Dammit Janet

Subscribe to Dammit Janet feed
Updated: 37 min 1 sec ago

Partisanship Is Sooooo Over

Thu, 10/08/2015 - 12:59
Partisanship is at best silly, at times ugly, and right now it's bloody dangerous.

Since PMSHithead got his minority I've been imploring the Fucking Useless Opposition® (FUO) to get their act together and actually OPPOSE this government's destruction of Canada. You know, like they're supposed to do.

But no. They'd rather bash each other.

And now, we've got perhaps the LAST CHANCE to boot Stephen Harper and his band of vandals, and they're bashing each other even harder.

The majority of Canadians could Cambellize the hated Harperoids, if only the FUO® would co-operate with each other a teensy bit.

But no.

This morning, the story about the Short-Pants Brigade taking over from the Immigration Department and making literal life and death decisions based on political expediency drove me over the edge.

I decloaked.

Connie @freedominion & I agree on almost nothing but that Harper must be stopped and #C51 repealed. I volunteered to index her book. #elxn42

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) October 8, 2015

Connie responded.

As @PMHarper tries to win w/ wedge issues driving Canadians apart, stopping him is bringing us together. #elxn42 https://t.co/YEnkrenG1h

— Connie Fournier (@freedominion) October 8, 2015

Connie's dismay at the Harper government has been brewing for some time. In February this year I linked to this at Free Dominion.
Canadian conservatives don't deserve to have a majority government.

There. I said it. I haven't given up on conservatism. Actually, quite the opposite. I have just come to the conclusion that it is not in the interest of conservatism (or liberty or democracy, for that matter) for the Conservative Party to remain in power.
Her main beef then and now is the Jihadis Under Every Bed Law, aka C51. Free Dominion reopened its forum to join the fray against it.

As I wrote then:
It beats the hell out of me why anyone purportedly in this fight -- and it is the fight of the decade at the very least -- would scorn any ally. But some are too pure to join forces with groups they otherwise disagree vehemently with.
Just as now, it beats the hell out of me why anyone would scorn any ally in the fight to get rid of the worst government in Canadian history.

And Connie has other issues with the Harper Party, so when I heard that she was writing a book addressed to her fellow Conservatives, I offered to help.

She accepted. I proofread and indexed the book. It's called Betrayed.

From the Introduction:

In this book, I will be making the case that conservative Canadians have a responsibility to keep our government in check.  When a leader that we have elected goes off the rails and begins to dismantle the very fabric of our democracy, we have a duty to send our own people into the political wilderness until they learn to handle the unfettered power of a majority government with the care and respect it deserves.

Perhaps you are thinking right now that I am not giving Stephen Harper enough trust.  You might think that he is not the type of man to abuse legislation that allows warrantless government access to our personal information, or legislation that allows judges, in secret trials, to give CSIS permission to do virtually anything but rape us or kill us.

His record tells a different story as I detail in Chapter ten.

But,  even if you do trust Stephen Harper and discount my reading of events, he is not going to be the Prime Minister forever. You have a responsibility to ask yourself if you trust the level of power that Harper has consolidated in the PMO in the hands of every potential new government that this country ever elects.

If the answer to that question is "no", then we must accept that Stephen Harper, by ramming through some very perilous legislation --most  notably Bill  C-51, the  Anti-Terrorism Act -- has put future generations in danger. For that reason alone he must be stopped. I will be talking in this book about Free Dominion's history and about some  of our experiences with censorship and "disruption" that have occurred already, under the watch of our Conservative government.I'm pretty sure that regular readers here need no more reasons to vote against Harper, but maybe you've got Conservative friends and family you're going to be seeing this Thanksgiving weekend.

You could print out copies of Connie's Introduction and hand them around the table. *evil grin*

Or not.

So, what's the point of this blogpost?

To show ALL YOU "PROGRESSIVE" JACKASSES that common cause exists.

And that the stakes are high enough.

Do something to stop Harper.

And stop bashing each other.


Regular readers may remember that Connie and I have history. We've agreed on issues like prorogation, the G20 police state in Toronto, prison farms, and the need for better definition of online defamation. And of course the Jihadis bill.

We've both taken shit for our occasional public agreement. Notably, but perhaps not surprisingly, from male people who seem to think we need policing for consorting with each other.

It may amuse, then, to learn of my "price" for helping with Connie's book.

It was inspired by Canadian Cynic, who, in support of the documentary "Election Day in Canada," tweeted this:

... no more tweets out of CC HQ until this https://t.co/DYYIh9YM2c gets to $5,000. 9,007 followers ... don't tell me you can't do this. Bye.

— CC (@canadiancynic) August 9, 2015

I asked Connie to make a donation to the film in her own name. I didn't ask her to make any kind of statement about it.

But she did.

Droit au but!

Tue, 10/06/2015 - 08:57
Straight into the goal. NOT.

Are arrogant old creeps with an exalted sense of entitlement drawn to Olympic organizations because of the perks: a wide field of physically admirable and goal-oriented young women and men?

Slimy Marcel Aubut, ex-president of the Canadian Olympic Committee, is a long-time practitioner of a medieval tradition known as "le droit de cuissage". The term was revived in the French media following allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. 

And it was tolerated because Aubut is wealthy, a gregarious schmoozer (he's an habitué of grandiose sporting events such as the Montréal's Grand Prix), politically well-connected, a successful fundraiser, etc. etc. 

Doesn't that sound familiar: habitual sexual harasser gets away with it because other men in the organization find it more beneficial to pretend it isn't happening.  Women who speak up are told to deal, to be a "good sport" about it or to look for another job. Rarely is the problem fixed - that is, the harasser told to stop.

In case you thought his repellent actions were only directed at menial support staff members, "good ol' boy" Marcel always rose to any "opportunity" in a skirt.
TVA reported that Aubut settled a sexual harassment claim at his law firm, Heenan Blaikie, in 2011, over groping, verbal harassment and inviting a woman into a room only to show up wearing boxer shorts. In La Presse, lawyer and Canadian Soccer Association board member Amelia Salehabadi-Fouques alleged Aubut forcibly kissed her in a restaurant, verbally harassed her, and tried to enter her hotel room, also in 2011.
Seems COC did try to read the riot act to Aubut.  Just as some un-neutered old dogs still try to hump just about anything in sight, some privileged old white men just can't stop playing their vile old patriarchal tricks.

Aubut's most recent peccadillo was a covert operation jiggered with Toronto Mayor John Tory as they colluded in trying to finagle an Olympic bid without the approbation of city council.

My co-blogger fern hill led the charge, writing and tweeting in support of #NoTO2024.  Her trenchant blogposts on that issue are here.

But now, Aubut has *resigned*.  I suspect he was given a spectacularly shiny golden handshake to speed him on his way.  Hopefully the women who had to endure his groping, his greasy kisses and his disgusting salacious comments in the work environment were just as generously compensated.

Ha! Kidding! Unless they hired a lawyer to secure a financial agreement, the COC will give them nothing for the humiliation they suffered

Finally: remember that one woman got very angry, d'une crisse de sainte colère and officially filed a complaint about Aubut's actions.  She was the tipping point, actually more than that: 
“I hope people don’t lose sight of the strength it took for this lady to come forward, faced with a very, very powerful individual,” says Rudge. “And to have the courage to challenge what had gone on, and the courage of her convictions to follow through and get a resolution to an issue for many, many other women who weren’t in a position to come forward.”

That, as much as anything, is the underlying lesson in all this. Nobody truly challenged Marcel Aubut, until somebody did. If you’re looking for the Olympian in all this, there you go.

#ShoutYourAbortion Reveals the Stigma Enablers

Mon, 09/28/2015 - 13:19
Lindy West tells the story behind the hashtag, #ShoutYourAbortion.

But the deck sums it up nicely:

I set up #ShoutYourAbortion because I am not sorry, and I will not whisper
A recent study demonstrates what we intuitively knew: 95% of women who have abortions do NOT regret them.

But still we don't talk about it, because society has successfully stigmatized an ordinary, common, medical procedure.

I love #ShoutYourAbortion -- go have a look -- because it collects all the asinine anti-choice so-called arguments in one place; it encourages women to speak up, if they want to; and it's been driving antis insane for days now.

And there's a further reason. It is revealing people who call themselves pro-choice but who nonetheless are appalled, offended, or squeamish at the audacity of those using the hashtag.

I call them Stigma Enablers.

They are able to admit that abortion is sometimes necessary, but at the same time, want us still to whisper about it.

Yesterday I tweeted that observation and a very peculiar exchange began.

@fernhilldammit I'll keep my moral compass and conscience, thank you.

— Melyssa Hubbard (@SpankCityHall) September 27, 2015

This woman, Melyssa Hubbard, who claimed to be prochoice, describes herself thus on her profile.
Author & Advocate of Self Actualization | Indiana Tea Party Founder | Former Pro DominatrixInteresting combination of attributes, yes?

The exchange went on for a while. She was complaining that we were forcing our shamelessness (or something) on her. Which is amusing, considering her claim to be a pro dominatrix. Classic "likes to dish it out, but can't take it"?

Woman reads twitter hashtag. Is offended. Whines people are "involving" her. And antis call #prochoice self-centred. https://t.co/AhkpuRrq2S

— Fern Hill (@fernhilldammit) September 27, 2015

Other people got involved.

@fortyfs @fernhilldammit A puritanical celibate dominatrix spending her spare time policing & shaming women on twitter. Intriguing.

— Chris Caple (@chriscaple) September 27, 2015

Then Melyssa started scrubbing some of her more idiotic tweets and I hadn't taken screen caps.

Oh well.

No one is forcing anyone to talk about their abortion if they don't want to.

No one is forcing anyone to read the hashtag if they don't want to.

But if you're going to call yourself "pro-choice," you can't oppose the movement (if it is that) without participating in stigma enabling.

C'est tout.

Let's make ALL the girls and women wear niqab, RIGHT?!

Sun, 09/27/2015 - 11:15

Now that I have your attention, my point is that Harper and the CPC are cravenly using the niqab to push hot buttons during this election.

The political cartoon above suggests the niqab issue will provide Harper with a "wind at his back" which he needs desperately needs to win the election race.

There are dozens of institutions that oppress women.  The niqab is the least of them but Harper's Attack Dingo™ Lynton Crosby has found one with formidable scaremongering OPTICS, right?

Susan Delacourt unpacks CPC doublespeak with regard to the niqab.

Rational people and critics of Harper's regime nail what the CPC tactic obfuscates:

This happened north of Ottawa last week. Basil Borutski 'allegedly' executed three women. How can this still occur, in Ontario, in 2015?
“Our systems need to try to pick out these warning signs sooner and do everything we can to provide safety and security,” [Illingworth] said. “There are absolutely gaps.”

The province’s Domestic Violence Death Review Committee, which works with the coroner’s office to review every domestic homicide in Ontario over more than a decade, has compiled a list of risk factors that “indicate the potential for lethality” within relationships or, to put it another way, a check-list to figure out the likelihood that an abuser will kill his partner.

Most of the boxes would be ticked off when it came to Borutski: a history of violence, an escalation of violence, obsessive behaviour, unemployment, isolation of victims and victims having an “intuitive sense of fear.”
From here:
Leighann Burns, the executive director of Ottawa women's shelter Harmony House, said many women feel that abusive men are not monitored closely enough after being released from jail, and that conditions placed on those who are released can, in some cases, easily be ignored.

"We hear from women routinely that the offences that men commit against them are not treated seriously in the criminal justice system," Burns said.

"Somebody who is lethally violent, who has clearly got no respect for the system or any sanctions that are meted out — there's not much that can be done, other than to lock him up or keep her hidden," she said.
So, probation officer are overworked, likely because of a large client load which, at the risk of provoking shrieks from Babs Kay, I will guess is 90% male offenders.

Remember Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti Shafia, 13, along with Rona Mohammad Amir, 50? Their bodies were found in the family’s Nissan, submerged in the Rideau Canal on June 30, 2009. The family members who killed them were able to "justify" their murders using the same twisted patriarchal ideology that motivated Borutski.  

Women "provoke" their murderers by defying the Gawd-given control entrusted to men to extract resources from women.  If women and girls refuse to provide men with what they want and demand, they're disposable.  They can be threatened, harmed, damaged, tortured and killed with impunity.  That chilling premise is the core of patriarchal extremism throughout the world.

So, the niqab? Just as oppressive as Harper's Hard-On Crime regime of venal liars who did NOTHING during their 9 years in government to make Canada safer for women and girls.

For a rueful chuckle to end my pessimistic rambling, check out my co-blogger's post about #CdnNiqab as well has the photos that folks posted on Twitter.

The Niqab Is as Canadian as Maple Syrup and Frostbite

Sat, 09/26/2015 - 10:52
The other day I started a Twitter hashtag #CdnNiqab. It got very little attention, but it amused me.

Leaving aside all the blatant, court-reinforced, Charter-busting wrongness of a ban on niqabs at citizenship ceremonies, I find it hilarious that citizens who for months cover most of their faces for sheer survival would get their knickers in knots about it.

(Also leaving aside the disgusting wedgie PMSHithead is perpetrating on the land.)

Here are some of the pictures I posted.

This is what Herr Harper said:

“Look, when someone joins the Canadian family, there are times in our open, tolerant, pluralistic society that as part of our interactions with each other we reveal our identity through revealing our face.”
Those look like members of my Canadian family.

As does this guy, whose face you can't see very well.

If you've got silly or fabulous pix of you and/or friends and family geared up for winter, post them on Twitter.

Let's mock this wedgie right out of our snowpants.