Yes, well, one could also argue that making it legal for women to carry pepper spray but not legal for men (as protection against muggers) is misandry.

And the trouble with any weapon is that it can be used against you. Plus, you have to have it within easy access 24/7 - which makes it easy for the attacker to grab too.

Conservatives: Protect yourself

Liberals: No, no, no, let the government take care of you!

How about "and"? Self defense AND preventative education. Maybe, just maybe, you can do both.

Unbelievable idiocy from a minister in the Trudeau admin

In what universe is idiocy from a minister in the Trudeau admin unbelievable?

And the trouble with any weapon is that it can be used against you. Plus, you have to have it within easy access 24/7 - which makes it easy for the attacker to grab too.

Yeah, you pretty much have to have it engaged and in your hand and ready to go (aimed away from you) while you're walking to your/car/house/whatever. Having it on your keychain or in your purse isn't enough.

I know this isn't the point of the post, but glad to see someone else who shares the thought that "having" pepper spray isn't going to protect you. Both close friends I've known who have been attacked had pepper spray on their person, but weren't able to use it.

Well, it gives the assaulted person a chance, which is still better than no chance. (It depends a lot on the specifics of the assault.) Admittedly, we're mostly talking about street muggings here. No weapon helps much defending against intimate partner violence; you aren't going to lay in bed at night with a can of pepper spray next to you.

But note the government Dunning-Krueger effect at work here: "Well... we're going to publish a policy! That'll show those murderers and rapists!"

We do a similar thing here in the states with "restraining orders." If you are attacked just wave the piece of paper and yell, "read this, you aren't allowed to assault me!"

"That's why, after 10 years of inaction, we are developing a federal gender-based violence strategy in consultation with provinces, territories and grassroots organizations to ensure that women in Canada can live free from violence."

I can't wait to see that 'strategy'. People have been trying since the dawn of time to develop a 'strategy' to ensure that everybody, everywhere (not just Canadian women) can live 'free from violence'. Hasn't happened yet, has it? It's like trying to create a 'strategy' to make the sun shine every day - you can have all the 'strategy' you like, but the real world always intervenes.

How many Canadian women are going to have to be beaten or killed while they work out their 'strategy'?

The only 'strategy' that has ever worked to reduce violence between people (of whatever sort) has been the ability of a potential victim to resist sufficiently to make his or her attacker desist. In other words, offer so much violence in response to an attack that the attacker quits. Harsh and certain punishment, after the fact, comes a poor second in violence reduction, because many actors who do this sort of thing are not considering the consequences when they do it. 'Strategies' are of no help whatever.

llater,

llamas

But if women have autonomy and independence, what will happen to the bureaucrats? Won't someone please think of the government employees?

And the trouble with any weapon is that it can be used against you.

Because we know your attacker won't be brining a weapon. Oh, wait...

Remember, if you are on the scene, you are the first responder. When seconds count, 911 is minutes away. Not to mention the fact that the constabulary is under no obligation to actually defend you.

"To serve and protect" is a catchy campaign slogan, but that's about it.

But if women have autonomy and independence, what will happen to the bureaucrats? Won't someone please think of the government employees?

In which case, we really need to rethink that whole women's suffrage thing.

Canada is far less violent than the USA. Arming ourselves to the teeth out of fear isn't really our "thing". In the US, I can see why you might feel that more weapons are the answer to everything. It's an extremely violent society. Up here in Canada, it's a little more peaceful. You can't really use your American views and apply them here.

In the US, I can see why you might feel that more weapons are the answer to everything.

We're not talking about actual weapons, but pepper spray. Unless someone has an unfortunate allergy, or the user of the spray incapacitates an attacker and then spray the rest of the can down their throat, this is a non-lethal defense.

Again: the person who would tell me how I may defend myself sees me not as a citizen, but as a resource.

"Again: the person who would tell me how I may defend myself sees me not as a citizen, but as a resource."

I would say "interchangeable part". As in: "Oh, this one's broken. Someone vandalized it. Too bad. Let's get another one. They're cheap."

"to ensure that women in Canada can live free from violence."

The selfish, cold, callous soul of feminism is revealed: Only women are entitled, at men's expense, to live in a violence-free world, while women remain largely free to commit violence against men and boys -- directly, and by proxy. Both ways, men are dehumanized. We are nothing more than beasts -- of burden, of provision, and of protection, to be discarded if and when useless to women.

In order to fan the flames of baseless resentment and outrage, women are urged by feminists to always look up at the very few men above the fictitious "glass ceiling." So they take no notice of the very many men toiling obscurely beneath the very real "glass floor" that supports women's collective comfort, convenience and security. That glass floor is not sound-proof, though. All those men that are beneath women's notice still hear the dismissive, contemptuous barbs that so many women love to throw at men -- who are obligated to just silently take the abuse, lest they lose precious female approval.

Why do male suicides vastly outnumber female? Why do male work injuries and deaths vastly outnumber female? Why do women earn less, but spend more? Why does government effectuate the vast ongoing transfer of wealth from men to women? The Patriarchy, which exists first and foremost to protect and provide for women, wants it that way! If women objected to this inequality, the Patriarchy would fix the problem right quick, amirite?

Under feminism's guidance, the Patriarchy will get to men's problems eventually -- after the last and most trivial of women's problems is eradicated, and women live in the perfect femtopia to which they are entitled.

Of course, isn't manufacturing misogyny the true objective of feminism? Feminists are not nice people, and, unfortunately, even as they contribute to women's declining happiness, they are successfully stoking the fires of male resentment and hostility toward the entire female sex.

As for the traditional female trump card of vaginal monopoly, women should remember that a man is perfectly willing to pump and dump a woman he doesn't like -- and might even prefer it that way. Sexbots will become ubiquitous when they are the less expensive, and more pleasant, alternative. Can that day be far off if feminism continues to dominate our society?

If women don't want men and boys to stop liking them and generally treating them well, they should be loudly telling those feminasties to open up a big can of shut-up-and-fuck-off juice.

Our charming, flame-haired hostess serves as a constant reminder that "feminist" =/= "woman", which helps me to resist the urge of turning into a true and dedicated misogynist.

Thanks, Amy.

KDR: "Canada is far less violent than the USA... Up here in Canada, it's a little more peaceful."

Since Canada is so peaceful, it would seem that Status of Women Minister Patty Hajdu's criticism that "Ms. Leitch and the former Conservative government had 10 years to address violence against women and failed to do so" is not valid.

Hajdu thinks violence against women in Canada is a big enough issue that there's a need to develop "a federal gender-based violence strategy."

Men are about three times more likely to be victims of violence, including murder, than women.

Well, that settles it. Next time I go hiking in bear country I will not need to carry bear spray.

I'll just make sure that the park rangers have taught the bears that they shouldn't attack people just because we might have food.

Whew, I feel much safer already. That goodness my government is looking out for me!

"Waaaah! Don't put it on me to prevent assault! Teach men not to assault!"

I guess I should protest having to lock my door when I leave my apartment. "Don't put it on me to prevent my home from being robbed! Teach people not to rob!"

I should also stop avoiding dangerous neighborhoods, especially at night. "Don't put it on me to prevent my own mugging! Teach people not to rob!"

"You can't really use your American views and apply them here."

How long did you have to think before dropping that steaming load?
Self-defense - the concept and the duty - doesn't give a damn about where you are.

In case it does, I remind you that Vancouver, definitely part of Canada, has a crime problem.

Special snowflakes - apparently, like you - are everywhere. To quote Larry Correia, I'm not "victim blaming" if I tell you to look both ways before crossing the street, I'm trying to keep your stupid ass from being hit by a bus.

By the way: just as with carrying a pistol, pepper spray doesn't have to be in your hand all the time OR in a position where it can be used against you first.

But don't miss that the State doesn't want you to defend yourself, Canadian or not.

(I read that they're changing the Canadian anthem to be gender neutral. There you go.)

Cousin Dave:

See this for my use of the term "resource". http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-01-31

Muggings are far more common than rapes. Pepper spray is a good defense. Muggings have nothing to do with gender violence except that women are easier prey and have an easily snatched purse.
Plus the idea that you can stop all violence by means of education is simply....words fail me.

I saw statistics showing that people (male or female) who go to bars have a much higher rate of being assaulted/mugged. Not surprising. They are drunk and hanging around other drunks. Oh, and a drunk is sure an easy target for a mugger. Not fair? Teach drunks not to fight? Right.
The logic of not defending yourself, as in Britain, is that only the authorities should deal with criminals. Defending yourself has been a crime there. The result is that crooks simply knock on doors and when the door opens burst in and steal stuff. They have a far higher rate of home invasions than in the US. And the homeowners get beat up badly. Of course, the logic fails because the cops aren't everywhere all the time to "defend" you.

Suppose I'm walking down the street and I hear screams. I go to investigate and I see a woman being raped.

What is my legal obligation? Not asking what you think my moral obligation is, or what you think I should do. I'm asking what the law requires me to do in this situation.

Answer: Nothing.

I'm perfectly within my rights to keep on walking. I don't have to hit the perp with the nearest heavy object, scream for help or call the police. Nor do I have to hang around for the police to arrive so I can give a witness statement.

I have no duty to the victim in this crime.

And when feminists realize this, I'm sure they'll start lobbying Congress to enact laws that require men to take (what they consider) reasonable steps to protect women from being raped. You wait and see. They'll try it, if they're not already doing so.

I'm not obligated to teach other men not to rape or commit assault, either. I know enough not to do it, and that's all the law asks of me.

With this in mind, the job of protecting potential victims from rape is the job of the potential victims and no one else. No one has any obligation to protect you, except you.

So, with this in mind, one has to take reasonable steps to protect oneself from crime. No one else is going to do it for one.

You can complain all you want to that you should be allowed to drink as much as you want, dress however you want, dance with whomever you want, leave your drink unattended if you want, and go to whatever sleazy hole-in-the-wall you want.

How much consolation is that going to provide you if you're raped?

Up here in Canada, it's a little more peaceful.

Ah yes, that smug Canadian moral superiority.

Up there in Canada you had a woman claim it was a violation of her civil rights to expect her to wash her hands AFTER TAKING A SHIT before she handled your food, AND SHE WON

Also, how many men have your people hounded out of job and hectored into failed politically motivated rape prosecutions forced to proceed despite clear evidence of the 'victims' lying

"With this in mind, the job of protecting potential victims from rape is the job of the potential victims and no one else. No one has any obligation to protect you, except you."

Completely correct, but I have been accused elsewhere of "victim shaming" for suggesting this; snowflakes are everywhere. Now I refer them to this. No clickbait, not monetized.

I'm sure they're still feeling hurt because reality doesn't work for them.

"Up here in Canada, it's a little more peaceful. You can't really use your American views and apply them here."

True statement (see stats below) but I'm not sure that makes your streets safe for your lady friends in certain neighborhoods/situations given human nature.

Besides, what is the rationale for not allowing simple non-lethal means of self-defense (other than a government's need to control people).

It must be good since most of the world does not permit ownership of "weapons" as defined by their governments. Guess "adults" are not capable of using good judgement.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime

"Canada is far less violent than the USA"

Also less populated, less accomplished, less powerful -- and the world's leading source of talking beavers.

Welcome to Canada!

+1 Bob in Texas, who wrote

'"Up here in Canada, it's a little more peaceful. You can't really use your American views and apply them here."

True statement (see stats below) but I'm not sure that makes your streets safe for your lady friends in certain neighborhoods/situations given human nature.'

It's always a mistake to look at things like crime purely in terms of statistics and averages, as though a violent crime is somehow less-violent for the victim because it is statistically less-likely to have occurred than in another place. A woman raped in Canada is not somehow less-raped than a woman raped in the US.

So, yes, the 'American' view that a woman (or indeed, any person) has the right, and should therefore also have the ability, to defend her- or him-self against violence, most-certainly does apply in 'peaceful' Canada. 'Peaceful' is no more that a statistical comparison, the situation of a person faced with violence is identical regardless of how frequently or infrequently it might occur.

Unless, of course, you take the view that Canada has reached an acceptable level of violent crime, which is preferable to the idea of allowing people to defend themselves against it when it happens to them. Those people who get raped and murdered should just accept that this is a sacrifice that they must make to support the societal goal that their leaders have chosen.

llater,

llamas

Guess the lady is no longer a feminist.
Easy come. Easy go.
(Humming. "What have you done for me lately.")

"Susan B. Anthony, the mother of the women’s vote in the U.S. said: “I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand.” Ms. Anthony said that more than one hundred years ago."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9uizdKZAGE
Sorry for the commercial

Link for the above quote plus some goodies from HP

The Danger of Anti-Rape Wear
“Anti-rape panties” is really a misnomer. They should be called “anti-vaginal penetration” panties, which would encourage an assailant to figure out another warm orifice."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-snortland/got-medieval-weve-got-a-b_b_4306007.html

Holy hell, what would these people do if they were living in Israel?!

Besides die horribly when they refused to defend themselves, I mean.

Does teaching women to defend themselves us valuable resources which could be used to teach men not to assault women? No? Then what's the argument about?
So we're going to teach men not to assault women, right? Might take a couple of weeks, possibly a month. Until then, why shouldn't women defend themselves? Just until, say, mid March. When it's all taken care of.

And the trouble with any weapon is that it can be used against you. Plus, you have to have it within easy access 24/7 - which makes it easy for the attacker to grab too.

If you don't have the sense to get some training and become competent with a weapon, don't carry one. But don't presume to pontificate to those with more self-respect than you.