The moral Compass in Canada and the debate on Abortion - It is not settled as the feminists would have you believe

There has been much written on Abortion in the National Post (NP) over the past week in which I have offered copious comments. The following is my most recent based on a Lorne Gunter posting here.Those I refer to in my short essay are regular commentators on the NP's blog.


An issue like abortion boils down to the individuals moral compass and subsequent viewpoint. It deals with the ethics and values a person holds and indeed how much the propaganda of feminists has permeated their thinking process.



Feminists hold "abortion on demand" as one of their prime pillars. It is sacrosanct and, to them, boils down to dominion over their body no matter that another human also had a part to play in the pregnancy, the vast majority of which were between consenting partners.

Feminists want complete reproductive control (the Marxist philosophy of monopoly) and if they screw up on the control side, they want complete governance to dispose of their mistakes, also Marxist in nature despite, as mentioned above, two parties involved.

A goodly number of men have stated they must be right and must acquiesce to this mantra. We have acquiesced our legitimate role in creation of life, which has transferred to other areas such as family law where we are discarded as visitors to even those whom were born, not aborted, if we get to see them at all. Some patriarchy that is! In other words, feminists have won as they get complete control of reproduction, termination of life and ownership of children when born at the end of marriage. Between co-habitation and marriage we have a probable family breakdown rate of 50% within 30 years of living together. Cohabitation ends much faster than marriage. Men,  pay for all this marriage breakdown and abortion  in taxes, child support, spousal support, and many extras.

The feminists in this country then take it further and say not only do we want all this Marxist central planning over population control but we want the state to pay for it. Many men have also bought into this utter nonsense as well because they are highly feminized. The propaganda over the years has worn them down, they throw up their hands and said "shucks I have to keep peace let them have it."  They now believe they are being chivalrous by kneeling at the altar of uncontrolled abortion and have been co-opted into the further consumer shopping for the right sex of the child  by aborting the developing life because it’s the wrong gender. Gee it’s not what I wanted lets terminate this life and try again.

Its eugenics by another name.

It will lead to moral collapse, as a likely outcome and by allowing sex selection; those who support abortion on demand are leading the charge.

I posit most Canadians, when faced with the right information, will choose to restrict abortion in a reasonable manner.  After all, we are such a polite country - are we not?

If we leave it to the feminists, we cannot survive as a culture and eventually a stronger force will take over. It is called Islam and one only needs to read the daily paper(s), especially those in Europe,  or watch the world news to get an idea of their strength and our accommodating weakness.

Mr. Pilgrim represents the accommodating, passive side of the equation although he says he is pro-life. It was like pulling teeth to get him to admit it. Joe Shmoe represents the completely feminized faction and a mere sock puppet of feminist desires. I represent the side of pro-lifers who want restrictions and no tax support unless medically necessary.

What do we want to leave for our grandchildren - if anyone gets to have any in the future - the eroding of our values, population and the onslaught of a totalitarian religion - or something better and different?  By 2050 we will see we are much closer to half the country being foreign born. It’s not far off.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/05/the-debate-on-abortion-is-quot-settled-quot-just-like-the-debate-on-global-warming-gun-control-punishment-v-rehab-multiculturalism.aspx#comments#ixzz0nA6FfGU5

The Mainstream Media on Tiger, Erin, Hartman, Women More Violent

I had an email exchange with an overly sensitive feminist earlier today over the possibility that Tiger was a victim of female on male DV. She brought up the canard of effects on the child if this was openly speculated which is what usually happens in defense of women but never when it comes to the man. Here are her first quotes when the issue was raised on an email thread.

"I think this is a shameful, disgusting pandering to gossip mongering. We don't know what happened. We were not there. And there are also other rumours that would explain the situation. Before we can pass any sort of judgement, or make any sort of conjecture, we need to know, not guess. We could well become part of the American passtime (sic) of pulling people off pedastals, (sic) ruining the good reputation of not just one, but two people, and harm the kids in the process. So, let's not go there."

Note the usual feminist attempts at shaming as though she were the mother of the group chastising the children. Nothing pompous or overbearing here.

I retorted as I usually do when I see someone trying to shape a thread into a politically correct polemic, and this particular feminist does it with great frequency. This is my final retort to those who would feel overly sensitive to covering up what may be DV by a woman on a man. You can bet your new low carbon footprint Toyota Prius that if this were reversed everybody in the Liberal MSM would be all over it condemning Tiger and wishing him a quick trip to hell.


The "what about the children" statement is used frequently by lawyers and the female support ecosystem trying to cover up abuse at the hands of the mom but it has no currency when applied to dads in the court arena. If its a dad then the bigger the false allegations the better it is to "protect the children" from the brute or so the "spin" goes. Had I listened to that when I confronted the PA of my children and not gone public they would still be very alienated from me.

Those of us who have experienced female abuse and know the discounting of it by almost everyone who has not themselves been exposed to it have little patience with covering it up.

On a balance of probabilities, the same mechanism used in family court, Tiger had some personal issues with his ex based on what has arisen so far by those who observed the damage to his vehicle. If they are misreporting then the information could be at fault. But logical deduction goes like this and having been there I know exactly what kind of response it could trigger if you lose focus and are distracted.

Were dealing with one of the most focused and controlled male athletes in the world. These are absolutely essential qualitiesto do what he does. He is a near billionaire if not passed that point due to his ability and has a great deal to lose if word gets out he has domestic problems given he pulls in $100,000,000 per year in wins and endorsements. For this reason it is to his advantage to cover it up. It has little to do with the children. When it comes to ridiculing men for suffering DV from their partner - and those who throw the epithets to put it kindly refer to such a person as "unmanly" - then I will counterbalance any argument forcefully and quickly to dispel any myths and emphasize these are normal men put in an abnormal situation.

Plug the focus and control into the equation. He smashes his Cadillac SUV into a fire hydrant and tree at less than 33 MPH adjacent to his house while leaving at 2:25 AM and he is not drinking and there are no other factors blocking his vision such as fog or rain. Perhaps he is on pain killers from an injury but it is unknown. If he was running to the pharmacy for meds for the kids then clearly it can be explained. He has chosen not to.

It has been reported both rear windows were smashed by his wife with a golf club and others report one. Why? Why did she not extract him from the front passenger side or the drivers side. The wife is suddenly a para medic using a golf club as the jaws of life as one wag said. There are always two sets of keys for a vehicle in the household. How did she ultimately extract him to the point he was lying on the ground semi-conscious. He is 6'1" 180 Ibs she is somewhat smaller. Did she drag him out and if so how? How did his face get scratched and lips lacerated but no blood on the steering wheel or in the vehicle. Why would the $100,000,000 dollar man not wear a safety belt?

Had this been a gender reversal with her driving things would have been "spun" quite differently. I am a crusader for equality between the genders and that includes all facets of it not some selected number. I will posit probable scenarios when a story looks fishy as this one is. Their are antecedents to the story that may or may not be true and given it is the National Enquirer involved the likelihood of untruth is high. But even if untrue the mere fact it was told this story was coming out could set off a partner and lead to a dispute.

Is this just a scary coincidence or is there a correlation? I think it was DV.MJM

Sunday, November 29, 2009

The Mainstream Media on Tiger, Erin, Hartman, Women More Violent

The Mainstream Liberal Media (MSLM) appear to have decided on using Tiger's purported affair with Rachel Uchitel as the excuse for Eirn Nordegren's assualt on him. That mslm political approach is similar to exonerating Maj. Nidal Hassan because of pre-Afghan assignment stress.

Few people remember that Phil Hartman was murdered by his abusive and battering wife. She then committed suicide.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Phil+Hartman+murdered&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Few people know that Humphrey Bogart was battered by his first wife.

Celebrity Domestic Violence Cases: husbands battered by wives:

http://www.safe4all.org/essays/victims

11 Famous Men Who Were Beaten by their Women:

http://www.11points.com/News-Politics/11_Famous_Men_Who_Were_Beat_Down_By_Their_Women

The study below shows extensive evidence that women spouses are more violent than men.

A few more Tiger & Erin Woods reports:
http://www.examiner.com/x-833-San-Diego-News-Examiner~y2009m11d28-Did-wife-assault-Tiger-Woods-before-crash
Toronto News San Diego News Examiner
Did wife assault Tiger Woods before crash?
November 28, 7:36 PMSan Diego News Examiner Dave Thomas
Did a fight lead to Tiger Woods' car accident early Friday morning in Florida?
...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2437962/tiger_woods_affair_wife_has_two_stories.html?cat=14
Tiger Woods Affair? Wife Has Two Stories About the Golf
Is There Another Woman? is it Rachel Uchitel? What is the Story Behind the Tiger Woods Car Accident?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html
Women are more violent, says study
The Independent, UK By Sophie Goodchild, Home Affairs Correspondent Sunday, 12 November 2000

Bruised and battered husbands have been complaining for years and now the biggest research project of its kind has proved them right. When it comes to domestic confrontation, women are more violent than men.

The study, which challenges the long-standing view that women are overwhelmingly the victims of aggression, is based on an analysis of 34,000 men and women by a British academic. Women lash out more frequently than their husbands or boyfriends, concludes John Archer, professor of psychology at the University of Central Lancashire and president of the International Society for Research on Aggression.

Male violence remains a more serious phenomenon: men proved more likely than women to injure their partners. Female aggression tends to involve pushing, slapping and hurling objects.* Yet men made up nearly 40 per cent of the victims in the cases that he studied - a figure much higher than previously reported.

Professor Archer analysed data from 82 US and UK studies on relationship violence, dating back to 1972. He also looked at 17 studies based on victim reports from 1,140 men and women. Speaking last night, he said that female aggression was greater in westernised women because they were "economically emancipated" and therefore not afraid of ending a relationship.

"Feminist writers say most of the acts against men are not important but the same people have used the same surveys to inflate the number of women who are attacked," he said. "In the past it would not even have been considered that women are violent. My view is that you must base social policy on the whole evidence."

His views are supported by Dr Malcolm George, a lecturer in neuroscience at London University. In a paper to be published next year in the Journal of Men's Studies, Dr George will argue that men have been abused by their wives since Elizabethan times. He uses examples such as the actor John Wayne, beaten by his wife Conchita Martinez, and Humphrey Bogart battered by his wife Mayo Methot, as well as Abraham Lincoln whose wife Mary who broke his nose with a lump of wood.

His research is backed up by historical records which show that men who were beaten by their wives were publicly humiliated in a ceremony called a "skimmington procession". The procession was named after the ladle used to skim milk during cheese making.

Dr George has also unearthed a plaster frieze in Montacute House in Somerset that depicts a wife hitting her husband over the head followed by a "skimmington" ceremony.

"It's a complex argument but we do get more women aggressing against male partners than men against female partners," said Dr George. "The view is that women are acting in self-defence but that is not true - 50 per cent of those who initiate aggression are women. This sends a dangerous message to men because we are saying they are not going to get any legal redress so their option instead is to hit back."

Terrie Moffitt, professor of social behaviour at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College, London, admitted that women do engage in abusive behaviour and said the Home Office should fund research into the issue in the UK. "If we ask does women's violence have consequences for their kids then the answer is 'yes'," she said. "There is also an elevated risk of children being victims of domestic violence if there is central violence between parents."

However, Dr Anne Campbell, a psychologist at the University of Durham, said that women should still receive the most support because they were the greater victims of domestic violence. "The outcome of violence is that women are more damaged by it and need the bulk of resources," she said. "But women's violence has become increasingly legitimised. There is a sense now that it's OK to 'slap the bastard'."

Jeffrey Asher

FathersCan (Ottawa)

Barbara Kay: Sticking it out in marriage is a good thing

This posting discusses York University professor Anne-Marie Ambert's, recently released study, Divorce: Facts, Causes and Consequences .

A feminist quote:"

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

Sheila Cronin, prominent member of NOW

I might only slightly disagree with Ms. Kay’s exhortation about the current role of feminism and its impacts. The 3rd wave types are firmly ensconced in DV shelters, which is the heartbeat of the Duluth Wheel ideological construct of women as victims and benign – men patriarchal oppressors. It is psycho babble but firmly entrenched. These shelters hold the Jihadist equivalent of martyrs for the cause. They hold the very essence of patriarchal oppression in word and flesh - or so they want every one to believe. These are the temples of the religion called Victim Feminism.

This mantra jumps off the pages of feminist journalists daily with their mythological and sometimes lunatic rants about how they are such victims, and Antonia Berzizias at the Trawna "RED" Star personifies these small, fringe but very vocal proponents. It takes the form of entrenched misinformation republished a thousand times a year because few have the family jewels to debunk it. These feminists are in Women’s Studies programs, criminal law at places like the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa, and hundreds of others across the land. They are feminist law professors, Status of Women Canada bureaucrats and their Provincial counterparts, professors in Sociology and many, many teachers. They are organized in sub-groups within Bar Associations some receiving tax dollars to slander and libel men. Barbara Cross a self described feminist lawyer has it as one of her main life goals to practice this kind of misandrous libel. The mythology is entrenched in our judiciary, bar associations and in the newsrooms of the nation. It is, in most cases, too politically correct to touch by most – unless they and their editors are prepared for the hate mail. Barbara Kay no doubt knows about the latter.

There are interconnected links in the above flowing around tax dollars for support and referrals from the DV shelters to lawyers – the Canadian Bar Association stands to lose economically if shared parenting is a presumption for fit parents. They openly lobbied the Federal Justice Minister Nicholson at their annual meeting in Ireland not too many months back and so moved Nicholson that he stated and I paraphrase his answer. Fathers will always take a back seat to children’s best interests. That was code for the current maternal status quo of 90% sole physical custody should remain intact. The lawyers cheered guaranteeing them the lucrative revenue taken from the pockets of children's financial legacies. With them, no matter what they tell you, its all about the money. Nothing more.

I have always found the level of perceived corruption in the legal field as flying right over the heads of MSM scribes. Here we have the Federal Justice Minister, entrusted to ensure the integrity of our court system and the laws of the land, who is a lawyer, a paid up member of the Ontario and Canadian Bar Association being lobbied by his fellow lawyers openly from this same organization to not change a law because they will lose business. Does any one else see how this is wrong on more than one level. His answer also further telegraphed to judges their current maternal only custody regime is just fine. Lawyers have a vested interest in keeping the divorce rate up as the average litigated case nets then $25,000.00 per client. How many other businesses can lay claim to a $25,000 per customer pay back? When I was in the retail trade we thought $15.00 to $20.00 per customer was good. for our specific kind of operation. Greed is good as was famously stated by Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street” way back in 1987. They use the excuse of abuse as a factor that will force mothers to share children with their “oppressors”. What a bunch of bunk as all valid peer reviewed studies and Stats Cans surveys on DV show otherwise. but it sells well in the MSM.

Just recently I am told a small ideologically predisposed radical group of feminist lawyers (perhaps Pamela Cross' Group who have already filed a brief against Bill C-422 in Canada, ) sent off a missive to the Australian Government to roll back their shared parenting law, which is under review, and use the Canada model of pretty much sole maternal physical custody. It so happened a feminist journalist, named Caroline Overington, in Australia just happened to get a copy of said letter and published a column suggesting it was probably in children’s best interest (read mom into that rather than child) to follow this Canada model. This journalist has been an open supporter of repealing shared parenting laws introduced only 3 years ago and is very clever at wording. Read her column and my response to the newspaper here. parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/.../caroline-overington-in-oz-out-does.html

I suggest the actual rate of dissolution of heterosexual partnerships is at or over 50% as we do not know the actual frequency of common law breakups other than it is higher than marriages. In many Provinces, where the laws on equalization are made, a man will forfeit similar amounts even though there is absolutely no contract in place. The Nanny state takes control of your life and your financial affairs for a couple of decades or more if the children are young and stay in school through post secondary education. One interesting fact, amongst many others, is the dad will be required to foot the College/University education despite the fact if it was an intact family they may decide he could not afford it. There is no such choice once the man is marginalized by the government to the role of revenue spigot and occasional visitor.

Quebec has one of the few enlightened models for cohabitation and its no wonder it is the highest rate in Canada for that reason. I’d say 50% breakup is probably closer to the mark when both marriage and cohabitation are combined and it could be higher. Married household are now a minority in Canada for the first time in history. That is a rather telling trend but for any man to use this unilateral trip to grief and the poor house not getting married is his best bet. I have found a figure 5% higher than Barbara’s showing 75% of divorces are initiated by the wife. There are too many entitlements incentivizing divorce accruing to females and too many sycophants in the Divorce Industry only too willing to assist her in getting “empowered” out of the relationship. I’ve described earlier who these are.

Denis’ quotes from Stephen Baskerville (see comments after the article) sums it up succinctly. Some of you may recall the recent story in this paper of the man in BC whose income of $200,000 before taxes required him to pay far more in child support than he had left for himself. www.nationalpost.com/.../story.html . In BC the marginal tax rate on that income is 43.7%. His tax bill before taking personal exemptions is $81,400.00. He is left with $118,600.00. Out of this he is obliged to give his ex who unilaterally walked out because she got "wet" over another man $91,200.00 in tax free money. The marginal rate on that is 38.29%. That is an equivalent before tax income of $125,856.00. This man may end up with somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 depending on his exemptions. You can thank Nicholson, the Federal Justice Minister, for this kind of treatment of men and the entrenched self-loathing male judges who practice chivalry, misandry and obviously give far greater value to maternalism than to the ability of men to share parenting. Many female judges follow the same pattern, some of whom are feminists but there are a small group of both genders who actually practice interpreting the law as written (did I say the Divorce Act is gender neutral and stresses maximum contact of both parents) rather than the current practice.

I would also take issue with the religious conclusions by the studies author. For those criticizing Barbara here is the germane statement “Prof. Ambert cites, amongst other reasons: the de-sacralization of marriage, a consequence of religion’s demise, and the rise of secularism;” It wasn’t Ms. Kay’s conclusion about religion. Quebec, a largely Roman Catholic Province, has the highest divorce and abortion rates in the country and the highest rate of co-habitation. Many people ascribe religions as the place we obtain values as well but that is not entirely true. Ancient Greeks had pretty good value systems even before the birth of current major religions. These values were derived from clear thinking and logic, a sometimes elusive human characteristic. Secularism is just as good as any religion as long as these values are clearly enunciated by our leaders and taught by parents and schools to our children. In these cases action speak far louder than words.

Religions could take up an important role in the saving of salvageable marriages. Modern marriage is, by and large, a religiously inspired institution despite its earlier roots as a less formal arrangement of two parties by mutual consent. My own research shows some missing ingredients that might help to save some marriages but which require legislative change. Shared/equal parenting is the first step. This does show a reduction in divorce as the mom is not guaranteed sole custody and without the financial incentives sober second thought may occur. My reading of this show couples may try harder to get counselling and resolve differences.

This leads to a next compulsory step for couples who wish to divorce and that is a course or counselling session of at least 3 weeks duration designed to look at the problems, see if there are any solutions that professionals can assist with, a step by step walk through all the phases of the divorce process and its consequences for the parties and children. If the couple decides to divorce then compulsory tax supplied mediation, which may save money by not using lawyers and judicial resources in court. Expect lawyers to lobby like hell against this.

A turn away from no-fault divorce!!!! If one of the partners’ behaviour has resulted, on a balance of probabilities, in the failure of the marriage there needs to be accountability. Without accountability we have the current unilateral walking away from marriage as was the case in a previous post I cited. The woman got “wet” for another man and destroyed the family yet she still got full physical custody and over $90,000.00 a year in tax free income. She never has to work again and gets her boyfriends companionship and income as well. That is not natural justice.

The final step is taking the paperwork to the court house for finalization which might be done in a 15 minute session of motions court or through a simpler administrative process. Lawyers only need be involved in complex cases unresolved by the above or those requiring litigation.MJM

Posted: November 20, 2009, 12:20 AM by Ron Nurwisah

Barbara Kay

A just-released study from the Vanier Institute of the Family (read it here on PDF) by York University professor Anne-Marie Ambert, Divorce: Facts, Causes and Consequences, vindicates assumptions many conservatives hold instinctively, and may provoke some discomfort in “progressives.”

To begin with some good news: Divorce rates are not as high as we thought. Divorce rates have been coming down since the 1990s and since 1997 have plateaued. In fact, first marriages in Canada have a 67% chance of lasting a lifetime.

According to Prof. Ambert, divorce rates peaked in 1987, which she says is the result of the progressive tendency toward no-fault divorce which began in 1968. Divorce slowly lost its stigma and the numbers rose as the reasons for divorce became more and more trivial.

Why did the numbers start going down? One reason, which the study notes, is the tendency for people to marry later. But I would also tie both the divorce peak and its diminution to the rise and decline of militant feminism’s influence. Seventy percent of divorces are initiated by women. Feminism of the man-dismissive type was a strong influence in the ‘70s and ‘80s. In the 90s, however, third-wave feminism relegated the man-haters to the fringes of the movement, and marriage regained respectability as an institution. I predict the numbers will go further down when Canada finally institutes equal parenting as the default custodial policy, as it has in jurisdictions where that is presently the case.

Prof. Ambert finds that there are two kinds of divorce: those resulting from an unhappy marriage, and those resulting from “a weak commitment to marriage.” She found that “some divorces are avoidable and unnecessary” and that “a sizable proportion of marriages that end in divorce were actually quite ‘salvageable,’ even happy, and that many of these ex-spouses are no better off after.”

National Post editorial board: All-day kindergarten doesn't make sense

Out of curiosity I did a little number crunching on current teacher demographics in Ontario by age category related to the following editorial in the National Post today just to see what the trend line looks like in our schools and indeed in the broader public service. Currently both the Provincial and Federal Public Service has a 55% female 45% male composition.

Some of you will say there is Murphy on another one of his Feminist rants or if you are a mangina you might even call me intolerant names just like the feminists currently proffer periodically. Personally I could care less but I do have a need to elucidate (not hallucinate) on matters of males being discounted and females given greater value in almost all aspects of our daily discourse. My target, however, is not women it is feminists and politicians just in case someone was going to do the usual and call me a misogynist. I love women especially those like Sass and Kat26 who stand up and assert their equality.

My crunching covers the current age groups by gender as follows and their dominance.

Total teachers registered in the Province 219,181 - more to come courtesy of McQuinty.

Total Female = 149,636 Male = 59,968 Ratio female to male is 265.50% >female

It gets more interesting when you break them out by age cohort. Watch the trending from young to older

Age 20-30 female 32,421 male 8,012 Female lead by 404.66%

Age 31-40 f - 47,069 m -17,303 Female lead by 272.03%

Age 41-50 f - 36,016 m -15,134 Female lead by 237.98%

Age 51-60 f - 33,707 m -14,116 Female lead by 238.79%

Age 61+ f -10,000 m - 5,403 Female lead by 185.08%

Trending is obvious in that we have far fewer male teachers and accelerating under the McQuinty lefty Liberals.

Why are males not interested in teaching? What impediments are in play through the schooling of boys that causes them to turn away from teaching as men?

Here is possibly one reason and is a true story - " A couple of weeks ago an older girl bullied a 9 year old boy and roughed him up some. He did what we told him was right and he reported the incident to the female principal and female teacher. He was told not to be a sissy, nothing was done.

A few days later he and a male friend were playing a bit rough and all hell broke lose. They were doing nothing wrong just being boys. They are still close friends but don't really understand why they were disciplined and the other incident was ignored. Try and explain to a 9 year old that this is the way it is. How does one explain the statement made, I can do this because I am a girl. What is this teaching young males."

This is not isolated and goes on every day all across this country but in many and various ways.

I haven't yet found the demographics for our other largest tax cost industry of health care but I will source them someday. I will posit I will find a largely female dominated Industry as well with trends of greater domination coming particularly in the higher ranks of Doctors.

Wake up men - you are being feminized and marginalized in many ways and you do not even see it.

National Post editorial board: All-day kindergarten doesn't make sense

Posted: October 29, 2009, 2:00 PM by NP Editor

Editorial, Canadian politcs

Given Ontario's massive deficit, why is Premier Dalton McGuinty focused on imposing an expensive, full-day kindergarten program on the province?

Cynics will say that the project is about burnishing his legacy, about leaving future generations of Ontarians something more than red ink. He's practically said as much, suggesting that once his kindergarten program was passed, "I find it hard to see somebody seeking to undo [it]."

He is, of course, right: It is much harder to take away expensive entitlements than it is to introduce them in the first place. This is one of the reasons that the nanny state-- of which Mr. McGuinty might be considered governess-in-chief, these days -- is anxious to get into the business of hiring literal all-day nannies for Ontario's five-year-olds.

Stephen Taylor: Liberals imply domestic violence caused by Tory government

Two of my comments within the thread of this article.

Oct 23 2009 4:26 AM Mike Murphy

______________________________

The DV industry in Canada is a heavily invested and multi-faceted ecosystem to promulgate misandry against men. It is the epicentre of today's 3rd wave Feminist movement focusing on victimization of women. It is called Victim, Gender or Life Boat Feminism.

Within this Industry an ideology surrounding a psuedo-scientific mantra is used that posits a patriarchy rules all women's lives and they are victims of it. It is called the Duluth Wheel and in its simplest form describes all men as abusers and women victims. According to it we men use control on females as a primary mechanism whether it be psychological or physically coercive.

That is why the feminists will tell you there are not enough women in whatever positions they identify to you whether it is MP's or in the Board Room. All things that are wrong with females not getting to high office (even if they are) are because men dictate they should not be there.

This, of course, gets feminists off the hook for everything based on merit or choice because they are mere malleable puppets in our hands. It is though they are still children in adult bodies.

It is all bunk of course but they believe it to the core and like any ideology if it is challenged they yell loudly enough that the eunuchs in the political, judicial, lawyering, and chattering classes turn on their politically correct persona and dutifully do what they are told. Iggy doesn't truly believe the crap but has no choice but to go along with it because he has been eunuchized. (similar to lobotomized but a different organ is involved) That is truly a pandemic amongst the political classes, with some notable exceptions, and there is no current vaccine other than common sense which gets seriously vaporized within the feminist rhetoric.

It is my view the DV industry exacerbates the friction involved in divorce and may be the reason for some of the more egregious acts of violence. They counsel their clients to make false allegations, leave the family, use the Duluth Wheel to indoctrinate the client to the ways of victim feminism, and offer no hope the family can be salvaged due to the psycho-babble inherent in the ideology they use. They also get all clients to sign non-disclosure agreements so the truth will not get out from their umbrella of secrecy.

Gosh I'm starting to write another chapter in my book again but this does arouse a passion in me. Let me close by advising there is great interconnectedness between the DV shelters, the lawyers in family law, academics seeking tax money for studies of women at shelters, the Police, Legal Aid Agencies in each province, the DOJ in each Province and the Status of Women Canada the lead victim feminist agency in the country. Each Province has on its payroll similar ideologues. In Ontario alone the Minister for Status of Women has $208,000,000.00 for female related issues and if you include legal aid it is far more. Chris Bentley, AG, Ontario's leading Eunuch in the Attorney Generals Department just found $150,000,000.00 more for legal aid 70% of which is targeted at women.

There is 0, non, nada, targeted for men's issues and not one tax supported DV shelter for men in the country even though at least one third of serious injuries from inter partner violence happens to men. This does not include men who are psychologically destroyed by women with serious personality problems. There are about 550 women's tax supported shelters in Canada.

DV is a serious issue but in the overall scheme of things gets far greater prominence that it should. For example when you compare the rate of homicide of intimate partners on a million couple basis you will find 999,997 women do not kill their spouse and 999,992 men do not kill their female partner. Feminists would have you believe every women is in imminent danger of her male partner. It is bogus and a canard but we have two generations of brainwashed men and women to untether from their mental image of the problem. Barb Kay is one such very brave journalist and more are realizing the mythology is hurting families and women themselves.

by Mike Murphy

Oct 23 2009
2:46 AM

"Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence."

This is similar to many feminist statements and myths about DV.

Its interesting to observe feminist lawyers who will assert, for example, that over 50 allegations of abuse were made against a dad seeking access to a child. The purpose in making the statement to the judge and the press was to vilify the dad and not allow him access. All of the allegations were made by the mother - none were proven - but the mere fact they were made is used as a weapon against dads frequently.

An article recently appeared in the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) again using the same tactics. allegations = fact. Always read between the lines and never believe a feminist statement without fact checking. My letter to the CSM with respect to that misinformation is as follows:

Re: Christian Science Monitor, 10/14/09. Author Kathleen Russell

You allowed this author to publish unsubstantiated claims with respect to cases in Marin County CA, and offering unsupported and erroneous information relating to a theory of abuse of children called Parental Alienation Syndrome.

I am guessing this was offered to the author as an opinion piece and was published without authentication by your editor. You will escape liability for slander on it because she didn't name names but one of the cases she obliquely refers to is well known involving the kidnapping by a so called protective parent of a child. This parent was subsequently arrested, jailed and tried but found to have personality related issues, which is not uncommon. She got a gender discount.

For future reference moms are the largest cohort of abusers and killers of children in the USA. They are also given sole custody of children in 84% of all cases in the USA. Ms. Russell's opinion which states otherwise is no more than that and is factually incorrect. Allegations of abuse are not proven facts of abuse. If allegations were the only criteria of proof most of the country would be in jail. I can easily cite you any number of allegations that are untrue and ought never be used to obfuscate the truth.

I am disappointed in your publication and frankly will have trouble believing anything that appears in it again.

Mike Murphy

I note Denis used the stats from the 1999 social survey by Stats Can. These are on a 5 year cycle and the 2004 numbers show a decline in DV between males and females. The numbers for that survey show an estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive Statistics Canada report on family violence.

www.statcan.gc.ca/.../d050714a.htm

DV is pretty much equal in Canada and men are injured although women are injured in greater frequency due to their smaller size. The interesting thing is in recent studies it shows females initiating the violence in over 70% of cases and also it shows they are less likely to be injured if they don't initiate it.

MJM

Posted: October 22, 2009, 6:30 PM by NP Editor

Full Comment, Stephen Taylor

Something on page 24 of the Liberal Pink Book leaped out at me:

Preventing Violence Against Women

Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence.

It’s pretty sloppy writing at best, deliberate partisan muddying on a serious issue at worst.

While the Pink Book doesn’t go on to say that Paul Martin supports child pornography and thus this gaffe will not be covered with the same vigor by the press, it deserves to be called out.

Consider that this sentence is similar:
Under Jean Chretien’s Liberal government, Canadians were murdered in the thousands.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/22/stephen-taylor-pink-book-implies-conservatives-support-violence-against-women.aspx?CommentPosted=true#ixzz0Umpj64NW

Oct 22 2009
7:15 PM

Under any current national government, whether Conservative or Liberal, Canadians are being murdered at the rate of one hundred thousand every year.

by rossbcan

Oct 22 2009
7:28 PM

"Preventing Violence Against Women"

By definition requires preemptive justice, speculation of "experts" (undoubtedly self interested and corrupt) that some freedoms (undoubtedly of males) must be curbed or aggression initiated (against males) because they "might" choose violence.

Same as Iraq, a war crime...

Nothing is REAL until the facts are on the table. We live in an action precedes consequence REALITY.

Law can only rationally respond after the facts are on the table. Anything else is irrational, telepathetic speculation. And, VERY DANGEROUS.

by Sassylassie

Oct 22 2009
7:43 PM

Preventing violence against women is liberal speakezze for pre-crime and thought crimes just like Section 13. It's smoke and mirrors, the libs had decades to do something for females and universial childcare and they did zip well they lavished funds on Quebec for childcare didn't they?

by WCF

Oct 22 2009
7:59 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but the majority of the violence in Vancouver region is from immigrants...Would it not make sense to conclude that Jean Chretien and all those Liberal PM's before him, who supported mass immigration, are at total fault for the murders in Vancouver?

by vanbengler

Oct 22 2009
8:46 PM

Hello all;

this you may find interesting: Source: Statistics Canada. Google search command: Number of homicides in Canada

Homicide offences, number and rate, by province and territory

(Number of homicides) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

homicides

Canada 549 624 663 606 594

Newfoundland and Labrador 5 2 11 7 3

Prince Edward Island 1 0 0 1 0

Nova Scotia 8 14 20 16 13

New Brunswick 8 7 9 7 8

Quebec 99 111 100 93 90

Ontario 178 187 219 196 201

Manitoba 43 50 49 39 62

Saskatchewan 41 39 43 42 30

Alberta 64 86 108 95 88

British Columbia 94 113 101 108 88

Yukon 1 7 1 0 2

Northwest Territories 4 4 0 0 2

Nunavut 3 4 2 2 7

Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, table (for fee) 253-0001.

Last modified: 2008-10-23.

Find information related to this table (CANSIM table(s); Definitions, data sources and methods; The Daily; publications; and related Summary tables).

interesting: Canadians being murdered by the hundreds of thousands? Somehow I don't think so . . .

By my calculations "we" have murdered 3036 citizens in the last five years . . . the latest statistics for murder rates in the USA in 2005 alone are over 16,000 . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

Brian Leslie Engler

by vanbengler

Oct 22 2009
9:13 PM

Hello all;

On every package of cigarrettes (you) buy it says that cancer contributed to by smoking killed 45,000 citizens last year alone.

And we are upset by a comparatively few violent murders . . . ?

Give me a break . . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by Denis Pakkala

Oct 22 2009
9:43 PM

The Liberal Pink Book will continue to erode the rights and liberty of men by acceptance of feminist ideology that only women are victims and men are perpetrators.

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/.../Intimate_Partner.pdf

Statistics Canada reports that "ALMOST EQUAL PROPORTIONS OF MEN AND WOMEN (7% and 8% respectively) had been the victims of intimate partner physical and psychological abuse (18% and 19% respectively). These findings were consistent with several earlier studies which reported equal rates of abuse by women and men in intimate relationships"

by vanbengler

Oct 22 2009
9:48 PM

Hey rossbcan;

Re "Law can only rationally respond after the facts are on the table. Anything else is irrational, telepathetic speculation. And, VERY DANGEROUS." (end quote)

Interestingly enough, I agree with you . . .

Now what is it really like having an idiot agree with you?

Gotcha . . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by Straightup

Oct 22 2009
9:48 PM

Aren't they liable for making false statements and accusations: Isn't that slander. Isn't that illegal outside the HoC...

Other than that...no one reads that crap anyways.

by GuyTron

Oct 22 2009
10:06 PM

Jon34 : 'Under any current national government, whether Conservative or Liberal, Canadians are being murdered at the rate of one hundred thousand every year.' - Say what? You say 1 in 300 people are murdered every year in Canada? That sounds way too high.

by GuyTron

Oct 22 2009
10:24 PM

Thanks for the stats vanbengler. According to those stats it seems unlikely that 100,000 Canadians were even murdered in the last Century.

Thanks Denis Pakkala for the stats. They bear a reasonable likeness to the ratios of males and females who suffer from depression related illness due to physical, sexual and mental abuse from parents and step parents in similar ratios of mothers and fathers doing the abuse. Until recently the stigma of males reporting abuse had the numbers extremely skewed. Mothers have been abusing their sons and daughters for generations with out being called out to answer for it and many institutions failed the children saying they were lying if they tried to make a complaint.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 22 2009
11:08 PM

In 2005 97,254 abortions were performed in Canada. This represents a ratio of about 30 abortions to every 100 live births.

by vanbengler

Oct 22 2009
11:11 PM

Hey GuyTron;

RE: "Mothers have been abusing their sons and daughters for generations with out being called out to answer for it and many institutions failed the children saying they were lying if they tried to make a complaint." (end quote)

My personal experience confirms this . . . and thank you for the observation.

Now the trick is getting people to recognize and admit that both fathers and mothers; not just fathers may and can be abusers . . . and that children are profundly negatively affected by abuse; whether it be from mom or dad; whether it be enabled by either mom or dad; or worst of all if both mom and dad are abusers . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by vanbengler

Oct 22 2009
11:14 PM

Hey GuyTron;

RE: "Say what? You say 1 in 300 people are murdered every year in Canada? That sounds way too high" (end quote)

Given the stats, why not accuse him of being a blatant liar? His post is in writing . . . and so are the stats as evidence.

Quite frankly I would say the evidence is conclusive . . . wouldn't you?

Brian Leslie Engler

by Seth Brundle

Oct 22 2009
11:23 PM

Worldwide annual death toll from abortion: 41.6 million October 15, 2009

by vanbengler

Oct 22 2009
11:35 PM

Hi Seth;

Conceding in advance that you are one of the more difficult posters to deal with here . . . ummm, what is your point?

Isn't it just a little off topic? If not, what is the connection to the topic? I don't get it: What is your point?

And here we go, a moralistic tirade (rant) from the self righteous "religious right" . . .

Brian Leslie Enlger

by Sassylassie

Oct 22 2009
11:48 PM

van lots of so called religious people get abortions, it's called gendercide via the cultural belief that women are inferior to male fetuses thus they abort female fetuses enmasse.

by Jacques3

Oct 22 2009
11:56 PM

If I was a woman serious about protecting herself against domestic violence, I'd get a gun.

It's the equalizer.

The police can never arrive in time to help a woman under attack by the (usually) much stronger man, and there are any number of cases in the past year where "restraining orders" were not worth the paper they were printed on.

So, the liberal policy of making it harder (and ultimately impossible) for anyone to get a gun is actually an assault on women's safety.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
12:07 AM

murder; put to death; suppress| destroy;

legalized murder, but murder none the less.

by Denis Pakkala

Oct 23 2009
12:11 AM

Jacques,

A commonly available kitchen knife or any household blunt object is a great equalizer for women who are typically physically smaller than men.

Statistics from the US DAHMW, show that male victims of domestic violence are often attacked with weapons.

Another great equalizer for women is that that police are trained to use the "dominant aggressor" assessment, which means that whoever is bigger gets arrested. Most often, this means men are arrested, regardless of who initiated or caused the violence.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
12:13 AM

Hey sassielassie;

Facts, please . . . by the way, I agree with you, but for the purposes of this conversation I would say that "a lot of" non-religious people get abortions too . . .

Now, how do we prove it?

And how is it relevant?

What difference does it make to you?

Brian Leslie Engler

by GuyTron

Oct 23 2009
12:14 AM

Sassylassie : '...thus they abort female fetuses enmasse.' - Not in Canada, we have laws against exactly that. It may happen but certainly not enmasse. There are almost twice as many females in my extended family than there are males. It is not a complaint but it proves your assertion does not hold water in this country.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
12:17 AM

Jacques if you were my wife and you got a gun, I wouldn't be able to get a bullet proof vest in BC to protect myself from domestic violence.

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
12:28 AM

@Seth Brundle

I suspect the reason that the law allows abortion is not so much out of concern for women, since there are alternatives to reduce the hardship of unwanted pregnancy and, adoption laws can be streamlined and made inexpensive. This is just a pretext.

IMHO, the real reason is to legally deem the unborn "not human" so they have no rights and we can therefore enslave them with public debt which they have had no choice in and will not benefit from. In other words, the unborn are modern Jews, fair game for enslavement and extermination.

Our ancestors did not allow public debt and insisted on fiscal discipline of balanced budgets, for this very reason.

We are so immoral and irresponsible. We will soon be facing the consequences of not paying attention to what is required to survive, as a civilization.

by GuyTron

Oct 23 2009
12:31 AM

Thanks Brian.

It was my experience as well. I finally sought help for my clinical depression a number of years ago, and was amazed to discover how evenly distributed abuse was during 18 weeks of group therapy. It was a real eye opener to hear how mothers fathers and spouses abused each other and their children and even how grown children abused their elder parents, aunts or uncles. I learned how to cope with my past and deal with things in the future and now have a healthy relationship with my entire family. I am glad I got help before I repeated the cycle of abuse, and I encourage everyone else who has been abused to get help as soon as they can especially if they have become abusers.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
12:34 AM

GuyTron;

With ultrasound it is now possible to determine the sex of a fetus before birth. Some cultures are shame/honour based. At the risk of over-simplifying, it is shameful to be female and honourable to be male.

In those cultures, female fetuses tend to be aborted at a higher freqencey than males. It is indeed called gendercide.

Additionally, and as a for instance (and I cannot quote source but it could probably be Googled - I haen't done that yet, but I have good invrmation)) in India if abortions are not performed, female babies (not fetuses) are literally disposed of.

While not entirely regarded as acceptable, this is regarded and acknowleged as a systemic cultural practise.

Is it wrong? I think so. Can I do anything about it? Probably not; except to let my own daughter know that I love her, that I respect her, and that I am very proud of her.

And she knows it.

Brian Leslie Engler

by GuyTron

Oct 23 2009
12:36 AM

Jacques and Seth - That kind of reasoning is... oh so immature!

If you are being abused... leave or get a divorce!

Two wrongs do not make either of you correct.

Both of you appear to need help, please seek it out.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
12:43 AM

Hey Jacques3;

Re: "If I was a woman serious about protecting herself against domestic violence, I'd get a gun.

So when the wife is the abuser, and the police can't arrive in time, should the man shoot her?

Brian Leslie Engler

Just wondering . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
12:45 AM

@GuyTron

"stigma of males reporting abuse"

held firm until there was a well heeled perp (RC church) to accuse and get compensated from. This attracted the legal "profession" who "follow the money"

Not implying that the abused were not, just pointing out that matters are not dealt with until there is profit.

And, I doubt that an abused male can get satisfaction from his abusing spouse unless he is poor and she is well heeled. In that case, he would get custody (relieve social system) and compensation.

In the converse case (well heeled male, poor female), she would get custody to reduce social burden and he would get the shaft and no satisfaction since, to legally sanction a mother harms children. This is NOT "the appearance of justice being done"

Statscan could easily and probably already has proven the inverse relationship between parental income and custody awards. Good luck getting these facts.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
1:05 AM

guytron

My response to Jacques was sarcasm.

vanbengel

The abortion post stats, were to throw some light on Jon34's post, as an aside prior to its legalization in 1969 it was considered murder, punishable by life in prison.

The law legalizing it was thrown out in 1988, and has not been replaced, but is is not a subject either the Liberals or Tories would touch with a ten foot pole.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
1:27 AM

Hey Seth,

What abortion post stats? What is your source? How do we know you're just not making it up?

Facts and source, please . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
1:28 AM

@Seth Brundle

Do you have a link or citation regarding "thrown out in 1988"?

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
1:37 AM

Hey SEth;

RE: "murder; put to death; suppress| destroy;

legalized murder, but murder none the less." (end quote)

You could just as easily say that about war, couldn't you?

Know of any wars going on right now? Just as a question: Are you defending these wars or condoning them?

Or are you opposed to them?

By the way, what is the source of your definition? Is it verifiable? Isa it even accurate? What have you taken out of context? What have you distorte? What have you evaded or avoided by not telling the truth?

Brian Leslie Engler

by Sassylassie

Oct 23 2009
1:37 AM

Sassylassie : '...thus they abort female fetuses enmasse.' - Not in Canada, we have laws against exactly that. It may happen but certainly not enmasse. There are almost twice as many females in my extended family than there are males. It is not a complaint but it proves your assertion does not hold water in this country.

End quote:--------------

Been to BC lately to see those Indo friendly ultra sound offices lately? Just because you say it does not make it so we have unrestricted abortions in Canada thanks to the Libs. No we don't have laws against gender abortions but feel free to prove me wrong but you can't. I don't care how many females are allowed to be born alive in your family my concern is those that are killed for being merely not male enough.. Forgot to mention all those females that were murdered and left in ditches in BC.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
1:43 AM

ross

en.wikipedia.org/.../Abortion_in_Canada

About half way down the page under history.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
1:50 AM

van

You could just as easily say that about war, couldn't you?

Better men than me have said it Van.

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

Albert Einstein

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
2:10 AM

Hey SEth;

Is this it?

In its decision (Morgentaler et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen [1988] (1 S.C.R. 30) at 37), the Court stated:

"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."

Wht do you not understand about "conscience" for instance?

That you are the only one who has one? That other people are not entitled to theirs?

That you shold be able to dictate morals and limit other people's freedom of conscience?

How would you like it if they did the same to you?

Brian Leslie Engler

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
2:12 AM

Hey Seth;

Better men indeed; I have read Einstein before, too . . .

But what do you say?

Do you support the war?

Just to prove it one way or another, I'll bet we could go back and find some posts, couldn't we?

Brian Leslie Engler

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
2:15 AM

Hey Seth;

Just to repeat;

By the way, what is the source of your definition?

Is it verifiable?

Is it even accurate?

What have you taken out of context?

What have you distorted?

What have you evaded or avoided by not telling the truth?

Brian Leslie Engler

Read more: network.nationalpost.com/.../342061.aspx

The New Financial Post Stock Market Challenge starts in October. You could WIN your share of $60,000 in prizing. Register NOW

by welldoneson

Oct 23 2009
2:19 AM

Seth, thanks for reminding us how full of wind Einstein was outside of his work on relativity.

by Tossed Salad

Oct 23 2009
2:34 AM

seth is the reason I am an independent. Until I pass something the size of a watermelon out of an orfice as small as a vagina I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body as long as I do not have to pay for it. Of course that is the question whether I have rights if I am damned to be a wallet for the rest of my life without my input.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
2:38 AM

welldoneson

Acclaimed by the world as a great revolutionist of theoretical physics, his bold speculations, now become basis doctrine, will be remembered when mankind`s present troubles are long forgotten…"

focus.aps.org/.../st10

van the source of my definition is from the Latin for murder, neco

www.latin-dictionary.org/.../neco

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
2:46 AM

Hey SEth;

I guess that's a GOTCHA: I love this game . . .

Brian Leslie Engler

by MikeMurphy

Oct 23 2009
2:46 AM

"Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence."

This is similar to many feminist statements and myths about DV.

Its interesting to observe feminist lawyers who will assert, for example, that over 50 allegations of abuse were made against a dad seeking access to a child. The purpose in making the statement to the judge and the press was to vilify the dad and not allow him access. All of the allegations were made by the mother - none were proven - but the mere fact they were made is used as a weapon against dads frequently.

An article recently appeared in the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) again using the same tactics. allegations = fact. Always read between the lines and never believe a feminist statement without fact checking. My letter to the CSM with respect to that misinformation is as follows:

Re: Christian Science Monitor, 10/14/09. Author Kathleen Russell

You allowed this author to publish unsubstantiated claims with respect to cases in Marin County CA, and offering unsupported and erroneous information relating to a theory of abuse of children called Parental Alienation Syndrome.

I am guessing this was offered to the author as an opinion piece and was published without authentication by your editor. You will escape liability for slander on it because she didn't name names but one of the cases she obliquely refers to is well known involving the kidnapping by a so called protective parent of a child. This parent was subsequently arrested, jailed and tried but found to have personality related issues, which is not uncommon. She got a gender discount.

For future reference moms are the largest cohort of abusers and killers of children in the USA. They are also given sole custody of children in 84% of all cases in the USA. Ms. Russell's opinion which states otherwise is no more than that and is factually incorrect. Allegations of abuse are not proven facts of abuse. If allegations were the only criteria of proof most of the country would be in jail. I can easily cite you any number of allegations that are untrue and ought never be used to obfuscate the truth.

I am disappointed in your publication and frankly will have trouble believing anything that appears in it again.

I note Denis used the stats from the 1999 social survey by Stats Can. These are on a 5 year cycle and the 2004 numbers show a decline in DV between males and females. The numbers for that survey show an estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive Statistics Canada report on family violence.

www.statcan.gc.ca/.../d050714a.htm

DV is pretty much equal in Canada and men are injured although women are injured in greater frequency due to their smaller size. The interesting thing is in recent studies it shows females initiating the violence in over 70% of cases and also it shows they are less likely to be injured if they don't initiate it.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
2:53 AM

Tossed salad this is the real world, even today a majority of decisions to procure an abortion are made by men, the supreme court decisions were made by men. Woman today still have to submit to the will of men with respects to their right to have or not have a child.

by Rhino Party Whip

Oct 23 2009
3:01 AM

Mike and Denis: We have tangled in the past but I think you are spot on with this issue.

I believe there is a chilling effect on married men that short circuits normal conflict resolution out of bald terror.

This can't be healthy, and I suspect it contributes to massive blow outs.

In short, is the DV industry exacerbating the problem?

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
3:11 AM

Hey Seth;

"murder" at law: the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously

slang: Something extremely difficult or perilous. i.e. "that final exam was murder"

To spoil or mar through incompetence i.e. " to murder a tune".

Any rebuttal?

Lets hear some of those great excuses, huh?

Still Gotcha

Brian Leslie Engler

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
3:31 AM

van

To kill or slaughter inhumanly

as opposed to humanely murdering someone.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
3:48 AM

Seth;

I already recognize that you are as slippery as an unscrupulous lawyer. And I am being very polite.

You've been had.

Now you're using my definition . . . . because your definition was indefensible and found to be spurious . . .

Pretty much like everything else you say . . . .

So, I am retiring from the field of battle.

Perhaps we will engage again.

I enjoyed it, and thanks.

Best wishes and good luck

Brian Leslie Engler

by Rhino Party Whip

Oct 23 2009
3:49 AM

Engler, Seth. You two are perfect for each other. If you would stop whapping each other with you big dictionaries and flexing your factoid muscles for a minute, you'd be BFF.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
4:07 AM

Hey Whino Patsy Whimp;

You and I are perfect for each other too.

Now: Take a good look in that mirror:

Ten seconds,

Really hard slap

Head in the toilet

Let it soak in for a while.

Good vacuum assisted flush

Where were we again?

Oh yes, in a Court room and Exhibit "SFB".

Thats "shit for brains" for Seth's information.

Good night; enjoyed, and best wishes and good luck to you too

Best regards,

Brian

by MikeMurphy

Oct 23 2009
4:26 AM

@by Rhino Party Whip Oct 23 2009

3:01 AM

______________________________

The DV industry in Canada is a heavily invested and multi-faceted ecosystem to promulgate misandry against men. It is the epicentre of today's 3rd wave Feminist movement focusing on victimization of women. It is called Victim, Gender or Life Boat Feminism.

Within this Industry an ideology surrounding a psuedo-scientific mantra is used that posits a patriarchy rules all women's lives and they are victims of it. It is called the Duluth Wheel and in its simplest form describes all men as abusers and women victims. According to it we men use control on females as a primary mechanism whether it be psychological or physically coercive.

That is why the feminists will tell you there are not enough women in whatever positions they identify to you whether it is MP's or in the Board Room. All things that are wrong with females not getting to high office (even if they are) are because men dictate they should not be there.

This, of course, gets feminists off the hook for everything based on merit or choice because they are mere malleable puppets in our hands. It is though they are still children in adult bodies.

It is all bunk of course but they believe it to the core and like any ideology if it is challenged they yell loudly enough that the eunuchs in the political, judicial, lawyering, and chattering classes turn on their politically correct persona and dutifully do what they are told. Iggy doesn't truly believe the crap but has no choice but to go along with it because he has been eunuchized. (similar to lobotomized but a different organ is involved) That is truly a pandemic amongst the political classes, with some notable exceptions, and there is no current vaccine other than common sense which gets seriously vaporized within the feminist rhetoric.

It is my view the DV industry exacerbates the friction involved in divorce and may be the reason for some of the more egregious acts of violence. They counsel their clients to make false allegations, leave the family, use the Duluth Wheel to indoctrinate the client to the ways of victim feminism, and offer no hope the family can be salvaged due to the psycho-babble inherent in the ideology they use. They also get all clients to sign non-disclosure agreements so the truth will not get out from their umbrella of secrecy.

Gosh I'm starting to write another chapter in my book again but this does arouse a passion in me. Let me close by advising there is great interconnectedness between the DV shelters, the lawyers in family law, academics seeking tax money for studies of women at shelters, the Police, Legal Aid Agencies in each province, the DOJ in each Province and the Status of Women Canada the lead victim feminist agency in the country. Each Province has on its payroll similar ideologues. In Ontario alone the Minister for Status of Women has $208,000,000.00 for female related issues and if you include legal aid it is far more. Chris Bentley, AG, Ontario's leading Eunuch in the Attorney Generals Department just found $170,000,000.00 more for legal aid 70% of which is targeted at women.

There is 0, non, nada, targeted for men's issues and not one tax supported DV shelter for men in the country even though at least one third of serious injuries from inter partner violence happens to men. This does not include men who are psychologically destroyed by women with serious personality problems. There is about 550 women's tax supported shelters in Canada.

DV is a serious issue but in the overall scheme of things gets far greater prominence that it should. For example when you compare the rate of homicide of intimate partners on a million couple basis you will find 999,997 women do not kill their spouse and 999,992 men do not kill their female partner. Feminists would have you believe every women is in imminent danger of her male partner. It is bogus and a canard but we have two generations of brainwashed men and women to untether from their mental image of the problem. Barb Kay is one such very brave journalist and more are realizing the mythology is hurting families and women themselves.

by Seth Brundle

Oct 23 2009
4:37 AM

RPW

Coming from IainGFould beatch thats too funny.

by Rhino Party Whip

Oct 23 2009
5:03 AM

Mike: I don't know how you have the wherewithal to synthesize all the depressing data into cogent statements, but a pussywhipped nation thanks you.

When you are done, you must look at how this well known yet unarticulated situation affects people who have not yet hit the grinder of divorce proceedings.

I live in abject terror of crossing the sisterhood.

by Rhino Party Whip

Oct 23 2009
5:21 AM

I would put $100 into solid polling to that effect, Mike.

by vilda

Oct 23 2009
6:02 AM

What nonsense and when did the Liberals care?It was 1200 women who ensured women's equal rights were enshrined in the Constitution. The Liberals had exempted them. Cry me a river is the song they should be singing.

by vanbengler

Oct 23 2009
6:20 AM

Hey Whino Patsy Whimp;

RE: "I live in abject terror of crossing the sisterhood."

I am not:

That's one of the differences between you and I; as perfect as we are for each other: I am not a Whino, a Patsy or a Whimp.

Brian Leslie Engler

by Jon34

Oct 23 2009
7:21 AM

Under any recent national government, whether Conservative or Liberal, Canadians are murdered at the rate of one hundred thousand every year.

Forced (i.e. induced) abortion is murder because it is illegally killing a human being. Currently it is not illegal according to Canadian law because there is no Canadian law on abortion. It remains, however, a violation of the Sixth Commandment; for background and context on the Sixth Commandment refer to God's covenant with our father Noah at the re-creation (renewal) of the earth after the Flood (Genesis 9). Needless to say, God is a much higher authority than the Supreme Court of Canada.

I am a Christian before I am a Canadian.

by ZeeBC

Oct 23 2009
8:37 AM

Liberal Pinko book. Is that a watered down recycled version of Mao's Little Red Book?

by MikeMurphy

Oct 23 2009
2:03 PM

@ZEEBC: The feminist movement itself is a collective and has its origins in Marxism. There are, within 3rd wave feminism, hard core ideologues who want to empower women at the expense of men and the family. In other words the current operation of the Family Law System subscribes to the notion if you are a man you are disposable. Judges award mom over 90% of physical custody in Canada. They, with some notable exceptions, are Eunuchs cow towing to political correctness brought on by victim oriented feminists. Does anyone really believe 90% of dads are that bad. I hope not.

Any man not caught up in family Law directly or through family does not know their relative worth in this country and in the U.S.A. Men are the economic engine, however, to maintain the current unilateral divorce system. Your ex, as 75% of Canadian women in divorce do, will file for divorce and you will have to spend 10's of thousands of dollars to stay in your children's lives at a rate greater than 14%. You have gone from an equal to a revenue spigot and will be required to pay for child support, possibly spousal support and your soon to become ex can move the boyfriend in with the children and he will see them 24/7. Statistically this will put them in greater danger of molestation and abuse.

Under no fault or unilateral divorce she can have committed criminal actions against you, have adulterous affairs and unless you can prove she is a drug addict she will get custody. You can thank the feminists, lawyers and gutless judges and politicians for this.

The wife or partner if cohabiting may have taken a trip to your local DV shelter to get a leg up on custody where she will get the complete package on how to twist the knife. A lawyer referral will result from this visit which starts the process of settlement and/or litigation. The man's lawyer will have told him you stand no chance at getting custody so cut your losses and take what you can get.

If it does go through the courts the average lawyer will receive something like $25,000.00 for his services from each party. Lawyers along with feminists do not want an amendment to the Divorce Act that would give a presumption of equal shared parenting to both fit parents as their current entitlements will be less.

This is an average. If the parties have deep pockets it can go over $300,000.00 and last for a decade. This happened recently in Toronto where a surgeon sought custody of his children who were severely alienated by the mom who has serious personalty problems. The dad finally won custody using very expensive expert witnesses and the judge, Faye McWatt, even gave the dad legal costs in her later judgment.

They have brought up the canard of DV as a reason. See my previous post on the mythology of DV. The legislation is for fit parents and in most western democracies the children are in greatest danger from a single mom and worse still if her new boyfriend moves in.

I do go on but the stories of feminist influence in so many areas of our national discourse are legend and mostly false. In London Ontario the Police Chief, Murray Faulkner, is a disciple of feminist mythology and in a case involving one of his active duty officers, a female, who killed a retired officer she was in a relationship with did not get classified as DV. The DV death rate is then highly suspect and this does women no favours and continues to hurt all men. This case happened in 2007 with Acting Police Inspector Kelly Johnson (female) killing Dave Lucio. She did this when Mr. Lucio was contemplating an end to the relationship with the intention of reconciling with his wife.

Many of us are working diligently through advocacy to change the rules. One of those is a Private Members Bill C-422 giving a rebuttal presumption of equal shared parenting for two fit parents as they do in some European countries and to a degree in Australia and several US States.

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
3:41 PM

@MikeMurphy

The educational stats which show a preponderance of females should be looked at a more closely.

Males have a preponderance in the hard sciences which cannot be subverted, else airplanes would start falling out of the sky, equations would not balance and everything technological would fail, because the laws of nature ruthlessly punish FALSITY.

Females have a preponderance in the so called social "sciences" which, IMHO, are highly subverted to achieve "social engineering". Since they are FALSE, it is just a matter of time before it all implodes, by natural law (actions inevitably have consequences).

When a the showdown between reality and opinion inevitably occurs, reality will win, because ALL of natural law is in support of those who use it.

In other words, females have been duped and educationally subverted. Their degrees (and power) becomes USELESS once it is socially accepted that "inequality under law", affirmative action, enslaving some to favor others is a social / economic dead end and threat to peace, order and good government or, civilization (the rules by which we cooperate for MUTUAL self-interest), in general.

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
3:47 PM

@MikeMurphy

"unless you can prove she is a drug addict she will get custody"

Wrong in my case, which you have already checked out.

BTW, I have been meaning to tell you for some time that you are asking the right questions, appear to have the basic knowledge and skills regarding how to fight to win.

Our efforts constitute a complementary pincer movement, boxing our enemies in. They try to counter me, they run into you. They try to counter you, they run into me.

by Denis Pakkala

Oct 23 2009
4:03 PM

Great discussion Men.

This is the result of several decades of manginas in abject terror of crossing the sisterhood.

Mike Murphey is doing great things for equality, more men need to speak up for equal rights.

by Advokat

Oct 23 2009
4:26 PM

Jon34: There is no such thing as 'god's law' because there is no god.

In any event, silly christian myths have no place in reasoned, rational discussion among adults. Apart from the silliness of the jesus lie, Canada has a separation of church and state, which renders religious dogma irrelevant t legislation... But if you want to follow god's law, or fairy law, or any other made up rules, go for it... Just don't be surprised when you are prosecuted if you breach Canadian law.

Abortion is not murder, in Canada. Seth's semantic games demonstrate nothing more than abject ignorance of the law. 'Murder' is a legal designation that applies ONLY if the killing is unlawful; abortion is legal and therefor cannot be murder. You may not like it, but them's the facts, dude...

by Tossed Salad

Oct 23 2009
4:29 PM

Hit www.glennsacks.com or mensactivism.org, etc.

If you can weed out the radicals and the American slant this is just one of many sites dedicated to mens issues. There are many links to other sites which deal with the problems men face vis a vis domestic violence, pa, etc. The word is getting out as I have stated. It is a trickle but it is going to take years (the gender feminists have over 40 years on us) for change but it is coming and there will be segments of society who will pay for their crimes and make no mistake they are crimes. I would be very afraid.

by Tossed Salad

Oct 23 2009
4:31 PM

Denis: Don't forget to include SassyLassie in in the discussion and IMO she is all woman.

by Denis Pakkala

Oct 23 2009
4:48 PM

There is currently a debate between leading domestic violence researchers, Dutton and Stark at www.mensnewsdaily.com

For many years, feminist researchers have avoided publically debating their ideology. It is fantastic that these debates are starting to happen and more men and women are supportive of real equality.

Sassy is primarily anti-liberal and anti-feminism and not necessarily pro-equality. I often sense that she is also supportive of traditional norms, which discriminates against both men and women.

by MikeMurphy

Oct 23 2009
5:11 PM

@rossbcan:

You are right in terms of the fields. Prof. Perry has charted 2005-6 data by bachelor's degree here mjperry.blogspot.com/.../female-male-breakdown-college-degrees.html and he has links to the raw data as well as post grad breakdowns.

My analysis of the family law field is an average situation and there are exceptions such as yourself. The exceptions usually come at a great emotional and/or financial cost for the dad but some do stay in the fray and fight until their money or emotional capital run out. My money has run out but I have copious quantities of emotional capital and the best thing of all -an undying love of my children who deserve their father in their lives more than 14% of the time to provide gender balance. Dr. Ed Kruk, of UBC has shown through research a parent needs at least 40% of time with their children to retain a parental bond.

One of my favourite father quotes is as follows:

“The job of a father is this : to help his children develop, to teach them to express and master their emotions; to avoid physiological distress, to provide a context for their experiences; to help them persevere, reach their goals and take on responsibilities; and to instil the roles of citizen, partner and parent. In short, it is to fill their bellies with bread, their brains with wisdom and their hearts with love and courage.” Camil Bouchard, “On Father’s Ground” 2002.

I add one more that is more explicit. Biological Fathers are the best protectors of their children on the face of the earth.

With no money it's problematic but necessity being the parent of invention causes one to adapt and learn the law and the administrative mechanisms in making your case.

We will regain our equality in family law eventually but persistance and patience are the hallmarks of getting there. The ultimate winners wil be our children and by vanquishing the mythology of Victim Feminism all women will benefit.

Then all of us can fight for human equality and dignity without the gender wars now in place.

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
6:00 PM

@Advokat

Me again, just to remind you exactly what I think regarding fake rationalizers and your "profession" in general. Collective "pitchforks and torches" in social self-defense time is approaching

'god's law'

I am tempted to throw you out of a plane at altitude, so you can learn how effective "man's law" is in saving you from the consequence of having mass in a gravity field, at a very high altitude, just one of god's laws as is the FACT that a fetus is a potential human being, no matter how much sharp hair splitting to deny reality is done.

And, since I know how much you enjoyed this last time, I will repeat myself:

"Isn't the logic behind your anti-lawyer rant..."

No, my anti-lawyer rant is based on the fact that your entire "profession" is based on opinion, with no objective measures and, we are all in a moral hazard (trap) position as a consequence, because how can we OBEY the law if we have no clue what "judicial discretion" will choose? Plus the fact that there are too many laws (some contradictory) and no basic principles that mere idiots such as myself can follow and be safe from you conflict creating bottom feeders (predators). I reject your "professions" artificially created reality that I must pay and consult your profession to protect myself from your profession. Yours is a protection racket, a zero sum game, with no winners except lawyers.

I concede the fact that some lawyers fight for "good" and others for "evil". Most lawyers fight for both, at one time or another, depending on client need to win. The Ying cancels the Yang, at a hefty and predatory cost. A pox on you all.

But, there is method in my madness. I hope that enough lawyers and judges will realize that theirs is a lost game and the prey must eventually turn on the predator. The only hope for your "profession" is to realize that people can only be tricked and fleeced for so long before they defend themselves. The only survival choice for your profession (and civilization) is to represent factual, objective law which is:

a) Sanction (and fully compensate victims - not yourselves) these who initiate aggression or cause harm.

b) Sanction (and fully compensate victims - not yourselves) those who disobey:

http://www.cli.gs/RuleOfLaw

In other words: Get objectively REAL or ELSE

As you can see, I KNOW my enemy. Nothing I have said above is unfair or untrue. It is a just verdict. It will not be long before social consensus is again achieved: Corrupt, fallible man CANNOT justly rule free persons and keep the peace. We need the "rule of law" back. It doesn't matter how many stacks of bibles one swears on. Actions speak louder than words.

And yes, if necessary, I can, have and will self-represent myself in court. Rule #4 of survival: Do not feed you enemy.

Clear enuf?

Oh yea, "scofflaw" and "lack of respect for authority or my self-proclaimed betters" is water off a ducks back.

I so enjoy rants such as this. Highly recommend as therapy and stress control.

by rossbcan

Oct 23 2009
6:06 PM

@Advokat

"abortion is legal and therefor cannot be murder."

Exactly what the Nazis said regarding Jews, when they were "legally" defined as "non human".

In all fairness, I would be tempted to define lawyers as "non human" also. Its all a matter of who has the most guns and what their agenda is.

by Advokat

Oct 23 2009
6:26 PM

Ross: We all know your views on lawyers, and as tempting as it may be to engage you on that, I know that there really is no point. Clearly you have had at least one run in with a lawyer that has left you with serious anger issues, and I am not going to waste my time. A psychiatrist would be much more helpful to you on that point than anything that I can offer in defense of my former profession.

That said, your attempt to equate abortion with the Nazi's 'final solution' is just plain silly. Are you really so wrapped up in the anti-choice movement that you are unable to distinguish the difference?!?

I am, as you may have guessed, staunchly pro-choice. But even I will admit that abortion is an issue on which intelligent minds can disagree. It is only raving fanatics and simpletons who see the world in black and white extremes - or who try to draw parallels between abortion rights (which more than half the population supports) and the holocaust.

But seriously, Ross, your 'lawyer hatred' is obviously consuming you to the point of distraction. Day after day, you post these ridiculous rants about how evil lawyers, masking your ignorance of the profession and the law with words you have obviously pulled from a thesaurus in a failed attempt to convey some sort of intellectual superiority. (On a side note, a very gifted writer once told me that if you can't articulate an idea using words that a child can understand, then the idea is probably not worth very much). Get help, man... They are doing wonderful things with medication these days...

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/22/stephen-taylor-pink-book-implies-conservatives-support-violence-against-women.aspx?CommentPosted=true#ixzz0UmpX1n6F