Infamous statue update #3
Aubrey Taylor
I have talked with my lawyer on this topic and he advises that the
statue is in Minto Park and not as I said, Minto Place. He also
said it could be argued that the wording was not in fact, hate
propaganda since the word men does not mean all men are guilty of
the violence. The statue was financed privately but there was some
argument about the acceptability of the wording. He also
suggested that I contact the director of city parks and recreation
to get more details which I will do this week.
He (my lawyer) whole heartedly agrees that the wording is offensive
and wishes to be updated on our progress and will assist us if
needed. I will talk with him again after I have discussed the
matter with the city and hopefully get some advice on the wording
of the petition.
To those who have emailed me, thankyou, and I will get back to you
all via these updates. I will not have the time to enter an endless
debate on the validity of our efforts. The wording of the statue is
clearly offensive to all sensitive people.
Thankyou for your pledges of support,
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
Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> I have talked with my lawyer on this topic and he advises that the
> statue is in Minto Park and not as I said, Minto Place. He also
> said it could be argued that the wording was not in fact, hate
> propaganda since the word men does not mean all men are guilty of
> the violence. The statue was financed privately but there was some
> argument about the acceptability of the wording. He also
> suggested that I contact the director of city parks and recreation
> to get more details which I will do this week.
> He (my lawyer) whole heartedly agrees that the wording is offensive
> and wishes to be updated on our progress and will assist us if
> needed. I will talk with him again after I have discussed the
> matter with the city and hopefully get some advice on the wording
> of the petition.
> To those who have emailed me, thankyou, and I will get back to you
> all via these updates. I will not have the time to enter an endless
> debate on the validity of our efforts. The wording of the statue is
> clearly offensive to all sensitive people.
> Thankyou for your pledges of support,
> Aub.
>
If a statue is privately funded - does this mean that they can deliberately
offend and get away with it?
Quite clever and devious if you ask me.
CLF
> --
> 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
--
"Your standard of giving is more important than you standard of living."
Candace Lain Faucher
Aubrey Taylor (ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> "Your standard of giving is more important than you standard of living."
>
> Not really Candace. The fact that the city allowed them to put
> up the wretched thing, is probably the initial track to follow.
Please keep us posted i.e. how the city explains its position .....
Thanks
CLF
> Aub
Maria L. Evans
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> If a statue is privately funded - does this mean that they can deliberately
> offend and get away with it?
>
> Quite clever and devious if you ask me.
>
> CLF
>
I find this particularly intriguing as this is, to my knowlege, a PUBLIC park?
Candace, does this mean that if you an I want to privately fund a statue
to honor all victims of abuse by...say...government agencies....and they
agree to let it in their park, um, we could do it and it would be there
for MANY years? Hmmm...
Is this an offshoot of the "money talks and bullshit walks" phenomenon?
--
Maria L. Evans ap...@freenet.carleton.ca
"Man blames fate for other accidents but feels personally
responsible for a hole in one." --Martha Beckman
Candace Lain Faucher
Maria L. Evans (ap...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> If a statue is privately funded - does this mean that they can deliberately
>> offend and get away with it?
>>
>> Quite clever and devious if you ask me.
>>
>> CLF
>>
>
> I find this particularly intriguing as this is, to my knowlege, a PUBLIC park?
>
> Candace, does this mean that if you an I want to privately fund a statue
> to honor all victims of abuse by...say...government agencies....and they
> agree to let it in their park, um, we could do it and it would be there
> for MANY years? Hmmm...
Believe that this statue is an indication of what is feasible with "money,"
and quite possibly - the right connections.
If we were to privately fund a similar statue - one which depicted
children; and then were to have the audacity to have an inscription like:
For all of the children who have been abused/hurt/killed in the hands and or
care of "mothers." Can you imagine the outcry? Equally as "sick" as the one
which is in existance. (yes, in my opinion.)
Which ever city official permitted this statue to be erected .... well, let's
just put it this way - seriously lacking in reasoning.
Possibly Minto Park has the right to dictate what it will permit on its
property - and it does'nt necessarily involve city officials? Or is Minto
Park owned by the City, yet called Minto Park?
Either way - the statue is offensive. And this is coming from someone who
has been abused by men and women....
> Is this an offshoot of the "money talks and bullshit walks" phenomenon?
Believe it is an example of ignorance. The stuff this statue is claiming
to attempt to demolish.
CLF
> --
> Maria L. Evans ap...@freenet.carleton.ca
> "Man blames fate for other accidents but feels personally
> responsible for a hole in one." --Martha Beckman
Maria L. Evans
Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Maria L. Evans (ap...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
> Which ever city official permitted this statue to be erected .... well, let's
> just put it this way - seriously lacking in reasoning.
Or was there some kind of hidden benefit? For example, in Kansas City, MO
back in the '20's there was a politiical boss named Tom Pendergast.
Pendergast owned a concrete company. If you drive through the city
suburbs that were built during that time you will notice that ALL the
creek bottoms are...well...concrete. You getthe picture. Was there some
city official in the concrete or landscaping business? Or one who had
some ulterior motive I can't think of at present?
>
> Possibly Minto Park has the right to dictate what it will permit on its
> property - and it does'nt necessarily involve city officials? Or is Minto
> Park owned by the City, yet called Minto Park?
>
Which goes back to my original question. Is Minto Park public or private?
Brian A. Cowper
Maria L. Evans (ap...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Maria L. Evans (ap...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>>> Candace Lain Faucher (dl...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> Which ever city official permitted this statue to be erected .... well, let's
>> just put it this way - seriously lacking in reasoning.
>
> Or was there some kind of hidden benefit? For example, in Kansas City, MO
> back in the '20's there was a politiical boss named Tom Pendergast.
> Pendergast owned a concrete company. If you drive through the city
> suburbs that were built during that time you will notice that ALL the
> creek bottoms are...well...concrete. You getthe picture. Was there some
> city official in the concrete or landscaping business? Or one who had
> some ulterior motive I can't think of at present?
>
>> Possibly Minto Park has the right to dictate what it will permit on its
>> property - and it does'nt necessarily involve city officials? Or is Minto
>> Park owned by the City, yet called Minto Park?
>>
> Which goes back to my original question. Is Minto Park public or private?
Whether it is private or public doesn't really matter. Who ever heard of
a private park, anyway; sort of an oxymoron?
The simple point of the matter is it is public view, biased,
descriminatory, racist, gender-specific and omits all _other_ forms of
bias against women except implied ritualistic genocide.
This 'icon' should be dismantled or destroyed and placed in the building
of worship for those who subscribe to this hate mongering mentality if
such exists. Let *them* worship their religio-fanatic fringe philosophy
in their own space like the rest of us.
--
Don't walk behind me, I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me, I may
not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend.
-- Albert Camus