My goal has been for several years to find an equivalent service for men that provides tax supported emergency and reasonable term housing, food, and counselling for an abused man and his children. There is none in Sault Ste. Marie today as I experienced in 2006 when I first called local agencies.
This is unfortunate as I could have used this counselling a very long time ago. Had it been available perhaps it could have saved my marriage and my children a great deal of grief. I will re-commence the completion of my Human Rights Complaint once the decision on my custody battle with the ex is known.
Keep in mind an equal or greater proportion of DV related to sexual assault, robbery, bodily harm, discharging a firearm with intent, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, criminal harassment, and uttering threats, occurs after separation/divorce, not during the marriage. Eight (8)% of major assault and 40% of common assault also occurs after separation. (Stats Canada, 2008 report on Family Violence in Canada).
But look at this chart from a Stats Can Social Survey in 2005 looking at the trends to 2004. It clearly shows the rates of spousal violence after separation, shown in blue, are higher by a wide margin. The social surveys draw information from a much broader sample than police reports and so I would conclude these DV shelters may well be part of a bigger problem that causes a greater degree of conflict after separation. This is not rocket science and it will not be one source but can I point you in a direction. DV shelters, family court judges ( a 9-1 ratio in awarding physical custody to moms), marginalizing men and using them as revenue spigots. An ecosystem designed to feed the female appetite for victimization (did I mention people like Patricia Tossell at Ontario works) - see Chapter 17 (http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/2007/09/chapter-17-interference-by-city-of.html) for my exchange of information with her and her legal/administrative cohorts at the City of Sault Ste. Marie). Feminists or their sympathizers working in agencies like the CAS who don't solve problems and purport to know the right "maternal" way to do things, feminist sympathizers at other agencies who receive tax dollars for supervised access and who ostensibly deal with the mental health of children but would rather spend money on lawyers to try and intimidate dads who seek information on their children. Did I mention many lawyers who say they only have the best interest of children in mind but as soon as your money runs out they are gone. The best interest of the Lawyer and the revenue lining their pockets is all that matters to most of them. Did I also mention that 75% of divorces in Canada are initiated by women! Do you start to get a better image of the deck and how it is stacked.
Also in the report and in my letter to Matthews is the 2006 table 4.1, page 43, from the same Stats Can 2008 report on the most recent spousal homicide numbers for 2006.
Male deaths 22 up from 12 in 2005, 56 Female deaths down 6 from 2005 and the rate per million spouses of 2.6 for men and 6.3 for women.
Turn those numbers around because they are based on 1,000,000 spouses, and as Dr. Dutton points out, you get 999,997.4 women do not kill their partners and 999,993.7 men do not kill their female partners. Does this warrant $208,000,000.00 for women's issues and not a cent for men. It is pretty clear what the value of the gender of men is to the Liberal Government of Ontario and they will not even fund prostate cancer tests for men unless he already has symptoms. Women, on the other hand, can get all kinds of tests done free of charge including breast xrays. The patriarchy and feminists in government obviously like "boobs." As these data include common law spouses where a greater degree of DV and homicide occur all data available clearly point to the safest place for men, women and children is in a marriage. Yet these shelters are doing exactly the opposite and counselling women to "empower" themselves into single motherhood with all its attendant negative social outcomes, especially for children.
A new paradigm for DV is needed that involves all parties who are affected by it in the family.
This same Stats Can report also indicates fathers as the most likely to kill their children. These numbers cannot be believed. The compilers of these statistics refuse to break the category of males into biological fathers, boyfriends, step fathers, and other male. They categorize all of the above as "father" including foster parent. This is sexist and discriminatory bias and ought to stop. Australia used to do this as well but they changed and the data clearly shows biological fathers as the least likely to kill their children and biological mothers alone and with their boyfriends/new partners as most likely. U.S. government data over many years shows likewise and can be viewed here. http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/2008/10/mothers-commit-vast-majority-of.html. There is a link to the U.S. government site if the reader wishes to see the data there although it is harder to find and view over several years.
Politicians like Matthews play into the hands of the proponents in the DV Industry and their cheerleaders in the bureaucracy, who do not reduce friction but through their vilification of men, which can be viewed as a form of misandry, and through the junk science (psycho-educational model) of the Duluth wheel, exacerbate the friction. Matthews brags about her $208,000,000.00 for women but what if investigations found she was complicit in creating a furtherance of violence after separation by funding male denigration? Minister's come and go but the entrenched ongoing government of public servants are the fuel that keeps the engines of male vilification in operation, not only with the current government, but between governments. Walter Fox, in the lengthier video below, also notes this phenomena. Having once worked in public service over many different governments of different political ideologies I have seen and experienced it first hand.
The entrenched and ideologically predisposed Civil Servants no doubt will feel threatened by any change in the status quo and will likely resort to dirty tricks as my HRC moves forward. Some of this can be monitored by those within the government who disagree and I will rely on their feedback as well as electronically including their IT department who can easily trace where they are going with computers or wi-fi networks and what they are doing on the tax payers "dime." Since my letter was sent to Matthews a great deal of electronic activity on the internet has started with email exchanges and even Blackberry's getting involved at both the Provincial and Federal level. The Federal DOJ is interested in the activity according to my sources. I will watch and check with great interest and some bemusement at the hysteria. I am advised also that some of the people in these agencies can resort to dirty tricks and out right lies. Keeping the matter in the public eye is important so a reasoned debate can occur and perhaps draw out of the woodwork the entrenched bias within the permanent government of bureaucrats and their minions in the political classes. If you think Minister's rule the day - well - you might get disabused of that notion depending on the mass of strength a certain ideology has with the public service. That men are abusers and women benign is well entrenched and job tenure relies on it staying thus for many.
The indoctrination the women receive at these shelters, even if no violence has occurred, teaches the women how to best "screw" their partner. Many women who go to these shelters suffer no violence at all but if they say they do they are believed. Many are drug addicts needing a place to "rest" for a week or two. These are some of the most violent of women and will do anything to get a "fix." The 2008 report from Stats Can noted above confirmed 74% of the residents of these refuges were there due to "reported" abuse. (pge. 15) This, of course, means a minimum of 26% were there for other reasons using tax payers dollars. What is 26% of $208,000,000.00 dollars? I would posit the 74% figure is high because women are encouraged before they even go to say they have been abused because that opens even more doors, assuring custody, child support, perhaps spousal support, government cheques, tax credits, legal aid, the house frequently and control of the assets on occasion. In other words the system is set up to transfer wealth from the man to the wife very quickly if all advice is followed including a restraining order.
They are counselled, based on junk science, to leave the marriage and be empowered and they are promised "we" will get you social housing, welfare, and help you find a job, Additionally, with the help of other public servants in the welfare department of the Oxy Moronically named Ontario Works, like Patricia Tossell, a self styled expert on violence against women, defend your right to lie about your male ex and write letters to the lawyer the shelter recommends you get defaming the male spouse. I say with a certain degree of accuracy that Tossell will have not likely ever have written such a letter on behalf of a male client trying to get social housing and welfare. Tossell has had her own public marital difficulties in court records available on the internet and even though she was trained as a lawyer she doesn't appear to be able to practice law as a stand alone profession. She is in indeed one of the ideologues I speak of above.
The shelter staff require the clients to sign non-disclosure agreements for a very good reason. They do not want their indoctrination methods made public or become fodder for lawsuits although one is now in progress in Oklahoma which is being watched with great interest. Many clients follow through using this advice in a variety of ways, sometimes hiring unscrupulous lawyers as their hired gun, and get legal aid money through your tax dollars from Ontario Legal Aid under the aegis of the Attorney General of Ontario, sometimes with disastrous results. This legal aid bill will become attached as a lien to your property (house) and will likely be in the neighbourhood of $25,000.00 if the divorce is contested. This would have paid for a good deal of post secondary education for a child if done in the local community. In this case, as with most others, it will line the pockets of a lawyer to make payments on his many accouterments including the BMW or Lexus - or was that a Mercedes. That is only one of the bills. The man will pay a like amount if he does not represent himself.
The politicians, in the name of Matthews, Bentley, McQuinty and it might appear at the Federal level with Minister of Justice Nicholson, based on his remarks in Ireland as he pandered to the Canadian Bar Association, are sometimes unsuspecting dupes but often are willfully blind to what is going on due to their own Political Correctness (PC). This PC is - men are abusers - women are benign - the Patriarchy oppresses women and the nanny state (the proxy patriarch) needs to act as their guardian. Its as though these women have never reached adulthood and cannot find their way in the world without hand holding.
If you recall Bentley at a press conference wearing his white ribbon as a result of investigations after Katelyn Sampson, a young girl, was killed at the hands of two drug addicted female prostitutes, one her natural mother, preening before the press like a male peacock. Guess who he was pandering to and guess who he used as advisers. The centerpiece of his recommendations arising from the killing of a little girl through the acts of two women was to criminalize more men through the use of restraining orders. Every one of his advisers, thanked on his web site, were those with a vested interest in the outcome including shelter industry people. Not one father's or men's group was approached or involved. There is no bias in the office of the Province's Chief legal officer, no politicization of justice or pandering to vested interests is there? It's an almost incestuous relationship between those who receive tax dollars as beneficiaries and the political/bureaucratic classes. The feedback/response loop is of a closed system unable to see the big picture and, more to the point, who don't want to see it.
I find it interesting that those of us who know much about the scourge that true Intimate Partner Violence is and its impact, particularly on children who observe it, who may not be large in physical stature, who may be handicapped (I know what this is like), do not go looking for fights, know how to avoid physical confrontation, may have a rudimentary knowledge of self defense, but may still get "battered" emotionally, financially and occasionally physically don't develop the victim persona in the manner promulgated by Matthews and her acolytes. It can be a self fulfilling prophecy. Men do, however, deserve to be helped when needed and not suffer discrimination simply because we are a different gender.
View the videos at the end to get an impartial view of the kinds of observations made by people, some formerly involved in the shelter movement, about this vocal minority of tax supported vilifiers of men.
Although not directly a target in this Human rights complaint this is just one example of the discrimination shown by Matthews and her colleague AG Bentley. Bentley was involved in the launch of this initiative as he is responsible, supposedly at arms length, for the administration of justice in this province. The administration of justice is heavily politicized and discriminatory.
There is nothing wrong with educating citizens on Family Law but the mindset of these people is men must know all about it and women not. Here is a quote by Matthews on the launch of the Family Law Education for Women (FLEW).
“The Family Law Education for Women campaign is unique in Ontario. It builds on Ontario’s commitment to protect and support vulnerable women in our province” said Deb Matthews, Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues. “There is one family law for all Ontarians and women deserve to know their legal rights so they can fully benefit from the law and make informed decisions.”
Note she describes vulnerable women but its target is all women and not one man. This is an earlier quote in the same press release.
On December 10, 2008, International Human Rights Day, Family Law Education for Women (FLEW) will unveil a public education campaign called “All Women. One Family Law” to ensure that Ontario women know their legal rights under Ontario family law. FLEW is a public legal education project funded by the Ontario government to develop materials that will inform women’s decisions about family law issues.
Note it describes All Women. The press release is here. http://smr.newswire.ca/en/flew/all-women-one-family-law The FLEW website is here. http://www.onefamilylaw.ca/ Does any one see the irony in the name "One Family Law" The term Family used to describe a mom a dad and children if any. Not any more according to the Province of Ontario - it describes only women.
For those men, beaten down by the misandry of all this feminist rhetoric, let me remind you of what it is men do for human kind, in its darkest hours, and how all of us - not feminized to think twice about these things - will risk our lives and die for others. This is the tail end of one of the best descriptions of heroism by anyone flowing from the 9/1/1 disaster but this is written by a woman, Christie Blatchford, then with the National Post of Canada. For the whole article go here. http://f4j-soo.blogspot.com/2008_09_11_archive.html
Always keep in mind - you would do this too as many of our forefathers have done in fighting wars and oppression for these same women who now cry abuse at the hands of all men and who do not think twice about lying about it. These men, and women who have adapted to these difficult tasks, however, may be required to do this any day they are called upon.
"The raw physical courage of all those who had raced to the scene and headed into the very towers that they, of all people, with their knowledge of structures and the sort of damage that a fireball could inflict upon skyscrapers, would best know were at risk of collapse, was enormous; their collective selflessness, putting women, children and civilians before themselves, utterly astonishing.
I am old enough to remember what some call the "feminization" of these very organizations, and the military, that began all over North America.
As the rhetoric went then, integrating women into these places would be good for the men, would gentle their inherent violence and risk-taking, temper the soaring levels of testosterone, somehow better the culture.
The truth is, it did nothing of the sort. If anything, the women who became firefighters and police and soldiers took their cues from the men. And in the end, there remains such comfort in this, in knowing that, push come to shove, should you find yourself in crisis, in a burning building or a car crash, the ground treacherous and shifting beneath your sandal-shod feet either literally or metaphorically, a burly figure will be coming for you, and he will be driven enough to find you and strong enough to lift you up and away.
There is nothing to better here. There never was."MJM
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 6J8
Hon. Deb Matthews
Minister Responsible for Women's Issues
14th Floor 56 Wellesley St W
M5S 2S3 via fax 416-212-7431 and email email@example.com
Given the Liberal government will be taking this official stance despite the science showing IPV is mutual and close to equal, is initiated by females more often than males - as high as 70% in some studies, males are injured and killed as well as females, that children are murdered and maltreated more often by their mothers in Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia I can only conclude your government puts a premium on being female and discounts males. That is unconstitutional!
I would respectfully request a copy of the Minister's speech as part of my research into preparing a Human Rights Complaint against the Attorney General, Ms. Matthews, Premier McQuinty, and the local DV shelter who refuses to support battered men.
In addition I note most of the members of the Council who advised the Minister on this decision have a vested interest in the status quo as they are indeed recipients of tax payers money. I also note one of the speakers at this forum is an academic from the UOIT, Molly Dragiewicz. This Professor is a noted feminist ideologue and a recipient of your largesse in obtaining contracts to produce information forming the basis for your conclusions to keeping the status quo. She too has a vested interest in this approach as it is less threatening to getting contracts from your $208,000,000.00 allotment of tax payer's money targeted exclusively for women. Was this contract and others awarded to Dragiewicz, and her colleague at UOIT, sole sourced or was there a tender involved? I would like to know your policy generally and specifically with the one that has led to your official announcement of using a gender based approach.
Let's do a little math using Barbara Kay's figures given as a rebuttal to your assertions on a National Post story in December 2008. In 2006 there were 605 murders in Canada and 78 were spousal homicides. Women numbered 56 - 6 fewer than 2005 but males jumped 12 to a total of 21. You spend $208 million on women annually according to your response to Ms. Kay below – none is allocated specifically for men. For every female death you have $3,714,286 available and, of course, none for males. I use the larger figure to demonstrate the apparent willful blindness of your government. You have indicated women die more often, are injured more often, 6 times more likely to seek medical attention etc. Some of these figures had no attribution and they are suspect as men do not report their injuries very often (between 10 & 17%), the higher figure from StatsCan and so the female numbers become less comparable even if they have scientific credibility.
Not all spousal homicides are reported as such. Women are devilishly clever at killing their spouses and sometimes these killings are reported as something other than DV. Just in your riding we saw a murder/suicide by a female police officer who killed her partner then herself. This was not classified as a spousal homicide but should have been. If a new boyfriend is coerced into killing the husband, if a contractor is used, if undetectable methods are employed, or if it just plain appears as accidental it will not appear as a spousal killing. I would further want you to understand that there could be as many as 2,000 deaths of men by suicide per year due to family court marginalization (children are awarded to mom in a 9-1 ratio and dad becomes an ATM) plus false accusations of rape or violence that ruin men's lives. That is a serious number. All deaths are tragic but I believe the pendulum has swung way too far to the left giving your government a truly feminist oriented agenda at the expense of males.
You have also used cherry picked Coroner's reports showing, and I quote, females were the victims in 95% of domestic violence fatality cases. See the official numbers above.
Guess who gets involved on these death review committees with the Coroner. Yes, a representative sample of the same tax supported people you are speaking to on October 2, 2009 multiplied Province wide. Do you see where this is going? You have a beholding group of people operating DV shelters who are never audited, either financially or operationally, who make clients sign "non disclosure agreements, (why is that?) who make out reports to send to the government recording the "official" numbers of women helped but, as a rational human being, who can believe them if they aren't independently audited. I also make note they provide no services to battered men, and yes we do exist. Your government is already beset with scandals is this another one in its infancy?
Your response to Barbara Kay follows:
Re: Fed On Myths, Preying On Men, Barbara Kay, Dec. 6.
It's important to address Barbara Kay's assertions that were raised on such a significant and solemn occasion, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. In response to her statement that "emotion, not reason or facts, drives the domestic violence industry", there are facts to support that domestic violence is not gender-neutral.
According to Statistics Canada, women experience more severe forms of violence, more often, than men. Women are twice as likely as men to be injured as a result of spousal violence, six times more likely to seek medical attention and three times more likely to fear for their lives.
And according to the Chief Coroner's Domestic Violence Death Review Committee, females were the victims in 95% of domestic violence fatality cases. That means women were victims in 19 of every 20 domestic violence deaths. That's not gender-neutral.
Our response must, and does, recognize this reality. With our community partners, we support women and their children escaping violent situations. Each year, our government invests more than $208-million in services that support and protect women from violence, including our $87-million Domestic Violence Action Plan.
Stopping domestic violence is everyone's business. And its existence is not to be trivialized and distorted.
Deb Matthews, Minister Responsible for Women's Issues, Toronto.
Published: Thursday, December 11, 2008
Professor Don Dutton of UBC also supplied a response to your comments as follows:
Another view on domestic violence
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Re: Women's Issues Minister Responds, letter, Dec. 11.
This letter from the Ontario Minister for Women Issues is typical of the misleading information that plagues Canadian policy on domestic violence. Partner homicide is extremely rare, and the Ontario Death Review Committee cherry-picked cases that would support the Ministry's view of domestic violence. The Ontario cases are ones that the committee decided were domestic violence, and do not include all cases of homicide, as the system selects out female precipitated homicides as "manslaughter" or lesser charges.
When one compares the committee's finding -- that 95% of partner homicides are male perpetrated -- with actual research, the picture changes dramatically. An analysis of all U. S. partner homicides from 1976 to 2001 reveals a 2:1 (female victim: male victim) ratio for 50,000+ partner homicides. Canadian data show a spousal homicide ratio from 1974 to 1990 to be about 3:1 (female victim: male victim) -- and this translates to eight husbands killing their wives (out of one million couples) and 2.3 women killing their husbands.
Put somewhat differently, 999,992 men and 999,997.7 per million women do not kill their spouse -- I would say that is not then a gender issue. If such a miniscule group of either gender kills, then something else beside gender must be involved. Government ministries that repeatedly misrepresent domestic violence statistics to perpetuate their existence do no favours to taxpayers, be they male or female.
professor of psychology,
University of British Columbia,
Domestic Violence is a serious issue but it will not get resolved using the gender based approach. How can it when only one side of an issue is dealt with rather than the whole. Just imagine if Doctors only looked at one possible scenario of many to heal us. In any problem solving exercise a wide array of possibilities is examined. To ignore 50% of the problem, be that a male or female, is to throw good money after bad. Your government spends a great deal of money on only women's issues. Where are the results?
I look forward to your governments defence of my Human Rights Complaint and I also hope this debate will be very public, as it should be. I will issue press releases when I am ready to send it in to the OHRC. The complaint will be personal, representing only me, but the results may have a benefit for all men in this province, and if the dominoes fall, eventually all battered men across Canada.
Do you want to be the Minister and Government defending a one sided single gender approach, forced into submission by your own HRC, as California was by a court verdict last year, or will you change your policy and treat men and DV with equality?
cc Dalton McQuinty, Premier of Ontario, David Orazietti, MPP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Chris Bentley, Attorney General, Ontario,
Roger Galloway, former MP with 4 children and 3 sons, never divorced, discusses the scourge of tax supported feminism and SOW Canada.
Feminist mischief within Canada's Justice System - Former Parliamentarian Roger Galloway speaks out - Never before seen footage! from Canada Court Watch on Vimeo.
October 27, 2008
Toronto criminal defence lawyer, Mr. Walter Fox speaks before Toronto Police Services on the topic of how government funded women shelter advocates in Ontario have effectively bypassed the democratic process using inquests to make their own hidden agenda the law in Ontario.
Ontario's zero tolerance policies and practices that have come about as a result of these inquests have effectively labeled men in Ontario as monsters not worthy of equal treatment under the law.
Ontario Lawyer speaks about flawed domestic violence inquests and fraudulent women's shelter community groups from Canada Court Watch on Vimeo.
This is Walter Fox discussing the Hadley Inquest with more detail than the previous one above.
The Untold Story and Gender Politics behind Ontario's Hadley Murder-Suicide Inquest from Canada Court Watch on Vimeo.