What is it they ask of abused/battered women...
Suzanne Vezina
'why don't you just leave?' Isn't that the favourite question of those
wondering why abused/battered wives don't just leave their husbands?
Well, time and again, the dead bodies of women who did leave, or attempted
to leave, answer that question. Gives more credence to the 'battered
women syndrome' defense with each body.
And why is it that so many men can't deal with the breakup of their
relationships without resorting to murdering their spouses and/or their kids.
December 13, 1997
'EVIL' HUSBAND JAILED
360-POUND KILLER GETS LIFE FOR BARRIE MURDER OF WIFE
By ALAN CAIRNS -- Toronto Sun
BARRIE -- A 360-pound man with an "evil mind" was sentenced yesterday to life
with no parole for 12 years for killing his 95-pound wife, then trying to
hire a hitman to torture and kill her boyfriend.
Ronald Lawrie, 35, was a "controlling, manipulating husband" who has shown no
remorse for slaying his 28-year-old wife Janice, Ontario Court Judge Paul
Hermiston told a packed and tearful courtroom.
In almost three hours in court, Lawrie never once looked at the 30 people
seated in the court pews and showed no emotion when Hermiston passed
sentence. Leaving court in handcuffs, Lawrie gave a wide smile and cheerily
asked a Toronto Sun writer when the story would run.
In what appeared to be a random sex killing, Janice Lawrie's nearly naked
body was found in a woodlot between Barrie and Midhurst on May 31, 1996. It
was later determined she died from loss of oxygen from being strangled and
then stabbed in a lung.
Almost four months later, Barrie OPP and city police charged her domineering
husband with first-degree murder.
Lawrie revealed for the first time yesterday, when he pleaded guilty to
second-degree murder, that he strangled his wife in a rage after she told him
she was leaving him and admitted to an affair with one of her customers.
Lawrie's lawyer, Dan Brodsky, said Lawrie, believing his wife to be dead, put
her tiny body in a hockey bag and took it into the woods. He tried to make it
appear she had been raped and stabbed her in the chest.
"This is a crime of passion, a crime of desperation and a crime of jealousy
carried out at the heat of the moment," said Brodsky. During the probe,
police learned that Lawrie, who was receiving $27,000 a year from the
Workers' Compensation Board for a bad back, controlled his diminutive wife
and the $100,000 annual salary she made as a pharmacist at a Zeller's
store in Orillia.
"Janice told friends that she was effectively being controlled by the accused,
said prosecutor Fred Graham. "He controlled all finances and controlled all
decisions." Lawrie, raised in Markham and at one time a top chef in city
restaurants, drove her from their Barrie home to work and back each day.
A month after his arrest, Lawrie attempted to hire a hitman through a jail
inmate, who told police about it. Wire taps show Lawrie offered $10,000 to an
undercover officer if he would "torture" his wife's boyfriend into signing a
confession that he had killed Janice Lawrie. Then the hitman could kill the
boyfriend and make the death appear like a suicide.
Lawrie's children, Brittany, 8, and Katherine, 4, are now in foster care.
Janice's boyfriend, Patrick Stott, is hiding in another province under the
witness protection program.
Copyright 1997, Canoe Limited Partnership
All rights reserved
--
Suzanne Vezina df...@freenet.carleton.ca
sve...@sprint.ca
Stephen Gilman
Suzanne Vezina (df...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> 'why don't you just leave?' Isn't that the favourite question of those
> wondering why abused/battered wives don't just leave their husbands?
> Well, time and again, the dead bodies of women who did leave, or attempted
> to leave, answer that question. Gives more credence to the 'battered
> women syndrome' defense with each body.
>
> And why is it that so many men can't deal with the breakup of their
> relationships without resorting to murdering their spouses and/or their kids.
>
You know, instead of regaling everyone with stories about how awful men
are, why don't you tell us WHAT YOU WANT? Make a suggestion or two on how
to make the world a better place instead of just reminding people that it
sucks. When you make people guess what you want, well, my imagination
doesn't paint a very flattering picture.
--
Stephen R. Gilman: Independent Film & Video Guy.
Director, Camera Operator, Production Assistant, Etc...
Member of SAW, IFCO and OHFTA.
ao...@freenet.carleton.ca http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ao668
Candace Lain Faucher
Stephen Gilman (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Suzanne Vezina (df...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> You know, instead of regaling everyone with stories about how awful men
> are, why don't you tell us WHAT YOU WANT? Make a suggestion or two on how
> to make the world a better place instead of just reminding people that it
> sucks. When you make people guess what you want, well, my imagination
> doesn't paint a very flattering picture.
Wants: A society which acknowledges that there are some who do abuse others.
A society which has in place a system which addresses the need for
abused individuals to break free from the abuse (and yes, this
most definitely includes financial help as well as shelters.)
A society that prefers to not create a more "helpless" type of
atmosphere by lowering the amount of money for those to survive on.
A society which is ready willing and able to spend the money needed
for more shelters/subsidized housing.
A society which demonstrates care and concern for those less
fortunate - this does not equate to a 21.6% cut to assistance.
A society which refuses to accept any leaders who contradict what they
are demanding from those who are less fortunate.
A society which refuses to tolerate such extreme unequal proportions
of incomes.
A society that refuses to tolerate dictatorship.
A society which refuses to accept any "breach of promise/s" by any
political leader.
Should I go on?
CLF
--
"Even those who limp go not backward. But you who are strong and swift,
see that you do not limp before the lame, deeming it kindness."
- Kahlil Gibran
Petrus W. de Lepper
Besides lamenting the perceived wrong what is done to you,
what are you willing to do to make corrections ?
Are you willing to part from an essential need giving this
to those who are less fortunate than yourself?
Are you willing to praise those who you think are lesser
than you?
Are you willing to give a friendly smile to those who need
to be told that their uglyness is only skin deep?
If you do these things you will discover we live in a wonderful
world indeed.
For we have to give from the heart and till it hurts from our
own good fortunes and you will realize it was worth it that
you were around when it counted.
Petrus W., who tries to see some good in every
creature, and realizes he could be
better himself, de Lepper
Candace Lain Faucher
Petrus W. de Lepper (ah...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Stephen Gilman (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Wants: A society which acknowledges that there are some who do abuse others.
>> A society which has in place a system which addresses the need for
>> abused individuals to break free from the abuse (and yes, this
>> most definitely includes financial help as well as shelters.)
>> A society that prefers to not create a more "helpless" type of
>> atmosphere by lowering the amount of money for those to survive on.
>> A society which is ready willing and able to spend the money needed
>> for more shelters/subsidized housing.
>> A society which demonstrates care and concern for those less
>> fortunate - this does not equate to a 21.6% cut to assistance.
>> A society which refuses to accept any leaders who contradict what they
>> are demanding from those who are less fortunate.
>> A society which refuses to tolerate such extreme unequal proportions
>> of incomes.
>> A society that refuses to tolerate dictatorship.
>> A society which refuses to accept any "breach of promise/s" by any
>> political leader.
>>
>> Should I go on?
>>
>>
>> CLF
>
> Besides lamenting the perceived wrong what is done to you,
> what are you willing to do to make corrections ?
Amazing mentality. The question was put forward: What changes would you
like to see addressed. The question was then answered. This answering to
a question (last time I attended any kind of educational environment
revolves around an answering to the question - which by definition is not
lamenting as you have incorrectly put it).
> Are you willing to part from an
essential
need giving this > to those who are less fortunate than yourself?
Continuously - and yourself?
> Are you willing to praise those who you think are lesser
> than you?
Excuse me? Where the "bleep" did this come from? I do not praise people
as such to begin with. If you are asking me if I would respect someoneless fortunate than myself - I don't believe that the stupidity of the
question deserves an answer.
> Are you willing to give a friendly smile to
those who need > to be told that their uglyness is only skin deep?
Do it all the time. And yourself?
> If you do these things you will discover we live in a wonderful
> world indeed.
Which planet are you transmitting these posts from?
> For we have to give from the heart and till it hurts from our
> own good fortunes and you will realize it was worth it that
> you were around when it counted.
Right. And that is exactly what Ontario is doing right? Not. Highest
child poverty in all of Canada.
CLF
> Petrus W., who tries to see some good in
every > creature, and realizes he could be
> better himself, de Lepper
>
M. Lafontaine
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Wants: A society which acknowledges that there are some who do abuse others.
> A society which has in place a system which addresses the need for
> abused individuals to break free from the abuse (and yes, this
> most definitely includes financial help as well as shelters.)
> A society that prefers to not create a more "helpless" type of
> atmosphere by lowering the amount of money for those to survive on.
> A society which is ready willing and able to spend the money needed
> for more shelters/subsidized housing.
> A society which demonstrates care and concern for those less
> fortunate - this does not equate to a 21.6% cut to assistance.
> A society which refuses to accept any leaders who contradict what they
> are demanding from those who are less fortunate.
> A society which refuses to tolerate such extreme unequal proportions
> of incomes.
> A society that refuses to tolerate dictatorship.
> A society which refuses to accept any "breach of promise/s" by any
> political leader.
> CLF
Candace, I believe that all politicians *break* promises at one time
or another.
Marie.
Stephen Gilman
This post was exactly the kind of post I wanted!! It's great because it's
constructive and debatable, instead of just whining and finger-pointing!!!
However, it was pretty non-specific, but that's not much of a fault.
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
> Wants: A society which acknowledges that there are some who do abuse others.
Some might say that society does acknowledge this. I don't think there
are many people who would say that nobody abuses anybody. The debate is
over who the abusers are (I don't think you can generalize very accurately
myself, but that's just my opinion), how to fairly determine who the
abusers are and who is crying wolf, and how to deal with the abusers.
> A society which has in place a system which addresses the need for
> abused individuals to break free from the abuse (and yes, this
> most definitely includes financial help as well as shelters.)
This would be nice indeed. Any suggestions on how to do it? Wishing
won't make it so. And no, I don't have any ideas.
> A society that prefers to not create a more "helpless" type of
> atmosphere by lowering the amount of money for those to survive on.
Fiscal responsibility is an on-going problem, yes. Personally the theory
is that once the debt and the deficit are dealt with, then we'll be able
to afford to help those in need. But the fiscal mistakes of the past must
be fixed before the problems of the present can be addressed.
> A society which is ready willing and able to spend the money needed
> for more shelters/subsidized housing.
When we can afford it, I sincerely hope this will happen.
> A society which demonstrates care and concern for those less
> fortunate - this does not equate to a 21.6% cut to assistance.
Yes, concern for the less fortunate would be great. How do we keep them
from becoming dependent on social assistance? I really would like to know.
> A society which refuses to accept any leaders who contradict what they
> are demanding from those who are less fortunate.
Wait till the next election.
> A society which refuses to tolerate such extreme unequal proportions
> of incomes.
Again, this would be nice. Any suggestions on how to do it? Marx had
some suggestions, and I don't mean Groucho...
> A society that refuses to tolerate dictatorship.
Ah, but who are the dictators? How are you going to convince people that
they are under the thumb of a dictator when their lives seem peachy-keen?
Society oppresses itself after all.
> A society which refuses to accept any "breach of promise/s" by any
> political leader.
>
Wait till the next election.
> Should I go on?
Go ahead! It was a nice wish list. But it was a wish list, not a list of
suggestions.
Candace Lain Faucher
M. Lafontaine (cg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Wants: A society which acknowledges that there are some who do abuse others.
>> A society which has in place a system which addresses the need for
>> abused individuals to break free from the abuse (and yes, this
>> most definitely includes financial help as well as shelters.)
>> A society that prefers to not create a more "helpless" type of
>> atmosphere by lowering the amount of money for those to survive on.
>> A society which is ready willing and able to spend the money needed
>> for more shelters/subsidized housing.
>> A society which demonstrates care and concern for those less
>> fortunate - this does not equate to a 21.6% cut to assistance.
>> A society which refuses to accept any leaders who contradict what they
>> are demanding from those who are less fortunate.
>> A society which refuses to tolerate such extreme unequal proportions
>> of incomes.
>> A society that refuses to tolerate dictatorship.
>> A society which refuses to accept any "breach of promise/s" by any
>> political leader.
>> CLF
> Candace, I believe that all politicians *break* promises at one time
> or another.
Is this suppose to be the acceptable standard? Granted - no one can be
expected to meet perfection - but there should be a definite LINE to which
all must adhere.
The way the last few elections have been successful was due to pure
filtering of information - which I do not believe is acceptable.
CLF
> Marie.
Candace Lain Faucher
Stephen Gilman (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> This post was exactly the kind of post I wanted!! It's great because it's
> constructive and debatable, instead of just whining and finger-pointing!!!
Well - I have found a positive influence in a negative environment. Major
:*>
> However, it was pretty non-specific, but that's not much of a fault.
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Wants: A society which acknowledges that there are some who do abuse others.
>
> Some might say that society does acknowledge this. I don't think there
> are many people who would say that nobody abuses anybody. The debate is
> over who the abusers are (I don't think you can generalize very accurately
> myself, but that's just my opinion), how to fairly determine who the
> abusers are and who is crying wolf, and how to deal with the abusers.
It would appear that society wants it to remain somewhat hidden - not
having to deal with it emotionally or financially.
Let's take Ottawa for example.
The amount of money this City paid to have the entire Rideau street
enclosed - then Ottawa found that there was a problem with homeless
people/less desirables making use of that enclosure for warmth e.t.c.
City paid to have it torn apart. Can you imagine how much money we are
talking about here?
When you make such a drastic cut to one particular group i.e. social
assistance (keeping in mind that the majority of those are single parents)
you are ignoring the reality - that these women have probably left an
abusive relationship. Give me what - another whopping 2% who just leave
because they want to lower their standard of living to such an extent?!
Reality is that we have consistant abuse occurring -
>> A society which has in place a system which addresses the need for
>> abused individuals to break free from the abuse (and yes, this
>> most definitely includes financial help as well as shelters.)
>
> This would be nice indeed. Any suggestions on how to do it? Wishing
> won't make it so. And no, I don't have any ideas.
The system which is already in place can do the job. The problem is that
we need to address the 21.6% cut/we need to address the need for more
affordable housing/and we need to address the need for more shelters.
>> A society that prefers to not create a more "helpless" type of
>> atmosphere by lowering the amount of money for those to survive on.
>
> Fiscal responsibility is an on-going problem, yes. Personally the theory
> is that once the debt and the deficit are dealt with, then we'll be able
> to afford to help those in need. But the fiscal mistakes of the past must
> be fixed before the problems of the present can be addressed.
This is pure hog wash. This present government has demonstrated how there
is money - when they decide there is money. i.e. second Toronto office
for Harris ETC. He wanted to turn the publics attention away from
political abuses - and focus on those who don't even have a job. The
public bought into it. Welfare bashing at new found heights.
>> A society which is ready willing and able to spend the money needed
>> for more shelters/subsidized housing.
>
> When we can afford it, I sincerely hope this will happen.
The money is there now my friend. The public decided to vote in someone
who wants to make life a hell of a lot more difficult for those already
struggling.
>> A society which demonstrates care and concern for those less
>> fortunate - this does not equate to a 21.6% cut to assistance.
>
> Yes, concern for the less fortunate would be great. How do we keep them
> from becoming dependent on social assistance? I really would like to know.
Incentives. Incentives. Incentives. The Premier of BC has proven this
to be successful.
>> A society which refuses to accept any leaders who contradict what they
>> are demanding from those who are less fortunate.
>
> Wait till the next election.
Seems like forver. Would really like to see an amendment to how this
system operates - meaning: being able to boot someone out prior to their
election date.
>> A society which refuses to tolerate such extreme unequal proportions
>> of incomes.
>
> Again, this would be nice. Any suggestions on how to do it? Marx had
> some suggestions, and I don't mean Groucho...
Cute. You balance the differentiation between incomes. This government
created a much larger gap by taking more away from the very poor and
offerring a tax decrease to the more wealthy.
A society that refuses to tolerate dictatorship. >
> Ah, but who are the dictators? How are you going to convince people that
> they are under the thumb of a dictator when their lives seem peachy-keen?
> Society oppresses itself after all.
Eduation - understanding the filtering of information - demanding that the
media present the facts. Any newspaper which contributes to any political
party (financially) should be deleted from our business - and any newspapaer
which is allowing one sided views to be presented - in other words:
propaganda.
>> A society which refuses to accept any "breach of promise/s" by any
>> political leader.
>>
>
> Wait till the next election.
>
>> Should I go on?
>
>
> Go ahead! It was a nice wish list. But it was a wish list, not a list of
> suggestions.
These suggestions/ideas are all inforacable if the public so chooses to
take that route.
And, as you have wisely pointed out - possibly in the next election.
Possibly. Hopefully.
CLF
> Stephen R. Gilman: Independent Film & Video Guy.
> Director, Camera Operator, Production Assistant, Etc...
> Member of SAW, IFCO and OHFTA.
> ao...@freenet.carleton.ca http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ao668
M. Lafontaine
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
> Is this suppose to be the acceptable standard? Granted - no one can be
> expected to meet perfection - but there should be a definite LINE to which
> all must adhere.
>
> The way the last few elections have been successful was due to pure
> filtering of information - which I do not believe is acceptable.
>
> CLF
>
>
Candace, if you truly want everything to change, then the only thing
left to do is to *pray* for God to change people's hearts. I am
slighty surprised that as a *Christian* you are not pursuing this instead of
constantly complaining about how things are.
Marie.
Candace Lain Faucher
Interesting. And how have you Marie determined that this is not taking
place?
Now - before I rant and rave about how the origional posting asked the
question: "What would you like to see changed?," and how I merely
answered that question ..... last time I checked ... answering a question
cannot equate to complaining as you have incorrectly put it.
Astounding how some can make such assumptions all the time - while at the
same time ..... not be able to figure out why they have a total lack of
understanding concerning other individuals.
Despite all of this - shall not put much weight on your posting ..........
but will wish you a Very Merry Christmas. All the best in 1998.
Candace
> Marie.
M. Lafontaine
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> M. Lafontaine (cg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Candace, if you truly want everything to change, then the only thing
>> left to do is to *pray* for God to change people's hearts. I am
>> slighty surprised that as a *Christian* you are not pursuing this instead of
>> constantly complaining about how things are.
>
> Interesting. And how have you Marie determined that this is not taking
> place
That is easy. Let me clear up one thing first, I do not say that I
am a *Christian*, however, I have read a little bible.
So Candace, I believe that if you were pursuing deep prayers asking Jesus to
change peoples hearts, then there would be *evidence* of the changes.
The changes would be evident because Jesus does say " Anything that you ask for
in my Name God the Father will give to You
Since there are no changes, you are not pursuing your prayers enough or
maybe you really don't believe the words of Jesus.
.
>
> Now - before I rant and rave about how the origional posting asked the
> question: "What would you like to see changed?," and how I merely
> answered that question ..... last time I checked ... answering a question
> cannot equate to complaining as you have incorrectly put it.
Candace, in almost every post you express your displeasure about the welfare cuts,
Mike Harris's actions and his government. This is complaining.
>
> Despite all of this - shall not put much weight on your posting ..........
> but will wish you a Very Merry Christmas. All the best in 1998.
>
Well, that is OK, since I *put* not weight on your posts simply because of your
ingenuous thinking. I belive that JOhn put it best, "Candace, shouldn't you be
out with your camera looking for Elvis"
>
> Candace
Candace Lain Faucher
M. Lafontaine (cg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Interesting. And how have you Marie determined that this is not taking
>> place
The way you wrote your post - it was as if you were stating, "If you don't
like the way things are going - why aren't you praying about it."
I then responded with, "How do you know that I am not praying about it?"
> That is easy. Let me clear up one thing first, I do not say that I
> am a *Christian*, however, I have read a little bible.
You have read a little of the Bible? What constitutes "a little?"
> So Candace, I believe that if you were pursuing deep prayers asking Jesus to
> change peoples hearts, then there would be *evidence* of the changes.
God is in charge of salvation - not myself.
> The changes would be evident because Jesus does say " Anything that you ask for
> in my Name God the Father will give to You
This revolves around your own personal standing with Christ. Furthermore,
it is not I who determines when or where things shall take place if God
has already put a plan into motion. It is in His hands.
> Since there are no changes, you are not pursuing your prayers enough or
> maybe you really don't believe the words of Jesus.
So - now you are making yet another amazing assumption: my own personal
belief system?
Your logic and reasoning is a definite challenge.
By the way - we were origionally discussing whether or not this present
government is fulfilling what we "want as a society."
Perhaps some people don't like to face up to the reality that we live in a
time when who we vote for is critical.
> Candace, in almost every post you express your displeasure about the welfare cuts,
> Mike Harris's actions and his government. This is complaining.
Making use of my right to vote (which most certainly did not include Harris)
and making use of my FREEDOM OF SPEECH is somehow conscrewed as
"complaining," - there is a very simple obvious solution to the issue Marie.
Don't read any posts with my name attached.
>> Despite all of this - shall not put much weight on your posting ..........
>> but will wish you a Very Merry Christmas. All the best in 1998.
>>
>
> Well, that is OK, since I *put* not weight on your posts simply because of your
> ingenuous thinking. I belive that JOhn put it best, "Candace, shouldn't you be
> out with your camera looking for Elvis"
Well now you have hit below the belt .... sniff ... sniff ... two people
have determined that I should go out with my camera and look for Elvis.
Again, I don't put any weight on such if I don't respect who the comments
are coming from ......
So .... as I release a heavy sigh and take one more glance at the glimmering
Christmas lights, still with a gentle grin on my face; and still with warm
wishes for you Marie.
By the way again - the discussion was concerning what this present government
was or was not doing.
CLF
John Mertl
Suzanne Vezina wrote:
>
> 'why don't you just leave?' Isn't that the favourite question of those
> wondering why abused/battered wives don't just leave their husbands?
> Well, time and again, the dead bodies of women who did leave, or attempted
> to leave, answer that question. Gives more credence to the 'battered
> women syndrome' defense with each body.
>
> And why is it that so many men can't deal with the breakup of their
> relationships without resorting to murdering their spouses and/or their kids.
>
Posting news doesn't solve the problem, Suzanne. There are many reasons
why women don't leave abusive relationships. Economic, mostly.
Emotional, often. Feelings of loyalty to the family, very often. And
fear. Every case is different. You know that as well as anyone.
Hyperbole, in that "so many men" can't deal with the break-up of their
relationships, doesn't help the situation much either. There are, I
think you would agree, many, many more relationships that end without
violence (in either direction). I think you're right, though, that there
are many (too many) cases where the man is unable to deal with the
prospects of losing his wife and family, and resorts to violance.
Implying that it might be the general rule does no one any good.
If you are interested in a genuine discussion about why the men, who do
resort to violence in these situations, do so, then I think you have to
look at the cases. Who are the men who resort to violence? What were the
socio-economic environments in which they lived? What were their beliefs
about the role of women in marriage, in the household, in the community?
By merely suggesting that MEN should change their ways, and everything
will be okay is a wee bit simplistic. Suggesting, on the other hand, as
I'm sure you intended, that we ought to consider more progressive
environments where boys and young men are raised, would be far more
reflective of your incisive intelligence. There may be ways, even, that
we can help those men who are stuck in a pattern of unhealthy behaviour
(and there are many programs that provide this service), though I am not
so hopeful of men over the age of, say, 40.
The real question remains, why do the men, those who resort to violence
faced with the imminent dissolution of their relationships/families,
resort to violence? Their beliefs about family. Their beliefs about the
role women should play. We could go on and on. Finding the superficial
causes of their behaviour is not very difficult. Discovering why these
men believe these things is another matter altogether. And, I think,
worthy of some discussion.
John Mertl
jme...@microstar.com
Candace Lain Faucher
Matthew Darwin (aa...@freenet.carleton.ca) writes:
> [This article has been posted to the NCF news server by
> an Internet -> NCF gateway. The original author was:
> John Mertl <jme...@microstar.com>].
Not too sure that I would agree that the "question" is why - but how to
educate future generations as to "why it shouldn't take place."
Adrenaline surges do many wonderous things - occassionally - harmful things...
Perhaps men have more adrenaline released than woman? Irregardless - to
combat violence as a united force - men and women.
I personally do not see many of the above questions being relative in the
sense that violence cannot be tolerated regardless of beliefs, etc.
Again, would like to state that I feel we need to begin as early as grade
one - unfiltered educating on the harmful affects of abuse/signs of
abuse/how to deal with abuse ......and continue on with this educating
right through to graduation in the secondary level. Our educational
system is seriously lacking in what it could be doing - this being but one
example.
CLF
> John Mertl
> jme...@microstar.com
--
" Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your
seafaring soul. For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining;
and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction."