Down to Business

I'll freely admit that I've been paying relatively scant attention (by my standard, anyways) to the 2008 US Presidential Race. As a Canadian, it's something of an abomination to see a two-year campaign cycle, and the amount of money required to run a campaign is equally grotesque. One of the greatest accomplishments of Jean Chretien's career was to drastically reduce the influence of the wealthy and virtually wipe out the ability of large corporations to disproportionately affect an election race to their preferred outcomes. It is commendable that Stephen Harper has followed up on this, further limiting the extent to which an individual can contribute. None of these restrictions apply in the United States, and thus we hear of a $250 million warchest for George W. Bush and a not much smaller one for John Kerry in 2004.
One of the great problems with such a prolonged campaign is that someone who appears to be a virtual lock in the early stages turns into a total non-factor by the time the actual election occurs--hello and goodbye, Howard Dean. The potential for a timebomb to appear at a strategic time is also increased--witness Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or Dan Rather's accounting of GWB's Vietnam record. There is always the possibility for similar things in a Canadian election cycle, of course, but the compressed timeframe means that we're not subjected to multiple variations of the same theme ad nauseum. Thirdly, there are relatively few things that are discussed at a YouTube debate in August 2007 that are likely to still be resonating in the minds of voters by the time November 2008 rolls around. It's merely preliminary verbal jousting for months on end that does little to establish long-term positioning, especially in this, the era of "the flip-flop."
However, the primary season is almost upon us, and that means it is time to start paying attention. What is said in the next few weeks will determine where the Democratic and Republican bases park their votes. True frontrunners are likely to emerge in the next 50 days, while players that were playing well previously will be compelled to throw their weight behind others that have a genuine shot at winning their party's nomination. The mid-carders will start dropping off shortly, and the high-profile main eventers will have a greater number of even more intense spotlights shining on them. That means tough choices for a number of candidates, and that means the intrigue and interest will certainly be picking up.
Off the start, let me say that I am quite likely to be supporting a Democrat for 2008 unless either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani take the Republican nomination. There are a number of shortcomings facing the other Republican candidates that almost instantly disqualify them in my eyes. I cannot reasonably support a candidate who says such things as, and I'm paraphrasing here, "While Mitt Romney was promising to do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy, I was moving in the opposition direction." It's unfathomable to me that a candidate for President of the United States would be proud to say that he was moving to deny a group of people rights--and of course, Romney himself no longer supports gay rights for Americans. With so many of the Republican candidates pandering to the religious right, they're alienating themselves from people like me who believe, to borrow Irwin Cotler's term, "a right is a right is a right." Other major issues for me include:
* Foreign Policy - I'll be looking for positions regarding the continuance of the Bush Doctrine, seeing who adopts what and who seeks to be the un-Bush when it comes to America's strategic role and primacy in the world. The candidate who articulates the strongest vision for American leadership, victory in Iraq and the broader War on Terror and Tyranny, ending genocide and human suffering, counter- and nonproliferation of WMDs, and the remaking of the system of international institutions is likely to earn my support.
* Domestic Policy - though I like my American leaders to largely follow the principle of the imperial presidency and leave the domestic agenda largely to Congress (and let's be honest here, being Canadian, what Americans do within their own borders is less relevant than what they do beyond them), there are some initiatives I would like to see. Someone has to reasonably tackle the challenge of increasing violence in the United States--against women, among gangs, as a result of drug trafficking, and otherwise. There's the looming Social Security and Medicaid crises. Education is another big issue. Homeland security and intelligence reform.

There's a lot going on in America that will be relevant and pertinent to a successful candidate for 2008. I'm looking forward to seeing who emerges in the coming weeks and months.

This is Not a Good Idea

A group of prostituted women in Toronto are planning to launch a constitutional challenge at the Supreme Court of Canada to get prostitution legalized in order to enhance their personal liberty and security, which they feel are impeded by Canada's current laws. As you can imagine, I do not think that this is a good idea.

It is not the illegality of prostitution that puts women at risk. It is the men, the johns, who do that when they solicit a woman for the purpose of prostitution. The women in this case want the government to "remember that they are human." This is an interesting comment, because in the news story where I first heard of this (link), only once is the word "woman" used and is overshadowed by the usual dehumanizing terms used to describe the people involved: "sex-trade workers" and "prostitute" appear regularly and in more prominent sections. Rather than seeing Ottawa as the problem, they ought to focus on those who seek to procure them, for they are the ones who do not care about the humanity of these women. It is those men who threaten female security through their actions, because prostitution itself is an act of male violence against women.

I have argued in support of the Swedish model for dealing with the problem of prostitution, for it recognizes the act of procuring a woman as an act of violence against her person that threatens her security while not imposing penalties on women who are involved in prostitution, either due to threats, duress, or their own free will. Johns can receive up to 6 months in jail for solicitation, and the results in Sweden in the past 7 years have been demonstrable: bawdy houses have all but disappeared and the overall occurrence of prostitution has declined.

On the television news story, it was mentioned that these women have had their "freedom of expression" curtailed by Ottawa's policy on prostitution. Again, this is not true, and misses the real target. It is those who have created the conditions for these women where they have no other alternative who have limited their ability to express themselves, whether that means the abusive parent or relative, their pimp, or their john(s). To suggest that in Canada there is an "official death penalty" imposed upon prostituted woman is not true. It is certainly not the state which is killing women; it is depraved individuals such as Pickton and his ilk, for they are the ones who are killing these women without even a moment's thought for their own humanity.

It is a situation of terrible personal circumstances and a lack of opportunity that often pushes women into prostitution. Where Ottawa has failed these women is in not providing them with enough resources, such as safe houses and stronger police protection, to avoid prostitution or escape from it. I have no shortage of empathy for women who seek to make their own lives more secure and free, but what this constitutional challenge does is not eradicate the cage that is imposed upon prostituted woman; rather, it would only make the cage larger and make it easier for people to get inside. Freedom, in the only true sense of the word, means being able to live one's life in the manner of their own choosing and pursue our happiness in our own way without infringing upon the right of others to do the same. This challenge to potentially legalize prostitution would make it easier for pimps to violate that basic principle of freedom with greater impunity. It is also an entire level removed from consideration of giving women enough opportunities, training, and resources to pursue their happiness without having to resort to prostitution and sacrifice their own humanity.

Response from the Government

As you will recall, a few months back I sent an essay to the Minister of Justice on the subject of strengthening Canada's laws revolving sexual and other violent offenders (The original post about the essay can be found here, while a link to the essay itself can be found here). In the time between sending that paper and today, there was a Cabinet shuffle that saw Vic Toews replaced by Harold Nicholson, who was at the time the Leader of the House. Nonetheless, it was current Minister Nicholoson who responded to the paper. I received that response today.

First thing that I noticed was the typo. I appreciate the sentiment, but had to chuckle when Nicholson apologized for the "lenghty delay in responding." Oops!

Other than that, the two-page letter ran over Canada's New Government's steps to crack down on violent sexual crimes since taking office. He was nice enough to include an October 17th news release and backgrounder on Bill C-27, which was the government's initiative to make for "more effective sentencing and management of sexual and violent offenders." It also promises to make it easier for the Crown to obtain dangerous offender designations for repeat offenders "by reversing the onus where there is a third serious violent or sexual offence," something which I am certainly in favour of doing and hope that there will be no run-ins with the courts over any potential conflicts with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The response didn't make reference to anything I directly in the essay, which was somewhat disappointing, but I was glad to receive a response and an assurance that the Government does take this matter seriously and is taking steps to address violence against women and children in this country. I may even send a response to Minister Nicholson's response to see how long we can keep the dialogue running. If I do, I'll be sure to post it here.

Hatred Hits Home in Toronto

Easily the most vile story of the day comes from Toronto, where four young (and I use the term extremely loosely) men--two youths who cannot be named plus a pair of shitheads named Philip Perry and Barton Reeder--raped an unconscious young woman. And they videotaped it on their cellphones, presumably to forever treasure the memory of their action and show it off to their friends. They probably would have even told themselves that she was asking for it, since she didn't say "no" and all.

This is the type of story that should make every decent human being shudder in disgust. I know that since I first saw the headline in this morning's Post and subsequently read about it again in the G&M and saw it on CTV, a fury has been building inside of me. It is the type of thing that makes me want to call the Minister of Justice's office and repeat the calls from all corners of the country to get serious and impose some serious punishments for this type of violent offence against the integrity of the person. Sure, stiffer penalties may not deter everybody from committing crime, but they will make at least some potential perpetrators think twice. Getting locked away for 20 or 30 years would no doubt affect the thinking of some potential rapists who would no longer feel as though it was worth the risk.

Of course, we probably have to take another step back. If groups of young men are patrolling the streets looking for passed-out women to gang rape, we're already in a world of trouble. Kids such as this already have such hatred for women that they're actively looking for targets to express that hatred and assert their lust for domination. The parents, the schools, and the system have already failed by this point. And the ones that have to suffer, as is often the case, are women. Women bear the main brunt of male hatred.

How many will it take until people stand up and say "NO MORE!" We're already at a point where 1 in 3 women in Canada will experience male violence during the course of their lifetimes. Does it have to be 1 in 2? 2 out of 3? 3 out of 4? 4 out of 5? All of them? At what stage of things do women and men--particularly the latter, since it is ONLY MEN WHO CAN STOP RAPE--collectively say, "Enough of this bullshit. It is well past time we took action against those who rape and inflict violence against women simply because they are women." Because clearly 1 in 3 isn't enough.

A 16-year old girl, who had no agency or ability to defend herself in this circumstance, was assaulted by a group of males who hated her for what she is. Will they face the appropriate consequences? Seemingly yes: they are being charged with sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, gang sexual assault and manufacturing child pornography. Philip Perry is also facing a charge of uttering death threats, while one of the 17-year-olds is facing an additional charge of possession of child pornography. If convicted, they will face jail time, a not insignificant amount of it. The young woman, however, will have to bear the scars of this assault for the remainder of her life. Whatever their intentions were, these men have profoundly affected, for the worst, the life of another human being that they didn't even see as a person. And it is for that reason, I conclude by asking: will the consequences, if any, amount to justice? On that front, I fear that the answer, as it so often is, is no.