« July 2010 | Main | September 2010 »
Bill C-391, the ''private member's bill'' to scrap the gun registry, has been in the news these past few weeks.
That's because the head of the RCMP firearms program Marty Cheliak was inexplicably dumped, the nation's police chiefs had a convention where they unanimously endorsed the registry, emergency room doctors have spoken out and political types finally noticed that the pro-gun government has been suppressing yet another positive report on the registry.
Meanwhile, pressure's on NDP leader Jack Layton to whip his caucus members' votes or otherwise the bill may pass when Parliament resumes next month.
I have lots more to say on all of these matters but I'm holding my fire for a few more days as I am working on a major piece for the weekend paper.
That said, I did want to bring this story to your attention. It's about why Sault Ste. Marie's police chief Bob Davies supports the long gun registry. I added the boldface.
City police officers checked the registry 2,853 times in 2009.
Those inquiries included responding to a 911 call about a suicidal man. By checking the registry, police learned he owned eight weapons. They were removed to protect the man from harm.
When police executed a search warrant at an apartment, they found stolen property including two weapons. Because they were registered, the long guns were returned to their rightful owner who lost them during a break-in.
"Without the registry, we would have no way of knowing whether or not they were stolen," said Davies.
"Without the registry we'd have no proof, and no authority, to seize the firearms from that residence."
Most often, the registry is used when domestic assaults go to court. If an accused appears likely to reoffend, police will request the Crown attorney ask for weapons to be surrendered while the person is on bail.
"They won't volunteer that information," said Davies.
"Without the registry we wouldn't know if they had firearms."
Now let's consider those last few lines, shall we?
It's true that domestic homicides have been declining for years, even before the gun registry came into effect in the mid-90s. That's mostly to do with how women have gained greater independence, gaining the resources to get out of a bad situation. Also, the legal system has recognized the problem and deals better with it. There are more shelters. There's greater awareness.
But the statistics tell another story about guns.
Femicides by long guns have declined while, by handgun, they are fairly flat. This signals that the registry has had a major effect. In fact, the murders have dropped drastically since 1996.
It's also true -- and this will surprise many Canadians -- that you're more likely to be murdered in the country than in the city. And, if you're a woman, the risk is even greater in rural areas.
More guns plus more isolation equals more bang bang.
Now, given that more people in the country have long guns -- and more of them too -- than people do in the city, the long-gun registry appears to be saving women's lives out in the hinterland.
According to the Ad Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality,
In 2008, in Ontario the RCMP’s Annual Report on the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee (DVDRC) stated there were 165 women and children were killed in domestic violence. The figure increases to 230 when you add male victims of domestic violence – the majority of which were suicides by the domestic violence perpetrator.
A woman is 12 times more likely to be murdered if a gun is in the house.
Not that the HarperCons seem to care about women's lives, unless they are female fetuses.
Just saying, you know?
Image: By Botero, of course.
Ooopsy Date: Almost forgot this bang-on op-ed by The Montreal Gazette's Peter Wheeland!
Found this on Daily Kos. Feel free to mosey on over there for blogger dhonnig's take and the reader comments, some of which are gut busters.
For my part, all I can say is, that this ad in Woman's Day magazine, is for one of those products women can live without but for giant corporations creating needs and then selling crap to satisfy them.
I mean, every woman considers her genitals before she weighs her professional options, right? But please, judge for yourself:
Some things just write their own punchline:
Yeah, we've come a long way Baby:
Too often, sports pages and programming are dominated by men -- men reporters and columnists, men colour commentators, men team owners, men coaches, men players. In fact, if you think about it, you rarely hear the term ''male athlete.'' It's a given.
Meanwhile, when it's a woman at play, it's often qualified with ''female'' or ''women's'' or something similar.
It's never ''men's hockey,'' except maybe at the Olympics. It's always ''women's hockey.''
But, hey, I am all for celebrating women athletes. The more, the better. It's just that, when it's done, it's all about celebrating the good-looking ones, or celebrating them in a sexual way.
Case in point: This lengthy magazine feature in The New York Times, published yesterday. (Reg. req'd)
The article itself, How Power has Transformed Women's Tennis, is a rather dry analysis of how women in the sport today not only have more clout, on and off the court, but also have more physical strength, more muscle, more back in that backhand.
“When Chrissie and Martina were winning 36 majors,” Billie Jean King, the tennis legend, talking pure performance, not personality, recalled of the Chris Evert versus Martina Navratilova rivalry of the late ’70s and early ’80s, “everyone was complaining about only two good players, no depth. Now, that was supposedly the golden age, and there’s no depth and only the Williams sisters today? Give me a break. My lord, what I would give to hit one ball like them.”
So far, so good right?
Except for this, an accompanying video/slide show showing sparkly, flowy,slow-mo shots of tennis champs such as Serena Williams, in action. Now, I am no prude as regular readers know, but I take exception to how these images are more shwing than swing.
Consider the video of Australia's Samatha Stosur. It barely shows her face, but spends plenty of time on her tubetop, in which she is clearly braless. Yes, I know. She chose her own outfit but, like most of the other videos, it has a vaguely soft-porn feel to it.
Would male tennis players get the same treatment?
Do women tennis players still feel they have to sell sexuality along with sport?
Would a Billy Jean King or Martina Navratilova (pictured up top, right), no matter how pumped up, have a chance in today's tennis world?
Discuss.
H/T to Francesca, who pointed this out to me on Facebook.
Found via Tweep Nullafide, who critiques the Bible from a feminist point of view, is this cynical breakdown of certain verses.
It explains how and why women have suffered through ages of ages -- and says something about so-called ''honour crimes'' which, by the way, happen in most religions.
Some excerpts:
Genesis
"She was barren."
In the Bible it's always the woman that are "barren", never the men. And when God "opens their womb," the resulting babies are always little boys. 25:21-26
Dinah's brothers, to justify the massacre of a town for the rape of their sister, say: "Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot?" To the author of Genesis, rape is a crime against the honor of men rather than against a woman. 34:31
Rachel dies in childbirth; but at least she had another son. And in the Bible, a woman is expected to die happily as long as she has a son. 35:17-18
Exodus
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, ... nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." In the Bible, women are the property of men; they are his possessions -- like an ox or an ass. 20:17
God explains how to go about selling your daughter -- and what to do if she fails to please her new master. 21:7
Numbers
When "Moses numbered them according to the word of the Lord" he was told to count "every male from a month old and upward." Women and girls didn't count as persons. 3:15-16
There's more. Go forth and readeth the whole thing.
Illustration: ''Lot and his daughters'' by Lucas van Leyden (ca. 1490-1533)
I thought it was just me but, judging from comments on my Facebook page, it's not.
There is indeed a lot of victim-shaming going on in the alleged domestic assault case involving Belleville, On. Police Chief Cory McMullan.
To recap quickly, two weeks ago, Chief McMullan, whose arm is still in a cast, admitted that she was the
victim of domestic violence. The small town was rife with rumours of the incident and, basically, she had no choice but to come out.
Without going into specifics, she said, “I do wish to let the citizens of Belleville know that the incident did result in injuries which required medical treatment.”
Her husband David McMullan, a 53-year-old retired police officer, has been charged with assault and released on a promise to appear in court Sept. 30. The couple has two teenaged children.
Residents in this city of 50,000 were busy trading tales on Wednesday about what triggered the incident last Friday.
Mayor Neil Ellis lashed out at those who would spread “gossip and innuendo.”
“We have a victim who needs community support and that’s where this should be going,” he said during an interview in his office.
Gossip is common in any politician’s life, he said. “I don’t pay attention to rumours.”
Surrounded by pictures and mementoes of his wife and three children, Ellis said he doesn’t know McMullan well and only “as the chief of police.” The 24-year policing veteran has held the position for just over a year.
“It is shocking,” he said of the attack. “No one can really make sense of any type of abuse, especially if it causes physical injury. This shows it can happen in any household.”
“The important thing here,” he added, “is Cory, er, the chief and the chief’s family. We have to support her and stand behind her.”
Now the buzz is Chief McMullan and Mayor Ellis were doing the horizontal mambo -- which could have been what, for lack of a better word, provoked husband David. Here's one account:
Mayor Neil Ellis admitted he was with Chief Cory McMullan the night she was allegedly attacked by her husband, but said it was completely innocent.
After two weeks of rumours circulating the town, Ellis said he had to speak out because it was starting to take a toll on his family.<SNIP>
Ellis, who shows no signs of having been attacked, admitted he was with McMullan the night of the alleged assault, but that she was just giving him a ride home.
On Aug. 6, a Friday night, he said he took his daughter to the movies and returned home shortly after 9 p.m., before driving his car back to the theatre and leaving it there for his son who works at the mall.
He began walking to a friend's house, when the chief pulled up and asked if he wanted a ride. He said she wanted to discuss city business.
The mayor said as they were driving, he looked in the rearview window and "someone just came flying in at about 90 miles per hour."
That person was David McMullan.
Headline?
Belleville mayor denies affair with police chief
Belleville Mayor denies affair with police chief
Belleville mayor denies rumours of affair with police chief
Ah yes, the proverbial loaded question. Here's what I mean: When headlines say somebody ''denies'' doing something, the implication is that the somebody was doing it -- ''doing it'' being the operative phrase in this case.
Now, I ask you. What was the point of these stories? Titillation? Justification?
Judging from some of the discussion on my Facebook page ... well ... here ...
Sounds to me like the Mayor was crewing (sic) the Police chief behind her husbands back, he found out, she pushed his buttons causing him to do something stupid and now they pretend nothing happened. What am I missing here?
And my response, expletive and name deleted:
Ah so she deserved to have her arm broken, xxx? She ''pushed his buttons?''
She ''caused'' him to do something stupid?
And you ask what you are missing?
xxx almighty.
The old crime of passion line. The one that justified murder once upon a time. She supposedly is responsible for having her arm broken because he presumably thought she was cheating on her.
Okay.
Rather than conduct some real journalism, or delve into the very real problem of high rates of domestic violence in police families, the media preferred to get into that were-they-or-weren't-they scenario, as if it was in any way, shape or form relevant.
Which it is not.
Her arm was broken. There is no excusing that.
As for domestic violence in police families, here are the facts:
Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, (1, 2) in contrast to 10% of families in the general population.(3) A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24% (4), indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general. A police department that has domestic violence offenders among its ranks will not effectively serve and protect victims in the community.5, 6, 7, 8 Moreover, when officers know of domestic violence committed by their colleagues and seek to protect them by covering it up, they expose the department to civil liability.7
The female officer is under intense pressure to conceal any trouble in her personal life, especially domestic violence. There is a strong cultural stigma against an officer being a victim. It may be rare that advocates receive a request for assistance from a female officer. When they do, however, they should see this as an indication that the abuse has escalated to an extremely volatile point, as many police officers would approach an advocate only as a last resort....
Let's face it. Police work can be highly stressful, and it can also be very violent. Cops can develop some very bad coping mechanisms.
Would that not have been better reporting?
Or am I just overly sensitive to how violence against women gets brushed aside, or to the back pages, unless there's a celebrity element to it?
While we're on the subject, Here's a brand new campaign in the U.K. It urges people not to ignore domestic violence but to call the police.
When you think about it, the issue of domestic violence has been ignored this month -- by the media.
UPPITY WOMAN DATE: I suddenly remembered where I found all that research about violence in police households. My friend Jude posted on my Facebook profile two weeks ago. Thanks GF!
Antonia Zerbisias has been a Star columnist since 1989 but has been telling people what she thinks ever since she could open her mouth. Her career ambition as an opinionator dates back to Grade 9 when a cartoon commentary on a teacher resulted in her suspension from high school. The principal sent her home with a note calling her "rude, obstreperous and bold." Her parents were neither amused, nor surprised. Once she was punished for being that way. Now she makes it pay. And, because she can take it as well as dish it out, she wants to hear what you have to say. Fire away!
Recent Comments