Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying

Touchy-feely good, sexual assault bad

LV is back after a prolonged absence with a new post, check it out:

Despite efforts by activists, feminists and women-loving people in general, the mainstream media is STILL minimizing and denying the effects and experiences of sexual assault.  And this article from today's Edmonton Journal is no different.  The article, entitled "Appeal rejected for touchy-feely doctor", details the case of an Edmonton physician who groped and assaulted several of his patients during routine examinations.  Here is what happened:

"A 2005 investigation by a college committee heard from one woman who said she felt violated after Litchfield pinched her nipples during a routine physical. Another woman, who went to hospital with a migraine, allowed Litchfield to loosen her bra to check her back for muscle spasms, but then felt him cupping her breasts with his hands and pulling her against his groin, court documents revealed at the time."

While this excerpt clearly demonstrates that the doctor completely violated the trust and body of his patient, the Edmonton Journal headline writers choose to refer to his actions as "touchy-feely".  Obviously, at some point they completely missed the boat. 

According to the University of Alberta Sexual Assault Centre, "sexual assault" is any form of sexual contact without voluntary consent (Adapted from the Criminal Code of Canada, Sec.270).

• kissing, fondling, sexual intercourse, anal intercourse, and oral sex are all examples of sexual assault if they are done without voluntary consent.
• consent obtained through pressure, coercion, force, or threats of force is not voluntary consent.

And consent is not given if,

• it is given by someone else
• the person is incapable of consenting (i.e. unconscious, drunk, stoned, or sleeping)
• it is an abuse of power, trust, or authority
• the person does not say yes, says no, or through words or behavior implies no
• the person changes her/his mind

Get that Journal editors?  Unwanted groping and fondling by a person who has authority, power and trust  is sexual assault. Period.  This "doctor" is not "touchy-feely", he is perpy. Ask the women, I'm sure they would agree. 

Not only is this a clear case of sexual assault, but it also is a flagrant example of the abuse of medical authority, and our tendency to brush it off.  We need to start asking ourselves why this doctor is called "touchy-feely," when if a pedophile enacted the exact same physical actions on the body of a young girl, the media would be up in arms. The news media holds special privileges and rights in our society, but with those comes the obligation and responsibility to not minimize and treat lightly sexual violence.  Let's hope the Edmonton Journal steps it up.

This Just In: Feds DO care about women

...as long as they know how to wield a hammer. Or something like that.  On behalf of the federal government, Rona Ambrose announced friday that $1.39 million will be invested into Women Building Futures.  WBF is a not-for-profit training program that trains women in trade work.  Here is the mandate of this organization:

• Attract more women into the construction trades;
• Provide trades training that meets the needs of women and the industry;
• Provide mentorship and long-term support for women entering and in the trades;
• Examine and address systemic barriers to the recruitment, training and retention of women entering and in trades;
• Increase the number of tradeswomen instructors and mentors.

This sincere and commendable move by the feds come close on the heels of one heinous "we hate women" bill that recently passed second reading in the House.  On Wednesday, the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" (Bill c-484) passed with flying colours when almost all Conservatives and a strong showing of Liberals stood in favour of it--including above mentioned 'pro-woman' Rona Ambrose.

Bill C-484 was introduced by local fan fave Ken Epp (and by local fan fave, I mean bland Tory backbencher from Edmonton-Sherwood Park), and is designed to double penalize people who assault pregnant women and in doing so, kill the fetus.  Essentially, if a fetus dies during the assault or murder of the pregnant woman, the assaulter is charged with two counts of assault.  Sounds okay, right? So what's the problem?

What pro-choice activists are arguing, is that this bill reintroduces fetal personhood thereby opening up the door for the anti-choicers to mount a legal challenge.  You see, once 'personhood' rights have been established, it becomes the first step in a legal and moral strategy which pits the rights of the 'fetus' against the rights of the 'woman'.  Since the fetus is inherently 'innocent' and the woman 'should have known better' it ultimately ends with the rights of the fetus trumping the rights of the women, thereby forcing her to continue through with her unwanted pregnancy and bear the child.  This is obviously a huge problem for the reproductive rights and bodily integrity of women in the country.  Now, Ken Epp and other defenders of this bill are arguing that it does not infringe on a women's right to access abortion, citing the fact that a person can only be charged for assaulting a fetus when the mother had been assaulted at the same time.  However, they are missing (zealously concealing) the point.  Bringing fetal rights into Canadian jurisprudence and law establishes a legal recognition of the fetus.  This interestingly brings it into conflict with the Criminal Code which expressly states that a person only becomes a person once it has left the birth canal.

Among the many ironies, 2008 is the 20th Anniversary for the Morgentaler Decision in Canada--the watershed court case that de-criminalized abortion, allowing it to become legal.  In another royal kick in the skirt, our fearless opposition leader, Stephane Dion, was missing from the vote that day because he was...wait for it... attending a party for International Women's Day.  The Bloc and the NDP all whipped their parties to vote against it.  And, on a twisted upnote, Josee Verner, the Minister for Women's Affairs, voted against the bill, too. Perhaps a silver lining? Who knows. We will keep you updated for the third and final reading.

How long have they been holding on to this jewel?

I can just see the editors of the Edmonton Journal now... it's a dark, smoke-filled room.  The clickety-clack of keys is only interrupted by the odd sigh of a frustrated but morally righteous journalist trying to beat the clock and make the deadline.  Suddenly, an editor's voice rings through the air:  That story is gold! RUN IT!!

And voila, out of the Department of Truth slides: "Duck billed Dinosaur may have trumpeted love songs to mates".  A kitschy cupid-meets-Barney article about a dinosaur that sings love songs. Seriously.

While I anticipated the usual barrage of sentimental made-for-a-country-song pieces about first loves, lost loves, and "being single is alright" moments, I definitely was unprepared for the Journal's willingness to stretch this decidedly un-valentines day story into a made-for-tv moment.  By now it's obvious that the consumerism of Valentines Day spreads farther than the likes of diamonds, chocolate and flowers.  The invocation of the Valentines Day juggernaut can increasingly be seen in many industries in order to sell less romantic commodities (like newspapers).  Am I concerned that Purdy's and deBeers are losing their monopoly on V-Day? No. They deserve to be shaken up.  What I am concerned with is how journalistic integrity and critical analysis is taking a back-seat to feel-good pieces.

Why not challenge this whole notion of Romantic Love?  It's a fairly new invention... the concept of 'marriage' that we know today did not start out as the combining of two soul-mates, but was more accurately the combining of two wealthy families in order to ensure future trade and peace.  Or how about refusing to play along with the attribution of contemporary definitions of emotions and sentimentality onto animals and inanimate objects ?

Obviously, there is a place for feel-good pieces--god knows in this Alberta election period we are gonna need some sort of release-- but let's make sure these pieces don't invoke old story-lines that risk repeating tired cliches that reinforce narrow and antiquated understandings of love and partnership.

Apparently more...

... is going on in Alberta than provincial politics.  It looks like Camp Fyrefly  will be back for another year!  Because the provincial government refuses to grant funding to this leadership camp for queer youth, community members have decided to step in and raise the funds for this uber-important and empowering summer camp.  At a fundraiser last week, the Edmonton queer community raised the $25,000 needed to fund the camp.  Its popularity and success shouldn't really surprise anyone though.  Last summer, Out Traveller named Edmonton  as one of its top five gay-friendly destinations in Canada.  Now, if we could only work on getting another queer bar …