A few days ago, I spent time talking with Cindy Cowan, the Executive Director of a shelter for abused women called the Interim Place.
The Interim Place has been in operation for twenty-seven years, providing shelter, support, counseling and advocacy for abused women and their children; they are committed to a philosophy of feminism, anti-racism and anti-oppression.
Cindy has been working with victims of domestic violence for over twenty years, and has been with the Interim Place for three. When I asked her if she thought the money put towards implementation of Canada’s Firearms Act would have been better spent on social services for abused women, as many opposed to the Act have argued, her answer was no.
Spending money on ‘patching women up’ is not the solution to ending domestic violence, according to Cowan. While providing funding for shelters and other resources to help women who have been domestically abused is a necessity, developing and passing legislative policies (such as the Firearms Act) to prevent abuse from ever taking place works to eliminate that necessity.
Violence against women is a very serious gender-based human rights violation, and obstructs equality between men and women. Thus, investing money into the implementation of policies like the Firearms Act is vitally important in aiding victims of abuse, and combating a serious women’s rights issue. Cindy spoke about this during our interview, and the following video includes a small portion of what she said.
In closing, I need to address the claim made by pro gun advocates that I, and advocates like me, have been trying to win battles through emotional appeal. I disagree with this statement as making the assertion, for example, that women are statistically more likely to be the victims of domestic violence is not emotionally, but rather factually, fueled. I must say, however, that after spending nearly two hours with Cindy, it is hard not to bring emotion into the debate of why gun control is needed to help thwart abuse.
Cindy was kind enough to show me around the shelter during my visit, pointing things out like the intake office for women seeking refuge at the Interim Place, and the playroom for kids. I also got to see the room where donations are kept; there were a lot of used clothing and everyday household items, toiletries, and toys.
When I saw the mismatched sheets, dishes and twenty year old coats that are provided to women when they leave the Interim Place, it made me understand more clearly why many women are scared to leave abusive relationships.
Women who find the courage to leave volatile situations are forced to abandon their lives and their belongings, and are confined for months to dorm room-like living conditions in order to keep themselves and their children safe.
When they do take the step to begin a new life, they must often do so with someone else’s used sheets and outgrown clothes. How is this fair? How is it, I wonder, that there are individuals that consider their privilege of owning a firearm more worthy than the right to safety and protection, afforded to all Canadian citizens by their government?
Tags: Canada's Firearms Act, Disarming Domestic Violence Campaign, domestic violence, gun control, IANSA, Interim Place
Elizabeth,
“Thus, investing money into the implementation of policies like the Firearms Act is vitally important in aiding victims of abuse, and combating a serious women’s rights issue”
Certain aspects of the Firearms Act are very effect other aspects of it are very ineffective both in terms of cost and value added to public safety. This is a serious issue as the wastage in Firearms Act could provide funding to aid public safety not just the illusion of public safety.
“When they do take the step to begin a new life, they must often do so with someone else’s used sheets and outgrown clothes. How is this fair? How is it, I wonder, that there are individuals that consider their privilege of owning a firearm more worthy than the right to safety and protection, afforded to all Canadian citizens by their government?”
Life is often not fair, but it is what it is. It’s not fair that some people go hungry in one of the richest countries in the world. It’s not fair that some people die in the prime of there lives and others waste it on drugs. It’s not fair that children lose limbs in farm accidents. And on and on …
We all make choices some bad some good. At the end of the day I do not blame victims for being victims, but I also believe we are personally responsible for our decisions no matter the motivation.
I have committed no crime in my life. Firearms have been a part of Canada’s heritage since its inception. I was born a free man with free will and I do not view property rights as a “privilege”, but a right. I do not view my freedom as anymore important then anyone else’s, but I refuse to have my freedom limited due to the actions of others and the poor choices made by those individuals.
It’s funny in a serious way that people that promote the IANSA agenda would take away the most effective way for women to be able to effectively protect themselves.
Thanks,
Paul
Ms. Mandelman,
Once more your core premise is utterly flawed. Firearms do not cause domestic violence. Abusive partners, of either gender, cause domestic violence.
Make no mistake, women are just as guilty as men of initiating spousal abuse. In fact, according to “REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY” by Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at the California State University in Long Beach, women are slightly more likely to initiate spousal abuse than men and almost twice as likely to reach for weapons.
However, it would seem that the only domestic violence that matters to you is the kind that is directed against women. And judging by this blog entry, you seem to believe that domestic abuse against men is not a violation of THEIR human rights either. Are you openly claiming that it is all right for a woman to abuse her male partner then?
What does THAT do to foster the illusory equality between men and women?
And by the way, I say illusory because men and women will never be truly equal. Granted, women are generally more flexible, have superior stamina, greater pain threshold and greater creativity than men. Men, on the other hand, are generally larger, heavier, stronger, with far superior upper body strength and a more aggressive and competitive nature. So far, the feminist groups have been attempting to force men to lose all of their strengths to be ‘more equal’ to women. But where are those who claim women have to give up THEIR strengths to be ‘more equal’ to men?
Your stance so far has showed a heavy bias against men and especially male gun owners. Still, despite your claims to the contrary, you are painting all gun owners, who are only men, to be violent beasts barely held in check and who need more laws to prevent them from lashing out against women.
Were it not for the attitude of the courts and particularly of the Human Rights Commission, you would be facing severe charges of discrimination and profiling based on gender, along with libel and slander. However, in Canada it would seem that sexism can only be directed at women and never the other way around.
Also, would you care to explain to me how spending money on a body of legislation such as the Firearms Act going to prevent further domestic violence, since guns can only be removed from a home for just cause?
And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple sources in case you see it fit not to publish this comment.
P. Duablon, I am clearly NOT painting all male gun owners as ‘violent beasts’ and any rational person who chooses to actually put things into perspective would recognize this. I understand that there male victims of abuse, but that is not what I’m in Canada working on. In addition, I can’t change reality, and in reality, women are the victims of abuse in more than 90% of abuse incidents and also, the number of men who own firearms outnumber women by a VERY large margain. The facts result in the truth, not bias. Sexism is not something to be taken lightly, and your accusations completely cross a line. The answer to your question on how the Firearms Act prevents domestic abuse has already been stated in many of my entries. There is a screening process included in obtaining a license. Many have already pointed out to me that collecting such ‘private’ data should be against the law. However, this ‘private’ data has helped to prevent perpetrators with a history of abuse from obtaining a license. In addition, the registry is used to determine whether an individual in a domestic dispute situation has a firearm, thus allowing the police to remove it from the home if necessary. Also, the safe storage element prevents ‘heat of the moment’ decisions. Lastly, the hotline that allows individuals to voice their concerns about a spouse or someone they know helps also to take guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals.
Ms. Mandelman,
Do you know what happens to a man who goes to the police to complain about being abused by his wife? He gets laughed at. And even if the cops respond to a “domestic disturbance” call where it is the man who is being abused, the man is the one leaving the premises in handcuffs. Do you not think that this sort of attitude and response would lead men to not say a damned word about being abused? Do you not think that it might skew the stats at the end of the day? I might not be an academic but I can recognize factors that can affect statistics.
As for crossing a line, Ms. Mandelman, you opened that door very early on by yourself. You make it sound as though women are incapable of causing harm and can only be victims. You make it sound as though all gun owners were nothing but criminals waiting to happen. You made it sound as though soldiers were nothing but state-sanctioned murderers and rapists. Oh, I am putting things into perspective: that of the sort of man who is at the receiving end of your agenda.
The Firearms Act does NOTHING to prevent domestic violence. Yes, it does screen would-be gun owners. Yes, there are criminal and background checks involved. That means that those with a history of crime or violence will be denied a license. But that does NOT remove them from the home. That does NOT protect their partner from abuse by other means. It only prevents the abuser from legally buying a gun.
Note, I said “legally”. That is because there is a rather healthy black market in Canadian cities for firearms. And to buy a gun from some gang member in a dark alley, all you need is a wad of cash. No licenses, no registration, no background checks. Which means that when the abuser goes home with that gun and the cops show up after the next call of domestic disturbance, the supposedly all-knowing registry will tell the cops that there are no guns in that home. Tell me, how can they remove something the don’t even know exists? Before or after the abuser uses that gun that’s not supposed to be there on them?
Also, you have failed to tell me how removing guns from a home would prevent further abuse from happening? What, is someone who is dead-set on harming his or her partner will not do so now that they don’t have guns available? Whatever happened to knives? Hammers? Baseballs bats? Bare hands? How does the Firearms Act protect anyone against those?
And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple sources in case you see it fit not to publish this comment.
If one tenth of the effort that was spend trying to demonize guns, make them hard, and eventually illegal, to own was spent on teaching these women confidence and self defense (INCLUDING responsible gun ownership), I would if this would have helped more people than all the shelters put together.
I have posed this question to you before, and have yet to receive a specific answer from you. Let’s look at the case of the Ryerson student who was murdered by her clinging boyfriend. It was in the news recently as he received a “tough” sentence of prison with no parole for at least 18 years. Of course her sentence was a bit more “tough” right? She
But that’s another issue. Regards, he slashed her to death. No gun was involved. He had a restraining order against him. Would she have been better off carrying a gun? I hardly think she could have been worse off.
Please address this, Ms. Mandelman
P.D.-The figures are not skewed so much as to make any difference in the fact that women are by a VERY large margin more often the victims of domestic abuse then men. Show me something otherwise. In addition, there are just as many women who do not report situations of abuse, based on the same feeling of embarrassment and lack of understanding. I can guarantee that if every single person abused by a spouse reported the incident to the police, the percentages would not change significantly.
Again, if you think that by what I’m doing, I’m demonizing men, you’re sorrily mistaken. Men are affected by firearms, but in different ways. I NEVER said they weren’t, and would appreciate it if people would stop putting words in my mouth. Talk about libel and slander.
Lastly, you just disproved your own point. Saying that the Firearms Act does NOTHING, and then reitering the fact that there is a screening process that prevents dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms goes to show that it’s indeed doing what it’s meant to. I might mention that firearms are the most lethal form of tool that exists, and therefore women are more likely to die when this instrument is used as compared to the others you mentioned. The survival rate is much higher if a firearm isn’t invovled.
Mikhail, Many, if not all, police agencies are very actively involved with the community to provide educational services regarding domestic violence. Go to any municipal police force website, and you’ll see this. There is a HUGE effort spent on educating the public (beginning during the teenage years) in Canada to help make people aware of what constitutes abuse, and what to do to end it.
Often times, when victims of abuse obtain a firearm for their own self-protection, it is taken and used against them. So, do I think that a firearm would have kept her safer? No, I don’t, and I think the fact that the NRA abandoned the campaign of targeting women proves that fact.
Ms. Mandelman,
I have cited a source, namely “REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY” by Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at the California State University in Long Beach. You can find it at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
In fact, according to most statistics found in that paper, it would seem that most victims of domestic violence would be male. Isn’t that strange?
You will find that your figure of “90% of victims are women” stats are nowhere near the mark. In fact, I would really like you to cite your source on this ludicrous number.
You also missed my point with regards to the Firearms Act. The screening process denies applicants with a history of crime or violence from acquiring a license, and incidentally to legally acquire a gun, that is true.
But how does it curb violent tendencies? A law doesn’t change a person’s nature. A person does that.
How does it prevent abuse from being perpetrated by any other means? All it does is denying the legal purchase of firearms from abusers with a history of crime and violence. It does absolutely NOTHING to prevent an abuser from getting a firearm on the black market, stealing one or smuggling one in from another country. And as I said, those would NOT be registered and when the police show up at the next disturbance call, your precious registry will not tell them that there is no gun in there, potentially costing them their lives. Just as it did for Sgt Daniel Tessier of the Laval Police Department back in 2007 when raiding Basil Parasiris’ place, where the registry stated there would be no guns in there.
Nor does it prevent an abusive partner from murdering his or her spouse with a knife or a hammer.
As I said in comments to another entry of yours, I am a soldier. I use guns for a living. I have a very keen understanding of their lethality. However, there are no degrees of dead. Whether quietly passing in your sleep, getting blown up by an IED in Afghanistan, shot, stabbed, beaten to death or strangled, dead is dead. One is not less dead because one’s throat was cut than if one weas shot.
But even fully knowing the lethality of guns, have you looked at the death figures for car crashes? Far more people have been killed in vehicular collisions than by guns. Where is your outrage, then, at the deadly nature of cars? They kill women too and at a far greater rate than firearms in domestic disputes.
And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple sources in case you see it fit not to publish this comment.
Ms. Mandelman, one can debate whether a woman with a gun is safer against a stalking male than one without a gun. There are no hard data – just opinions and anecdotes. I am certain there are women have defended themselves successfully, and others who have not.
The problem is that the anti-gun groups are denying people the choice of trying to defend themselves. There is no time in human history prior to the 20th century where that would have been considered a good thing. Freedom to choose is being taken away from responsible citizens in the name of a subjective greater good and anectodes and personal opinions.
History has shown us that liberty in any of its forms (freedom of speech, association, religion, property rights) is a good thing, and history is replete with examples where restriction of freedoms ended up going quite badly. You probably know that Nazi Germany banned guns for any citizens except SS members, and of course communist Russia also restricted ownership.
I am not arguing for unrestricted access to guns, but for an end to the demonization of guns and of gun owners, and societal recognition that a gun in steady hands is no more a threat to society than a car, or a swimming pool, or a butcher knife.
Sorry, P.D., but unfortunately citing one source (and a bibliography at that, with one sentence summaries of articles that you haven’t read), does not result in credible statements on your part. And I would like to add that car crashes, while incredibly unfortunate (and I am not downplaying their magnitude) are NOT even close to coming under the same umbrella as domestic violence. I have nowhere stated that other forms of death are any less unfortunate or that they should not be studied, but domestic abuse is very serious and complex human rights issue, and unless someone advocates for its prevention and demise, it will only continue.
Ms. Mandelman – I did not assert that there is evidence that women are safer with guns than without. I said that some women may be safer, and others may not, but doubted that there was any hard data one way or the other, and hence removing the right for any one woman to make her own choice about defending herself was unjustified and a serious infringement of her liberty.
Certainly if I knew someone was threatening my life and had good reason to think that there was a realistic chance of the threat being real, I would want a gun to defend myself. How can anyone deny me that choice? What’s my other choice? Leave the country? Go into Hiding? Barricade the doors and never leave my home? Wait for the police to come just in time to draw yellow chalk lines around my body?
If threatened, no doubt some would not choose the gun, but they can choose. And of the women who do not exercise that choice, how many fail to do so because of a lifetime of indoctrination against guns? Are they not adults with a right to make such choices?
Separately, the point I was making with the Nazi gun restriction item is that the removal of liberties, gun ownership among them, is an extremely serious step with a very bad historical track record. Generally, such restrictions are part of a control of the citizenry that very often (I would argue always) ends up badly.
There can be no arguing that liberty of Canadians to own and use guns has been drastically curtailed in the past decades. My mayor in Toronto has made it impossible for me to use my guns without making a 1-2 hour drive in any direction. His incompetence will be gone soon, for many reasons, along with his irrational hatred of guns, but my liberty to enjoy my entirely safe hobby witout burning a half tank of gas and being separated from my family for nearly a whole day will probably never return.
You claim you do not seek to demonize gun and gun owners, but it seems to me that bringing a cavalcade of individuals with specific interests and agenda that all seem to lead the reader to see how bad guns is part of the demonization process.
Since you do not seek to demonize guns, perhaps you could to an interview with this gentleman, a shooting instructor, featured in the National Post today, who would put a slightly different perspective on gun ownership. The shooting instructor in this article fled from a brutal communist dictatorship to Canada, by the way. He knows about state oppression.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1851185
And, yes, we probably do have some common ground in this debate, not least of which is the fact that we are still exchanging opinion in a civil fashion. Respect.
E. Mandelman said:
“Mikhail, Why would you even state that women are safer when they have guns to defend themselves, then, when you yourself just asserted that there is no hard data? Obviously I’ve just proven my point. ”
No you have not proven your point. You’ve only shown that you have an opinion that women are not safer from victimization when they are trained and have ready access to a firearm.
All we can do is argue opinions on this if there is no “hard data”. And that was Mikhail’s point.
To say that the gun will be taken away and used against it’s owner is nothing more than an opinion based on a hypothetical situation. The fact is, you are advocating removing the CHOICE of women to use firearms to defend themselves, and in my opinion that is disgusting and hypocritical of you, a self-appointed advocate of women’s rights. I fail to see the logic in taking away the only means to level the playing field in the man vs. woman scenario. Please, be advised that you DO NOT speak for my wife, or daughter.
As for your statement that you are not arguing for civiliam disarmament, you are either untruthful or ignorant of history. Registration has historically been shown as nothing more than a rung in the ladder to civilian disarmament–we ARE talking about the legitamacy of Canada’s Firearm Registry, aren’t we?! This is where the comparison to Nazi Germany holds water. The same goes for any country that works to disarm those who obey the law. It’s a catch-22, Elizabeth. You can make all the feel-good laws you want, criminals will simply ignore them, while the terrible burden is shouldered by the law-abiding. So, when you argue in favour of Canada’s Registry, you argue in favour of the architechture of civilian disarmament.
I can only guess that you have no concept of how bad the scenario of a disarmed law-abiding citizenry is, or the horrific seeds of democide that propagate in that soil.
The irony is, the pro-gun people, like myself want the same things as you do; The end of abuse, safety and security of human beings, human rights. However, the difference is, your agenda is about legislated attempts at limitation of human rights, ours is recognition and enforcement of human rights. I’ll ask rhetorically, of course, which has more place in a democracy?
Your anti-freedom (veiled in the guise of anti-gun) agenda is truly baffling. How do you sleep at night knowing that the all the freedoms you enjoy, including your freedom of speech have been afforded to you through the barrel of a gun?
This response will be published elsewhere in case you see fit to not publish it here.
Ms. Mandelman, you song keeps changing.
And you’ve yet to tell me of YOUR sources. So far, I have provided you with one of mine, put together by someone with a whole lot more time in academia than myself. And that makes it a whole lot more credible than you who so far have refused to cite your sources when so requested. And until you give me, and everyone else, some concrete evidence, you do realize that all the information you throw at us will be deemed suspect, at best.
I need to ask you, how is one type of death any worse than another? Dead is dead. Whether it’s a domestic homicide or a car crash or a robbery gone wrong or even old age, the victim is no longer displaying vital signs, brain activity is shut down and family and friends are grieving.
And why is abuse against women so much worse than abuse against men? You’ve still not answered that question. Men are also victims of domestic violence. But in Canada, unlike women, the cops don’t show up to rescue a man from his abusive partner as they would a woman reporting the very same. The cops will laugh at the man instead of coming in to effect an arrest and have the man branded a wife-beater for the rest of his days even if the accusation is unfounded. How is that right? How is it not a serious and complex human rights issue when it comes to a MAN being victimized?
But when it comes to you, it would appear that when the time comes to exercise human rights, males need not apply.
Another question I have for you is why do you link firearm ownership directly to spousal abuse? Other than making it sound like the presence of a gun will turn a good man into a brutal abuser, it also makes you sound as though women were not abused before guns became prevalent.
And that is also a fallacy. Women have been abused since the dawn of time, even since long before the Chinese invented gunpowder in the ninth century. So it’s not a new phenomenon. Just like the women who get abused in Africa. more often than not, their aggressors have nothing but machetes, sharpened farm tools or traditional bladed weapons such as spears. No guns.
Therefore, your linking of guns to human rights abuse is flawed.
And here is something with reference to the Firearms Act and the storage regulations you are such a fan of. If an abusive partner can’t get to a gun in “the heat of the moment”, then it means that the victim can’t get to a gun quickly either in order to protect him/herself. Tell me, how is a 100 pound woman supposed to fight off an angry, violent 200 pound man unarmed? A hint: unless that woman is sitting on years of hand to hand combat training and an amazing level of physical conditioning and fitness, it’s not going to happen. So, really, to quote a good friend of mine: a woman rooting for more gun control is like a chicken rooting for Colonel Sanders.
As for eradicating domestic violence, I’m sorry to burst your bubble but it’s just not going to happen, ever. Most people are good and would never yell at their spouse/significant other/partner. But there will always be an extremely small minority of violent and abusive human beings; these will harm their spouse/significant other/partner in a variety of ways; these are the ones who are dangerous and the ones that make the news. Not the overwhelming majority that have happy and non-violent conjugal lives.
So far, you’ve avoided most of my questions, most of my points. You demand respect, yet you do not even have the courtesy of answering the questions posed to you by those who comment here. I can see two reasons: you see yourself as better than we are and do not need to abase yourself to answering us, or you have nothing to refute our arguments. Which is it?
And once more, in the interest of shedding as much light on the issue as possible, this will be sent to multiple sources in case you see it fit not to publish this comment.
P.D.-I’ve provided sources on more than one occassion. If you haven’t been reading my entries close enough, I suggest you go back through them.
And again, you’re putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever state that owning a gun turns someone into a an individual that abuses their spouse? Nowhere. Someone who is abusive, however, and has access to a firearm, is likely to use it, which puts the victim at a higher level of risk. In addition, where did I ever state that domestic abuse committed against a women is worse than that committed against a man? Nowhere. Statistically, however, women are most often the victims. And where firearms are involved, men are most often the owners. Trying to twist my words only works to your disadvantage, as your credibility is lessened each time you do.
The abuse of women is a human rights issue, no matter what the chosen weapon. Guns are used as tools of intimidation and threat and therefore, become part of the human rights issue.
Also, if you re-read my last comment, you’ll see that I agree with you that one type of death is just as tragic as another. However, comparing car crashes and the death of a women through domestic abuse simply attempts to marganilize the issue of domestic violence of women and it’s magnitude. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book, and goes to show how gender-based the topic actually is. Won’t work with me, sorry.
[...] A few days ago, I spent time talking with Cindy Cowan, the Executive Director of a shelter for abused women called the Interim Place. The Interim Place has been in operation for twenty-seven years, providing shelter, support, counseling and advocacy for abused women and their children; they are committed to a philosophy of feminism, anti-racism and anti-oppression. Cindy has been working with victims of domestic violence for over twenty years, and has been with the Interim Place for three. When I asked her if she thought the money put towards implementation of Canada’s Firearms Act would have been better spent on social services for abused women, as many opposed to the Act have argued, her answer was no. Spending money on ‘patching women up’ is not the solution to ending domestic violence, according to Cowan. While providing funding for shelters and other resources to help women who have been domestically abused is a necessity, developing and passing legislative policies (such as the Firearms Act) to prevent abuse from ever taking place works to eliminate that necessity. Violence against women is a very serious gender-based human rights violation, and obstructs equality between men and women. Thus, investing money into the implementation of policies like the Firearms Act is vitally important in aiding victims of abuse, and combating a serious women’s rights issue… more [...]
The comment period for this entry is now closed.