Is there Official Liberal Government bias against men and fathers in Ontario

This is related to an earlier post here. It will assist you with background.

from Mike Murphy sender time Sent at 14:53 (GMT-05:00). Current time there: 16:04. ✆ to mcsmin@mcys.gov.on.ca, lbroten.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org cc David Orazietti , MPP Sault Ste. Marie dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, cbentley.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org bcc date 26 January 2010 14:53 subject Ontario Children's Aid Societies and Misandry I

The Honourable Laurel Broten
Minister of Children and Youth Services and
Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues
M-1B114, Macdonald Block
900 Bay Street
Toronto ON
M7A 1N3

My Dear Minister:

The Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies is having a conference outlined in part below this March, 2010. I have published a two authored article on several of my blogs on the  merging of  feminist Ideology and child protection.   The violence against women sector (VAW) would have you believe all men are abusers and all women victims when DV  is pretty much equal between genders. I will be dealing with the issue of gender bias barring battered men from tax supported shelters in a Human Rights Complaint later this winter or early spring.

Given males can still vote and constitute at least 49% of voters in this province a backlash may emerge when not only the appearance of bias is evident but the actual practice of same emerges from such an alliance as seems to be in the making.

I would respectively request a response given this Association of CAS`is a Government Tax supported lobby group, however it might occur directly or indirectly, and it has already started criticizing you for possible budget cuts, as yet, unannounced, and this move to align itself with feminist ideology may make it more politically incorrect for your male cabinet colleagues and caucus, already ducking or acquiescing to the feminist lobby at every turn to undertake difficult decisions in the not too distant future. The Katelyn Sampson death was a classic example of misplaced priorities where a young girl was killed by a drug addicted female prostitute who received the child from her drug addicted mother aided by the Ontario court system.  Minister Bentley`s response, while wearing his white ribbon, a symbol of female oppression at the hands of the patriarchy,  was to further target men. I found the misplaced logic very Interesting but not surprising.

I would want your official views on this apparent merging of ideology and child protection. I would also ask if your views are the same as your predecessor, Deb Matthews, in that you will not be providing men with access to DV resources, including shelters. I understand you have access to at least $208,000,000.00 for women based on Matthews numbers but there is no equivalent for males.  This does not include the money set aside exclusively for females in legal aid which is in the 10`s of millions.

The published postings follow.

Yours truly,


Mike Murphy
Sault Ste. Marie ON  P6A 6J8
Promote Bill C-422 Equal Shared Parenting
cc Dalton McQuinty, Premier, David Orazietti, MPP, Sault Ste. Marie, Chris Bentley, AG

Female School worker accused of sexual exploitation

My comment left on the Sun Site:

January 26th 2010, 1:39pm  

Its interesting the self righteous indignation when a female is named for degenerate behaviour but no one think its inappropriate for a male. We have a several layered legal system and it should be consistent. We either name everyone charged or we don`t.  I`ll lay odds of 100-1 she gets a much lighter sentence than a man would with the same charge. It is one of the tiers of the legal system in Canada which has many eunuchs in positions of responsibility including judges, lawyers and politicians.MJM  

By CALGARY SUN

Last Updated: 26th January 2010, 11:32am

• Story
• Comments

 

Oilfields High School in Black Diamond.

(Photo by NADIA MOHARIB/Calgary Sun)

Charges of luring, sexual exploitation and drug trafficking have been laid against a 39-year-old woman working at a Black Diamond school, the RCMP said Tuesday.

The Black Diamond resident, "is charged with respect to her alleged actions with two separate male individuals, both of whom were students at the school at which she was employed," said RCMP spokesman Sgt. Patrick Webb.

"These charges were laid after an extensive investigation which involved interviews of over 30 potential witnesses and consultation with the Crown to ascertain the most appropriate charges," he said.


"The allegations center around extensive phone and text messaging contact between (the woman) and each of the males, starting with one in the fall of 2007 and the other in late 2008.

"At no time was there any physical harm to the victims."

Tanya Marie Cossette, of Black Diamond, faces charges of sexual exploitation, of luring a child and of trafficking Cannabis.

Cossette was arrested and has been released to appear at Okotoks provincial court on January 29, 2010.

The Turner Valley RCMP asks anyone who may feel they were victimized as well, or anyone who feels they may have information about these incidents to call the detachment.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/01/26/12616976.html#/news/alberta/2010/01/26/pf-12616976.html

Ontario Children's Aid and Misandry

Many men will attest to have seen a bias by CAS Protective Workers who are, it would appear, 95% female, and some stridently feminist in their ideology. I can certainly speak to it, and can also say the local Algoma CAS and its sister organization Algoma Family Services, who deal with child mental health issues, have both shown me they care little about fathers. In one case a worker completely ignored my requests for help on the telephone and declared a conflict of interest so she could get out of providing service to me. I went over her head and finally got a supervisor to do her job. Algoma Family Services must consider "Family" as being exclusive of a father.

This following excerpt is the info Susan, below, refers to from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies (OACAS) web site. Given the Ontario Women's Directorate is involved, meaning strident feminist ideology (psycho babble)  is at play, (male is abuser - woman is benign) you can bet the CAS seems to be putting into the public domain what has been their operational practice for some time. Dads and men don't matter.  All of this brought to all men by your own tax dollars. It matters not that women are the single largest abusers of children and in the USA and Australia the largest cohort to kill and maltreat children. Ideology trumps both science and logic.

The list of speakers on the web site will emphasize this conference is not balanced. It is clearly designed to imbue the corporate culture of Children's Aid Societies with the stamp of "officially" being full partners with Feminist ideological constructs based more on quackery than science. This will open them up to both liability and disgrace given, as mentioned previously, the safest place for a child is in a two parent biological family or with their biological dad. See my article here based on USA comprehensive government statistics going back several years. In all cases it shows the most likely person to kill or harm a child is the single mother or the single mother and her boyfriend/new husband. Back links to the government site are provided.  If this becomes official it will make for an interesting Human Rights Issue as the agency entrusted to protect children is in legion with the feminist lobby who support the people most likely to perpetrate harm on our youngsters.


We get what we pay for and we get what we deserve with those whom we elected. The current Liberal regime in Ontario have lost their way and the tax supported agencies we support are giving them the middle finger while they criticize them for anticipated budget cuts to CAS' across the Province.  They say "don't bite the hand that feeds you" but if CAS' align themselves with feminist ideology, politicians who are mere eunuchs now will be less likely to cut as severe. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and we know who rules in most men's lives. 

Those speaking are some of the largest recipients of tax payer dollars for their "so-called" research which relies largely on a pseudo psycho-social feminist dogma not science. Any awards they receive are from those involved in the incestuous closed looped system all focusing on the quackery associated with the Duluth Wheel school of psycho-babble. 

Michael J. Murphy
Father, Man,  Family and Children's Rights Advocate

Critical Connections: Where Woman Abuse and Child Safety Intersect

The Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies in partnership with the Violence Against Women sector, Children’s Aid Societies, the Ontario Coroner’s Office, Child Welfare Secretariat and the Ontario Women’s Directorate invites you and your colleagues to share your knowledge and experience. The Critical Connections Symposium aims to promote increased awareness of the impact of woman abuse as it relates to the safety and well being of children and families; build and showcase collaborative programs and identify trends, new programs and research. This event will feature internationally recognized keynote speakers, highlight collaborative programs in Ontario and launch an “ideas and practice guide” for service providers.

When: March 9-10, 2010
Registration begins in late January. Early registration special rate: $175
Where: Doubletree by Hilton, 655 Dixon Road, Toronto
Who should attend: member agencies management, staff and board members; management and staff from the Violence Against Women sector, government, police, health and education. Professionals working with women and their children experiencing abuse are invited to attend.

http://www.oacas.org/criticalconnections/
By Susan Longley


Please note concerns regarding  upcoming Ontario conference. (see OACAS web site). 

A frightening trend in North American child welfare practice  is the growing alliance between child welfare services and those promoting anti violence against women (i.e. VAW sector).

This alliance has resulted in an increased denigration of male parents and general deterioration in efforts to address the best interests of children. The deeply rooted gender biased ideology of the latter sector remains deeply troubling and in complete  contradiction to male parents attempts to engage with child welfare services involved with their  children. This concern needs to be urgently addressed, partly to maintain service integrity but also to maintain an ethical stance towards families in general.

Publish Post

Male parents are frequently already marginalized from participating in services for their children. There is now an  increased propensity to isolate men even more so from their children's lives. There remains a blatant contradiction between child welfare services who adopt the polemic and platitudes of the VAW sector. The child welfare mandate remains to enhance family life VAW sector is completely contradictory and opposed to such values. 

It has become recently popular for child welfare services and VAW services to adopt certain kinds of inter agency protocols. These protocols are an embarrassment to child welfare practice in Canada. Blatantly unprofessional and academically dishonest theses protocols reflect misandric nonsense rather than legitimate protocol. These so called protocols must be abandoned and exposed for what they are. There are least two CASs in the Toronto region (see Peel CAS protocol with VAW sector)) have adopted such protocols. These agencies are allegedly family service agencies with no endorsement to promote such anti male rhetoric.

A review of these protocols disclose an incredulous gender bias which can only be described as sexism of the worst order. These professionally distasteful protocols are  written in total sympathy with VAW expectations with no accountability to the general public or their respective agency mandates. They contradict not only good social work practice but remain contradictory  to ethical guidelines established by their governing body  OASW.

These so-called protocols allege to address issues related to inter agency service provision and cooperation between public agencies but are in fact nothing more than an ideological treatise intended to alienate men further from appropriate child welfare practice.

These protocols refuse to acknowledges domestic violence in families other than that of men against women. Women remain the perpetual victim and men always the perpetrator. Any mention of domestic violence refuses to acknowledge  women 's violence against men. Programmes sponsored by child welfare services for children exposed to domestic violence ultimately define the perpetrator as male.

These protocols never hold women accountable for any acts of child abuse or inter personal violence. The identification of child abuse only mentioned in regard to men.  Any child welfare programmes delivered to "children exposed to family violence" refer to men only. Women are never identified as initiators of any domestic violence even when a so-called family agency is involved.

The suggestion that women may make false complaints regarding domestic violence in order to gain an upper hand on custody and access matters is not acknowledged. That women may fabricate or even lie is considered anathema.  The fact that women account for the majority of child abuse in not even mentioned. That VAW services and child welfare services advocate becoming increasingly involved in controversial custody and access matters remains extremely repugnant. The suggestion that child welfare services become more intrusive regarding access arrangements between children and their fathers is an outright abomination.

 Please find a copy of a recent letter sent to Jeanette Lewis, Director of  the provincial OACAS (see web site) outlining my concerns regarding an anticipated conference involving Provincial Child Welfare Services and Violence Against Women Services. The purported agenda is to build understanding and cooperation between the two sectors. My cynical view, as previously suggested, indicates an alternate agenda. The VAW sector is given a further opportunity to impose a particular ideological gender politic on child welfare services.

"I notice with trepidation an anticipated 2010 Toronto conference co sponsored by Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies , The Ontario Women's Directorate and various Violence Against Women programmes. The theme of the conference being the "Intersection of Women Abuse and Child Welfare Services."

I was immediately troubled by the tone and wording of the conference details included in the call for papers especially given the propensity for child welfare services in Ontario and in general North America, to adopt a value preference embracing the practice of a certain feminist political and ideological agenda. A social work practice that has increasingly marginalized services to men and boys and a priori assumptions regarding male perpetrators and female victims.

I have outlined a few  of my concerns.
As many researchers have pointed out gender feminist theory has its limitations and family service agencies in particular must always be ethically accountable in providing services to both men and women especially where "best interests" of children are involved. One can already anticipate the usual presenters invited to provide discourse at such matters. It would be extremely naive to expect genuine debate or rational presentation between the sectors involved.  I will assume the usual feminist rhetoric and platitudes will rule the day.

Some academic  integrity needs to be maintained  and that the conference must reject any ideological and gender biased, misandric unbalanced research which has tended to place a certain anti male spin on issues related to woman abuse, child custody and other such politically charged issues.

There has been a long term feminist advocacy in this province (highlighted in proposals of the provincial domestic violence death review  panel and its recommendations ) to have child welfare services acquiesce to the values and political ideology of the violence against women sector.

This is viewed by many as a regressive and extremely ill advised road to go down. It is appears regressive for child welfare services in general, especially since their services have already become suspect for aligning themselves with principles that reject a family orientation and men in particular. Any child welfare services must be dispensed with fairness and remain gender neutral in practice.

I am concerned that any dialogue between CAS and VAW sectors becomes a mere "smoke screen" for advocating CAS become more feminized in their social work practice at the expense of academic and social work integrity. Not that the two sectors cannot collaborate on occasion and cooperate when appropriate in providing in shared client advocacy.


It seems vital and important to acknowledge the value differences between the two sectors and reject the propensity to gloss over the obvious political and ideological conflicts. It is imperative that these conflicts be clearly acknowledged and identified. This remains especially so in reference to mutual  protocols regarding advocacy and support of woman's issues especially those issues related to custody access and the interaction between service providers regarding male clients and families in general .  It appears to me that the mandates of  the two sectors are severely different and are grounded in often opposed ideological principals. Just a few issues regarding the two sectors come to mind.

Definitions of Abuse and Victimization:

More stringent definition of abuse and victimization in general are required by both sectors. The CAS social workers remain accountable not only to the clients, the best interest of the child but also the court system especially when wards of the court are involved. What is considered abuse in the VAW sector cannot always be validated in the CAS sector.


CAS are obliged to involve male fathers and partners regardless if they have been identified as so called perpetrators or offenders.

 Validation 

The feminist principle of "validating" the "stories" of violence against women and children has always been troublesome for social workers in the CAS sector. Not to deny supportive advocacy for all clients (a basic social work value)  CAS social workers have always had to depend on not only "clients narratives" but also collaboration efforts to seek alternate sources of  information. The VAW sector do not require such gender neutral language of exploration and context for service. It appears that a higher standard of accountability and transparency is required.

Gender Bias / Male Clients and Partners:

Gender biased practice has been generally the order of the day. Given the long history of feminist advocacy many would argue that CAS have acquiesced far to willingly to certain  feminist theory at the expense of gender neutral practice. This must be recognised and the matter dealt with in an honest and forthright manner. Children's best interest require addressing issues with both parents where possible.

CAS social workers when in court regarding children's interests must prove that they have attempted involved both parents (and even other partners as defined as parents ) Fathers and or partners in a parenting role can never be ignored in CAS social work. The issues regarding custody and access assessments during divorce remains a highly contentious one, as do the issues related to counselling of couples where violence has occurred. Protocols regarding children's access to both parents where domestic violence is disputed also remains highly contentious. These issues must be debated within the reality of both male and female experience.

Academic Research and Domestic Violence Findings:

The academic literature regarding domestic violence has and continues to be long dominated by a certain type of feminist ideology and both the  CAS and VAW sectors have been very much influenced in their practice by certain political views. This must change. The literature is much more divergent in findings and recommendations for practice than previously acknowledged. This is particularly so when discussing woman abuse and domestic violence. The divergent literature has always been available but to many practitioners who accepted certain dissident views were quickly rejected ostracized or threatened.

A modest appeal to Richard Gelles article January 2007 Family Court Review sums up these concerns regarding academic integrity with succinct clarity. Need I mention Don Dutton's "Rethinking Domestic Violence."


These are some of my concerns regarding the two sectors having authentic dialogue. This can only be achieved with honesty and respect. Some would also claim an appeal to rational discourse mixed with a modicum of intellectual integrity can also help. 


Regards Susan

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.