Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« "Tibetan rioter" was actually a Communist policeman | Main | Will you celebrate the darkness? »

Friday, March 28, 2008

Toronto City Councillor charged with domestic assault

Those who expressed skepticism in earlier discussions about my empirical findings of police bias in cases of domestic assault (or IPV) should pay attention to the case of Toronto City Councillor Rob Ford, reported today on the front page of the National Post, as it develops.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Ford called 911 for help because of his wife's "irrational, out-of-control behaviour." The police responded, and recommended that he leave the home with the couple's 3-year-old daughter and 6-month-old son. Bias watch #1: If the genders were reversed, the children would have remained in the home with the mother, and the father would have been asked to leave -- or more likely, charged and detained in a holding cell until his bail hearing. Alternatively, the police would have escorted her and the children to a women's shelter. Bias watch #2: Men and their children have no place to go when driven from their home by an "irrational, out-of-control" wife.

On Wednesday morning, Mr. Ford returned to the home to get some clothes for the children (note "bias watch #1" for why this subsequent contact should have been rendered unnecessary).  His wife called the police, and he was arrested, handcuffed, and charged with assault. Bias watch #3: Details are sketchy at this point, but it appears to be another one of those he-said, she-said cases. Why was only he charged, instead of either both parties, or neither party?

In an unusual move, the CAS recommended that Mr. Ford be given temporary custody of the children. (Unusual, because of the bias against fathers prevalent within the CAS.) Bias watch #4: Since the CAS would never recommend custody to a father credibly accused of IPV, in preference to a sane, innocent mother, it is reasonable to infer that even the CAS does not believe that Mr. Ford was the aggressor. Yet the police felt bound to arrest and charge him, anyway. Mr. Ford appears to be the victim of false allegations, vigorously and foolishly pursued by the police acting with ideological blinders.

That's just my theory of the case at this time, based on sketchy facts and years of familiarity with these types of cases. I'd be very surprised if new evidence surfaces that would demonstrate Mr. Ford's culpability in a real, unilateral assault; but of course there are exceptions to ever generalization.  In any event, this is not an isolated incident; it happens every day in Canada -- almost always to ordinary men whose victimization goes unnoticed and unreported in the media.

Posted by Grant Brown on March 28, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5517e0f4b8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Toronto City Councillor charged with domestic assault:

Comments

In Toronto, you say! No surprise here - those people have no regard for human life whatsoever.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-03-28 11:17:00 AM


Grant,

"The police responded, and recommended that he leave the home with the couple's 3-year-old daughter and 6-month-old son."

If the system were as bad as you say it is, they would have arrested him and left the kids with her. The fact that they made a reasonasble and unbiased suggestion tells me that things are not as bad as you say they are.


"Bias watch #1: If the genders were reversed, the children would have remained in the home with the mother, and the father would have been asked to leave -- or more likely, charged and detained in a holding cell until his bail hearing."

Wrong. Women are advised all the time to get away from abusive husbands and to take the kids with them. Even you admit that here....


"Alternatively, the police would have escorted her and the children to a women's shelter. Bias watch #2: Men and their children have no place to go..."

No place to go? This guy has no family? No friends? I don't buy it. But if you mean there are women's shelters and not men's shelters, I'd say that this is not the result of bias but the result of women doing a better job of taking care of their own by getting women's shelters created than men taking care of their own by creating men's shelters. Either the need for men's shelters is so small that they are not worth having or men don't have enough sympathy for the plight of other men to help them out, unlike women who do. I go for the "no need" option, but the "men hate men" option is there if you really want to take it.


"His wife called the police, and he was arrested, handcuffed, and charged with assault. Bias watch #3: Details are sketchy at this point, but it appears to be another one of those he-said, she-said cases. Why was only he charged, instead of either both parties, or neither party?"

Well, she made a complaint to the police and it does not seem that he is accusing her of assault. since he makes no such accusation it seems reasonable for the police to assume that she did not assault him and thus not to arrest her. As for why he was charged, she claims he assaulted her. Maybe she has a mark to prove it. Maybe he said something that counts as an admission of guilt. I don't know because I wasn't there. Neither were you. The only "bias" here is your assumption that it is only a "he-said she-said" case because that fits what you want to believe.


"In an unusual move..."

Read: "In a move that only someone who thinks there is a bias against men would be surprised by, but others would see as proof of their being no bias..."


" ...the CAS recommended that Mr. Ford be given temporary custody of the children."

Sounds like they made the right decision. This man got a fair shake. The horror!!!!!


To paraphrase a self-described "expert" on these matters, if that's the best you can do for an example, I'm laughing.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-28 11:36:25 AM


I think it was Speller who predicted that I won't last long on the blogosphere. He's probably right. In the blogosphere, if there's a false inference that could conceivably be made, someone with an axe to grind will make it and attack you for it. This is a new diversion for me, but in the longer run I've got more important things to do than track down every error posted by every self-important critic in response to everything I say. I'm not as addicted or to or as obessed with the minutiae of this passtime as some of you seem to be. Yes, I'm already losing interest.

For the record: I never claimed -- ever, anywhere -- that the system *always* gets it wrong. Most of the time (which means, weakly, more than 50% of the time) the system gets it more-or-less right. What I claim is that the system gets it wrong too often, and when it gets it wrong it is almost always in the direction of being too harsh on men or too lenient on women.

Even when the system gets it more-or-less right, it still tends to favour women. That's the point of "Bias watch #1."

AND, if you had read my earlier columns on the biological basis for anti-male biases, you would already know that I believe them to be UNIVERSAL -- i.e. exhibited by men as much as (and possibly more than) women. Chivalry is not dead; it has merely assumed a feminist disguise. You would also know from previous posts that I admit that I have to fight a natural inclination to favour women, in the interests of embracing a rational equality.

My recommendation was for skeptics to keep an eye on this case. So keep an eye, and get back to me in due course.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-03-28 11:58:22 AM


Great post Grant. Do not get discouraged by the likes of FC who has nothing better to do than to nitpick.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-03-28 3:37:12 PM


Grant: "I think it was Speller who predicted that I won't last long on the blogosphere. He's probably right."

Here's some free advice: Ask yourself why you started to post items on the Shotgun in the first place. Was it just to preach to the converted? Was it so that you could read lots of replies that said nothing more than "Great post Grant."? Or was it to try to expose people to ideas that they might not have considered and might be convinced to consider? If it is the last possibility, then man up, grow a pair of balls, and keep posting.

I did not peg you for the withering delicate flower type who would be hurt by disagreement and criticism that had a sharp bite to it. But why you feel the need to reply to or challenge each post I make is beyond me. Look at the discussions in other recent threads you started. You will see several people comment on my comments, some who even DEMAND that I reply to their comments and even though I posted again in those threads, I did not even obliquely acknowledge their comments. It's easy to do. Hell, I learned MONTHS ago not to ever read comments by some (like Karol K) because they are no more than the ravings of lunatics (at best).

So if you don't like my replies, don't read them. If you find that my replies are too threatening and might actually do a better job than your posts do of convincing others, then make better arguments. But enough of the drama queen threats to leave if people don't only post things that are to your liking. If you really are so fragile, then the blogosphere is not for you. Or the real world for that matter.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-28 4:39:59 PM


Alain:

It is charitable of you to characterize FC's messages as "nitpicking." They are sometimes merely that; but they are usually much worse than that. They usually consist of attributing to me an extreme generalization or silly assumption that I nowhere stated, implied, or even suggested, and then gloating over his "refutation" of his own creation. The messages are often sprinkled with personal insults that have no basis in fact. They are, in a phrase, intellectually irresponsible.

I got out of both academe and the practice of law in significant part because I have a very low tolerance for "bullshit" (as that term is defined by Harry Frankfurt). I should have expected the blogosphere to be no better.

My DPhil thesis supervisor at Oxford was Jerry Cohen, the world-renowned Marxist-egalitarian political philosopher. I relish the opportunity to test my ideas against the best critics in the world, because only by doing so do my views improve and refine themselves. From that point of view, blogging is turning out to be a complete waste of my time.

I can understand that blogging may be the pinnacle of CF's ambitions and achievements. (The same goes for Shane, Speller, and Karol.) But I have more interesting and important things to do -- like publishing books and articles for serious audiences. If that's being a "drama queen," I don't mind.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-03-28 5:51:23 PM


Grant: "The messages are often sprinkled with personal insults that have no basis in fact."

Right. And you would NEVER do that, right?

"I can understand that blogging may be the pinnacle of CF's ambitions and achievements. (The same goes for Shane, Speller, and Karol.) But I have more interesting and important things to do...."

Nevermind.

Thank-you for taking time out of your "important" life to slum with us here on the Internets. But maybe it really is time for you to go back to writing those books and articles of yours. I'd send you copies of mine, but I doubt you'd really enjoy them.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-28 6:36:48 PM


FC: "I'd send you copies of mine, but I doubt you'd really enjoy them."

No need to send copies. A bibliography will do. Or was that just an empty taunt? Hey?

I'm waiting...

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-03-28 11:19:56 PM


FACT CHECK:

I'm still waiting for that bibliography of yours.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-03-29 12:00:06 PM


Grant,

You will have to wait a long time unless you can give me a good reason to provide it to you. You previously wrote, "I have lost all interest in debating you on this or any other thread that may arise in the future." So I cannot imagine why you are now so desperate to read my other writings.

I know you think I am bluffing and you are calling my bluff. That's fine with me. I don't need your approval. And if you don't believe me, I am quite happy to live with that. The difference between you and me (one of them anyway) is I don't care what you say or think about me while you seem to be VERY bothered by what I say about you.

You see, you come here thinking you are the cock of the walk with your degrees and your publications and unless I whip mine out so we can measure and see whose CV is longer, you will continue to think you are the biggest dick on this board. So it's up to you what you want to believe. Just don't confuse my lack of need to prove anything to you as evidence of not being able to do so.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go write some emails to contributers to a collection of academic essays I am editing. But I'll be back later. There is room enough with all the "interesting and important" things I have to do to still post here.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-29 12:35:18 PM


Fact Check,

"Either the need for men's shelters is so small that they are not worth having or men don't have enough sympathy for the plight of other men to help them out, unlike women who do. "

Summing up your response thusly:

1)
Those few men who actually need the services aren't worthy of the effort to help since their numbers determine where society's level of sympathy kicks in

or

2) because men don't care about other men who need these services then why should you or other women be bother to care either.


Either you think men in need of help should be helped or you don't.

Why should numbers matter?
Why should it matter who doesn't care about men in need? It should only matter whether you care?

Do you care?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-29 12:51:58 PM


I'd like to check out Fact Check's bibliography.

Posted by: Bocanut | 2008-03-29 2:05:08 PM


Fact Check:

A very large proportion of what I read I disagree with. Whether I "enjoy" it or not is irrelevant and largely unrelated to whether I agree with it. I often enjoy critiquing things I don't agree with. So, yes, I really am interested in your bibliography.

So is Bocanut. So are others, I'm sure.

The transparent reason you refuse to provide it is that you enjoy your chicken-shit anonymity too much. You can puff yourself up with vague boasts, without anyone being able to call you out. Nobody on this blog can check up on you, and that's obviously the way you want it. What do you have to hide? Too many skeletons in the closet for you to come out and play on a level field?

Meanwhile, my working hypothesis is that your vague pretenses about your accomplishments are as false as your bluff to send me copies of your work.

As for your suggestion that I'm upset at not being the "cock of the walk," I simply don't operate on that level. It would never have occurred to me to even aspire to be "cock of the walk," particularly this one, which is strutted on by such illuminaries as Jan Narveson and Pierre Lemieux.

I know I've won an argument on its merits as soon as my critics turn to attacking my bedside manner and psychologizing me. In fact, your psychologizing reveals much more about the way you operate than about me. Maybe you resent my presence on this blog so much because you feel you have been knocked out of your position as "cock of the walk", hhmmm? (Honestly, are you so unreflective that you can't see this coming?)

You're right, your refusal to reveal your CV isn't evidence that you can't out-shine me; it is only evidence that you are the "biggest dick on the board."

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-03-29 5:26:10 PM


Grant,

Whatever happened to the guy who claimed it was "beneath his dignity" to respond to personal comments? Maybe you put him in your other pants.

You said: "I know I've won an argument on its merits as soon as my critics turn to attacking my bedside manner and psychologizing me"

You also said: "I can understand that blogging may be the pinnacle of CF's ambitions and achievements."

I guess that means, by your own logic, that I should know I've won the argument. Yeah!!!!!

You said: "You can puff yourself up with vague boasts, without anyone being able to call you out."

Boasts? I don`t take mentioning I have publications as a boast. Do you? Do you take your mention of your "important and interesting" work on publications as boasting? Shame on you! I've never mentioned my publications before (and I've been posting a long time here) because there was never any reason to do so. I only did so now to point out that just as you claim others have made "personal insults that have no basis in fact", you have done the same. You claim to be better than others while acting just the same.

Furthermore, I have never thought the fact that I have publications is a reason for anyone to take anything I say any more seriously. Do other posters here have publications too? It really does not matter if they have none or a thousand. I know I never read a post thinking "I wonder if that guy has publications to his name so I should take his comments more seriously." You are the only one who seem to think having publications is something to "boast" about.

Laurence Sterne wrote this in his dedication for Tristram Shandy: "I humbly beg, Sir, that you will honour this book, by taking it—(not under your Protection,—it must protect itself...)" Indeed. Any comments you or I or anyone else make here must stand or fall on their own merits. They do not get any special status because the person who wrote them has status that you give them because you think CV measuring is important. No one is trying to "outshine" you with claims of intellectual status. That is a game that is all in your head.

You said: "Nobody on this blog can check up on you...."

Why on earth would they need to? Or why would I need to "check up on" them? Again, any blog posts must stand or fall on their own merits. "Checking up" on authors smacks of believing in ad hominem attacks (at best) or intellectual McCarthyism (at worst). No one cares what your pedigree is here, nor should they.

But if it makes you feel any better, feel free to suppose that I have advocated genocide or Stalinism or that I believe that the earth is flat. None of that matters when I point out that you spent a page in one of your articles speculating on why when women are arrested in domestic disputes alcohol is more often involved after just saying that it is statistically insignificantly more often. Even a genocidal flat-earther Stalinist can be right about your dishonest use of data. Even an impolite one like me.

Finally, if anonymity so bothers you, why did you agree to join a group blog where some of the members use such anonymity? I'm not talking about respondents like me. I'm talking about people who start threads like "Winston". When the people who run the joint all use real names and announce their pedigrees, then you can start complaining about the rest of us. But until then, you ask respondents to live up to a standard your colleagues refuse to live by. And for that matter, read a few of Adam Yoshida's posts and you will see how silly your plea for civility is. The people who define this blog are as uncivil as anyone.

Well, Grant, it's been a slice arguing with you about netiquette and who is more civil or who has the highest "status", but it all has really become tiresome. So I will retire from this nonsense now. But look for me again to make substantive replies to posts. I'll still be around. To quote the Great Gazoo, "Toodle-loo, dum-dum."

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-29 6:50:14 PM


FC
"Either the need for men's shelters is so small that they are not worth having or men don't have enough sympathy for the plight of other men to help them out, unlike women who do. "

Either you think men in need of help should be helped or you don't.

Why should numbers matter?
Why should it matter who doesn't care about men in need?

Do you support helping these men who need help despite an indifferent attitude in our society?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-29 6:54:54 PM


h2o273kk9,

Sorry. In all Grant's nonsense, I forgot about your questions. Here are some answers.

"Either you think men in need of help should be helped or you don't. Why should numbers matter?"

Numbers always matter when deciding the allocation of public resources. For example, the residents of every town or village, no matter how small, would be better off if their town had a full service hospital. But the costs of putting one in every town and village are prohibative, so we don't do it. So if the number of men who need shelters is small enough (and I've seen no evidence presented to think the number is significant), then governments should not build them. This even though it means that on some occasions someone who could have used one will not have the option. In short, governments can't do everything for everyone, nor should we expect them to do so.


"Why should it matter who doesn't care about men in need?"

I made the comment about women taking care of women and men not seeming to care about men to make two points. First, I wanted to highlight (for other readers) that is *IS* Grant's position that men are as anti-male as women are "and possibly more than women". It seems to me that many posters on this blog want to blame the "feminists" for men not having services they think men need. I merely wanted to point out this is wrong. Men need no "feminists" to help create shelters for men.

Second, I made the observation to suggest that if there are no shelters for men, maybe this is because there is no real need. Men have power. Men have money. So if men need shelters, it would not make sense if there are none. The best explanation for their absense, then, is the lack of need for them.


"Do you support helping these men who need help despite an indifferent attitude in our society?"

That's a vague question. I am not sure what form of "help" you are saying they need. If you are saying they need shelters, I disagree. I see no evidence for the suggestion that men need shelters in numbers enough to warrant creating them. But if there were such evidence, I would certainly support creating them.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-29 7:18:05 PM


FC

"Men have power. Men have money. "

By definition, the men in need of these shelters do not have money and do not have power otherwise they would not need these shelters.

Since 99.999% of men do not have power, I have to wonder why you bring it up. Same for money, most of us work for a living, just like women.

"So if the number of men who need shelters is small enough (and I've seen no evidence presented to think the number is significant), then governments should not build them. "

And if the numbers of men who need shelters in Toronto (pop. 4 million) is larger than the number of women who need shelters in NoMansLand, Saskatchewan (pop. 3000), why is there a woman's shelter in NoMansLand and not a men's shelter in Toronto?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-29 7:24:59 PM


h2o273kk9; "By definition, the men in need of these shelters do not have money and do not have power otherwise they would not need these shelters."

Most people will never be arrested. But of those who will be arrested at some time in their lives, only the poorest and most powerless among them will need lawyers provided for them. Yet we have manages to create a legal system that does provide lawyers for these people. Why is that? Because the need is real and thought to be important to address. We do a good job as a society of meeting these needs.

But when as a society do we tend to fail? Well, historically the best examples have been when needs have been specific to a particular class of people (whether by race, gender, religion, etc.) who are less powerful as a group. Men, as a group, are not one such group. So if there is an identifyable need that some men will have that is not being met, sexism sounds like a very strange explanation for it. It would be to suggest, as it seems Grant does, that men are sexist against men and that is why the service is not provided. I don't buy it.


"And if the numbers of men who need shelters in Toronto (pop. 4 million) is larger than the number of women who need shelters in NoMansLand, Saskatchewan (pop. 3000), why is there a woman's shelter in NoMansLand and not a men's shelter in Toronto?"

The best explanation for this is that even in Toronto there is no real need for shelters for men to escape domestic violence. So your "if" seems not to pan out. If the numbers were larger, there would be one. But they are not, so there isn't.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-29 7:48:49 PM


FC,

"Well, historically the best examples have been when needs have been specific to a particular class of people (whether by race, gender, religion, etc.) who are less powerful as a group. Men, as a group, are not one such group."

An abused man in need of help is not a group. He is an individual who needs help. You don't seem very interested in providing resources to them because .001% of other men have power and money..and an historical legacy to overcome.

A man in need is no different from a woman in need, a black in need, a muslim in need, a pauper in need.

Your continuing indifference by way of rationalizations is duly noted. Truly callous.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-29 8:02:21 PM


Fact Check shouldn't assume that I am responding to him in the expectation of converting him to any position, or getting him to admit when he is wrong, apologize for his gratuitous and ignorant insults, etc. I know enough about ideologues and trolls to know that he will never be open-minded or fair-minded enough to let the facts get in the way of revising his world view or acknowledging my points. No, I am not speaking to him; I am playing to the audience, the silent majority who (I presume) prowl the Shotgun blog without dropping comments. The danger is that Fact Check is clever enough to deceive the uninitiated surfer without producing anything of substance.

I think the very first message I got to the very first post I made on Shotgun was from Fact Check, ignorantly complaining that I shouldn't make generalizations about bias against men in criminal sentencing for domestic violence on the basis of one newspaper article involving an unsympathetic man who was murdered. I replied by citing my research which shows that this is not an isolated incident by any means.

Out of a 137 page journal article containing hundreds of analyses of several distinct data sets, Fact Check managed to find two measely points to critique. On one, he was completely and resoundingly refuted. Because I was silent in the other -- it seemed too small a point to waste my time on -- Fact Check keeps repeating it, naively thinking he has scored a single. Even if his critique were fair, taking the article as a whole the score would still be Brown-100+, Fact Check-1. Some victory!

The complaint is that I dare to comment upon a difference in intoxication rates between men and women that my own analysis shows is not statistically significant. Fact Check now accuses me of "dishonest use of data." That's a serious allegation that I cannot allow to pass.

Whatever its weaknesses may be, this particular use of data cannot be "dishonest" because, as Fact Check himself observes, both the data and my analysis of it are completely open for all to see. If I had suppressed something, or made a claim that I knew was actually refuted by the data -- tactics common among the researchers on Fact Check's side of the domestic violence debate -- then I would have been "dishonest." But I actually conclude my analysis with this rather innocent statement: "An analysis of the EPS data on intoxication alone does not provide a direct test of these various hypotheses; however, the convergence of several findings consistent with the hypothesis of systemic discrimination against men tends to support it indirectly." Fact Check has nothing to say about my actual conclusion, because it is impecable, though weak -- i.e. impecable precisely because it is so weak. What seems to bug Fact Check consistently on this blog is that I will not commit to the extreme conclusions or generalizations that he attributes to me, where the data don't support them.

(As an interesting aside, I will note that a colleague subsequently performed more sophisticated statistical analyses of the EPS intoxication data, and found something very interesting: While intoxication acted as an aggravating factor when men were intoxicated, it had the opposite effect -- it was a mitigating factor -- when women were found to be intoxicated. Thus my intuition that these data warranted discussion and further analysis turned out to be substantiated.)

My use of data is not "dishonest;" what is dishonest is Fact Check's critique of my article. The dishonesty consists in implying that two (erroneous) complaints about a massive study warrant rejecting the whole thing. It should go without mention that in any extensive treatment of a subject, some points and some arguments will be better and more compelling than others. I never claimed that every analysis I performed in the study proves all by itself that systemic discriminaiton against men exists. If Fact Check had bothered to read my conclusion, he would have seen that the argument is more along the lines that scores of individually weak strands make a very strong cable. Almost all of the scores of analyses I performed point in the same direction, some more forcefully than others, and collectively they make a compelling case. Fact Check produces nothing that impugns that conclusion in the least.

To be fair to Fact Check, he was not the only one to participate in the mobbing. Several others piled on by challenging me (directly or indirectly) to reveal my credentials and prove my case with further and better particulars. I naively obliged. When I revealed enough to show that I'm neither the unsophisticated neo-con rube nor the ivory-tower egg-head that everyone in this forum loves to attack -- I'm attacked for going to so much trouble refuting all of the stereotypes about me! Here's the "Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead" version of the play:

You: What do you know? You're just an ignorant fool with "issues"!

Me: Actually, I know a lot about what I'm talking about, as the following should suggest to you if you had any humility and sense.

You: Oh, I see, so you're too high and mighty for us then, are you? Just like an ivory-tower egg-head! For your information, your dick isn't bigger than mine -- take my word for it. So there. Humph.

I'm new to this blog thing; I'm not used to engaging in the gamesmanship that seems to be so popular in this forum. And I'll admit that I'm a bit slow on the up-take. Well, folks, have your laugh. You trapped me in your little game of taunt and hide, fair and square.

For what its worth, I take comfort from the fact that I have been attacked equally viciously -- though equally vacuously -- by the extremists on both the "right" and the "left," by social conservatives as much as by liberals. I guess than means that I am the moderate voice on this forum. I' glad to perform the service of bringing Fact Check, Speller, Shane, and Karol together.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-03-30 1:11:37 AM


Grant,

I appreciate your efforts to hilight the problem of bias against men in our society. Fact Check's willful indifference to numbers, let alone facts, underlines the extent of the problem.

One can almost see FC putting hands to hears muttering "la la la la, I can't hear you" as you present case after case.

"The best explanation for this is that even in Toronto there is no real need for shelters for men to escape domestic violence. So your "if" seems not to pan out. If the numbers were larger, there would be one. But they are not, so there isn't."

This cinched it for me. To conclude that a city the size of Toronto with a million men in it, has no need for male shelters to escape domestic violence, is silly.

And then to top it off by saying

"Men have power. Men have money. "

when he knows that very few men are independently wealthy or have powerful connections. The rest are working slobs with bills to pay.

So out of almost 1 million men, if only one-tenth of 1% suffer domestic violence severe enough for them to leave, that is 1000 men in Toronto alone.

I don't know the true numbers, of course, but given that some women have been known to throw frying pans, cut off penises in the middle of the night, and set beds on fire, I find it difficult to believe no man is in danger in Toronto.

How many women are in mental hospitals for an organic brain disease that makes them violent? How many are junkies or alcoholics, too stoned to think clearly? Did they have husbands?

But to FC, these things don't matter. Their numbers aren't great enough to warrant shelters.

So sorry guys. Go sleep on the streets instead. And they are...or is FC going to deny that most homeless are men as well?

I wonder how many homeless men started out in families but suffered at the hands of a violent woman and because there was no place for them to go, except false imprisonment, they found themselves on the street, penniless, friendless, disenfranchised at the hands of the Fact Checks of the world.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-30 7:48:32 AM


"I got out of both academe and the practice of law in significant part because I have a very low tolerance for "bullshit"'

Grant is no longer practising law?? Say it ain't so.

Posted by: Researcher | 2008-03-31 6:14:49 AM


Excuse me. Listen. Do not have an opinion while you listen because frankly, your opinion doesn?t hold much water outside of Your Universe. Just listen. Listen until their brain has been twisted like a dripping towel and what they have to say is all over the floor.
I am from Hungary and , too, and now am writing in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Paul based airline; online ticket purchases, flight arrival departure information, special fares and promotions and destination information."

Thank you very much 8-). Sumner.

Posted by: Sumner | 2009-04-04 3:56:19 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.