Man Camps

176 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

Weirdness.

You mean the perspective of someone from the culture that is suffering those assaults, murders and disappearances, and that genocide and destruction of their land. And that she makes the connection back to those who decided the pipeline was going to be built.

In case you were wondering why I chose that piece.

And while I am all for harm reduction, personally I find the normalization of hiring sex workers to be weird, to say the least. Certainly much wierder than trying to understand someone's different cultural perspective. I don't know if you are trying to spin it as prudery, but given the rest of the evidence, I think her first example speaks to the larger problem.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

"Our recent $5,000 grant to PAVSA will be used for general operations and victim support services."

Thanks 6079. Long time know no see. This line from the Enbridge cite says it all for me. Imagine how far $5,000 can go in preventing a recognized problem.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

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?

    Are there any answers to your questions which in your view would justify a 2 year jail term (probably out in a year on probation? less?) for these to men?

    We have a revolving door justice system.  Maybe if we're harsher on convicted criminals it might lessen the violence going in around these camps and the rest of Canada.

    Pondering

    Paladin1 wrote:

    Pondering wrote:

    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?

      Are there any answers to your questions which in your view would justify a 2 year jail term (probably out in a year on probation? less?) for these to men?

      We have a revolving door justice system.  Maybe if we're harsher on convicted criminals it might lessen the violence going in around these camps and the rest of Canada.

      I am 100% against prostitution but sex workers have a point that the term trafficked is being used very broadly. It's possible the two girls said lets make some fast money and asked the 2 young guys for help who then asked an older friend? That would not make it okay but I think it would justify shorter sentencing. 

      What gets me is the johns. Sex workers are forever explaining how great the johns are so where do they find the jerks willing to have sex with a 14 year old?

      Left Turn Left Turn's picture

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

      How about not basing our economy on resource extractive industries that require temporary work camps in the first place.

      Martin N.

      MegB wrote:

      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.

      It is quite plain from the quotes above that the "innocent error in semantics " refers to the word 'perceived', not your distortion of my intent.

      Of course I'm a "classic sexism"  scofflaw because I do not understand the double standards and strange logic of the feminist ideology.  I do understand that questioning said double standards and strange logic is verboten, attracting scolding and threats but no enlightenment.

      I intend to file the entire debacle under: Women, Go Figure! and spend quality time with my dog.

      MegB

      There ya go Martin. Obviously not a supporter  or understander of feminism. You're done here. Go whine about your horrible treatment at the the hands of neo-marxists and enraged women elsewhere. I'm sure you'll find comfort there. You and your neoliberal capitalist buddies and Jordan Peterson can have a good rant/laugh.

      Paladin1

      Pondering wrote:

      I am 100% against prostitution but sex workers have a point that the term trafficked is being used very broadly. It's possible the two girls said lets make some fast money and asked the 2 young guys for help who then asked an older friend? That would not make it okay but I think it would justify shorter sentencing. 

      What gets me is the johns. Sex workers are forever explaining how great the johns are so where do they find the jerks willing to have sex with a 14 year old?

      That's a good job on an example and I understand where you're coming from but I don't agree.

      I've never been in trouble with the police. If I take naked pictures of a 14 year old girl because she asked me to help her out should I be given a lesser sentence because I'm a first time offender/just wanted to help? I say no.  Criminals have 1001 excuses and sob stories for eveything. What the adult men did was illegal and disgusting whether the young girls hypothetically asked them to or not. 2 years is a joke IMHO and why we have such a revolving door justice system. I'm surprised they didn't "come from broken families" or some such.  Lets make criminals more accountable, not less. Maybe we'll get more of these human traffickers off the street.

      As for where they find jerks willing to have sex with children read the news. RCMP officers, lawyers, judges, doctors. Lock them all up until they're 100. I just read a man who stabbed a bus driver to death in Winnipeg got "life in prison", which means he'll be eligible for patrol in 12 years. Our system needs an overhaul.

      Pondering

      Paladin1 wrote:

      Pondering wrote:

      I am 100% against prostitution but sex workers have a point that the term trafficked is being used very broadly. It's possible the two girls said lets make some fast money and asked the 2 young guys for help who then asked an older friend? That would not make it okay but I think it would justify shorter sentencing. 

      What gets me is the johns. Sex workers are forever explaining how great the johns are so where do they find the jerks willing to have sex with a 14 year old?

      That's a good job on an example and I understand where you're coming from but I don't agree.

      I've never been in trouble with the police. If I take naked pictures of a 14 year old girl because she asked me to help her out should I be given a lesser sentence because I'm a first time offender/just wanted to help? I say no.  Criminals have 1001 excuses and sob stories for eveything. What the adult men did was illegal and disgusting whether the young girls hypothetically asked them to or not. 2 years is a joke IMHO and why we have such a revolving door justice system. I'm surprised they didn't "come from broken families" or some such.  Lets make criminals more accountable, not less. Maybe we'll get more of these human traffickers off the street.

      As for where they find jerks willing to have sex with children read the news. RCMP officers, lawyers, judges, doctors. Lock them all up until they're 100. I just read a man who stabbed a bus driver to death in Winnipeg got "life in prison", which means he'll be eligible for patrol in 12 years. Our system needs an overhaul.

      Generally I agree with you and judges have made horrible calls. I think the whole sentencing system needs an over haul because comparatively serious crimes sometimes get lower sentences than less severe crimes. 

      I still believe in judges discretion. Maybe those guys were slick and deliberately preyed on the girls. Youth does not confer innocence. On the other hand girl 17, boy 20, it isn't an adult child relationship depending on their backgrounds. I've met a few 17 year old girls that are more saavy than an 18 year old boy. He is 20 now so he must have been younger when he did what he did. 

      Maybe he deserves 10 years. Maybe he threatened the girls. 18 is definitely old enough for a man to be physically overpowering. If they are deemed to be still a threat to society I say throw away the key. 

      My problem with this story is that it doesn't allow me to base my opinion on the facts of the case. Relative power matters. Someone who threatens a 14 year old or gets them on drugs, lures them with expensive gifts, grooms them and takes them to another city to prostitute themselves is worse than an idiot in a bar that gets drunk and sets up some willing female friends. 14 still means statutory rape and even an 18 year old should know better but the two cases are quite different. That is why judges need discretion. 

      zazzo

      I take back my suggestion for more policing.

      https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/06/17/RCMP-Army-Protect-Pipeline/

       

      Paladin1

      Police should never be synomyous with the army or military. It creates role creep.  The militaries job is to ultimately kill people. Kill people invading Canada (1812) or kill people before they get to Canada (WW2). They fight enemies. We don't need or want our police, namely the RCMP, seeing "enemies".

      We could use more police officers but they need to be the right police officers. We also need the RCMP to stop behaving like the governments praetorian guard.

       

       

      kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

      Paladin1 wrote:

      Police should never be synomyous with the army or military. It creates role creep.  The militaries job is to ultimately kill people. Kill people invading Canada (1812) or kill people before they get to Canada (WW2). They fight enemies. We don't need or want our police, namely the RCMP, seeing "enemies".

      I wish that was the case but in Canada the military aspect of policing is part of the DNA of the RCMP.

      The new country of Canada gained title to the Northwest by paying off the Hudson's Bay Company and the BNA Act gave them a racist based absolute control of "Indian Lands." The Northwest Mounted Police force was created as a combined military, police and judiciary specifically to enforce the theft of native land and ensure "peace, order and good government" on behalf of a foreign power in Ottawa. They were formed to deal with disgruntled Iron Confederacy members and the Metis and then the Cree etc etc etc who got a really raw deal when the HBO sold out its claim to the indigenous land to Canada.

      The RCMP morphed out of the RNWMP and throughout its history is and always has been partially a para-military force used against any enemies of the corporate state. As a trade unionist I know the history of the RCMP as a military wing of the industrial oligarchy. They enforce injunctions with military equipment and have been doing that since their founding in 1920. In 1919 the RNWMP were one of the big players in the Winnipeg General strike and have been at every major labour dispute and native protest since then.

       

      NDPP

      "...And while the UN is today looking into the genocidal murders of Indigenous women and girls uncovered by the MMIWG Report, we will not allow Trans Mountain pipeline to insert a man camp of a thousand white men into our territory to continue and even accelerate the genocidal rape and murders of our women and girls. Today we are calling  on all of our Indigenous and non-Indigenous allies to join us in this battle to ensure the man camps are not built and the Trans Mountain pipeline will not pass." - Kanahus Manuel, Tiny House Warriors

      https://twitter.com/MissMyrtle2/status/1141160409203793920

      Bacchus

      An amusing statement since a goodly portion of those camps are made up of First Nations young men

      Paladin1

      Bacchus wrote:

      An amusing statement since a goodly portion of those camps are made up of First Nations young men

      I was hoping someone would point that out.  The 70% reference in the MMIWG report comes to mind too.

      swallow swallow's picture

      The 70% figure is not factual. Google it.

      Paladin1

      Thanks for the heads up-I just did some reading aboht it.
      The 70% figure is the actual figure reported by the RCMP. There appears to be questions and complaints and push back about how the RCMP arrived at that figure with accusations of racisim and colonialism. It's still the figure reported by the MMIWG.
      Might make for a good seperate thread.

      zazzo

      Bacchus, could you back up your statement that....a goodly portion of those camps are made up of First Nations young men...

      JKR

      Paladin1 wrote:
      Thanks for the heads up-I just did some reading aboht it. The 70% figure is the actual figure reported by the RCMP. There appears to be questions and complaints and push back about how the RCMP arrived at that figure with accusations of racisim and colonialism. It's still the figure reported by the MMIWG. Might make for a good seperate thread.

      Did the RCMP ever officially endorse that 70% statistic? Didn’t the MMIWG state that that statistic is specious?

      quizzical

      it's absolute bs what she is saying and showing about a man camp being built in Valemount.

      not sure where she did the video but it ain't here.

      NDPP

      "We are moving forward with full planning and engagement activities related to the temporary full-service camp planned for the Valemount area to ensure visiting workers have a place to live while they're working..."

      https://www.therockymountaingoat.com/2019/04/trans-mountain-pipe-arrivin...

       

      "Live from Tiny House Warriors blockade of the Trans Mountain man camp in the Blue River where TMX plans to house 1,000 pipeline workers, called man camps, these are linked to increased violence against indigenous women and girls, which the same govt is being condemned for."

      https://twitter.com/KanahusFreedom/status/1141470774475153409

       

      "With all attention on Justin Trudeau Trans Mountain pipeline announcement, keep in mind extractive industry responsible for sexualized violence vs Indigenous women & girls in Canada, US and worlwide. Yes to Trans Mountain = yes to continued genocide." Listen now...

      https://twitter.com/Pam_Palmater/status/1141066881966706689

      quizzical

      NDPP she shows a camp with graded ground and fencing. 

      there isn't one happening here like that yet. 

      yup there's a designated site but no activity on it. 

      voice of the damned

      6079_Smith_W wrote:

      Weirdness.

      You mean the perspective of someone from the culture that is suffering those assaults, murders and disappearances, and that genocide and destruction of their land. And that she makes the connection back to those who decided the pipeline was going to be built.

      In case you were wondering why I chose that piece.

      And while I am all for harm reduction, personally I find the normalization of hiring sex workers to be weird, to say the least. Certainly much wierder than trying to understand someone's different cultural perspective. I don't know if you are trying to spin it as prudery, but given the rest of the evidence, I think her first example speaks to the larger problem.

      No, the issue for me isn't prudery. The "weirdness" I gleaned in the article was stuff like this...

      Raping Mother Earth is still rape.

      Now, granted, I am not a woman. Or a sexual assault victim. Or an adherent to an animistic spiritual worldview. But if, for example, I was talking to someone who counsels sexual assault victims, and she asked me if I had any experience dealing with issues like that, there is no way in hell I could ever imagine myself answering "Well, I've been to Fort MacMurray, and seen Mother Earth being raped."  

       

       

       

      Paladin1

      JKR wrote:

      Paladin1 wrote:
      Thanks for the heads up-I just did some reading aboht it. The 70% figure is the actual figure reported by the RCMP. There appears to be questions and complaints and push back about how the RCMP arrived at that figure with accusations of racisim and colonialism. It's still the figure reported by the MMIWG. Might make for a good seperate thread.

      Did the RCMP ever officially endorse that 70% statistic? Didn’t the MMIWG state that that statistic is specious?

       

      I'll have to read more about it to get a solid answer.

      I did see various accounts and explinations such as;

      -that 70% is a reflection of systemic racisim and the RCMP only investigating cases where it appeared an indigneous man was the culprit.

      -RCMP lied about the stat

      -70% stat is accurate but the indigenous men committed those crimes largely impart due to colonialisim and growing up in a racist environment.

      Paladin1

      Question for you Pondering.

      In another thread you said

      "There is no mention of the MMIWG report. It's all indignation and theoretical pearl clutching over the rights of mainly white men in work camps set up by mining corporations."

      You also posted this article.

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

      which includes this quote

      "Resource projects in Canada routinely draw workers from across the country and around the world. This reality, the inquiry found, leads to a mostly male workforce that typically has no connection to the people or place."

      Where did you get the stat that these camps are made up of mostly white men? Or did you mean that it was mainly the white men in these camps that the pearl clutching was happening to?

      kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

      The fact is that if only 70% of the assaults are committed by Indigenous males then it proves that white men are raping more native women than the "norm." In Canada generally speaking 80% of sexual assaults are committed by people known to the victim, usually family. On the other side of the equation a third of crimes perpetrated against indigenous women are sexual assault but only ten percent for women generally. The statistics show indigenous women get sexually assaulted more often than other Canadian women and someone from outside their family/ethnic group is more often the abuser than is the average.

      I would love to see someone show me stats that show that our pipeline industry is not predominantly white male in makeup. I tried finding those kinds of  demographic profiles and failed. I do know that generally on large construction sites the norm is 85 to 90% male workforce. So if people want to claim other facts please post links.

      https://www.canadianwomen.org/sites/canadianwomen.org/files/Fact%20sheet...

      Pondering

      Bacchus wrote:

      An amusing statement since a goodly portion of those camps are made up of First Nations young men

      There is nothing amusing or even ironic about the situation. The existence of the camps is for the benefit of resource extraction projects and local businesses yet it is the women of the communities that pay the price. The nationality of the men exacting it doesn't matter. Many of the MMIW suffered at the hands of men within their communities. The "cultural" genocide and the disappearance of children from communities led to their collapse and the resulting increase in violence against women as well as their sexual exploitation. 

      Repairing communities will take decades. If these resource projects are so very profitable that they must go ahead then they should be profitable enough to find a means of protecting the women. I wouldn't ask the community for ideas I would ask the women. 

      Pondering

      Paladin1 wrote:

      Question for you Pondering.

      In another thread you said

      "There is no mention of the MMIWG report. It's all indignation and theoretical pearl clutching over the rights of mainly white men in work camps set up by mining corporations."

      You also posted this article.

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

      which includes this quote

      "Resource projects in Canada routinely draw workers from across the country and around the world. This reality, the inquiry found, leads to a mostly male workforce that typically has no connection to the people or place."

      Where did you get the stat that these camps are made up of mostly white men? Or did you mean that it was mainly the white men in these camps that the pearl clutching was happening to?

      Because it is mainly white men that are worrying about men's rights.

      kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

      zazzo wrote:

      Bacchus, could you back up your statement that....a goodly portion of those camps are made up of First Nations young men...

      So far he hasn't responded. I would love to see the citation for that piece because I am always glad to celebrate the triumph of any affirmative action program. So share the details.

      Bacchus

      zazzo wrote:

      Bacchus, could you back up your statement that....a goodly portion of those camps are made up of First Nations young men...

       

      Its in the MMIWG report

      Bacchus

      kropotkin1951 wrote:

      zazzo wrote:

      Bacchus, could you back up your statement that....a goodly portion of those camps are made up of First Nations young men...

      So far he hasn't responded. I would love to see the citation for that piece because I am always glad to celebrate the triumph of any affirmative action program. So share the details.

      I didnt respond because I had no seen his post and I have noticed since that others have answered for me

      quizzical

      ok the mystery of what Kanahus was filming has been resolved.

      it's the Valemount Community Forest land which is situated on the old mill land. 

      what's happening there right now, as i enter this, is pipe lay down. the place is full of pipe and cherry pickers  off loading pipe. 

      the site is not a "man camp" and is way too small for any type of camp in the first place.

      this reality won't be convenient for some people's agenda though.

      this whole gaslighting of pipeline workers is bs.

      more to follow

      voice of the damned

      quizzical:

      I have no reason to doubt what you've written, but one thing...

      this whole gaslighting of pipeline workers is bs.

      What do you mean by "gaslighting" here? The term is derived from a movie of the same name(actually two movies), and is used to mean trying to trick someone into doubting the evidence provided by their own senses or memory. For example, John borrows money from Lisa, and then when it's time to pay her back, he tries to tell her that he never borrowed the money at all.

      Is that you meant to say, or is there another word you were looking for?

       

      Paladin1

      Pondering wrote:

      Because it is mainly white men that are worrying about men's rights.

      And is this based off some source or is it Pondering supposition?

      Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

      It's a generalization in support of another generalization.

      This whole conversation is eerily similar to homeowners talking about a halfway house, or a supervised injection site.

      "Well, we all know how THOSE people just spread crime and disorder.  We know these places have to be somewhere, but we don't want them in our community!"

      voice of the damned

      Paladin1 wrote:

      Pondering wrote:

      Because it is mainly white men that are worrying about men's rights.

      And is this based off some source or is it Pondering supposition?

      Well, I'm the one who started this thread, largely for the purpose of critiquing Pondering's opinion, and I will cop to the charge of being a white man.

      But I will also say that opposing the restriction of workers to their camps is not a "men's rights" stance, in the way that the term "men's rights" is commonly understood on this forum. I think it would be a violation of worker's rights, even if the job is high-paying and the restrictions were made part of the contract.

      All that said, is there some precedent for an employer restricting workers to their quarters? I assume teachers, for example, can be let go from their jobs if they're seen traipsing about the neighbourhood bombed out of their skulls on a regular basis, even if they're on private-time. Does anyone extend the off-duty prohibitions to "leaving your home at night"?

      As a comparison, if it were proposed that the police don't need to inform sexual-assault suspects(who are mostly male) of their rights, I would be against that policy, and it would have nothing to do with "men's rights". It's just that the police should never arrest people without informing them of their rights, full stop.

       

      quizzical

      voice of the damned wrote:

      quizzical:

      I have no reason to doubt what you've written, but one thing...

      this whole gaslighting of pipeline workers is bs.

      What do you mean by "gaslighting" here? The term is derived from a movie of the same name(actually two movies), and is used to mean trying to trick someone into doubting the evidence provided by their own senses or memory. For example, John borrows money from Lisa, and then when it's time to pay her back, he tries to tell her that he never borrowed the money at all.

      Is that you meant to say, or is there another word you were looking for?

       

      everything pretty much that she said in her video clip is bs.

      i stand by what i said about pipeliners above. they're family people.

      for just a small example of her bs is her saying we don't  have rape kits in town.

      we have a whole fkn health centre with 5 to 6 drs and several nurses. it even does minor surgery and is a practicum spot for Drs. 

      i only use this example, and there's dozens of falsehoods in her words, to show how far she has gone to paint a bs picture of Valemount hoping no one here is paying attention on the national and international scale.

      well i am. good thing i came home for a visit so i can call her on it in real time, first hand. my parents live literally 3 mins down the road from the area she said was to be a "man camp".

      mom posted pics on line somewhere of the pipe being off loaded there and it might not even be pipe for the pipeline. it's the Village of Valemounts Community Forest land. like it's also 3 mins from town and 30 seconds from hwy 5 and she's trying to portray it as remote.

      am so fkn angry at her defamation of the community like we're  hick know  nothings in shock and awe over what's happening to us. the defamation of pipeliners is even worse. 

       

       

      Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

      Quote:
      But I will also say that opposing the restriction of workers to their camps is not a "men's rights" stance, in the way that the term "men's rights" is commonly understood on this forum.

      Yes.  When you propose removing common rights solely from men, any opposition to this will naturally resemble a discussion of "men's rights".  And if this happens on a discussion board whose active members are predominantly white and male, it will look like "white men arguing for men's rights".

      quizzical

      Mr. Magoo wrote:

      Quote:
      But I will also say that opposing the restriction of workers to their camps is not a "men's rights" stance, in the way that the term "men's rights" is commonly understood on this forum.

      Yes.  When you propose removing common rights solely from men, any opposition to this will naturally resemble a discussion of "men's rights".  And if this happens on a discussion board whose active members are predominantly white and male, it will look like "white men arguing for men's rights".

      the whole portrayal of pipeliners needing to be locked in is bs. 

      they start work at 5 or 6 and work to 5 or 6. get home, usually after an hr drive, eat, shower and go to bed so they can get up in 6 hrs and do it all over again. 

      i live the life and know exactly what the life of a pipeliner is and what the actual impact on communities as been and would be along the TMX. sfa.

       

      JKR

      Paladin1 wrote:

      I'll have to read more about it to get a solid answer.

      I did see various accounts and explinations such as;

      -that 70% is a reflection of systemic racisim and the RCMP only investigating cases where it appeared an indigneous man was the culprit.

      -RCMP lied about the stat

      -70% stat is accurate but the indigenous men committed those crimes largely impart due to colonialisim and growing up in a racist environment.

      I think many racists are underhandedly using the 70% statistic to minimize the travesty of Canada’s murdered and missing Indigenous women crisis.

      kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

      Bacchus wrote:

      zazzo wrote:

      Bacchus, could you back up your statement that....a goodly portion of those camps are made up of First Nations young men...

      Its in the MMIWG report

      Great could you give us the link to the cite because I need a sense of what "a goodly portion" actually means and the full report is over a thousand pages long.

       

      kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

      JKR wrote:

      Paladin1 wrote:

      I'll have to read more about it to get a solid answer.

      I did see various accounts and explinations such as;

      -that 70% is a reflection of systemic racisim and the RCMP only investigating cases where it appeared an indigneous man was the culprit.

      -RCMP lied about the stat

      -70% stat is accurate but the indigenous men committed those crimes largely impart due to colonialisim and growing up in a racist environment.

      I think many racists are underhandedly using the 70% statistic to minimize the travesty of Canada’s murdered and missing Indigenous women crisis.

      That is what racists do. If you look at it from another angle it says that  indigenous women are sexually assaulted less often percentage wise by people they know than white women are. 85% of white women are sexually assaulted by white men. Twice as many people rape indigenous women who are not known to them than the norm in Canada. That is a plus for native men not a negative. Context in stats is everything.

      Paladin1

      quizzical wrote:

      i live the life and know exactly what the life of a pipeliner is and what the actual impact on communities as been and would be along the TMX. sfa.

      I don't think very much trumps your first hand experience on the issue. Inclined to believe you over people who have never seen first hand what the camps are like.

      I've had a young relative get lured into the camps with promises of money. He arrived and quickly learned it wasn't what he was promised. Instead of learning the ropes or tradework or whatever it's called he was delievering sandwhiches to the workers and not getting paid nearly what he was promised. That's not really relatable to this story other than maybe lots of people get lured into working out that way and things aren't what they expect?

      JKR

      kropotkin1951 wrote:

      That is what racists do. If you look at it from another angle it says that  indigenous women are sexually assaulted less often percentage wise by people they know than white women are. 85% of white women are sexually assaulted by white men. Twice as many people rape indigenous women who are not known to them than the norm in Canada. That is a plus for native men not a negative. Context in stats is everything.

      It seems that in our age of post-truth politics it has become very easy to use statistics for specious purposes.

      Paladin1

      JKR wrote:

      Paladin1 wrote:

      I'll have to read more about it to get a solid answer.

      I did see various accounts and explinations such as;

      -that 70% is a reflection of systemic racisim and the RCMP only investigating cases where it appeared an indigneous man was the culprit.

      -RCMP lied about the stat

      -70% stat is accurate but the indigenous men committed those crimes largely impart due to colonialisim and growing up in a racist environment.

      I think many racists are underhandedly using the 70% statistic to minimize the travesty of Canada’s murdered and missing Indigenous women crisis.

      Absolutely. When that stat came out I knew one side would call bullshit that the number was so high and place blame elsewhere and the other side would LOL over it because it was mostly indigenous males being blamed for indigenous womens deaths.  Or at least the deaths that were solved.

      quizzical

      Paladin1 wrote:

      quizzical wrote:

      i live the life and know exactly what the life of a pipeliner is and what the actual impact on communities as been and would be along the TMX. sfa.

      I don't think very much trumps your first hand experience on the issue. Inclined to believe you over people who have never seen first hand what the camps are like.

      I've had a young relative get lured into the camps with promises of money. He arrived and quickly learned it wasn't what he was promised. Instead of learning the ropes or tradework or whatever it's called he was delievering sandwhiches to the workers and not getting paid nearly what he was promised. That's not really relatable to this story other than maybe lots of people get lured into working out that way and things aren't what they expect?

      Valemount had a whole 500 person pipeline crew here about 9 years ago for a few months, just when the twinning was first talked about. they were replacing sections of TMX needing repair. 

      not 1 thing happened to any women and children in town. no increased crime rates. no drug infestation. no sex workers. the community knows exactly what to expect and it ain't what she's selling. or trying to.

      fk our health Centre even has a full lab and xray and she's trying to say we have no rape kits even.

      she should be ashamed. 

       

      Pondering

      Paladin1 wrote:

      Pondering wrote:

      Because it is mainly white men that are worrying about men's rights.

      And is this based off some source or is it Pondering supposition?

      It is both a supposition and a generalization and I stand by it.  I'm not writing an academic paper.  While the feminist movement is changing it has been dominated by white women too. In Canada Occupy was dominated by white people.

      To me to argue this stuff is playing an academic debate game not participating in a political discussion. 

      Obviously no one is planning to lock men up in camps behind barbed wire so they can't escape but from this discussion you would think A) that I suggested it and B) that I am still arguing in favor of it. 

      My focus is the safety of indigenous women so I am not interested in the gaming aspect of debates.

      Pondering

      So quizzical, that is one example and I am sure there are more. Are you saying there are no man camps anywhere or are you saying man camps are not a problem?

      quizzical

      Pondering wrote:

      So quizzical, that is one example and I am sure there are more. Are you saying there are no man camps anywhere or are you saying man camps are not a problem?

      i am saying pipeline camps really don't exist on a big level most pipeliners have RVs and travel with their families. and if there are camps they're not permanent unlike the oil sands and fracking camps.

      pipeline men and women are highly trained and skilled at what they do and if anything fks up they immediately have to pass a drug and alchohol test.

      and i'm saying Kanahus is full of shit in her portrayal of Valemount and what's  going on.

       

      swallow swallow's picture

      Paladin1 wrote:
      Thanks for the heads up-I just did some reading aboht it. The 70% figure is the actual figure reported by the RCMP. There appears to be questions and complaints and push back about how the RCMP arrived at that figure with accusations of racisim and colonialism. It's still the figure reported by the MMIWG. Might make for a good seperate thread.

      No, the RCMP has never formally endorsed that figure. You are referring to a statement by Bob Paulson of the RCMP in 2015, which is the source of all the other reports citing this figure. No actual statistics have been reported other than the Paulson statement. The RCMP's own reports do not use the 70% claim. 

      The commission did not accept the 70% figure. In fact it rejects that figure. To quote Annex 1 of the report: "The often-cited statistic that Indigenous men are responsible for 70% of murders of Indigenous women and girls is not factually based."

      The piece you want to read is https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/06/07/analysis/we-fact-checked-viral-claim-about-whos-killing-mmiwg-it-was-wrong

      The entire report can be downloaded for free from the MMIW web site. 

      Pages