Remembering tragedies of today and yesteryear: Oshawa and the Montreal Massacre

On this day in 1989, a tragedy occurred in Canada. It has remained controversial, though the voices that question the significance of the Montreal Massacre, as declared by feminists, are often silenced. Feminists have gained the support of many men, and our government leaders, in promoting this event as an act of violence against women. I am writing once again, on this anniversary of the killings at the Polytechnique in Montreal, to draw attention to the fact that there are other perspectives on this tragedy and its significance to both men and women in Canada.

Feminists are still distorting the significance of the killings committed by Marc Lépine in 1989 at the Polytechnique in Montreal. Susan Martinuk is just one, claiming that rather than due to misogyny, the killings were because of lack of love in Marc Lepine's family life (Lack of Love . . 5 Dec. 2008 ). Feminists since Dec 6, 1989, have persisted in the belief that Lepine was a psychopath, a misogynist, a misfit in society, but Martinuk's explanation is no better. Marc Lepine stated what the problem was, in his suicide letter, only nobody was listening. The problem was that he felt he had a right to a career such as engineering, that had traditionally been held for men (Perspectives . . 2005, p.18).

In Oshawa this evening, a candlelight vigil has been planned to remember the women who died in the Montreal Massacre, and now, also, to honor Leslie Kelly, who died as a result of an knife attack on her family in Oshawa last week, on Nov 29th. She was killed by Gino Petralia, the father of one of the young family members who lived with her family and who she was caring for. It would seem appropriate to remember her death in this way, as the annual commemoration on this date, Dec 6, is to remember the lives of women who have died violently at the hands of men, as well as to remember in general that women often are the victims of male violence. However, in the time that has elapsed since the announcement of Leslie Kelly's place in the commemoration (Lost 2 Angels . . Dec 5), Leslie's husband, Rick, has also died. One of their children also died following the attack.

Leslie and Rick Kelly, and three-year old Nathan, have lost their lives in this tragedy. Remembering them will surely become a part of Oshawa's tradition in years to come, more so, perhaps, because this tragedy has moved beyond anticipated proportions. It is no longer about a woman and her child who have died in such violent circumstances. Her husband, the boy's father, has also died, leaving youngsters not only without a mother but without a father, too.

We speak of rights - of the individual and for groups in society. But the quest for rights, and the clash of rights, can leave some with their lives in devastation, and no easy solution in sight.


Lack of love, not misogyny, led to Montreal massacre
By Susan Martinuk
Calgary Herald
December 05, 2008
http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=d3f11d92-a19c-447d-9345-0806f87cfd2b&p=1     retrieved Apr 10, 2012

'Lost 2 angels this week'
By Brett Clarkson and Chris Doucette (Sun Media)
Toronto Sun
Dec 5, 2008
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2008/12/05/7640561-sun.html     Retrieved Dec 6, 2008     

Perspectives on the Montreal Massacre: Canada's Outrage Revisited
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2005
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/articlesandessays/PrspctvsMntrlMsscrSMcPherson.doc   Retrieved Dec 6, 2008

Book Review: Rights: Sociological Perspectives, Lydia Morris (Ed.) Routledge. 2006. 
Reviewed by Sue McPherson http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/BookReviews/BkRvwLMorrisRights.doc     Retrieved Dec 6, 2008

Links updated Apr 2012

Supply and Demand: Is GM really indispensable?

"There's no magical difference between the banks and the auto industry; they're both indispensable" (Premier McGuinty, in Banks get help, but will GM? 13 Nov 2008).

What an odd comment! Let GM concentrate on the maintenance of older cars during these harsh economic times. Maybe they could try and ensure that parts are available, and consumer advice on DIY vehicle improvement. That would be far more valuable a contribution, in my view, than the endless production of new vehicles for consumers who cannot, at this time, afford them, at least some of whom probably feel the necessity of keepng up with the Joneses.

Let's stop this kind of one upmanship, and give GM workers the space to find other ways of contributing to society from their wealth of knowledge, not the least of which will be the probably new discovery to many of them that such loss of identity, income, and security can happen to anyone.

Read the comments following the Toronto Star article if you want to see just how many ordinary citizens oppose the bailing out of GM. And feel free to read my essay, Beyond Workaday Worlds.


Banks get help, but will GM?
By Richard Brennan in Ottawa, Ann Perry in Toronto
Toronto Star
Nov 13, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/article/536036

Beyond Workaday Worlds: Aging, Identity, and the Life Cycle
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2005
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/BeyondWorkadayWorldsSMcPherson.doc



Links updated Apr 24, 2012

Women's rights: breastfeeding on demand?

If this mother is allowing her almost-2-yr-old daughter to be fed on demand, apparently for no other reason than she was "cranky", what kind of message does this give to the toddler, and what will this do to her future development as a human being living in a social world with others, as she grows older.

The article doesn't say whether the two-year-old had inadvertently gone too long without sustenance of any kind, and whether the realization that she had had led the mother to taking such immediate action, or whether the offering of the breast was her usual method of calming a cranky child, as she indicated in this article. When people/children demand their rights, it is often at the risk of the rights of others being taken away from them. Thinking in the short term and the longterm, I question the value to society of this kind of on-demand practice.


Mother fights for right to nurse in pool
By Susan Pigg
Toronto Star online
Nov 12, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/article/535310


Link updated Apr 24, 2012

 

Margaret Atwood and Harper's culture cuts

In response to the question directed towards Margaret Atwood "You talk in your book about the link between debt and sin. Why do we feel shame about financial hardship?" (Globe and Mail, Sept 26. 2008), Atwood says she thinks "the stigma comes from wanting people to think better of you than your actions might actually warrant." It seems to me this is a rather elitist attitude. 

Our society is founded on money, and those without are shamed, whether or not they have done anything to deserve it. If one is a global corporation, of course, or The Arts, then the apparent reasons for 'financial hardship' may not always be seen as being mainly due to their failings. I have nothing against Art and Culture, nor against keeping major corporations in business for the sake of maintaining some stability of economy, but I question Atwood's attitude and (lack of) knowledge of what it's like to be poor and where stigma comes from (other people and society itself, as it happens).

Arts and culture are not self-supporting, as we know. But there is no shame on their part, nor placed upon them, for not being able to earn their own way. Poor people often work like hell, for other people or in their own homes, with little recompense. Yet because they are not home-owners, or do not have the trappings of wealth, they are seen as less worthy. Shame on you, Margaret Atwood, for your attitude!

Atwood talks about the need to put more into technology, yet in another article (CBC, Sept 24, 2008), the controversial subject of funding of the Arts is taken up. But if all those talented workers in Arts and Culture were to experience financial hardship, perhaps some of the really bad attitudes towards the poor would change.

It seem to many people that there are plenty of jobs to go around if one has talent and the ability to do the work (even in Arts and culture, I wouldn't doubt) but the truth is there aren't enough decent jobs for people who deserve them and who could do them well. The threat of Culture cuts demonstrates this. I hope people can expand this line of reasoning to the general population, many of whom also are competent and able, but who may never get to do the work they wanted to do, and in fact may never again find employment.


Actors condemn Harper's culture cuts (see also 1015 comments by readers)
CBC News
September 24, 2008
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2008/09/24/artist-protests.html

Let's hope arts bashing just a pose (see also 38 comments)
By Martin Knelman
Toronto Star
Sep 29, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/507392 link no longer available
http://www.thestar.com/federalelection/article/507392--let-s-hope-arts-bashing-just-a-pose

Margaret Atwood's old-fashioned approach to debt
Sinclair Stewart, TORONTO
Globe and Mail
Sept 26, 2008, Last updated Tuesday, Mar. 31, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article712062.ece


Links updated Apr 24, 2012

Life at the top: Toronto and Hong Kong

The mention in this article of the "$25 million penthouse at One Bloor – which was sold to an unidentified Hong Kong buyer" (Sky's the limit for Four Seasons condo, Sept 21, 2008) reminds me of my grandfather, John L McPherson, who lived in Hong Kong for 30 years and for some time lived in the most privileged area - on 'The Peak', at that time reserved for Europeans, mainly, I believe, not the Chinese. I realize there must have been some hostility about these circumstances, but I have often thought that at least my grandfather was trying to do something beneficial for Hong Kong, spending 30 years there building up the YMCA. I would ask, at this point, in what ways are the buyers of these expensive properties in Toronto planning to make a difference in the lives of the people of Toronto and, more widely, of Ontario.


J. L. McPherson, Hong Kong YMCA: General Secretary 1905-1935

By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
2006
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/JLMcPhersonHKYMCA.html

Sky's the limit for Four Seasons condo
By Tony Wong, Business reporter
TO Star
Sept 21, 2008
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/503119


Links updated Apr 24, 2012

Times Higher Education's Critique of Wikipedia

University Philosophy lecturer Martin Cohen (also editor of The Philosopher) is critical of Wikipedia, says the UK's Times Higher Education (supplement). I have submitted my own comment to THE, as follows.

I'm sure Wikipedia is no more a dubious source than academia itself. It just happens to be a different source, with overlap here and there. Each of these, if anyone wants to concentrate on them, are political in their agendas and approaches. Having academics write or rewrite Wikipedia articles would do little good, and for the most part would consist of academics using their power to keep other people down. Wikipedia is meant to give ordinary people opportunities to write, as I understand it - though no original research is allowed! This does create a problem, of course, for researchers external to universities, who are fully capable of producing new research but who are not integrated into the academic community and able to have their research given recognition through publication in academic journals. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is no place for such people either. It's good that academia has some competition, even though Wikipedia doesn't provide the entire solution.


Added Apr 24, 2012

My comment didn’t get published by Times Higher. I still stand by what I said, four years later, though my views are not typical of those in the university environment.

As earlier piece I wrote for my blog is on this same topic. See ‘Now that’s power,’ May 11, 2008, also with my recent thoughts on it.


Encyclopaedia Idiotica
By Martin Cohen
THE
28 August 2008
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403327

Now That’s Power! Wikipedia and Representation of Marc Lepine and the Montreal Massacre
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
May 11, 2008
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2008/05/now-thats-power-wikipedia-and.html


Links updated Apr 24, 2012

Now That’s Power! Wikipedia’s Representation of Marc Lépine and the Montreal Massacre

The following is my request on the Wikipedia Discussion page to have the wording changed in its article on Ecole Polytechnique Massacre. The response I got, see below, suggests that "might is right", I think. Just as women eons ago were considered not worthy of working alongside men, so, apparently, if those whose pens now hold the (al)mighty truth are permitted to have their way, Marc Lepine’s actions may justly be considered 'representative’ of wider societal violence against women simply because they (Wikipedia) say so.

Marc Lepine's actions not representative of all violence against women - may 11, 2008 – comment Sue McPherson suemcp001

The third paragraph of the article mentions some of the interpretations placed on this tragedy, the main one being that it was an ‘antifeminist attack’ and that it was ‘representative of wider societal violence against women.’ The problem is that these killings, done by one man against women he did not know, were not representative of most violence against women, and certainly should never have been made to ‘represent’ them. Most violence against women is committed within a personal relationship, one partner against the other. Other reasons – interpretations – are given in the article, but the real reason, that Marc Lépine killed because he was not permitted to do the engineering program he felt entitled to, because places were being taken up by women, neglected to be mentioned in this paragraph, or anywhere in the article. I have written more about this Wikipedia article and placed it on my website. See list of references.
Filed in Wikipedia discussion on article, Ecole Polytechnique Massacre Suemcp001 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:École_Polytechnique_massacre


The response to my comment, from ‘Bearcat,’ a moderator on Wikipedia, is as follows:Whether you like the general media interpretation or not, discussing and debating it is not Wikipedia's role or responsibility. You can "respond" to our article on your website all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not Wikipedia's job to provide what you want. If you don't like it, write a letter to the editor of The Globe and Mail or the Montreal Gazette and get them to revise their understanding of what happened, because Wikipedia's role is to summarize what established media sources have already published about it. Putting together original research in a new way to question the existing interpretation of history is not only not our job, it's actually against the rules of the site. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Retrieved May 11, 2008, from the Discussion section of the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre.

Added Apr 23, 2012

It is now 4 years later, since this happened, when I tried to have the Wikipedia articles about Marc Lépine and the Montreal Massacre written in a more objective manner, including varied points of view and not simply the main feminist one and the more traditionally accepted viewpoints blaming Lépine’s parents and his own psyche for his determination to kill feminists.

Despite my efforts, I was not able to reach someone who would stand up to the other contributors, or to the biases of the moderators on Wikipedia, who had the authority to make sure the article was constructed properly, according to Wikipedia’s own ideals based on public collaboration.

Over the last 4 years more has been added to the Wikipedia articles, going against the emphatic claim made by ‘Bearcat’ (see comment above) that Wikipedia uses “established” sources - not *interpreting events of that day - simply reporting the facts. Yet as we can see, in the main article about the Montreal Massacre (now called the Ecole Polytechnique massacre), has even referred to Marc Lepine’s mother as having “wondered if the attack was not directed at her, as some would have considered her a feminist since she was a single, working mother.” Lépine’s father has often been given as a reason for the killings, and here, even the mother’s own self-doubt has been used to draw her into the foray. Both of these reasons, and some of the others, seems incomprehensible, especially as Lépine himself gave the reason for the attacks – he had expected he would go to engineering School and take up this male-reserved career, only to discover that the daughters of middle class citizens were now taking places traditionally reserved for men.

Even though I state this clearly in my essays on the Montreal Massacre, and it is what Lépine himself said in his suicide note, the fact that women were taking jobs and university places traditionally held for men was not given as a reason for the killings in the Wikipedia articles, nor any reference has been given to my work or to the website in general on the Montreal Massacre that I began in 2005, while living in England.

The suicide letter is another matter, its very authenticity in question. Despite the event happening over 20 years ago, no image of the original suicide note has ever been published. The only copy available to the public, according to what has been said about it, is the illicit copy leaked to feminist journalist Francine Pelletier one year after the attacks. At some point a translation was made of the original letter, written in French by Lépine, but the name of the translator remains elusive. So does his or her skill. Only 4 years ago, the English translation of the suicide note was still taken as truth, as noted in the Wikipedia articles on that time. But his year, 2012, supposed errors in translation have been reported (see suicide letter, 2012).

The first corrected ‘error’ in the 2012 version (date retrieved), changes the meaning of the sentence written by Lépine. The new version of this sentence makes it take on a negative meaning, as follows: “They are so opportunistic they [do not] neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages.” But the question at this time concerns the authenticity of the letter itself, since its origin is in doubt. How do we know that the suicide letter we have taken as truth is actually the truth and not an interpretation put on it by someone copying out the words to pass onto Ms Pelletier? At what point do we, the public, get to see a real image of the letter, not a transcript, as composed by Marc Lépine (in French) on the morning of the day he died?


École Polytechnique massacre on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89Ecole_Polytechnique_massacre
Retrieved Apr 22, 2012

Marc Lepine on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Lepine
Retrieved Apr 22, 2012

Marc Lépine’s suicide note
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2012_Dec_WikiMarcLepineSuicideNote.doc
Retrieved Apr 22, 2012

Montreal Massacre website
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/index.html


Links updated Apr 23, 2012

British comedian Johnny Vegas accused of crossing the line sexually

Johnny Vegas caused a furor the other day when he apparently went over the line in his stage show, leading to discomfort among the audience and to the woman he invited onto the stage. Bruce Dessau has commented on the behaviour, Evening Standard Apr 29, and part of my response is directed towards this: http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html .

I have some questions of my own, and some thoughts on all this. Were these the actions of a man experiencing the power of his position of authority, and did it go to his head? Did he ‘almost’ go over the edge intentionally - making it a question of poor judgement, or was this unintentional, his omnipotent self taking matters too far? I don’t see that much has come of this. Perhaps the stalwart admonition by Mary O'Hara (Guardian, May 1: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html ), naming it sexual assault, has led to this incident being covered up.

Sexual assault is a serious accusation to make, and the response to such a claim would have to be to either cover it up or deal with it. And who wants to do that? It’s too bad women have to jump in and make claims which on one level seem to be accusations, but on another are actually a way of getting the authorities to back off from investigating further. No one wants to be responsible for Johnny Vegas losing his career, and if feminist interference makes it an either/or situation, then better drop it altogether. Don’t risk people actually giving this situation some real thought. They might actually learn something about masculinity, power, and the grey area of sexuality, for men and for women. It’s not always easy for a woman to say No. Her upbringing, traditional norms, and simply being in a situation where she believes no harm will come to her because so many are watching, will all influence her way of responding to the situation. When she came off stage, finally, and was said to be looking as though she enjoyed the experience, could that have been euphoria at having escaped unharmed, relief that it was over, as well as feelings of excitement that she had been involved in this act on stage with the famous (infamous?) Johnny Vegas?

I wonder if reality television could have had an influence on Johnny’s behaviour, if this incident really did happen, having seen some of the actions other celebrities have engaged in, ‘on stage’ in Big Brother’s house – George Galloway, for one, and some sexual antics of other participants. Where does acting stop and the real person take over? Is access to power an excuse for behaving badly on stage? If Vegas's career is based on taking things to the edge, should some leeway be given to this error in judgement or intentional overstepping of power, if that's what happened? Is making an accusation in a national newspaper also a misuse of power? Should an article doing so be seen as an error in judgement on the part of the journalist or an intentional use of power?


Added Apr 20, 2012


Mary O’Hara did revise her article, changing the title and adding an additional paragraph, as follows:

* Johnny Vegas complained about this article. His solicitors have been in contact with the young woman from the audience who has told them that she went along with the joke willingly and did not feel intimidated, scared or abused during this performance.

My thoughts on this, four years later: When it comes to sexual matters, men’s mistakes in crossing boundaries or using their power to excess is often overlooked or covered up. It’s fairly normal behaviour for men, as they deal with their own sense of masculinity in a world that often denies them. As long as they have power – resources, male support or female support, they can get a second chance, and maybe more than that. It’s problematic that the women who support them the most, seeing their behaviour as nothing more than a storm in a teacup or even simply hilarious, can’t see any farther than that, or refuse to look any deeper. I know I wouldn’t have liked his behaviour, especially if it were done to me.

But this was just a comedy show, not as if it were a colleague or employer putting on a display of macho comedy and expecting admiration from all sides for it. This probably didn’t result in anyone being harassed for speaking out, or losing out on a career, and having to move away.

On the other hand, could the incident be compared to the actions of a medical doctor or a teacher, overstepping the bounds of his profession and sexualizing the doctor/patient (or teacher/student) relationship? As with the Johnny Vegas incident, there was a situation of unequal power, whereby the authority figure had the power to manipulate the other, asking her to put her trust in him while he performed certain actions, for reasons connected to the purpose of the interaction. At what point does the audience member on stage refuse to interact any more, while the eyes of the audience are upon her. Not wanting to make a scene, not wanting to appear naïve or lacking in humour, the girl may simply have waited it out, smiling, pretending it was all just fine. Aren’t there many occasions in life when women do just that – pretend it’s okay, watching to see what the others say or do, not really knowing, not wanting to make a fuss, but just conforming?


Did Johnny Vegas over-step the comedy mark?
By Colin Bostock-Smith
First Post
May 1, 2008
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/32522,features,did-johnny-vegas-overstep-the-comedy-mark not working
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/BostockSmithDidJohnnyVegas.doc

Johnny Vegas: A Gig Too Far?
By Bruce Dessau, Comedy Blog
Evening Standard Blogs
Apr 29, 2008
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2008_Apr_BruceDessauAGigTooFar.doc
See article comments at http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html

Johnny Vegas at the Bloomsbury theatre* (with note added)
originally titled ‘When is Sexual Assault Funny’
By Mary O'Hara
The Guardian
May 1, 2008
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html link not working
with new title, introduction and note added: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/01/gender.comedy


Links updated Apr 20, 2012