|Most women know the answer to the question posed by Christie Blatchford, but extremely few women are willing to admit the truth. Many thanks to Christie Blatchford for being one of the few honest women who do. As to men, well, it seems that they can't help themselves. They see their mother in every woman. They lost their ability to see the truth in women before they became four years of age. |
This web page tries to examine what kind of forces are at work that drive society to be in denial about women's violence. It attempts as well to identify some of the consequences of that denial.
It is not really possible to make an in-depth analysis of that issue here, nor am I qualified to make an exhaustive, scientific examination of the issue. However, it needs to be asked why society is in denial of women's violence and why society treats
violent women gently.
It must be made quite clear that this is not an attempt to state that all women are violent, no more so than that all men are violent. Women and men are both about equally violent, although they choose primarily different kinds of victims (more about that a bit
farther down). The important point to remember is that violent behaviour is aberrational and is found in only a tiny fraction of both men and women. The vast majority of women and men are peaceful, loving, respectful and non-violent people.
Although the current bias in our perceptions in favour of women and against men—in relation to their respective tendencies to be violent—has largely been created through the efforts of radical, extremist feminists throughout the last twenty years, to some extent this bias has been in existence throughout history.
A prime example of the bias in favour of women is the case of Karla Homolka. Certainly, no valid conclusions can be drawn from a statistical sample of one. Nevertheless, although it is a fact that women are as violent as men, relative to men, very few women serve time in correctional institutions at any time. The ratio of incarceration for men and women in Canada is 100:1 and in the USA it is about 18:1. Given that our nations have virtually identical cultural backgrounds and cultures, the only possible explanation for the disparity in the respective incarceration ratios in the two countries is given by differences in judicial bias in favour of women. The reason for the greater bias against men in Canada is most likely the fact for which Canada is internationally renowned, that it is a country in which liberalism and its children, gender-feminism and victim-feminism, have made greater advances than in all other countries in the world. The reason for the differences can most certainly not be that Canadian men, relative to Canadian women, are more than five times as violent or criminal than American men are relative to American women.
Women, just as anyone else in any play for power, direct their violence primarily against victims who are weaker than they are, the sleeping, the elderly, the sick, the intoxicated, the handicapped, the unsuspecting, and, most of all, their children. The violence by women against children is such a large problem, caused by the inability of juries and courts to equitably sentence women for murder, that a special category of crime had to be created that can only be used in the indictment and prosecution of women who murder their children: infanticide. In all other cases of women's violence, it is virtually always claimed that something or someone made them do it, an excuse that is virtually never used for men. To mention some of these excuses: hormones, post-traumatic stress disorder, temporary insanity, battered-wife syndrome, Munchausen syndrome by proxy, even "automatism," all of these and many more are applied in cases of women's violence, but virtually never in cases of men's violence.
For men THERE IS NO EXCUSE!
There is always the desire to find women innocent. Failing that and if no denial is possible in the face of the evidence, women's sentences are plea-bargained down to a lesser charge, which, incidentally, often removes the crime from the category of murder, child murder, spousal murder and so on, and moves it into a category that falls outside the scope of the more serious offences. As a result of that, crime statistics published by justice departments do not give an objective indication of women's violence but rather identify only the results of judicial bias in favour of women.
Society's inability to accept that women are often violent has serious consequences for the victims and potential victims of women's violence. Without admitting that women can be and often are violent, we are unable to take precautions to protect the most vulnerable potential victims from women's violence. We don't even make the attempt to rehabilitate women who are a potential danger to society and their children, and, rather than to deal with the stark reality of women's violence, we let them off lightly, often without them having to serve any time at all in a correctional institution. Thereby we give them the opportunity to torture, maim and kill new victims time and again. Not only that, but because we treat them so lightly, we give women the message that it is all right for them to be violent. The consequence of that is that, although violence by male youth and men steadily and substantially declined during the last decade or so, violence by women and especially by teenaged girls has seen accelerating increases during the same time frame.
Women's violence is nevertheless virtually invisible. It becomes visible only then when a woman is involved in committing a particularly horrible and bloody crime. Patricia Pearson addresses the myth of women's innocence in her book "When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence." Although she provides much information to debunk many of the popular myths (she debunks even the myth that there are no female mass murderers), even she, in spite of her deliberate objectivity in reporting on women's violence, forgot or was blind to massive instances of women's violence in recent history, the violence of French women during the French Revolution, and the violence by 240,000 women in Nazi-Germany who actively participated in the atrocities perpetrated by the SS, the wives of SS men, SS-Wives, whose involvement has been covered in considerable detail by Dr. Gudrun Schwarz in her book "A Wife at his Side: Wives in the SS Clan-Community."
The judges at the war trials in Germany were unable to face reality in the case of the SS-women. They were in denial of women's violence even then, in the post-war climate of trying to blame someone for the crimes committed by the Nazis. They issued a general amnesty that included many women whose crimes were in reality far worse and far more frequent than anything that Karla Homolka did. How can we expect a more equitable view of the respective propensities of the sexes to commit violence today, when politically-correct man-hating and vilification of men runs rampant in a political climate charged with propaganda against men, propaganda that uses deliberately falsified and deliberately distorted facts and figures?
I spent some time in putting death statistics together as a result of commenting on an article in the Scientific American that addressed the question of why women live longer than men. Those statistics relate somewhat to the escalating discussion of domestic violence. After all, the time of writing this coincided with the annual return of the Domestic-Violence Month. Consider the following graph that was produced from the data I found.
Table containing the data and links to original sources
The graph depicts deaths for 1995 in the US for ten leading causes of deaths in age groups from 0 to 24 years. Maybe you should print the graph out and show it to your friends. I would be interested in their reactions. To print the graph out, you'll have to open it up in a graphics application that can handle GIF files. The following graph shows a comparison of the leading ten causes of deaths in the age groups from 25 to 64 years.
Table containing the data and links to original sources
The overall total of deaths by homicide in the age range 0-24 years ranks in second place, after the deaths through unintentional injuries. It is in second place because of the extraordinarily large number of male homicide victims. In the age range from 25-64 years, deaths by homicide rank in tenth's place of the leading causes of deaths, after cancer, heart disease, HIV infections, unintentional injuries, suicide, cerebrovascular diseases, liver diseases, diabetes, and after deaths due to bronchitis, emphysema and asthma.
The following graph shows the numbers of murder victims for 1995 in more detail.
Source: US National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
The next graph illustrates the exact numbers as published by the FBI in the Uniform Crime Report for 1997.
The numbers in the preceding graph produce the sum of 15,289 murder victims in 1997 (including 24 victims of unknown sex). Table 1 of the 1997 UCR, "Index of Crime, United States 1978 - 1997," shows a total of 18,210 homicide victims for 1997. There is difference of 2,969 between the total homicide victims in Table 1 and the murder victims shown in Table 2.5 of the UCR. The UCR documents available at the FBI web site don't appear to explain the difference in the totals shown in the two tables of the UCR report.
Domestic violence homicides are included in the figures shown for homicides in this page. Consider that domestic violence homicides comprise only a small fraction the totals shown (about 5%). Why is so much money and effort spent in addressing domestic violence, even though there are far greater and far more pressing problems with causes of deaths that have a far, far greater impact on the population?
In Canada, about as many or perhaps more women die each year due to surgical misadventure than due to domestic violence, yet nobody vilifies surgeons.
Such is the power of propaganda. And the people promulgating the "gender violence" propaganda are ripping our society apart. Christie Blatchford said in the heading of her Nov. 6, 1999 article in the National Post about Karla Homolka: "As a woman, she had access to the victim stereotype." The same idea is without any doubt at work for the people, organizations and bureaucracies who promote the social devastation wrought by the family violence industry. We must ask ourselves why and how things came to be the way they are.
It wasn't all that long ago that men were adored and admired for the sacrifices they made for home, family and country. Men still make these sacrifices. In that respect nothing has changed. There is compulsory military draft only for men. Although some women ostensibly joined the armed forces to fill combat positions, few combat positions are being filled by women. In Canada, although women clamored for years to have the right to join the armed forces, and although the Canadian military has been bending over backwards to grant women their wish, only 10% of Canada's armed forces personnel is female. Out of the 6,700 women who are now proud members of our armed forces, only about 150 are in combat positions. The dying and the suffering is still being done by men. Even in the private sector.
In the private sector, the dirty and dangerous jobs are being done virtually without exception by men. Some women who are reminded of that fact state that men are to be blamed for that, that this fact is a result of men's choices. They are oblivious to the fact that millions of men are expected to do these dangerous jobs. But that is not all. It is difficult for millions of men to find safer and healthier work. Men are a disposable resource and women are being protected. Men comprise 95% of all work-related fatalities. Not much has changed with respect to the willingness of men to sacrifice their lives and health for what they hold dear.
Nevertheless, how could it happen that men, in spite of being the ones who experience early and often violent death to a far greater extent than the rapidly growing female "half" of the population (a half that is considerably more than half by now, a half that holds far more than half of all votes), are as despised as any group of people that ever experienced discrimination? Erin Pizzey, author of "Prone to Violence," addressed that question in her short essay "The Planned Destruction of the Family." A more thorough discussion of the subject is contained in her somewhat longer essay "How The Women's Movement Taught Women to Hate Men."
The worst part of these circumstances is that the majority of domestic violence victims, children, are never, ever prominently mentioned, nor the fact that women, that is, biological mothers, are the perpetrators of about 60.9% of child murders, whereas
natural fathers account for no more than 2.4% of child murders. *
* Source: The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3) from the US Department of Health and Human Services (call 1-800-FYI-3366 for a copy).
The FBI 1997 Uniform Crime Report tells us that the murder count for 1996 totaled 19,645 (down from 21,957 in 1995). An examination of the quoted figures and related information reveals what is shown in the following tables.
Murders in the US in 1995
| Children (Source:
|Men murdered by girlfriends/wives
|| 3% of 16,630
|Women murdered by boyfriends/husbands
|| 26% of 3,752
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report for 1995
Discussion of data
Murders in the US in 1996
(Child Fatality Fact
|Men murdered by girlfriends/wives
|| 3% of 15,848
|Women murdered by boyfriends/husband
|| 30% of 2,711
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report for 1996
Discussion of data
According to a Child Abuse Fact Sheet produced by the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, accurate child abuse statistics are difficult to come by. The Fact Sheet gives the reasons for that. That makes it necessary to assume that the figure of 1,262 annual child murders mentioned in The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3) from the US Department of Health and Human Services is a vast understatement of the true number of children who are murdered each year. The murder of a child is so much more easily disguised as having been caused by accidental death or natural causes than that of an adult. In addition, thorough autopsies are routinely performed in the deaths of adults but seldom in the deaths of children.
The Child Abuse Fact Sheet from the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information states that "Ryan Rainey from the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse believes that the number of child deaths from maltreatment per year may be as high as 5,000." The general consensus of opinions is that the reported number of child murders, 1,262 in NIS-3, is most likely less than half of the true number of child murders. That we must guess at this number is an indication that we don't really care that much about what happens to our children.
It appears to be safe to assume that far more children than women are being murdered in cases of domestic violence, although a large number of these poor children are not considered murder victims because most likely it was their mothers (in 60.9% of the cases according to NIS-3) or their boyfriends who killed them. However, even the number of officially recognized victims of child murders exceeds that of the number of women murdered in domestic violence.
Measured by the level of concern that society has for the various categories of murder victims, a single murdered woman is worth far, far more than even a number of murdered children, let alone murdered men and boys or men and boys who die a violent death for any other reason. If that were not so, we would focus our concerns for the reduction of deaths on those categories and demographic sectors that experience the largest losses, not on those for whom we deliberately create a disproportionate amount of sympathy.
Nobody must ever downplay the pain suffered by victims of violence, and I have no intention at all to do that here or anywhere else, however, compared to the numbers of victims of many other causes of deaths, spousal murders are truly a trivial problem. Our children are our future, and in the interest of all of society they and our young adults deserve our respect and protection.
Surely, it can't be a sign of equitable respect for our children that the number of boys and young men who die (about 42,000 in 1995) is twice that of girls and young women (about 21,000 in 1995).
It surely can't be a sign of respect for any of our children if we value them so little that the plight of a small group of victims, battered women who are murdered in domestic violence incidents (about 813 in 1996 and about 976 in 1995), ranks so prominently in the public's perception over that of children and young adults many times their number who die a violent death (more than 34,000 in 1995).
These are more likely signs of neglect by society, neglect caused by successful strategies of propagandists who divert attention from children to a small group of preferred victims, so that the people making a living from the plight of these few victims can further their political agenda. If you find it difficult to agree with that, then examine more carefully the chart shown above or the data it was constructed from.
Walter H. Schneider, 1999 11 05, updated 1999 11 09
The following contains notes and comments from a discussion related to these issues.
Walter H. Schneider, 1998 10 01
Dave Prichard asked:
"Did Petkau talk of the American study when she was out west? One that
indicated about 75% of all American rapists were sexually assaulted by
their mothers?" [Full text of message is appended]
A quote I found for that is "80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes" [Criminal Justice and Behaviour Vol. 14 pp. 403-26] However, I have not seen the article.
Theresa Petkau didn't specifically mention an American study on sexual abuse of boys by mothers (at least, I don't recall that), but she did mention that the majority of rapists in prison were abused as children, although I seem to remember thinking at the time that her point would have come across stronger if she would have stressed who did the abusing and what kind of abuse it was that they these men had been subjected to.
A video tape was made of the workshop. When I get a copy, I'll keep my eyes and ears open for the details.
However, why don't you contact Theresa Petkau directly?
Theresa L. Petkau
B.A. (Hons.), Sociology; M.A., Sociology
Phone: (905) 546-9900
The consequences of the sexual abuse of boys were reported by Frederick Matthews in "The Invisible Boy" http://www.canadiancrc.com/The_Invisible_Boy_Report.aspx
In Chapter 2. Perpetrators of Male Victimization, http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/ibc3.html, it is stated:
A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O—Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by —females only— chose female victims almost exclusively.
Table 4. Victim Gender Based on Who Previously Abused the Perpetrator
|Gender of Perpetrators— Own Victimizer||Gender of Victim|
| ||Male or Both||Female Only |
[O—Brien, M.J. (1989). Characteristics of Male Adolescent Sibling Incest Offenders. Orwell, VT: Safer Society Press.]
From that it appears that boys who were sexually abused by females and become in turn sexual abusers are virtually certain to abuse only females. All three ladies who spoke about this at the Calgary Family Violence Workshop (Sen. Cools, Theresa Petkau, Erin Pizzey) stressed that we all internalize the influence of our parents, and that when only a woman is the parent in contact with children, and if these women are abusers to boot, that the children in their care are at a very high risk to become abusers too, who, if they are male, are more likely than other offspring with a more normal upbringing to lash out at women. They didn't make a distinction between the types of abuses that men like that subject women to, but they did stress the inter-generational cycle of violence. Erin Pizzey emphasized that there are differences in the types of violence perpetrated by men and women. She said that the violence by women takes the form of terrorism, is often violence by proxy, and is far more insidious and devastating -- especially w.r.t. the psychological aspects -- than that of men.
Theresa Petkau stressed an important point in that respect. The data from the last year of a study period of a Canadian study that she cited (can't remember what it was), indicated that a full 97% of women in that year (I think it was 1992) reported no abuse of any kind, not even the types of abuse that were included in the liberal definitions of domestic violence (e.g.: "yelling", "fear of the spouse") that were created to inflate the numbers, because real physical abuse is so rare.
Daniel Amneus stressed that same aspect in terms of the impact of fatherlessness on children (Nick Szabo's Video,
Father Figure, mailto:email@example.com ). He recited a long litany of factors involved, stressing that in each case, although not all children from fatherless "families" will be negatively affected, of all children who are negatively affected the vast majority is most certainly and decidedly far more likely to come from fatherless homes.
With respect to Karla Homolka (for the life of me, I don't know why she wasn't called by her legal name Bernardo -- she was still married to her husband), from what has appeared lately, and as you mentioned in your message, she clearly appears to have been the prime perpetrator. Paul Bernardo was a rapist but apparently not a murderer. There is no doubt about that, but his wife was also a rapist. In addition to that she was a sadist and clearly a murderer! Don't forget that she murdered her own sister and was never even indicted for that crime!
Karla Homolka is currently serving time in a women's prison (one of about 150 women incarcerated in Canada's federal prisons) and studies to become a social worker. Doesn't it make you feel secure that she may well be the one in whose fully rehabilitated hands the safety and welfare of your children may rest at some point in the near future?
Update: Karla Homolka has been released to a half-way house, some time in the Fall of 1999
The mechanics behind the Bernardo trial are the same as those that are at play in attempts to hide the complicity and active participation by SS-women in the activities of their husbands. It will never do to admit that some women can be just as cruel and perverted as some men are, let alone admitting that women may well be more likely than men to be sadistic and cruel.
If that admission is made by anyone, the whole house of cards build around the premise "women good, men bad" will come falling down. It is far more easy to allege that only men can be cruel and violent and to project from that to all men. That so much better fits the agenda of the forces that are actively destroying our families. The motivation appears to be very much like that of the SS-guards (male or female) that robbed and murdered their victims. Don't the motivations that drove the SS-women that Gudrun Schwarz described in "A Wife at his Side" apply to virtually the same extent to the people who are making a living from the planned destruction of our families and all of society? Gudrun Schwarz, with respect to the SS-women, mentioned: racism; social ambitions; materialistic aspirations, and authoritarian character profiles, "that even enabled some of the participating women at the end to label Auschwitz as an 'idyllic setting.' "
It all was done then to ostensibly purify the Aryan race. Now it is being done to cleanse society of men. The difference is only in the scale of it. We now have world-wide cleansing.
Matthias Matussek, in the article "The Disenfranchised Father" (Der Spiegel, Nov. 17, 1997. English translation at http://www.pappa.com/vater/vaterle2.htm ) said:
"Twenty years after the Reform of the Century [the implementation of no-fault divorce], the emancipation-motivated legislators are confronted by a totally different clientele: a non-ideological generation, formed in a society which, as historian Christian Meier describes it, "lives from the spoils of dismantling,— and in which everyone "only tries to gain what there is to be salvaged.—
"While the therapeutic new-speak babble anesthetizes the scandal of this sociological brutalization, Karin Jaeckel steers the attention to the victims who are growing up. It is her protocols, which are amongst the most shocking in her book, a concert of voices of sad lack of illusions and unchildlike callousness, but also futile yearning for peace which rises out of the divorce battlefields and familiar landscapes of rubble [of the destroyed families]. "
"...Eventually one of the mothers burst out, loud and considerably confused: "As long as we don't have half of the power in society, we won't hand over a single piece of mother-power.—
There, it slipped out, the ugly toady word: Power. Power over the children. Power over the feelings of the faded [spouse], power as vengeance on the man and restitution for her own biography without a father. "
That's what it is all about, power. Anything to get power, power for a few privileged college- and university-educated women from the upper middle-class of society who attempt to lure the unsuspecting masses of the women of the lower classes with promises that are virtually identical to those used by Himmler in making 240,000 German women active participants in the SS, the promise of having a place in the sun, of being members of the ruling class. However, the vast majority of these women find that instead of "having it all," they are "having to do it all." (Dave Usher, ACFC, Letter to the Editor, Worcester Telegram & Gazette, 1998 09 10 http://fathersforlife.org/facts_ben.htm ) They have the chore of bringing up "their" children without the help of dedicated husbands and doting, devoted fathers of those children.
The promised "better society," filled with peace and love, ruled by peaceful and loving women, is so far off that it isn't even peeking over the horizon. After more than three decades of tearing down all of our social institutions or at least making them a travesty of what they once were, ostensibly to prepare the ground for a better society, we are now
farther away from that goal than we ever were. However, the war against men continues to escalate and will continue until the very last man has been relegated to the status of an inferior member of the human race and the last family has lost its father.
That too is something that the current quest for power and world domination has in common with that of the Nazis in a headlong rush into ultimate destruction. The Nazis, while they were engaged in that, kept on singing right up to the bitter end, "We shall keep on marching, until all to rubble will fall, because today we own Germany, and tomorrow the world and all!" The song of the radical feminists is far simpler and shorter: "In the best interest of the children, equal rights for women!", while the truly noble intentions of the origins of the premise "in the best interest of the children," to guarantee and protect their right to two parents, are being perverted and turned into a meaningless travesty. (Sen. Anne C. Cools: "The best Interest of the Child." Family Conflict Workshop, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1998 09 26, http://fathersforlife.org/calgary.htm )
Walter H. Schneider
David Prichard wrote 1998 10 01:
...[Part of message providing notification about Gudrun Schwartz' study report "A Wife at his Side" snipped].....
So, what are we dealing with today, Himmler's daughters and granddaughters? I wonder. Could it be, just maybe, that, just as in the Paul Bernardo case, the SS-men had their Karlas who instigated it all, who egged them on, even outdoing their husbands and finally going in for the kill? I wonder. Who was the woman behind Himmler? Did she give *him* a phone call at the right time and tell him: "Son. Do the right thing!"???
Walter H. Schneider
Re: Bernardo, I'm told but have not seen, the initial pathologist's report indicates that the "Bernardo" victims were not killed by a man but a woman. have seen the document signed by Holmolka, her lawyer and the Crown stating that if she lied under oath about evidence she gave as part of the plea bargain, the deal would be considered null and void. She knew about the hidden tapes and didn't reveal them. When this was discovered it was decided not to revoke her deal as this might indicate to future plea bargain deals with others the government went back on their word. The fact that it also tells the person charged that falsehood is condoned by the crown seems to have been overlooked.
It's also to be noted, that none of Bernardo's victims were killed while alone with him. His rape victims were not subjected to other physical trauma not associated with rape. I.E. they weren't raped and then subjected to beatings etc.. If we separate the violence associated with his sexual sadism, and I don't wish to make it seem a small thing, Bernardo did not demonstrate a history of non-sexual violence. The extreme non sexual violence in this case may well be that of Homolka's making and she willingly participated in the sexual violence. We will never know the truth due to the efforts of the then Ontario Attorney General, Marion Boyd.
Did Petkau talk of the American study when she was out west? One that indicated about 75% of all American rapists were sexually assaulted by their mothers. If anybody has a cite for that study I'd dearly appreciate it.
In all that you read here about Karla Homolka (a.k.a. Karla Bernardo, a.k.a. Karla-Leanne Teale), never forget that she was never even indicted for the rape, torture and murder of her own younger sister. Never forget that, although she was made out to be suffering from battered-wife syndrome, the evidence to support that appears to be flimsy, at best. Never forget that Karla Homolka was the one who procured the victims for her husband Paul Bernardo.
From a review of the case that was broadcast in about 1998 by the CBC, it appeared that Karla Homolka was the prime instigator in the rapes and murders of her victims. In spite of that, she got off with a relatively light sentence, compared to the two consecutive life terms that her husband received. He is apparently no more than an ordinary rapist, who, by all appearances didn't do the actual killing, although he seems to have stood by as it was being done.
Karla Homolka raped, tortured and murdered her own sister
Here is a link to an article that describes her deed in graphic details: [Homolka's request is both shocking and unsurprising — Article by Christie Blatchford in the National Post, 1999 11 03]
Karla Homolka requests to be released on parole
[Homolka sues Ottawa for violating her rights] — Article by Janice Tibbetts, Southam News, in the National Post, 1999 11 03
[Unpoetic justice] — Editorial in the National Post, 1999 11 04
Federal publication ban on information relating to Karla Homolka's case
Publication bans were the order of the day throughout the Homolka trial. A publication ban was issued then, but it became ineffective, thanks to the Internet. Thanks to the Internet, the wheelings and dealings of the crown prosecutor that resulted in Karla Homolka's light sentence and in her not even being charged with the murder of her sister became common knowledge.
The publication bans continue to be issued. Here is a report on the current state of affairs:
[Federal Court bans publication of Homolka's records] — Article by Jim Bronskill, Southam News, OTTAWA, in the National Post, 1999 11 04
There was another publication ban that involved the video tapes that Karla Homolka and her husband Paul Bernardo had made of the rapes and tortures of their victims. In this case, it is justified. The parents, relatives and friends of the victims need closure. However, these tapes are evidence.
[Girls' families copyright Bernardo tapes to prevent access — Article by Chris Eby in the National Post, 1999 09 25
Christie Blatchford takes a realistic view of the issue: concerning the video tapes:
[Tapes of Bernardo victims belong with the court, not their families — Article by Christie Blatchford in the National Post, 1999 09 25]
Nevertheless, what Christie Blatchford fails to address is the question of how it came to be that the tapes were obviously not guarded well enough by the courts. How did it come about that the tapes were viewed by people who should not have had the chance of a snowball in hell to see them? Will there be an inquiry into what is wrong with the courts to allow that to happen?
[Sexuality and sex worked for Homolka: As a woman, she had access to the victim stereotype — Article by Christie Blatchford in the National Post, 1999 11 06]
Additional articles concerning the Homolka case can be found at the web site of the National Post. Enter Homolka into the search field there and hit the Enter key. The articles referenced above are now expired from the website of the National Post, but as far as I know, they can still be obtained from their archives. Check for more information
Homolka now a mother of three in the Caribbean, ebook 'Finding Karla'
says", by Diana Mehta, Canadian Press June 22, 2012
The article states that,
While Bernardo went on to be sentenced to life in prison, Homolka
struck a deal with prosecutors in 1993 to serve 12 years in prison
She had told investigators earlier that Bernardo abused her and
made her a reluctant accomplice to the killings. Videotapes later
surfaced, however, showing Homolka had a far more active role in the
murders than she had claimed.
There is far more to it than the article lets on. The article
alleges that Karla Homolka fooled everyone, but from what I read about
the case at the time, I can't escape the impression that it was not so
much Karla Homolka who did the fooling that got her the sweetheart-deal
with the crown prosecutors and the lenient sentence. It was
political pressure by interest groups that tried to do everything
possible to maintain the myth of female innocence that brought that deal
Even the article by Diana Mehta now, so many years after those horrible
murders, does a lot to hide big chunks of the truth about the sex-crazed
torturing and murders committed by Karla Homolka and her Husband.
Karla Homolka had not only actively participated and even taken a
leading role in the torturing and killing of her victims, she even
procured those victims.
The most important aspect of the unmentioned truth in the article is
that Karla Homolka was not indicted for torturing and murdering her own
younger sister, even though that part of her crimes was apparently one
which she eagerly committed without any or much help by her husband.
(More about that in articles published during
The hiding of the truth in the Homolka case goes on, not only in Diana
Mehta's article but in many others, through statements such as this one,
which mentions Karla Homolka in passing, as having played a secondary
Murder houses, however, can continue to attract public attention
for years. The St. Catharines, Ont., house that had been rented by
notorious murderer and rapist Paul Bernardo and his wife Karla
Homolka was torn down in 1995. A new home - reportedly with a new
number - was built on the site, Lebow said, but people still drive
by to look. ("From
the archives: Crime scenes a lasting 'reminder something horrible
happened'", Edmonton Journal, 2011 12 11
Wikipedia does a
somewhat better job of telling about Karla Homolka, although it falsely
insinuates that Karla Homolka
attracted worldwide media attention when she was convicted of
manslaughter following a
plea bargain in the 1991 and 1992
of two Ontario teenage girls,
Leslie Mahaffy and
Kristen French, as well as the rape and death of her own sister
That is seriously wrong. Karla Homolka
was not even indicted for the rape, torture and murder of her own,
younger sister, Tammy, although she had played an active part in those