Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the release of 250,000 secret documents to the Internet represents an attack on America and its allies.
But does it when the US government has doing all kind of things to keep the war on freedom going.
Speaking in Washington, Clinton said the U.S. "strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information," saying the act puts lives in danger, threatens national security and undermines diplomacy. "Let's be clear, this disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interest, it is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity," Clinton said.
WikiLeaks, contending that the digital distribution of documents holds governments accountable.
The massive document dump – more than 250,000 U.S diplomatic cables made public Sunday by WikiLeaks – sent shock waves around the globe as the Obama administration had to coped with the fallout of revelations ranging from stunning to salacious as its policies and methods of dealing with friends and foes were embarrassingly laid bare.
And now damage control is being played out by Hillery Clinton, that shows how the US has caused more problems in the world, then any other country has, including putting forth a police state that is being played out in the US from the TSA molestings, to bio-research to be moved near the cattle food chain.
The White House has been scrambling to contain the potential diplomatic disaster spurred by the release of the classified U.S. State Department documents, ordering U.S. agencies to review their safeguards on classified information.
The trove reveals candid assessments of foreign leaders, secret details of the global anti-terrorist campaign and embarrassing details of American diplomats gathering sordid details of the sex lives of foreign leaders.
On Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama's administration ordered a government-wide review of how agencies secure sensitive information. Announcing the assessment, the director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, Jacob Lew, said that the disclosures are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
Clinton said the documents don't expose any wrongdoing on the part of the US government, and serve no public purpose.
What Clinton doesn't want the public to know is how she embraced and ordered Secret spy missions on the UN:
Clinton said "There have been examples in history in which official conduct has been made public in the name of exposing wrongdoing or misdeeds,".
Does that mean Hilly Clinton will come clean on the Spy missions. Somehow I don't it it would have come to light.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton show her misdeed, apparently orderng a covert spying campaign – blurring the role of diplomats – against UN leaders including Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Clinton ordered diplomats to spy on UN leaders, including Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon Work schedules, email addresses, fax numbers, website identifiers and mobile numbers were also demanded by Washington.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton show her misdeed, apparently orderng a covert spying campaign – blurring the role of diplomats – against UN leaders including Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Clinton ordered diplomats to spy on UN leaders, including Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon Work schedules, email addresses, fax numbers, website identifiers and mobile numbers were also demanded by Washington.
The U.S. also wanted ‘biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives’.
The request could break international law and threatens to derail any trust between the U.S. and other powerful nations. Requests for IT related information – such as details of passwords, personal encryption keys and network upgrades - could also raise suspicions that the U.S. was preparing to mount a hacking operation.
It is set to lead to international calls for Mrs. Clinton to resign.
The fishing expedition was ordered by Mrs. Clinton in July 2009, but followed similar demands made by her predecessor, Condoleeza Rice. Mrs. Clinton called for biometric details ‘on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders’.
Mrs. Clinton's orders followed on from those given by former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, shown here with former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in Rome in 2006. She also wanted intelligence on Ban Ki-Moon’s ‘management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat’.
Cables were sent to U.S. embassies in the UN, Middle East, Eastern Europe and Latin America. America has always handed over information about top foreign officials to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). But the request by Mrs Clinton paves the way for officials to be more closely spied upon, with even their travel plans tracked by U.S. diplomats.
In what could discredit the U.S. role in the Middle East peace process, missions in Israel, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were asked to gather biometric information ‘on key Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders and representatives, to include the young guard inside Gaza, the West Bank’. Details of the US spying mission were sent to the CIA, the U.S. Secret Service and the FBI under the heading ‘collection requirements and tasking’.
International treaties ban spying at the UN. The 1946 UN convention on privileges and immunities states: ‘The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action.’
So before Clinton crys fowl about Wikileaks, she should be looking in the mirror, to see that her phony chicken little stories being played out by her in the media don't wash and add up to zero...
Among other revelations in the secret diplomatic messages: America’s close Arab allies have urged it to strike Iran – by bombing nuclear sites and decapitating the ruling Islamic theocracy; cyberwarriors from China’s communist politburo have attacked U.S. government computer networks.
“Cut off the head of the snake," King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said, referring to Tehran, a call to arms he has repeatedly made to both the Bush and Obama administrations. It was a bellicose call, one echoed by Egyptian and other Arab leaders who regard the rising Iranian power across the gulf as an ``existential threat.”
Also revealed: North Korea has provided Iran with ex-Soviet missiles capable of lofting nuclear-warheads thousands of kilometres; Yemen has promised to cover for U.S. missile strikes on its territory by claiming they are its own bombing missions.
"We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh is reported to have said.
"This is not one of those cases. In contrast what is being put on display in this cache of documents is that American diplomats are doing the work we expect them to do." said Clinton.
As warned host governments that the flood of messages could be embarrassing, the first portions that were publicly online on Sunday were almost anti-climatic.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Political Commentary and Opinion
Polygamy made for Women Only because the BC government say so!
The British Columbia government-ism now says laws against polygamy shouldn't apply to women, who have multiple husbands, say what?...
Oh looky, another double standard in the laws, so sure go ahead, make it up as you go. Why not,..... is it not what governments do best anyhow.
Yes, I guess those poor male saps who are minding their own business and in polygamy family relationships, will soon find themselves place in a nice day camp, where they will not be able to have many wives or children to look after, as the state will care for them. So sure, lets have Government-ism telling everyone that their kids should grow up without a dad..
After all, how dare these chaps do such a bad thing for having too many wives.
Yes BC Government-ism, well you know, those in the BC Liberal government-ism sat around in their think tank jammys last night and devised a plan to get at these polygamy men, who give them political creative guys a new look at how to make new laws......to stop men and fathers from forming any kind of bond with children, or their wives....
Does government-ism really think it can place whatever-ism on anything these days and yet the public stands by like lost sheep and let these Liberals-ism do what ever they like in BC. No wonder BC is going down the scale as once a good province with dimwitted leadership steering the boat into the rocks, all the time..
Dam Good thing Bc Leader Liberal Campbell-ism will be gone, but not to soon enough..
Shouldn't government-ism and Feminism stay out of people's lives and their personal beliefs, and who do these cronies in government-ism think they are. When they have a dismal record with the likes of CPS a bunch of dysfunctional sinews of power mongers, who end up harming more family's and children every day in BC.
I wouldn't give you a plum nickel for any government, or those so called feminist groups claiming it all about those women's rights that are being violated and those that think it knows best on the issues of children and familys. As they don't know Jack Shit...They all use opinions and misguided beliefs, that in the end distroy famalys, children lives as we all seen in the divorce courts and the domestic violence laws.
Yup and now they just want to go after polygamy men....but B.C. says polygamy laws shouldn't target women with multiple husbands. I mean come on folks, just who do these clowns in office think their fooling, other then the public puppets, socialists who will buy anything the government says, even if it violates everyone's else's rights...
They really don't care, as governments are violating your freedom and rights for their phony war on terrorism. You see it every day on that issue.
The British Columbia government says laws against polygamy shouldn't apply to women who have multiple husbands or same-sex relationships involving more than two people.
Ahh, now I get it, this is all starting to sound like extremist feminism research at work again, I wonder what kind of opinion research they gave to the BC government this time, to get at polygamy men, polygamy fathers and their children..So they can distroy those types of familys..
The lawyer for the province says the law was only ever meant to outlaw cases in which a man has more than one wife.
Really....hahahaha, ok....Can you say, "Double Standardism..."
Now wait a second, let back this up, didn't the BC Government just say; laws against polygamy shouldn't apply to women who have multiple husbands or same-sex relationships involving more than two people, as it only about Men having wives.
Now it all becoming clear...
Craig Jones made the comments at a constitutional reference case in B.C. Supreme Court, which was spawned by the controversy over the polygamous community of Bountiful. Jones says the harms associated with polygamy, including child brides and the discrimination of women, are the result of men marrying multiple wives.
What makes Jones think it couldn't apply the other way around, when women are associated with polygamy, including them having child brides and the discrimination of children who are sexule abused by women, and is the result of women marrying multiple husbands, or women....
Jones says when Parliament brought in the polygamy laws in 1890, the government of the day was clearly concerned about multiple wives in some cultures -- namely Mormons, Muslims and First Nations.
Wow the 1890's, isn't that law a little outdated compaired to todays world and what is going on in what other governments are saying that there are many different types of familys.
Jones admits that his definition is "controversial" and that the federal government and others disagree, but he says whatever definition is used, the plural marriages of Bountiful clearly violate the law.
But Jones doesn't believe laws against polygamy shouldn't apply to women, who have multiple husbands or same-sex relationships involving more than two people. There is no clearly violation of the law, right Jones! After all you don't want to seem like your a misogynist type now do you...
Just where is their socialist thinking at?
Well folks I don't know if I should laugh at or cry for Jones and the BC government-ism, as there are some real strange people getting elected in government-ism these days and those pushing for odd laws to make outlaws out of everyone..that is.... only you men folks out there, while feminism, and feminist groups has a free ride over the liberty of men and male children in this country...
People need to really think about that, as what cost do we as a society stop abusing the rights of others, for the sake of the few groups in this country who feel they have more rights and freedoms, then others do...
The federal government's lawyer is expected to disagree, explaining in written arguments that Ottawa believes the Criminal Code section dealing with polygamy refers to any marriage or conjugal relationship involving more than two people, regardless of their sex.
BC province's unsuccessful attempt to prosecute the two leaders of a fundamentalist Mormon sect in Bountiful, a small community in the southeastern Interior of B.C. Winston Blackmore and James Oler were charged in January 2009 with one count each of practising polygamy, but those charges were later thrown out when a judge ruled the province used an unfair process to find a prosecutor. If the court strikes down the law, Canada would be the first country in the developed world to decriminalize polygamy. However, no matter what Bauman decides, appeals to higher courts are expected.
Video click here
Radio Show Talk - Roadkill Radio
If You were taught that the United States Constitution written by our Founding Fathers was the most important document regarding individual freedom ever written in the history of mankind, followed only by the Magna Carta. You believe that the Constitution set up a central government with limited powers, and that the powers not listed in the Constitution was left for the states and the people who make up the states. You believe that the powers of the central government were limited and that the powers of the individual states were indefinite, to quote James Madison. You believe that the first Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, gave to each citizen rights given to them by their Creator that no government led by man can take away.
That is why The Powers That Be, hate you, and whatever rights and freedoms are left.
News Report....
The British Columbia government says laws against polygamy shouldn't apply to women who have multiple husbands or same-sex relationships involving more than two people.
Instead, a lawyer for the province says the law was only ever meant to outlaw cases in which a man has more than one wife. Craig Jones made the comments at a constitutional reference case in B.C. Supreme Court, which was spawned by the controversy over the polygamous community of Bountiful. Jones says the harms associated with polygamy, including child brides and the discrimination of women, are the result of men marrying multiple wives. He says when Parliament brought in the polygamy laws in 1890, the government of the day was clearly concerned about multiple wives in some cultures -- namely Mormons, Muslims and First Nations. Jones admits that his definition is "controversial" and that the federal government and others disagree, but he says whatever definition is used, the plural marriages of Bountiful clearly violate the law.
...............................
Polygamy laws aimed at men, court told
Dick Freeman
November 23, 2010
Polygamy made for Women Only because the BC government say so!
The British Columbia government-ism now says laws against polygamy shouldn't apply to women, who have multiple husbands, say what?...
Oh looky, another double standard in the laws, so sure go ahead, make it up as you go. Why not,..... is it not what governments do best anyhow.
Yes, I guess those poor male saps who are minding their own business and in polygamy family relationships, will soon find themselves place in a nice day camp, where they will not be able to have many wives or children to look after, as the state will care for them. So sure, lets have Government-ism telling everyone that their kids should grow up without a dad..
After all, how dare these chaps do such a bad thing for having too many wives.
Yes BC Government-ism, well you know, those in the BC Liberal government-ism sat around in their think tank jammys last night and devised a plan to get at these polygamy men, who give them political creative guys a new look at how to make new laws......to stop men and fathers from forming any kind of bond with children, or their wives....
Are these BC Liberal government busy body-ism kooks for real?
This is what is wrong with Canada, and those elected cream puffs in office. They all run around screaming the sky is falling, while at the same time feeding the public how government knows best-ism, while their buds in women's rights organizations who all push the same old tired line on men and based on opinions in their demands to government-ism.
This is what is wrong with Canada, and those elected cream puffs in office. They all run around screaming the sky is falling, while at the same time feeding the public how government knows best-ism, while their buds in women's rights organizations who all push the same old tired line on men and based on opinions in their demands to government-ism.
This sounds more like perverting the laws for one gender once again, as the BC government already has in many area's of the law, as do other governments, who spend days, months, and years finding new and exciting ways to trash over men, and fathers, as it has been done in family laws, then domestic violence laws, and now polygamy laws, made only for women.....Go figure.
Does government-ism really think it can place whatever-ism on anything these days and yet the public stands by like lost sheep and let these Liberals-ism do what ever they like in BC. No wonder BC is going down the scale as once a good province with dimwitted leadership steering the boat into the rocks, all the time..
Dam Good thing Bc Leader Liberal Campbell-ism will be gone, but not to soon enough..
Shouldn't government-ism and Feminism stay out of people's lives and their personal beliefs, and who do these cronies in government-ism think they are. When they have a dismal record with the likes of CPS a bunch of dysfunctional sinews of power mongers, who end up harming more family's and children every day in BC.
I wouldn't give you a plum nickel for any government, or those so called feminist groups claiming it all about those women's rights that are being violated and those that think it knows best on the issues of children and familys. As they don't know Jack Shit...They all use opinions and misguided beliefs, that in the end distroy famalys, children lives as we all seen in the divorce courts and the domestic violence laws.
Yup and now they just want to go after polygamy men....but B.C. says polygamy laws shouldn't target women with multiple husbands. I mean come on folks, just who do these clowns in office think their fooling, other then the public puppets, socialists who will buy anything the government says, even if it violates everyone's else's rights...
They really don't care, as governments are violating your freedom and rights for their phony war on terrorism. You see it every day on that issue.
The British Columbia government says laws against polygamy shouldn't apply to women who have multiple husbands or same-sex relationships involving more than two people.
Ahh, now I get it, this is all starting to sound like extremist feminism research at work again, I wonder what kind of opinion research they gave to the BC government this time, to get at polygamy men, polygamy fathers and their children..So they can distroy those types of familys..
The lawyer for the province says the law was only ever meant to outlaw cases in which a man has more than one wife.
Really....hahahaha, ok....Can you say, "Double Standardism..."
Now wait a second, let back this up, didn't the BC Government just say; laws against polygamy shouldn't apply to women who have multiple husbands or same-sex relationships involving more than two people, as it only about Men having wives.
Now it all becoming clear...
Craig Jones made the comments at a constitutional reference case in B.C. Supreme Court, which was spawned by the controversy over the polygamous community of Bountiful. Jones says the harms associated with polygamy, including child brides and the discrimination of women, are the result of men marrying multiple wives.
What makes Jones think it couldn't apply the other way around, when women are associated with polygamy, including them having child brides and the discrimination of children who are sexule abused by women, and is the result of women marrying multiple husbands, or women....
Jones says when Parliament brought in the polygamy laws in 1890, the government of the day was clearly concerned about multiple wives in some cultures -- namely Mormons, Muslims and First Nations.
Wow the 1890's, isn't that law a little outdated compaired to todays world and what is going on in what other governments are saying that there are many different types of familys.
Jones admits that his definition is "controversial" and that the federal government and others disagree, but he says whatever definition is used, the plural marriages of Bountiful clearly violate the law.
But Jones doesn't believe laws against polygamy shouldn't apply to women, who have multiple husbands or same-sex relationships involving more than two people. There is no clearly violation of the law, right Jones! After all you don't want to seem like your a misogynist type now do you...
Just where is their socialist thinking at?
Well folks I don't know if I should laugh at or cry for Jones and the BC government-ism, as there are some real strange people getting elected in government-ism these days and those pushing for odd laws to make outlaws out of everyone..that is.... only you men folks out there, while feminism, and feminist groups has a free ride over the liberty of men and male children in this country...
People need to really think about that, as what cost do we as a society stop abusing the rights of others, for the sake of the few groups in this country who feel they have more rights and freedoms, then others do...
The federal government's lawyer is expected to disagree, explaining in written arguments that Ottawa believes the Criminal Code section dealing with polygamy refers to any marriage or conjugal relationship involving more than two people, regardless of their sex.
BC province's unsuccessful attempt to prosecute the two leaders of a fundamentalist Mormon sect in Bountiful, a small community in the southeastern Interior of B.C. Winston Blackmore and James Oler were charged in January 2009 with one count each of practising polygamy, but those charges were later thrown out when a judge ruled the province used an unfair process to find a prosecutor. If the court strikes down the law, Canada would be the first country in the developed world to decriminalize polygamy. However, no matter what Bauman decides, appeals to higher courts are expected.
Video click here
Radio Show Talk - Roadkill Radio
Show #84 Download Part 1
TROUBLE, SEX & POLYGAMY!
BILL GAIRDNER - the True Conservative, will join us to talk about his most recent book – THE TROUBLE WITH CANADA…STILL! Bill is a prolific writer and a champion of common sense. This will be a fascinating discussion!!
Show #84 Download Part 2
Terry O is rightly outraged by the Ontario judge who made unjust accusations against the father of two little girls who were tragically murdered by their mother. Justice is both blind & dumb in this case. (Click here for the story.) Then “don’t touch my junk” – Air travel in the brave new world! Are we being conditioned to conform? Kari says; “you betcha!”
TROUBLE, SEX & POLYGAMY!
BILL GAIRDNER - the True Conservative, will join us to talk about his most recent book – THE TROUBLE WITH CANADA…STILL! Bill is a prolific writer and a champion of common sense. This will be a fascinating discussion!!
Show #84 Download Part 2
Terry O is rightly outraged by the Ontario judge who made unjust accusations against the father of two little girls who were tragically murdered by their mother. Justice is both blind & dumb in this case. (Click here for the story.) Then “don’t touch my junk” – Air travel in the brave new world! Are we being conditioned to conform? Kari says; “you betcha!”
Show #84 Download Part 3
Doug Christie, lawyer and one of Canada’s most respected legal minds and a great defender of free speech and individual liberty will join us to talk about the Polygamy case that is taking place in Vancouver. Doug is representing CAFÉ (Canadian Association for Free Expression) and arguing in favour of striking down the Criminal Code section involving polygamy!! We should be selling tickets to this discussion (free-for-all!)!!
.............................................................................................................................Doug Christie, lawyer and one of Canada’s most respected legal minds and a great defender of free speech and individual liberty will join us to talk about the Polygamy case that is taking place in Vancouver. Doug is representing CAFÉ (Canadian Association for Free Expression) and arguing in favour of striking down the Criminal Code section involving polygamy!! We should be selling tickets to this discussion (free-for-all!)!!
If You were taught that the United States Constitution written by our Founding Fathers was the most important document regarding individual freedom ever written in the history of mankind, followed only by the Magna Carta. You believe that the Constitution set up a central government with limited powers, and that the powers not listed in the Constitution was left for the states and the people who make up the states. You believe that the powers of the central government were limited and that the powers of the individual states were indefinite, to quote James Madison. You believe that the first Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, gave to each citizen rights given to them by their Creator that no government led by man can take away.
That is why The Powers That Be, hate you, and whatever rights and freedoms are left.
..........................................................................................................................
News Report....
By: The Canadian Press
Date: Tuesday Nov. 23, 2010 11:22 AM PT
The British Columbia government says laws against polygamy shouldn't apply to women who have multiple husbands or same-sex relationships involving more than two people.
Instead, a lawyer for the province says the law was only ever meant to outlaw cases in which a man has more than one wife. Craig Jones made the comments at a constitutional reference case in B.C. Supreme Court, which was spawned by the controversy over the polygamous community of Bountiful. Jones says the harms associated with polygamy, including child brides and the discrimination of women, are the result of men marrying multiple wives. He says when Parliament brought in the polygamy laws in 1890, the government of the day was clearly concerned about multiple wives in some cultures -- namely Mormons, Muslims and First Nations. Jones admits that his definition is "controversial" and that the federal government and others disagree, but he says whatever definition is used, the plural marriages of Bountiful clearly violate the law.
...............................
Polygamy laws aimed at men, court told
Friday, November 19, 2010
Just how long are these kooks like Bill Gates going to push their socilaist agenda to hoodwink the public, for their population control programs that add up to zero...It seems the dealth cults are comming out of the woodwork to push their nonsense in order to scare people for their profit...Take a hike Bill, people are getting wise to you and all those others who know what your real goal is...
If people want to kill themselves with vaccines that's their right, but don't exspect others to fall in line and do as you say Bill..
Bill Gates: Register Every Birth by Cellphone To Ensure Vaccination, Control Population Growth
PreventDisease | Gates told the audience that there is no such thing as a healthy, high-population growth country.
November 19, 2010
On the tails of a recent TED conference where Bill Gates stated that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures, he added more to this insanity last week with a keynote address at the mHealth Summit, an annual gathering whose supposedly focuses on improving health care through mobile technology.
Gates told an audience of more than 2,000 that if we could register every worldwide birth on a cell phone, we could ensure that children receive the proper vaccines. He also said the key to controlling population growth is to save the lives of children under 5; and the next big thing in technology is robots.
Bill Gates Propaganda Video
Gates said computing technology has been great for health care, and there are plenty of opportunities to use the cell phone in clinic settings. Although he noted that some places which need mhealth technology the most may not be able to fully benefit from it.
“We have to approach these things with some humility,” he said. “There’s not Internet connections back there. Often [patients are too sick] for some cell phone thing to do something for them.”
Gates said the key health care metric that we as a society should be trying to improve is one that is in the front of his mind all the time–the number of children who die before age 5. Today, he said the number is 8.5 million; in 1960 it was 20 million.
“About one-third [of that improvement] is by increasing income,” he said. “The majority has been through vaccines. Vaccines will be the key. If you could register every birth on a cell phone—get fingerprints, get a location—then you could [set up] systems to make sure the immunizations happen.”
Gates said he’d like to see a birth registration system, and because it’s a new technology, “we should let 1,000 new ideas blossom.”
He said vaccination rates in poorer areas, such as northern Nigeria and northern India, are below 50 percent, and mobile technology could make a significant difference.
“When I think about the biggest impacts, I think aobut patient reminders,” Gates said. He explained that technology could help remind people to take the TB drugs regularly or remind mothers to do certain things in their child’s first year of life.
He also said technology will be important in monitoring the supply chain (i.e. making sure there aren’t counterfeits among vaccinations and medications) as well as saving lives on the ground. “Malaria and TB are going to be the first things where you say, ‘Wow, without this mobile application, all these people would have died.’”
Gates told the audience that there is no such thing as a healthy, high-population growth country. “If you’re healthy, you’re low-population growth,” he said.
While most of us assume that saving the lives of children will contribute to overpopulation, Gates said the contrary is true.
“The key thing, the most important fact that people should know and make sure other people know: As you save children under 5, that is the thing that reduces population growth. That sounds paradoxal. The fact is that within a decade of improving health outcomes, parents decide to have less children.
“As the world grows from 6 billion to 9 billion, all of that population growth is in urban slums,” he said. “Slums is a growing businesses. It’s a very interesting problem.”
He said no matter what we care about—the environment, schools, nutrition, conflict—the issues are insoluble at 3 percent population growth per year. “Nobody can handle that type of situation, so the best thing you can do is avoid those deaths.”
He said we are in a tough time for foreign aid, and governments are cutting their budgets in response to the financial climate. “The U.K. is quite exemplary,” he said. “They set aside their aid budget and are on track to keep their commitment. It will grow while they cut the rest of their budget. I hope it doesn’t get cut here in the U.S., but I’ll say I’m quite concerned that it will be.”
Gates said he has resorted to pleading for money. “I’m a beggar now,” he said. “I go around and beg governments for the final [millions of dollars] needed to eradicate polio. The financial component may be why it doesn’t get done.”
When asked what’s next in our technological advancement, Gates said there’s no doubt it’s robots. “If you don’t want to go to a convention,” he said, “just send a robot. “When we look at something like infant mortality, there’s a certain level you can’t get below if you can’t do C-sections.” He said doing a caesarean section delivery requires a sterile environment, but Gates said it’s fairly routine, so it could be done by a robot.
He said that we are moving from computers sitting idle while we type; to those that can see us and have high-end applications; to computers that allow us to move and connect with other users in applications like Xbox.
“Computers are learning to see, learning to talk ,learning to listen, learning to move around,” Gates said. “The dexterity things are maybe five years behind.” But he said once a robot learns a task, “it doesn’t forget how to do it. It can do it 24 hours a day.”
Gates used an example in South Africa to illustrate how health education doesn’t always lead to behavior change. He said the Gates Foundation partnered with the Kaiser Family Foundation to educate young people about HIV, with several types of outreach, including billboards. When interviewed, there was no question that the young people understood what caused HIV, but there were not significant behavior changes, because in their minds, the disease was in the distant future.
“If AIDS killed you immediately, things would be better because you’d see these piles of bodies outside bars [and think], ‘I don’t want to go in there… looks suspicious.’ It’s these discontinuities that are the problem,” Gates said. “If all the poor people lived in your neighborhood we wouldn’t have problems with foreign aid.”
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with David Rockefeller’s Rockefeller Foundation, the creators of the GMO biotechnology, are also financing a project called The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) headed by former UN chief, Kofi Annan. Accepting the role as AGRA head in June 2007 Annan expressed his “gratitude to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and all others who support our African campaign.” The AGRA board is dominated by people from both the Gates’ and Rockefeller foundations.
Sources:
smartplanet.com
oilgeopolitics.net
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Woman that kill their husband gets life!
Woman killed cheating husband with overdose of heroin
Found guilty of first-degree murder in B.C. Supreme Court
Justice Mary Humphries wrote in her decision that Ruffolo, now 54, had ample motive to kill her husband, who had had more than one affair with other women and was planning to leave his wife to be with a co-worker.
Woman killed cheating husband with overdose of heroin
A Vancouver Island woman has been found guilty of adulterous murdering her husband with a lethal dose of heroin.
Found guilty of first-degree murder in B.C. Supreme Court
A Vancouver Island woman has been found guilty of murdering her adulterous husband with a lethal dose of heroin.
Saanich resident John Ruffolo was drugged to death at home on Oct. 19, 2003. His body was discovered by a hiker six days later in a remote wooded area in the Victoria suburb.
His wife, Ruby Ann Ruffolo, was arrested after a five-month investigation that revealed she sedated her husband with an antidepressant mixed into a protein shake before injecting him with an overdose heroin.
She was found guilty of first-degree murder in B.C. Supreme Court on Thursday, when she was sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 25 years.
Justice Mary Humphries wrote in her decision that Ruffolo, now 54, had ample motive to kill her husband, who had had more than one affair with other women and was planning to leave his wife to be with a co-worker.
The marriage was on the rocks, witnesses told the court, and Ruffolo was worried about the financial implications of dividing up the family's numerous rental properties, which had largely been paid for with her money but were in his name.
"Many witnesses testified to her preoccupation with the division of property...and Ms. Ruffolo's desire to keep John Ruffolo from having any of it, rather than divide it with him in a divorce," Humphries wrote.
"Ms. Ruffolo's reaction, when faced with the possible breakdown of the marriage, was to consider the death of John Ruffolo rather than divorce, and to ask others for assistance."
The judge also wrote that Ruffolo blamed her husband for her son's suicide by hanging in the family's backyard in 2002.
The murder of John Ruffolo
About a month before the murder, Ruffolo met with a one-eyed man named Robert Johnson at a Victoria community centre to ask him to kill her husband.
Johnson thought it was a joke and refused.
"But having seen a TV program the night before on ‘hot capping,' that is, injecting a large amount of heroin, told her that would be a good way to kill someone," Humphries wrote.
He suggested that $150 worth of the drug would be enough to do the trick
Ruffolo's tenant and friend Vivian Kirkland told the court that Ruffolo pressured her to use her connections to buy the heroin.
After the deed was done, Ruffolo asked Johnson to come to her house to help with some "heavy lifting." When he arrived, he found John lying dead in the driveway of the family home at 994 Tulip Avenue. Ruffolo told him her husband had died of a heroin overdose.
He refused to help move the body, and told the court he left immediately.
But Kirkland and another tenant, Douglas Murray, testified that they helped Ruffolo lift the body into her car. Kirkland drove more than 15 kilometres with her landlord to dump the dead man in a culvert running under Humpback Road.
Kirkland pleaded guilty in 2007 to offering indignity to John's remains for her role in moving the body.
The investigation and trial
Ruffolo reported her husband missing the day after the murder, and told police that he was depressed and possibly using heroin.
"Every witness who had known John Ruffolo was asked if they ever saw him display any indications of drug use or drug dealing, particularly heroin," Humphries wrote.
"None had."
Forensic scientists later found that John Ruffolo died of a lethal mix of heroin and the antidepressant amitriptyline. They also discovered bruising and puncture wounds where the heroin was injected on both elbows.
Johnson visited the police a week after John Ruffolo's body was discovered, and told them what he knew.
But despite the testimony of Johnson, Kirkland and Murray, Ruffolo has denied having any involvement in the murder.
"She said she left him sleeping at home on the morning of Sunday, October 19, 2003 and assumed when she returned that night after a long day of looking after the rental properties that he had gone to work," the judge wrote.
The defence argued that there were no eye-witnesses to John's death, and described the Crown prosecutors' evidence as "almost ridiculous" and its suggested motive as "nonsensical."
Defence lawyers suggested that John may have gone into to hiding because he owed money to drug dealers. They brought witnesses who said they had sold heroin to John, and another pair who said they saw him at a local restaurant four days after he was supposedly murdered.
But the judge rejected that theory, writing that there were "many difficulties" with it, particularly the idea that he would let himself be seen in a popular pub while he was running for his life.
"I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only rational conclusion is that Ms. Ruffolo either injected the heroin herself, or if Vivian Kirkland participated, she did so with the assistance and encouragement of Ms. Ruffolo," Humphries wrote.
"The only rational conclusion to draw from the evidence...is that the killing of John Ruffolo by administering drugs to him was intentional."
This was Ruffolo's second trial for her husband's murder -- the first ended in mistrial last year.
The Ruffolos had one daughter, Jovanna, who is now 20 years old.
....................................
Ruby Ann Ruffolo found guilty of murdering her husband, sentenced to life in prison
After years of legal wrangling, Ruby Ann Ruffolo of Saanich was found guilty of the first-degree murder of her husband and sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 25 years.
- Read the verdict
- Ruffolo timeline: Oct. 19, 2003, to Nov. 18, 2010
- "Evil has been removed from our streets," victim's mother says
- Gallery: Images from Ruffolo verdict, drawn out case
- Get local news first: Sign up for breaking news alerts
- Heroin deal described at Ruffolo trial
- Ruffolo lawyer cleared of professional misconduct
- Ruffolo's last days full of fear: Crown
- Ruffolo murder trial judge takes tour of crime scene
- Ruffolo's testimony at her murder trial was phoney, prosecutor says
- Ruffolo murder trial: Did she kill her husband? Final arguments July 14
Ruby Ann Ruffolo released on $50,000 bail
Times Colonist
Friday, March 19, 2004
Ruby Ann Ruffolo, charged with murder in the death of her husband John, was released on $50,000 bail Thursday afternoon.
Conditions were set earlier in the day in B.C. Supreme Court in Victoria. Ruffolo will have to obey a curfew and avoid people who may be connected with the upcoming trial. The 47-year-old, who normally uses her middle name, was arrested last Friday and is facing a charge of first-degree murder.
John Ruffolo, a 36-year-old former prison guard, was found dead on an isolated stretch of Humpback Road in Langford last Oct. 25. He had been missing for five days. The couple's 12-year-old daughter is in the custody of the Ministry of Children and Families.
Also charged with first-degree murder and still in custody is Vivian Marie Kirkland, 43, also known as Marynissen. Her next court appearance is scheduled for April 5.
2004 Times Colonist (Victoria)
.........................................
Suspects in Ruffolo murder appear in court
canada.com
Monday, March 08, 2004
VICTORIA -- Two women charged in the death of John Ruffolo of Saanich have made their first court appearances. Ruffolo's widow, 47-year-old Ruby Ann, is charged with first degree murder. She has been remanded in custody until March 11 for an arraignment hearing. Also charged with first degree murder is 43-year-old Vivian Kirkland, who will remain in custody until April 5. Ruffolo -- who was 35 -- was found dead by hikers last October 25. Last week, the police conducted a raid on his home.
2004 Canadian Press
..............................
Wife, another woman charged with murder in Ruffolo case
Kim Westad
Times Colonist
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Ruffolo: Found in dense bush
Two women were charged Saturday with the first-degree murder of John Frank Salvatore Ruffolo -- including his widow Ann, who has publicly denied several times that she killed her husband.
Also charged with first-degree murder is Vivian Marie Kirkland, also known by the last name Marynissen. Police say the women know each other.
The two women remain in custody and are to be in court on Monday morning, when they could seek their release on bail.
A 40-year-old man arrested Thursday has been released.
Both Kirkland, 43, and the man, who police will not identify because he's not been charged with anything, knew John Ruffolo before his death.
Ruffolo never showed up for his night shift as a Brink's guard the evening of Oct. 19. The 36-year-old was reported missing Oct. 20. His car was found two days later at the Knockanback Grill at the junction of Wilkinson and Interurban roads, about a kilometre from the Tulip Avenue home he shared with Ann Ruffolo and their 12-year-old daughter.
On Oct. 25, a hiker walking in the woods found Ruffolo dead in the dense bush off Humpback Road, an isolated Langford road some 11 kilometres from where his abandoned car was found.
Initially, his death was classified as suspicious. An autopsy was done, but the cause of death wasn't disclosed, even to the family.
West Shore RCMP and the Saanich police, who are jointly investigating the case, upgraded that "suspicious" category to homicide in January, after receiving the results of additional forensic tests done after the autopsy.
Saanich police Const. Chris Horsley said the department won't disclose what those findings were, citing the integrity of the investigation and any trials.
The arrests top a lengthy investigation that has many in the public speculating about the killing.
Rumours about Ruffolo have been flowing since his body was found. He is said to have run an escort agency in Victoria and had a troubled rooming-house business. He was also known for both selling and using drugs, and rumours surfaced of old enemies he had made during his former job as a guard at Wilkinson Road jail.
He lost that job in 1999 after being convicted in provincial court of 23 counts of brokering property deals without a licence.
Ann Ruffolo told friends police began tailing her soon after her husband's body was found. Saanich police confirmed that it was their police car following the 47-year-old woman, but offered no further explanation.
On Wednesday, police searched the Ruffolo home.
Ann Ruffolo and Kirkland were arrested on the public sidewalk outside a medical building in the 900-block of Esquimalt Road on Friday afternoon.
First-degree murder -- that which is planned and deliberate -- is the most serious form of murder. It carries a mandatory life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years.
2004 Times Colonist (Victoria)
...................................................
Police conduct search of victim's home
canada.com
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Anne Ruffolo, whose husband John was murdered last fall.
CREDIT: CH TV
The widow of a man murdered last fall broke her silence in a television interview Wednesday, the same day Victoria-area police conducted a search at the family home.
Anne Ruffolo's husband John died last October. His body was found five days after he was reported missing.
Saanich Police say it was a homicide but have never released the cause of death.
There have been rumours Ruffolo was poisoned. According to the search warrant, the items authorities were looking for included the blender and protein powder Anne used to make John's morning shakes.
Anne Ruffolo says according to tenants in the family's rental properties and a recent column by the Times Colonist's Jody Paterson, police believe she is a suspect.
"According to that column and according to four tenants that I've spoken to, the police have told them right from the beginning of this investigation, without any proof, that, 'Oh, Anne must have hired a hit man,'" Ruffolo says.
"I would never do that to John."
Police have not yet publicly identified any suspects.
John Ruffolo owned an apartment building and several rental properties around Victoria.
Anne Ruffolo says some of the tenants are drug dealers. One of the drug dealers, she says, threatened to kill John two weeks before he disappeared. Anne says it was because John confronted the tenant about dealing drugs from the house.
Ruffolo says at the moment she's just trying to hold herself together and take care of the rental properties.
"I miss John a lot," she says. "Everything's just overwhelming without him."
2004 CH TV, with files from Canadian Press
.................................
Ruffolo's widow arrested in his murder
canada.com
Friday, March 05, 2004
FILE - Still image of Anne Ruffolo taken from her Wednesday interview with CH News. CREDIT: CH TV
Saanich police have arrested three people in the murder of Saanich businessman John Ruffolo last fall. One of those arrested is the victim's widow.
Anne Ruffolo was taken into custody in downtown Victoria Friday. The names of the other suspects, a man and a woman, have not been released.
"Members of the Saanich Police Detective Division and members of the West Shore RCMP Major Crime Unit have made three arrests in the last 48 hours," said Saanich Police Const. Chris Horsley Friday.
"Last night a 40-year-old male was arrested, and today, a 43-year-old female and a 47-year-old female. All parties were arrested in direct connection to the Ruffolo murder."
John Ruffolo disappeared October 20. His car, a red Ford Tempo, was found outside a Saanich pub four days later. The next day, Ruffolo's body was found in the woods off Humpback Road.
Police raided the Ruffolo family home on Wednesday, taking several items including a blender, protein powder and the keys to the Ford Tempo. Friday, police confiscated the car.
In an interview with CH News Wednesday, Anne Ruffolo denied any involvement in her husband John's disappearance and murder.
Ruffolo said she didn't know why police believe she has something to do with the murder.
"I gain nothing from Johnny's death," Ruffolo said.
Friday afternoon, police seized videotapes of that interview from CH News.
The Ruffolos' daughter is being cared for under the direction of social services.
All three suspects in John Ruffolo's murder will appear in provincial court in VIctoria Saturday.
2004 CH TV
.......................................
Rumours abound in unsolved homicide
Jody Paterson
Times Colonist
Sunday, February 29, 2004
At first glance, he seemed like a regular enough guy: Wife, 12-year-old daughter, average-looking home in Saanich. Juggling four part-time jobs was a little unusual, but not unheard of these days.
But then John Ruffolo turned up dead last fall, his body found near the Humpback water reservoir in an isolated area rumoured on the streets to be a popular place for getting rid of "problems."
Then came word of the escort agency he'd been running in Victoria, and the troubled rooming-house business he had going on the side. Drugs entered the picture; Ruffolo was known for both selling and using. Rumours surfaced of old enemies Ruffolo had made during his former job as a guard at the provincial jail on Wilkinson Road.
Four months since hikers came across his body in a Langford forest, police still don't know who killed John Ruffolo. But there's no shortage of possibilities.
West Shore RCMP aren't saying anything, including how Ruffolo died. Even Ruffolo's family hasn't been told a cause of death. His body was returned to them and cremated a few days after he was found, but the results of the autopsy remain secret.
"It's a need-to-know kind of thing," says RCMP Staff-Sgt. Jack Henzie cryptically.
As for whether there are suspects in the killing, Henzie says there definitely are. "But nothing I'm prepared to discuss."
His widow Ann is presuming she's on the list, as police have been following her since her husband's body was found Oct. 25. One time, they pulled her over and reported on the police radio that a "suspect to the Ruffolo murder" was being questioned. Tenants of the Ruffolos say they've been told by police that Ann is suspected of hiring a contract killer.
She vehemently denies having anything to do with her husband's death, and urges police to "look for the truth" instead of assuming that they know it.
But with fingers pointing in all directions, that clearly hasn't been easy.
A renter at the Quadra Street house that Ruffolo operated for years as an escort agency says the talk he's hearing is that an angry tenant killed the 36-year-old, in retaliation for being evicted. It's possible: The tenants at this particular house haven't had heat since Jan. 10 when the furnace oil ran out, and worse things than that are said to have been endured by tenants at some of Ruffolo's rooming houses.
Over at the Esquimalt Road apartment complex he owned, the rumour is that John's death was drug-related. No, says another tenant -- he was killed to settle an old score from his jail-guard days. He lost that job in 1999 after being found liable in B.C. Supreme Court for running an illegal landlord-tenant matching service.
The story has been strange from the start. Ruffolo's family went to bed on the night of Oct. 19 thinking John had left to pull a night shift with Brink's Victoria, where he was biding time while trying to land a job as a customs officer. In fact, he never showed up for his shift, and was reported missing the next morning.
Three days later, his vehicle was found parked at the Knockanback Grill, a Wilkinson Road restaurant about a kilometre from his home.
It's unknown whether it was parked there all along, although acquaintances say that either Ruffolo's wife or parents, who also lived nearby, would surely have spotted it earlier if that had been the case.
Two days after that, hikers came across his body in dense bush off Humpback Road, 11 kilometres away from where his vehicle was found. How he'd died wasn't immediately evident, and police initially wondered if they had a suicide on their hands.
But whatever was in January's forensics report changed their minds. Ruffolo's death was upgraded soon after to a homicide -- a term that means somebody killed him, but makes no assumptions around intent.
And that's where the case remains.
"I have a feeling John had it coming, but I don't know," says one longtime tenant. "This world's a strange place."
jpaterson@tc.canwest.com
Times Colonist (Victoria)
Why do feminist spend so much time "Justifying Women's Violence"
Ask Pam Cross - On her Blog, but is she right...No... As it comes down to the fact that feminist beleive that only men are violent and excuse women's violence at any cost.So lets have a look at women's violence and ask yourself why the feminists fear this issue coming forth.....
Part 1 Justifying Women's Violence. Why do Women get Less Time in Jail then Men Do? And why is violence on men and children over looked in today's society.
Comments on The Kim Tran Case Karen McArthur a Toronto Lawyer Justifies Women's Violence. Have a Look at these Video's for yourself and what do you think about women's violence being ignored by governments, police, and those feminist themselves.
Part 2 - Justifying Women's Violence. Why do Women get Less Time in Jail then Men Do? And why is violence on men and children over looked in today's society.
Comments on The Kim Tran Case Karen McArthur a Toronto Lawyer Justifies Women's Violence.
Notwithstanding these conceptual and methodological problems, feminist scholars have developed several strategies and implemented them successfully in the academic, political, legal and public domains. One important strategy is to construct intimate violence as a gender issue rather than as a human problem (Lupri, 2004). As stated above, men have been constructed as the primary oppressors and perpetrators of intimate violence and women have been regarded primarily as victims. A second successful strategy has been, and still is, to use advocacy efforts to convince the state to acknowledge the oppression of women, both within and outside the household. Their third successful strategy has been, and still is, to ensure that domestic violence against women is acknowledged as a public issue and a serious social problem. A corollary of the latter strategy entails focusing sharply on physical violence as well as on outcomes. However, radical feminists have ignored the complexity of the dynamic that is an integral part of intimate interaction and have been reluctant to recognize that men and women are intimately engaged in, and part of, the dialectic interplay of abuse.
There has been an enormous growth in the amount of public, professional, and media attention given to wife assault in Canada (Lupri and Grandin, 2004). Countless studies have examined the nature and extent of the problem. Thousands of women’s shelters have been established in North America and throughout the world. Legislation and police charges have evolved in response to the growing appreciation of the extent of that problem. The issue of domestic abuse of men, by comparison, has received little attention. Even today, there still exists a strong institutional resistance to fully acknowledging that intimate violence is a two-way street. While some progress has been made, male abuse has yet to be recognized as a public issue and a social problem.
The KIm Tran Case
Studies on Violence
SAy what the TSA!
Man Who Played Pervert In Pat Down Job Application Treated Seriously By TSA
Nudie magazine addict applies at TSA and feels comfortable with fondling and the nude scanners as long he is allowed to take the pictures home for “research” purposes.
4409 -- Porn addict applies at TSA
Other examples of Pat downs
Police Now Staking Out California Airports to Catch TSA Gropers
Appearing on the Alex Jones Show today, current chief deputy DA and incoming DA of San Mateo County Steve Wagstaffe said his office will prosecute TSA employees who engage in lewd and lascivious behavior while conducting Homeland Security mandated patdowns at the San Francisco International Airport in San Mateo County.
Airport staff ‘exposed woman’s breasts, laughed’
The 23-year-old traveller, from Amarillo, US, is suing the US Government for the emotional distressed she says the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents caused.
Look how insane the "Fake War on Terror" has become, as the upside down-ism world is getting sicker and sicker in the US socilaist State, yes run by terrorist themselves in government who only want all your freedom and rights for their own self serving goals.
Violence issues that government and feminist didn't think about Yet!
"Take back the Night" march ...............................................
Give Back the Night
by Dick Freeman
Every year a group of women gathers in Victoria's Centennial Square to start a march in which the focus is on female victims of violence. They want to "Take Back the Night". These are the ideological twisted-sister femi-nutsys who have succeeded in portraying men as selfish beasts, much in need of legislative control for everything from child-support to workplace conduct. But, what the heck... we surely do want to please the "ladies", don't we fellahs?
Thanks to the "Take Back the Night" marches, we now think we have the solution for women (and men) experiencing violence at night. The marchers say they would like to take back the night and we think we men really should give it back to them. We don't remember who took it from them, but it seems only fair to have our own (men only, of course) "Give Back the Night" marches.
Now, most men will stop reading right here, assuming this is yet another journalistic sell-out to the femi-nutsy crowd - but please consider these facts: StatsCan statistics for 1994 showed 378 male adults were murdered, versus 61 female adults; as well as 48 male youths versus 4 female youths.
A study from the Emergency Department at Leicester Royal Infirmary in England, on domestic violence injuries, found "men suffered a higher rate of injury than women", and that "more than 80 percent of these men had been attacked with weapons". Along with more than 50 studies done by various methods and researchers showing men are just as often physically abused by their spouse or girlfriend. Research even shows that approximately ten times as many men are sexually assaulted as are women*.
There is, in fact, no category of violence in which men do not lead as victims. If most of this violence occurs at night, we'll theoretically cut men's exposure by more than half by giving back the night! Full credit to the women for this idea of course.
Giving back the night will also reduce risky crowd control assignments for police officers. For example, when two men managed to get too close to TBTN marchers, three police officers quickly ran to the marchers aid to have them removed. Apparently the men were "bothering" the women simply by existing in a public park.
So, okay, many guys initially won't like this, and will object that femi-nutsy marchers are forcing an evening curfew on them. However, we think guys can be convinced by the following reasoned argument: Sports are mostly televised at night!
Let us gather representatives from each side at once, and meet at the newly constructed monument to "women murdered by men" in a formal turnover of the night in Thorton Park - which is surely an appropriate symbol of the "equality and fairness" (or is that misandry?) principles at issue here. Some high level bureaucrat from the Attorney General's Ministry or Women's Equality would be amply qualified to conduct any negotiations in a fair and equitable manner.
Barney the Dinosaur has also been suggested as a possible candidate for mediator.
After signing, any man with a valid reason to venture out at night would require a permission slip from his wife or significant other. He would also wear a large rotating beacon on top of his head to warn all women (and police) of his presence. With this system in place, and with appropriate legislation to put some teeth in it, the femi-nutsy marchers would be assured that any man out at night was female-approved, and therefore somewhat non-violent and probably safe.
Much safer, we're convinced, than the women at this years TBTN march who actually had signs which read "Lorena Bobbitt was a survivor".
Don't we have to wonder about the mental stability of a group that claims on one hand to be condemning violence, yet holds up Lorena as some kind of venerated saint or icon? Referring to the author of such a heinous crime as a "survivor" demonstrates a profound lack of responsibility and judgment, and reveals the darker side of women. This should be of concern to everyone; though it is clearly not a concern of the media - as their silence on this matter has been deafening.
And we also have to wonder why male victims are always ignored in their marches? Aren't all male victims someone's Father, Husband, Boyfriend, or Son? Are these victims considered no better than "perpetrators" because they share genders with the few that commit violent crime? That sort of 'thinking' is a philosophy not unlike the KKK.
In any case, giving back the night is certainly easier than many other suggestions for reducing violence: like stronger families and establishing good moral foundations for our children. Thank you for such a wonderfully simple idea!
*Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990, Table 6.33 for 1987-88 data on Jails - 1,210,094 male sexual assault victims. Department of Justice, 1990 - 119,780 female sexual assault victims - United States.
Publication refused by Jody Paterson, Victoria Times-Colonist Newspaper
Published on The Backlash! Website
....................................
By the Dick Freeman Boys
(A sanitized version of our rejected Give Back the Night article.)
It's said that everyone in Canada has been touched by violence in some way. Every victim is someone's Father or Mother, Son or Daughter, friend or co-worker. When any member of our society is victimized, each of us feels some level of sorrow and/or empathy for that person and their family. Such is often the impetus for constructive efforts geared toward reducing all violence in our society. On the other hand, there are those in our midsts who choose to divide their concern to two categories of victim: those labelled "worthy" and "unworthy". And only one set of factors is used to make their determination: gender.
Every year a group of women gathers in Centennial Square to start a march in which the focus is on female victims of violence. The only male victims they deem worthy to be included in their march for safety and justice are boys; though it is not clear just how old a murdered boy has to be before he is no longer counted as a worthy victim.
Is there something particularly unique about violence against women that it needs such special attention?
Statistics Canada numbers for 1994 show 378 adult males were murdered versus 61 adult females. That is a ratio of over six to one! Furthermore, 48 male youths, and 4 female youths were murdered; a ratio of twelve to one! New worldwide studies show that substantial numbers of men are victims of sexual assault. Research on the levels of rape in prison show that Ten times as many men are raped in prison as are women in the general population*. And when it comes to domestic assault, there are more than 50 studies done by various methods and researchers showing that men are just as often abused by their spouse - including the category of "severe abuse". For example, the study done by the Emergency Department at Leicester Royal Infirmary in England on domestic violence injuries found "men suffered a higher rate of injury than women", and that "more than 80 percent of these men had been attacked with weapons".
In point of fact, there is NO category of violence in which men do not lead as victims, yet WE do not play the violence-against-men thing - rather against violence, period! To emphasize the "male victim" would amount to a trap, and lead to "excuses" we wish to avoid. To take responsibility of ones' words and deeds is to be a responsible citizen.
What would we think of a group that protested violence by minority immigrants, yet ignores similar violence by their own members? Would the media be as supportive in their cause as they are to those that highlight violence against women by men?
Is it not clear that any group that uses such tactics to de-humanize a particular group are in fact hate-mongers?
At this year's march, so strong was anti-male sentiment that police removed two men merely walking through the park when marchers complained they were "bothering them".
These are marchers who carried signs that read "Lorena Bobbitt was a survivor". Don't we have to wonder at the moral inconsistencies of those who claim to be militantly against violence, yet hold up the image of a violent woman as their hero or icon? For them to suggest the author of a heinous act is a "survivor" demonstrates a profound lack of judgement and responsibility, and perhaps shows us the darker side of women.
And don't we also have to wonder at their constant banishment of male victims from their scope of concern? Aren't all male victims someone's Father, husband, son or boyfriend? Are these victims considered no better than "perpetrators" because they share genders with the few that commit violent crime? A philosophy we would expect from the KKK perhaps. Is part of the problem some sense of "entitlement" on the part of many women? Do they feel that, simply because they are women, they should be given special protection? Perhaps this is a carry-over of our historical past?
Whatever the "reasons", we remain convinced that those who are truly sincere about reducing violence in our society, do not take inventory of a persons anatomy before deciding who is a "worthy" or "unworthy" victim. Violence against any living person is to be condemned with EQUAL vigor and diligence. Those who use the topic of violence to denigrate a particular group of society are the real enemy in our fight to reduce violence.
Those who think it their right to stir up hatred and flaunt their bias in the name of "social responsibility" are grossly misguided. Surely we can all see this?
*Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990, Table 6.33 for 1987-88 data on Jails - 1,210,094 sexual assault victims -United States. Department of Justice, 1990 - 119,780 female sexual assaults.
Published: Victoria Times-Colonist November 14, 1997 Page A17
"Take back the Night" march ...............................................
Give Back the Night
by Dick Freeman
Every year a group of women gathers in Victoria's Centennial Square to start a march in which the focus is on female victims of violence. They want to "Take Back the Night". These are the ideological twisted-sister femi-nutsys who have succeeded in portraying men as selfish beasts, much in need of legislative control for everything from child-support to workplace conduct. But, what the heck... we surely do want to please the "ladies", don't we fellahs?
Thanks to the "Take Back the Night" marches, we now think we have the solution for women (and men) experiencing violence at night. The marchers say they would like to take back the night and we think we men really should give it back to them. We don't remember who took it from them, but it seems only fair to have our own (men only, of course) "Give Back the Night" marches.
Now, most men will stop reading right here, assuming this is yet another journalistic sell-out to the femi-nutsy crowd - but please consider these facts: StatsCan statistics for 1994 showed 378 male adults were murdered, versus 61 female adults; as well as 48 male youths versus 4 female youths.
A study from the Emergency Department at Leicester Royal Infirmary in England, on domestic violence injuries, found "men suffered a higher rate of injury than women", and that "more than 80 percent of these men had been attacked with weapons". Along with more than 50 studies done by various methods and researchers showing men are just as often physically abused by their spouse or girlfriend. Research even shows that approximately ten times as many men are sexually assaulted as are women*.
There is, in fact, no category of violence in which men do not lead as victims. If most of this violence occurs at night, we'll theoretically cut men's exposure by more than half by giving back the night! Full credit to the women for this idea of course.
Giving back the night will also reduce risky crowd control assignments for police officers. For example, when two men managed to get too close to TBTN marchers, three police officers quickly ran to the marchers aid to have them removed. Apparently the men were "bothering" the women simply by existing in a public park.
So, okay, many guys initially won't like this, and will object that femi-nutsy marchers are forcing an evening curfew on them. However, we think guys can be convinced by the following reasoned argument: Sports are mostly televised at night!
Let us gather representatives from each side at once, and meet at the newly constructed monument to "women murdered by men" in a formal turnover of the night in Thorton Park - which is surely an appropriate symbol of the "equality and fairness" (or is that misandry?) principles at issue here. Some high level bureaucrat from the Attorney General's Ministry or Women's Equality would be amply qualified to conduct any negotiations in a fair and equitable manner.
Barney the Dinosaur has also been suggested as a possible candidate for mediator.
After signing, any man with a valid reason to venture out at night would require a permission slip from his wife or significant other. He would also wear a large rotating beacon on top of his head to warn all women (and police) of his presence. With this system in place, and with appropriate legislation to put some teeth in it, the femi-nutsy marchers would be assured that any man out at night was female-approved, and therefore somewhat non-violent and probably safe.
Much safer, we're convinced, than the women at this years TBTN march who actually had signs which read "Lorena Bobbitt was a survivor".
Don't we have to wonder about the mental stability of a group that claims on one hand to be condemning violence, yet holds up Lorena as some kind of venerated saint or icon? Referring to the author of such a heinous crime as a "survivor" demonstrates a profound lack of responsibility and judgment, and reveals the darker side of women. This should be of concern to everyone; though it is clearly not a concern of the media - as their silence on this matter has been deafening.
And we also have to wonder why male victims are always ignored in their marches? Aren't all male victims someone's Father, Husband, Boyfriend, or Son? Are these victims considered no better than "perpetrators" because they share genders with the few that commit violent crime? That sort of 'thinking' is a philosophy not unlike the KKK.
In any case, giving back the night is certainly easier than many other suggestions for reducing violence: like stronger families and establishing good moral foundations for our children. Thank you for such a wonderfully simple idea!
*Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990, Table 6.33 for 1987-88 data on Jails - 1,210,094 male sexual assault victims. Department of Justice, 1990 - 119,780 female sexual assault victims - United States.
Publication refused by Jody Paterson, Victoria Times-Colonist Newspaper
Published on The Backlash! Website
....................................
By the Dick Freeman Boys
(A sanitized version of our rejected Give Back the Night article.)
It's said that everyone in Canada has been touched by violence in some way. Every victim is someone's Father or Mother, Son or Daughter, friend or co-worker. When any member of our society is victimized, each of us feels some level of sorrow and/or empathy for that person and their family. Such is often the impetus for constructive efforts geared toward reducing all violence in our society. On the other hand, there are those in our midsts who choose to divide their concern to two categories of victim: those labelled "worthy" and "unworthy". And only one set of factors is used to make their determination: gender.
Every year a group of women gathers in Centennial Square to start a march in which the focus is on female victims of violence. The only male victims they deem worthy to be included in their march for safety and justice are boys; though it is not clear just how old a murdered boy has to be before he is no longer counted as a worthy victim.
Is there something particularly unique about violence against women that it needs such special attention?
Statistics Canada numbers for 1994 show 378 adult males were murdered versus 61 adult females. That is a ratio of over six to one! Furthermore, 48 male youths, and 4 female youths were murdered; a ratio of twelve to one! New worldwide studies show that substantial numbers of men are victims of sexual assault. Research on the levels of rape in prison show that Ten times as many men are raped in prison as are women in the general population*. And when it comes to domestic assault, there are more than 50 studies done by various methods and researchers showing that men are just as often abused by their spouse - including the category of "severe abuse". For example, the study done by the Emergency Department at Leicester Royal Infirmary in England on domestic violence injuries found "men suffered a higher rate of injury than women", and that "more than 80 percent of these men had been attacked with weapons".
In point of fact, there is NO category of violence in which men do not lead as victims, yet WE do not play the violence-against-men thing - rather against violence, period! To emphasize the "male victim" would amount to a trap, and lead to "excuses" we wish to avoid. To take responsibility of ones' words and deeds is to be a responsible citizen.
What would we think of a group that protested violence by minority immigrants, yet ignores similar violence by their own members? Would the media be as supportive in their cause as they are to those that highlight violence against women by men?
Is it not clear that any group that uses such tactics to de-humanize a particular group are in fact hate-mongers?
At this year's march, so strong was anti-male sentiment that police removed two men merely walking through the park when marchers complained they were "bothering them".
These are marchers who carried signs that read "Lorena Bobbitt was a survivor". Don't we have to wonder at the moral inconsistencies of those who claim to be militantly against violence, yet hold up the image of a violent woman as their hero or icon? For them to suggest the author of a heinous act is a "survivor" demonstrates a profound lack of judgement and responsibility, and perhaps shows us the darker side of women.
And don't we also have to wonder at their constant banishment of male victims from their scope of concern? Aren't all male victims someone's Father, husband, son or boyfriend? Are these victims considered no better than "perpetrators" because they share genders with the few that commit violent crime? A philosophy we would expect from the KKK perhaps. Is part of the problem some sense of "entitlement" on the part of many women? Do they feel that, simply because they are women, they should be given special protection? Perhaps this is a carry-over of our historical past?
Whatever the "reasons", we remain convinced that those who are truly sincere about reducing violence in our society, do not take inventory of a persons anatomy before deciding who is a "worthy" or "unworthy" victim. Violence against any living person is to be condemned with EQUAL vigor and diligence. Those who use the topic of violence to denigrate a particular group of society are the real enemy in our fight to reduce violence.
Those who think it their right to stir up hatred and flaunt their bias in the name of "social responsibility" are grossly misguided. Surely we can all see this?
*Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990, Table 6.33 for 1987-88 data on Jails - 1,210,094 sexual assault victims -United States. Department of Justice, 1990 - 119,780 female sexual assaults.
Published: Victoria Times-Colonist November 14, 1997 Page A17
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
