship on any kind. But some of this stuff freaks even me out.

Listen, I am no prude. I get a kick out of some porn. I was at a strip club as recently as last month. I love sex. I talk dirty. But when I can easily find websites that show women subjected to what can only be described in a family newspaper as waterboarding by ejaculate – or simultaneous impalement on more than one fire pole, or sexual practices that will cause E. coli infections – I have to wonder where the industry gets these ideas.

Not exactly the fun and games most of us enjoy in the bedroom (or wherever your pleasure). It's as if, just like TV reality shows, the fear factor/cruelty/shock value has to be continuously ratcheted up to get them into the tent, especially online. And make no mistake, when you see women being brutalized this way, you are not seeing an act. That woman really is gagging, really is gasping for air, really is drowning.

Every second, 28,258 Internet users are viewing pornography.

Every second.

That's a lot of women who, for whatever their reasons, and most likely they are economic, are being tortured.

That's a lot of sticky keyboards.

There's a huge market for the domination of women.

I have received some email on the matter, including this missive from 'Dark Lady'' who says she works in the porn industry.

Let's ignore the fact that most porn really doesn't involve rougher sex.
Let's ignore the fact that most of those women involved with it
*request* it. Let's ignore the fact that most of the women in porn are
either there for the money or using it to explore all kinds of sex they
can't get from their prospective boyfriends. Let's ignore the fact that
the women are paid really well for their efforts. Let's just focus on
the fact that WOMEN DOMINATE MEN in porn, as well.

Oh, and that MEN DOMINATE MEN, also.

All that may be. The thing is, when some pretty sadistic stuff -- albeit between consenting adults -- goes mainstream, something has gone horribly awry in how men regard women, and how women see themselves.

UPPITY DATE (28/01/08): Two things.

I have received lots of email telling me that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that porn  leads to more violence. Writers have provided a number of links and stories but I haven't had a moment to dig too deeply into them. For example, here is Against Pornography, "a feminist anti-pornography website which aims at raising the awareness about the harms of pornography (as well as of prostitution) to women and children."

This story from last year, which suggests that sex offenders are getting younger and more violent, lends credence to what some critics of my piece have said: Children's easy access to online porn is a big problem.

The number of children under 18 accused of forcible rape, violent and nonviolent sex offenses rose from 24,100 in 1985 to 33,800 in 2004, the AP’s analysis found. Violent offenses include attempted rape and sexual assault, while nonviolent offenses including fondling, statutory rape and prostitution.

By comparison, rape and sexual assaults by adults decreased more than 56 percent from 1993 to 2004. Comparable statistics were unavailable before 1993.

The AP analyzed state and federal crime statistics, as well as independent research on juvenile sex offenders. Sources included the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Center for Juvenile Justice, a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit that specializes in statistical and policy research; and The Safer Society Foundation Inc., a Vermont nonprofit that works to prevent sexual abuse.

Today in the Star, education reporter Louise Brown had an eye-opener about how girls are subjected to increasing sexual harassment in school.

They can get grabbed on the breast or the backside at any time in the halls.

They hear girls being called "skank," "ho" or "slut" every day at school. Every day, sometimes from other girls.

And with sad regularity, they hear guys yell out which part of the male anatomy they want them to suck. "Guys always say that – it's disgusting, but a lot of girls laugh it off," says 16-year-old student Megan Brownlee.

"I'm shocked when girls don't get mad, because deep inside, you know the guys don't respect you."

Yet in the sexually charged halls of today's high schools, where lawyer Julian Falconer's recent report on school safety in Toronto uncovered "alarming rates" of harassment and assault, many girls don't seem to know how to say Stop, according to a group of young Scarborough women who attend what may be the only all-girls centre in Canada.

Listen, I live in what you might call a very nice neighbourhood, very close to a middle school. As I type this, I am watching the kids out on lunch (and litter the street) break.

What I have witnessed over the years shocks and saddens me.

A couple of weeks ago, as my guy and I were pulling into my driveway, we saw two boys go up to several girls and knee them in the crotch. Not hard kicks but sexual probes. The girls laughed but I could see that they weren't happy. As adults, we stepped in. The boys skulked away. The girls seemed relieved.

Draw your own conclusions.

Feminisiticuffs

So, da boyz wanna shut les girls out of their little contest? Hah! Hell hath no fury than an opinioniator scorned.

Nominations for the First Annual Canadian F-word Blog Awards are open, boys and girls.

Just head on over here, and name one of my cybersisters, and some of the more enlightened guys. The categories are:

Best Canadian Feminist Blog

Best International Feminist Blog

Activist Blog

Environmental Blog

Entertainment Blog

Culture Blog

Group Blog

Individual Blog

WOC-centered Blog

Reproductive Liberty Blog

Family Blog

Political Blog

LBGT Blog

Humour blog

Best comment thread

Award for most poignant comment

The "Why the (bleep!) didn't I say that" comment

Best Snark Comment

Most Regressive "Progressive"

The Support Bro - Best Post by a male in support of feminists/feminism

If you want a sense of who is out there, check out my Eggroll and Unruly Canadian Women links to the left. More bloggeristas here.

Nominations are ''graciously accepted'' until February 8.

Doing time ... out

Not much of a surprise to learn that men are accused of more crimes, and more violent crimes at that, in Canada than are women. Today, Statistics Canada issued a report on the subject, based on 2005 figures.

Females accounted for a small proportion of all alleged offenders in 2005 and, when they did offend, they tended to commit offences such as theft, common assault, bail violations and fraud, according to a new report.

The report showed that females aged 12 and older accounted for about 1 out of every 5 people accused by police services of committing a violation against the Criminal Code. The findings are based on data from a subset of 122 mostly urban police services located in nine provinces.

Almost half (47%) of these females were accused of committing a property crime, while another 28% were accused of committing a violation against a person. In comparison, 39% of males were accused of committing a property offence, and were 34% accused of a violation against a person.

An additional 17% of females were in conflict with police for violations against the administration of justice, such as bail violations and failure to appear in court. The remaining 7% were accused of "other" violations against the Criminal Code (e.g., weapons offences, prostitution).

<SNIP>

Females were far less likely than males to commit homicide, robbery, sexual assault, breaking and entering, motor vehicle theft or mischief.

Rates among females were anywhere from 7 to 10 times lower, depending on the offence. For instance, for every 100,000 females, 13 were accused of robbery. In comparison, the rate for males was 110.

There are so many statistics to be mined here, I think I'll save my analysis for the paying customers of the paper first.

Stay tuned.

Let's dance!

Although he's got got a brand new one out, ''Chris Rea Presents the return of the fabulous Hofner Bluenotes,'' here's a golden oldie from Chris Rea. Grab the cube farmer next to you and boogie up the aisle. It's almost Friday!

The fire this time

For all you young women who don't appreciate ''feminism'' and think is has nothing to do with you, a snippet from a Star freelance piece today. It's a reflection on the 20th anniversary of the Morgenthaler decision, written by University of Toronto women's studies student Madeleine White, 22.

History can come alive when something in your life happens to bring it home. This happened to me when I began writing this piece. While doing further research on Morgentaler, I stumbled upon a fact that was left out of my women and law course: one of his clinics was firebombed in 1992 – an act of anger over the 1988 decision.

What hit me hard was realizing that this clinic was in Toronto. In fact, it was right beside the University of Toronto – steps away from the Women and Gender Studies Institute on Harbord St.

I have walked by this location hundreds of times without knowing its history. This shocked me. I tout myself as a well-educated young feminist. I take pride in my knowledge of the history of Canadian feminism. And yet I had no idea I had been striding past a place that was once a site of violent confrontations over what many of my friends and I now see as a right.

This new understanding provoked a long period of reflection for me: young women today may know our reproductive rights, but we do not realize the full extent of the battle that was waged so that we could sit in a clinic in 2008 and wait for a legal, safe abortion free of institutional hassle. With only a set of legal facts constituting our social memory, we cannot fully appreciate the sacrifices women and men made, risking their personal safety in order to champion our ability to make responsible decisions about our bodies.

The battle is never over. This week, the National Post is running a string of commentaries on the case.

Needless to say, they aren't pro-choice.

The Washington-based David Frum's take which, as Dave over at Galloping Beaver points out, focuses on late-term abortions -- as if this is what  women are all rushing to have -- merely to distort the argument:

Late-term abortions remain legal in Canada. When it was reported that no Canadian doctor would perform them, the Quebec government acted to create a new clinic in Montreal specifically for this purpose. All this is the legacy of the Morgentaler case — even if Morgentaler himself condemns late-term abortion as ethically offensive.

According to Galloping Beaver:

Yes, Dr. Morgentaler has some concerns, but he has not condemned them.

Next up at the Post was Barbara Kay:

Abortion is like medicare: Both need a policy change, but for no logical reason an old template has evolved into such a sacred national cow that their respective ideological guardians are able to drown out reasonable voices. When suggestions are put forward for reform of either, all we hear is a panicky "two-tier medicine!" or "a woman's right to choose!" as if reform of the one will lead to all poor cancer victims being left to die at home, and reform of the other will result in raped women driven to back-alley abortionists. Such fears are absurd on both fronts.

While she raises the very real issue of some ethnic groups aborting female fetuses because they value sons more than daughters, her conclusion that reforming the laws will not drive women to back alleys is demonstrably wrong.

The fact is, in countries where abortion has been banned, abortions continue. A desperate woman is a desperate woman. (Emphasis is mine.)

"The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy," Beth Fredrick of the International Women's Health Coalition in the United States said in an accompanying commentary.

Abortion accounts for 13 per cent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. An additional five million women suffer permanent or temporary injury.

<SNIP>

The number of abortions has dipped from about 46 million worldwide in 1995 to just under 42 million in 2003. But there was no change in the rate of unsafe abortions, with 48 per cent of all abortions deemed unsafe.

And:

In November of last year, Nicaragua outlawed all abortions, even those deemed medically necessary. The Nicaraguan abortion ban was celebrated in "pro-life" circles, and supported by the Catholic and Evangelical churches.

The law has also killed at least 82 women since its institution. And it is just part of an international system of "pro-life" laws that are killing and maiming women, orphaning children, and turning ordinary citizens into criminals.

Today's Post commentary is by Lorne Gunter -- not yet online, at least not that I can find. When it is published, I will update this post.

Just a reminder that, on Monday, the 20th anniversary of the Morgenthaler decision, we're doing a Canadian pro-choice blogburst/blogswarm. Already many of my brother and sister progressive bloggers have signed on.

Venceremos.

UPPITY DATE: Chris Tindal, Green Party candidate for Toronto Centre in the March 17 by-election! Red Rover, Red Rover, come on Over!

Say no to violence against women

Thanks to Feministing, I learned of Unifem's (United Nations Development Fund for Women) campaign against violence against women.

Violence against women and girls is a problem of pandemic proportions. At least one out of every three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime — with the abuser usually someone known to her. Perhaps the most pervasive human rights violation that we know today, it devastates lives, fractures communities, and stalls development.

Statistics paint a horrifying picture of the social and health consequences of violence against women. For women aged 15 to 44 years, violence is a major cause of death and disability. In a 1994 study based on World Bank data about ten selected risk factors facing women in this age group, rape and domestic violence rated higher than cancer, motor vehicle accidents, war and malaria. Moreover, several studies have revealed increasing links between violence against women and HIV/AIDS. Women who have experienced violence are at a higher risk of HIV infection: a survey among 1,366 South African women showed that women who were beaten by their partners were 48 percent more likely to be infected with HIV than those who were not.

The economic cost of violence against women is considerable — a 2003 report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that the costs of intimate partner violence in the United States alone exceed US $5.8 billion per year: US$4.1 billion are for direct medical and health care services, while productivity losses account for nearly US$1.8 billion [5]. Violence against women impoverishes individuals, families and communities, reducing the economic development of each nation.

Strange that I missed this because I follow the issue very closely. It seems that, every other day, there's a story about some man who murdered his partner or mass rapes in some Godforsaken part of the world. But a campaign to stop this, or raise awareness, or connect the dots?

Maybe the rape, assault, beating, slavery and murder of women is no big whoop to the mainstream media?

It is to me.

I've been sexually assaulted three times. Twice as a child (and no, not by relatives.)

Once more as an adult, by a famous science fiction writer whom I used to admire. I met him in New York City in 1974, when I was working on a TV talk show and he was a guest. He's dead now and can't defend himself so I won't name him. But believe me, there is no defence for what he did.

There's a powerful video at SayNoToViolence.Org. Don't miss it.

And while you're there, sign the petition. Yesterday, The United Nations Foundation announced it will donate $1 for each the first 100,000 signatures to the online campaign.