Man Camps

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
voice of the damned
Man Camps

On the MMIWG thread, Pondering wrote...

The men have no connection to the communities. The community experiences it as an invasion of men. A better comparison would be communities that want to limit tourism as self-protection. 

But if businesses in the affected communities were to put up signs saying WE DON'T SERVE MEN FROM THE LOCAL CAMPS, it would almost certainly be considered illegal discrimination.

So, how then is it more justifiable for the government to enforce laws preventing men from leaving the man camps? That's basically just doing on the macro level what the individual businesses were doing in the micro level, in my hypothetical.

And I don't think you can get around this by saying "Well, the men would sign contracts agreeing to stay on site, as a condition of employment." The only way any company would make that part of a contract is if the government required it, so we're still back to the state mandating gender segregation.

And as for your tourism comparison, a community can choose not to promote itself as a tourist destination, certainly. Heck, individual residents can even be as cold and unfriendly as they want to outsiders, on an informal basis. But I'm pretty sure the law would not uphold their right to legally prevent non-residents from entering the city, town, or neighbourhood.

 

 

voice of the damned

The genesis of this discussion started here...

https://tinyurl.com/yy4ej4fg

 

voice of the damned

FWIW, the United States military in Korea imposes on-again, off-again curfews on its members.

https://tinyurl.com/y5srs872

That's the military, though, where it's assumed you have a minimal amount of freedom to begin with. I would imagine that a civilian government agency, certainly in Canada, if it tried to restrict the off-duty activities of its employees, would run afoul of discrimination laws, at least if those restrictions were based on place of residence.

 

Martin N.

Have any of you ever visited one of these camps? Perhaps your quibbles will be alleviated by an understanding of the operating dynamics.

I listened to a hysterical rant by Climate Barbie that had absolutely nothing truthful about it. A slagging of decent folks who go where the work is rather than staying home and whining about how unfair life is.

 

Martin N.

voice of the damned wrote:

FWIW, the United States military in Korea imposes on-again, off-again curfews on its members.

https://tinyurl.com/y5srs872

That's the military, though, where it's assumed you have a minimal amount of freedom to begin with. I would imagine that a civilian government agency, certainly in Canada, if it tried to restrict the off-duty activities of its employees, would run afoul of discrimination laws, at least if those restrictions were based on place of residence.

 

Most resident of camps work 12 hr days and labour laws stipulate a maximum of 24 days straight. This is usually followed by 7 days off. These folks do not have the energy to drive to town and party.

Company, not camp,  rules usually include a stipulation that any behaviour complaint means dismissal.

swallow swallow's picture

Catherine McKenna's policies are terrible, but can we knock off the sexist "Climate Barbie" crap? 

Badriya

swallow wrote:

Catherine McKenna's policies are terrible, but can we knock off the sexist "Climate Barbie" crap? 

I totally agree.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Add my objections. I don’t care if you dislike McKenna, there’s no excuse for that kind of misogyny. 

NDPP

"Hate graffiti against me @ Blue River bridge on Hwy 5, a 3 min walk from my home @ Tinyhouse warriors village stopping man camps linked to violence against indigenous women and girls. All while Canada's been exposed for Genocide...Who the fuck would do this? And you wonder why we r fighting man camps...?"

https://twitter.com/KanahusFreedom/status/1138270088866324480

quizzical

what man camps are they speaking about? there's none and the only planned campish site they have is like right off the hwy literally 2mins from town centre.

and there really won't be "man camps" because most pipeliners have their own RVs and bring their family with them. these are tight knit family crews that go from job to job together...ffs

the fkn TMX runs right along side hwy 5 and there are literally dozens of campgrounds on the route.

Aristotleded24

Martin N. wrote:
A slagging of decent folks who go where the work is rather than staying home and whining about how unfair life is.

Now that those who work in Alberta have lost their jobs, are they going to now take their own advice and "go to where the work is?" I can remember when people were leaving Manitoba to work in the oil fields, and any complaints about that impacted local communities were met with the dismissive response that people should just move to where the work is. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and the oil industry in Alberta collapsed, I hear a great deal of whining in that province. They're trying to have it both ways. Which is it? Whining about how unfair life is, or moving to where the jobs are?

voice of the damned

Timebandit wrote:

Add my objections. I don’t care if you dislike McKenna, there’s no excuse for that kind of misogyny. 

And I'll fourth or fifth the objection. Sexist, tabloid-style insults do nothing for either the argument being advanced, or the overall discussion. 

 

quizzical

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
A slagging of decent folks who go where the work is rather than staying home and whining about how unfair life is.

Now that those who work in Alberta have lost their jobs, are they going to now take their own advice and "go to where the work is?" I can remember when people were leaving Manitoba to work in the oil fields, and any complaints about that impacted local communities were met with the dismissive response that people should just move to where the work is. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and the oil industry in Alberta collapsed, I hear a great deal of whining in that province. They're trying to have it both ways. Which is it? Whining about how unfair life is, or moving to where the jobs are?

jeez you guys are so ill informed just rambling on about shit you know nothing about.

 

 

voice of the damned

Well, quizzical, I wonder if you could clarify something for me. 

what man camps are they speaking about? there's none and the only planned campish site they have is like right off the hwy literally 2mins from town centre.

When you say there are no man camps, in which geographical area are you talking about?

quizzical

was quite clear i was talking about the Kanahus statements re Blue River and Valemount  and the TMX pipeline alleged "man camps" she is supposedly preventing. 

 

 

 

voice of the damned

quizzical wrote:

was quite clear i was talking about the Kanahus statements re Blue River and Valemount  and the TMX pipeline alleged "man camps" she is supposedly preventing. 

That's what I kinda thought, but your post at #10 didn't indicate who "they" was referring to in the opening question. Thanks for the clarification. 

Martin N.

swallow wrote:

Catherine McKenna's policies are terrible, but can we knock off the sexist "Climate Barbie" crap? 

Photos of McKenna show her with a vacuous sneer which go well with her uninformed, elitist opinions of hard working people who willingly leave their home and hearth to better their families lives.

If the only umbrage you can summon is in defense of perceived sexism, I implore you to inform yourself about the camp issue where many women also live in total comfort, security and safety.

In respect for your sensitivities regarding the issue, I shall not use it or similar terms but, as a public figure, is McKenna not open to the same lampooning of  snooty vacuousness as Trudeau?

voice of the damned

is McKenna not open to the same lampooning of  snooty vacuousness as Trudeau?

Sure. "Vacuousness" is not a gender-specific concept. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Calling any woman “Barbie” is out of line, Martin. If you don’t want objections to misogyny to derail the thread, don’t use misogyny as a criticism. 

WWWTT

Timebandit wrote:

Calling any woman “Barbie” is out of line, Martin. If you don’t want objections to misogyny to derail the thread, don’t use misogyny as a criticism. 

Agreed

Barbie is a kids toy ridlled with controversy just for it's use as a kids toy ffs! Using the term as an adjective in describing someone is very wrong!

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It's not that I'm biased against them.  I'm sure that on a one-to-one level they're great people.  It's when they get together in groups that they become a problem.

Paladin1

What the heck is a man camp?

Martin N.

Paladin1 wrote:
What the heck is a man camp?

Apparently a misogynist stereotype proliferated by the Honourable Catherine McKenna.

Martin N.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It's not that I'm biased against them.  I'm sure that on a one-to-one level they're great people.  It's when they get together in groups that they become a problem.

Whom? Misogynist federal ministers?

Pondering

It isn't literal as they are not 100% men necessarily but they are the camps where temporary workers live usually on resource extraction projects. 

This is a good article to start with. 

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/mmiwgs-findings-on-man-camps-are-a-good-place-for-government-to-get-started/

This is the report

https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_1a.pdf

The table of contents is linked. 

Section 2, Chapter 7, Confronting Oppression, Right to Security

Deeper Dive: Resource Extraction Projects and Violence against Indigenous Women - Pages 584 to 594

Pondering

The findings from that sub-section

Findings

• There is substantial evidence of a serious problem demonstrated in the correlation between resource extraction and violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people. Work camps, or “man camps,” associated with the resource extraction industry are implicated in higher rates of violence against Indigenous women at the camps and in the neighbouring communities.

• This increased rate of violence is largely the result of the migration into the camps of mostly non-Indigenous young men with high salaries and little to no stake in the host Indigenous community.

• Industries that create “boom town” and “man camp” environments are implicated in increased rates of drug and alcohol-related offences, sexual offences, domestic violence, and gang violence, as well as sex industry activities in the host communities. These occurrences disproportionately impact Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people.

• The influx of people as a result of “man camps” near or within Indigenous, remote and rural communities further results in stress on already limited social infrastructure, such as policing, health, and mental health services. • In addition to the adverse social impacts that Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people experience as a result of these industries, it is clear that Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people do not have equitable access to the economic benefits these industries can provide.

• Indigenous women face significant barriers to participating in the extraction industry due to work environments that are often hypermasculine and hypersexualized. For Indigenous women working within these camps and these industries in general, there are elevated rates of workplace racism, sexual harassment, and violence. These camps are also often far from law enforcement, and therefore are largely unpoliced.

• The nature of the work, particularly shift work in and out of isolated locations, also deters women from participating in these industries, since it is not compatible with raising a family and meaningful participation in family and community life. When women do find employment in these industries, it is often within the lowpaying jobs, such as housekeeping, cleaning, and food services.

• The creation of a “boom town” as a result of the extraction industry often results in high rates of inflation and an increased cost of living in the host communities. Indigenous women are disproportionately impacted by this, in terms of increased economic insecurity. 

Martin N.

Timebandit wrote:

Calling any woman “Barbie” is out of line, Martin. If you don’t want objections to misogyny to derail the thread, don’t use misogyny as a criticism. 

How about the thread title, Ms Bandit?  Considering the appropriate name is 'worker accommodations' isn't this 'man camp' thingy sexist as well as pejorative?  McKenna's rant about  thousands of rabid men descending on an innocent rural town infected with a 'man camp' is sheer drivel bordering on hate speech.

where is the umbrage about sexism in the term 'man camp'?

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

On the MMIWG thread, Pondering wrote...

The men have no connection to the communities. The community experiences it as an invasion of men. A better comparison would be communities that want to limit tourism as self-protection. 

And I don't think you can get around this by saying "Well, the men would sign contracts agreeing to stay on site, as a condition of employment." The only way any company would make that part of a contract is if the government required it, so we're still back to the state mandating gender segregation.

It isn't segragation gender or otherwise. Resource extraction projects or construction projects that require importing temporary workers in large numbers should be evaluated from the perspective of how they will impact women in local communities. If there are communities that would be vulnerable then staying on site can be added as a condition of employment. They aren't locked in or forced to work. 

They are very well paid to leave their homes and live temporarily in camps because they are isolated. Using local communities to "blow off steam" should not be an assumed right. 

From reading the report many of these communities welcome the economic benefits. Certainly the bar owners do so perhaps this wouldn't be a viable solution but neither is the status quo. 

Any ideas on how to protect indigenous women in these communities in the short term, like within a few years? 

JKR

Martin N. wrote:

How about the thread title, Ms Bandit?  Considering the appropriate name is 'worker accommodations' isn't this 'man camp' thingy sexist as well as pejorative?  McKenna's rant about  thousands of rabid men descending on an innocent rural town infected with a 'man camp' is sheer drivel bordering on hate speech.

where is the umbrage about sexism in the term 'man camp'?

Like it or not, these work camps are commonly associated with sex, drugs, alcohol, and rowdiness.

 

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

It isn't segragation gender or otherwise. Resource extraction projects or construction projects that require importing temporary workers in large numbers should be evaluated from the perspective of how they will impact women in local communities. If there are communities that would be vulnerable then staying on site can be added as a condition of employment. They aren't locked in or forced to work. 

Who would place that stipulation into the contract? Would the companies do it on their own volition, or does the government make them put it in? 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Any ideas on how to protect indigenous women in these communities in the short term, like within a few years? 

As someone who has been "paid to leave their homes and live temporarily in camps" for the last 20 years I can tell you it won't work. It'll backfire. I lived in a camp surrounded by barb wire, with armed guards and a guard tower/gate. I used to sneak out of camp to buy coke-a-cola in a bottle (it tastes better), wood-oven cooked pizza and sometimes visit the black market to buy CD movies and games. Other guys snuck out to have a few beers, other guys had local girlfriends, I'd imagine other activities went on.

Maybe give them (women) authorization to carry (ATC) permits for handguns- but only indigenous women. Or hire more police and security. Or Canada can just ban the oil and gas industry since we're not getting any sort of return from it.

MegB

Martin N. wrote:

swallow wrote:

Catherine McKenna's policies are terrible, but can we knock off the sexist "Climate Barbie" crap? 

Photos of McKenna show her with a vacuous sneer which go well with her uninformed, elitist opinions of hard working people who willingly leave their home and hearth to better their families lives.

If the only umbrage you can summon is in defense of perceived sexism, I implore you to inform yourself about the camp issue where many women also live in total comfort, security and safety.

In respect for your sensitivities regarding the issue, I shall not use it or similar terms but, as a public figure, is McKenna not open to the same lampooning of  snooty vacuousness as Trudeau?

It's not perceived sexism Martin. It IS sexism. The fact that when you are confronted on the use of a sexist label by women you deem it "perception" says it all. You're violating babble policy and you'd best not do it again.

Martin N.

quizzical wrote:

what man camps are they speaking about? there's none and the only planned campish site they have is like right off the hwy literally 2mins from town centre.

and there really won't be "man camps" because most pipeliners have their own RVs and bring their family with them. these are tight knit family crews that go from job to job together...ffs

the fkn TMX runs right along side hwy 5 and there are literally dozens of campgrounds on the route.

Yes, most projects pay workers around $200 per day tax-free as a living out allowance where the worker is responsible for their own accommodation and assorted living costs. This allowance is paid 7 days per week.

This is done not just for workers but also to return benefits to the community for room rentals, food, restaurants, bars and all the assorted services people need to live. It's a lot of money flowing into the community.

Larger projects use camps ( urban snoots  and other uninformed types are the only ones to use the sexist stereotype: "man camps") where local facilities are in short supply. They also use sequestered accommodations when asked by locals who fear being crowded out or priced out of their own towns. 

Martin N.

MegB wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

swallow wrote:

Catherine McKenna's policies are terrible, but can we knock off the sexist "Climate Barbie" crap? 

Photos of McKenna show her with a vacuous sneer which go well with her uninformed, elitist opinions of hard working people who willingly leave their home and hearth to better their families lives.

If the only umbrage you can summon is in defense of perceived sexism, I implore you to inform yourself about the camp issue where many women also live in total comfort, security and safety.

In respect for your sensitivities regarding the issue, I shall not use it or similar terms but, as a public figure, is McKenna not open to the same lampooning of  snooty vacuousness as Trudeau?

It's not perceived sexism Martin. It IS sexism. The fact that when you are confronted on the use of a sexist label by women you deem it "perception" says it all. You're violating babble policy and you'd best not do it again.

Well, Meg, what is Ultimate Authority's dispensation on the sexism of the label "man camps' as a sexist stereotype?

Apparently, I'm the only one violating babble policy.....ever. I have no problem with babble policy but I do have a problem when you are in such a rush to judge that you put your judges-pants on bass-ackwards 

I'm an old fart, in favour of and a supporter of feminism long before it became fashionable and if you insist on beaking off about an innocent error in semantics, you can damn well stick around and help me out with some feminist wisdom.

I have been a supporter and mentor of women in non-traditional employment for 50 years. At a time when supporting women had real consequences. I'm no less inclined to fight now than I was then so take your 'dog whistle' and Pavlov's dog too. Come back with some answers, not snark. You militant types make a lot of assumptions that everyone understands what you are about.

Martin N.

JKR wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

How about the thread title, Ms Bandit?  Considering the appropriate name is 'worker accommodations' isn't this 'man camp' thingy sexist as well as pejorative?  McKenna's rant about  thousands of rabid men descending on an innocent rural town infected with a 'man camp' is sheer drivel bordering on hate speech.

where is the umbrage about sexism in the term 'man camp'?

Like it or not, these work camps are commonly associated with sex, drugs, alcohol, and rowdiness.

 

You know this as fact or do you spends a lot of time listening to the Hon. Catherine McKenna speeches?

What you are perpetuating is a stereotype of camps in a bygone era. There is zero tolerance for inappropriate behaviour today.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

As a supporter and mentor, you should know better. And if you don't, I'm questioning the quality of that mentorship.

As far as the term "man camp" is concerned, you have quizzical challenging that definition in the first place. If you want to make the point that it's pejorative and incorrect, super. You don't need to make sexist comments to do that.

You've self-identified as an old fart, so let's see some maturity.

6079_Smith_W
Martin N.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
A slagging of decent folks who go where the work is rather than staying home and whining about how unfair life is.

Now that those who work in Alberta have lost their jobs, are they going to now take their own advice and "go to where the work is?" I can remember when people were leaving Manitoba to work in the oil fields, and any complaints about that impacted local communities were met with the dismissive response that people should just move to where the work is. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and the oil industry in Alberta collapsed, I hear a great deal of whining in that province. They're trying to have it both ways. Which is it? Whining about how unfair life is, or moving to where the jobs are?

Well, A, what you present is a circular non sequitur argument. Try again.

Martin N.

Timebandit wrote:

As a supporter and mentor, you should know better. And if you don't, I'm questioning the quality of that mentorship.

As far as the term "man camp" is concerned, you have quizzical challenging that definition in the first place. If you want to make the point that it's pejorative and incorrect, super. You don't need to make sexist comments to do that.

You've self-identified as an old fart, so let's see some maturity.

Maturity is overrated at best. No fun in it at all and I put the fun in dysfunctional.

I have admitted my error so can you say something helpful rather than another vicarious scolding? I also said I was a supporter and mentor, not an expert. A little encouragement will not be amiss because I said I was a mentor, not necessarily any good at it.

"THE BEATINGS SHALL CONTINUE UNTILL MORALE IMPROVES"

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Any ideas on how to protect indigenous women in these communities in the short term, like within a few years?

Before we put our thinking caps on, can you draw us a better picture of what the actual problems look like?

Saying "Step 1: men live in camps.  Step 2.  Indigenous women are harmed." seems to omit some steps in the middle.  Specifically, what are these men from "man camps" doing when they blow off steam?  How are Indigenous women coming in contact with these men while they're blowing off steam?

JKR

Martin N. wrote:

JKR wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

How about the thread title, Ms Bandit?  Considering the appropriate name is 'worker accommodations' isn't this 'man camp' thingy sexist as well as pejorative?  McKenna's rant about  thousands of rabid men descending on an innocent rural town infected with a 'man camp' is sheer drivel bordering on hate speech.

where is the umbrage about sexism in the term 'man camp'?

Like it or not, these work camps are commonly associated with sex, drugs, alcohol, and rowdiness.

 

You know this as fact or do you spends a lot of time listening to the Hon. Catherine McKenna speeches?

What you are perpetuating is a stereotype of camps in a bygone era. There is zero tolerance for inappropriate behaviour today.

I know someone who often works at these camps. Unfortunately, I think rules often can not overcome human nature. The person I know who works at work camps thinks it would be better if legal supervised brothels were established near the camps.

voice of the damned

JKR wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

JKR wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

How about the thread title, Ms Bandit?  Considering the appropriate name is 'worker accommodations' isn't this 'man camp' thingy sexist as well as pejorative?  McKenna's rant about  thousands of rabid men descending on an innocent rural town infected with a 'man camp' is sheer drivel bordering on hate speech.

where is the umbrage about sexism in the term 'man camp'?

Like it or not, these work camps are commonly associated with sex, drugs, alcohol, and rowdiness.

 

You know this as fact or do you spends a lot of time listening to the Hon. Catherine McKenna speeches?

What you are perpetuating is a stereotype of camps in a bygone era. There is zero tolerance for inappropriate behaviour today.

I know someone who often works at these camps. Unfortunately, I think rules often can not overcome human nature. The person I know who works at work camps thinks it would be better if legal supervised brothels were established near the camps.

Well, I think we should wait till prostitution is generally legal in Canada(and no, it never has been, de facto) before we set up legal brothels specifcally for one group of people.

That said, that scenario does put me in mind of the question: how exactly will barring the men from leaving the camps prevent prostitution? If men going into town somehow convinces and/or coerces women into entering the sex trade, in the event of the men being banned from town, can't the women just go into the camps to sell their bodies?

Or will this be two-way segregation: workers can't leave the camps, outsiders can't enter?

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Not much has changed around here, I see.

https://www.indiancountrynews.com/index.php/columnists/winona-laduke/147...

 

In July of 2013, Ramsey County charged Mike Allen with agreeing to hire someone to engage in prostitution in a public place. Mike Allen is a Canadian. At that time, Allen was an MLA, an elected member of the Alberta Legislature. Allen represented Fort McMurray, the Tar Sands Capital of the Petro State of Canada.

Legal documents say Allen, the MLA for Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo, contacted an undercover officer posing as a prostitute on July 15, took a limo to her address, and agreed to pay $200 for sex.

That’s the way it goes in Fort McMurray.  I often think of Fort McMurray as Bedzin, the small town next to the Auschwitz Concentration Camp.   The tars sands are the Ecological Auschwitz.  Always a good time in Fort McMurray, just like it was in Bedzin.  Just let those trains go on by.

So, Mike Allen soliciting prostitues in St. Paul Minnesota is connected to the fact that he was an MLA for Ft. MacMurray?  

If it's supposed to be the man camps that are encouraging this behaviour, well, I'm pretty sure Mike Allen wasn't living in one of those. I guess just being around oil workers makes you want to hire prostitutes?

Or, perhaps it's just that, like a lot of other men, everywhere on the political spectrum, and with varying views as to environmental issues, Mike Allen sometimes pays for sex. 

 

 

zazzo

Pondering wrote:

Section 2, Chapter 7, Confronting Oppression, Right to Security

Deeper Dive: Resource Extraction Projects and Violence against Indigenous Women - Pages 584 to 594

Industries that create “boom town” and “man camp” environments are implicated in increased rates of drug and alcohol-related offences, sexual offences, domestic violence, and gang violence, as well as sex industry activities in the host communities. These occurrences disproportionately impact Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people.

• The influx of people as a result of “man camps” near or within Indigenous, remote and rural communities further results in stress on already limited social infrastructure, such as policing, health, and mental health services.

and Pondering asked this: Any ideas on how to protect indigenous women in these communities in the short term? 

How about a tax on these companies to offset these kinds of negative impacts, and to pay for more policing, and mental and health supports, God knows they can afford it...   But the best thing is not to build these megastructures in the first place so these types of camps aren't necessary,  men can work on smaller projects, like the green energy projects, and get to stay with their families and in their own communities...

It seems to me that greed and the love of money are fueling these types of projects, and to be greedy like that is not considered to be a bad thing in western culture...or in other words,  the more money you make, the higher your status...

 

Pondering

zazzo wrote:

Pondering asked this: Any ideas on how to protect indigenous women in these communities in the short term? 

How about a tax on these companies to offset these kinds of negative impacts, and to pay for more policing, and mental and health supports, God knows they can afford it...   But the best thing is not to build these megastructures in the first place so these types of camps aren't necessary,  men can work on smaller projects, like the green energy projects, and get to stay with their families and in their own communities...

Thanks Zazzo, both excellent suggestions especially the first as not all of these projects are fossil fuel based. 

6079_Smith_W

@ VOTD

Did you read further into the article? Or did you stop at the word "Auschwitz".

There are enough commentators who stopped dead at the word "genocide" in the MMIWG report and didn't bother to read the 46 page supplemental report outlining the legal argument, so it seems to be the way a lot of us respond to this.

As LaDuke points out further down in the article, the situation has gotten so bad that even Enbridge has had to admit it. In fact, they were forced to do so by the courts.

Please read it, and the article below, as it sets things straight on some of the chatter going on here. That's all I have to add.

http://www.startribune.com/enbridge-pipeline-s-ripple-effect-abuse-of-wo...

https://www.enbridge.com/stories/2019/january/pavsa-duluth-fight-to-end-...

NDPP

"Tiny House Warriors & Wet'suweten Access on Gidumet'en Territory are organizing Red Dress campaigns against TMX & Coastal Gas Link man camps, respectively. Resource extraction man camps increase violence against Indigenous women/2S people."

https://twitter.com/KanahusFreedom/status/1139603149969227776

MegB

Martin N. wrote:

MegB wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

swallow wrote:

Catherine McKenna's policies are terrible, but can we knock off the sexist "Climate Barbie" crap? 

Photos of McKenna show her with a vacuous sneer which go well with her uninformed, elitist opinions of hard working people who willingly leave their home and hearth to better their families lives.

If the only umbrage you can summon is in defense of perceived sexism, I implore you to inform yourself about the camp issue where many women also live in total comfort, security and safety.

In respect for your sensitivities regarding the issue, I shall not use it or similar terms but, as a public figure, is McKenna not open to the same lampooning of  snooty vacuousness as Trudeau?

It's not perceived sexism Martin. It IS sexism. The fact that when you are confronted on the use of a sexist label by women you deem it "perception" says it all. You're violating babble policy and you'd best not do it again.

Well, Meg, what is Ultimate Authority's dispensation on the sexism of the label "man camps' as a sexist stereotype?

Apparently, I'm the only one violating babble policy.....ever. I have no problem with babble policy but I do have a problem when you are in such a rush to judge that you put your judges-pants on bass-ackwards 

I'm an old fart, in favour of and a supporter of feminism long before it became fashionable and if you insist on beaking off about an innocent error in semantics, you can damn well stick around and help me out with some feminist wisdom.

I have been a supporter and mentor of women in non-traditional employment for 50 years. At a time when supporting women had real consequences. I'm no less inclined to fight now than I was then so take your 'dog whistle' and Pavlov's dog too. Come back with some answers, not snark. You militant types make a lot of assumptions that everyone understands what you are about.

An "innocent error in semantics". Nope. Calling a woman "Barbie", unless that's actually her name, is a gender-based insult. Classic sexism. You don't need to be a feminist to understand that. Speaking of feminism, you say you support it. That may well be but you certainly don't understand it. Speaking of snark, if you continue to belittle me and the work I do here, if you continue to belittle and dismiss the valid concerns of women here, you will be turfed.

Paladin1

Maybe the problem is our justice system.

Quote:
Judge rejects mandatory minimum sentence, gives human traffickers less time

A London, Ont. judge refused to impose the mandatory minimum four-year sentence on two men who forced teenagers to sell sexual services in hotel rooms, instead agreeing with defence lawyers that such a penalty would amount to "cruel and unusual punishment."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/human-trafficking-mandatory-minimu...

2 years out of a maximum of 14 years. Real nice.

 

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Maybe the problem is our justice system.

Quote:
Judge rejects mandatory minimum sentence, gives human traffickers less time

A London, Ont. judge refused to impose the mandatory minimum four-year sentence on two men who forced teenagers to sell sexual services in hotel rooms, instead agreeing with defence lawyers that such a penalty would amount to "cruel and unusual punishment."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/human-trafficking-mandatory-minimu...

2 years out of a maximum of 14 years. Real nice.

My first reaction was to see red. Couldn't even respond. Then I read more. News services don't deserve to be subsidized. The information is provided in a disjoined disorganized way and there is missing information.

The Crown was seeking the four-year sentences to be served consecutively, a "substantial amount of time" for a first-time, youthful offender, said Abara's lawyer, Chris Uwagboe. 

"There are some very serious, violent crimes that are sentenced here in court with ranges well below eight years, for people with long criminal records," he said. .....

The judge said Abara and Kulafofski were not as culpable as the third man, who was more the mastermind of the operation. 

Is the serial raping of a 14 year old not a violent crime?  How old was the third man? How old were the two 20 year olds when the crimes were committed? How much influence did the 3rd man have over them? A 14 year old cannot consent but were the girls coerced or lured through false promises? What was the younger men's connection to them?  Did they meet naturally in the community or at school or were the 3 men buddies who went looking for girls to traffic?

What is the connection between the two girls, 14 and 17? Was the 17 year old a friend of the two younger men? Did she play a part in convincing the 14 year old to participate? 

I think sentencing needs a complete overhaul because it is set on precedence leading sentences to be ludicrous. Drug sentences versus sex crimes for example. 

    voice of the damned

    6079_Smith_W wrote:

    @ VOTD

    Did you read further into the article? Or did you stop at the word "Auschwitz".

    There are enough commentators who stopped dead at the word "genocide" in the MMIWG report and didn't bother to read the 46 page supplemental report outlining the legal argument, so it seems to be the way a lot of us respond to this.

    As LaDuke points out further down in the article, the situation has gotten so bad that even Enbridge has had to admit it. In fact, they were forced to do so by the courts.

    Please read it, and the article below, as it sets things straight on some of the chatter going on here. That's all I have to add.

    http://www.startribune.com/enbridge-pipeline-s-ripple-effect-abuse-of-wo...

    https://www.enbridge.com/stories/2019/january/pavsa-duluth-fight-to-end-...

    I skimmed the rest of the article. There were some pretty, shall we say, interesting conflations in there...

    In fact, the Trans Mountain Pipeline in Canada was just stopped dead in it’s tracks because the Company and the Canadian government had not engaged in consultation with First Nations. The standard for consent is pretty low in Canada, frankly, but the government and pipeline company couldn’t even meet that. Imagine if the international standard of the United Nations was applied: Free Prior and Informed Consent.  That means, not coerced consent, and not rape.

    Raping Mother Earth is still rape. Podein’s  bill would establish a task force to examine the causes of that violence, ways to collect data on it, plus how to prevent it and lessen the damage it causes.  I’m all about preventing the next predators, and the next MLAs from Alberta.

    Your Star-Tribune article is better, more straight to the point, without bookending its substantive facts with weirdness.

    Pages