Quick Sexism Test

Which of the following statements are sexist?

“All the evil in the world is caused by women.”

“All wars are caused by men.”

“Women have no place in politics because they would start wars when they menstruate.”

“Men are stronger than women.”

“On average, men are usually physically stronger than women.”

“One of the causes of violence is a culture that teaches men that dominance is natural and preferable.”

“One of the causes of violence is a culture that teaches people that dominance is natural and preferable.”

“When a couple becomes physically violent, the woman is always to blame.”

“When a couple becomes physically violent, the man is always to blame.”

Answers:

First, this is a difficult test.  It is aimed at so-called “feminists” who want more for women, which should not be confused with real feminists that work towards equality for men and women.  Some of the questions are “trick questions” deigned to demonstrate the difference between those that attempt to gain from injustice, and those that oppose injustice without prejudice.  I hope you do not get caught up in the arguments of the second wave of feminism that teaches prejudice, stereotypes, segregation (“Sisterhood”), inequality and double standards.

“All the evil in the world is caused by women.” Sexist.  It is a ridiculous statement.

“All wars are caused by men.”  Sexist.  First you would have to list every war, which is impossible, as history is incomplete.  So no one can make this claim with certainty, and this is therefor prejudicial.  Also, I know men that are constantly pressured into things they don’t want to do by their aggressive controlling female partners.  This statement is not factual.  Politics, economics ad relationships are too complex to make any statement beginning with “All wars…” a statement worth listening to.

“Women have no place in politics because they would start wars when they menstruate.”  Sexist.  All women (or men) are not responsible for the behavior of one.  The rest is irrelevant.

“Men are stronger than women.”  Sexist.  Not all men–not all women.  Prejudicial stereotype.

“On average, men are usually physically stronger than women.”  Not sexist.  A true statement that acknowledges in its context that it is a stereotype and not true in all cases.

“One of the causes of violence is a culture that teaches men that dominance is natural and preferable.”  Sexist. See the next answer.

“One of the causes of violence is a culture that teaches people that dominance is natural and preferable.”  Not sexist.  Gender neutral.  (“Men” switched with “people”)

“When a couple becomes physically violent, the woman is always to blame.”  Sexist.  See next answer.

“When a couple becomes physically violent, the man is always to blame.”  Sexist. The dynamics of an individual relationship and incident are too complex to use such generalities.  Who hit who?  Did you automatically assumes the man hit the woman? (sexist)   What if they are both men?  Both women? What if the woman is the abusive one?  What if they are both violent?  ”Society” and “men” are not to blame for the actions of one or both.

How did you score?

1-3 /7   You are a sexist.  Sorry.  You can’t seem to see people as individuals and have some irrational or false beliefs about the roles of men and women in society.

4-5 /7  You are still a little sexist, most likely because of cultural or personal influences, but you can usually be fair

6-7 /7 – You are not a sexist.  You apply logic without prejudice, seeing men and women as equally capable of making their own good or bad decisions.

Lefty Man-haters

Here is a wall post from Facebook that is weird, crazy, hilarious and…  What’s that, Darcy Higgins? (Green Party of Ontario Director of Policy and Communications)

Darcy Higgins Am saddened by the actions of violent men in this decade

Yesterday at 4:06pm · Comment · Like

2 people like this

Dan Mick Why just the men?

Yesterday at 4:07pm ·

Darcy Higgins the ones who thought out and initiated wars were men, perhaps Rice aside

Yesterday at 4:10pm

Dan Mick So you are okay with, or glad, about the actions of violent women? Is tomorrow’s status going to be that you are “saddened by the actions of violent black people in this decade” ? No? What about “violent Jews”? No? “Gays?” No? Then why do you think it is okay to put “men”?

I am offended–singling out “men” is sexism. Try: “…saddened by the actions of violent people…”

Yesterday at 4:31pm ·

Mark Fernandez these violent actions will cause sadness in our communities and must be overcome. mobilization through unbiased education is key for a start towards a true peace in our world on a macro level and it starts on a micro level in the communities we live in.

Yesterday at 4:40pm

Harry Pedersen Mr Mick is quite right in his post.

Yesterday at 5:17pm

Angela Read Unfortunately, the stats .overwhelmingly. show the actions of men as violent. Just saying…now don’t throw anything at me. <runs>

Yesterday at 5:29pm

Susan Gapka An ‘ism’ operates when a specific identifiable group, experience disadvantage based upon a personal characteristic (women). For example, men are privileged through ‘patriarchy’ (the rule of men) and exploit women through ‘sexism’. Therefore, a claim of sexism against men cannot be supported and its claim may itself be sexist.

Happy Holidays!

Yesterday at 6:04pm

Kris M. Agard AWWW that hurt…Rice?…What she did?

Yesterday at 6:30pm

Kris M. Agard that was very deep Susan, well said

Yesterday at 6:34pm

Gordon Chamberlain Actually some men will opress any man, woman or child that they can. They are not selective in the application of ruthless, murderous greed. The petroleum and coal corporations are not selective in who planet they are destabilising the climate off.

Yesterday at 7:15pm

Brendan Pinto Not all isms follow that rule. What about jism?

Yesterday at 7:26pm

Asif Rahman The attacks on the innocent lives – more specifically those of hot alien warrior babes – of Pandora was totally uncalled for. I mean where on Earth would those idiots find such gorgeous women?

Yesterday at 8:23pm

Dan Mick Sorry Susan, did you just say sexism can’t happen against men? Ever? And that I am a sexist because Darcy innacurately and unfairly singled out men in an attempt to impress some girl? You paid for your education, Susan?

“Isms” exist where one single person is persecuted. A racist comment is racist no matter what race says what to whoever.. same with sexism. Sociology has nothing to do with it–that’s just your left wing victim mentality looking for a big powerful enemy conspiracy (of men). Don’t forget the victims in your rush to blame men for whatever unhappiness you have.

And patriarchy doesn’t give me any privileges… If I am going to be labeled as an evil sexist man–simply because I am a man, shouldn’t I get some of the privileges? I want a refund.

Yesterday at 9:17pm ·

Dan Mick Actually, Gordon, some women will opress any man, woman or child that they can–I’ve known some.

You wouldn’t say “some black’s attack children…” without expecting to be called a racist. So stop slagging men, when INDIVIDUALS from both sexes, all races, nationalities, languages and sexual orientations and lifestyles, are equally capable of disgusting brutality.

Yesterday at 9:22pm ·

Asha Philar Thanks for posting this Darcy! You’re one of the good ones for trying to keep other men accountable for their actions

Hope you had a great Christmas and are doing well, wherever you are

Yesterday at 10:17pm

Rudi Budiarto So what is the source or cause of violence?

Yesterday at 11:16pm

Dave Blair Some spirited dialogue – violence, oppression and control of others for personal gain/power are common and problematic in our societies. Beyond that they are never of any redeeming value. That is a central belief a lot of people share, but in efforts to change society, prevent violence and create true equality we aggressively adopt the ‘blame game’, who is the worst, and other expressions of things incongruent with a world we can all appreciate, aspire to and/or respect AND are not helpful and reflect continuation of the abuse of power, control and privilege.

There are some good intentions out there and people who care about people, so dividing ourselves in argument about this is counter-productive.

I Know Dan, and share a profession of sorts, and know he does not take this lightly. Change starts with each of us modelling that kind of great respect for all, not condoning abuse and caring for each other. Perhaps ET said it best, “be good”.

If you really want to understand the issue from a empirically validated and best practise perspective – here is a good starting point, internationally accepted and supported

http://www.actiononviolence.com/aov/files/WAVE_Report_2005.pdf

If you want additional info contact me at daveblair at shaw.ca

Yesterday at 11:19pm

Dave Blair Abuse of power, often motivated by control of others for personal gain, indifference to the suffering and needs of others, learned, perpetuated and supported by sociological/cultural factors including parenting, media, politics and the economic system. Exacerbated by the acceptance of violence at many, MANY levels and the lack of a cultural value behind respect and caring for others. Ugly ain’t it?

Yesterday at 11:28pm

Rudi Budiarto So would you say that tiger is more violence or aggresive then say a rabbit? I am wondering if nature play a big role in this behavior. I notice that these days I haven’t seen many people who got badly bitten by dogs because they selectively breed only dogs that is not violence.

Yesterday at 11:40pm

Dan Mick Asha, shouldn’t women be accountable for their violent actions as well? Why just the men?

10 hours ago

(Leave your own comments at the bottom)

I am sure that most of you can label a few of the men and women above as “feminists”.  This real facebook wall post (seriously) demonstrates why I do not, and will never, call myself a “feminist”.

I see in the above exchange, two viewpoints, and then what Dave Blair wrote.  I want a system without prejudice or privilege–equal opportunity for all, and these so-called  “feminists” above, want to permanently label women as helpless victims of men, and label all men as victimizers that owe women some sort of penance and retribution.  That’s controlling behavior… abusive behavior… dominant behavior… feminist behavior???

I always thought feminism was a movement that has gained in some parts of the world a degree of political, social, economic and legal equality to men, and that continues to fight for full equality around the world.  Right?  These are the good feminists.  Every true libertarian is one of these type of real feminists.  I wish real feminists would change their name or sue the man-hating bitches that falsely call themselves feminists.  I hope they feel better about their own selfish controlling behavior as they blame men for the same crimes.

The so-called “feminists” above, like Darcy, don’t want equality at all.  They want to create injustices as payback for other injustices.  They want to sit on a throne pointing at all the evil-doers, as their ego feels a sense of purpose and superiority.  No thanks.  You don’t create utopia that way, you create nightmares, resentment, hatred, corruption, violence and sexism.  That is the road to power–not healing.

Many men have done many terrible things–I know personally.  The statistics from last year say that murders involving no men whatsoever (woman on woman) only comprise a few percent of the total murders.  But that was last year (And the year before, and the year before…).  But, next year everyone has the ability to make better choices and should not be prejudged.

My perspective is one of individuality.  Theirs? Collectivism (lefty weirdness).  The lefties can’t separate the individual from the group.  For instance, everything bad a man does to a woman is done to all women.  The good is always an isolate incident by “one of the (few) good ones”.  If that’s not prejudice…

I am sorry that men have hurt you Darcy, Susan, and Asha, but don’t blame me and even those yet to be born, for what happened to you.  No amount of anger or blame will get you anywhere you want to be.  I know about the effects of violence, domination, hierarchy and anger.  Let it all go.

Moving on now…

Why is the Green Party of Ontario Director of Policy and Communications, Darcy Higgins, and the Member at Large for the Ontario NDP Women’s Committee, Susan Gapka making sexist statements? and getting away with it?!  Please admit your error, Darcy and Susan.

Lest We Forget…

November 11th is a day to remember those that have served in their countries’ armed forces in an effort to bring peace to the world.

When I pause in silence with millions around the world who call November 11th Veterans Day, Armistice Day or Remembrance Day, I will be thinking of three of my relatives who fought in wars of the twentieth century: in WWI, WWII, and Korea. They fought in trenches, tanks, and at sea, from Vimy Ridge all the way to the beaches of Normandy. In WWI, my Father’s Father, Sergeant Mervin Harold Mick, a Canadian machine gunner, was wounded in the muddy trenches and fields of France, and  forever walked with a limp, due to the shrapnel in his hip.

To honor the sacrifices of our armed forces, I will wear a red poppy, like the ones growing between the crosses in Flanders Fields in 1915, that signified the bloodshed of WWI’s trench warfare preserved in Canadian Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae’s famous poem In Flanders Fields. To support the troops, I feel the obligation to contribute what I can when I buy a poppy, which is inspired by the poem, knowing that John McCrae may have known my grandfather or past by him in the trenches. I will definitely not break faith with any of those that died.

Much of the criticism of the anti-war movement comes from people who have never served and will never have to serve in the military. What gives a chicken-hawk the right to call me a coward or a traitor because I want to aggressively continue to fight for peace — with peace — in the spirit of those that we remember on this day who also wanted peace? These same hawks advocate starting more unnecessary wars on false pretenses like Vietnam or Iraq.

Taxpayer’s dollars are spent on useless weapons to be used against imagined and exaggerated foes. The money should be going to our veterans, soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen.

The growing anti-war movement would never use this day of remembrance for political purposes the way so many war-hawks will. Veterans Day should not be used for saber-rattling or warmongering — the opposite purposes of this day. Citizens and veterans are calling on Presidents, Prime Ministers, Senators, Parliamentarians, and unelected ideologues to support, not only our troops — but also freedom and peace, on this day of remembrance.

I remember from talking with my grandfathers that November 11th was originally chosen to remember the armistice of 1918, which marked the end of WWI, also called “The Great War”. Mervin Harold Mick, if he was still alive, would surely call WWI, and all wars, by another name. Lest we forget, we stand united with our armed forces on November 11th to honor our soldiers by commemorating the end of a war — not the beginning.

Body Armor Ban Back Again

Kash Heed, the new BC Solicitor General introduced legislation that would make it illegal to purchase, posses, or wear “body armor” without a permit.  I have written on this subject previously when it was first suggested and while this may seem like a small issue that only impacts very few, it is a prime example of what is wrong with our political system–or rather–what is wrong with our politicians.

Those who I have voiced concerns to all claim that banning body armor will give the police more “tools” to use against gangs.  Really?  The only “tools” I see are the politicians in the legislature.

Some will claim that police will be safer as a result of this bill.  No they won’t.  No police will be saved by this bill, as the kind of people who would arm themselves and then shoot illegal weapons are going to break any law banning body armor.

The question is why are the police out-gunned and out-armored by twenty-something year old criminals?  If criminals can buy level 4 body armor with plate inserts, and a Canadian made special forces M-16, perhaps the police should have more than a thin vest and a potato gun? Though, that Taser is deadly…

The same arguments also invalidates the idea that the public will somehow be safer as a result of this legislation.  In fact we will all be less safe as gangsters will still wear body armor, while us law abiding citizens are no longer allowed to protect ourselves… wtf?

I love analogies, they allow us to isolate contradictions; banning body armor is similar to the government banning all cars because a handful of gangsters use them to run each other over, or because someone rammed a police cruiser.

Maybe I’m being pessimistic.  Let’s just imagine the legislation was a complete success… and gangsters began shooting at each other in grocery store parking lots without wearing body armor…  How are we safer?  Armor or no armor–unless someone strikes a very critical area early on in the gun fight–they will all run out of ammunition before it is over.

This is ultimately unconstitutional and no convictions of this “crime” will ever stand up under judicial review.  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all citizens and visitors and even those accused or convicted of a crime by guaranteeing our right to life.  It can never be illegal for a person who is in danger–even a gang member in a gang war–to shield themselves from impending bodily harm.  No one’s rights are ever violated by the wearing of body armor because, by law, no one in Canada has the right to kill you.

Constitution Act, 1982, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Taking away the ability for someone to shield themselves from bullets is the same as killing them and is not “in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” as the death penalty is not legal in Canada.

From an earlier post:

“On the issue of the rights of the accused and the duty of the government and police to uphold our rights:

1.) If a gang member was being shot at, the police have a duty to protect the life of that gang member.  It is illegal for anyone to knowingly take actions that contribute to the death of another person.

2.) It would be illegal to take away the helmet of a speeding motorcyclist claiming that the helmet assisted them in exceeding the speed limit.  It would be illegal to take away the knee pads of a trespassing skateboarder claiming the knee pads helped the skateboarder break the law.

3.) For a police officer to drop off a suspect in the middle of the dessert is illegal, because they can reasonably assume that that person will be harmed or killed.

Therefor: To take away body armor from a suspect or ex-con that has reason to believe that they may be harmed is also illegal.  If someone prevented an individual from wearing body armor, and that individual was killed by a bullet that under normal circumstances would not have killed them if they were to wear body armor, then they could, theoretically, be criminally charged in connection with the death.“

If a known gang member applied for a permit, they’re associates, or enemies identities, should support the “reasonable need” required by the proposed legislation to obtain a permit.  So why are we passing a law that we won’t enforce against most people and we can’t enforce against those targeted by the law?

eg.  A woman is threatened by her trigger-happy, gun-lovin’ intoxicated ex.  The Charter guarantees she has a right to instantly obtain and use body armor without delay, permits, approvals, back-ground checks, criminal record checks, or any other restrictions or the slightest fear of being labeled a criminal, being incarcerated, or fined.

There is a way to give police more tools to fight gangs while protecting our Charter Rights by changing the Criminal Code of Canada to make it a crime to commit a crime, or intend to commit a crime, while wearing body armor, as other jurisdictions have done successfully.  The downside (For the BC Liberals) is that this change would be under federal jurisdiction–not provincial–which means no press release or photo op.

This legislation is also not specific enough.  What is “body armor”?  If a helmet can stop a bullet, is it now illegal for gang members to wear helmets?  How does the crown prove intent if the armor is “adapted”?  What if a gang member carried around a steel baking pan to hold in front of him in case he is shot at?  Will the police show up and arrest him? take it?  Who will test items?  This is an expensive regulatory mess–think gun registry.  How many years of court challenges and millions of taxpayers dollars need to be spent sorting out this terrible legislation so the BC Liberals can implement their election strategy on the public dime? when a judicially sound and effective alternative (changing the Criminal Code) is available?  What a waste…

I don’t expect that many people will passionately oppose this law, as most people only become passionate about the things that effect them directly, and the question of the legality of body armor will not effect anyone outside of those at higher risk of being wounded by munitions–which is a few percent of British Columbians.  I do however, expect that those blessed with the opportunity to take part in the democratic process to be passionate about holding our politicians accountable.

I hope all of the readers can see this legislation as illegal, completely ineffective, an assault on our most basic human right–the right to life, and a waste of public resources, and I further hope you oppose the re-election all those MLA’s who vote for one of the worst bills in the history of British Columbia out of their ignorance, or blind self-interest.

It is time that our culture wakes up to the reality that fighting, arresting, and punishing criminals isn’t justice.  Prevention is the only justice and until we can reduce the demand for drugs we will never stop gangs and gang violence.  Unfortunately, prevention–education, community support, and medical support has nothing to do with the police that have hijacked our concept of justice and monopolized the resources of our judicial system.

Why?

One out of the “W5”: Who, What, Where, When, Why; it is the last that first avoided me.  Since I was young, I have asked “Why? Why?Why?Why?” and never would an answer make sense.  It would at the start, but it would always come down to…
…because that’s the way it is…
Why? Fuck! You see?

Usually “the way” is a someone’s way. Our society is built on power structures that were built by neurotic people that have a need to control others for their own amusement or gain.  Our society fails because it was never designed to succeed–it is designed to cater to emotional needs of those in power.  The first to gain power were those most ready to use violence.  Not much has changed since prehistory.

I once heard at a business conference that to get to the root of any business problem you should ask “why?” five times.

Example:

“Why are we losing money?”
“Because we keep losing big clients.”

“Why are we losing clients?”
“Because they get frustrated by our shipping.”

“Why are we not shipping correctly?”
“Because the staff are drunk by lunch.”

“Why are they getting drunk at work?”
Because their pay is so low that they feel life is hopeless and and shitty is easier to ignore when intoxicated.”

“Why do I pay so little?”
“…”

I still ask “Why?” When it comes to people, you can ask “Why?” five thousand times and still be left wondering.  My last post was from Tony and if you had read it, you would have found the parts that speak of the inevitable end of civilization as we know it and even the theory that civilization itself is unsustainable.

The civilization we have today will indeed not continue, just as the civilization of the 1980’s no longer exists.  Change happens.  We adapt.

Many focus on altering society and our laws–to adapt society to people.  This left-wing idea can only be moderately successful and is entirely dependent on the values of the individuals in that society.

Another approach is to adapt individuals, and their values, to alter society.  This is the conservative approach and the one I favor as being the guiding force for civilization, family, peace, and even love.

Think of the abortion debate, which is a debate of polarized ideologies–an apple telling an orange it isn’t red enough.  One group tries to alter people’s values–to respect life more, while the other argues that the nature of people necessitates the need for legal abortions.

I have always found in my search for “Why?” that I prefer order.  My argument has been been, since childhood, that we can choose differently–we can choose peace, acceptance, love.  When I was at Harold Bishop Elementary School in Surrey at 7 years old, I won a contest where we had to design a recycling poster.  Mine read, “The choice is yours.”

There is no limitation whatsoever that can overcome human will.  A group of righteous people can absolutely create a near utopian society.  Any arguments against can be overcome with, “Righteous people will not make those choices.”

Can civilization be saved?  Can we be saved?  Why save either?  Let’s build something better.

Tony Isn’t Stupid

Here is a great post from Tonyisnt about philosophy, society, and life.  Enjoy!

http://tonyisnt.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/more-quotes-personal-philosophy-and-civilization/

(Please reserve comments for Tony’s blog)

Pursuing Paparazzi

I just got back from BC interior, where I was doing security for the cast of major motion picture being shot here in BC.  The air-tight confidentiality agreement doesn’t allow me to go into too much detail about some of my experiences, including four 9-1-1 calls, bears, knife wielding road-ragers, new scars on my hands, and my first up close dealings with paparazzi, but I feel once again compelled to question the actions of the media and police.

A righteous society creates laws in order to guarantee and increase freedom–not limit it.   For example, laws against murder may seem to limit our freedom to… murder …but in reality, the law gives us the freedom to live, and is consistent with the idea of upholding our highest laws, written into our constitution, called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One of the fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens is the right to walk down the street and be in any public place or any private place we are authorized to be in, as long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others, as set out in the Charter.

Paparazzi are scum.  They stalk people and attempt to harass and entrap people to sell useless gossip.  They don’t care about how many lives they destroy.  Remember how Princess Diana died–murdered by paparazzi who delighted in taking pictures of a grusome accident.  Remember how Michael Jackson was declared guilty by tabloid media, but declared not-guilty by a jury.

“Stalking” is a clear violation of our rights, and there are several sections of the criminal code that can be invoked to protect us all from harassment.  Certainly, following someone around for weeks using sophisticated monitoring (spying) equipment and secretly taking pictures of people’s hotel rooms with a telephoto lens is illegal.  If an ex-partner did these things you could have them arrested and given a restraining order, as your rights, including your explicit right to privacy would be violated by such actions.

Yet, when I reported these same illegal actions to the police, they told me that nothing could be done as there was no criminal intent… so… paparazzi “accidentally” followed us through three cities?  Sounds like a double standard for citizens and media.  Let’s look at the criminal code for reference, with my notes in parenthesis:

PART V
SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT

Voyeurism

162. (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if
(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity; (Like taking pictures of a hotel room with a telephoto lens)
(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or
(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.
Definition of “visual recording”(2) In this section, “visual recording” includes a photographic, film or video recording made by any means.

Exemption
(3) Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply to a peace officer who, under the authority of a warrant issued under section 487.01, is carrying out any activity referred to in those paragraphs. (Media is not listed as having an exception)

Printing, publication, etc., of voyeuristic recordings
(4) Every one commits an offence who, knowing that a recording was obtained by the commission of an offence under subsection (1), prints, copies, publishes, distributes, circulates, sells, advertises or makes available the recording, or has the recording in his or her possession for the purpose of printing, copying, publishing, distributing, circulating, selling or advertising it or making it available. (This section specifically makes it a crime for media to use such images)

Punishment
(5) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (4) (Observing, recording or publishing)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defence
(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence serve the public good and do not extend beyond what serves the public good. (Taking photos of people for money is not in the public good and it certainly extends beyond any claim of public good.  This sub-section protects people who would expose politicians or public servants)

Question of law, motives
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6),
(a) it is a question of law whether an act serves the public good and whether there is evidence that the act alleged goes beyond what serves the public good, but it is a question of fact whether the act does or does not extend beyond what serves the public good; and
(b) the motives of an accused are irrelevant.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 162; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 4; 2005, c. 32, s. 6

Let’s recap:  It is a crime to take pictures of people in their homes or hotels, as they may be nude, no exception is given to media under the law and in fact an additional sub-section makes it a crime to publish any photos arising from such behavior, and the motives of the publisher is not a defence.  Yet I am told that paparazzi is immune because there “is no criminal intent”–not for a sexual purpose.  Ultimately, we will never know if this paparazzi guy masturbates to my photo, but we could assume he does–cause I’m hot.  The law against voyeurism was clearly broken and not enforced by the police.  So, according to the RCMP, it is legal to stalk anyone as long as you claim to be with the media.  Why?
Let’s examine the arguments of the paparazzi:

“They’re public figures” What is a public figure?  If your boss approaches you about being in the background of a commercial as an employee, do you lose your right to privacy as long as the commercial is on TV? forever?

It is the media who chooses who is or isn’t a public figure (media figure).  The only reason we have heard of the Octo-mom, is because the media chose to focus on her instead of just reporting that she had 8 kids and then moving on to a real news story.  If she had only three kids anyone who hung around her house taking pictures would be arrested as a stalker.

“I’m on public property” So what?  The laws and our Charter Rights still apply.

As a legitimate blogger (media) who has previously reported on media issues, I am going to do a story on the next police officer that refuses to enforce the law.  I will stay outside their house and follow them and the people they associate with, around the city taking pictures and attempting to catch them doing something embarrassing or unlawful.  Somehow, I think that they will become far more eager to enforce the law… all I ask is that they enforce it impartially and protect the privacy of all.  Perhaps I will do another story on the paparazzo and see if he likes how he treats others.

To strengthen privacy laws and anti-stalking measures:

• Prohibit recording and monitoring of private property without the consent of the owners and visitors.
• Limit the number of pictures that a person can take of any person in a public place without their consent.  Limit the length of time one can record a person without their consent.
• Prohibit all secret recordings.  People taking pictures should have to declare themselves and their real intentions, and show identification.
• Give each persons image and persona the same protection of copyright law or trademark law–you own your image and no one should be able to make money off of you without your consent–especially since paparazzi often tries to ruin a persons reputation with their “coverage”.
• Prohibit fake news.  News is an event that has relevance to the public.  Britney’s new haircut isn’t news and it shouldn’t be presented as news.

The media is not in business to inform us, or for the public good.  The media has no obligation to tell the truth or be fair.  It is up to us to hold them accountable and protect our rights.

Why Am I Still Single?

Here is a great post by dating editor Kristine Gasbarre for YourTango.com

I think it is right on the money…

http://ca.dating.personals.yahoo.com/singles/datingtips/88451/dating-101-why-am-i-still-single/

Lies About Our Economic Recovery

There are several bullshit stories coming from major Canadian media regarding our economy.  We keep hearing about how well our economy is doing–or recovering–yet today I read that 40,000 more people applied for Employment Insurance in June.  At this rate, we will have doule the number of people on EI as last year at the same time.  Why are companies closing and/or laying off so many people if the economy is improving?  Hmmm… let’s look closer…

There is this particular story from the Conservative Party of Canada cheerleaders at CTV claiming that the economy is recovering.  They point to a rise in retail sales.

We are told that retail sales rose 1% in June, though they forget to mention that we are still down 4.4% from a year ago, according to Stats Canada’s own “seasonally adjusted” figures, which is the source of the raw data sited by CTV.

Not surprisingly, CTV fails to mention that the figures they use are manipulated.  Stats Can has calculated a dodgy “seasonal average” to measure against and CTV has disregarded the actual figures.  The “unadjusted” retail sales figures are actually over 1% lower than May’s numbers–not 1.0% higher.  See for yourself on Statistics Canada’s website. (It will help to hve the figure on a new tab to refer to)

“Unadjusted”
“Seasonally Adjusted”

I will use the unadjusted figures unless noted otherwise.

Half of the total increase reported came from higher gasoline sales (prices).  If we take out the inflated gas prices (that certainly don’t help the economies in our wallets) the loss is even greater.

The “automotive sector” is up 210 million over May, while gasoline (which is part of this statistic) is up 243 million… meaning the automotive sectors numbers, without gasoline to inflate them, are down 33 million–not up 2.1% as CTV dishonestly claims.  The numbers are still down 10.4% from the same time last year; gotta love that Conservative Inaction Plan (almost as much as how Stephen Harper said we should all buy stock last fall as people lost tens of thousands of dollars in their investments and RRSPs as the economy crashed)

Which reminds me, we always hear how we have to vote Conservative to keep the economy strong, yet every time we elect a Conservative Government we lose hundreds of thousands of jobs… wtf?

When we look at the sectors that declined, one is very telling: “sectors that posted declines in sales were general merchandise stores…”–general merchandise stores meaning that stores that sell everything sold less… yet the media, by saying retail is up 1% (which we now know is a lie anyways) suggests that sales of everything are higher?  No way.

If you read some of the comments on the CTV site, some Conservatives, have posted comments about how thankful we should be that we have a Conservative government.  Others have illuminated the fact that this minority Government can only take credit for raising prices on things we must purchase (making our lives harder)–how some think that is a good thing is beyond my understanding, but then again, for some reason I like shit to make sense…

The comment process at CTV deserves a comment, or even its own blogpost.  I swear, the Editor, or paid Conservatives operatives with special access, “moderate” (lol) to show a manipulated public opinion.   The first few comments on any political story on CTV always have a few very deceptive and well worded Conservative opinions, and I can recognize the difference between some guy with nothing better to do and a professional communications strategist’s perfect talking points.  Also notice that the CTV story on EI recipients rising doesn’t even allow comments…  hmmm…

For our economy to improve, labour intensive industries must improve and paying at the pump doesn’t employ very many Canadians–and before you say it helps Alberta, oil prices are driving up the Canadian dollar which hurts the labour intensive manufacturing sector, and Canada as a whole.

The most incredible thing of all is how a Security Guard is informing you of the facts while the “experts” with all their titles and degrees lie to keep Stephen Harper’s incompetent government alive, and our economy continues to lose tens of thousands of jobs every month while millions of underemployed go unreported.

Ultimately, this has more to do with the values of our culture–of us.  Why is it legal to lie or deceive for personal gain?  Give me one good reason… anyone?

Dan Loves Gold Diggers

My crazy work schedule, which included 93 billable hours last week, has me considering money and my future.

Let’s say you have two identical twins, who even have identical personalities and experiences–except–one of them is rich, while the other one is poor.  Since they are identical in every way except financially, you are equally in love with both, but can only be with one.  Which one?  Assuming that the wealthy twin lives a balanced life, one would have to be a masochist to choose the poor twin.

It becomes more interesting for me to consider what would happen if I was one of the twins.  Now let’s say that a set of female twins, that are identical in every way are courting myself and my brother.  One of the sisters wants a rich man, the other does not.  Regardless of which brother I am, rich or poor, if I had the choice between the sisters, who should I choose as the superior mate and life partner?  Who would the Philosopher Princess choose?

I cannot fault others for wanting what I myself want–financial freedom and security.  Seeking out favorable situations and striving for success are life skills I hope my children learn well.

The issue of pregnancy excuses and validates “gold-diggers” the world over.  We all have responsibilities–which is to say that there is a cost to that which we desire.  My cost, as a man, is having to support and provide for a family the best I can.

My difficulties with this subject stem from my desire to have more than just a vagina and womb in my bed–not from a rejection of all wealth, or a rejection of those that are or would like to be wealthy.  The fact is, I myself would like to be filthy rich–stinking rich–shower me in food stamps to get rid of this smell of money, power and champaign rich–like a rap video!  Though, I do not want to exploit or lie my way to wealth.

Some say the money makes the man.  I think the man makes the money, and that means my finances (as are all things that are observable) are a reflection of me–part of me.  It would be wrong to try and separate the two.  Ultimately, I am in no position to get married and have babies right now (hence the 93 hour work week), so I withdraw my Husband Resume until such time as my market value is high enough to catch the attention of the Uberwench–the Philosopher Princess.

I hope that I can avoid becoming obsessed with money or “more”, and remember that money is a means to an end–and only an end when it destroys us.