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.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
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.
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!
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!
Thursday, November 29, 2007
My husband is no longer an alien....
no thanks to our lawyer...I'm getting really cheesed off with our immigration lawyer. When we moved I phoned her 7 or 8 times to give her our new address, she didn't call back for three months. Finally, I sent her an email. Not nasty, just not overly nice. She wrote back with a tale of woe about suffering a miscarriage and being in hospital for 3 months. A sad story to be sure but couldn't she have had a partner or someone phone her anxious clients and let them know that they were without a life raft in the cruel sea of bureaucracy? Now, Chris has his landed immigrant status but he doesn't have his card. Without his card he can't travel out of the country without some sort of special permission from an embassy (we actually don't understand what the issue is which is why we hired a lawyer). I have called her every night and left a message every night since November 22 (it's now the 29th) How frigging long does it take to return a freaking phone call. Especially to someone who is paying you $1400 for your effing services?!?!?!?!?! I'm ticked off at her!
I've got an interview on December 3rd at Child and Family services. Hopefully I'll get the job. The girls are quizzing me and trying to surreptitiously trying to give me an ace in the hole. I think I'll be okay.
We've been leaving Mush out periodically while we're at work. So far she's eaten my best shoes ($125.00) Chris' dress shoes ($40.00) my favourite rug ($52.00) and some sort of plastic thing. Her toys are untouched. Little darling! If she keeps this BS up I'm probably going to strangle her!
I've got an interview on December 3rd at Child and Family services. Hopefully I'll get the job. The girls are quizzing me and trying to surreptitiously trying to give me an ace in the hole. I think I'll be okay.
We've been leaving Mush out periodically while we're at work. So far she's eaten my best shoes ($125.00) Chris' dress shoes ($40.00) my favourite rug ($52.00) and some sort of plastic thing. Her toys are untouched. Little darling! If she keeps this BS up I'm probably going to strangle her!
Sunday, November 25, 2007
My opinion on the Robert Dziekanski matter
My mother phoned me last night and we had a heated discussion about the death of Robert Dziekanski in the Vancouver airport at the hands of police. She thinks the police behaved heinously, I think that, while they over reacted, they did the right thing. For those of you who are gnashing their teeth and organising a mob to come for me, let me tell you WHY I feel this way.
Police deal with strung out drug addicts and mentally ill people all the time. They know that someone high on drugs has super human strength. A man high on drugs or in the grips of mental illness can easily overpower 4 policemen and injure them in the process. When I was 16 I had an insulin reaction and beat the tar out of 4 big (over 200 lbs each) men, one of whom was a former Olympic wrestler. If a 16 year old girl can do that a 40 year old man definitely can. The police didn't know why he was behaving irrationally (actually only he know that, saying he was frustrated from being detained is, although it looks painfully obvious, conjecture) they saw a man acting in an irrational manner and (maybe) assumed he was high on drugs. Looking at the video tape of his behaviour, he easily looked like someone either high or having some sort of mental moment. I believe they judged him to be potentially dangerous and so protected themselves and the surrounding civilians accordingly.
Another argument brought up by my mother was that he didn't speak English. Well, whose fault is that? If you're visiting Canada you are wise to learn at least a few phrases English (or French). Even if all you can say is "Where's the bathroom? I need a Polish interpreter. " etc. If you were going to visit Poland wouldn't you learn a few simple phrases? If you're planning on immigrating to a country (as he was) you should definitely have at LEAST a rudimentary grasp of the native tongue. When in Rome and all that. So, yes, he was frustrated and locked in the secure area of the airport (my husband was held for 4 hours when he came over to marry me and was not a happy camper). However, he chose to throw things around, and threaten people.
His choices led him to being restrained by the police. If he had learned a few important phrases in English (please contact my mother Mrs. so and so) and acted like an adult and remained calm he would be sitting at him mother's house right now bemoaning the fact that Canada wouldn't let him immigrate because of his criminal record (5 years for robbery in Poland).
I feel saddened by the fact that he died because of the taser blast and admit that the police could have been a bit more sympathetic to him but I would rather the police have tasered him and got him under control than for them to wrestle with him and have him kill or injure one of them. My fear now is that next time someone's acting up in public the police will be afraid to take him down and he'll wind up killing someone.
Police deal with strung out drug addicts and mentally ill people all the time. They know that someone high on drugs has super human strength. A man high on drugs or in the grips of mental illness can easily overpower 4 policemen and injure them in the process. When I was 16 I had an insulin reaction and beat the tar out of 4 big (over 200 lbs each) men, one of whom was a former Olympic wrestler. If a 16 year old girl can do that a 40 year old man definitely can. The police didn't know why he was behaving irrationally (actually only he know that, saying he was frustrated from being detained is, although it looks painfully obvious, conjecture) they saw a man acting in an irrational manner and (maybe) assumed he was high on drugs. Looking at the video tape of his behaviour, he easily looked like someone either high or having some sort of mental moment. I believe they judged him to be potentially dangerous and so protected themselves and the surrounding civilians accordingly.
Another argument brought up by my mother was that he didn't speak English. Well, whose fault is that? If you're visiting Canada you are wise to learn at least a few phrases English (or French). Even if all you can say is "Where's the bathroom? I need a Polish interpreter. " etc. If you were going to visit Poland wouldn't you learn a few simple phrases? If you're planning on immigrating to a country (as he was) you should definitely have at LEAST a rudimentary grasp of the native tongue. When in Rome and all that. So, yes, he was frustrated and locked in the secure area of the airport (my husband was held for 4 hours when he came over to marry me and was not a happy camper). However, he chose to throw things around, and threaten people.
His choices led him to being restrained by the police. If he had learned a few important phrases in English (please contact my mother Mrs. so and so) and acted like an adult and remained calm he would be sitting at him mother's house right now bemoaning the fact that Canada wouldn't let him immigrate because of his criminal record (5 years for robbery in Poland).
I feel saddened by the fact that he died because of the taser blast and admit that the police could have been a bit more sympathetic to him but I would rather the police have tasered him and got him under control than for them to wrestle with him and have him kill or injure one of them. My fear now is that next time someone's acting up in public the police will be afraid to take him down and he'll wind up killing someone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
