B.C. cops sorry for injuring man in mistaken arrest

I've been making comments on the corporate culture of the London, ON Police Service led by a leading Canadian misandrist Murray Faulkner in the London Free Press. This is a classic example of the corporate culture in many Police departments across the country.

If you are male and have been accused by a female you are guilty before charged but in this case you are tried, convicted, sentenced,  and punished before trial and you are just plain guilty for being a man. The idiot cops had the wrong residence and the wrong person.

What if the allegations made against the other man are not even true?MJM

CTV News Channel: Vancouver police apologize

Police in Vancouver are investigating after a man wrongfully accused in a domestic dispute claimed he was beaten.

Watch:  http://watch.ctv.ca/news/#clip258387

Yao Wei Wu suffered injuries after Vancouver police mistakenly arrested him at his East Vancouver home, Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010.

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Fri. Jan. 22 2010 10:48 AM ET

Vancouver Police are apologizing to a man who was injured in an arrest last week -- in what ended up being a case of mistaken identity that was further complicated by language barriers.

Nine days after the incident, Yao Wei Wu still bears the marks of the cuts and bruises to his face, legs and torso. His left eye is swollen shut. On Thursday night when he spoke to CTV B.C., there was still blood spattered outside his front door.

In the apology statement issued Thursday, police said they knocked on the wrong door while investigating allegations of domestic violence.

Police say on Jan. 12, two plain-clothes officers responded to a 911 call by a woman who said her husband beat her, and she was concerned for the safety of their baby.


The officers went to a home in southeast Vancouver, but did not realize there were two separate suites in the house.

The statement says the officers knocked on the wrong door and spoke with Wu, who does not speak English well.
The statement says Wu, 44, tried to close the door but police forced their way in, believing a woman in the suite had placed the 911 call.

The police statement does not describe how Wu sustained the injuries.

Wu told CTV B.C. he understood the men when they identified themselves as police, but said they yanked him from his home and beat him as soon as he opened the door.


He alleged they asked for his name only after they beat him.

He showed reporters a torn white T-shirt he claims was ripped during the incident.

Wu was arrested and taken to hospital, where Cantonese speaking officers were called in to translate. They eventually sorted out the mistake.


"The VPD regrets any inconvenience or trauma this may have caused the family," the police statement said.
Police told CTV B.C. that they will launch a "full and thorough investigation."

Police say they eventually did find the correct suite and charged a man with assault.
With files from CTV B.C.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100122/mistaken_identity_100122/20100122?hub=TopStoriesV2

Vancouver police change story on arrest that saw innocent man injured

 

 

By GERRY BELLETT, Vancouver Sun   January 22, 2010 6:32 PM   Comments (105)

 

 

 

 

More Images »

 

Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu Friday retracted a statement issued Thursday, Jan. 21, 2009 that an innocent man, Yao Wei Wum was injured because he had resisted arrest by police officers investigating a case of domestic violence.

Photograph by: Augustine Siu, Ming Pao Daily Vancouver

VANCOUVER - Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu today retracted a statement issued Thursday that an innocent man was injured because he had resisted arrest by police officers investigating a case of domestic violence

"I want to make it perfectly clear that we do not stand by those statements," Chu said.

Yao Wei Wu, 44, who lives in Southeast Vancouver was confronted at 2:20 a.m. by two plainclothes police officers called to the residence where a woman was being attacked by her husband.

The officers in their haste to help the woman had gone to the wrong basement suite, said Chu.
According to an initial police media release, Wu's injuries came because he "resisted by striking out at police and trying to slam the door."

Chu said the statement was "premature" and an investigation was underway to determine what happened.
On Thursday evening Chu attended Wu's residence and apologized for the injuries and trauma suffered by he and his family.

He also apologized for the initial statement and the "further discomfort this may have caused,"

"We empathize with Mr. Wu and his family. Regardless of the fact we were rushing to the scene for all the right reasons an innocent man was arrested and injured in the process," said Chu.

Another issue to be dealt with is whether the officers identified themselves as police before the confrontation and whether the "force used in the arrest was appropriate," said Chu.

Chu said the investigation is being undertaken on behalf of the Office of Police Complaint Commissioner.
Once the officers discovered they had the wrong man a suspect was arrested and is facing charges.
The two officers involved are on their regular days off.

Chu said police investigators would be meeting with Wu later Friday for more information on the incident.
"I want to say how seriously we are taking this matter and how deeply sorry we are to Mr. Wu for what happened."

CHIEF CONSTABLE JIM CHU'S FULL STATEMENT:
JANUARY 22nd, 2010

Last night I went to the home of Mr. Yao Wei Wu to apologize personally and on behalf of the Vancouver Police Department for the injuries and trauma he and his family have experienced after he became the victim of mistaken identity.

Around 2:20 yesterday morning, our officers went to his residence in response to a domestic assault call. The officers were told the caller was a woman with a baby and that her husband was on scene and was assaulting her.

The officers were initially told this crime in progress was at an address in East Vancouver. Later on, the caller clarified that she resided in the basement suite and the entry was in the back.

So as you can surmise, our two officers arrived at the right address but knocked on the wrong door.
In our initial media release we said that Mr. Wu resisted arrest and was injured in the process.

I want to make it perfectly clear this morning that we do not stand by that statement.

This was information that was premature and released as fact when in reality only the current investigation into the matter can determine the details of what happened.

We regret any further discomfort this may have caused Mr. Wu.

We empathize with the Wu family and how upsetting this incident must be for them.

Regardless of the fact that we were rushing to the scene for all the right reasons, an innocent man was arrested and injured in the process.

We are very sorry for that.

Other police officers arrived at this location and a suspect was arrested in the domestic violence call. We expect charges will be laid in this case.

Our investigation into what happened with Mr. Wu will examine the chain of events including the dispatch call, the issue of whether we properly identified ourselves as police and whether the force used in the arrest was appropriate.

The Office of the Police Complaints Commission will oversee the investigation.

I will say once again in closing, how seriously we are taking this matter and how deeply sorry we are for what happened to Mr. Wu.

THE INITIAL ERRONEOUS VANCOUVER POLICE STATEMENT
Police Apologize
2010-01-21

Vancouver Police have formally and personally apologized to a 44 year old city man who was arrested in a case of mistaken identity.

In the early morning hours of January 21, 2010, two plain-clothes VPD officers were responding to a 911 call of a domestic incident. They were told by dispatch that a woman called to report that her drunken husband was hitting her and she was concerned for the safety of their baby.

The officers responded to a southeast Vancouver home, but didn't realize there were two separate residences in the house. Unfortunately for all involved, they knocked on the wrong door and encountered a middle-aged man who didn't understand English very well and would later say he didn't realize the men at his door were police.
The man resisted by striking out at the police and trying to slam the door, but the officers persisted in the belief that there may be a woman and child inside who could be in danger.

The man was arrested and received minor injuries to his face in the process. Police called for medical assistance and the man was transported to VGH as a precautionary measure. Cantonese speaking officers were also called to explain to the family why the police had made this mistake.

The VPD regrets any inconvenience or trauma this may have caused the family.
In related information, police did respond to the correct suite immediately after, where they met the complainant who said her drunken partner had hit her in the back of the head following an argument and then fled.

Police located the man nearby and arrested him for assault.

Click here to see more photos of Yao Wei Wu

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

London Police Chief whose Feminist bias he wears on his feet wants a raise

My comments left at the London Free Press site but given their very Liberal Left bias they are unlikely to publish them. Below left the cross dressing Police Chief Murray Faulkner

I understand Faulkner has created an in-house administrative system to collect statistics which he loves to use. I also understand he  likes to use Peter Jaffe's cherry picked studies to justify his activities as they relate to Domestic Violence. I say cherry picked because Jaffe avoids doing broad based scientific studies and mostly uses people who are or have been in a DV shelter and then plays down female perpetrated violence against men which in some studies shows a 70% initiation rate.  He then uses this info to give the impression it is applicable to the population as a whole. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Apparently Faulkner will register a conviction in his administrative system when in fact no such thing occurred. A person may not even go to trial, may have done nothing wrong but agree to an administrative arrangement to avoid high legal costs at trial. This is not an admission of guilt nor was any conviction registered in court. Faulkner though buttresses his statistics by recording an administrative conviction that never happened.  Are these some of the facts he uses to get what he wants. Next time you see him walking the streets in his red stilettos ask him if he has any biases in his work?  Here is one way Faulkner may be registering a higher conviction rate and this practice is not uncommon. Dr. Phil among others keeps uncovering false allegations made against men that have life changing consequences. http://www.drphil.com/videos/?Url=/house/flv/8041_1.flv&background=header_drphil_video.jpg  Would Faulkner while wearing his red stilettos entertain this to increase his conviction rate?MJM

police budget

Facts support police budget increase

Ian Gillespie's opinion published on Jan. 8 titled Police budget not justified by crime reflects the adage that "one should not let facts get in the way of a good story." Unfortunately, rhetoric such as this causes unnecessary division within our community and mistrust of the police service, apparently in an attempt to create controversy where it does not exist.

As chief of police, I have never used crime rates to support the budget. Most who understand the complexities of crime rates will understand the rationale in not using them.

The London police department is a community service, and therefore, our budget is based on demands for our service by the citizens of London. Demands also are imposed upon us from the courts and through government regulations and legislation. If the demands for service begin to exceed our capability to respond, it is my responsibility to make this clear to everyone.

None of the positive facts has been articulated in this paper by those who attended the committee of the whole budget presentation last week, so I feel it is incumbent on me to state facts that all taxpayers should know.

Fact No. 1: Ministry of Municipal Affairs financial information returns compared Tier 1 police services, which are services that are solely municipal, not regional. For 2008 (the most recent reporting), London police service expenditures as a percentage of the total property tax levy were second lowest of all Ontario Tier 1 municipalities.

Fact No. 2: Statistics Canada reports that for 2008, London police service per-capita costs were the third lowest of all Ontario municipalities with a population greater than 100,000.

Fact No. 3: Maclean's magazine this year ranked the best/worst run cities in Canada. As a city, London was ranked No. 7 -- the highest ranking of any Ontario city. In safety and protection, though, London ranked second in Canada.

Fact No. 4: Police Resources in Canada - 2008 shows total police expenditures increased on average by 46.3% from 2002 through 2008. In the same period, the London police service increase was 53.9%, which included the hiring of 85 police officers, authorized by municipal council in response to demands for service.

Fact No. 5: Too many police in our city? Not true! In 2008, London had one police officer for every 620 citizens. In 2007, the average in Ontario was one to 522 citizens and in Canada one to 512 citizens.

When Gillespie asks that "somebody -- anybody at city hall stand up to Chief Murray Faulkner and stop giving in to his department's seemingly endless demands," one must remember it is not my department; it is London's department. They are not my demands, but the public's demands for protection and service.

If it is facts you want, I have more. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I never have and never will use the overall crime rate to justify the budget.
Posted By: Murray Faulkner, chief of police for the city of London, london
Posted On: January 19, 2010
Editors Note: As published in The London Free Press on Jan. 19, 2010.

Comments

LFP A great friend told me once, "if you dont read the news, you're un-informed, if you do, you're mis-informed". The LFP should start looking at the second point of view and stop the bias

Posted By: Zabia

I'm not buying it either. The fact that Chief Faulkner had his opportunity when he and Mr.Gillespie met, to state his peace, only to read a more non-favorable article, tells me that Mr.Gillespie didn't buy the Chief's bluff. The fact that Mr. Faulkner is now trying to defend the article through these letters, may tell me that Mr.Gillespie refuses to interview the Chief any further, due to the Chief's conduct. Could it be possible that no one at the Free Press will interview the Chief? Has the Chief burned his bridges at the Free Press? Hence, this being his only source of media. Should Mr. Faulkner's budget not get passed, it will be interesting to see just how long afterwards it will be before he resigns.

Posted By: Robert Hebblethwaite

Faulkner's Letter to the Editor Faulkner's so-called Fact No. 6: On October 22, 2008, at a Community Consultation Meeting at London Police Headquarters in relation to the budget, Chief Faulkner claimed, "Last year (2007), in Ontario, 94% of all Domestic Violence-related homicides were perpetrated by men." The London Police Service In-House Domestic Violence Statistics that I recently obtained show that for the period between April 1 to June 30, 2007 (that "last year" period), there were "0" female-perpetrated Domestic Violence Homicides. Many will recall that Kelly Johnson's murder of Dave Lucio occurred DURING that same quarterly period of time, namely June 7, 2007. What does this mean? Specifically that Murray Faulkner did not classify Kelly Johnson's murder as an incident of Domestic Violence, even though it was the classic "If I can't have you, nobody can" DV situation. The result was a blatant misrepresentation of the so-called statistics that Mr. Faulkner alleged to be true during that budget meeting on October 22, 2008. Since Murray Faulkner is so willing to misrepresent the truth about one of London's most tragic recent events such as the murder of Dave Lucio, one wonders what sort of classification games he has played with his other so-called facts stated in his recent Letter to the Editor.

Posted By: Brad Charlton

police Here we go once again! The dynamic duo of Brad and Rob trying to promote their ridiculous agenda! Okay Brad, lets classify the Johnson/Lucio incident a case of domestic violence. Thats not going to change the statistics that drastically! Its a fact that most domestic violent incidents involve the male as the aggressor. Just read the papers and watch the news. You don't even need the statistics, in fact, they would just prove my point. Just because the Chief doesn't classify that incident as a domestic violence incident, doesn't mean men aren't more violent because they are! Why don't you both get a life and find a more noble cause to fight for like the starving children in the world or the Haiti relief effort.

Posted By: Steve

Faulkner & police budget increase (Spell Corr Reading the letter thread on this topic I felt on the one hand that I could add so much in supportive evidence to the letters of Mike Murphy Brad Charlton and Robert Hebblewaite but it would take hours and the limits of the letter page in terms of characters would not do the submission justice. On the other hand while thinking of the suggestion of Faulkner's resignation a song by the Beatles written and performed in 1965 came to mind "it Won't be Long Yeah" The readers can apply their own words to suit. Should the words of the song prove to ever be prophetic (and I think they will) men in London will be safer and they might even one day see equal unbiased justice and policing services again. We can only hope. In the meantime I am humming that tune...

Posted By: Jeremy Swanson

 Brad Charlton posted a letter to the editor in the London Free Press commenting further on Chief Faulkner`s letter above:

Faulkner's Facts are Sometimes Fiction

London Police Chief Murray Faulkner submitted his own Letter to the Editor on January 19th under the title: "Facts support police budget increase".

Just how accurate are Murray Faulkner's "facts", however? You see, the problem is, when a person has the power to CREATE his/her own statistics, they can be spun however one chooses.

Take Domestic Violence statistics, for example:

On October 22, 2008, at a Community Consultation Meeting in relation to the budget, which was held at London Police Headquarters, Chief Faulkner emphatically stated, "Last year, in Ontario, 94% of all Domestic Violence-related homicides were perpetrated by men." Open and shut case? Not so fast.

The London Police Service In-House Domestic Violence Statistics which I recently obtained show that for the period between April 1 to June 30, 2007, there were "0" female-perpetrated Domestic Violence Homicides. Many will recall that Kelly Johnson's murder of Dave Lucio occurred DURING that same three-month time period, namely on June 7, 2007.

What does this mean? Simple. Murray Faulkner did not classify Kelly Johnson's murder of Dave Lucio as an incident of Domestic Violence - thus skewing the statistics - and even though it was the classic "If I can't have you, nobody can" Domestic Violence murder.

So, did Murray Faulkner lie to Londoners on October 22, 2008 when he made the "94%" statement? He was only quoting statistics, after all. Sure, he played a part in creating those statistics; and sure, he applies different classification rules to identical situations. But to have a Police Chief lie about such a serious situation would - to quote Mr. Faulkner - "cause mistrust of the police service", wouldn't it? Or perhaps just mistrust in Mr. Faulkner.

Perhaps a province-wide audit of Domestic Violence statistics should be conducted by an impartial third-party. And perhaps one of the suggestions coming from that audit will be a recommendation that Murray Faulkner (and other Chiefs of Police in Ontario) should lose their ability to create false statistics.

Posted By: Brad Charlton, London
Posted On: January 21, 2010
My comments submitted on Sunday the 24/1/10

My observations on Brads letter:

The recent beating of a man in Vancouver by the Police Service gives an insight into the culture of these organizations that comes from the top. An innocent man was hauled out of the house and beaten by police thugs based only on the dispatch message they were being called to a Domestic. Man guilty, judged, and sentenced before trial and in this case it was the wrong person.   Faulkner has shown his biases through internal administrative activities which are fabricated, his support of the myth that women are not violent, and his speeches speaking untruths about the percentage of domestic homicides. In 2008 in Canada we had a total of  611 homicides, 465 men and 146 female. The rate of homicides with firearms has increased 24% since 2002 largely due to handgun use by gangs. Has Faulkner complained about the gun registry for long rifles being disbanded. Handguns are still in the registry and more closely controlled than ever but yet usage increases.   Gangs don't register their handguns and their members lack good male role models.  Does Faulkner play a role in removal of good fathers from families through his biases?

Women victims 24% - lowest proportion ever. Male Victims 76%

Both the rate of females killed (0.87 per 100,000 population), as well as the proportion (24%), were the lowest since 1961.

62 spousal homicides - no change from 2007. Lowest rate in 40 years.  45 women 17 men. The percentage of men killed is just over 27% but is actually greater because many deaths of men across Canada do not get classified as Domestic just as Brad as pointed out. There is a case in Peterborough before the courts where the wife hired a contractor.  The question remains what is Faulkner doing about the 76% of men killed each year. Has he walked down the street wearing  construction boots as opposed to his red stilettos.

Canada's Federal Government panders to the Feminist Line on Family Violence - Men Abusers - Women Benign

To: The Editor, Family Violence Newsletter, Public Health Agency of Canada  ncfv-cnivf@phac-aspc.gc.ca,

Minister of Health  Aglukkaq.L@parl.gc.ca

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/EB/eb-Jan-2010-eng.php

I am very disappointed that a Federal Government agency would publish such a blatantly sexist newsletter. You purport that Family Violence is a gender specific behaviour in that men are violent and women benign. You would purport to indoctrinate boys in the mythology that family violence is gender specific when that boy may be subject to violence from his mother. What an astoundingly arbitrary, confusing and anti-male message. When will governments wake up and see that the teaching should be holistic in that violence against any family member, or any one else is wrong.

It reads as though you took it right from one of the feminist manuals at a local DV centre.  I expect more from the very large amount of tax dollars I, and most other men pay in this country.

You have used percentages of men who support various aspects of eliminating violence against women. I would first suggest what person wouldn't support stopping violence against any gender at any age. Secondly,  can you provide the study or poll source used to obtain these percentages with its context.

There is a mountain of evidence showing female violence exists and is equal to men. In some studies (CDC USA) it shows female perpetration in 70% of cases. http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

In 2006, the University of New Hampshire surveyed people in 32 nations (covering all continents and both developed and developing nations) and found women are as violent and as controlling as men in dating relationships. See the University’s News Release or the actual study.

You may wish to obtain Canadian research information compiled by Dr. Don Dutton, PHD, Professor of Psychology at UBC   This is an abstract from one paper by  Dutton and Corvo 2006, Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice “Simply put, the evidence for theoretical patriarchy as a “cause” of wife assault is scant and contradicted by numerous studies: male dominant couples constitute only 9.6% of all couples (Coleman & Straus, 1985); women are at least as violent as men (Archer, 2000); women are more likely to use severe violence against nonviolent men than the converse (Stets & Straus, 1992a,b); powerlessness rather than power seems related to male violence; there are data contradicting the idea that men in North America find violence against their wives acceptable (Dutton, 1994; Simon et al., 2001) and that abusiveness is higher in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships (Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montague, & Reyes, 1991) suggesting that intimacy and psychological factors regulating intimacy are more important than sexism (Dutton, 1994)...”

You must know about this study by Stats Can from a 2004 Social Survey. Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2005. 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. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm

Your agency published this report so you clearly know about violence against males.  "Intimate Partner Abuse against Men" was prepared by Dr. Eugen Lupri and Dr. Elaine Grandin for the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/Intimate_Partner.pdf

In the USA and Australia single moms are the greatest abusers and killers of their children. It is similar in Canada according to independent studies with the exception of sex abuse.

I have yet to figure out the incongruity regarding the emphasis on the female gender when the far greater number of victims is men and 27%  of the victims of domestic homicide are men based on the 2008 stats. Could it be, through feminist discourse, they have convinced most people they are more important than men?  I would also point out that many male homicide victims, who may have been killed by or through the actions of an intimate partner is not classified  as domestic. In 2007, as an example, a London Police inspector Kelly Johnson, killed her boyfriend then shot herself and this was not declared a Domestic Homicide but to any reasonable person outside the filtered universe of the Police Chief of London or Coroner's Inquest it has all the appearances that fit the usual criteria . Coroner's Inquests in many cases have as a majority of members feminists from the Ontario Provincial AG's department, Academia  and from DV shelters. One cannot expect to see a balanced decision in Ontario. I am suggesting some of the men over and above the 17 shown were victims of family violence but were left out of "Domestic Homicides" for a variety of reasons, one of which has been described.

Canadian Homicide Stats 2008,  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/091028/dq091028a-eng.htm
Total 611, 465 men 146 female Rate of homicides with firearms has increased 24% since 2002. Handgun use on increase  (gang related even though handguns are controlled and registered)
Women victims 24% - lowest proportion ever  Men Victims 76%
Both the rate of females killed (0.87 per 100,000 population), as well as the proportion (24%), were the lowest since 1961
62 spousal homicides - no change from 2007 Lowest rate in 40 years, 45 women 17 men

I'm interested in seeing more balance from my government when it comes to family violence.

Mike Murphy

This edition of the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence (NCFV) E-bulletin focuses on engaging men and boys in the prevention of family violence. We highlight current efforts in communities across Canada and around the world working to involve men - as fathers, friends, educators, coaches and leaders - to play an active role in addressing gender-based violence and promoting healthy, equal relationships.
The NCFV E-bulletin is a bi-monthly newsletter for those interested in family violence prevention. It is produced by PHAC, on behalf of the Family Violence Initiative (FVI) of the Government of Canada.
We want to hear from you – please send your comments and feedback to our editor at: ncfv-cnivf@phac-aspc.gc.ca.

Top of Page

---

Men’s Perspectives on Violence Against Women
There are encouraging research findings about men’s recognition of their role in addressing violence against women and their perspectives on efforts by institutions and groups to address it. For example, a national poll¹ in Canada showed that:

• Sixty-six percent of Canadian men feel that men are not doing enough to address the problem of violence against women in Canada.
• The vast majority of men support tough enforcement of existing laws; seventy-five percent say rigorously enforcing existing laws should be a high priority.
• Sixty-nine percent of men say that programs targeted towards school-aged boys about ending violence toward women and promoting healthy relationships should be a high priority.
• A majority of men (62%) say that raising the awareness of men regarding the need to take a stand against violence towards women should be a high priority.
• Men also support increasing funding to women’s groups and facilities addressing violence against women, with 45% saying it is a high priority and 42% saying it is a medium priority.

In the U.S, a national survey² showed that:

• Nearly all men (88%) agree that society should do more to respect women and girls.
• Most men say that many institutions should be doing more to raise awareness and address domestic violence and sexual assault: the entertainment industry (83%), lawmakers (78%), the sports industry (72%), schools (68%), colleges and universities (67%), news media (65%) and employers (61%).
• Fifty-seven percent of men believe that they can make a difference in preventing domestic violence and sexual assault, and 73% of men think they can make some difference in promoting healthy, respectful, non-violent relationships among young people.
• Sixty-eight percent of fathers have talked to their sons about the importance of healthy, violence-free relationships.

1. Addressing Violence Against Women, Environics, 2002
2. Father's Day Poll 2007, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc.

Top of Page

---

Increasing Public Awareness about the Role of Men in Preventing Violence
There is a growing emphasis in Canada and in other countries on the importance of engaging men and boys in addressing violence against women. To increase awareness and encourage changes in attitudes and behaviours, some governments and organizations have introduced violence prevention campaigns that focus on the role of men in educating boys about gender equality and healthy relationships.
For example, Newfoundland and Labrador's Violence Prevention Initiative launched a multi-media campaign that encourages men to teach the boys in their lives about showing respect, fairness and equality towards women. The Respect Women campaign consists of posters, print and television ads, as well as a respectwomen.ca website. It positions men as role models who can deliver positive messages to their sons, grandsons, nephews and younger brothers. Key messages include that:

• men have a responsibility to nurture and shape the beliefs, attitudes and values of boys, and
• violence against women, in any form, is unacceptable.

Similar messages are promoted through "It Starts With You. It Stays With Him", an online-based, social media campaign developed by the White Ribbon Campaign and Le Centre ontarien de prévention des agressions, a Francophone provincial training and consultation centre. The comprehensive website itstartswithyou.ca provides men - fathers, uncles, grandfathers, teachers, coaches - with tips, stories, links and resources to educate the boys around them about healthy relationships, sexism, homophobia and degrading language. Example messages include that:

• being a caring father means educating your son about healthy and equal relationships, and
• educators have a role to play in teaching boys the language of equality and fostering leadership in male students and colleagues.

In Ontario, the Kizhaay Anishinaabe Niin (“I Am a Kind Man”) community action campaign – designed for men and youth - engages Aboriginal men and boys through culturally informed messages. It is based on the premise that violence has never been an acceptable part of Aboriginal culture and the application of the Seven Grandfather Teachings. The iamakindman.ca website includes information about how to get involved as well as resource lists.
For additional campaigns organized by or aimed at men to prevent violence against women, please see:

• Coaching Boys into Men, a media campaign by the Family Violence Prevention Fund that encourages men to teach boys early, and teach them often, that violence never equals strength.
• Man Up, an international campaign that mobilizes young leaders in a movement to stop violence against women and girls.
• Network of Men Leaders, a new initiative of the United Nations campaign, UNiTE to End Violence against Women.

The Rebranding of Women's Studies Courses in Academia

An interesting discussion occurred on the CBC's The Current radio show recently (link below) between the host and two journalists. 

In the radio interview Barbara Kay will argue these courses are recruitment mechanisms into an ideology of feminism. The Toronto Star Reporter, Catherine Porter will whine about women not being representative in positions like partners in law firms and that same old argument Parliament. She will posit these courses are designed to get fresh ideas so women can have it all, a career, motherhood, vacations and maybe even a husband. Barbara will describe it as the Utopian ideal. Marxism was one of those same Utopian ideologies from whence feminism came.

What Porter fails to realize is women can have these things but only if they get a partner who will look after the children and is prepared to make the same sacrifices as a man by working long days and commuting great distances. The other option is to stay single and get a nanny or not have any children at all. There are choices but what Porter really means is lets just appoint a certain number of women to these positions (the old quota game) so they don't have to do it on merit and then they can have it all. Nothing much has changed in the feminist song book despite the much larger proportion of degrees granted to females over males. Its still an entitlement mentality and women deserve to be placed on a pedestal.

Recruiting feminists must be losing its appeal at Canadian Universities so the resident feminist faculty are trying to lure new recruits by new marketing techniques.  When a business wants to refresh its product it assigns the "New and Improved Label". The professional feminists in academia are re-branding, re-positioning and trying to attract men too would you believe.  They aren't necessarily pushing masculinity mind you but if you are male and gay you may just qualify as part of the "gender" portion of the re-branding.  If you are a transsexual or transvestite you qualify. Have you seen the label they use for the gay community now. It is LGBT or is an initialism referring collectively to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. You all may qualify for study along with women.  That opens up to a larger more inclusive audience - doesn't it? If you are a male - does that increase your interest?

At McGill University in Montreal the new branding in March 2009 gives us the name

McGill Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies (IGSF)

"The McGill Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies (IGSF) examines social perspectives on women and women's contributions to society."

You see the emphasis is on women but it is hoped the new name will attract more men and women of different sexualities and diversities.

Here is a sampling of these courses:

WMST 200 (3) Introduction to Women's Studies . Offered in the: Fall

This course introduces students to theoretical positions and topical issues in the broad, interdisciplinary field of Women’s Studies. This course aims to demonstrate how “women” is applied as a social and political category imbued with certain, yet contested meanings depending on place and time, and cannot usefully be considered a self-evident effect of biology. Students are introduced to a great variety of analytical tools and topical intersections that will enable them to entangle seemingly natural and obvious truth claims regarding the meanings of gender, sex, sexuality, and feminism in contemporary societies. In addition to key academic texts, we will look at online material, view films and podcasts, and discuss news stories on matters such as gay marriage, sex trafficking, ‘hook up’ cultures, and creative new reproductive strategies.
Elisabeth Engebretsen
MWF 1:35-2:25 pm

WMST 301 (3) Women's Studies Current Topics 1 . Offered in the: Fall

Topic for Fall 2009: Queer Cultures: Gender systems and sexual meanings in a modern, global world
(Prerequisite: WMST 200 or PHIL 242 or permission of instructor.)This course explores alternative sexual and gender expressions cross-culturally, with an emphasis on the modern, global period, and ethnographic accounts of same-sex sexuality and non-normative and trans-gender forms. We examine how sexuality and gender intersect with formations of modern nation states, colonialism, religion, race, and ethnicity worldwide. The course literature emphasizes accounts of people’s lived experiences in different yet intersecting cultural locations, through examples of identity formation, coming out practices, non-normative families incl. same-sex marriage, rights and recognition, and the globalization of queer identity and culture.
Elisabeth Engebretsen
MW 10:05am-11:25 am

The question remains - what do you do with a degree in women's studies after its all said and done? The purpose of the re-branding is to attract more students to keep the programs alive. There are only so many tax supported professional feminist jobs out there and with government cutbacks on the horizon they will be fewer in number. MJM

From the CBC "The Current" web site:

Women Studies 

 

Forty years ago, there was a revolution on university campuses across North America. No longer content to accept the status quo as defined by male professors, women created a new field of study ... one centred on their own experiences and perspectives.

In the United States, San Diego State University became the first to establish a women's studies program in 1970. Canadian universities and colleges quickly followed suit. And today, the field stretches everywhere from China to India to Uganda. But at the same time, the field is under-going a major shift. Women's studies departments from Harvard to Queen's are being renamed as "gender", "equality" or "sexuality" studies or in some cases all of them.

The Women's Studies Department at Simon Fraser University is in the process of changing its name to The Department of Gender, Sexuality and Women's Studies. We heard from Catherine Murray, the department's chair.

Women's studies departments were an early part of the women's liberation movement. And the name change has sparked a debate about the state of that movement, as well as what its goals should be. For their thoughts on those questions, we were joined by two women. Catherine Porter is a columnist with The Toronto Star. She was in Toronto. And Barbara Kay writes a column for The National Post. She was in Montreal.

Follow the link below or click on the player here.

Listen to Part Three: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2010/201001/20100112.html

In OZ ~ Fury at ruling in custody battle

There is tragically nothing new here other than this reporter and editor chose to write it up and make it public. It follows a pattern well entrenched and taught by lawyers and the DV Industry.  Accuse the dad of DV and/or child abuse. Tie him up in the system for as long as possible. He will either give up (most do) or you will drain him emotionally and financially. Enough time will pass that the incompetent judges will rule in moms favour. Simple and effective.  One could appoint a psychologist as a Family Court Judge and, if they are not a feminist, get better decisions based on human inter-relationships. They know nothing of the law but custody has little to do with law and more about human behaviour.  Its a shame, a sham and a tragedy for children.MJM

 

• Laurie Nowell
• From: Sunday Herald Sun
• January 10, 2010 1:22AM
• 22 comments

A MOTHER found by the Family Court to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children has been given custody of them.

The father, deemed "principled" and with "much to offer his children", has been effectively banned from seeing his daughters.

The case will spark renewed debate about family law and the issue of shared parenting.
The father, who we will name "Bill" because he cannot be identified for legal reasons, is described by a Family Court judge as no threat to his daughters, a successful parent who is "courteous" and "intelligent".

The same judge found the mother, whom we will call "Jasmine" and who abandoned her first daughter at two and spurned the child's subsequent attempts at reconciliation, had displayed "dreadful", "cruel" and "malicious" behaviour.

Start of sidebar.

Related Coverage

• Family law must be fair Herald Sun, 3 days ago
• Real sharing the key The Australian, 19 Oct 2009
• Top court eyes joint care The Australian, 2 Oct 2009
• Children must see dad, like it or not The Australian, 20 Sep 2009
• Bikies forfeit right to see kids The Australian, 16 Aug 2009

But the judge still ruled that because of time spent apart, the children had become estranged from their father and it was in their interests that "the children spend no time with the father".

This was at odds with a ruling in February 2008 that Bill should have contact with his daughters.

But in last month's ruling, the judge said: "The necessity to preserve the children's physical, emotional safety and welfare is overwhelming. However unsatisfactory this outcome is for the father, it is the outcome most aligned with the children's best interests.

"In addition, it is the only outcome which will afford the girls the peace they require now while permitting some possibility of a relationship between the father, (the children) and their siblings in the future, however long term that may be."

But the judge added: "It is a sad fact in the family law jurisdiction that a determination which is most consistent with the best interests of the children can appear to reward bad behaviour on the part of one parent and work in apparent injustice for the well-motivated best performing parent."

Bill has not seen his daughters since April and has not spent extended time with them since August 2005.

He says the estrangement was largely a result of false allegations of sexual abuse of the children made against him by his former wife.

The custody ruling in the Family Court last month came after a seven-year battle over access to the girls, now aged nine and 11.

It followed a criminal trial in 2007, when Bill, 55, was cleared of the sexual abuse allegations. The trial judge found them totally false and threw the case out.

The ordeal has cost Bill his home, his job and about $450,000 in lost income and legal costs. He has faced court 70 times to clear his name and try for some form of access to his children.

"It has been a nightmare. All I wanted was to be part of my children's lives - to try to give them a good start in life," Bill said.

"But I am denied that because of the malicious way in which my ex-wife has acted and because of the credence the legal system has given her lies and falsehoods.

"The family law system needs wholesale change. There appears to be no testing of evidence in court and it seems that often lies and fabrications are immediately accepted as fact.

"It's a disgrace and, as far as I know, it doesn't happen in any other legal sphere."
Bill's case follows the case of "Steve" last year, in which the court accepted his good character, but banned him from seeing his daughter for seven years because it was believed the mother would "shut down" emotionally if he were allowed to see her.

In another case last year, a father, "Mick", was jailed for sending a birthday card to his daughter in breach of a court order and was locked up again for taking a walk in a park - near where, unknown to him, his daughter was playing.

Debate over the operation of family law has become heated over the past year with a new campaign seeking to overturn amendments to the Family Law Act brought in by the Howard government that have established the principle of "shared parenting" and effectively given fathers a better chance of having greater access to their children in custody disputes.
Historian and Family Court critic Prof John Hirst questions the underlying principles in family law.

"The Family Court by law has to make the children's interests paramount in divorce cases. Everyone thinks this is wise and proper, but to elevate one principle above all others can produce terrible results," he said.

"To stop mothers being tempted to make accusations of sexual abuse and so keep children to themselves, the law should state that any parent making false accusations of this sort will lose the right to be chief carer of the children. If a mother has so turned the children against the father that they don't want to see him, for a time at least the children should be taken into care.

"Even on the present test of child's best interests, it is hard to see how a child will benefit from being left with such a mother. She has burdened the child with the story that her father abused her.

"Then when the child comes of age she will discover that the mother's accusations were false."

Comments on this story

• 
  
  mick Posted at 4:13 AM January 10, 2010
  

  australians have lost their marbles
  

  Comment 1 of 22
  

  
  
  
  
• 
  
  Ron O Posted at 5:14 AM January 10, 2010
  

  Best solution - sack ALL Family Court judges. None of them have a clue. They give a whole new meaning to the word incompetence. They are NOT acting in the interests if the children - they are acting in the interests of their own inflated ego's.
  

  Comment 2 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  S. Kelvin Posted at 5:27 AM January 10, 2010
  

  This is what feminism has led to throughout the western world: women with no character and men with no rights. Decent people are getting sick of the double standards.
  

  Comment 3 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  keith of belgrave Posted at 6:03 AM January 10, 2010
  

  Sad very very sad nothing has changexd with the family laws for fathers in 30 years. No justice for men, all the whohar about womens liberation etc, Its a womens world.
  

  Comment 4 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  Robert Mont of healesville Posted at 7:45 AM January 10, 2010
  

  So what... I had a magistrate from the family court tell me ...."what makes you think you have any more rights over this woman who bore this child?"....nothing has changed, the family court sux.
  

  Comment 5 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  kaotik4266 Posted at 8:46 AM January 10, 2010
  

  It's a sad thing, too, that the mother often gets custody of their children by default, regardless of their parenting ability or that of the father.
  

  Comment 6 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  David of Mooroopna Posted at 8:54 AM January 10, 2010
  

  as usual, we have a disgusting and backwards legal system in this country. The judges tend to treat dogs better than our children
  

  Comment 7 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  hunter Posted at 9:07 AM January 10, 2010
  

  this ruling does not surprise me,it is typical Australian justice
  

  Comment 8 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  Isabella Cloud of Murtoa Posted at 9:26 AM January 10, 2010
  

  This is unacceptable, why do we let you things happen? I have no idea how the judge came to this decision...
  

  Comment 9 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  Anti-sexist of One Tree Hill Posted at 9:30 AM January 10, 2010
  

  Good to see the system works to do what is in the best interest of the children.
  

  Comment 10 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  AAP of Blackburn South Posted at 9:37 AM January 10, 2010
  

  I use to have such respect for the legal system, I no longer have any faith at all in them - they do not always rule for the truth and do not provide justice. My faith stands with God's Justice. The legal system does not always deliver wisely.
  

  Comment 11 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  misha of melbourne Posted at 10:09 AM January 10, 2010
  

  I am a mother and was so sorry for the dad in this story. A child needs both parents Love and affection equally.No one but a biological father can offer that love. If the mother gets a New de-facto he too will get access to the kids will he not ? even tho' he has never been with them ! No parent should be cut off from their kids.Period.
  

  Comment 12 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  Ang. M. of Melbourne Posted at 10:13 AM January 10, 2010
  

  How blood cruel and stupid can the family court get?! This ruling is digusting.
  

  Comment 13 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  ld-v of lalor.vic. Posted at 10:16 AM January 10, 2010
  

  it certainly is a very very sad world esp for all children concerned.
  

  Comment 14 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  Adam Cuschieri of South Morang Posted at 10:24 AM January 10, 2010
  

  Get rid of the family court. This is a complete and utterly embarassing. The judges have no idea how destructive they are to good fahthers who want nothing but the best for their children. The Vic Government seems to have ample money for investigative commissions in to everything but the Family Court and the rules which regulate it's decision making.
  

  Comment 15 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  John of Melbourne Posted at 10:25 AM January 10, 2010
  

  Family Law is indicative of just how inadequate in terms of equity and justice our legal system is. And the government (state and federal) is at the begging whim of civil libertarians.
  

  Comment 16 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  Bosco of Geelong Posted at 10:34 AM January 10, 2010
  

  What an absolute farce the Family court system is!
  

  Comment 17 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  DAJ of Ballarat Posted at 10:42 AM January 10, 2010
  

  I don't have kids yet but it certainly makes you think that the person you have them with needs to be of sound mind because as a male you can be accused of rape, abuse, violence etc without the presumption of innocence.
  

  Comment 18 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  Rob of Kyabram Posted at 11:11 AM January 10, 2010
  

  It is not only the mum who is dysfunctional but the judge as well. Time for a complete renewal of our broken down activist controlled justice system. Close the family courts and start again, even a drunk could make better decisions.
  

  Comment 19 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  Meg of shep Posted at 11:17 AM January 10, 2010
  

  bloody ridiculous I and my older sister were both raised by my father with help from my grandparents [his parents] when my mum abandoned us when I was 8 months old. This judge has alot to answer for. Men are just as good a parent as women are. The girls should just go to the better home.
  

  Comment 20 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  Melanie Baker of S.E suburbs Posted at 11:44 AM January 10, 2010
  

  This is terrible, we can't even rely on our justice system anymore to think of the best interest of our children, absolutely discusting! l feel for the kids they always get stuck in the middle, and the poor dad (Bill) for having such a horrid ex-wife.
  

  Comment 21 of 22
  
  
  
• 
  
  michael pitt of kapunda Posted at 12:00 PM January 10, 2010
  

  When you think that tragedies like this have been occurring for the past 35 years; what sort of court allows people to get away with what should be a serious criminal offence and then crucifies the victims and the father.
  

  Comment 22 of 22
  
  http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/fury-at-ruling-in-custody-battle/story-e6frf7l6-1225817724269
  
  
  

Free public seminar on the topic of Grandparents Rights. ~ Chatham, Ontario

Dave Flook
President & Proud Father
Not All Dads Are Deadbeats
www.notalldadsaredeadbeats.com

I am proud to announce that Not All Dads Are Deadbeats is now working hand in hand with the Canadian Auto Workers union local 127 to bring you a free public seminar on the topic of Grandparents rights. This unique event will take place on January 27th 2010 at the CAW hall in Chatham Ontario.

Throughout the years running NADADs I have spoken to a great number of Grandparents who have all expressed concern over the lack of laws to protect their access rights to their grandchildren. I look forward to providing support and solutions to this far too often overlooked segment of the population who are experiencing many of the same issues that we as parents face.

In keeping with that sentiment, I will be adding a new section to this website for Grandparents. I will also be adding a new section in the forums for Grandparents to meet and discuss topics relating to Grandparent alienation.

I would like to personally thank Brian Jacues - a retired auto union worker - for initially getting in touch with me and for his ongoing dedication towards the fight for greater Grandparents rights.

I would also like to personally acknowledge CAW Local 127 President Aaron Neaves for his support of the union workers and this cause.
At the seminar we will have Betty Cornelius, founder of www.cangrands.com, as a featured guest speaker. I will also be making a short presentation about NADADS and the support we provide.

Please get in contact with me if you have any questions regarding the seminar. We look forward to meeting with mothers,fathers and grandparents on the 27th.