Russell Williams: voices of authority and privilege dictating on his right to live

Revised June, 2012

News coverage of the Russell Williams murder case has been deemed to be appropriate (Majority feel, Globe and Mail, Oct 25). Viewers comments have occasionally been restricted, yet it is under the auspices of one of the national newspapers itself that the greatest injustice and perhaps even, crime, has been committed. Of the three pieces in the Full Comment pages recently, on the murderer and former colonel Russell Williams, only one expresses worthwhile ideas.

Barbara Kay has judged Russell Williams's sense of morality, based, I suppose, on her own scarcity of it. If we examine that piece in more depth, we realize it is not the fact that he killed that bothers her most, for she herself is advocating that he be killed; it is something else that concerns her. If not the fact that he committed murder, what it is it exactly that she objects to? She doesn't care for his manner of carrying out his crimes, with efficiency, premeditation, and lack of feeling (see Russell Williams deserves, National Post, Oct 25, 2010). In my comments on a different piece (Should we kill, NP, Oct 31, 2010), I referred to Kay's column on the subject as being similar to Hitler's sense of morality, a point of view that was not warmly received. Let me explain further.

It has struck me that there's something not quite right about someone using their position to advocate a certain position, and one that involves executing someone. Yet this is what Barbara is doing, and apparently with the approval of the National Post. If Williams is seen to 'deserve' the death penalty, then in Kay's view it seems it would be morally acceptable to execute him if done 'humanely.' If this is the case, how do you cause someone's life to end humanely? Is it best to sneak up on them and hit them over the head from behind, or not tell them that you're going to inject them with a drug that will end their life, as Harold Shipman did in England? Or should one place them on death row for years on end, so they will know for certain (almost) that they will never live a normal life ever again but must simply wait for the grim reaper, though when he does come, presumably the physical pain the death row convict will feel will not even come close to what his own tortured victims suffered. It is the physical pain Barbara Kay is concerned about, isn't it? Not the emotional pain of the condemned man, or possibly even that of his victims and the families of his victims. Is Kay's aim to see justice done, or to present her own views for others to consider, or to try to convince readers of her own beliefs, at the same time ridding herself of the emotional distress caused by hearing what this man Russell Williams did.

Kay refers to Williams as evil, thus deserving of capital punishment in her view. But who is she to decide who is evil or not, or even whether evil truly exists in our world or whether anyone is wholly evil. Which one of us is wholly evil, or wholly innocent? No one. Williams conducted himself well doing his job; in fact, he had a highly successful military career (Col. Russell Williams, The Record, Feb 13). Should this count for him, or are the bad deeds men do the only ones people should remember? Should a man who has committed such atrocities be given the death penalty so that others learn from that, or to rid the world of people like him, or because he is seen to be evil and morally inferior?

If anyone focuses on the weaknesses or moral frailties of any other person, is that acceptable? If we advocate death for that person, in a country where the death penalty is not lawful, and if we do so in a forum which is read by countless readers, is that permissible? Is that 'freedom of speech' or is using the power of one's position to pursue one's own agenda, one that involves the killing of another human being, an action that should be deplored? Who, indeed, has the right to determine who should have to die (see Williams doesn’t, NP, Oct 27, 2010).

Russell Williams is being made a scapegoat, someone to take on all the hatred and emotional turmoil that can't be placed elsewhere, by people who have the power to address this situation rationally and sensibly rather than as something 'evil. The fact that his escapades involved sexuality, however warped and deviant people may see that, suggests that what we need from this man, and his family, friends, and colleagues, is as much information we can get so we can understand this better. Furthermore, setting up a dichotomy between execution and brain malfunction doesn't even make sense (Should we kill, NP, Oct 31, 2010).

Are Opinions' pages of newspapers permitted to present views that could incite hatred? How is it that individual writers or journalists are allowed to write on subjects they know nothing about, or are permitted to present their thoughts on important topics in a disoriented, or thoughtless, yet persuasive manner. If, as they might well claim, these are simply their opinions, why is it such a newspaper as the National Post pays them to promote such meaningless thoughts or possibly dangerous ideas? It seems what counts most is selling newspapers.

Added June, 2012

Two additional revelations may lead to further considerations on discussion of the death penalty vs life for Russell Williams – the fact that he is receiving a pension (Russell Williams collects pension, 2011) and his reluctance to accept responsibility for the attack, coercion, and emotional harm to one of his victims (Maclean’s exclusive, 2012).


Col. Russell Williams: Who is this man?
By Raveena Aulakh, David Bruser and Katie Daubs
The Record
Feb 13, 2010
http://news.therecord.com/article/670127
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2010_Feb_ColRussellWilliamsWhoisthis.doc

Maclean’s exclusive: Russell Williams offers a defence
By Michael Friscolanti
Macleans
June 14, 2012
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/14/exclusive-russell-williams-offers-a-defence/

Majority feel Russell Williams coverage struck ‘right balance’
By Jane Taber
Globe and Mail
Oct 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/majority-feel-russell-williams-coverage-struck-right-balance/article1771996/

Russell Williams collects pension yet owes $8,000 in victim fines
By Valerie Hauch
Toronto Star, & thespec.com
Mar 8, 2011, & Mar 9 2011
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/950896--russell-williams-collects-pension-yet-owes-8-000-in-victim-fines
http://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/article/498238--russell-williams-collects-pension-yet-owes-8-000-in-victim-fines

Russell Williams deserves to die
By Barbara Kay
National Post Full Comment
Oct 25, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/25/barbara-kay-russell-williams-deserves-to-die/

Should we kill a serial killer, or does the fault lie within his brain?
By Paul Russell
National Post Full Comment
Oct 31, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/31/paul-russell-should-we-kill-a-serial-killer-or-does-the-fault-lie-within-his-brain/#more-16442

Williams doesn’t deserve to die
By John Moore
National Post Full Comment
Oct 27, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/27/john-moore-williams-doesnt-deserve-to-die/#more-16083

Links updated June, 2012

If Michael Bryant should be judged on his merits, shouldn't we all?

The wealthy and powerful don't always get to know what is meant by the saying, 'life isn't fair,' or 'shit happens.' It's remarkable that the editorial board of the National Post still don't understand what is meant by this. They still seem to believe that bad things don't happen to good people, that sometimes - one more time - life just isn't fair.

And what is this language - militant cyclists? class warriors? Look who are the class warriors in this piece - the journalists, the lawyers and judges, and the politicians who enabled this decision to happen and who decided to blame the guy from the lower class in society and let the privileged one off.

"But no one’s career should be derailed forever by an incident such as this" write the editors of the National Post, as though this kind of tragedy, that forever alters the course of a person's life, doesn't happen very often at all, as though this is an exceptional circumstance, and that it just shouldn't happen. Life is fair, after all, and the good and intelligent always get what they deserve! Right? Wrong. It happens to people all the time - you just don't notice it until it happens to one of you.

Take note of the more than 500 comments on the Globe and Mail article by Christie Blatchford. Not everyone thinks Michael Bryant should have gotten off as lightly as he did - or is it that most people think justice should have been permitted to take its course, through a trial.

Added May, 012

In ‘Michael Bryant should be judged on his merits,’ 2010, The National Post refers to Darcy Sheppard as having engaged in “outbursts of primal madness,” as though that couldn’t have also been explanation for the behaviour of Michael Bryant – reverting to the ‘fight or flight’ syndrome, and in this case choosing a bit of both – attempting to get Mr Sheppard to let go of the car, while trying to remove himself and his car from this situation.

Furthermore, the same piece concludes that “Mr. Bryant should be judged in future — politically or otherwise — according to his merits, or lack thereof.” If this bit of wisdom could also be applied to other people who found themselves in unfortunate, adverse circumstances, instead of having the event used forever as proof of personal, internal failings, the world might be a more just place in which to live.

Christie Blatchford writes,

“He [special prosecutor Richard Peck] went out of his way to speak kindly about the dead man, noting that he brought up Mr. Sheppard’s unlucky background (aboriginal, probably undiagnosed fetal alcohol syndrome, seized by child welfare and placed with his brother David in a staggering 30 foster homes before being adopted) and highlights of his criminal record “not to demonize Mr. Sheppard or for anyone to suggest he somehow deserved his fate,” but rather because in a case where self-defence was claimed, these were relevant facts” (For Mr Bryant, an extraordinary, 2010).

In other situations, bringing in relevant facts may be seen as an attempt to discredit the honourable person being discussed, not as an attempt to discover the truth of the matter. And it’s not simply the words one speaks; it’s the tone in which they are uttered that matter. Running Darcy Sheppard down in a “kindly” fashion, while simply ignoring many of Michael Bryant’s actions that day, can lead others’ understanding of the situation in a certain direction, and not to one that is fair judgement of what happened that day. Bringing in the personal background and past history of Mr Sheppard, knowing that Michael Bryant’s credentials were near perfect, is an unfair comparison. Is this what Mr Peck did, and by doing so imply that the questionable actions taken by Mr Bryant that day were an aberration, unusual considering his personality and background, ie. if he did anything wrong at all?

This must be one of those situations that fit within the realm of the moral dilemma – how to bring justice to this situation. It’s too bad that justice for Michael Bryant could only be achieved by placing the blame on Darcy Sheppard. I suppose, in our world, especially in our legal system, there is no place for matters that fall in between right and wrong, that really are unusual circumstances that need an unusual resolution (and I imagine a lot of cases fall with in that grey area). Whatever Darcy Sheppard’s faults, he didn’t deserve to have this case dismissed so early in the judicial process, leaving Michael Bryant not simply ‘not guilty’ of the charges laid, but completely innocent of anything untoward.

The Toronto Star is right, that Michael Bryant “deserves public understanding,” that “What happened to him could happen to anyone” (Justice in Michael Bryant case, 2010). But the newspaper is not correct in concluding that what happened in the aftermath of the tragedy speaks well of the legal system. For one person involved, the legal system worked well, but not for Darcy Sheppard.

In a similar manner, Franco Tarulli writes, “Ontario did exactly the right thing in this case, and the result is exactly what ought to have happened” (Michael Bryant: “Extraordinary” justice?, 2010). Justice may have been served, for Michael Bryant, but the way the special prosecutor handled the case doesn’t appear to have been fair. Bringing up Darcy Sheppard’s past failings and personal background as evidence that this was what caused the incident to happen was premature. There was no trial, and this should have no more place in the public’s mind than the damage committed, for whatever reason, by Bryant and the car he was driving.



For Michael Bryant, an extraordinary kind of justice
By Christie Blatchford
Globe and Mail
May 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/for-michael-bryant-an-extraordinary-kind-of-justice/article1580911/
http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/updates/100525globe3.html
http://lists.von.ca/pipermail/fasd_canadian_link/2010-May/001763.html

Justice in Michael Bryant case
Toronto Star
May 26, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/814268--justice-in-michael-bryant-case

Michael Bryant: “Extraordinary” justice?
By Franco P. Tarulli
The Ethical Lawyer
May 30, 2010
http://tarullilaw.com/ethicallawyer/2010/05/30/michael-bryant-extraordinary-justice/

Michael Bryant should be judged on his merits
By National Post editorial board
National Post
May 25, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/25/judge-michael-bryant-on-his-merits/#more-1516

Links updated May, 2012

Montreal Massacre 1989 - 2009

Revised and edited June, 2012

In the comments section following the article Montreal Massacre Death Cult by Margaret Wente (Globe & Mail, Dec 7, 2009), a commenter asked why it is that violence against women receives special status over violence against everyone else, when women experience less violence than men?" This is a reasonable question, unless you look at it in terms of power – who has it, who doesn’t. When women had little power in their lives, due to marriage and lack of career to give them financial independence, they were often at the mercy of men. Women have become more liberated, however, as the years have gone by, and that no longer holds true. Women in marriages - or out of them - are likely to have as much power - real power, of decision-making, access to resources, etc, as men. The whole social issue of 'violence against women' is a remnant from earlier times.

It’s strange but Marc Lépine, the man who killed 14 women at the Montreal Ecole in 1989 actually represented one of the men who was far less powerful than women. Yet because of the myth of 'violence against women', he got blamed for being the originator of the Montreal Massacre (just as many years ago housewives got blamed when things didn't go right at home).

The Montreal Massacre had nothing to do with domestic violence. The feminists and pseudofeminists involved were the ones who held the power. Marc Lépine didn't have any. Male violence and aggression is often about masculinity, as was Lépine's act of violence. Is it possible that women are more likely to use psychological tactics aggressively so as not to appear aggressive, or masculine. Things are not always as they seem.

Margaret Wente has claimed that the argument that Marc Lépine killed women for daring to pursue their dream implies that all “ordinary” men would also be enraged by seeing women get ahead. Yet, she says, that isn’t so. Here, in her words:

“In the narrative of the Montreal massacre, the students were killed for being feminists – for daring to pursue their dream. That's true, so far as it goes. But this narrative also implies that the rage of Marc Lépine reflected the rage of ordinary men embittered by seeing women get ahead (Montreal Massacre death, 2009).

Wente argues that is simply isn’t the case that all “ordinary” men feel the kind of rage that Lépine did, and the reason is that Lépine was abused by his father, she says, thus had pent-up anger inside against women, the reasoning goes (though not against men). The argument she uses doesn’t explain the circumstances which led Marc Lépine to the Polytechnique that day.

In response, I would suggest that men in general don’t show anger towards the group that is oppressing them, any more than housewives of the fifties did towards their husbands, at being held back. For one thing, it just isn’t permitted in society to express oneself that way. The tendency is for anyone who is being controlled to that extent to accept their situation rather than continually fight it – to push it down, bury it in the subconscious. People don’t use such extreme violence unless there are other things going on at the same time.

Most men today, whether “ordinary” men or the more privileged kind, know that if they want to get ahead they have to be nice to the powerful women in their lives. And maybe that’s something good that has come out of feminism (as long as women today don’t abuse their power as men used to), because I’m sure many men in earlier times never felt they had to be fair or even kind to their spouses. Sometimes people just don’t realize the negative effect of their power and the ways they use it. Sometimes people with that kind of power over material resources sincerely believe they deserve what they have because they are superior.

Wente further argues that “His [Lépine’s] father had a deep contempt for women, and severely abused both the boy and his mother before abandoning them. Mr. Lépine obviously contracted his father's rage. But he no more resembled ordinary men than Robert Pickton does.”

But Marc Lépine is no more like Robert Pickton than Pickton is like most other men. Each is different in their own way. Lépine’s multiple act of violence was not committed against prostitutes, or aboriginal women, or poor women. He killed women in the institution that he saw as doing harm to him and his life, the women who, for him, represented the middle class feminists who took his career goals away from him, and who were destroying society.

So, no, Marc Lépine doesn’t represent all men – or as Wente says, his rage isn’t representative of all men’s. Yet it was Marc Lépine that feminists made the object of all their rage, despite the reason for his justifiable anger being nothing to do with domestic violence and everything to do with feminism.

This act of violence he committed had nothing to do with the way his father treated him or his mother. It makes more sense to realize that he had been hurt very badly by someone, and not through a personal relationship, but connected to the Polytechnique and its staff and students that had treated him so badly, leaving him with nothing, with no way out, no other options. I have experienced some not-so-pleasant interactions myself, and when one sees students getting admitted to the college who don’t seem to have any special knowledge or credentials, or professors showing favouritism, the unfairness of it can be overwhelming. Without a strong supportive network of friends and community, one doesn’t stand a chance.

Also, Marc Lépine was aware of the impact of feminism on society, whereas many men and women were not. He knew it, but it was one of those things that people don’t like to talk about. People – young men and women – just tried to find a way around it so they could go to university too, and succeed. Yes, Marc Lépine knew it, but he lacked the skills to write about what he knew. No doubt his effort to try to inform others resulted in further frustration. No one knows exactly why circumstances come together they way they do resulting in the kind of behaviour that Marc Lépine exhibited. Margaret Wente would like to blame it on childhood abuse, a typical Freudian viewpoint, and one from pop psychology, but not a perspective that holds up under close examination.

One of students at the Polytechnique at the time was Heidi Rathjen, who later said, “The atmosphere at school was totally egalitarian. It was a wonderful place for women.” (Lessons of the Montreal Massacre, 2009). But the egalitarianism she speaks of was between men and women students of the middle class, not between the daughters of important people in Montreal and young men who had little family influence. I know that she sees people’s helpfulness as “egalitarian” and not that such people tend to be nicer towards those who already have resources of their own. I know she sees getting a job at the funeral home and the bursary that came with it as something she deserved, and thus fair, but it’s not all deserving young women and men who get treated like that.

It can be easy for those in power to distort facts and blame the one with none for not being smart enough, or being too emotional (a tactic often used against women in the past). By discrediting the Marc Lépines of this world, they can get unknowing people on their side – especially young women - willing to see them as lesser human beings, entirely responsible for misfortune endured by women in their relations with men, rather than recognize the damage feminism has caused to society.

Original post, Dec 6, 2009, updated

A selection of articles (see below) on the Montreal Massacre (20 years ago today, Dec 6, 1989) represent just a fraction of the many perspectives on this tragedy. ‘A Slap in the Face’ for Victims, by Ingrid Peritz, emphasizes the importance of the firearms registry, which some feminists see as the one tangible legacy of the Montreal Massacre.

Once again the comments on this article provide much to reflect on, from people interested in this subject of gun control and concerned about the rationale behind it. In Lessons of the Montreal Massacre, by Catherine Porter, the story is told of one of the survivors of the Montreal Massacre, Nathalie Provost, who speaks to us about choice, and taken-for-granted opportunities for fulfilment in life. She and her children are living in a different world than most of us.

The fact that Marc Lépine attempted to get the world to see how feminism has created a wider division in society between those who have and those who do not, seems to be lost on her. If her children, and all children, had to rely on one person’s views only – hers – about the lessons of the Montreal Massacre, the world would be in trouble indeed.

Western News, from the University of Western Ontario, now known as Western, announced its 2009 remembrance ceremonies, one in Engineering, the other at Brescia College to honour the loss of the 14 women killed on Dec 6, 1989 at Montreal, and "the lives of all women that have been lost to gender-based violence" (Montreal Remembrance Ceremony, 2009).  I believe they are actually referring to women killed by men they know, mostly, and not the kind of killing Marc Lépine committed that day – meant to be a political act to draw attention to the harm feminism has caused in society.

Marc Lépine lost his life that day also, as did others, though that is never acknowledged by heartless, narrow-minded, politically-oriented feminists. On Dec 6, 1917, the explosion of the SS Mont-Blanc in Halifax Harbour left 2000 dead, injuring thousands of others. This is a sad day of remembrance.

The Montreal Massacre Death Cult, by Margaret Wente, is a request for feminists and Canadians to move on, but in so doing, Wente manages to perpetuate stereotypical myths about Marc Lépine that ensure moving on is not possible.

See also my website about the Montreal Massacre: http://www.montrealmassacre.net/


Lessons of the Montreal Massacre
By Catherine Porter
Toronto Star
Dec 5, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/734817--lessons-of-the-montreal-massacre

Montreal Massacre Death Cult 
By Margaret Wente
Globe and Mail
Dec 07, Dec 11, 2009
http://www.tribemagazine.com/board/tribe-main-forum/157931-montreal-massacre-death-cult.html
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/montreal-massacre-death-cult/article1205685/?service=mobile

Montreal Remembrance Ceremony
Western News, p. 13
Dec 3, 2009
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/PDF/WNews_Dec03_09.pdf

‘A Slap in the Face’ for Victims
By Ingrid Peritz
Globe and Mail
Dec 05, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-slap-in-the-face-for-victims/article1390008
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_DecSlapInFaceForVictims.doc


Links updated June, 2012

Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard: divided by class

revised, and references updated, May 2012

The tragic death of Darcy Sheppard, involved in a violent incident with ex-
attorney general Michael Bryant, isn't a morality play, though I think I understand how Margaret Wente might want to see it portrayed as such. It is very class-based logic to see the event as a "cautionary tale for public figures," as though the tragedy could somehow have been avoided, and worse yet, what the consequences can be for important or wealthy people getting mixed up with those other kind of people in society.

To begin with, Michael Bryant didn't just change into a "clean suit," after the accident, before he went to the police station (see Morality play, 2009). He changed out of the t-shirt he had been wearing into the shirt and tie with suit, before being taken to the police station. This is a minor issue, but an example of the ways Wente distorts language and its significance for the public. Bryant may have wanted to change into clean clothes, but the suit was for impression management, not for spending a comfortable night in jail.

Even Jackie Kennedy didn’t change out of her bloodstained suit before getting into the airplane with her husband’s body – John F Kennedy, following his assassination on November 22, 1963, nor on board the plane (Jackie Kennedy’s Pink Suit, 2011.) It’s a matter of priorities, and one has to wonder what Bryant’s really were. Fight or flight. Keep it close; remember; or push it away. Naturally, Jackie wasn’t completely immune to the fight or flight syndrome. Her immediate reaction on having her husband shot while seated beside her in the car was to clamber over the back seat of the convertible, a momentary lapse in good judgement.

When Darcy Sheppard talked back to the driver of the car that had bumped into his bike, it wasn’t to someone wearing a suit, thus more likely to be viewed as someone middle class. Bryant was wearing a t-shirt like any other ordinary person on the street at the time of the accident. So who should take care to avoid the other. Should it be the affluent middle class couple who should be more wary of getting into difficulty and getting blamed for it, or would it be more realistic to advise the person lacking the resources to fight injustice to be more careful to avoid people who show signs of having wealth and prestige. And did Darcy Sheppard realize the danger he was in?

On Sept 1, 2009, Bryant was charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. Witnesses, including Raajiv Rajadurai and Ryan Brazeau provided details of the street interaction between Bryant and Sheppard (Bryant charged, Sept, 2009; Death on Bloor, Dec, 2009).

The charges were withdrawn with no preliminary hearing taking place, a decision that was explained by special prosecutor Richard Peck, who stated in court, “The evidence establishes that Mr. Sheppard was the aggressor in the altercation with Mr. Bryant. He was agitated and angry, without any provocation from Mr. Bryant and his wife,” (Former Ontario AG, May, 2010).

Bryant himself is quoted as saying, “It is not a morality play about bikes versus cars, couriers versus drivers, or one about class, privilege or politics. It’s just about how in 28 seconds, everything can change” (Former Ontario AG, May, 2010). But if we remove the words “a morality play” from this sentence – Bryant’s claim – it really is about bikes versus cars, and about class, privilege and politics.

Set aside the morality problem for now. Think about what happened, and the consequences. Bryant may have been surprised – no, astounded, to see how quickly a person’s life can change, can go from a normal day out to violence, death, accusations, and practically every aspect of their life being changed forever. He says that. He has now experienced adversity, that emotionless term that is applied to such situations.

From the outside, looking at someone who is angry might appear the same as looking at someone who is experiencing fear. Without Bryant’s explanation, the behaviour could be interpreted as anger against the cyclist who got in his way, and not terror at being accosted by him and not being able to get him off his car (see Former Ontario AG Michael Bryant, May, 2009).

In an article just a few months prior to the incident, Bryant talks about his love of boxing, and his skill in the ring (Contender, Jan, 2009, as noted by a commenter on ‘Cyclist may have grabbed,’ 2009). Is this the same man who was terrified of the cyclist, Darcy Sheppard? Was it Sheppard that Bryant feared or the situation, knowing that being involved in an altercation with a cyclist wouldn’t be good for his reputation – or his career? Are we permitted to use emotions such as fear – or love - as reasons for behaviour that we wouldn’t ordinarily engage in? When you see your life disappearing right in front of your eyes, it can be traumatic. Realizing in one split second that all he things you dreamed about and hoped for are at risk, and may never come about, can have a dramatic effect on a person’s ability to respond appropriately to the situation.

On the effects of the incident to Michael Bryant and his career, a friend is reported as saying,

“An acquittal will remove the possibility of jail, but not the stain of his stupidity. He’ll forever be known, fairly or not, as the guy whose political career ended one fateful August night on Bloor St.” (Is Michael Bryant’s life, 2009).

First, the assumption that Bryant might be acquitted is irrelevant, speaking in hindsight. Secondly, I question whether this can be put down to stupidity, which implies rationality - rational decision-making, though poorly thought out in the moment. This is more about the emotions – a gut response in the midst of the initial altercation. And finally, it’s not written in stone that he will not be allowed to make a political comeback. See this comparison with a similar incident involving another Toronto bike messenger, Thomas McBride, in 1999 (Michael Bryant: Toronto’s Carnell Fitzpatrick, 2009).

PR expert Jonathan Bernstein knows the importance of charisma in making a comeback – as demonstrated by Bill Clinton, along with other more intentional means of influencing opinion and repairing reputation damage (The long road to reputation, 2009). Social media is another aspect of that (see Michael Bryant's political strategy, 2009). For a day-by day-account of the first week, see Spinning the first week, 2009.

Bryant is currently listed as owner and operator of Humilitus Group, and as a visiting professor at Osgoode Law School (Michael Bryant leaves Norton, 2012.)  He now speaks on his experience and how it has transformed him (Michael Bryant: Former Attorney General, since 2010).

See more on BlogTO on the city’s reaction after the charges against Bryant were dropped, including photos and comments by readers (Michael Bryant walks, 2010).


Bryant charged with criminal negligence after crash
ctvtoronto.ca
Sept 1, 2009
http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090901/fatal_collision_090901/20090901?hub=TopStories\

The contender
By Amanda Lang
Globe and Mail
Jan. 26, 2009, updated Apr 09, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article967360.ece
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_Jan_TheContender.doc

Cyclist may have grabbed Bryant, wheel: police
+ 1020 comments
CBC News
Sept 2, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/02/toronto-bryant-cyclist-sheppard523.html

Death on Bloor: Bryant enters a world beyond political spin
By Josh Wingrove, Timothy Appleby and Kate Hammer
Globe and Mail
Dec 16, 2009
http://www.yasni.com/ext.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fm.theglobeandmail.com%2Fnews%2Fnational%2Fdeath-on-bloor-bryant-enters-a-world-beyond-political-spin%2Farticle1272875%2F%3Fservice%3Dmobile%26page%3D1&name=Annette+Wabie&cat=filter&showads=1

Former Ontario AG Michael Bryant was ‘terrified’ during fatal encounter with cyclist
By Shannon Kari
National Post
May 25, 2010
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/25/criminal-charges-against-former-ag-michael-bryant-withdrawn/

Is Michael Bryant’s life over – or has it just begun?
By Lynda Hurst
Toronto Star, reprinted for The Record.com
Sept 5, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/690718--is-michael-bryant-s-life-over-or-has-it-just-begun
http://www.myartworks.ca/printArticle/593478

Jackie Kennedy’s Pink Suit
By Lisa Waller Rogers
Lisa's History room
Feb 12, 2011
http://lisawallerrogers.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/jackie-kennedys-pink-suit/

The long road to reputation repair
By Simon Houpt
Globe and Mail -Globe Investor
Sept 03, 2009
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090903.wadhoc0904/GIStory/undefined

Michael Bryant: Former Attorney General and Author of 28 Seconds
Speakers' spotlight
since 2010
http://www.speakers.ca/bryant_michael.html

Michael Bryant leaves Norton Rose
Globe and Mail
Feb 14, 2012, updated Mar. 13, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/bar-talk/michael-bryant-leaves-norton-rose/article2338612/

Michael Bryant's political strategy: PR 2.0
+ 484 comments
By Kate Hammer
Globe and Mail
Sept 8/14, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/michael-bryants-political-strategy-pr-20/article1279957/

Michael Bryant: Toronto’s Carnell Fitzpatrick
Mess Media, Bryant Watch
Nov 19, 2009
http://bryantwatch.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/michael-bryant-toronto%E2%80%99s-carnell-fitzpatrick/

Michael Bryant walks, the cycling community rides, and a bad taste lingers
+ comments
By Derek Flack
BlogTO.com
May 26, 2010
http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/05/michael_bryant_walks_the_cycling_community_rides_and_a_bad_taste_lingers/

Morality play and a stampede to judgment
By Margaret Wente
No comments permitted
Globe and Mail
Sept 9/ Oct 3, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/morality-play-and-a-stampede-to-judgment/article1281262/

Spinning the first week of Michael Bryant's new life
By Linda Diebel
TO Star
Sept 5, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/691400

Rideau Canal, Kingston: Four members of the Shafia family found dead

In the Globe and Mail recently, an article by Christie Blatchford appeared about Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba Mohammed Yahya, and their 18-year-old son, Hamed, who have been arrested for the murder of three of the couple's children as well as Shafia's first wife, Rona Amir Mohammed. The four women were discovered on June 30, 2009, in the family car at the bottom of the Rideau Canal at Kingston, Ontario. The title of Blatchford's column was 'It's no accident that victims were all female,' a reminder to me of the knee-jerk reactions by feminists to the killings committed by Marc Lepine back in 1989 - feminists who could never let anyone forget that it was women he killed, and only women. The public was never given a chance to get rid of these first impressions, which tended to gather more support as time went on, particularly as opposing voices never had much of a chance to get heard. It's always a rousing opportunity, when something can be explained simply, such as in terms of an 'honour killing,' to gain support for a social cause. But even if the death of the eldest teenage victim could be included under this label, 'honour killing,' it is more likely that the circumstances were far more complex than that, and attempting to explain it away by the claim that they were all female is a bit farfetched.

As ordinary members of the public we don't have access to all the details, but fragments that have emerged in the media indicate that this is a genuine piece of multiculturalism at work - two cultures, at least. If the first wife of Mohammad Shafia had wanted a divorce, as reported by Paul Schliesmann (July 24), that could create a dilemma, and not only because the marriage between them had not been acknowledged legally in this country. When she died last month, at midlife, Rona Amir Mohammed might have been looking forward to a new life apart from her family. Rona had served her purpose, for more than 20 years raising the 7 children that Shafia's second wife, Tooba Mohammed Yahya, had given birth to, and might have thought it was time for a change. But how does one accomplish that, when honour, a clash of cultures, and legal problems lead to further difficulties - seemingly impossible difficulties to reconcile in this new country?

Referring to this as an 'honour killing' surely misses out on the complexity of the circumstances, including the part each of the accused had in the planning and carrying out of the deed. I wonder, aside from that, about the role that Sharia's second wife played in the marriage, especially as it turned out the children she and her husband had together were being cared for by his first wife, who lived with them but who in public was known as their cousin. How shocked would we be if it came out that the girls' biological mother knew beforehand that they were to have their lives ended while on their family holiday? Should we be looking at this as a gender issue, as male against female, to the extent that, if any woman got caught up in the middle of it that there was necessarily a good reason, such as her husband sneaking off to have sex with wife number one, as Blatchford suggests might be a plausible reason for discontent? The family was Muslim, as was Marc Lepine, as it happens, although how much traditional Muslim norms influenced this set of circumstances is questionable. Blatchford writes, "what seems to underlie these murders, what appears to be the real bottom-line context, is the belief that men are superior to women," but I don't believe men see themselves as superior in general, any more than women do when they are trying to maintain control of the little worlds they create. Men may see themselves as having the right to take appropriate steps to resolve difficulties within the family, and their rights are often upheld by female members of the family. This tragedy is an indication of the compexity of gendered relations, of the never-to-be-equal aspects of marriage and parenthood, and the generations of family that follow. Besides that, the differences in cultures may unwittingly have contributed towards the family's having arrived at a point of non-resolution, requiring a solution not able to be accounted for in Canadian multicultural values, norms, or through our laws, leaving us no choice but to acknowledge that our world is not as rational as we like to think it is. Once a mistake has been made, or a straying from accepted norms, perhaps it can simply be too difficult to bring things back to normal.

At the close of Christie Blatchford's column, a note was added: "Comments have been disabled. Editor's Note: We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons. We appreciate your understanding." Another piece in the G&M, by Jill Colvin, was open for comments, but why Christie Blatchford was allowed to write from her own narrow-minded perspective and not be open for comments from readers is unexplainable. She added this, about men's superiority: "Canadians don't believe that, do not accept the core belief of many ethnic groups that women aren't equal to men and are less valuable a creature." But Christie, don't you see that people in Canada often show no respect for women unless they're 'like' men - working alongside them, doing things men do, doing it their way, making money, and being as ruthless. They are not above treating with disrespect women who don't fit in with these feminist norms.


It's no accident that victims were all female
Christie Blatchford
Opinions, Globe and Mail
Friday, Jul. 24, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/columnists/christie-blatchford/its-no-accident-that-victims-were-all-female/article1229548/   or http://SAMcPherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_Christie_Blatchford_Its_no_accident.doc

Family held in canal deaths
Andrew Chung Toronto Star
Thursday, Jul 23, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/670598

Parents charged with murder
By Jill Colvin
Globe and MailFriday, Jul. 24, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parents-charged-with-murder/article1229624/
Direct link to article no longer available

Were deaths of 4 women a matter of 'honour'?
Andrew Chung In Kingston, Ont.
Daniel Dale In Toronto
Toronto Star
Jul 24, 2009 04:30 AM
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/671148

Parents, son charged in canal deaths
By Paul Schliesmann, Sun Media
Canoe News
July 24, 2009
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/07/22/10225341-cp.html
or http://habsrus.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&action=print&thread=14328


Links updated Apr 12, 2012

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

Montreal Massacre

6th December 1989

One has only to do an internet search on the phrase "Montreal Massacre" to come up with many different articles and letters addressing this event in Canada's history. In 1989 a young man entered the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, armed with a semi-automatic rifle. In one classroom he separated the male students from the women and started shooting, moving on from there down the halls. By the time he was done shooting that December day, 14 women lay dead, 12 of them engineering students.

Most of the writing on this topic has been done from the perspective of the obvious victims - the women who were killed. But the reasons why Marc Lepine did what he did have never been permitted to come to light, or if they have been, were quickly dismissed. As time goes on, I wonder if I am experiencing something of what Marc Lepine went through. Or are we really expected to believe that he never tried to contact feminists, tried to talk to them, to get them to see his perspective, to realize the effect feminism was having on Canadian society?

As a man, a rather traditional man with both French-Canadian and, on his father's side, Algerian Muslim roots, he discovered that the place that had traditionally been men's - in male-dominated fields in university and careers out in the world - were being shared with women, no longer being men's alone. For this to happen, some men would lose out. And Lepine, age 25, was one of them. Without the help of parents, and not being middle class, and not holding the same values of many others of his age, Marc Lepine, born Gamil Gharbi, was at a disadvantage when it came to being accepted at engineering school.


See the Montreal Massacre website: http://www.montrealmassacre.net/  for essays, articles and commentary.


If you would like to have a comment or essay, etc included in the website please contact me.


Updated Apr 18, 2006

Terrorism and Murder in Canada and Britain: why no public investigations?

Not all suicide bombers are the same, but we did have such people in England, their roots being in Islam. That they were British citizens made matters more difficult to understand, than if they were from outside Britain. I can’t say if they all felt the same about it, but one possibility was that some of them didn’t feel a part of Britain, their values being different - their attitudes towards women, sexual freedom, etc., and on the other side, the attitudes of the British towards them - excluding them from participating fully. Briefly there had been mention of referring to them as Asian-Brits (as they would in the US use the term African-American to combine two nationalites or racial identities) but I haven’t heard more about it. I gather they found meaning in their religion.

Recently a young black man, Anthony Walker, was murdered - an axe landed in his head, in England. It was stated repeatedly by his family and the police that he was killed because of the colour of his skin, in which case I would suggest that anyone wearing black had better be extremely careful in that neighbourhood, since there are possibly quite a few people around who don’t like the colour black, or dark brown, and as we can see, reactions can be fierce.

There seems to be little effort to get to root causes, and while there may be little connection between suicide bombers and that individual killing, in each case, as far as I can see, no investigations were made into the real reasons these situations came about. In the first, re the suicide bombers, the police have announced that no investigation will be carried out into how it all happened. In the second, the fact that this young black man ‘had it all,’ from the appearance of things, including a white girlfriend, weren’t seen as relevant. It was just the colour of his skin that counted. So as long as things continue in this manner, with no investigations into the root causes, nothing will change.

Someone has asked, Why aren’t they being listened to before such things happen? Well, the same thing happened with Marc Lepine, who has been called by at least one person as Canada’s first Muslim terrorist. But it was a class issue too, and Lepine had his ambitions thwarted probably because he didn’t have the right support (proper family background, for one thing). There was nowhere for him to turn. If he had been middle class he probably would have had more support. Also, he was trained in the sciences and wouldn’t have had an understanding of the social forces that acted against him. He held Muslim ideals, but women of the day (1989) were just seeking out their own power (to decide over abortion for instance), so it was probably difficult for him to meet the traditional girl of his dreams. Lepine didn’t matter because there are likely quite a few like him, seeking to go farther in life, career-wise. That he was so frustrated that he decided to shoot women in the engineering school in Montreal is exceptional, but if he really were that capable, and he knew it, and he wanted to get his point across, how could he have done it. The police there prematurely ended their investigation too.

People and governments wonder how to stop terrorism and seemingly senseless murders. Preventing investigations from taking place is hardly the way to go about it. That should be a first step. Making that knowledge available to ordinary people is a second step. Encouraging them to use more up-to-date ways of interpreting such knowledge, so they are better able to comprehend the world around them, would be a third. Instead of relying on the government to stop terrorism and horrendous acts of violence, the people could do more on their part, not by using force but by beginning with the fundamental issues, which seem not to be understood.

Montreal Massacre -- more than violence against women

On December 6, 1989, a 25 year-old man walked into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal and shot to death 14 women, wounding 13 others. The Montreal Massacre was an appalling tragedy which has now taken its place in Canadian history, remembered mainly as an ultimate example of male violence against women. The lives of the women who died are remembered with sadness and pride. The realization of this injustice, that ruined the lives and promise these women had to offer that can never be recovered, will not go away.The gunman, Marc Lepine, a Quebecker born Gamil Gharbi in 1964, is not thought of by people so much any more, old memories portraying him as inhuman, a representation that is met by many with revulsion.

The reasons behind this atrocious event - including Marc Lepine’s life - have never been adequately explored. Lepine saw himself as a political activist, but unable to resolve his own personal dilemma or what he saw as political wrongs in society. Instead of accepting his fate or leaving quietly he chose to use a violent means of making a political statement-by killing feminists-before ending his own life.

Responses to his actions for the most part focused on apparent weaknesses in his personality and academic worth, together with the abuse he endured in childhood, to back up the idea that within himself, Marc Lepine was less than a human being. Against this image of monstrosity, the memory of the 14 women he killed have been idealized, as representing innocence and feminist breaking of tradition, for instance, or as women killed simply because they were women. The 14 women killed included 12 engineering students, a student in nursing, and a data processing worker at the Ecole Polytechnique.

Soon after the shootings, Lepine was labelled a mass murderer, although in one crucial respect his actions did not fit the stereotype. Rather than selecting a target group on the basis of religion, race, social class or ethnic group, he selected his victims on the basis of gender. Consequently,the fact that women were the victims became the focus of attention, leading to violence against women being seen as the main social issue ensuing from the tragedy.

However, exploring the significance of this tragedy must go beyond looking at it as being mainly about violence against women. The wider social significance of the Montreal Massacre relates to ideas about work, relationships, and the possibility of fulfilment of human potential. Alongside these, consider the influence of race and ethnicity, and of class differences, on opportunities for participation and fulfilment in today's world.

Lepine's victims were Genevieve Bergeron, aged 21; Helene Colgan, 23; Nathalie Croteau, 23; Barbara Daigneault, 22; Anne-Marie Edward, 21; Maud Haviernick, 29; Barbara Maria Klucznik, 31; Maryse Leclair, 23; Annie St.-Arneault, 23; Michele Richard, 21; Maryse Leclair, 25; Anne-Marie Lemay, 22; Sonia Pelletier, 28; and Annie Turcotte, aged 21. Yet remaining fixed on the fact that it was women who were killed takes away from the social significance of the shootings at l'Ecole that day.

Memorials that commemorate the lives of the women who died are just one part of the multiple strands of memories of all those wounded within themselves by this tragedy. If something positive is to come out of the violence that Marc Lepine committed, it would involve a rethinking of how Lepine’s life is remembered, how the women are remembered, and recognition of changes brought about by feminism and its impact on the lives of the women and men of today. Now that time has passed, perhaps there will be a willingness to reconsider the lives of others involved, and how commemorations can be enhanced to reflect the lives of all those whose lives changed that day.

This article was originally published Dec 1st, 2005 in Western News: Comments. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
http://communications.uwo.ca/com/western_news/opinions/montreal_massacre_--_more_than_violence_against_women_20051201436450/


To read more:

Honouring victims of violence
Dowling, Karmen
Western News, UWO
Dec 5, 2005
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/story.html?listing_id=20358 broken link
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/stories/2005/December/honouring_victims_of_violence_flag_at_halfmast.html

Perspectives on the MontrealMassacre: Canada's Outrage Revisited
By Sue McPherson
Montreal Massacre website
2005
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/articlesandessays/PrspctvsMntrlMsscrSMcPherson.doc


Links updated April 16, 2012