Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Off to jolly old England we go

Well, we're off today for 2 weeks in England. Note that despite my having left 7 messages for our darling lawyer she made no attempt at contact whatsoever. We phoned CIC ourselves and figured out how to get Chris back into the country. I think when it comes time to pay the silly cow we're going to have a chat about services rendered.
Not much to say, I have to finish packing so I'm going to get to it.
Probably will "blog" again when we get back.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Misogyny in the media

Reading the paper this morning I found a lovely misogynistic article written about a rapist.

The gist. A "man" offered a lost 18 year old girl a ride to the bus depot. Instead, he raped her in a cemetery. He's been sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison (whoopdee effing doo! He'll be out in a month.....says the jaded woman who's been screwed too many times by the justice system).

The misogyny comes in by comments made by the prosecuting attorney, John Rooke. He said, "He was the predator, she was the mouse, within five minutes of meeting her he started planning to assault her. This predator pounced on a young woman who was extremely naive, PERHAPS STUPID BECAUSE OF THE CLOTHING SHE WAS WEARING, WHAT SHE WAS DOING, WHERE SHE DID IT AND WHEN." Excuse me? She was "stupid"?!?!?!? Yeah she was 18 years old, they're not exactly the brightest crayons in the box at that age. She was wearing pajamas, not a bloody lace teddy. "What she was doing." Seeking help because she was lost and had a bus to catch. That gives him the right to rape her? I don't effing think so.

Perhaps I'm naive (or stupid, at least according to John Rooke) but I thought that women had equal rights to men. So, if he'd raped her in full daylight after threatening her into a car with a weapon and she was wearing a bhurka at the time, it would have been heinous but as he raped her at night, luring her into the car with the promise of assistance and she was wearing pajamas it's her fault? John Rooke, I hope you're not married and if you are that you don't have any children. I can't imagine what it would be like living with an asshole like you. And as for the rapist, Stafano Priolo, who showed no remorse (shockingly), I hope they sodomize you until you bleed to death. As for the previous judges who let him off for "13 prior convictions, including assault and weapons offences." Congratulations, you're all accessories to rape.

I think it's time the Canadian "justice" system grew some teeth and started punishing people for their crimes. As for this offenders data bank where he must be registered for 10 years. Why not life? What the fuck?

It's scary to be a woman, you're not safe from sexual predators and when one attacks you, you're not protected by the courts. I think the daily prayer of men of a certain religious group sums it up best: Thank you god for not having me be born a woman.

Why is it that every time I read the paper....

I find something (usually more than one) that ticks me off? There was an article today that made me want to stab someone in the eye with a fork. People do not a) take responsibility for their own actions b) respect animals and c) think before they speak.

The article that ticked me off today is in the Herald in City & Region, page 1, titled "Designer forced to muzzle 'vicious' dog". The gist is a man had his dog tied up outside a restaurant, several people petted the dog then "without warning" (why is it always "without warning"? Are people too stupid to see the warning signs that a dog gives when it's frightened, frustrated or ticked off?) it bit a little girl. The judge, who obviously doesn't know his backside from a hole in the ground said "The cute dog that bites without warning is an allurement, a trap, for the unsuspecting and the young...." The owner of the dog now has to keep him muzzled and on a short leash when in public and was also fined.

The person at fault for the little girl being bitten is.........the girl's mother/father whatever. It's a shame she was bitten. She should have been shown the proper way to approach a dog. If she had approached properly and he had "turned" she would not have been bitten. The parents have to take responsibility for not teaching their child correctly. Having said that, I do believe the owner of the dog should pay for any medical treatment that the girl received for the bite.

I would bet money that she bounded up to the dog (a puppy at the time) and thrust her hand at his face. He felt threatened and bit. Once. A bite is not the sign of a vicious dog, if he were vicious there wouldn't be much of the girl left. It's time people learned to live appropriately with animals. And no, I don't see anything wrong with tying a dog up outside a business. Dogs aren't the problem, people are. Thank god they didn't decide to kill the dog for defending himself.

Monday, December 10, 2007

The Golden Compass

Saw the Golden Compass tonight. Didn't see any anti-christian sentiments. Just pro rational thought. I wouldn't take a younger child to it though (13 and under) simply because it's very violent and has a bit of gore (poor old polar bear gets his jaw ripped off...fairly graphic). Honestly I don't see what all the fuss is about banning it and such. Mountain out of a molehill. Sad really that people are so insecure in their faith that they have to attack anything that may remotely challenge it. As an adult, I could vaguely see a little bit of anti organised religion but it was nothing to write home about. Maybe a little bit of intelligent debate will help cement people's beliefs in god. Or, hopefully, not!

By the by, one thing I find amusing. When Phillip Pullman is mentioned in the paper they usually say something along the lines of he's a "self proclaimed atheist" (usually one can detect the undercurrent of hysteria) It's funny to me because it's as though he's a "self-proclaimed rapist" or something. Quite funny.

Oh, by the way, only 8 days until we leave for England. I'm REALLY looking forward to that 5 million hour plane ride............

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Why I hate Christmas!

1 word: People

We had to get some essential supplies from WalMart today (food such) it was utter bedlam. People are ignorant, rude, pushy, nasty and horrible. I wanted to start randomly shooting people. Can't people who celebrate christmas just go to church or something? Is it really necessary to swarm the malls?

Saturday, December 8, 2007

As for the job....

I called the lady who interviewed me. She said that I know all my stuff and definitely have the skills to do the job. However, I was "flippant" and the interviewers could not "take me seriously". She felt that personality wise it would be difficult to match me up to an office.
So there you go, personality and government don't mix, it doesn't matter what you know, it's how you present yourself. And (most importantly) make sure to lie like a rug in an interview. DO NOT tell the truth, DO NOT be yourself! After all, if you represent yourself truthfully, they may get an idea of what type of person you are and how you will actually react in a real situation.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, the Canadian government is comprised of imbeciles, morons and humourless automatons.

Pedophiles on the run

I was disgusted when reading the paper today. In the Calgary Herald, Friday December 7 2007 edition, City & Region section, page B5 There is an article titled "Child sex offender back in jail after probation breach".
This pedophile, Eric Brian Wanamaker, served "over a decade" in jail for a violent sex crime against a teenage girl. Then, once released (I'm not sure how long after he was released he did this), he pleaded guilty last June to "possession of child pornography after being caught viewing child porn images on a laptop computer during a children's festival." Does anyone else think this man is a monster?
He lied to his probation officer about where he was living. He told the probation officer that he was living at the Mustard Seed men's Shelter when in fact he was actually living in "a residence in the community of Citadel." There are a lot of kids, and schools and playgrounds in Citadel. His lawyer, I have no idea how these lawyers can look at themselves in the mirror and not vomit, said that he moved out of the Mustard Seed because he was "constantly being beaten up" (Remind me to make some donations to the Mustard Seed, those men have the right idea as to how to treat a pedophile!) This is the part of the story that gets really sick. His lawyer, a woman who has obviously never been molested, raped or otherwise sexually abused, is arguing for him to get double credit for his time in remand because his time in custody "has not been pleasant" What does she want? He's not in effing Disneyland! She wants his time to be served to be reduced to 4 1/2 months. Absolutely sickening. A man violently attacks a young girl, masturbates, in front of children to images of children being tortured and he gets less than a year in prison.

In the Canadian "justice" system a man puts his severely disabled, suffering, daughter out of her misery is put in prison for 6 years and counting, yet a true monster gets less than a year (4 1/2 months if his cow of a lawyer gets her way). Is it just me or is there something very deeply wrong with our "justice" system. I guess as long as we live in a patriarchal society then the rights of women and children will always take a back burner.

I guess what I've learned from these stories is, if you alleviate suffering, you're a monster. If you cause suffering and revel in it and lie and attack young children, you're an unfortunate victim of circumstance. I hope to god that Eric Wanamaker doesn't get some soft hearted (headed) liberal judge with a penchant for child porn to let him out early.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

By the way

I had my interview on Monday (Dec 3) I babbled like an idiot (as I'm wont to do hee hee) and received an email this evening telling me that (drum roll please.........) I didn't get the job. That, friends and neighbours, is why I love the government.

Robert Latimer refused parole....not funny

I am appalled at the Canadian "justice" system. In 1993 Robert Latimer killed his severely disabled daughter using CO. His daughter had severe cerebral palsy, had the mental capacity of an infant, was in constant pain and had a bleak future ahead of her.
Having worked in a nursing home and seen the suffering that people go through in order to keep their families happy, I am a strong proponent of euthanasia. I'm not saying that as soon as grandpa gets a diagnosis of cancer he should be offed. I'm saying that quality of life is far more important than quantity of life. In other words, I'm saying he did the right thing.
What would keeping his daughter alive have accomplished? His family would be stressed to the breaking point looking after her 24 hours a day 7 days a week. She would have continued to experience unrelenting pain. She never would walk, talk, feed herself, have a boyfriend (not that that's necessarily a bad thing) have a family, get a job, go to school etc etc etc. All the things that everyone takes for granted, she would NEVER be able to do. I think that what Robert Latimer did was an act of compassion and he saved her from a miserable existence.
Now, I know you're thinking "but there are lots of people with CP (cerebral palsy) and people in wheelchairs who are perfectly happy. I've had two boyfriend's with CP, one was in a wheelchair (he experienced a lot of pain, a lot of the time, BUT he still had his mental faculties) Yes, there are many people in wheelchairs are are happy, but was she happy? Who knows, for all intents and purposes (and this sounds incredibly cruel but it's the truth so I'm saying it anyway) she was nothing more than a piece of furniture. A piece of furniture no less who cost a fortune, financially and emotionally to maintain.
How can you have dignity when you need someone to feed you, clothe you, wipe your bottom, bathe you etc etc? That alone, in my opinion would be enough to justify helping her die, add to that the fact that she was in chronic pain and keeping her alive is far more monstrous than helping her die. Ask yourself this, would YOU want her life?
A lot of people say that "life is precious" and every life is "a gift" and we don't have the right to take a life away. I say to those people....well, this is a family blog so I won't say it but it's not very nice. Try walking a mile in her shoes, in her family's shoes and tell me how precious her life is. The ironic thing is these are the same people who say that now she's "with Jesus" and she's "whole again." So if she's better off in "heaven" then why are you bemoaning the fact that she's there now?

I couldn't help but laugh reading a statement by Kelly-Ann Speck (any relation to Richard Speck I wonder?) representative of the parole board. She said "We were left with a feeling that you have not developed the kind of sufficient insight and understanding of your actions." What planet does she live on? Lack of insight? Kelly-Ann, that man had more insight in his little finger than you will EVER have. I've always said the penal system is run by morons and she is living proof of that.

Robert Latimer, I wish you all the luck in the world, thank you for standing up for your daughter's right to die with as much dignity as possible.

As for Canada's "justice" system....what can you say about a system that lets Karla Homolka run free but locks up a loving father.

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Tempest in a teapot pt II

I just read the paper and the little girl has, in essence, "pinned her cross to her bra" Instead of wearing her head scarf (hijab) in the traditional way, she's rewrapped it so that it's like a bandana. A clever solution that is in keeping with her traditional values and also conforms to the league's rules. Nice job on her part to meet in the middle.

Tempest in a teapot

There's a little girl in town who is a Muslim. She wears a traditional head scarf at all times. A referee in her soccer league told her she couldn't wear the head scarf while playing because it's a safety hazard.
There are two camps on the issue, those who say that freedom of religious expression should be honoured and she be allowed to wear the scarf. This camp states that there is virtually no danger to the girl or to others from her scarf.
The other camp says that she should either a) quit the league or b) obey the league's rules and play but not wear her scarf.

I have to admit I'm a bit of a fence sitter on this one. I agree that the scarf doesn't really pose much of a safety risk to anyone and is really not a big deal. However, I also believe that when you join an organisation you have to obey their rules. When I was in Stetsons (Marching band) they dictated everything that we wore, from our hair to our socks. The issue never came up with head scarves or turbans or anything like that but I remember a christian girl getting upset because she had to take her cross off (she eventually did, she pinned it to her bra instead of hanging it around her neck and the "issue" was resolved)

I think, all fence sitting aside, I'm going to have to side with the soccer organisation on this one. It's a shame that some refs turned a blind eye and let her play until this one followed the league's rules. I think if she'd been told off the bat that it was unacceptable attire there wouldn't be all this hoopla about it. I think they're being a bit silly saying that she can't wear it for safety reasons, that, to me, is an attempt to stop people thinking that they're racist. I don't believe that uniform dress codes are racist at all. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When you join a team or an organisation, the dress code is clearly laid out and if you want to be a member of that team or organisation you have to follow the rules of that organisation. It's time the many stopped conforming to the needs of the few.

Oh, by the way, we STILL haven't heard from our lawyer. My status has changed from cheesed off to pissed off. What a waste of F@cking money!