The Women’s March, social injustice, and personal experience

About a week ago a piece was written for the Washington Post that I found to be out of place in the Opinions section. I hesitate to provide the title of it, as it might automatically turn readers against me, for not viewing it with the sensitivity it requires, at least on one level. But here it is - the title 'My wife died just after Election Day. I'm attending the Women's March for her'. 

Death so often does necessitate the offering of condolences, ignoring errors in judgement or in practice, and just generally thinking of uplifting things to say. But then why would anyone choose to publish an obituary in the Opinions section of a newspaper?  Perhaps the reason was that it wasn’t an obituary in the usual sense. It was as much about the husband of the person who had died as about the deceased. And yet, scores of comments in the Comments section following the article were written in a manner that resembled condolences more than comments.

One might ask, was the article telling us the opinion of the writer on some social or political  - or economic  - issue? Not exactly, no, the writer appeared to be questioning his own sense of masculinity, in preparing to march in place of his deceased wife in the Saturday’s Women’s March, held in Washington and in places around the world, on Jan 21, 2017. Those who marched did so for a variety of reasons, many of the marchers no doubt being personally motivated, others marching for the rights of women who are marginalized in society, some having specific interests, such as abortion rights for women, violence against women, etc.

Mr Ikins’s wife suffered a tragic death, a fall down stairs, a coma, and finally, release through death. I can relate to that experience of having a fall. A year ago today I suffered a slip and fall, through which I broke my femur. Luckily  - I think – I survived, not having severed an artery and having a fast-acting, thoughtful neighbour, paramedics ready to do their bit, and an expert surgeon to care for my injury. Since then I have had to walk using a walker, but in a few days I will have the nails removed from the knee – nails that held the rod in place while the leg healed. So I am hoping for the best outcome. But by chance, my equilibrium – my sense of balance, experienced as a kind of giddiness, has affected my ability to walk normally too. Mr Ikins says that Nov 8 was the worst day of his life.  It was not a great day for me, either.

On November 8, 2016, I attended an appointment with an ENT (ear, nose and throat) specialist, to tell him about the symptoms I had been having, but found my concerns being dismissed by a specialist who was overbooked, overworked that day, no doubt, and who was not expecting this new set of symptoms. For some reason, he was also defensive, and spent far too much time explaining to me why he sent the last report to my old family doctor, the one I had laid a complaint against with the CPSO, and filed an application against with the Human Rights Tribunal.  I had realized the report went to that doctor, despite my requesting from his appointment taker/secretary that it not be, but it was anyway, in order to abide by the regulations. 

On my way in, I had asked the girl at his clinic front desk if the report could be sent to a different doctor this time, and she said she thought so, but to ask the doctor when I saw him, which I did. All this took precious time away from my concerns – of the balance issue – disequilibrium.  Finally, he offered me a partial VNG test (look it up). I agreed, and later, at home, looked up the test on google. I saw that I had been offered only a piece of the set of 4 tests, and so decided to try to get the tests I needed. To skip to the end of this story, the appointment-taker/secretary and the staff at the ENT clinic lied about me, and the ENT specialist cancelled the appointment I had with him. I am now left with no suitable options for a proper diagnosis nor for treatment options, nor to repair the damage to my reputation.  The only possible option I have, which won’t help my vestibular/vertigo problems, is to lay a complaint against this doctor too.

Returning to the article written by Charles Ikins, I have to say I question whether Charles Ikins’s perception of the reasons for the march were rather limited. He saw it as being for women who experience indignities of the kind Trump had presumably committed, the very reason his wife was protesting.  And he decided that it would not be unmasculine for him to march in place of his wife, to honour her beliefs and commitment.

For the most part, I believe the women’s march was about fighting for the rights of women, and especially marginalized women, women who do not get the same kinds of opportunities and treatment that other women do – some of them single women, poor women, women without husbands, black women, old women, and so on. The maintaining of rights of women – abortion, sexual rights, and so on, were also reasons women marched.

I thought that the Washington Post had used a grieving husband’s thoughts and piece honouring his wife as a political manoeuvering – publishing it on Trump’s Inauguration Day, the day before the women’s march. Taken on its own, as a piece intended for friends and family, the article could be seen as having merit. But published in the Washington Post, for the public to read, it came across as something very different.

Part way through the article, Mr Ikins mentions the admonition for participants to “check your privilege.” He says he thinks he knows the meaning of the phrase, and yet the article itself is an example of what the privileged should try not to do. Instead of seeing things through their own eyes only, and taking for granted the things they have, the material advantages in life, and seeing their own cause as the one most worthy, they might try to see what others experience in life.

It is part of the human condition for tragedy to strike families – all of us - tragedies that are not anyone's fault. That's not going to help the writer of the article talked about here, but it needs to be said. Furthermore, some people in life – women among them – struggle in ways the privileged might not even be able to imagine – and it is not always men who are responsible for the injustices.  Finally, I have reservations about the value of a Women’s March if President Trump is chosen to be the most recent scapegoat for feminists seeking to unite women over a cause - any cause – to enhance interest in the feminist movement.

Men are slow to show support for the Women's March. Is it considered unmasculine?

By Michael Alison Chandler

Washington Post - Opinions

Jan 12, 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/men-slow-to-show-support-for-the-womens-march/2017/01/09/17877ba4-d35d-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?utm_term=.55a6b6b5902f

My wife died just after Election Day. I’m attendingthe Women’s March for her

By Charles Ikins

Washington Post – Opinions

Jan 20, 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-wife-died-on-election-day-im-attending-the-womens-march-for-her/2017/01/20/e83c8092-df2d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.52db5f512fff&wpisrc=nl_opinionsA&wpmm

The Bonita Purtill impaired driving case: unanswered questions and other matters

Updated Nov 8, 2012    See additional information at end of article about the case of Brian Crockett, recently resolved in court, and how that relates to the Bonita Purtill case.

I recall being told, years ago, “Don’t think!”  I was not supposed to question what was said or done, or to have opinions of my own, or try to search out the truth. But, eventually, I did anyway. And now I think that it couldn’t be good if the bond that is formed with another person, or employer or community is on the basis of only one person’s point of view. Besides not being a solid foundation for a relationship, it isn’t beneficial for the community either, to achieve social harmony at the expense of fairness or compassion where it is needed. Not feeling free to express one’s views on a subject, but simply agreeing with the status quo and taking one’s frustrations out on the most vulnerable people out there isn’t the answer.

I grew up in Woodstock. I was married and raised my children here. My parents are buried here. This news item, the Bonita Purtill impaired driving case, struck a chord with me, and not because I have ever been charged with impaired driving.

As I read the articles and watched the videos about the car accident of October, 2008, in Woodstock, Ontario, and the impaired driving trial of Bonita Purtill, I saw mainly one viewpoint being expressed, and it appears to be largely Mary Rodrigues’s which has been picked up by the media and the police department, not to mention MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). As far as I can see, it is the only viewpoint that is granted legitimacy. My aim here is to delve into articles and other sources to try to better understand the situation of the woman, Bonita Purtill, who has been cast in such an unfavourable light by the ‘friendly city.’

The accident – and a comparable case 

I discovered that earlier articles about the Purtill impaired driving case aren’t readily available on the internet, so I am relying mainly on later news pieces, and on videos of Mary Rodrigues, one of the parents of the infant Alex Fleming who died in the accident. The other parent was Michael Fleming, who was also in the car driven by his wife Mary Rodrigues, along with her two other children, when it was struck by the pickup truck driven by Bonita Purtill on October 14, 2008.

The accident was described as a t-bone, but I did not manage to find an image of the event to see how much damage appeared to the human eye, or where the truck impacted the car – was it directly on both doors, or mainly on the front (driver’s side) door?  Most photos are of the infant that died, before the event, with a few of the driver of the pickup, and more, including videos, of the infant’s mother and family spokesperson Mary Rodrigues. But I haven’t seen any photos of the Ford Fusion.

Other details are included in witness testimony, for instance, that Mary Rodrigues had to be extricated from her car using the ‘jaws of life,’ though Michael Fleming was able to get his infant son out of his car seat, from the back seat behind the driver’s  (Witness testifies smelling alcohol, June 21, 2012).  Alex’s fragility, being less than 5 months old, was also a factor, contributing to his vulnerability in the case of an accident. Car accidents are the leading cause of death due to injury in children and infants. (Child passenger safety, Jan 10, 2012).  The need for proper placing of car seats is essential for any responsible parent (Bonita Purtill and MADD: random breath tests and other approaches to impaired driving, Sept 27, 2012).

Questioning why Purtill would have wanted to get out of the truck following the accident seemed to me to be irrelevant. Wouldn’t most people want to get out of the vehicle under such circumstances? What was meant by this line of questioning?

I am left with questions that remain unanswered. Particularly, as I watch the videos and other interview material with Mary Rodrigues, and the comments by others, I question the impartiality of the trial. I see not just a coldness towards the driver Bonita Purtill, but something that goes beyond that, a strength of feeling usually reserved towards those who have committed cold-blooded murder. Why citizens of Woodstock would feel “thrilled” at the verdict and sentencing I don’t know (article - Bonita Purtill guilty on all charges, June 29, 2012). This kind of emotion surely isn’t appropriate in this type of case. Is it right, or good, to feel joy or excitement at seeing another’s life end up in ruins? Or is it considered fair – an eye for an eye?  To me, this kind of community reaction, and comments by Mary Rodrigues, seem to reflect an attitude of revenge more than justice.

Another case of impaired driving that shares points of comparison with the Purtill case is that of Rob Ramage, former NHL hockey player and driver of the car that killed Keith Magnuson, another defenceman, on Dec 15, 2003. Photos of the cars involved are online, as part of news stories. The visual is often more effective at drilling home truths than any amount of words can be, if the aim is to shock readers who are at risk of drinking and driving (Don't send Ramage to jail,' victim's family pleads, Dec 18, 2007; Rob Ramage dazed, confused after fatal crash, Sept 17, 2007).

Dazed Drivers

Both Purtill and Ramage were described as being dazed following their respective accidents. Noted at the time (Rob Ramage barely reacted to deadly crash: paramedic, Sept 18, 2007), and later on at the trial (Rob Ramage dazed, confused after fatal crash, Sept 17, 2007) as being a normal response to the situation, according to Ramage’s lawyer: “Defence attorney Brian Greenspan has suggested Ramage’s confusion about his passenger was consistent with a person briefly losing consciousness in a crash” (Rob Ramage sorry for tragedy: police, Sept 20, 2007).

In the case of Bonnie Purtill, the cross-examination of Dr Ronald Robins, an emergency room Dr, revealed that “disorientation and a lack of focus could be caused by ‘medical shock’ caused by the collision” (Ex denies domestic violence, June 26, 2012). However, in the closing arguments, Assistant Crown attorney Steve Guiler argued that “no evidence was presented that Purtill's lack of coherence on the night of the crash was caused by medical issues” (Final arguments, different stories, June 28, 2012).  The Assistant Crown attorney seemed to be arguing that only medical evidence counts, and not that social factors, such as being in a bad accident, seeing the Jaws of Life at work, and generally feeling stressed about the whole event, including presumably having just been involved in a family argument, could influence quality of speech and comprehension, and steadiness (see defence attorney Peter Kratzmann, in ‘Final arguments, different stories,’ June 28, 2012).

The speed of the car may have contributed to shock caused by a crash in Ramage‘s case as he had been travelling fast, according to Dean Sequeiro and his father, Walter “when it crossed the centre line and clipped their vehicle before smashing into the Pathfinder” (Rob Ramage dazed, confused after fatal crash, Sept 17, 2007).

While Ramage’s car was said to be travelling at a high speed, says one witness to the 2003 accident, the car crossing the median “like a rocket” and smashing into oncoming vehicles (Ramage heads back to court, Feb 28, 2010). The pickup truck Bonita Purtill was driving was travelling at a speed of 52 kilometres per hour, according to Constable David Weber (Purtill napped in cruiser, arresting officer says June 24, 2012).  Furthermore, mechanic Jeff Masters, on inspection of both the Purtill pickup and Rodrigues’s Fusion, testified that both were “in good working condition, including brakes and tires. Both vehicles would have easily passed a safety inspection.”

The survivors 

I have seen next to nothing about Purtill that is unrelated to the claims she made or the trial itself. Any family, except for her daughter, is scarcely mentioned, and the daughter only referred to in passing, to note that she sat behind her mother throughout the trial (Bonita Purtill guilty on all charges, June 29, 2012).

Woodstock Police Chief Rod Freeman and Sgt. Marvin Massacar, the officer in charge of the case, acknowledged the emotional cost of the accident for all involved, Freeman saying “there are no winners in this at all,” and that “many people suffered, including the families of the victim and the family of the accused” (Bonita Purtill guilty on all charges, June 29, 2012).  I’m not so sure, however, that I agree with Freeman’s comment that “Certainly Alexander was the core victim” and “What I found is it just ripples out.”

Alex was the main accident victim, but placing him at the centre of the entire event may not be accurate. Trying to explain others’ emotional turmoil and life change as rippling out from Alex doesn’t even begin to capture the magnitude of the event and the different life changes each survivor will experience in years to come.

I don’t imagine Rob Ramage sees the experience he has been through as a mere ripple. Rather, he is usually placed at the centre, while the victim of his accident – Keith Magnusson - has ended up in the margins. It’s only because Alex was a baby, and our society adores babies, traditionally seeing their lives as most important of all, that he has been raised to this status in Woodstock, everything else being seen as secondary.

The impaired driving case of NHL hockey player Rob Ramage, originating in the 2003 accident, has focused mainly on Ramage and his future, at least in the media. Justice David Doherty remarked about Ramage, “ . . .this is a person who – it's not just that he's been a law-abiding citizen. He's been a remarkable citizen in many ways. And, if you look at sentencing in a human way ... why doesn't that (history) drive it to the low end?” (Judges question Rob Ramage's sentence, Mar 2, 2010).  In response, I would suggest that this kind of logic leads to a two-tiered legal or punitive system based on status in society. It’s unfair if some people can have their sentences minimized, while those lacking family and community support, or career status, have to serve the full sentence. If the laws seem too harsh for some individuals, then they are too harsh for a good many others too. It may be more noticeable when someone who plays hockey for a living is expected to serve time, but the ordinary person who loses his job, and perhaps his home, is also hard done by under similar circumstances.

The effect of Rob Ramage’s conviction for impaired driving on his life and his family as well as on the accident victim’s family has been mentioned time and time again. Ramage was placed at the centre of the unfortunate event, due to his fame as a Canadian hockey player. Not only did his passenger, Keith Magnuson, die in the accident but Michelle Pacheco, the driver of another vehicle, also received serious injuries in the crash. Despite this, Ramage received much support and empathy, his lawyer, Brian Greenspan, adding that Magnuson's widow had called Ramage to give him her support” (Ramage found guilty in Magnuson's death, Oct 10, 2007). The family of the victim who died has forgiven Ramage, the fact he was a friend travelling in the same car making a difference, and not a complete stranger, as Bonita Purtill was to Mary Rodrigues and family (Rob Ramage appeals conviction, sentence in crash that killed Keith Magnuson, Feb 28, 2010). And as Morris Dalla Costa writes, “When he got behind the wheel, he changed the lives of many people forever” (Ramage can't escape agony of his actions, Aug 30, 2011).

Purtill, and the effect of the accident on her life, have been pushed to the sidelines, while Baby Alex takes centre stage in the aftermath of the tragedy. In a video filmed by reporters following the sentencing of Bonita Purtill, in Woodstock, Mary Rodrigues is interviewed about her thoughts on her family and Purtill’s apology (Bonita Purtill's Sentencing – video, Sept 19, 2012). While Rodigues continues to interpret Purtill’s thoughts and intentions (on apologising and apparent lack of remorse), and focuses on her own family, Purtill and her family are left seeing their own life tragedies as somehow hardly meaningful at all, except to be used as an example to others by MADD (MADD stood by Baby Alex’s family, July 5, 2012), and by the police (CTV News London Tonight at 6, Sentencing of Bonita Purtill, Sept 19, 2012).

Trial delays 

Four years may seem like a long time from the time of the accident to the end of the trial, but it was that long with the Rob Ramage case too (2003-3007) and not just the Bonita Purtill case (2008-2012). According to Steve Simmons, writing on the Ramage case (Justice system stalled in Ramage case, Sept 12, 2006), Ramage’s lawyer Brian Greenspan may have been working on another case during this time, but other than that, there seemed to be no explanation. The reason given for the delays in the Purtill case were that she changed lawyers – more than once – and thus was unprepared (Woodstock Family must wait for justice, Dec 6, 2010; Woodstock trial delayed again, Oct 18, 2011).

The judge, Superior Court Justice Thomas Heeney, questioned Purtill, saying, “Why is it you waited until the 11th hour to fire your lawyer?”, to which Purtill responded, “It took this long for it to become clear to me; I needed other representation for the trial” (Another delay dismays victims, Sept 9, 2011). Whether this was seen as a legitimate response or not – or even a proper line of questioning – is hard to judge, and it would be impossible for readers to know the circumstances surrounding the firing of the lawyers. Rob Ramage, whose case also took four years to come to a verdict stage, had two high profile lawyers - Brian Greenspan and Seth Weinstein - looking after his concerns.

Later, the reason for further delay of the Purtill trial was a pressing murder trial that was being held – the Robinson murder of Clifford Fair (Trial set for woman charged in death of Baby Alex, Nov 7, 2011). Tara Bowie elaborated on problems that year, saying, “Although many cases came to an end, it was year of appearances, delays and legal wrangling for three of the highest profile cases in Oxford County history (The verdict on 2011, Dec 29, 2011). Circumstances – and chance – led to Bonita Purtill and the family of the baby, Alex, being caught up in the middle of all this.

Meanwhile, the mother of Alex, the baby who died, expressed her frustration: “It’s been three years . . . I can’t imagine why it’s taking so long, Everything is based on her. Where is Alex in all of this?” (Another delay dismays victims, Sept 9, 2011).

Separating the legal from the emotional

Having to rely on news reports of what happened doesn’t provide a thorough account of events, and the Purtill case, as reported to the public, is lacking in details necessary for understanding. What’s more, from appearances, there may have been a lack in the information provided to the judge.  See as follows:

“In sentencing Purtill to six years and eight months in prison, Justice Kelly Gorman noted the author of a pre-sentence report wrote Purtill insisted on minimizing and justifying her actions and failed to take full responsibility for the offence, which she found very troubling”  (Six years, eight months for Purtill, Sept 19, 2012; Purtill sentenced to six years, eight months, Sept 19, 2012).

Since Justice Kelly used the pre-sentence report in determining the sentence, I believe it would be useful and fairer to know who wrote it, and what exactly was meant by these statements.  Are the authors of pre-sentence reports required to sign their names to their work? Is it their job to interpret the intentions of the defendant? Purtill isn’t the first person to plead not guilty and offer an explanation, while still feeling remorseful for harm caused.

Rob Ramage also fought his conviction, and the means by which he was found to be impaired (Rob Ramage appeals conviction, sentence in crash that killed Keith Magnuson, Feb 28, 2010), while also declaring much remorse for his actions, and yes, even taking full responsibility for what happened (Killer drunk driver Rob Ramage granted parole from prison, May 8, 2011).  The behaviours – or claims –  were not seen by all as being contradictory in his case; instead, they were seen as normal under the circumstances, or perhaps attributed to him at different points in the complicated process. It is possible for a person to be sorry for having caused another’s death, and offer to take responsibility for it, yet still want to spend as little time in prison as necessary for having done so (Ramage can't escape agony of his actions, Aug 30, 2011).

Not everyone agrees with this way of looking at it, however. Brian Thiel examines this in more detail, asking “Why does the “forgiveness factor” weigh so heavily in these proceedings? It's astounding that the families found the strength to forgive those who broke the law  . . .  But the point remains: These people broke the law. Why shouldn't they have to serve some kind of sentence?” (Rummaging Through Rob Ramage's Suit, Jan 18, 2008).

It’s mainly in the Bonita Purtill case that the complexities raised due to the demands of the law and one’s personal feelings become problematic, as signs that she was not truly remorseful. The victim’s mother, Mary Rodrigues, said she tried to help Purtill understand “all the pain, anger and grief we have been going through . . . then maybe she would get a better understanding of what life has been like since. But I feel like it wouldn’t matter one bit to her at all.” If it seems that way it may be because Purtill‘s own life is in such turmoil that she is unable to give Rodrigues the attention she seeks (Six years, eight months for Purtill, Sept 19, 2012).  Moreover, due to legal aspects of the case, apparently Purtill was not permitted to make contact with the Rodrigues-Fleming family (Six years, eight months for Purtill, Sept 19, 2012).

Police Chief Rod Freeman, viewing Purtill’s sentence as being at “the high end of the spectrum” is reported as saying, “I think it’s very appropriate due to the depth of the tragedy. I do believe it’s a significant sentence,” adding, “How do you achieve satisfaction for the loss of a four-month-old? The deepest part of the tragedy is that a baby’s life was lost” (Six years, eight months for Purtill, Sept 19, 2012).  It was tragic that a baby’s life was lost, but does this mean that if it had been an adult that had been killed in the accident that it wouldn’t have mattered quite as much?

Labelling

In Sept, 2012, the trial behind him, Woodstock Police Chief Rod Freeman, co-chair of Safe Communities Woodstock, talked about the previous four years for Woodstock, saying how challenging they had been, and mentioning the three major crimes – “the drunk driving death of Baby Alex Fleming, the murder and dismemberment of Clifford Fair, and the abduction and murder of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford” (Putting tragedy behind Woodstock, and safety in front, Sept 24, 2012). I’m sure, from previous comments, that nothing was meant by this except that they were all serious crimes, but from the perspective of Bonita Purtill, it might seem that she is being placed in the same category as murderers.

Perpetuating the analogy are the remarks of Mary Rodrigues, who has a new friend in the mother of Tori Stafford. “Tara and I have found great support with each other,” she says, adding, “You don't ever want to meet someone whose child was killed because it is not something you would even want to wish upon your worst enemy. But that is what happened to both of us and it's nice to have that extra support” (Woodstock Family must wait for justice, Dec 6, 2010). But rather than identify completely with someone whose child was murdered, it would also be more accurate to acknowledge that it was an accident that killed the infant Alex, not that he was intentionally killed as Tori Stafford was.

Purtill has been labelled a “convicted killer” by the press (see CTV News London Tonight at 6 - video, Sept 19, 2012), and “impaired killer” (Impaired Killer Sentenced – video, Sept 19, 2012).  The only mention I saw of Rob Ramage that was overtly negative in this manner was on the website Cancrime, where Ramage is referred to in the title as “killer drunk driver,” though not in the article itself (Killer drunk driver Rob Ramage granted parole from prison, May 8, 2011).

While using the term ‘killer’ might be proper according to the dictionary definition, the word does imply intent as well as continuity, in other words, the expectation that the person will kill again. Purtill, or Ramage, could even be serial impaired drivers, but that doesn’t make them murderers.

After the trial of Bonita Purtill ended, Rodrigues spoke of her other children, saying, “As far as they know, a woman killed baby Alex, and now we get to go home and tell them that she’s never going to hurt us anymore” (Baby Alex's Family, Police Relieved at Guilty Verdict, June 29, 2012). For them to hear Bonita Purtill being spoken of as being in the same category as the murderer Michael Rafferty would make them fearful, no doubt, if the same language were used in front of them. It implies that Purtill was lying in wait for the baby Alex. It implies intent, and it implies Purtill might try it again, if she were to be released from prison.  This distorted use of language, if it had an effect on the Rodrigues-Fleming children as well as on the community, could only lead to increased anxiety and fear for those who take it to heart, rather than see Purtill was what she is, a woman who drove drunk, and by accident killed someone – a baby.

Verdict – guilty as charged

Both Bonita Purtill and Rob Ramage were found guilty as charged, Purtill of 6 charges, “impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, and refusing to provide a breath sample” (Baby Alex's Family, Police Relieved at Guilty Verdict, June 29, 2012). Ramage was found guilty of  5 charges, “impaired driving causing death, impaired driving causing bodily harm, two counts of dangerous driving causing death and having a blood-alcohol level over the legal limit” (Hockey captain found guilty – video, Oct 11, 2007).

In another piece published the same day as the Purtill verdict, Adam J. Nyp reports what was said about the difference between criminal negligence and dangerous driving:

“In dealing with the counts relating to impaired driving causing the death of 4-month-old Alex Fleming and bodily harm suffered by Mary Rodrigues, the jury’s main question is: Was Ms. Purtill’s ability to operate a motor vehicle impaired?
 . . .On the Criminal Negligence counts, it is defined as the reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others. It's more than just carelessness, it’s a “substantial departure from what a reasonable person would do.” And it can be that she was either aware of this recklessness, or, she simply gave no thought of what risk existed.
 . . .Justice Gorman told the jury [it] can find Purtill not guilty of Criminal Negligence, but guilty of a lesser charge of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm. Or, they could find her not guilty of both.
 . . .The final two counts that deal with refusing to provide a breath sample, one of them deals with the fact that a death or serious injury was caused by the crash. The question here is whether Purtill was aware the crash she caused had harmed or killed someone” (Deliberations Underway in Purtill Trial, June 29, 2012).

I question why Purtill was led away in leg shackles as well as handcuffs when she was found to be guilty of the charges, and then when she was sentenced (see Impaired Killer Sentenced - video, Sept 19, 2012). Was it feared that she might abscond and leave the area or the country – do a ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ to support herself, but without the Clyde? I haven’t read about her background, or her current situation, or where she might have other friends or family besides her daughter. Really, was that the reason she was shackled, because she might have run away?

In another case of impaired driving, in Toronto, Jose Lugo-Alonso, a Cuban cigar executive, was sentenced to two years in prison, after which time he will be deported back to Cuba. He wasn’t wearing handcuffs or leg shackles (and presumably he didn’t disappear on route to prison), but I wonder how a judge determines who needs to be shackled and who can exit the court house at least appearing respectable and dignified (Impaired driver gets 2 years for injuring cyclist, Jan 06, 2012). Lugo-Alonso expressed “genuine remorse for the accident,” and offered a written apology which was accepted by the injured cyclist, who said in the video, “I don't doubt that he feels remorse. He’s a human being. The problem is when we get to the point when people are apologizing and there’s a criminal charge it’s too late in the game”  (Cyclist speaks out following drunk driving crash, Jan 9, 2012).

Apology and forgiveness

Bonita Purtill apologised to the family of the infant, Alex, just before being sentenced by the judge (Six years, eight months for Purtill, Sept 19, 2012). She is reported to have said, “As a mother I cannot fathom the pain you feel, that I’m responsible for. . . I humbly pray that someday I can earn your forgiveness for the selfish choices I made.” Purtill probably says “someday” with the realization that earning Rodrigues’s forgiveness isn’t going to happen all at once, if it is a possibility at all, and probably can’t happen while she is in prison.

Purtill claims she had been unable to state her feelings in public before this, saying she was banned from contacting the family as a condition of her bail. Now, at this time, she tells them, “I desperately wanted to tell you how deeply sorry I am from the depth of my tortured soul” (Six years, eight months for Purtill, Sept 19, 2012).

Despite this attempt to show her remorse, her apology wasn’t accepted by Rodrigues, the mother of the infant who died (see Bonita Purtill's Sentencing – video, Sept 19, 2012). The reasons seem to have to do with an apparent lack of sincerity as perceived by Rodrigues, probably combined with the fact that Purtill pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Rob Ramage also pleaded not guilty to the charges facing him, while at the same time expressing remorse, but that didn’t make a difference to those who saw it as an accident, and unintentional. Those who supported him – his family, Magnuson’s family, friends, community, and other hockey players –  let it be known that they were sympathetic (Don't send Ramage to jail,' victim's family pleads, Dec 18, 2007; Ramage verdict shocks former teammates, Oct 10, 2007).

On the day he was found guilty of the charges of “impaired driving causing death, impaired driving causing bodily harm, two counts of dangerous driving causing death and having a blood-alcohol level over the legal limit” Ramage said, “It is a tragedy for all involved, including my family” (Rob Ramage found guilty of 5 charges, Oct 11, 2007).  As far as I know, Purtill didn’t get to tell how the tragedy has affected her life and her family’s. For the most part, for the community of Woodstock it was a one-sided tragedy only.

A piece by Ian Gillespie delves into the tragedy from the point of view of Mary Rodrigues (Infant's death hurts a year later, Oct 9, 2009), in the same kind of way that writers might examine the life of Rob Ramage from a sympathetic perspective (Ramage can't escape agony of his actions, Aug 30, 2011).  In another piece, Randy Richmond almost achieves a sensitive approach to Bonita Purtill’s situation, but not quite  (Surviving in a dark hole at EMDC, Sept 21, 2012). Too many articles have already influenced the lens through which Purtill is viewed. Richmond writes, “The remorse she finally showed Wednesday did not impress reporters who followed her case from the beginning.” Neither, apparently, did her story of having been in a ‘domestic violence incident’ that day. But it wasn’t the case that reporters were following; they appeared to be following Mary Rodrigues, whose confidence, determination, and charisma have attracted followers from all walks of life.

Conclusion

Mary Rodrigues talks about her feelings after seeing Purtill brought into court, saying, “It's kind of sad to say, but a little bit of satisfaction. You know, that she’s not out there hurting anybody else. I guess that’s the price you pay for what she did” (Purtill Sentencing Pushed Back 10 Days), Sept 7, 2012.

While the Rob Ramage trial was still in progress, Ramage’s lawyers, Greenspan and Weinstein, said that nothing would be accomplished by imprisoning him and suggested that he get to travel around North America, talking to students about the dangers of drinking and driving. The judge, however, felt that jailing him would be a more effective way of bringing home that message to the public. (Ramage heads back to court, Feb 28, 2010).

In May, 2012, Rob Ramage passed a marker in his return to a normal life, being granted full parole (Former Leaf captain granted full parole, May 18, 2012). Meanwhile, MADD has been intent on making changes to laws on parole, after Ramage’s early parole privileges resulted in him serving only 10 months of a four-year sentence (Review sentences: MADD, May 06, 2011).  And more news: Patrick Callahan reports that Ramage will not be returning to his job as assistant coach for the London Knights (Bench boogie, July 3, 2012).  More recently, Ramage spoke at a Mission Services recovery breakfast about the effect on his life (NHL's Rob Ramage gives moving speech at recovery breakfast, Sept 27, 2012).

MADD now has a new poster child for impaired drivers, the infant Alexander who died in the impaired driving accident which involved Bonita Purtill. Alex, referred to as ‘Baby Alex’ can be seen posing with his spokesperson mother in Scene magazine (MADD stood by Baby Alex’s family, July 5, 2012).

After being convicted, Bonita Purtill was led off, handcuffed and shackled, to await sentencing, a reminder to others of what could happen to them. Rodrigues continues to interpret Purtill’s feelings, or more precisely, to claim she has none, saying “The way she’s been acting in court this week, and last week in court - she has no emotion whatsoever. No emotion. It’s like she has no regrets for what she’s done” (‘Alex was killed by an impaired driver,’ QMI Video, July 2, 2012).

On the final day in court, September 19, 2012, Purtill was sentenced, to 7 years in prison minus 4 months served time. As she is led away, again with handcuffs and legs shackled, we can hear a voice calling out to her, I love you mom (Bonita Purtill's Sentencing – video, Sept 19, 2012).

Additional information: added Nov 8, 2012

Another case of impaired driving from the same community - Woodstock, Ontario - that of Brian Crockett, Crown attorney, has raised interest in the local newspapers after Crockett was fined for (convicted of?) impaired driving in August, 2012. Sun News published the same article in two different communities, drawing comments from readers about the two Woodstock cases – Brian Crockett’s and Bonita Purtill’s, and the treatment each one received (See Oxford Crown attorney Brian Crockett pleads guilty to impaired driving, London Free Press, Nov 7, 2012; Oxford Crown attorney Brian Crockett pleads guilty to impaired driving, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, Nov 7, 2012).


Note: Comments are welcomed!
If any links are incorrect or not working  - or missing, I would appreciate hearing about it.

Sue McPherson
s.a.mcpherson @ sympatico.ca

List of References

‘Alex was killed by an impaired driver,’ QMI Video, Article By Heather Rivers, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, July 2, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/06/29/alex-was-killed-by-an-impaired-driver

Another delay dismays victims, By Heather Rivers, QMI Agency, London Free Press, Sept 9, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/09/09/18662406.html

Baby Alex's Family, Police Relieved at Guilty Verdict, 1047 Heart FM News, June 29, 2012
http://1047.ca/local-news/36610

Bench boogie, By Patrick Callan, The London Free Press, July 3, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/sports/knights/2012/07/03/19947536.html

Bonita Purtill and MADD: random breath tests and other approaches to impaired driving, By Sue McPherson, Sue’s Views on the News, Sept 27, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2012/09/bonita-purtill-and-madd-random-breath.html

Bonita Purtill guilty on all charges - article, By Heather Rivers, Woodstock Sentinel Review, June 29, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/06/29/bonita-purtill-guilty-on-all-charges

Bonita Purtill's Sentencing – video, Heart FM News, Sept 19, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPmvigkQz6Y

Child passenger safety, Safe Kids Canada, Jan 10, 2012
http://www.safekidscanada.ca/Professionals/Safety-Information/Child-Passenger-Safety/Index.aspx

CTV News London Tonight at 6 – video, Sentencing of Bonita Purtill, You Tube, Sept 19, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tuhDU-aqTY&feature=related . Retrieved  Oct 3, 2012

Cyclist speaks out following drunk driving crash, By Ashleigh Smollet, CityNews.ca, Jan 9, 2012
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/179569
Video - http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/video/179572

Deliberations Underway in Purtill Trial, By Adam J. Nyp, 1047 Heart FM News, June 29, 2012
http://1047.ca/local-news/36608

  Don't send Ramage to jail,' victim's family pleads, Bob Mitchell, Staff Reporter, Toronto Star, Dec 18, 2007
http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/article/286639---don-t-send-ramage-to-jail-victim-s-family-pleads

Ex denies domestic violence, QMI Agency, London Free Press, Tuesday, June 26, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/06/26/19920261.html

Final arguments, different stories, By Heather Rivers, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, Brantford Expositor, June 28, 2012. http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2012/06/28/final-arguments-different-stories

Former Leaf captain granted full parole, By Joe Fantauzzi, Yorkregion.com, May 18, 2012
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1358670--former-leaf-captain-granted-full-parole

Hockey captain found guilty, By Michael Dick, CBC News, You tube video, Oct 11, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRR-BFLbKkI

Impaired driver gets 2 years for injuring cyclist, By Peter Small. The Star, Jan 06, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1111631--impaired-driver-gets-2-years-for-injuring-cyclist

Impaired Killer Sentenced – video, Cristina Howorun, CTV London, Sept 19, 2012
http://www.ctvlondon.ca/tag/bonita-putrill/. Retrieved Oct 12, 2012

Infant's death hurts a year later, By Ian Gillespie, London Free Press, Oct 9, 2009
http://www.lfpress.com/news/columnists/ian_gillespie/2009/10/09/11353546-sun.html

Judges question Rob Ramage's sentence, By Tracey Tyler, Legal Affairs Reporter, The Star, Mar 2, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/773616--judges-question-rob-ramage-s-sentence

Justice system stalled in Ramage case, By Steve Simmons, Toronto Sun, Sept 12, 2006
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Simmons/2006/09/12/pf-1829637.html

Killer drunk driver Rob Ramage granted parole from prison, By Rob, CanCrime.com, May 8, 2011
http://www.cancrime.com/2011/05/08/killer-drunk-driver-rob-ramage-granted-parole-from-prison/

MADD stood by Baby Alex’s family, Scene Magazine p 6, July 5, 2012
http://scenemagazine.com/portals/0/pdf/web670.pdf

NHL's Rob Ramage gives moving speech at recovery breakfast, Mission Services of London, Sept 27, 2012. http://missionservices.ca/news/nhls-rob-ramage-gives-moving-speech-at-recovery-breakfast/

Oxford Crown attorney Brian Crockett pleads guilty to impaired driving

Woodstock Sentinel-Review Staff
London Free Press
Wednesday, Nov 7, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/2012/11/06/oxford-crown-attorney-brian-crockett-leads-guilty-to-impaired-driving
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2012_Nov_LFP_OxfordCrown_AttorneyBrianCrockett.doc includes the 46 comments made to the article in the LFP

Oxford Crown attorney Brian Crockett pleads guilty to impaired driving
Woodstock Sentinel-Review Staff
Woodstock S-R
Wednesday, Nov 7, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/11/06/oxford-crown-attorney-brian-crockett-pleads-guilty-to-impaired-driving
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2012_Nov_SR_OxfordCrownAttorneyBrianCrockett.doc includes the 31 comments made to the article in the SR

Purtill napped in cruiser, arresting officer says, By Tara Bowie, Wooodstock Sentinel Review. June 24, 2012. http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/06/22/purtill-napped-in-cruiser

Purtill sentenced to six years, eight months, By Heather Rivers, Woodstock SR, Sept 19, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/09/19/update-purtill-sentenced-to-six-years-eight-months

Purtill Sentencing Pushed Back 10 Days, By Adam J Nyp, 1047 Heart FM, Sept 7, 2012
http://1047.ca/local-news/38023

Putting tragedy behind Woodstock, and safety in front, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, Sept 24, 2012. http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/09/24/putting-tragedy-behind-woodstock-and-safety-in-front

Ramage can't escape agony of his actions, By Morris Dalla Costa, QMI Agency, Toronto Sun, Aug 30, 2011. http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/30/ramage-cant-escape-agony-of-his-actions

Ramage found guilty in Magnuson's death, By Bob Mitchell, The Star, Oct 10, 2007
http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/265490--ramage-found-guilty-in-magnuson-s-death

Ramage heads back to court, By Tracey Tyler, The Star, Feb 28, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/773041--ramage-heads-back-to-court

Ramage verdict shocks former teammates, By Allan Maki, Globe and Mail, Oct 10, 2007, updated Apr 03, 2009. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/ramage-verdict-shocks-former-teammates/article1084350/


Review sentences: MADD, By Joe Fantauzzi, Yorkregion.com, May 06, 2011
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/1004401--review-sentences-madd


Rob Ramage appeals conviction, sentence in crash that killed Keith Magnuson, By Frank Gunn, Canadian Press, The Hockey News, Feb 28, 2010. http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/31805-Rob-Ramage-appeals-conviction-sentence-in-crash-that-killed-Keith-Magnuson.html

Rob Ramage barely reacted to deadly crash: paramedic, The Canadian Press, CBC Sports, Sept 18, 2007
 http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/09/18/nhl-hockey-ramage.html

Rob Ramage dazed, confused after fatal crash, Canadian Press, CBC Sports, Sept 17, 2007
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/09/17/nhl-ramage-trial.html

Rob Ramage found guilty of 5 charges, CBC Sports, Oct 11, 2007
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/10/10/ramage-trial-verdict.html

Rob Ramage sorry for tragedy: police, The Canadian Press, CBC Sports, Sept 20, 2007
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/09/20/ramage-tradegy.html

Rummaging Through Rob Ramage's Suit, By Bryan Thiel (Senior Writer), Bleacher Report, Jan 18, 2008
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/6942-rummaging-through-rob-ramages-suit

Six years, eight months for Purtill, London Free Press, Sept 19, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/2012/09/19/six-years-eight-months-for-purtill

Surviving in a dark hole at EMDC, By Randy Richmond, London Free Press, Woodstock Sentinel Review, Sept 21, 2012. http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/09/21/surviving-in-a-dark-hole-at-emdc

Trial set for woman charged in death of Baby Alex, By Tara Bowie, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, Nov 7, 2011. http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2011/11/07/trial-set-for-woman-charged-in-death-of-baby-alex

The verdict on 2011, By Tara Bowie, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, Dec 29, 2011
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2011/12/29/the-verdict-on-2011

Witness testifies smelling alcohol, Brantford Expositor, June 21, 2012
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2012/06/21/witnesses-testify-smelling-alcohol

Woodstock family must wait for justice, By Carla Garrett, Brantford Expositor, Dec 6, 2010
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2010/12/06/woodstock-family-must-wait-for-justice

Woodstock trial delayed again, QMI Agency, Oct 18, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/10/18/18840781.html

Bonita Purtill and MADD: random breath tests and other approaches to impaired driving

The accident that killed young Alex Fleming, of Woodstock, Ontario, the infant son of Mary Rodrigues and Michael Fleming, was a tragedy for the family and their community. Bonita Purtill, the driver of the pickup that had broadsided their car on October 12, 2008, pleaded not guilty to “impaired driving and criminal negligence in the death of four-month-old Alex Fleming, impaired driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence to Alex’s mother Mary Rodrigues and refusing to provide a breath sample to police” (Jury selected in Bonita Purtill trial, June 18, 2012).

Purtill received one year for refusing to take the breath test – a criminal offense - to be served consecutively (ie following the sentence for the impaired driving). The shorter sentence was included in the total jail time of 7 years minus time served, leaving 6 years, 8 months (MADD Canada praises Purtill sentence, Sept 20, 2012).

There appeared to be immense relief at Ms Purtill being found guilty, in part because it was an infant that died in the accident, and in part due to attitudes towards the combination of ‘drinking’ and ‘driving’ (Final arguments, different stories, June 28, 2012). Taken separately, each of these activities is legal to engage in, but put them together - as drunk driving - and public tolerance for them changes, possibly largely due to the efforts of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers).

Random breath testing

According to Andrew Murie, Canada’s CEO for MADD, “more than 100,000 charges related to impaired driving are laid across Canada each year. . . That's the people who get caught,” he said. “So there is a whole bunch of people who don’t. You can do it for a long period of time before you get caught” (MADD Canada praises Purtill sentence, Sept 20, 2012). Mr Murie also reminded readers that MADD Canada was advocating for the law to allow police to demand random breath tests in spot checks; I would add, the idea seems to be to do away with having to show good reason for exerting their authority in this manner.

Intended to save lives and prevent injuries, the random compulsory breath tests, carried out at checkpoints, would increase “the chances of stopping, charging and convicting a drunk driver” (MADD mothers push for random breath testing, May 09, 2012). Thus random breath testing is somewhat different from the RIDE program.

In Ontario, RIDE (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere), is described by lawyer Tushar K Pain as including “a provincial spot-check enforcement campaign started in 1977,” in which all cars crossing the checkpoint would be stopped and questioned (Ontario’s Drinking and Driving Laws Often Misunderstood, Sept 18, 2011). After questioning, those drivers seemingly not under the influence would be let go without having to take a breath test. On the other hand, the proposed “random breath test” spot check, Mr Murie of MADD is reported as saying, “would allow police at roadblocks to conduct about three times as many breathalyzer tests because they would not need to spend time determining whether there is “reasonable” suspicion a driver has been drinking” (Canada Contemplates Random Breath Tests, Oct 7, 2009).

Although there is currently a RIDE program in effect in Ontario that nabs impaired drivers, there seems to be more opposition towards the idea of a random, compulsory breath test program than RIDE. I added the word compulsory to the description as I felt it more accurately described what the reluctance was for members of the public in embracing random breath testing. The problem could be about living in a coercive state environment in which one’s right to freedom is being taken away.

One other aspect of the proposed ‘random breath test,’ as I understand it, is that the randomness of the method involves an approach based on luck, eg one in ten car drivers will be tested, rather than RIDE’s method of questioning everyone who gets stopped at the checkpoint but only breathalizing those who fail to convey the impression of being under the limit or who are believed when they say, Only one, officer.

In practice, however, how likely could it be for a driver to say, I’m a doctor and I’m in a hurry, in the random test situation, and being permitted to drive through without being tested? What controls will be set in place, and what loopholes will remain? Who is likely to be most affected? Which kind of breath testing would be fairer to most citizens, regardless of occupation or social status according to make and year of car? For more views on this topic, see in the list following, ‘Debate: Random sobriety tests for drivers.’

Related legal cases

Another local case of driving while impaired is that of Brian Crockett, Crown Attorney of Oxford county, who was arrested in Woodstock Ontario, on charges of impaired driving, on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012. Like Bonita Purtill, Crockett refused to take a breathalizer test. His case is due in court on October 2, 2012 (Crown named in Crockett court case, Sept 11, 2012).

In yet another case, in which impairment due to drinking was at first suspected, suprisingly the accused was not asked to provide a breath sample. The case was that of Michael Bryant, former Attorney-general of Ontario, who was involved in an altercation with a cyclist/courier, Darcy Sheppard, who tragically died that day, August 31, 2009 (Michael Bryant relives deadly encounter with cyclist in ‘28 Seconds,’ Aug 21, 2012).

The police officer responding to the Bryant-Sheppard incident took one look at the severity of the situation and asked Byant how many drinks he had had, but in the end, Bryant was not required to take a breath test. From Macleans magazine, in Bryant’s own words:

“The constable promptly manhandled me around to a spot in front of his squad car. He started pushing and poking me. He said I was in a lot of trouble. He kept asking how much I’d had to drink. In five different ways, he asked me if I’d imbibed. I told him I didn’t drink alcohol, period. ‘Yeah, okay,’ he scoffed” (The 28 seconds that changed my life, Aug 22, 2012).

Michael Bryant was arrested and charged with dangerous driving causing death and negligence causing death. Several months later, in May, 2010, the charges were withdrawn. In August, 2012, the book Bryant wrote, on the 28 seconds that changed his life, was released (The 28 seconds that changed my life, Aug 22, 2012).

There has been public protest to Bryant’s book and to the way the case was handled (see Michael Bryant book launch sparks protest, Sept 06, 2012). The one who had been drinking in this catastrophe was the cyclist who lost his life, and the one driving was the recovering, though apparently sober alcoholic, making it more difficult to label one side clearly in the wrong and the other side obviously right. Yet that was what was done. Even in death, Sheppard was made to take the blame, while Bryant got off completely, in the legal sense at least.

Drinking and driving – our history and culture

Where there actually is an impaired driver involved in an accident, it is easier to place blame. In other words, it is the alcohol that is being blamed, and the driver for not recognizing its distorting tendencies and impact on the mind before getting behind the steering wheel, although by that time, it’s usually too late. Even the description of a 1976 CBC radio broadcast can remind us how far we have come and yet how nothing really changes (Alcohol: Rethinking the minimum age for drinking, May 2, 1976).

In 2008, there was a move by health officials in London, Ontario, to raise Ontario's legal drinking age to 21, “as part of a series of measures to fight alcohol-related deaths and injuries,” but the suggestion was dismissed by Premier Dalton McGuinty. Ontario had lowered the drinking age from 21 to 18 in 1971, then increased it to age 19 in 1979 following complaints of more high school students getting drunk. McGuinty is quoted as saying, at that time, "If you're going to rely on the law to ensure that your kids aren't drinking underage, then you don't have a good understanding of human nature," he said before a Liberal caucus meeting (Drinking age to stay at 19, Apr 01, 2008).

It is recognized that the highest rates of impaired driving are among young drivers, (Impaired driving and other traffic offences, Nov 7, 2003), who may be testing their own powers as part of becoming adults - finding out what their limits are. Bonita Purtill was the exception rather than the rule – older and female – and managing to get herself into a situation involving the death of a small child.

The emphasis in the Purtill case has been on the law, related to irresponsible drinking and her decision, no matter what prompted her to do so, to get behind the wheel and risk doing harm to others. Purtill did have the opportunity of telling her story, though her credibility, or the facts as she described them, were apparently not accepted by the members of the jury as reasonable (Purtill takes the stand, June 28, 2012).

It is difficult, sometimes, to determine cause/effect relationships. Society changes and we may not always know how the change came about. But one good thing that has occurred since the Purtill accident involving the infant Alex Fleming in the car with his family, has been that child car seat regulations have been updated.

Infant and child car seats

“Injuries related to motor vehicle collisions are the leading cause of injury-related death for Canadian children” (Child passenger safety, Jan 10, 2012). See also the Ministry of Transportation piece ‘Safe & Secure: Choosing the right car seat for your child,’ last modified: June 22, 2012). Using the correct car seat, in the appropriate manner, has been important for our society for many years now, a result of the injuries and deaths involving children and babies in car accidents.

On Dec 29, 2011, it was announced that updated child car seat safety regulations would come into force on January 1, 2012. Minister of Health, Leona Aglukkaq, made the announcement, saying, “When these new regulations come into force on January 1, child car seats sold in Canada will meet Canada's highest testing standards and therefore will be as safe as possible” (Updated child car seat safety, Dec. 29, 2011).

Random testing of car seats has been carried out through the RIDE program in Ontario, for the purpose of ensuring that parents know how to follow the laws and are doing so. (Majority of car seats checked not installed properly: police, Nov 05, 2009). Parents needing advice about infant and child car seats can go to special centres set up for this purpose. Car-seat.Org provides discussion forums and access to resources for concerned parents (Car-seat.Org, since 2001). A local internet group in sw Ontario is Londonmoms.ca (see Car seat checks, since 2000).

Still, the emphasis seems to be on ending impaired driving, for MADD at least, no matter how impossible the task may be of fighting for zero tolerance. The Bonita Purtill case informs us just how tragic such accidents can be, changing the lives of both the victim’s family and the impaired driver (Woman guilty of killing four-month-old while driving drunk, June 29, 2012). Opposition to MADD’s efforts continue, as in internet sites concerned about random sobriety tests and what exactly are other countries doing compared with Canada (More MADD Opinion – Random Breath Tests & Ireland, 2010). In the meantime, taking advantage of advances in technology, medical expertise, and community programs, as in ‘Time to Double Check the Car Seats,’ June 21, 2011, might help mothers and fathers lessen the injuries and fatalities, within their families, from those who drive while impaired.


The 28 seconds that changed my life, macleans.ca, Aug 22, 2012
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/22/the-28-seconds-that-changed-my-life/?utm_source=_BQN7uCB8tlmPN-&utm_content=ml16&utm_medium=email

Canada Contemplates Random Breath Tests, By Robert Farago, The Truth about cars, Oct 7, 2009
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/10/canada-contemplates-random-breath-tests/

Car-seat Chat, Car-seat.Org, since 2001
http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=101601
retrieved Sept 27, 2012

Car seat checks, London moms.ca, since 2000
http://forum.londonmoms.ca/17057-car-seat-checks

Child passenger safety, Safe Kids Canada
Jan 10, 2012, http://www.safekidscanada.ca/Professionals/Safety-Information/Child-Passenger-Safety/Index.aspx

Crown named in Crockett court case, By Heather Rivers, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, Sept 11, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/09/11/crown-named-in-crockett-court-case

Debate: Random sobriety tests for drivers, Debatepedia, Accessed Sept 21 2012
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Random_alcohol_breath_tests_for_drivers

Drinking age to stay at 19, McGuinty says, April 1, 2008, By Keith Leslie, The Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/408697--drinking-age-to-stay-at-19-mcguinty-says

Final arguments, different stories, By Heather Rivers, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, June 28, 2012, Brantford Expositor
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2012/06/28/final-arguments-different-stories

Impaired driving and other traffic offences, Stats Canada, 2002, Stats Can Daily, Nov 7, 2003
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/031107/dq031107b-eng.htm

Jury selected in Bonita Purtill trial, By Heather Rivers, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, June 18, 2012
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2012/06/18/jury-selected-in-bonita-purtill-trial

MADD Canada praises Purtill sentence, By Heather Rivers, Woodstock Sentinel Review, Sept 20, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/09/20/madd-canada-praises-purtill-sentence

MADD mothers push for random breath testing, By Marlo Cameron, Ottawa Sun, May 09, 2012
http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/05/09/madd-mothers-push-for-random-breath-testing

Michael Bryant book launch sparks protest, By Terry Davidson, Toronto Sun, Sept 06, 2012
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/06/michael-bryant-book-launch-sparks-protest

Majority of car seats checked not installed properly: police, InsideHalton.com, Nov 05, 2009
http://www.insidehalton.com/insidehalton/article/439609

Michael Bryant relives deadly encounter with cyclist in '28 Seconds', By Vanessa Greco, CTVNews.ca, Aug 21, 2012
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/michael-bryant-relives-deadly-encounter-with-cyclist-in-28-seconds-1.923221

More MADD Opinion – Random Breath Tests & Ireland, Life after an impaired charge, 2010
http://lifeafterimpairedcharge.com/tag/random-breath-testing/
retrieved Sept 2012

Ontario’s Drinking and Driving Laws Often Misunderstood, By Tushar K Pain, About Toronto Criminal Defence, Sept 18, 2011
http://torontocriminaldefence.com/criminal-defence-articles/ontarios-drinking-and-driving-laws-often-misunderstood-heres-what-you-should-know-before-you-drink-and-drive-criminal-defence-articles-by-tushar-k-pain/

Purtill takes the stand, By Heather Rivers, Woodstock SR, June 28, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/06/28/19928916.html

Alcohol: Rethinking the minimum age for drinking, CBC, May 2, 1976
http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/lifestyle/food/last-call-canadians-and-alcohol/rethinking-the-age-for-drinking.html

Safe & Secure: Choosing the right car seat for your child, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Last modified: June 22, 2012
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/carseat/choose.shtml

Time to Double Check the Car Seats, Our Big Earth, June 21, 2011
http://www.ourbigearth.com/2011/06/21/time-to-double-check-the-car-seats/#comments

Updated child car seat safety regulations come into force, Ottawa, CNW - Canada Newswire, Dec. 29, 2011
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/900619/updated-child-car-seat-safety-regulations-come-into-force

Woman guilty of killing four-month-old while driving drunk, By Heather Rivers, June 29 2012
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/29/woman-guilty-of-killing-four-month-old-while-driving-drunk

Meaning in life following adversity: Melanie Phillips on star-gazing

Introduction

Searching for meaning in life is what humans do. How we are able to have that happen depends on the experiences life sends our way, how we process those experiences, what we attempt to do with them, and the resources and support we bring to the effort or that come our way. Journalist Melanie Phillips has written an article about the lessons that life gives us and how we can make meaning out of adversity if we are only determined enough to overcome it and rebuild our lives. She includes the stories of two Brits, Claire Lomas and Tina Nash, but I suggest that she has done so in a manner that is demeaning towards many other survivors of adversity, and perhaps towards the two couples she is writing about, as their circumstances are so very different.

Claire Lomas was paralyzed from the chest down after being thrown from her horse in 2007. Tina Nash was beaten and blinded in an attack by her boyfriend in 2011.

Ex-boyfriends and motherhood

In ‘The lesson we can all learn,’ about Claire Lomas and Tina Nash, Melanie Phillips seems to be drawing a comparison between their boyfriends. Her telling of the stories of the two women, both of whom were let down by the man in their life, implies that the men’s intentions were similar, and that the consequences of their actions were the same for both – devastation followed by a much-deserved new life without them. About Claire’s former boyfriend she writes:

“After enduring the devastating impact of a boyfriend who had failed to support her when she needed him most after her accident, she married a man who did care for her — as a result of which she managed to gave birth to a baby daughter " (The lesson we can all learn, 2012).

Phillips writes more on the subject of Claire and motherhood:

“Ms Lomas says her life is better in so many ways than before her accident because she now has her husband and child. This ability to find something positive even in such personal catastrophe is nothing less than a profound affirmation of life itself” (The lesson we can all learn, 2012).

Yet clearly Claire and her previous boyfriend had a certain kind of life in mind when they moved into the farmhouse three years before the accident, one that didn’t involve motherhood. From another article in the Mail (The REAL reason, 2012) , it sounds as though Claire wasn’t ready to settle down and become a mother at the time the accident occurred. On the contrary, she was deeply involved in living her independent life, working as a chiropractor and following her horse pursuits. Sadie Nicholas writes:

“She began riding as a toddler, eventually qualifying as a four-star equestrian eventer; the highest status possible and the same level as Zara Phillips. Only the most accomplished riders achieve this. So devoted was Claire to her horses that she spent the majority of her chiropractor’s salary on them, sacrificing holidays to do so” (Real reason, 2012).

Thus, Melanie Phillips’s article goes beyond the pale in criticizing the live-in boyfriend Claire had before the accident, for leaving her at this most vulnerable time in her life when she was thrown from her horse and paralyzed. Going back to the farmhouse afterwards wouldn't have been an option for Claire, as she needed care and support he couldn't provide. Instead, she went to her parents’ home. Five years later, Claire demonstrated the ‘bionic’ robot suit in the London Marathon, 2012, over a period of 16 days.

What Phillips doesn’t seem to recognize is that it wasn't only Claire’s life that was thrown into turmoil – her ex’s was too. I assume he had a job he had to go to, and not as a research scientist with access to resources, and knowledge about what to expect and how to cope. Claire was no longer able to fulfil the expectations (unspoken or otherwise) of the relationship, and neither could he. When something like that happens it is devastating to all concerned, as life has to begin anew, with different goals, often with different friends and relationships.

Tina’s story is horrific, though nothing about her life before that day has been told, except that she had two children, one a teenager, the other a toddler. The attack was committed by her boyfriend, leaving her with injuries and worse yet, blind.

Sometimes women experience such immense tragedies that they are held up as examples to the world of the suffering women endure at the hands of men. Likewise, men capable of such deeds are held up as examples also. Tina Nash is one such woman, while her now ex-boyfriend, Shane Jenkin, is one such man (see Blinded woman, 2012). Their story is entirely different than Claire Lomas’s and her ex-boyfriend, Claire’s paralysis being the result of an accident, not a physical attack.

Tina’s experience of having to endure the emotional scars of a physical attack by someone she was in a relationship with, as well as the resulting blindness, places her experience well within the categories of domestic violence and ‘violence against women.’ This makes her an ideal advocate for these causes (Blinded woman, 2012), and the ex-boyfriend, Shane Jenkins, a perfect example of the kind of violence that concerns feminists most – the kind that is directed by the man towards someone with whom he was in an intimate relationship. Moreover, the violence was not vaguely directed towards women in general, and Jenkins was not distanced from it by using a rifle.

In Canada, the man feminists most love to hate for his violence is Marc Lépine, remembered for having shot and killed 14 women at the Polytechnique in Montreal on Dec 6, 1989, though his passion had been over feminists taking over careers and places in education traditionally held for men, not a relationship gone sour (see ‘Montreal Massacre 1989 – 2009’, 2009.) Lépine died at the scene of the killings, but Shane Jenkins, at his trial, admitted to the crime of ‘grievous bodily harm with intent,’ was given a life sentence, and sent to a secure psychiatric unit for treatment (see Blinded woman, 2012).

Star-gazing

Phillips writes, "For those of us immersed in the raucous arena of politics and public affairs, these two stories [Claire and Tina] surely provided a most salutary counterpoint. It was like looking at the world through the other end of a telescope. Suddenly, that shallow and venal public world shrank into relative insignificance, and the people in it and all their activities seemed puny and irrelevant.”

On the other hand, Claire and Tina had themselves suddenly been cast into the world of politics and public affairs - not necessarily a bad thing, as public support was what they needed if their favourite charities and their lives were to move forward. Being in the public eye and rewarded by it was no less a concern for them at this time than it would have been for Phillips, in her job as journalist.

It’s an error of perspective to view Tina and Claire as somehow being in the ‘real world’ of ordinary life and its practical problems (although at the same time, unique in their ability to deal with adversity), whereas Ms Phillips’s life was only about politics, policies, and theory. It’s hardly an accurate depiction of the way these stories have affected England and the world. Claire and Tina being struck by adversity had an effect on the public, but not due to their being more real, or down-to-earth than most others, or their facing practical problems in an exceptional manner due to personal attributes. For the most part, that has been an image of their lives constructed by their supporters and the media.

Although the women are unique in some ways they aren’t the only people in the world who have had to seek ways of dealing with adversity and find new meaning in their lives. It’s an everyday phenomenon, despite the way Phillips talks about it. There’s no real reason to raise the two to such an elevated status.

Inspirational role models or celebrity-gazing?

“This, instead, is surely what really matters — how we all live our lives, how we cope with the bad times as well as the good, whether we can all similarly find within ourselves such strength of character to overcome the most shattering adversity” (Phillips, The lesson we can all learn, 2012).

I question whether holding up such examples of adversity is the way to give such advice to the general public. In fact, I question whether most people need it (see comments on ‘A life with purpose lasts longer,' 2009).

Phillips writes that “Claire Lomas and Tina Nash . . . are determined instead to be not life’s losers but its winners. Their example is inspiring because they tell us what human nature is capable of achieving — and, therefore, what we, too, might achieve.”

I’m not certain that the stories of these two women can inform us of the heights to which “human nature” can be elevated. Surely, the right circumstances are necessary if this is to happen – the right social, economic, and political environment, as well as the strength of character and commitment of the women. Phillips is making these scenarios appear individualistic – as though the women achieved what they have through their own effort alone.

The conclusion Phillips makes, “therefore, what we, too, might achieve” doesn’t apply unless the person is able to access resources the same way these women could. Sometimes, circumstances fall into place – the right time, the right place, the support one needs. At other times, it’s not there, making it more a matter of luck than individual effort.

One can see how Tina Nash could herself become a valuable resource in the fight against domestic violence, and why she would want this as a goal in her life. Furthermore, one can see why Claire Lomas was just the right person to promote the robot suit and the charity for spinal cord research, and why she would want to work towards raising money for spinal cord research. They are assets for the cause, and their involvement provides them with purpose in their lives, and gives meaning to the adversity they endured. While that is to be applauded, suggesting that the women represent the highest form of human nature, as Phillips does, is an exaggeration or even a misapplication of the term.

But is their example inspiring to most other people, as Ms Phillips suggests? Speaking for myself, I’m not inspired by them in the way that Phillips suggests – “because they tell us what human nature is capable of achieving — and, therefore, what we, too, might achieve.” Of course, just as Phillips herself has been inspired to write about the two women, so have I been inspired to write this in response. Inspiration works in strange ways.

For some readers and onlookers, hearing about either of these two women may have emphasized their own struggles and provided inspiration because of that feeling of shared connection. In fact, Claire herself has said that the person who has impressed her most of all the celebrities who have given their support has been Matt Hampson, paralyzed on the rugby field (Claire Lomas: Matt Hampson, 2012). The mutual interest in sports and helping other young people injured at sports, and the injury itself, would be things they have in common.

For other readers, celebrity-gazing may have been the main aim.  If admirers of Claire and Tina are looking only at how each has dealt with adversity, yet have no personal understanding of it, or empathy, then it comes across more as hero worship or celebrity-gazing than any real source of inspiration for themselves, in dealing with adversity in their own lives.

Being close to or feeling a connection to a star where there is none may still provide them with a sense of meaning, being able to show support in some way. We don’t all get the opportunity to engage in activities that shower us with rewards, but providing support to those who already have a great deal can make us feel a part of the total effort – a social connection, and more than that – a connection to someone who has power and whose capabilities knows no bounds.

Sentimentality

There is more that I feel inspired to respond to in this piece by Melanie Phillips, who makes a point of announcing the two women’s achievements by admonishing the experience of ordinary people, saying, “In our sentimentalised culture where so many rush to label themselves victims in order to gain some advantage . . .” .

Phillips isn’t clear about who or what groups in society she is complaining about in this sentence, but it appears to be about other people who have suffered adversity, or perhaps those who have not suffered adversity but simply claim they have, “in order to gain some advantage.”

It’s out of necessity that some people in society have to declare themselves as unable to work, or unable to walk, or name some other disease so that they may claim state benefits so they can survive, though placing a label on their condition is not the same as being a victim. But if they don’t manage to acquire enough to enable them to move forward in their lives, then are they victims? (see Tanni Grey-Thompson warns, 2012)

Some may even claim benefits for what appears to be no good reason, but surely, that’s not who I’m writing about here. And of those who do have purpose, not all of them will have the right capabilities or get the opportunity to learn to use a robot suit or buy one for their own use. Nor will all women’s bad experiences in their marriages be severe enough to lead them to be welcomed as spokespersons for the cause.

Phillips appears to be taking the viewpoint that possibly, some people don’t need the state’s help, but are simply lazy (or as others have labeled them, ‘couch potatoes’), and if they only tried harder, or looked for appropriate work, or ran a marathon, they too would receive favourable publicity enabling them and their charity to celebrate their changed fortune.

In almost every article written about Claire Lomas, someone has commented on her determination and bravery, whereby the social support she has received has been seen as a result of her determination – as ‘deserved’ – not as a cause of it. More likely, the determination and social support are an evolving process, each leading to the other, resulting in the cause growing larger and stronger, and her determination also growing. Social support is known to have that effect.  Claire used the bionic suit in to participate in the London marathon, setting her apart from others in the marathon and those who had previously tried it out (see Britain’s bionic man, 2012; Robot Suit Helps Paraplegic, 2011).

Others may be left to struggle with their illness or following tragedy of some sort, with no social support. So who is it really, that are the “sentimentalised” in our culture – people who are left struggling to survive adversity, or the ordinary people and the media, such as Melanie Phillips, who make a point of idealizing people in the public eye? Claire has found purpose in her life, in part at least, wearing the robotic suit, with more support than most people can only imagine in their own lives.

Epiphany or gradual realization: living life with a different purpose

Perhaps Claire experienced an epiphany, discovering through the accident that it was family that mattered most – a loving husband and especially, having a child of her own – affirmation of life itself. Or could it have been the chance to have a robotic suit that was the epiphany?

Rather than always look towards others for inspiration, it makes as much sense or even more for people to look inwardly, towards their own bodies and lives for the inspiration that comes from that. For both Claire Lomas and Tina Nash, their own lives are the source of their inspiration, though granted, each had experienced a crisis situation.

When I read about Claire and Tina, I don’t feel inspired by what they have gone through or how they are reinventing themselves. The reality for me is that, those times I have been inspired by someone’s actions, by how they found purpose in their own life, I have ended up feeling only disappointment. No matter how hard I try, or how much of myself I put into it, the fact is that it’s virtually impossible to achieve as much as the original achievement, or the person behind it that I had admired.

Conclusion

Ms Phillips tells us how we can make meaning out of adversity if we are only determined enough to overcome it and rebuild our lives. This kind of psychologizing can leave people with a sense of defeat if their efforts show few or no good results. An epiphany is an epiphany only in retrospect. Otherwise, it’s just a dream. Not taking no for an answer only works if someone else is there to say yes. No one lives completely alone and independently in society.

It is generous of Melanie Phillips to devote her skills and time to honour these women, but is this the best response to their circumstances, raising them up to the level of celebrities, examples of humanity extraordinaire? Can women who are abused to a lesser extent see themselves in Tina’s place, or was her experience so horrendous that others can only marvel at her fortitude and be thankful it didn’t happen to them? Is Claire just an ordinary mom, or was she an expert horsewoman destined for an esteemed future, and now selected especially to demonstrate the robot suit.

Claire Lomas’s accidental, unintentional fall from a horse and the physical attack on Tina Nash by her boyfriend are part of what make their circumstances clearly distinct from one another. To say they are both examples of adversity to be overcome takes away from the different path each one will take, and from the effort of so many others with what some might see as lesser forms of adversity.



Blinded woman Tina Nash makes domestic violence appeal
By Rob Williams
May 11, 2012
Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/blinded-woman-tina-nash-makes-domestic-violence-appeal-7737380.html

Britain's bionic man: Robot suit allows Olympic torch bearer, 22, to walk again five years after seafront car smash: David Follett
By Daily Mail Reporter
Daily Mail
Apr 19, 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2132059/Britains-bionic-man-Robot-suit-allows-Olympic-torch-bearer-22-walk-again.html

Claire Lomas: Matt Hampson impressed me more than any star
Leicester Mercury
May 19, 2012
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Claire-Lomas-Matt-Hampson-impressed-star/story-16127816-detail/story.html

The lesson we can all learn from the quiet heroism of these two women
By Melanie Phillips
Daily Mail
May 13, 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2143945/Claire-Lomas-Tina-Nash-The-lesson-learn-quiet-heroism-women.html

A life with purpose lasts longer, researchers find
By Carla Wintersgill
Globe and Mail
Jun 18, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/a-life-with-purpose-lasts-longer-researchers-find/article1184477/

Montreal Massacre 1989 - 2009
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Dec 6, 2009
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2009/12/montreal-massacre-1989-2009-selection.html

The REAL reason marathon woman deserves a medal: Let down by her ex when she needed him most... and how she found happiness with her husband
By Sadie Nicholas
Daily Mail
May 13, 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143641/The-REAL-reason-marathon-woman-deserves-medal-Let-ex-needed--happiness-husband.html#ixzz1uklPGlIf

Robot Suit Helps Paraplegic Walk Again: Amanda Boxtel
Thomas Moore, science correspondent
Sky News
Oct 21, 2011
http://news.sky.com/home/technology/article/16093536

Tanni Grey-Thompson warns that Paralympic legacy is threatened by cuts
By Patrick Butler, social policy editor
guardian.co.uk
May 20, 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/20/tanni-grey-thompson-paralympics-legacy?CMP=EMCNEWEML1355