Man Camps

"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 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?

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.

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.

I take back my suggestion for more policing.

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

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.

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

The 70% figure is not factual. Google it.

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

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 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. 

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.

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...

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.

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

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

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?

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".

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.

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.

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 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. 

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?

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.