Question ...
Candace Lain Faucher
Would appreciate if anyone who is aware of a statute which is suppose to
be located in downtown Ottawa (just been informed of this) - and is
dedicated to all of the women who have died due to "crime/violence,"
Would appreciate you posting the exact words which were carved into this
statute.
Thanks
CLF
--
"And he who has deserved to drink from the ocean of life deserves to fill
his cup from your little stream."
- Kahlil Gibran
Ian Rooney
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Would appreciate if anyone who is aware of a statute which is suppose to
> be located in downtown Ottawa (just been informed of this) - and is
> dedicated to all of the women who have died due to "crime/violence,"
>
> Would appreciate you posting the exact words which were carved into this
> statute.
>
> Thanks
> CLF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is on Elgin across from the Starbucks coffee
shop and the swimming pool/community centre.
The monument says something close to "In memory
of women who have died by male violence. May the
day come when women can walk the streets without
fear".
--
Candace Lain Faucher
Well, I for one resent the fact that it has been our tax dollars which
have been used to erect a staute which (if your writings are accurate)
is contradicting our criminal code "Hate Laws."
Why do we not have a monument for all of the black men who
have died at the hands of the white man or vise-versa?
This is unacceptable.
Either they change the criminal code "Hate Laws," or take down the
monument, or change it to read: For all of the women who have died by
violence.
Jim Poushinsky
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Well, I for one resent the fact that it has been our tax dollars which
> have been used to erect a staute which (if your writings are accurate)
> is contradicting our criminal code "Hate Laws."
Since when is it against the law in Canada for an oppressed group to name
their oppressors? Women fear male violence, and with good reason. Read
the newspaper. It's ludicrous to say we can't speak of male violence in
public, nor have a memorial for the victims.
I would like to see a memorial for all the children who have been sexually
and physically and emotionally abused and neglected by their caregivers.
Too many people don't want to think about this issue either. Yet we think
its wonderful to show a life-size figure of a near naked man being crucified
to death. How about a life size statue of a little boy being buggered by a
priest, or electrocuted by a nun? No doubt that would be regarded as hate
pornography... yet is their suffering and the violence done to them any
less worthy of commemoration than Christ's death?
Supposing we Canadians were prepared to recognize the rape of children or
women or men as a subject worthy of a memorial, how do you suppose we could
portray rape without it being construed as "hate propaganda" against the
sex who have the penises which do the raping? Methinks rape and the
deliberate stalking and killing of women are two crimes that justify a
degree of hatred against the perpetrators and their defenders. As a man who
doesn't rape or kill I don't take the wording of the memorial as a personal
attack on me. I take it as a statement of the anguish felt by the victims
and their loved ones, and a call to everyone to do more to end the violence
too many men resort to.
--
\.!./
Jim Poushinsky . _: * o :_ . I seem to be a verb.
ae080@freenet. :. v .: - Buckminster Fuller
carleton.ca / : \
Candace Lain Faucher
Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> Well, I for one resent the fact that it has been our tax dollars which
>> have been used to erect a staute which (if your writings are accurate)
>> is contradicting our criminal code "Hate Laws."
>
> Since when is it against the law in Canada for an oppressed group to name
> their oppressors? Women fear male violence, and with good reason. Read
> the newspaper. It's ludicrous to say we can't speak of male violence in
> public, nor have a memorial for the victims.
As I have already stated: if they want to specifically single out one
particular group of people (as oppressors) in a monument - then they have
to change the "Hate Laws" already in place in our Criminal Code. Read
them - very clear what is legal and what is not.
> I would like to see a memorial for all the children who have been sexually
> and physically and emotionally abused and neglected by their caregivers.
> Too many people don't want to think about this issue either. Yet we think
> its wonderful to show a life-size figure of a near naked man being crucified
> to death. How about a life size statue of a little boy being buggered by a
> priest, or electrocuted by a nun? No doubt that would be regarded as hate
> pornography... yet is their suffering and the violence done to them any
> less worthy of commemoration than Christ's death?
Challenging perspective. This is the entire point. If you are going to
erect a statute paying tribute to women who have been killed due to
violence (and specify by men) - then we will fill all empty space
available with statues for ALL of the OTHER horrible injustices done to
all of mankind - which most certainly would include the children of mankind.
Do you want to have walking room downtown?
You have given a perfect example of why this statute should not be in
place, or at least change the wording on it.
Now - when you ask about a particular denomination which does erect
statutes of Christ being crucified - you are speaking about one particular
group of people who agree to do this. Further to this, it is not
displayed outside of their Churches. You do not see a cross downtown with
Jesus Christ on it.
> Supposing we Canadians were prepared to recognize the rape of children or
> women or men as a subject worthy of a memorial, how do you suppose we could
> portray rape without it being construed as "hate propaganda" against the
> sex who have the penises which do the raping? Methinks rape and the
> deliberate stalking and killing of women are two crimes that justify a
> degree of hatred against the perpetrators and their defenders. As a man who
> doesn't rape or kill I don't take the wording of the memorial as a personal
> attack on me. I take it as a statement of the anguish felt by the victims
> and their loved ones, and a call to everyone to do more to end the violence
> too many men resort to.
It serves no purpose other than to stir up hate against one particular
group of people. Either the wording should be changed - or the statute
removed.
Don't you see how this could go on and on and on and on? Why not a
statute in the middle of downtown Ottawa which is a Native being
demoralized and some wording about the white man?
Or a statute of Chinese decent - with some wording about what the Canadian
government did to them?
Or a statute of supposed "witches" with some wording about what "religious"
groups did to them ..........
The question remains the same: Do you want to be able to walk downtown?
CLF
\.!./
> Jim Poushinsky . _: * o :_ . I seem to be a verb.
> ae080@freenet. :. v .: - Buckminster Fuller
> carleton.ca / : \
Jim Poushinsky
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> If you are going to erect a statute paying tribute to women who have been
> killed due to violence (and specify by men) - then we will fill all empty
> space available with statues for ALL of the OTHER horrible injustices
> done to all of mankind - which most certainly would include the children
> of mankind. Do you want to have walking room downtown?
> You have given a perfect example of why this statute should not be in
> place, or at least change the wording on it.
The National Capital Region houses over 1 million people and has more
green space and parks than any other city in the world that I know of.
You can't be serious about statues overcrowding the city! I remember a
statue of a giant dog-dropping that took up most of a park down-town, if
we have room for that sort of "art" we certainly have room for memorials
to victims of injustice in this country!
> Now - when you ask about a particular denomination which does erect
> statutes of Christ being crucified - you are speaking about one particular
> group of people who agree to do this. Further to this, it is not
> displayed outside of their Churches. You do not see a cross downtown with
> Jesus Christ on it.
I guess you've never gone for a drive across the Ottawa river in Quebec.
As for other denominations, I think the story of the crucifixion of Christ
has been drummed into everyone's brain a sufficient number of times that
the symbol of the cross is quite sufficient to evoke this meaning.
As someone who has listened to the stories of survivors of spiritual abuse,
the sight of any Christian church now reminds me of the rape and buggery of
children by church officials. It is obvious Christ's crucifixion did nothing
to stop the sacrifice of children on the alters of the Christian Churches.
> Don't you see how this could go on and on and on and on? Why not a
> statute in the middle of downtown Ottawa which is a Native being
> demoralized and some wording about the white man?
I think a memorial to all the First Nations people who have been victims
of policies like the trade in alcohol, exclusion from traditional lands
and forced relocations to unsuitable habitants, banning of their spiritual
and cultural practices, destruction of the forest and fur and fishery
industries they depend on for a livelihood, and most recently the removal
of their children to be abused and brain-washed in church-run residential
schools - yes, a memorial to all the native people who have died or seen
their life destroyed by such treatment at the hands of the dominant
culture is an excellent idea, might even make a few people think about
finding ways to stop such maltreatment.
> Or a statute of Chinese decent - with some wording about what the Canadian
> government did to them?
Right on! And a memorial to all the Japanese Canadians who were badly
treated during World War 2 as well.
> Or a statute of supposed "witches" with some wording about what "religious"
> groups did to them ..........
Yes. Many people died in early Canada as a result of persecution by
various Christian sects who believed they were witches or otherwise
possessed of the devil. Up until 1910(?) all records of birth and death
were kept by the local churches, not by government. If a parish priest or
congregation wanted to kill a witch the record could be falsified or
disappear along with the victim. No one knows how frequently this happened,
but many people know it happened... these are deeply kept dark secrets.
Do you really want to knoqw the truth?
--
Aubrey Taylor
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>
>>> Well, I for one resent the fact that it has been our tax dollars which
>>> have been used to erect a staute which (if your writings are accurate)
>>> is contradicting our criminal code "Hate Laws."
>>
>> Since when is it against the law in Canada for an oppressed group to name
>> their oppressors? Women fear male violence, and with good reason. Read
>> the newspaper. It's ludicrous to say we can't speak of male violence in
>> public, nor have a memorial for the victims.
>
> As I have already stated: if they want to specifically single out one
> particular group of people (as oppressors) in a monument - then they have
> to change the "Hate Laws" already in place in our Criminal Code. Read
> them - very clear what is legal and what is not.
>
>> I would like to see a memorial for all the children who have been sexually
>> and physically and emotionally abused and neglected by their caregivers.
>> Too many people don't want to think about this issue either. Yet we think
>> its wonderful to show a life-size figure of a near naked man being crucified
>> to death. How about a life size statue of a little boy being buggered by a
>> priest, or electrocuted by a nun? No doubt that would be regarded as hate
>> pornography... yet is their suffering and the violence done to them any
>> less worthy of commemoration than Christ's death?
>
> Challenging perspective. This is the entire point. If you are going to
> erect a statute paying tribute to women who have been killed due to
> violence (and specify by men) - then we will fill all empty space
> available with statues for ALL of the OTHER horrible injustices done to
> all of mankind - which most certainly would include the children of mankind.
> Do you want to have walking room downtown?
> You have given a perfect example of why this statute should not be in
> place, or at least change the wording on it.
>
> Now - when you ask about a particular denomination which does erect
> statutes of Christ being crucified - you are speaking about one particular
> group of people who agree to do this. Further to this, it is not
> displayed outside of their Churches. You do not see a cross downtown with
> Jesus Christ on it.
>
>
>> Supposing we Canadians were prepared to recognize the rape of children or
>> women or men as a subject worthy of a memorial, how do you suppose we could
>> portray rape without it being construed as "hate propaganda" against the
>> sex who have the penises which do the raping? Methinks rape and the
>> deliberate stalking and killing of women are two crimes that justify a
>> degree of hatred against the perpetrators and their defenders. As a man who
>> doesn't rape or kill I don't take the wording of the memorial as a personal
>> attack on me. I take it as a statement of the anguish felt by the victims
>> and their loved ones, and a call to everyone to do more to end the violence
>> too many men resort to.
>
> It serves no purpose other than to stir up hate against one particular
> group of people. Either the wording should be changed - or the statute
> removed.
>
> Don't you see how this could go on and on and on and on? Why not a
> statute in the middle of downtown Ottawa which is a Native being
> demoralized and some wording about the white man?
>
> Or a statute of Chinese decent - with some wording about what the Canadian
> government did to them?
>
> Or a statute of supposed "witches" with some wording about what "religious"
> groups did to them ..........
>
> The question remains the same: Do you want to be able to walk downtown?
>
>
> CLF
>
I absolutely agree with Candace and would find it equally offensive if
a statue was erected for children abused by women. As Candace says, we
could find a zillion things which are equally offensive and we
would run out of space to put them. I objected to the one in Ottawa
which was at taxpayer's expense. The wording is offensive because
it generalizes men as a whole being guilty. I'm sure Jim, you are
not violent any more than myself and that is precisely the point
I am making.
And Jim, having read your postings of religious matters, you would
know (unless you are a disciple of the man leading the United Church)
that Jesus gave up his life to save sinners. As a frequent sinner,
I am entirely grateful to Him.
Aub
--
Aubs guide for a positive outlook.
I never read the newspaper in the morning. If things are that bad,
someone will tell me. A person who tells you you have to be realistic
is really saying "Be negative like me". Aubrey Taylor
Candace Lain Faucher
Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> If you are going to erect a statute paying tribute to women who have been
>> killed due to violence (and specify by men) - then we will fill all empty
>> space available with statues for ALL of the OTHER horrible injustices
>> done to all of mankind - which most certainly would include the children
>> of mankind. Do you want to have walking room downtown?
>> You have given a perfect example of why this statute should not be in
>> place, or at least change the wording on it.
>
> The National Capital Region houses over 1 million people and has more
> green space and parks than any other city in the world that I know of.
> You can't be serious about statues overcrowding the city! I remember a
> statue of a giant dog-dropping that took up most of a park down-town, if
> we have room for that sort of "art" we certainly have room for memorials
> to victims of injustice in this country!
So .... let me try and picture the type of city you want .... statues
everywhere which emphasize the cruelities we inflict on one another.
Hey - sounds like a REAL nice city to me.....
By the way - was being ridiculously silly when I asked if you wanted room
to walk - trying to make the point that this type of "tit for tat" is
beyond reasonable reasoning. Forgive the redundancy.
Now - when you ask about a particular denomination which does erect
>> statutes of Christ being crucified - you are speaking about one particular
>> group of people who agree to do this. Further to this, it is not
>> displayed outside of their Churches. You do not see a cross downtown with
>> Jesus Christ on it.
>
> I guess you've never gone for a drive across the Ottawa river in Quebec.
> As for other denominations, I think the story of the crucifixion of Christ
Regardless, you are still referring to one particular demonination. We
could spend the next three years discussing the contradictions of this
particular religion..... or many of the other religions out there.
has
been drummed into everyone's brain a sufficient number of times that
> the symbol of the cross is quite sufficient to evoke this meaning.
> As someone who has listened to the stories of survivors of spiritual abuse,
> the sight of any Christian church now reminds me of the rape and buggery of
> children by church officials. It is obvious Christ's crucifixion did nothing
> to stop the sacrifice of children on the alters of the Christian Churches.
Nor any of the many other cruelities inflicted on one another by
athiests.
By the way - Christianity is a very individual stance - meaning: being
affliated to a specific denomination does not guarantee that each member
is actually a Christian.
>> Don't you see how this could go on and on and on and on? Why not a
>> statute in the middle of downtown Ottawa which is a Native being
>> demoralized and some wording about the white man?
>
> I think a memorial to all the First Nations people who have been victims
> of policies like the trade in alcohol, exclusion from traditional lands
> and forced relocations to unsuitable habitants, banning of their spiritual
> and cultural practices, destruction of the forest and fur and fishery
> industries they depend on for a livelihood, and most recently the removal
> of their children to be abused and brain-washed in church-run residential
> schools - yes, a memorial to all the native people who have died or seen
> their life destroyed by such treatment at the hands of the dominant
> culture is an excellent idea, might even make a few people think about
> finding ways to stop such maltreatment.
I do not relate to the type of environment that you seem to want to create.
Statues everywhere which demonstrate the sickness of our race. I do not
see this as any kind of positive contribution .... except possibly
increasing suicides/therefore decreasing the population .... slowly.
>> Or a statute of Chinese decent - with some wording about what the Canadian
>> government did to them?
>
> Right on! And a memorial to all the Japanese Canadians who were badly
> treated during World War 2 as well.
Oh what a lovely stroll through the park, that's it! "Come on kids, lets
go for a walk through our parks and get totally depressed!" "Let's go and
take note at how stupid and cruel we are to one another!"
>> Or a statute of supposed "witches" with some wording about what "religious"
>> groups did to them ..........
>
> Yes. Many people died in early Canada as a result of persecution by
> various Christian sects who believed they were witches or otherwise
> possessed of the devil. Up until 1910(?) all records of birth and death
> were kept by the local churches, not by government. If a parish priest or
> congregation wanted to kill a witch the record could be falsified or
> disappear along with the victim. No one knows how frequently this happened,
> but many people know it happened... these are deeply kept dark secrets.
> Do you really want to knoqw the truth?
Like you are informing me of something I wasn't aware of?
Back to the origional topic. The statue which directs its attention (via
the words written on the statue) on one particular group of people (men)
is wrong, wrong, wrong.
You may want to have statues all over Ottawa which voice how we hurt and
kill each other - I don't.
CLF
\.!./
> Jim Poushinsky . _: * o :_ . I seem to be a verb.
> ae080@freenet. :. v .: - Buckminster Fuller
> carleton.ca / : \
Jim Poushinsky
Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
> I absolutely agree with Candace and would find it equally offensive if
> a statue was erected for children abused by women.
Not me. Many children have been abused by women. In my own case I was
sexually and emotionally abused by both men and women who were supposedly
"caring" for me. But nothing compares for sheer terror and mind
destroying shock when you're a little child as having an angry man's penis
rammed up your ass. If people speaking or portraying this truth offends you
Aub, then what hope is there of ever gaining sufficient public awareness
of childhood sexual abuse to see effective measures taken to stop it?
> And Jim, having read your postings of religious matters, you would
> know (unless you are a disciple of the man leading the United Church)
> that Jesus gave up his life to save sinners. As a frequent sinner,
> I am entirely grateful to Him.
> Aub
And what was the sin of all those children who have been and still are
being sexually abused by church officials? Or are they privileged to be,
like Christ, giving up their life to save the sinners who are abusing them?
Perhaps their sin is after the fact, for not being grateful to His church
for their suffering... "suffer the little children to come unto me."
--
Jim Poushinsky
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
> So .... let me try and picture the type of city you want .... statues
> everywhere which emphasize the cruelities we inflict on one another.
> Hey - sounds like a REAL nice city to me.....
The memorial to women who have been slain by violent men is not "statues
everywhere" - you are thinking of the memorials to the men who died in
World Wars which, like crosses reminding us of Jesus' crucifixion are in
fact to be found throughout the cities and towns and rural parishes of
Canada. No one is allowed to forget the violent death of Christ, nor the
conspiracy of Jews and Romans that caused his death. Church bells remind
of of this every Sunday. Nor are we allowed to forget the deaths of our
young male soldiers at the hands of the young German and Japanese men who
slayed them. Try and tell the Christian churches it is a hate crime to say
Jews and Romans crucified Christ. Try to tell the Canadian Legion or members
of our Senate that it is a hate crime to say Germans and Japanese killed our
fallen soldiers.
But you tell us (and Aubrey appears to agree) that it is a hate crime to
have one small plaque on a rock in one public park that is a memorial to
the many innocent women who have been killed because of male violence.
And you further tell us that we can't have a memorial to acknowledge
and remember abused children, or the native people who suffered and died
as a result of our attempt to destroy their culture, or those Chinese and
Japanese Canadians who suffered civil rights abuses in Canada?
All of these people whose mistreatment you do not want acknowledged have
one thing in common, they are victims of the establishment, of the people
who wield power in our country. I assume you have no problem with memorials
to dead and injured soldiers and police officers who are defenders of the
status quo, nor to politicians and generals and engineers and kings andqueens, and religious figures of the Christian faith, etc. - lots of room
for memorials and statues that are politically correct, that glorify
state and church with human sacrifice - but no room at all to remember
the victims who make state and church and the dominant society look bad.
Until we are big enough as a people to be able to publicly acknowledge our
mistakes and change the attitudes that caused them, our society is doomed
to repeat them in a continuing cycle of violence and oppression, with
children and women and visible minority groups continuing to be the
main targets for the testosterone challenged.
> Oh what a lovely stroll through the park, that's it! "Come on kids, lets
> go for a walk through our parks and get totally depressed!" "Let's go and
> take note at how stupid and cruel we are to one another!"
From the point of view of Canada's children it would be wonderful progress
if adults could honestly admit to the problems that have plagued our
society, and be seen to be doing all in their power to build a safer world.
It might even reach the point where the 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 5 boys
who are sexually abused would seek help. Wouldn't that rock the powers
that be!
>>> Or a statute of supposed "witches" with some wording about what "religious"
>>> groups did to them ..........
>>
>> Yes. Many people died in early Canada as a result of persecution by
>> various Christian sects who believed they were witches or otherwise
>> possessed of the devil. Up until 1910(?) all records of birth and death
>> were kept by the local churches, not by government. If a parish priest or
>> congregation wanted to kill a witch the record could be falsified or
>> disappear along with the victim. No one knows how frequently this happened,
>> but many people know it happened... these are deeply kept dark secrets.
>> Do you really want to knoqw the truth?
>
> Like you are informing me of something I wasn't aware of?
If you are aware of it why do you make light of it? You think it's funny
when a teenage girl is hung or burned to death or drowned by a Christian
sect because she showed some psychic ability that led them to believe she
was possessed of the devil? You think it's funny that people to this day
are afraid of persecution by "Christian" society for having psychic
experiences? Or are you just seeking to protect the Church by doing what
you can to continue the suppression of public information about such
persecutions...
> Back to the origional topic. The statue which directs its attention (via
> the words written on the statue) on one particular group of people (men)
> is wrong, wrong, wrong.
That's a value judgement on your part. The fact that the women and
children killed by male violence are DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, is irrefutable.
> You may want to have statues all over Ottawa which voice how we hurt and
> kill each other - I don't.
For all the people who think like you I propose a statue of an ostrich
with it's head buried in the sand, with three monkeys gathered around it
"hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil".
--
Petrus W. de Lepper
Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
[ . . . ]
All references to hate deleted.
> when a teenage girl is hung or [ . . . ]
A teenage boy might be hung, but a teenage girl never.
In the English community under certain conditions we have hanged
undesirable people. And that is the truth.
Petrus
[ . . . ]
Some more references to hate deleted.
Candace Lain Faucher
Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>
>> So .... let me try and picture the type of city you want .... statues
>> everywhere which emphasize the cruelities we inflict on one another.
>> Hey - sounds like a REAL nice city to me.....
>
> The memorial to women who have been slain by violent men is not "statues
> everywhere" - you are thinking of the memorials to the men who died in
Two corrections need to be addressed. 1) What I did state is that if you
are going to erect a statue which singles out one group of people - it
won't be long before countless others demand equal voice/space.
2) I am not thinking of the memorials to the men who died in World Wars.
> World Wars which, like crosses reminding us of Jesus' crucifixion are in
> fact to be found throughout the cities and towns and rural parishes of
> Canada. No one is allowed to forget the violent death of Christ, nor the
> conspiracy of Jews and Romans that caused his death. Church bells remind
> of of this every Sunday. Nor are we allowed to forget the deaths of our
> young male soldiers at the hands of the young German and Japanese men who
> slayed them. Try and tell the Christian churches it is a hate crime to say
> Jews and Romans crucified Christ. Try to tell the Canadian Legion or members
Um .... according to the Holy Bible - yes, it was the Jews and Romans who
crucified Chirst.
This is not something someone just decided to state - it is written in the
Holy Bible.
> of our Senate that it is a hate crime to say Germans and Japanese killed our
> fallen soldiers.
You have misunderstood. The hate laws specifically give mention to how it
is against the law to direct anger/hate (in a public place) at any group of
people.
> But you tell us (and Aubrey appears to agree) that it is a hate crime to
> have one small plaque on a rock in one public park that is a memorial to
> the many innocent women who have been killed because of male violence.
I am saying that you either change the writing on the statue which singles
our males or you remove the statue.
> And you further tell us that we can't
have a memorial to acknowledge
> and remember abused children, or the native people who suffered and died
> as a result of our attempt to destroy their culture, or those Chinese and
> Japanese Canadians who suffered civil rights abuses in Canada?
Correction again. I did not state that you or Joe Blow couldn't have any
statue your heart desires. Apparently, in this city anyway, you can
by-pass laws already in place in you have enough clout.
What I did state is that I see no productive reasoning for creating
statues which single out "men" as the enemy. I do not see any productive
reasoning for a statue which singles out "white men," or "black men," or
chinese against .......... on and on and on.
> All of these people whose mistreatment you do not want acknowledged have
> one thing in common, they are victims of the establishment, of the people
> who wield power in our country. I assume you have no problem with memorials
> to dead and injured soldiers and police officers who are defenders of the
> status quo, nor to politicians and generals and engineers and kings and
> queens, and religious figures of the Christian faith, etc. - lots of room
> for memorials and statues that are politically correct, that glorify
> state and church with human sacrifice - but no room at all to remember
> the victims who make state and church and the dominant society look bad.
Um ... last time I did peek out of the earth (ostrich indeed) we are all
VERY aware of the cruelities we inflict on one another. Begins the minute
you awake every morning and turn on your radio, or T.V., or purchase a
newspaper......
> Until we are big enough as a people to be able to publicly acknowledge our
> mistakes and change the attitudes that caused them, our society is doomed
> to repeat them in a continuing cycle of violence and oppression, with
> children and women and visible minority groups continuing to be the
> main targets for the testosterone challenged.
Are you trying to state that unless we continue on the route of singleing
out one particular group - we will continue on the route of error?!
It is this type of mentality which keeps us in a rut.
We are all in this together - as one.
How about a statue which depicks all of the males who have been abused by
their mothers? Grew up to abuse/disrespect females? Hello.
We need unfiltered information/education. Not statues everywhere
(waste of money) which single out one group of people.
>> Oh what a lovely stroll through the park, that's it! "Come on kids, lets
>> go for a walk through our parks and get totally depressed!" "Let's go and
>> take note at how stupid and cruel we are to one another!"
>
> From the point of view of Canada's children it would be wonderful progress
> if adults could honestly admit to the problems that have plagued our
> society, and be seen to be doing all in their power to build a safer world.
> It might even reach the point where the 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 5 boys
> who are sexually abused would seek help. Wouldn't that rock the powers
> that be!
Right. Somehow a statue is going to eliminate this sickness in our society.
Reminds me of the same mentality that somehow a parade will do the same.....
>>>> Or a statute of supposed "witches" with some wording about what "religious"
>>>> groups did to them ..........
>>>
>>> Yes. Many people died in early Canada as a result of persecution by
>>> various Christian sects who believed they were witches or otherwise
>>> possessed of the devil. Up until 1910(?) all records of birth and death
>>> were kept by the local churches, not by government. If a parish priest or
>>> congregation wanted to kill a witch the record could be falsified or
>>> disappear along with the victim. No one knows how frequently this happened,
>>> but many people know it happened... these are deeply kept dark secrets.
>>> Do you really want to knoqw the truth?
>>
>> Like you are informing me of something I wasn't aware of?
>
> If you are aware of it why do you make light of it? You think it's funny
Correction again. I did not make light of it. I made the comment that it
had occurred.
> when a teenage girl is hung or burned to death or drowned by a Christian
> sect because she showed some psychic ability that led them to believe she
> was possessed of the devil? You think it's funny that people to this day
> are afraid of persecution by "Christian" society for having psychic
> experiences? Or are you just seeking to protect the Church by doing what
> you can to continue the suppression of public information about such
> persecutions...
Right. I am somehow suppressing public information ..... give me a break.
What I did write is that this occurred.
I acknowledged that this took place, as most are aware of.
>> Back to the origional topic. The statue which directs its attention (via
>> the words written on the statue) on one particular group of people (men)
>> is wrong, wrong, wrong.
>
> That's a value judgement on your part. The fact that the women and
> children killed by male violence are DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, is irrefutable.
Let's hope that this type of "idea" is dead, dead, dead as well.
>> You may want to have statues all over Ottawa which voice how we hurt and
>> kill each other - I don't.
>
> For all the people who think like you I propose a statue of an ostrich
> with it's head buried in the sand, with three monkeys gathered around it
> "hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil".
Right. I would have to be deaf, blind and dumb do not be aware of the
countless acts of violence in our society. Just like I don't need a
$200,000.00 sign telling me that I'm in Canada, I don't appreciate my tax
dollars going into creating a statue which singles out men as the enemy.
Before you suggest that some are like an ostrich - you may want to
consider how creating larger differences between us is going backward not
forward. Meaning: we are in this together. This horrible cruel world
could have a united strong single force.
CLF
-- >
\.!./
> Jim Poushinsky . _: * o :_ . I seem to be a verb.
> ae080@freenet. :. v .: - Buckminster Fuller
> carleton.ca / : \
Darren Spratt
Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> I absolutely agree with Candace and would find it equally offensive if
>> a statue was erected for children abused by women.
> Not me. Many children have been abused by women. In my own case I was
> sexually and emotionally abused by both men and women who were supposedly
> "caring" for me. But nothing compares for sheer terror and mind
> destroying shock when you're a little child as having an angry man's penis
> rammed up your ass. If people speaking or portraying this truth offends you
What's the difference between an angry man penetrating a child's rectum or vagina,
or having an angry woman do something similar? Women have been known to shove
their vaginas in kid's faces, or shove things into little girl's vaginas or
asses? So, what the hell's the difference? Is it somehow the better when a
woman does it? At least with men, we've got full-scale campaigns out telling
kids to be weary of men. Not so with women. Women are seen to be the nurturers.
So, when a woman turns around and injures a child, does it not have the capacity
to be even more freightening. When the kid realizes that even this last bastion
of protection turns out to be a false wall.
> Aub, then what hope is there of ever gaining sufficient public awareness
> of childhood sexual abuse to see effective measures taken to stop it?
I do believe that if we erected a statue dedicated to the children that have been killed
by their female caregivers, we'd have an outcry.
Darren
--
Candace Lain Faucher
With regard to the statue already erected - I see no logic or productivity
coming from singling out any particular group.
If some (who are in agreeance to having such statues) would argue that it
creates awareness - give me a break. If you really want to create
awareness, work toward having abuse taught in our educational
system - beginning as early as grade one, and continue right through to
graduation in the secondary level. The effects/the consequences/teach all of
the forms of abuses/skills to eliminate ......etc.
If any statue is deserving to have such a placement in our society - it
would be a statue dedicated to ALL of our children - those who will grow
up to continue the cycle of abuse if nothing is done.
CLF
> Darren
> --
>
>
>
>
--
" 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."
Jim Poushinsky
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> With regard to the statue already erected - I see no logic or productivity
> coming from singling out any particular group.
When a serial killer is stalking old people in your community, and there
is reason to believe he is a man, can this be said publicly, or would that
be a "hate crime" against all men?
If it's not a hate crime, then why do you say it's a hate crime when people
say it was violent men who slayed the innocent women remembered in the
Memorial in Minto Park? Why do you want to refuse the people who lost
loved ones to male violence the right to publicly speak their truth?
> .............. work toward having abuse taught in our educational
> system - beginning as early as grade one, and continue right through to
> graduation in the secondary level. The effects/the consequences/teach
> all of the forms of abuses/skills to eliminate ......etc.
I disagree. It is not the responsibility of innocent children to find and
stop the child abuse in our society. Children don't need to be shouldered
with this burden. Children need to play and be imaginative and joyful.
Children need to be able to trust the adults around them.
It is the responsibility of we adults to create a safe community for our
children. And the first step is to publicly talk about what is really
happening. No bull shit about "political correctness", this is about real
life horror and our inability as a society to deal with it. The memorial to
slain women has brought this to our attention most effectively, it is true
communication art. It gives voice to the feelings and thoughts of a great
many people.
I don't think you speak for the majority. Most recognize the raw grief in
the words on the plaque. The victims and their loved ones have every human
right to voice their feelings and thoughts, and the rest of us have every
right to assemble in a public place to hear them. It is not illegal to
listen to people crying the truth of their pain and fear. It is caring to
do so. It is part of the healing process. Just as the outcries of denial
are part of the healing because you can't heal until you realize something
is happening.
> If any statue is deserving to have such a placement in our society - it
> would be a statue dedicated to ALL of our children - those who will grow
> up to continue the cycle of abuse if nothing is done.
Most of our children will NOT grow up to continue the cycle of abuse.
As for those who will, I think we need to find them and stop them, not
commemorate them in a memorial. I am not yet so holy that I shed tears
for child rapists and murderers (at least not most of the time).
They must be stopped. A step in the right direction would be to put the
victim's surviving relatives and the prosecutor and judge on the review
panel that decides parole.
Merry Christmas
Candace Lain Faucher
Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> With regard to the statue already erected - I see no logic or productivity
>> coming from singling out any particular group.
>
> When a serial killer is stalking old people in your community, and there
> is reason to believe he is a man, can this be said publicly, or would that
> be a "hate crime" against all men?
I am referring to our present criminal code - if you have disagreed with
its foundation - the ruling which has made it law all these years then I
would suggest you personally get involved in getting it amended.
Otherwise, we must acknowledge that our laws are for all, not some.
> If it's not a hate crime, then why do you say it's a hate crime when people
> say it was violent men who slayed the innocent women remembered in the
> Memorial in Minto Park? Why do you want to refuse the people who lost
> loved ones to male violence the right to publicly speak their truth?
Remember all of the engineering women slain in Montreal - that was a hate
crime as well .....
>> .............. work toward having abuse taught in our
educational
>> system - beginning as early as grade one, and continue right through to
>> graduation in the secondary level. The effects/the consequences/teach
>> all of the forms of abuses/skills to eliminate ......etc.
> I disagree. It is not the responsibility of innocent children to find and
> stop the child abuse in our society. Children don't need to be shouldered
> with this burden. Children need to play and be imaginative and joyful.
> Children need to be able to trust the adults around them.
Good heavens - where are you going with this? No one stated that it is
the responsibility of the children. Being educated on all facets of abuse
is step one in an attempt to eliminate the amount of abuse. When you are
a child in an abusive situation - you have already lost trust for adults.
This is one of the reasons for educating the children to let them know
that this is wrong - or that is wrong - offering everything possible to
break free from that kind of environment.
> It is the responsibility of we adults to create a safe community for our
> children. And the first step is to publicly talk about what is really
> happening. No bull shit about "political correctness", this is about real
> life horror and our inability as a society to deal with it. The memorial to
> slain women has brought this to our attention most effectively, it is true
> communication art. It gives voice to the feelings and thoughts of a great
> many people.
Well, if the adults were ready willing and able to smarten up - possibly
even begin attending classes where they would learn these skills .......
seems to me the only time that this does occur is when a judge orders a
parent/s to attend parenting classes - and this is the result of years of
abuse and charges laid.
Again, if you want to make people more aware, this statue is a poor excuse
of such a goal. Unless you make regular trips in the area where this
statue is located - the logic of any huge impact is lost.
Furthermore, it has nothing to do with being politically correct - (in my
opinion) it has to do with laws already in place for such.
> I don't think you speak for the majority. Most recognize the raw grief in
> the words on the plaque. The victims and their loved ones have every human
> right to voice their feelings and thoughts, and the rest of us have every
> right to assemble in a public place to hear them. It is not illegal to
> listen to people crying the truth of their pain and fear. It is caring to
> do so. It is part of the healing process. Just as the outcries of denial
> are part of the healing because you can't heal until you realize something
> is happening.
No denial is in existance on my part. And stating that it may very well be
the majority that agree to this kind of statue is stating nothing. Is
Harris in office? Is Chretien in office?
You are eluding the entire point. In order to work together on the
enormous problems of abuse - we FIRST have to acknowledge that it is
worthy of our joint efforts as a human race. A human race. A human race.
Pointing fingers at one another is redundant and unproductive.
>> If any statue is deserving to have such a placement in our society - it
>> would be a statue dedicated to ALL of our children - those who will grow
>> up to continue the cycle of abuse if nothing is done.
>
> Most of our children will NOT grow up to continue the cycle of abuse.
> As for those who will, I think we need to find them and stop them, not
> commemorate them in a memorial. I am not yet so holy that I shed tears
> for child rapists and murderers (at least not most of the time).
> They must be stopped. A step in the right direction would be to put the
> victim's surviving relatives and the prosecutor and judge on the review
> panel that decides parole.
How can you possibly think that most of our children will not grow up to
be abusive? Especially if you are apparantly against educating on such?
Children should be happy - able to run free - play free ..... exactly why
we need to address how are educational system could be addressing abuse.
Not too sure why you had to include the word "Holy" in this discussion,
other than the fact that you are aware that I am a Christian, and you
wanting to seemingly use this in a condensending manner. I am from an
abusive environment - I am fully aware of the horrendous consequences of
such -
And, it was not only my father - but also my mother. Yes, my mother as well.
Our responsibility toward abuse is OUR responsibility. Again, having to
make the point that this partiuclar statue contradicts what its supposed
goal is.
Merry
Christmas > -- >
Ditto.
CLF
\.!./
> Jim Poushinsky . _: * o :_ . I seem to be a verb.
> ae080@freenet. :. v .: - Buckminster Fuller
> carleton.ca / : \
Darren Spratt
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Darren Spratt (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Jim Poushinsky (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
[snip]
>> I do believe that if we erected a statue dedicated to the children
>> that have been killed by their female caregivers, we'd have an outcry.
> With regard to the statue already erected - I see no logic or productivity
> coming from singling out any particular group.
I think we have come to a place where the only way to fight fire is with
fire. Some of those who support the monument don't give a damn that it might
be offensive to men, so maybe they would understand offensive if there was
a statue similarly dedicated to highlighting their gender's dirty deeds.
Sometimes the quickest and most effective way to get things changed is when
it can be vividly demonstrated what it's like to be wearing the shoe that has
been foisted upon somebody else's foot. We've been wearing it for awhile;
maybe it's time again that it went the other way.
> If some (who are in agreeance to having such statues) would argue that it
> creates awareness - give me a break. If you really want to create
> awareness, work toward having abuse taught in our educational
> system - beginning as early as grade one, and continue right through to
> graduation in the secondary level. The effects/the consequences/teach all of
> the forms of abuses/skills to eliminate ......etc.
I think the idea of "educating" children that all violence is wrong, especially
done through the school system is doomed to fail. How can kids be educated
that violence is wrong when they see daddy or mommy at home being aggressive or
violent, one toward the other? I think it has to start with the individual
and permeate all thorugh society. We have a society today which glamorizes
one form of violence perpetrated on certain groups or individuals (violence that
is condoned), while violence perpetrated on other groups or individuals is
treated as though it were the most important issue facing society. We have to
treat everyone who has suffered violence with some measure of importance, and
not just certain ones.
> If any statue is deserving to have such a placement in our society - it
> would be a statue dedicated to ALL of our children - those who will grow
> up to continue the cycle of abuse if nothing is done.
How about we buy a big field and dedicate statues to each and every different
group who has or will experience violence at the hands of someone else? That
way we cover all the bases and exclude no one. Either that, or perhaps we
should have no statues at all.
I do think we should have the war memorial. Those people went willingly.
Darren
--
Darren Spratt
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Darren Spratt (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
[snip]
>> I think we have come to a place where the only way to fight fire is with
>> fire. Some of those who support the monument don't give a damn that it might
>> be offensive to men, so maybe they would understand offensive if there was
>> a statue similarly dedicated to highlighting their gender's dirty deeds.
>> Sometimes the quickest and most effective way to get things changed is when
>> it can be vividly demonstrated what it's like to be wearing the shoe that has
>> been foisted upon somebody else's foot. We've been wearing it for awhile;
>> maybe it's time again that it went the other way.
> Then we would be back to "tit for tat." Redundant and unproductive.
What difference is that from what we have now? Is a statue dedicated to
identifying only men's violent deeds productive, Candace? We've got
a social worker on this very SIG who whole heartedly supports this kind of
discrimination. And he's only one of many. You don't seem to get change
unless you force others to live what they have forced upon you. Now men
are the ones generally who are getting it in the head. So, what do you do?
Keep on taking it forever? I say no.
The women's movement has gotten it's power from stacking what it believes has
been women's historical oppressive plight on top of more acts from men that it
deems to have been oppressive, and then finding a sympathetic ear to take its
side. Now, we've come to have the rediculous. My question is, what have
these darlings learned? That because you've been oppressed, you are going to
stop oppression by oppressing others? Is this not the message: we've been
kicked so now we are going to take every opportunity to kick the shit out of
you when we have the opportunity? Feminists are right about one thing. There
is a war going on, and men are not the only ones fighting in it; women are
NOT the only ones being beaten! Nobody ever won a battle by laying down its
weapons when the other side had no intent to lay down theirs. Can you imagine
what Nazi Germany would have done to the alies if they had suddenly decided
that it was pointless to struggle against Hitler's aims any longer? 'Tit for
tat'? 'Redundant and unproductive'? It wasn't until Germany was beaten into
oblivion that a peaceful settlement could be reached. Perhaps it is the same
here. You aren't going to settle anything until you pound your point throughuntil people either listen, or are forced to get out of the way.
>>> If some (who are in agreeance to having such statues) would argue that it
>>> creates awareness - give me a break. If you really want to create
>>> awareness, work toward having abuse taught in our educational
>>> system - beginning as early as grade one, and continue right through to
>>> graduation in the secondary level. The effects/the consequences/teach all of
>>> the forms of abuses/skills to eliminate ......etc.
>> I think the idea of "educating" children that all violence is wrong, especially
>> done through the school system is doomed to fail. How can kids be educated
> I disagree. Many children feel very alone (being in an abusive home) and
> don't really know what they can do - I believe that educating about abuse
> (the many various kinds) and also teaching what we can do about it ...
> would be giving these people an edge in an otherwise "helpless" type of
> situation.
You may have a point. But that is also putting it on the kids to stop abuse.
I think it has to stop with the individual first. I think society has to take
a look at violence and what it condones and doesn't condone, and view all
violence with equal measure. A man being struck violently should not be viewed
differently than a woman being struck. The deaths of men should not be viewed
with less compassion than the deaths of women. We are a society that is bent
on righting past wrongs, and yet we DO weigh things differently depending on
who the victim is seen to be.
>> that violence is wrong when they see daddy or mommy at home being aggressive or
>> violent, one toward the other? I think it has to start with the individual
>> and permeate all thorugh society. We have a society today which glamorizes
> The problem is that these adults do not usually agree to get help unless
> it is ordered by a judge. And, by the time it has reached a court system
> - the harm has already been done i.e. gone on for years.
I'm just not sure you can educate violence out of people, Candace. In a
backdrop of a society that condones certain acts of violence while showing
its abhorence for other types, I don't think you will accomplish very much.
The problem is still there.
>> one form of violence perpetrated on certain groups or individuals (violence that
>> is condoned), while violence perpetrated on other groups or individuals is
>> treated as though it were the most important issue facing society. We have to
>> treat everyone who has suffered violence with some measure of importance, and
>> not just certain ones.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>> If any statue is deserving to have such a placement in our society - it
>>> would be a statue dedicated to ALL of our children - those who will grow>>> up to continue the cycle of abuse if nothing is done.
>> How about we buy a big field and dedicate statues to each and every different
>> group who has or will experience violence at the hands of someone else? That
>> way we cover all the bases and exclude no one. Either that, or perhaps we
>> should have no statues at all.
> Or change the wording on the one we have been discussing .....
If it be worded to include everyone, no problem. But, good luck. This represents
power to many. And good luck at getting them to relinquish that power without
a fight. Without some major arm twisting, your efforts will amount to nothing.
>> I do think we should have the war memorial. Those people went willingly.
>
> Agreed.
Darren
--
John G Davies
I've always thought the term "fight fire with fire" to be very
fitting as a description for revenge as we all know the best way
to fight fire is with water.
Darren Spratt
A dictionary definition for vengeance has it as "the inflicing of injury
as a punishment for a wrong or injury". I see the statue as causing unfair,
and undue injury to men. If I had children, I wouldn't want them seeing this
bloody thing. I wouldn't want my little boy to feel shame simply for the fact
that he is male; someone who hasn't even had a chance to do (or be) wrong, yet.
So, what I advocate is different from your approach. Fight fire with fire. Put
another statue beside the existing one with equally offensive wording - blaming
women, for example, for their part in the killing of children. (I don't know,
word it, "This memorial stands as a testament to all the kiddies ol mom has
butchered") Place all kinds of little rocks around it with the names of all the
deceased: "This one's for you, Baby Sue". And when there is an outcry over it,
don't appologize. Who's appologizing for that hate rock that presently exists?
Do you hear anyone saying they are sorry that this monument so condemns all men?
Hell, lets have it good and outrageous. Does anyone care it's the men who get
it? Oh, we care, but we are afraid to fight. We don't want to appear too
anti-female.
I care about women. I like women. But I don't like this treatment by some
women who advocate putting down men simply because they are men. And perhaps
John, you are not so much different than me. When you spoke of the jokes that
were made in the restaurant by your feminist friend, what did you resort to?
Returning jokes in the other direction. All just good fun between the sexes?
I don't think so.
I think sometimes you've got to stand up and fight for what you believe in.
Because when they are rolling over top of you, crushing your rights and your
person underfoot, nobody is really going to care that much that you were kind
to the ladies. Even kindness has its limits that look foolish beyond a certain
point. If it only takes water to put a fire out, then I say use it, but if
water isn't working, I'm all for using fire.
Darren
--