Showing posts with label REALwomen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label REALwomen. Show all posts

Friday, May 30, 2008

R.E.A.L. Women on crack about Insite

REALWomen is another one of these fundie groups that never tires of lecturing everyone on the Correct Way to live their lives. Granny panties in a knot, snouts thrust firmly in the nation's crotches, their fingers wag relentlessly as they scold and jabber like hamsters in heat about all manner of Bad Behaviour... it goes on and on and groaningly on. And here they are again, their latest diatribes directed at Insite, Vancouver's safe injection site. When spring sprung a few weeks ago and the end of Insite's funding was on the horizon, it could only mean one thing: yet another pearl-clutching advisory from REALWomen to "Shut InSite down!"

Insite is the "harm reduction" pillar of the "Four Pillar" drug strategy that takes a new approach to coping with the drug problem by addressing different angles of the issue: Prevention, Treatment, Harm Reduction and Enforcement. But RW has its own Four Pillar solution: Punishment, Pain, Marginalization and Death. So naturally Landolt's Moral Minority Stormtroopers were perturbed that their calls to kill the dirty druggies earned them a nice bitch-slap from the Supreme Court this week with a decision that would keep Insite open for another year:

"In a surprise ruling yesterday, the court supported Vancouver's experimental supervised injection clinic and halted federal attempts to close the facility.

Judge Ian Pitfield said Insite should be allowed to remain open for a year even without a federal exemption from current drug laws."

REALWomen is REAL pissed! Activist Judges and their Social Engineering... filthy junkies... immoral... bad, wrong and dirrrrrty, and uh... SEX!!! SHRIEEEEEK!

"A single judge on the Supreme Court of BC, Mr. Justice Pitfield, handed down a decision on May 27, 2008, that took the olympian approach to judgeship. He did this by concluding that he knows best how to deal with drug addiction in Canada contrary to the policies of the federal government, which has jurisdiction over the issue. The government’s drug policy is to provide for a three-pillar approach to drug addiction by way of prevention (education), treatment and enforcement of drug laws, which has proven to be the only effective method of dealing with drug addiction.

Mr. Justice Pitfield, however, decided that, in his opinion, he preferred the approach of harm reduction, which is to assume that drug addiction is going to take place any way, so why not permit it in medically supervised sites? Unfortunately, drug injection sites merely continue the addiction, allowing the addict to enter a downward spiral to eventual death. Supporters of harm reduction also have an agenda which is to liberalize our drug laws." [...]

"Using the Charter of Rights as his reason, Mr. Justice Pitfield concluded that to deny addicts the use of the site contravenes section 7 of the Charter which provides for “the right to life, liberty and security of persons.”

The ramifications of his decision are far reaching. If allowed to stand, it will permit the establishment of drug injection sites all across the country – bringing more misery and suffering for addicts.


Because of the seriousness of the situation, the government should apply for a “stay” of the decision, pending an appeal. This would result in the misconstrued decision of Mr. Justice Pitfield’s to cease to be binding until finally dealt with by the higher courts. In the meantime, the site should be shut down to protect the lives of addicts." (emphasis mine)
"To protect the lives of addicts": sounds familiar, no? Abortion: "Women deserve better". Gay marriage: "Won't someone think of the children?" Yes, REALwomen's cup just runneth over with the sour, lumpy, cheesy milk of human kindness. Oh, they do talk the talk.

But bullshit walks. These authoritarian pinheads give not one shit for drug addicts -- they use the rhetoric of "concern" to mask a punishment-oriented mentality too stunted to even consider that there might be a better approach than the status quo. As discussed yesterday, we're 36 years, that's 1/3 of a century, into the goofy "War On Drugs", the net result of which has been rich drug dealers, more property crime, skyrocketing HIV among female addicts, clogged-up courts and packed-to-capacity prisons. If that's winning, I'd hate to see losing.

It's long past time to move on to Plan B of which this experimental Harm Reduction strategy is a part. It's also time to stop treating addicts like dispensable human garbage because they make decisions that some of us, in our high and mighty self-righteous glory, judge to be "immoral". We need instead to work on keeping them safe and helping them back into the community, something InSite does. Get a grip, Gwen -- if you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Freeping the Human Rights Museum!

The proposed Canadian Human Rights Museum in Winnipeg has been a source of irritation and aggravation for the right-wing nutjobs at "R.E.A.L." "Women" since the idea was first floated a couple of years ago. And why not? "Human" "Rights" "Museum"!!? Them's fightin' words!!
"Patrons of this museum are the feminist Governor-General Michaƫlle Jean (See REALity, May June 2007, "Our Wayward Governor-General," page 3) and John Harvard, Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba. In the latter's former life, he was an outspoken left-wing Liberal MP from Winnipeg who traded his seat to allow the former homosexual Winnipeg Mayor, Glen Murray, to run in the June 2004 federal election (Mr. Murray was defeated) in return for his appointment in May 2004 as Lieutenant-Governor.

Further, to ensure that liberal values would prevail, the museum organizers identified, in addition to ethno-cultural and Jewish representatives, so-called "human rights experts", including representatives of homosexual and feminist interests, who were to sit on the museum's National Advisory Council..."
OH MY GOD!!! Ohmygod ohmygod ohmygod!!! Well, what would RW have in the Human Rights Museum?
"The selfless dedication of those protecting the lives of the unborn child, year after year, or those defending the family and traditional marriage, or struggling to protect the rights of the aged and ill against euthanasia must not be dismissed as "bigots" and "extremists," unworthy of "noble" liberal ideals. "

A shrine to bigotry and misogyny, not to mention bullets, knives and firebombs, etc... but I digress.

That was then, this is now. Last week, Heritage Minister Josee Verner brought the issue to the forefront again by introducing legislation that would establish the CHRM as a crown corporation. SHRIEEEEEK! Landolt's Dolts at RW are frantic that the museum will be commandeered by "radical leftists" who'll insist on featuring exhibits about the rights of women and minorities, but but but -- *gasp* -- not Wingnuts' Rights!

Grannie panties spinning into a painful twist at the prospect of being Left Behind, RW issued a call to action to all their wingnut followers (and me, via my Undercover Email Address "redruffensore at yahoo.ca", ha), pointing out that consultation for ideas for the Human Rights Museum is open to the public and demanding Emergency Freepage
:
"ALERT !
Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR), Winnipeg, Manitoba
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in April 2007 that the federal government will contribute 100 million dollars toward the building of the Human Rights Museum in Winnipeg.
He also stated that the federal government would contribute $22 million annually to cover its operating costs.
The Advisory Committee for the Museum, selected by the former Liberal government, consisted mainly of feminist, homosexual and regular Liberal stand-bys, such as a former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner, former Liberal MPs, Cabinet Ministers and some Senators. The museum was intended to be a monument to former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his Charter of Rights.
This has raised concerns that the museum, with its left-wing Advisory Board, would be used as a powerful tool to champion the Liberal government’s interpretation of human rights, such as abortion rights, feminism, homosexuality, etc. with only some legitimate exhibits sprinkled here and there to give the museum the appearance of legitimacy.
Fortunately the Conservative government changed the Advisory Committee in October to include individuals, mostly business men and women, with no known bias on human rights issues." [...]
"...To further this project, the Advisory Committee has prepared a public consultation document that can be found at: http://www.pch.gc.ca/index_e.cfm. In the left bar, under the heading, Department, please click Public Consultations. The document includes a number of questions which are intended to stimulate ideas for the Museum for Human Rights. The Committee also invites views not covered by the questions.
It is important that as many of us as possible, with a conservative perspective, provide input into this Museum as it will remain a part of the Canadian culture for many years to come. We want it to reflect basic human rights, not the trendy rights contributed by recent court decisions."
"Trendy rights"? The colossal arrogance of these self-righteous fuckwits is truly mindblowing.

But as stated in RW's shriekmail, everyone is invited to submit their suggestions to the CHRM... including the 64% of us that voted for someone other than the Conservatives in the last election. Here's the Consultation Form... grab a coffee, settle in and exercise your right to have some input into the Canadian Human Rights Museum.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Landolt gets interviews -- why?

One of the weirdest phenomena to come out of the Conservative party's hostile takeover of our government 18 months ago is the ascendancy of the bigoted misogynist crackpot Gwen Landolt and her collection of like-minded bigots, raving lunatics and jesus camp hatebots known as REALwomen. Two years ago, this bag of mixed nuts couldn't catch a cold, let alone an interview with anything resembling Real Media. The only times I can remember reading about them in the actual news media (sorry, "lifeshite" doesn't count) were a couple of "odd news" articles when they first started up ("Hahahaha, look at these loony-toons!") and a righteous thrashing by Heather Mallick last year.

Fast forward to last week, after the funding cuts to NAWL. The CBC wants to interview someone on "The Current" about it, so who do they call? Heritage Minister Josee Verner, Pamela Cross from NAWL, and... Landolt? Why? Adding a high-calibre nitwit like Landolt to the interview turns a serious Q&A session about a grim situation into a freak show. More disturbingly, it lends undeserved credibility to someone who should rightfully be delivering her incoherent diatribes from an orange crate on a street corner. Landolt's on the record as not only a self-loathing misogynist (see her spittle-flecked rant against the Rape Shield Law), but an extremist homophobe (see her foaming-at-the-mouth "Apology to the World For Gay Marriage"). Even the FCP accused her of scare mongering in her screeds against MMP (which she's not down with for some reason, even though it can only help the FCP).

Anyway, the woman is clearly unhinged -- there's no reason to include her in an interview about anything other than mental illness, and even then only as "Exhibit A". After giving her a platform on the Current last week, CBC has earned my wrath: tomorrow they'll be feeling it too. And maybe the day after and the day after that, until she's persona non grata on the interview circuit. I've heard enough.

(Edited to delete broken linkie)