A decision whether to approve  or decline the charges recommended against  RCMP Corporal Benjamin “Monty” Robinson,( in the death of  21-year-old Orion Hutchinson,) is expected shortly.

  ” Certainly, we are not talking about a matter of months, nor are we even talking about a matter of weeks at this point,” said Robin Baird, A/Communications Counsel for the Criminal Justice Branch, when I interviewed him by phone this afternoon in Victoria. ” The public can expect an announcement shortly.”

When asked why there has been such a delay in the decision, Baird went on to say that Crown received material disclosure  in the case as recently as this week, and added:  ” The time is ripe for a decision.”

” We are nearing completion, but we need to be deliberate and complete in considering the information.”

When asked if the public could expect an announcement before Christmas, he replied: ” I would say most certainly.”

 On october 25th,2008, Orion Hutchinson was riding his motorcycle  in Delta when he was struck by an off-duty RCMP officer – Corporal Benjamin ‘Monty’ Robinson.Hutchinson died at the scene, but  Delta police said the driver of the vehicle that struck him left the scene, and returned later where he failed a breathalyzer test.

 Following a lengthy, 7 month-long investigation, Delta police  finally announced in June, of this year, that they were recommending  charges of dangerous driving causing death, and impaired driving causing death.

Since then,Crown has been the subject of  public scrutiny for the length of time it has taken to make a decision to proceed on those charges or not, in light of the fact one year has passed since the death of Orion.

Baird said that Crown is always mindful of the family’s emotions – as well as the public’s - with regards to justice, but that it is important every bit of material is thoroughly examined before proceeding.

When asked if the delay had anything to do with the charges being recommended against a member of the RCMP, Baird said:

 ” Absolutely not. ”  Baird repeated that Crown is always mindful of the need for public confidence in the system.

Corporal Robinson was the senior officer among the four  RCMP members involved in the tasering of Robert Dziekanski at YVR .

Apparently Translink  might need to leave a trail in order to lead people across the Golden Ears Bridge !

 Our ‘Powell River Persuader’ has  The Straight Goods for you, on this statement and more on his site this morning.

It’s a gutbuster of a post. http://powellriverpersuader.blogspot.com/2009/11/translinks-spokeman-drew-snider-says.html

Support for striking HandyDART workers has come from Gordon Wilson, who posted this on his Facebook account : http://www.facebook.com/gordon.f.d.wilson?v=app_2347471856

British Columbians have cause to be angry with what is transpiring in the HandyDart strike. Sadly, too many of us, pre-occupied with pressing events in our own lives, don’t really know the issues. If we did, I suspect that we would feel a collective shame at how this service has been allowed to deteriorate, and we would demand action from our elected representatives.
There are three reasons why British Columbians need to get engaged in this dispute. First, a society is judged by the manner in which we look after those who a generation ago looked after us. Second, society is judged by way we treat those who, for reasons beyond their control, need help and special services to assist them in living productive and inclusive lives. And, third, it is judged by way we look after the sick and infirm.
As a society we are failing on all three counts by ignoring the HandyDart strike.
There is something seriously wrong in a society that pays the guy who picks up your garbage and hauls it to the dump more than a person who, with care and patience, picks up your frail, aged mother, or your sister who needs dialysis, or your handicapped brother, and makes sure they get to their medical appointment and home safely. Similarly, there is no rational explanation why a transit bus driver in West Vancouver should make, on average, $8 dollars more an hour to drive a scheduled route than an individual earns who picks up passengers at the doorstep and not only transports the passenger, but helps him or her on and off the bus, keeps an eye out for possible medical issues while in transit, sees him or her safely home, and in some cases cleans up after them. And yet, wage is not the critical issue for most drivers in this dispute.
To be sure, the drivers are angry that their pension and benefits will be removed and replaced with an RRSP and self subscribed benefit schemes. Who wouldn’t be angry? An RRSP is not a pension plan, and the provision of benefits as part of an employment contract is something that millions of Canadian workers enjoy. It is also a fundamental part of the Canadian commitment to accessible and affordable health and dental care. But then, one wouldn’t expect an American company to understand any of that, which brings me to the second point of concern.
The Translink Board awarded the management contract for HandyDart, which is worth $113 million of your tax dollars, to the highest bidder. That bidder was an American for-profit company called MVT Canadian Bus. This company has become known as the Walmart of transit companies. It is profit-driven, service-lean and the eight managers in the United States keep a close eye on the company bottom line. In some economic sectors, squeezing deliverables to increase profitability would be a worthy goal, but not taxpayer-funded, specialized, public transit services for the vulnerable in our society. In the past, the HandyDart services were run by non-profit societies within our communities, and any surplus or profit would flow back to the society, keeping your tax dollars at home. MVT Canadian Bus takes our money south of the border.
There is a growing trend in this province, supported and encouraged by the Campbell government, to put a new and very different priority to the spending of our tax dollars. More and more “crown corporations” are being hived off to become pseudo-private corporations, with recruited American CEOs who enjoy huge wages fully paid for by our tax dollars. They bring with them an American corporate culture that pays the top management first and is prepared to trim service to afford it. Witness the ridership bonus in the MVT contract with Translink that builds in financial reward by keeping riders on the bus longer. If you are a dialysis patient, the last thing you need after treatment is to be kept on the bus for additional hours, and yet that is exactly what is happening.
This situation is a shameful example of the slow change in the priorities of the provincial government, and yet with a complacent population and a weak, silent opposition, this is just the beginning.
With the Olympics and Paralympics a few short weeks away, expect that the government will legislate the HandyDart drivers back to work. Expect also that they will do to these drivers what they did to the Ambulance service, namely, legislate the last offer by the Employer, and by so doing, cause this service to erode even further.
These men and women need and deserve our support. Contact your MLA and demand that he or she rise up and speak out in favour of a full and fair binding arbitration that will take into account the real issues of this dispute. Write to the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, but above all, educate yourself. When you do, I am sure you will be as angry and concerned as I am that we not lose this valuable service. Our voices together may help to solve this issue, and avoid the collective shame that doing nothing will invoke.

I’ve posted about this dispute over the last month, here,and in the post titled ” HandyDART dispute adds to growing discontent in the BC labour force”, where I talk about the growing possibility of a general strike in British Columbia,( more on that HERE )  and there is a comment stream on both worth checking out.

Tensions boiled over yesterday when striking workers tried to force their way into a downtown hotel where Metro mayors and Translink officials were meeting, in an effort to try and get the officials to pressure their employer to agree to binding arbitration. The move was not succesful.

I’d say that MVT is banking on the fact that with colder, wet weather coming, as well as Christmas, the union will cave in and accept the last offer that was on the table. After all, MVT is hardly losing out in this dispute!

I’d like to add something to this mix now. In looking around at various media sources, it seems that I have read operations CP John Siragusa state several times that their company has never had a labour dispute in their 35 year history, in the US.

I guess Mr. Siragusa forgot about the 2007 strike in New York city where MV Transportation drivers were among those from 4 transportation companies that provided paratransit services to New Yorkers, and walked out aftercontract talks broke down.   I’ve included the links to those stories to refresh his memory, in the event he reads this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/nyregion/10handicapped.html

http://www.thechief-leader.com/news/2007-12-21/News_of_the_week/Paratransit_Strike_in_2nd_Week.html

http://handydart.info/articles/ny_strike_xmas2007.html

And interestingly enough, I wonder if the fact that Tom Prendergast, now departed CEO of Translink, had anything to do with the contract being awarded to this company at all, considering local non-profit organizations had been running it for years. After all, coming from New York, Tom would  likely have been familiar with MV Transportation, which is the US’s largest provider of paratransit services.

MV Transportion, the American parent company to the local MV Canadian Bus, has not been a stranger to complaints about some of it’s nation wide contracts.  This link was one I posted as a comment in one of the previous HandyDART post,but let’s take a closer look at it. Excerpts:

A review of news reports and lawsuits in other jurisdictions, as well as interviews with paratransit riders and advocates, suggests that along the way to becoming the country’s largest provider of paratransit services, MV Transportation has not always put passengers first.

~snip~

Wendy Klancher, a transportation planner at the federally designated planning agency for the D.C. metro area, has heard similar stories. She calls MV “the Wal-Mart of paratransit.”

“Their modus operandi,” she says, is “to be the low-bid contractor and outbid the other competitors and then actually end up getting more money because it turns out they can’t operate within the bid.”

Moeller said her experience with the company in Calfornia fit the pattern. “Immediately after getting the bid, they started cutting services because they couldn’t afford to keep up with the contract,” she said.

In Washington D.C., MetroAccess ended up spending over $6 million on top of MV’s original $204 million contract, to help them maintain standards of service, according to Klancher and published reports.

Enough said.

The HandyDART workers have a facebook support group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=308711650295&ref=mf

A victory that may see the trial beginning as soon as January 201o!

Bill Tieleman has the ruling on his site now, and will be following with his analysis as the day continues, so be sure to check back shortly. Here is an excerpt of his breaking news story from moments after the decision was handed down:

Basi-Virk Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino has won a landmark appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada this morning when the court overturned two BC lower court rulings on the issue of secret witness testimony in the BC Rail corruption case.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision means testimony about why a police informer must have his or her identity protected will take place with defence counsel, media and the public all excluded – leaving only trial judge Anne MacKenzie and the Special Prosecutor team present in BC Supreme Court.

The decision also means the trial of David Basi, Bob Virk and Aneal Basi will proceed as early as January 2010 – unless defence lawyers are successful in having it dismissed with an abuse of process motion they plan to introduce soon.

Former BC Liberal government ministerial assistants David Basi and Virk face breach of trust and fraud charges over allegations they provided confidential information about the $1 billion privatization of BC Rail in 2003 to lobbyists acting for a bidder in exchange for money and other benefits. Aneal Basi faces money laundering charges related to the case.

The case exploded into public view when police raided the BC Legislature in an unprecedented search for evidence on December 28, 2003 but the case has been repeatedly delayed from going to trial over disclosure of evidence issues. Defence lawyers say there are now “millions” of pages of evidence.

From my friend Bill Tieleman’s site :

The most anticipated decision in the BC Rail corruption case of David Basi, Bob Virk and Aneal Basi will come at 6:45 a.m. BC time from the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court has announced today that it will release its ruling on Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino’s appeal of two BC lower court decisions on the issue of a secret witness and how his or her testimony should be handled.

Berardino hinted at one point the trial might not go ahead if the identity of a secret informant could not be fully protected, stating he would not violate the privilege of the witness to remain unknown….

Visit this website Thursday morning for the decision and full analysis of what it means for the likelihood of the trial proceeding.

A pivotal moment – one of many thus far - in the case that many have said the BC Liberals would like to see quashed before it even begins – and for good reason.

 Pre-trial hearings have produced thousands of documents that would seem to support allegations of fraud, breach of trust, bribery and corruption in all levels of our provincial government involved with the privatization deal of BC Rail.The potential witness list contains many past and current government ministers, such as CKNW talk show host, Christy Clark, Premier Gordon Campbell and a host of other well-known politico’s of the BC scene. The most comprehensive list of who is who, and what it what pertaining to Railgate, can be found in this Tyee article, also by Bill, titled  ” Railgate , A to Z ” .  Another critical site to check out, The Legislature Raids devotes itself entirely to everything and anything pertaining to the BC Rail deal and subsequent events

 The biggest  government scandal to hit the province of BC, Railgate began with the infamous  RCMP raid on the BC legislature in December 2003, amid allegations that organized crime had infiltrated every corner of province, possibly even the very building the RCMP charged into that fateful day.

Since that date, nothing has come easy to these hearings. Bogged down in paperwork, at times it has seemed unlikely that the pre-trial stage would ever reach completion. Toss in some pertinent emails that were “accidentally” deleted by the Liberal government after being requested in court, a judge who at times seemed disinterested in the implications of potential damning documents,  and that same judge subsequently being replaced so she could  take a new appointment ?

All I can say is that you have the makings of a home-grown political thriller, and one I would very much like to watch one day! Adding to the intrigue is the ever-present spectre of the mysterious secret witness Bill writes about above – one who very much has the power to end the trial before it even starts.

Yes, the scandal ridden Basi-Virk hearing started with the Legislature raids -but will it all end with this Supreme Court ruling?

Head over to Bill Tieleman’s site Thursday for the full meal deal on the ruling , and what it spells out for the future of what promises to be the most riveting trial in the history of British Columbia.

For now, I think it is time for a little reminder of what may have been the motivation for the entire deal. Check out this previous post of mine, titled:  The key to the BC Rail deal lies in Premier Gordon Campbell’s beginnings in real estate and land development.

However, there is a catch, albeit one I think many Surrey-ites can live with.

In last nights council meeting, city council said no to the proposed increase requested by the Surrey Ratepayers Association, and told city planners to approach a neighbourhood by neighbourhood zoning approach. In this manner, anybody wishing to increase the home size in a particular neighbourhood, would have to go through a re-zoning process to do so, specific to that neighbourhood. This places the responsibility of  allowing monster home builds squarely on the people who will be affected by them within their own communities.

Using this approach, two neighbourhoods have already successfully fought the encroachment of monster homes into their  older neighbourhoods, with 70% of their community supporting the proposal.  St Helen’s Park, for example, went through several years of  dialogue and planning with the city before being zoned Comprehensive Development. There are strict guidelines for new home builders in the neighbourhood that prohibit the building of monster homes, so that residents can preserve the characteristics of the neighbourhood, and maintain  a sustainable level of space for all. Potential new home owners are advised of the guidelines  by their realtors in advance of purchasing in the area.

Overall, the St. Helen’s model has been a success, and the neighbourhood retains a very livable feel and appearance – unlike many other neighbourhoods in Surrey, where green space and trees have all been razed in place of monster homes. 

As for me, I say it’s about  time council started listening to residents, because in light of recent council decisions regarding the Welcome Home rehab facility, and allowing slots into one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the city, the city has been accused of ignoring residents concerns and their duties as  council members.

A recent column by Frank  Bucholtz in the Surrey Leader, highlights the lack of proper consultation between the city and it’s residents, and he says that the cities consultation process is broken.  In uncustomary fashion, I’ve  included it here in its entirety, because I felt in this case, taking excerpts, really takes away from his  total message. Frank makes some excellent points.

COLUMN: Public left out of process

by Frank Bucholtz -Surrey North Delta Leader

Surrey’s consultation process is broken.

I couldn’t agree more with Coun. Barinder Rasode, who lamented the divisiveness and lack of meaningful dialogue at the five open houses on amending Surrey’s bylaw to allow larger homes to be built on the traditional 60-foot lots which were once the suburban standard.

Rasode said she would like to take a good look at the structure of Surrey’s public information meetings.

“I’d like it to be a true exchange of information and I don’t think these ones were. As a council, we need to take a look at (consultation) and see how we can do that differently.”

Her words came at a most opportune time. Not only has the consultation on large homes been divisive and controversial, it wound up just as the city made another attempt at consultation, this time on the plan to allow an adventure park in Redwood Park. A proposal for a five-hectare area “wild play” area, including zip lines, suspension bridges and scramble nets, was the subject of an open house on Tuesday night.

This meeting is a classic illustration of all that Rasode finds objectionable. It was held months after the initial suggestion of an adventure park was brought to public attention.

There was minimal notice to those who are interested. Unless one checks the city website regularly, or happens to see an advertisement (which do not reach some Surrey residents at all), these meetings are never known to most people.

In addition, this meeting was held from 6 to 8 p.m., which is not the most opportune time for people who are just on their way home from work, and it was held at Hall’s Prairie Elementary, the night before a statutory holiday. The school is located in a remote rural part of Surrey that is miles from a transit line.

Had I known about this meeting more than 24 hours in advance, I would have attended, given my strong concern that Surrey is letting a unique heritage park be partially taken over by a private company.

Nonetheless, the city persists in holding sham meetings like this. They take place on the premise that no one can complain about a project if such a meeting is held, because they had the opportunity to speak up.

I’ve attended many of these meetings over the years, on several occasions about development plans in my neighbourhood. They are set-ups from the very beginning. Opinions that are at odds with the planning department are pushed off to the side and never featured in any report on the meetings.

Surrey, whether by accident or design, uses a scattergun approach to public consultation. Citizens are allowed to have their say, but the feedback is so diffused as a result of the process, the essence of their concerns is completely lost.

There are exceptions. When the community is able to rally around one project and it captures enough of the public’s interest, as happened with the planned road extension through Bear Creek Park, city staff and council cannot ignore it.

But in most other situations, the current approach works very well in ensuring that the city is run by senior staff in exactly the way they want it run, with minimal interference from council – and particularly from pesky citizens.

Why?

As happens often in my experience with blogging, writing about one topic invariably opens the door to another.Last week I blogged about the gun registry – in particular, how using domestic violence or spousal murder as a reason for continuing the registry is not only ridiculous, but dangerous. The responses here on the blog were wonderful, and yet the personal emails sent by many were astounding. Clearly the floodgates were opened, and the need to talk about what is an uncomfortable subject for most became evident.

Of course, the recent  20/20 interview Diane Sawyer completed with Rihanna again sparked a flurry of momentary attention to the topic, but one days media attention is but a heartbeat in the life of a woman who is getting beaten and worn down with mean words. What was so striking to me about the entire incident between Rihanna and that no-name idiot who beat her, was that it so clearly bashed the misconceptions many people still have about women who are getting abused.

Rihanna- young, beautiful, successful, rich, powerful in her world. Tragically beaten in a car on the side of the road because she caught her lover in a lie and would not let it go. In her interview, she says this:

  I couldn’t take that he kept lying to me. And he couldn’t take that I wouldn’t drop it. And … it was ugly.”

If you haven’t seen the interview, I suggest you watch it. Be warned though, in my opinion it is capable of triggering emotions and memories stifled by most of us who have been beaten or otherwise abused. But it is exceedingly important to watch this young woman talk honesty about being beaten, bit and abused by someone she loved, and why other young women must not make the same mistake. Only by taking down those walls we surround ourselves with can we begin to rid ourselves of the shame and responsibility we always seem to take on for our beatings.

 Interestingly enough, Chris Brown released a statement following that interview, that contained the following excerpt:

While I respect Rihanna’s right to discuss the specific events of February 8, I maintain my position that all of the details should remain a private matter between us.

Yes, it is very common that men who beat, or even verbally and mentally abuse women, hate having that side of them revealed to others. wouldn’t do for others to know that you take out your frustration and anger on a woman, would it?

Rihanna’s experience is very common, I’m sad to say. It’s just sick. My abuser used to tell me that I deserved to get hit, for confronting him about his actions or lies. ” Your problem is that you don’t know when to shut up!”  he would tell me – after he had left me with covered with bruises that he was always really embarrassed about afterwards. What he never got, and still doesn’t to this day, I’m sure, is that other men don’t beat on their wives or lovers for saying things they don’t want to hear.

 I remember once being in the grocery store, in a line up, and feeling someone’s eyes on me. I looked around and saw a guy standing in the line up next to me, staring at my arms. More specifically, the very clear imprint of knuckles portrayed in vivid purple and blue that was revealed as my sleeve rode up. I quickly pulled my sleeve down, but he looked up at me, and our eyes met- his in disbelief and shock, then anger, and mine in embarrassment.

 He knew exactly what the bruises were from, and I had to look away from his intense scrutiny. As the line moved forward, I turned briefly to see if he was still staring, and he was, but not at me. He was staring at my abuser as if he wanted to kill him. And therein lies part of the problem of abuse:  embarrassment and shame the victim always feels, even though she should not. Rihanna echoed this in her interview when she said she felt embarrassed and ashamed, and didn’t want anyone to know that this was going on. She didn’t want people to think badly of her that she had fallen in love with this kind of person who would beat her.

What does that say about her? About me? It is embarrassing to have fallen in love with someone like that. Like it is a remark on our character, that it means there is something wrong with us to have allowed that to happen.

One of the most riveting letters I received  came from someone I know, telling the story of her failed marriage to a man who never beat her, but did expose her to the most subtle form of abuse, verbal. He would pick fights or make false accusations, leading to hours of denials on her part and repeated accusations on his, until he wore her down and she would collapse into a heap of tears. His apologies would follow and things would be fine for a period of time, and then… it would happen again.

Dangerous mind games, and just as demeaning as physical abuse because it makes you question everything about yourself: your looks, your actions, your sanity.

It was in her letter that she got to the heart of the matter, after sharing her story of these repeated verbal fights and mental dominations that left her emotionally bereft. After it was done, after the marriage was over and the fights were no more, this is what remained:

Meantime, I still haven’t figured out what the heck this( domination) is all
about. What strain of mental illness is this? Why is domination so
important to some people?

The thing is: I just wondered if you ever got a psychologist,
counsellor, whatever, to explain the “why?” of it all … you painted
a very clear image of the awful change that comes over the loved
one … why??
As you can see … it’s the giant puzzle in my life. I still don’t get
it.

Ah, there it is – that million dollar question. Why?

Why do some men walk away, and some men hit you over and over? Why do they feel the need to ridicule you, your mind and body and looks and everything about you, and yet seem so normal with their co-workers and friends? Why? Why me, why you, why her?

If you google ” Why do men abuse?”, it generates a lot of research and theories on why some men do and some men don’t. I don’t have all the answers.

I believe in taking responsibility for one’s choices in life. Barring mental illness, no one can tell me that a man doesn’t know what he is doing when he first hurts a woman. I truly believe preventing that very first occurence is key to solving the entire problem though. Often it is something small -a slap, a hard pinch, a kick. Often, the woman on the receiving end is so in shock that she can’t even comprehend the seriousness of what has just occurred. But if she does nothing, if she accepts the apology that always follows, that is the beginning of the end.

It’s about power. It’s about getting away with it. When a man hits a woman, it is because he can. Very few are punished, and very many feel a strange sense of power after they realise that. It begins to escalate in frequency and severity, a sick game of ” how far can I go?’

  Let me put it this way.

How many of you have known someone who was being abused in a relationship? A neighbour, a friend, a family member or co-worker?

Now, how many of you stepped in and tried to stop it? I bet not many. That is part of the problem  in itself. No one wants to get involved in this kind of messy situation.

That’s not to say we, the abused, don’t have our own responsibility in the matter. We certainly do. But living in fear and control does bad, bad things to a woman’s psyche, and her pocketbook, and the sad truth is that there is a massive systems failure in this regard.  As I mentioned in my story, in many cases men are getting away with little to no punishment. Women know the support systems have a limit, and the most dangerous time for any woman is when she tries  to leave. Shelters have a time limit on stays, and don’t focus on taking care of the millions of details involved in creating a new life after you have left your old one. And imagine that! Creating a new life, often with kids in tow, all while dealing with the physical and mental anguish of being assaulted… this is why so many women don’t leave. You can not begin to understand it, if you have not lived it, if you have not looked into the face of someone who claims to love you and watched every trace of their humanity drain away as they beat you over and over, despite your cries of ” Stop, please stop!”

So what do we do? How do we save all these women, and children, and future men?

We shed our discomfort in tackling a horrible issue. and we educate.

We educate . I believe that education is the key to stopping all the violence, before it even starts, and we must start with our children. In school, at home, on TV. Every single abuser is someone’s son, and every single victim is someones daughter. They could be mine or yours, it doesn’t matter, but in order to stop the cycle, we have to educate them on what abuse is, and the right choices to make to avoid being a part of it.

I also think that we have to really involve men in the process. We have to educate men to seek support rather than bottling things up, to speak out and to be vocal against violence. I think this alone can be a powerful motivator to changing the current social norms, and fathers are powerful influences on their children- good or bad.

But there is another important factor in this education, and that is punishment and deterrent. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, the law does not back up the sentiment that beating your wife is an intolerable action.

Quite the opposite, with charges often being stayed if the abuser agrees to an anger management course and counselling. In cases where the abuser is charged and prosecuted, oddly enough they rarely do jail time, instead likely receiving a conditional sentence and in some cases, a conditional discharge.

A deadly standard for women in this province, and one that tells abusers it’s really not that bad to beat your wife.

It’s time to change that.

This is my story, and an explanation of how the system can and continues to ,fail us all :

 http://lailayuile.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/zero-tolerance-for-abuse-and-assault-must-be-the-standard-no-exceptions/#comment-5316

If you are experiencing abuse, or someone you know is, there are things you need to know and consider before you make a move. Access that information here: http://www.shelternet.ca/en/women/making-a-safety-plan/  Click here : http://www.shelternet.ca/splashPage.htm to access that, and more information, in 10 different languages.

and this would be one of those moments.

 There has been a lot of discussion going on at Bill Tieleman’s blog in response to his post in support of the gun registry in Canada. I’m not going to get into all the details, but suffice it to say that the comments are heated and there are very few people without a firm opinion on the  matter. That’s all fine and it’s great to see the debate evolve from opinion to hard facts. But this one point is why I must open my mouth.

Using gun related spousal murders as a reason for continuing this gun registry is not only ridiculous, but possibly dangerous to women on the receiving end of domestic violence. (I really like you Bill, but I’ve got to say this). I know of what I speak from my own personal experience  ( warning- graphic), and my story is the story of many women in Canada. I back up my points, rather than relying on vague allusions and unsubstantiated generalities to make a case, unlike some of the largely anonymous commenters under his post.

 After looking around the net at discussions currently ongoing, it appears that there are a large number of gun registry supporters across Canada who  would have you believe that the gun registry can prevent or at least reduce the number of spousal murders in this country, especially in rural areas where rifles are more prevalent.  Bullshit on all counts.

 One commenter (the first - Maureen) had this to say:

  It was a bad week for women’s rights last week – first the gun registry attack by the NDP and Liberal enablers, a registry that has reduced gun-related spousal homicides.

 Sorry to say Maureen, but I can’t find any hard facts to back that up. If you happen to read this, point me to your information source.

 Bill says this in his post:

 Despite claims that the registry unfairly discriminates against rural gun owners, the reality is that access to firearms is a key factor in domestic homicides.

 Now, this is  partially correct, because traditionally in rural areas ,rifles are a common household item. More on this in a bit.

 However, Bill goes on to say this in the comments section:

 Take a look at the firearms deaths stats my friend. Take a look at domestic violence in rural communities.

 So, I did look at firearms death stats- with relation to domestic violence, and conveniently enough, another commenter to his post brought up a recent, 2008 report that indicates firearms are no more significant in cases of spousal murder than stabbings ( but no one seems to be stepping up to register or prohibit knives…) info quoted is from page 39

 Between 1997 and 2006, the most common method
used to kill male spouses was stabbing (69%). In contrast,
female victims of spousal homicide were equally likely to be
stabbed or shot (30% each). A larger proportion of female
spousal victims were killed as a result of physical force
such as beating, strangulation, suffocation or drowning

Over the past decade, the rate of firearm-related spousal
homicides decreased by nearly 50%

 In 1996 there were
27 firearm-related spousal homicides compared to 16 in
2006 (Chart 4.3).

Sadly enough, there isn’t a lot of recent or current Canadian research on spousal murder in Canada , but there has been research done in the past that says this:

 Guns

While the prevalence of violence using guns against women in rural and urban communities is not statistically significant, the current literature does highlight the greater accessibility and use of guns in rural areas to intimidate, terrorize and murder women who are in violent relationships (Websdale, 1998). In many rural areas, guns are part of the household, often used for hunting and protection. Nolan (1992) suggests that:

Domestic killings occur disproportionately in rural areas and it is believed that this may reflect the high levels of gun ownership in the country. Many victims of domestic violence also report being threatened with firearms. (1992:23)

 This finding has also been reiterated by Dansy Consultants Inc. who found that violence was a factor in 80 percent of the cases involving firearm homicides (1992:15). While gun ownership and accessibility may not be the sole reason for wife-killing in rural areas, the fact that they are present and accessible may accentuate their use in situations of violence. Second, it may be more viable to discharge a firearm in a rural area without being detected or attracting police attention.

 There you have it. Guns are used to kill women and men in that sometimes screwed up institution of marriage – but so are knives, fists, hammers, boots, boards, ropes, pillows and anything else the murderer can get his or her hands onto. In fact, I know, sadly, again from personal experience, that when responding to a domestic violence call,  the RCMP will  operate under the assumption that there ARE weapons in the house,unless told otherwise. Yes, you may argue that the gun registry will tell them prior to arrival if there is a registered weapon in the home,but how the hell that prevents the murderer from firing it, I don’t know. 

 Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. ( credit to Alex T. )  No gun registry is going to stop a man from pulling the trigger when he chooses to kill his wife or girlfriend.

 Please. Don’t use the excuse or pseudo-concern of women getting beaten and  then possibly murdered with rifles as an excuse to continue this  gun registry. It sickens me to hear that. It’s like saying having a license to drive will prevent deaths on the road from alcohol, or speed. They don’t, they just show you passed a test and keep track of your personal information. Again, bullshit.

  If someone really wanted to prevent needless deaths of women, they would be lobbying for much-needed changes to the Criminal Code that still treats the abusers with kid gloves( especially on a first offence) , demanding a reinstatement of mandatory charges for the abuser in BC, and educating Crown on how to handle domestic violence cases - not fighting to save a gun registry!

 The amount of money spent on this registry so far, would have done far more to prevent spousal murders, through public education programs, shelters and resources for women suffering the kind of severe abuse that often leads to murder. Especially in those rural areas where  women are often isolated and stay silent because there are no resources to go to.

 Yes, Bill Tieleman was right to call all these politicians gutless – but in my opinion, for the wrong reason. At least, that’s the way I see it.

My friend, photographer Doug Pyper, posted this video on his site recently, and I felt it was important to post it here again as well.
This video was  produced by ” a couple of independent film makers out of concern and love for British Columbia.”  I posted it during the election,because  it beautifully illustrated exactly why Gordon Campbell is such a danger to the future of this province. Although the election is long over, the truth of this film remains, and must be heeded.  With the introduction of the HST, Gordon Campbell gave us the opportunity to change the course of this province, and we must grab it!

For someone like me, who was born and raised in the heart of British Columbia; who played and camped and fished in the rivers and lakes and mountains around my home, and know these areas as my own, it is horrific to watch this film and know within my heart that it will happen if he remains as our premier.

If there is one thing I would ask you all to do, it would be to watch this video, and send it to everyone you know, far and wide, including your American and international friends, family and colleagues.
You’ll see why if you click the Play button…

I took a look in my email box last night, and decided it was time to clean house and do a little round up and review of issues and stories from the last while. So, over today and tomorrow, there will likely be a series of posts so I can tidy up things a bit.

First off, I received an update from one of the striking HandyDART employees who tells me that the union, ATU local 1724,  asked the company- MVT Canadian Bus for binding arbitration, but the company has now rejected that idea.

Striking workers are now asking their riders and the public for support in pressuring Translink to persuade MVT to agree to arbitration.  Because Translink only pays MVT for the trips they actually provide, Translink is actually saving money as the strike continues. And interestingly enough, when you look at how the company operates, it would appear they may have little motivation to settle with the workers, because they don’t even own the HandyDART vehicles or pay the rents on depots – Translink does!  In essence, MVT is only having to continues to pay managers salaries,and doesn’t have to worry about lost money on idle vehicles or empty properties. 

The parent company, California based, MV Transportation Inc, bills itself as the largest provider of paratransit in the U.S.