There was a point that it could have been stopped in Canada. There wasa promise that the Prime Minister made that was hollow. He gazed upon the electorate and saw that it was a fifty percent chance that his party would get an absolute majority government with every election with 16% of the eligible vote and said fuck you to Proportional Representation. If he had done that we would not be in this mess. Across this country Rightwing political parties are winning healthy majorities with small minorities of voters and then they are pushing their detrimental policies on the nation. According to them, ethics is not important, the environment is not important, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not important if it stands in the way of their agenda. This lies at the feet of the Prime Minister.
Proportional Representation is about every vote being cast has a say in the government. If the conservatives get 35% of the vote, they get 35% of e seats, if the Green Party gets 20% of the votes they get 20% of the say of what happens in government. If the Liberals get 45% of the vote they get 45% of the seats. It is possible in the current system for the above fictitious election to result in a Conservative majority government, but not possible with Proportional Representation.
I digress.
In the United States there has been the controversial appointment of a supreme court judge. The appointment has reignited the MeToo movement. The judge while a teenager sexually assaulted a fellow student and again in college. The response from the right was, 'Boys will be Boys' as if the statement makes everything right. But the news of last month was that catholic priests in Pennsylvania had been covering up and exploiting a massive child abuse ring in that State and perhaps many others. The idea that priests touching children is wrong, but other children albeit teenagers, is okay. Furthermore, since it was thirty years ago it has no bearing on anything. Just like the priests who have been doing what they did for decades.
Also, he lied under oath, about his drinking and about his extra curricular activities in high-school and college. Which shows that he thought that they were something he needed to hide. He basically fit all the eighties memes about jocks in high school. Drunken parties, besmirching girls reputations about sex, and trying to force himself on women. All of which was thought to be normal behaviour in the eighties; not by me, not by most people, but by the Hollywood image of high school. So, in a real area of grey for the law and something to be ashamed of, but nothing that is convict-able as an adult, but something that a very sincere apology is due. Today, with all the awareness out there, it is totally convict-able, but then sealed at 18. If that sort of behaviour stopped and did not continue, but it clearly did.
The real problem is that it was not acknowledged as a problem. Just like the Catholic Priests. They treat it as something that needs to be hidden and not discussed. It is the idea that they feel that it is normal behaviour, and so it will continue forever. There is a feeling that there is an old-boys club mentality, that the other old boys are protecting the younger boys so protecting themselves. There was some of this when Roy Moore tried to get elected. There was some of that when the president was elected, he was so pound that he could just reach out and "grab them by the pussy" and that was okay.
The entire country is saying it is not okay to fondle little boys, but it is okay to fondle little girls and big girls, all ages of women. The worst part is that women, are defending them. Many are sexual assault survivors too. But the thought that their sons and grandchildren might be convicted of doing what was done to them catalyzes them. The statistics say that one woman in three have been sexually assaulted, will be sexually assaulted in their life, but as I said in previous posts, I believe this statistic is higher, perhaps one in two. The number of people have been posting about how they were assaulted and no one believed them. From private conversations with friends I know that families hide the truth, Grandpa is not invited to family functions, that cousin is not allowed near that niece. I knew of one women who left home and cut off all contact because of her father. Some women treat their assault as the price of sleeping on someone's couch for the night. Women talked about what they would do if they had a night free of men, all men forced to stay home and off the streets. The chatter about what women do, change their behaviours to avoid being assaulted. The women who defended the judge are saying this is okay.
I know some women who have done the right thing and have approached police. This is why it is not cool to have a judge in the supreme court that has done this stuff and is unrepentant. The police typically do nothing, or they suggest that the woman was willing, or that she consented. Or that not having an abortion is consent, or seeking child support.
So many times, what happened in that bedroom, at a similar party with similar people is not the victim escaping. Often she is assaulted, sometimes she is impregnated, usually her reputation is besmirched along the way. Most often nothing comes of it. The best result is when the police believes the woman and interviews are done and charges are laid, then comes the ultimate indignity, an adversarial court system where they grill the victim like she is the criminal and even if there is a conviction, often the accused gets a sentence of time served, or community service or suspended sentence, especially if they are affluent. Judge, you are going to ruin the life of my son because he was drunk and committed one indiscretion with this woman who has a reputation of sleeping with all of the football team?
The facts are that women are assaulted every day, that women pay attention to the news and choose not to report those assaults, because when they do report them, no one believes them and when a conviction does occur, the woman's reputation is destroyed and the man gets off with a slap on the wrist, unless they are poor then they go to jail, but the woman's reputation is still destroyed. At best their reputation is based upon the crime, 'there goes that woman whose brother raped her'.
Back in Canada.
In Ontario a majority government was elected with 16% of the potential votes and the first thing he does is scrap the Carbon Tax, saying that Ontario Tax Payers don't need another tax. Except, it was not a tax on tax payers. It was a corporate tax on manufacturers and on fossil fuels. It was a step that was meant to reduce carbon emissions by providing financial incentives to reduce. Carbon producers had to buy pollution credits to produce pollution and green industries could sell carbon units to offset their clean expenses. Companies had already purchased three billion dollars worth of credits and they were non refundable, further the carbon credit exchange policy was with other American States and pulling out of these obligations will result in major penalties. Pulling out of the agreement means that Ontario has no plan to reduce emissions and meet obligations to international treaties and also save the planet. Furthermore, the government is organizing a revolt about paying the federal carbon tax, trying to say that the tax is unlawful. The premier is encouraging other governments in Canada to stand against the Carbon Tax as well. So far, none of these governments have figured out a way to reduce pollution on their own and will not meet the deadline imposed upon them, because to them no plan is the plan; business as usual. The argument goes that since some countries have not signed the international accords, they have an unfair business advantage in polluting at they don't have.
To me, this argument is akin to saying that the other governments are trying to kill everyone, and these governments are not being given the option to kill the world too and they so desperately want that option too. They would say, the science is not clear about the cause of climate change, or that climate change even exists— because they can find scientists that agree that it does not exist, right now that is about one scientist in a hundred, often that scientist has an undergraduate degree in something not related to climate science like dentistry or animal husbandry. Really, these politicians are more interested in making a buck and living out their lives in luxury and they believe they can survive the the changes insulated by their wealth. Or they believe that they are far from the dangers that will affect the world; sea level rise will not affect provinces that have no shoreline.
Strange, because Canada recently accepted 60,000 refugees from a civil war in Syria caused in part by a drought caused by climate change. Recently, they a third of the country got snowed on in the late summer early fall from a storm caused by climate change. Farmers are worried that the bulk of their crops will not be able to be harvested because of these very early snow storms, but their political leaders insist that climate change will not affect them.
There are a few more things that have happened but these are the ones that are more recent and stick in my head.
No comments:
Post a Comment