FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS

Yes, in West Van. Where the mayor lives. Ten people shot in a gang squabble just like in Mexico. How did so many young men in BC become criminal gang members? And how did they become first person shooters (the real name of some violent video games) in real life instead of living vicariously through the games they received from Christmas’ past like they were supposed to do? Am I blaming the violent video games for gangland behavior?

No. Only as a contributing factor. The main reason for gang violence is the same one that haunts Mexico. That all levels of government and business are still clinging doggedly to the business model of corporations which dictates in times of stress to downsize, computerize, and load off shore. Great. For the companies. But then what do Canadians, especially young people, do for jobs that will enable them to live reasonably?

Provincial and federal governments tell us that is a problem for the individual person even while they up the cost of living and education for all young people. So what can young people do when they can’t find jobs or earn enough to go to school? No answers from heads of banks, university or government economists. That’s because even the ones who recognize that we are all looking into the bowels of an economic upheaval won’t say so. Out loud. It takes a techie economist like Hank Williams (I don’t know if this Hank Williams sings) who works in, and reflects upon, how technology itself is bringing on a great upheaval. And to write about it.

In his article entitled : THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE ECONOMY IS THAT IT DOESN’T NEED YOU ANYMORE: Williams says that due to technology It takes, and will take, many fewer people to produce goods for consumption, which in turn leaves the benefit of this increased consumption in the hands of fewer and fewer people. In 1995 Jeremy Rifkin (American economist and writer) wrote a book entitled THE END OF WORK. Riftkin said then what Williams is saying now. Work as we know it is being rapidly automated without consideration of the many young people trying to enter the job market. And too many young males are finding their own solutions to the problem.

THIS DANGEROUS PLACE: Where law and justice collide

     The BC Appeals Court has just brought down a decision on my sentence for blockading at Eagleridge Bluffs in 2006. My appeal was denied. And of course I’m disappointed. I’m always disappointed in the decisions of the BC Supreme and Appeals Court decisions concerning people’s struggles over trying to protect public and/or First Nation’s property. However, there were a few interesting comments in this decision.
     Mr. Justice Tysoe, in writing for the majority, with Madam Justice Rowles and Madam Justice Bennett concurring, wrote that the case law submitted by Michael Brundrett (Crown) comparing me to violent pedophiles thus: Page 5, no. 14, “As the Crown indicated at the hearing, those cases are relevant for the legal principles they contain concerning the limits of the scope of appellate review in sentence appeals and not for any other purpose.”
     But I have trouble with this. As I understand it, the scope of appellate review is supposed to compare like cases to like circumstance, not go wildly off the rails as Michael Brundrett (Crown) did by underlining the judge’s opinion in one of these cases suggesting that I could be compared (in his submissions for appellate review) to these cases and should be put away for life. At least Mr. Justice Tysoe, along with Madam Justice Rowles and Madam Justice Bennett, refused that option and mentioned that even my ten month sentence was high. And they did throw me another little crumb.
     The Appeal Judges did not seem convinced that Madam Justice Brown was right in refusing me credit for the month I spent in prison waiting for Cameron Ward to return from vacation at the beginning of my trial. I felt I was being unfairly criminalized without my lawyer being present and in a fit of pique rescinded my undertaking. Mr. Justice Tysoe wrote: Page 9, no. 29, “The rationale (for refusing me credit that could have been applied to my ten month sentence) was that it was Mrs. Krawczyk’s decision to remain in custody. I have reservations whether this approach is correct in principle…I think the point should be left to another occasion when the court has the benefit of full submissions.”
     I’m not sure at the moment what full submissions on this point might consist of but I will find out. Because there will be more of this governing by injunction as the Attorney General is apparently too lazy and morally lax to do his job while many First Nations and other environmentalists are gearing up for protest. And I will go with what the Justices of the BC Appeals Court have given me, meager it might be. I will apply to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. In other words, I will appeal this appeal. And I want to thank all of you who stood by me, who came to court, who spoke out, who wrote to the Attorney General’s office because you also love this land, the waters, the wild animals and forests of British Columbia as I do. And you love justice. How can we possibly lose?

Polygamy? Polyandry? Ha, ha!

BC Liberties Association, what are you thinking? I want to laugh at your application to the court to consider (more or less) legalizing Polygamy. But I can’t. The matter is too serious. Especially for young women born into fundamentalist religions. And for the rest of us, too. The very idea of young women being legally married off as second, third ,or fourth wives to old men or middle aged men, because their religion demands it, is sob story material. How can parents do this to their young daughters? No young girl wants to be married off in these circumstances. It’s unnatural. Youth calls to youth. Sadly, mothers don’t have much to say about this unnatural reversal of biological order. Their religion binds them to male rule. Fathers in Bountiful and polygamous inclined Muslim communities more or less trade their daughters or other young female relatives off in marriage as multiple wives to other favored men and in return, receive, or their other male relatives receive, a like compliment. Tit for tat. However, I think CBC Radio (On the Island) inadvertently (or perhaps by design) pointed out a flaw in this practice of extreme male privilege.

Yesterday (Nov. 23) the producers of CBC On the Island interviewed a woman who said she lived with two men. She favors the legalization of polygamy because that would open the door to polyandry (one woman with two or more husbands) and she would like to be legally married to both of her men. Well, again, tit for tat. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Or vice versa. Surely a Charter Challenge would also rule in favor of allowing equal opportunity for ever younger legal partners for women, too. And in these dire economic times a well-heeled older woman could easily attract a couple of younger men for husbands. And she could legally list them both as dependents on her income tax returns. Polygamist would also benefit hugely through income tax. Many Canadian Muslims are very wealthy. They would save huge amounts of money if they could claim their multiple wives legally. Ditto for the Bountiful men.

My research tells me that Polygamy is practiced where there is a desire for more children (besides the sex part) and as a result populations expand. Polyandry is usually practiced where there are scarce resources. Polyandry restricts the expansion of the population. It’s a math thing. One woman can only have so many children regardless how many husbands she has while one male theoretically can have a hundred or more with multiple wives. Now, it’s true Canada needs a bump up in population. But is Muslim polygamy the answer? Give me break. I could be wrong, but I don’t think the burden of populating Canada more densely should rest almost entirely on the shoulders of Muslim men (and Muslim women, too, of course) even if we pay them in generous income tax exemptions and other economic goodies.

But the potentially stickiest flaw in this scenario? Children get born. While Muslim men are smug sure of their paternity (the punishment for women straying is severe) the women in Polyandry marriages (even older women have babies these days) in case of divorce, would have to resort to medical tests to determine which of her husbands is the biological father. And if she is legally married to both, would this even matter? And you think visitation privileges are a nightmare now? Can you even imagine?

It’s true the Muslim community is rapidly gaining power and prestige in Canada, but in spite of the near passage of Sharia Law in Ontario last year (it was the work of Muslim women themselves who defeated it) the Muslim community cannot dictate to Canadians what our laws should be. Too bad when immigrating to Canada some of the men have such trouble trying to bring multiple wives into a country that allows only one. Too bad these men feel they are discriminated against in this county because they can’t legally have multiple wives. We are Canadians here. For God’s sake let’s stand up and act like it. Shame on you, BC Civil Liberties Association.

Is He Hitting the Bottle Again?

Just pondering. But Gordon Campbell actions are similar to those who are either just going into, or trying to climb out of, a drunk. And at 81 I’ve seen a few drunks in my life. How else to explain our premier’s reeling, radical political moves in the last few months? Of course just the fact of setting a provincial record for low approval ratings is enough to drive a body to drink. But if this isn’t the case (that our premier is drinking unduly and I have no proof that it is) then as citizens of this province we must try to make sense of Mr. Campbell’s actions.

But this is difficult. He’s going, he says, but he will be the one to say when. Perhaps as premier Mr. Campbell has other things to do before he goes besides just shuffling people and posts. He may even create more new posts. His latest new post is breath taking…the one that brings mining, forestry, river power, and of all things…First Nation Peoples into one big portfolio. And given his stated expectations that his people will follow his dictates even when he is no longer premier, it seems that Mr. Campbell plans to manage this portfolio, even from afar if need be.

This is scary beyond measure. Especially when Mr. Campbell doesn’t seem to realize that First Nation Peoples are people, not trees or rivers or minerals. To me Campbell resembles a drunken driver careening down a freeway with a bunch of unbuckled kids in the back seat. And we’re the unbuckled kids. We’re scared, but we need to ask the premier something. Like while he is taking back his rash promise that if we would be good kids and stop screaming he would buy us some ice cream cones (15% tax) but he didn’t have the money for cones anyway, having spent it at the Olympics Pub, dare we ask that he take back the HST before we hit that logging truck also careening down the road? And get thrown into that run-of- the- river dam? And be met at the hospital with the news there is no room for treatment for our massive injuries because the emergency was shut down last year and anyway there isn’t a doctor in the vicinity anymore?

Is He Outta Here? Really? For Good?

Is He Outta Here? Really? For Good?
No, not really. Well, his physical presence may be soon gone, but Gordon Campbell’s will to privatize and impoverish his corner of the world will live on for many years regardless of who runs in or wins the next provincial election. The generous tax breaks our premier gave before his early retirement will allow the HST to live simply because the provincial government will need the HST to keep from going bankrupt.
Gordon Campbell hates unions and adequate social services and taught others to hate them, too. Why? Because they take money from the private sector. He thinks the private sector is the ultimate in human development. Those at the top of the private sector make all the rules for everybody else including the government. Because they’re the smartest, Campbell thinks, therefor the best. They deserve more of what they already have. For them democracy is an unrestrained market where they can plunder at will. The result?
Now one child in three in provincial care goes to bed hungry at night. Private food providers who serve the elderly also serve the prisons. Mushy everything, scarce protein, heavy carbs. Slashed public schools, ferries, services to anything that helps women, children, the poor, homeless; we have the lowest minimum wage in Canada and the highest child poverty rate. And now just by an order in cabinet (laws put in place by Campbell) the provincial government has the power to take public lands out of Tree Farm Licenses, make them private, clear cut, export the raw logs and then sell the land to developers, minus consent of First Nations, or the rest of us, or even the legislature.
Gordon Campbell has lied and bribed. But there are corrupt politicians all over the world and Campbell is unusual only in one aspect. He has maneuvered to bring all of the natural resources of this province under one big controlling umbrella without even the knowledge, much less the consent, of his own cabinet.
And who is now holding this huge umbrella? Gordon Campbell. At least for the next few months. Time enough to make some really big deals with resource hungry foreigners. And who will stop him?

Violent Pedophiles and the Attorney General

Robert W.G. Gillen

Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Criminal Justice Branch

Dear Mr. Gillen,

Re: your letter to Mel Galea:

You assure Mr. Galea and others that the way in which Mr. Brundrett advised the Court on my sentence appeal was right and proper. You insist that by Mr. Brundrett's use of the cases of two violent pedophile sex offenders in comparison to my sentence for blockading at Eagleridge Bluffs was not at all meant to equate me with these two debased men with diseased minds.

I take umbrage with your protestations of innocent intent, but first, I am sure you will agree there are two kinds of law; statute law (Criminal Code) and case law (what other judges have decided on like cases). We also need to explain to others who may not know that on sentence appeal, the Appeal Court can adjust a sentence up or down, so there is always a risk of a greater sentence when appealing an original sentence.

And as you know very well, Mr. Gillen, but others might not, materials that are to be considered by the judges (three judges) on appeal are submitted in advance in writing before the actual court hearing. And because I brought the appeal I had to submit a Factum, that is, my reason for appealing, and it was per court rules; in writing. Again Mr. Gillen, as I am sure you know, but others might not, This Factum is extremely important as it is the primary information submitted by me upon which the judges will make a decision. After receiving a copy of my Factum, Mr. Brundrett then submitted to the Court his Responses to my Factum and his recommendations that the Court should follow in case the Court decides to give me additional time. And of course, Mr. Brundrett's written response to my Factum was the most important material the Court would see from the Crown's side.

And while it is true that Mr. Brundrett did not verbally say in Court that he thought I should be sentenced to life imprisonment or given a twenty-five year sentence like the violent pedophile cases he brought forth for comparison, he said it through Case Law. That is, in his written submissions to the Court which carries most weight ,Mr. Brundrett, by his submissions and comparisons, signalled to the Appeals Court that the Attorney General's office thought I should be given life imprisonment.

And the case that Mr. Brundrett emphasized in his submissions is as follows: In Regina v. M. (C.A.) , J.A. Jessup expressing the sentencing principal in Hill, at p. 147: " When an accused has been convicted of a serious crime in itself calling for a substantial sentence and when he suffers from some mental or personality disorder rendering him a danger to the community but not subject to confinement in a mental institution and when it is uncertain when, if ever, the accused will be cured of his affliction, in my opinion the appropriate sentence is one of life." And Mr. Brundrett emphasized the words "the appropriate sentence is one of life" by underlining them.

By emphasizing this section of Case Law Mr. Brundrett has accomplished two things: (a) he has equated my mens rea (my mind) with those of these debased men and (b) has attempted to anchor in the judge's minds the notion that I have committed like crimes (after all, repeated infractions of the law) and should therefore be similarly sentenced. If this were not so, why would Mr. Brundrett have submitted these two horrible cases as comparable to my own? And according to Madam Justice Brown in sentence of me (Page 2 of Madam Justice Brown's Oral Reason for Sentence [3]; ..."A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances."

Mr. Gillen, I am not a similar offender nor am I, or was I, in similar circumstances as these two debased violent pedophiles presented to the court by your office and I am highly offended that you and Mr. Brundrett seem to think I am. Protest as you please, the case law that was submitted by your office to guide the Court in considering my appeal case is conniving and cowardly. Perhaps it reflects the attitude of the Attorney General's office only too well. Sincerely yours,Betty Krawczyk

The way the Court system works is a mystery to most people including me. It's the language, for one thing. It's in a special code. The biggest problem I have encountered is simply trying to break the code. Even after all these years of being hammered by legal language I am still puzzled by most of it but what I do understand, or think I do, I will pass along to you.

First, I asked the Court in my written factum, which must be submitted to the Court before the day of the hearing, that I be given a new trial with a jury. The Crown (Mike Brundrett who represents the Attorney General of BC) asked in his written response to my factum, by using case law (what other judges have decided in other cases) that the Court should consider that I be declared a dangerous habitual offender and given life. This was evidenced by Mr. Brundrett in his written response by using two cases of violent pedophiles who attacked their own children repeatedly. By this Mr. Brundrett accomplished two things:
(a) he associated my name and person with violent, debased men in the hopes of anchoring this message in the judges' heads
(b) he brought to the court's attention that I had repeatedly broken other judges' orders- which is what an injunctions is and which no judge likes to hear about.

I based my argument on two main things:
(a) that a summary process (which mine was) is defined in the Criminal Code as sentencing that does not exceed six months. I was given ten.
(b) when Madam Justice Brown ruled on my application that she would not allow for a jury trial, she was not considering sentencing me to over five years (which is the time frame for being eligible to apply for a jury trial) and yet the Crown came back on appeal and recommended to the Court, through case law, that I should be sentenced to life in prison. Only in his written words to the judges did Mike Brundrett recommend this and, sneakily, only in his written responses to the Court did he propose that I should be given life. And to make sure the appeal judges didn't miss his message, he emphasized "should be given life".

The appeal judges have reserved their decision. Of course I am hoping for a new trial with a jury, but failing that, it would be heartfelt hopeful if they gave me enough room in their decisions to take it to the Supreme Court of Canada. If they did, I would walk to Ottawa. I think...

In any case, I will be sure to let you know.

In the mean time, you can listen to my interview with the Current on the CBC regarding the appeal arguments:

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2010/09/sept-2210---pt-2-betty-krawczyk-case.html

Betty K

What The Women In Prison Said

What The Women in Prison Said
Having spent a considerable amount of time in British Columbia’s jails and prison over eco-disputes (my objection to the rapid deforestation of this province) I have always listened to any conversation going on around me with the ear of a journalist (that’s what I am, in addition to being an activist). As the women prisoners accepted me as a criminal (after all, that’s what the Attorney General said I was), the inmates spoke freely before me. And I didn’t flinch from these women’s stories of child rape and family abuse, poverty, addictions, pimps, violence, gangs, and the means they employed to survive, as they were truth telling as they had experienced it. And at age 82 I am reasonably shock proof. Except one story I heard over and over from many different women, stories repeated endlessly in the prison compound and prison yard. It was about the Pickton farm and the murdered women.
At first I didn’t believe these stories, stories that went above and beyond the fact that an insane man had killed sex trade workers and fed them to his pigs. But the reasons behind this as described by the women, were simply too ghastly to be true. I dismissed the stories completely. The police, the RCMP, the provincial government just could not allow such things to happen as these stories suggested, the ones circulating in prison, especially in a civilized country and province like British Columbia. There just simply could not be any elevation of degradation beyond killing women and feeding their bodies to pigs. Even when a jury convicted Pickten of second degree murder because, as I understood it, they believed other people must have been involved, I did not want to give credence to these inmate’s stories. But lately, I’m not so sure. And these doubts have been prompted, by of all things, an article in the Times Colonist.
Sept. 29, Pickton inquiry already off track
“Former attorney general Wally Oppal is the wrong choice to head the Pickten inquiry. Its credibility has been dealt a serious blow before the work even begins.”
And the article goes on to point out that Oppal’s appointment creates a perception of bias and conflict of interest. As former attorney general he sat at the cabinet table and discussed policy issues that could well be part of the inquiry’s focus. And he defended the Liberal government’s position on policing and other relevant issues. When he was Attorney General he tried to keep evidence from an inquiry into the death of Frank Paul, a native man dumped in an alleyway and left to die and he was, until he was defeated 16 months ago, a partisan politician. That is, a liberal hack. And Oppal will not, according to The Times Colonist (hardly a left leaning paper) recommend for sweeping change, including a regional police force, and the very terms of reference will prevent the commission from addressing relevant issues like how did it happen that these women’s disappearance was treated so trivially by everybody in charge? The women I heard talk in prison think they know. They think the grisly truth is that criminal gangs were making “snuff” films at Pickton’s farm. Evidently there are men in the world who will pay big money for videos of women being murdered and dismembered. Could it be true? Well, certainly Wally Oppal’s commission won’t find out.

For Harriet

Hotmail Active View
For Harriet
Play video
00:03:56
Added on 29/09/2010
93 views
Dylan has left a new comment on your post "BETTY LOCKED UP FOR LIFE?":

Hi Betty I wrote a song inspired by Harriet Nahanee. Check out the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osubQ4FmEeE
From Betty: Readers please watch this video. It's quite beautiful. I believe that Harriet's spirit still lives at Eagleridge Bluffs. And certainly her spirit lives with me.

CLEAR CUTTING =LANDSLIDES AND FLOODS?

Clear Cutting = Landslides and floods?
Yes. Not always, but mostly. From Haiti to Pakistan to Mexico and to Port Alice, Port Hardy, Bella Coola, to…well, wherever there are massive mudslides and flooding the first thing to inquire is how extensive is the clear cutting in the area. Many of Haiti’s largest towns are primarily big mud holes because they have no trees left to hold back the rain from the mountainsides. There is speculation that the recent accelerated clear cutting of the forests in Pakistan is primarily responsible for the massive flooding there. Industrial forestry is swallowing up forests in every part of the globe including British Columbia and yet nothing seems able to stop it. It’s almost as if one giant chain saw is denuding the forests of the earth under various giant forest corporations and their smaller subsidies that contract out to even smaller independent subsidiaries. And usually with government subsidies (the money of all of us private people who together make up the huge public tax contribution to this province.) These subsidies from us is given to the very corporations who besides stealing our trees, are making mud holes.
And it is so unnecessary. Some countries are trying to move toward community owned (leased to a community of forestry workers) forests and forestry workers who know how and are willing to do selective logging. Without this kind of intervention, could British Columbia also become a province of giant mud holes where thriving cities and towns used to be? Of course. We have everything here to make that happen; the practice of clear cutting, dwindling forests due to over cutting, tree diseases, forest fires, and most of all, giant corporations determined to cut it all down even if that requires just shipping out the raw logs. And we have our uncaring provincial government who evidentially loves giant logging corporations, the bigger and more destructive the better, and an attorney general (political appointee) who will try to lock anybody up forever who dares protest. It a perfect storm of converging factors designed to denude British Columbia of what is left of our forests. And first Nations pride. And the beauty, health, and glory of British Columbia and its entire people.