|> -----Original Message-----
> From: R.J.Whiston [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 6:00 AM
> To: Walter Schneider CAN
> Subject: more women's deaths from DV than from cancer?
> [In relation to a press release
announcing Shelternet, a new Web resource for abused women]
> Is this just woolly stats ?
From: Walter H. Schneider [
Sent: Mon 2002-07-29 17:59
Cc: [not shown]
Subject: RE: more women's deaths from DV than from cancer?
The Shelternet press release is quite
plainly nothing more than bunk. There is not a single unbiased and objective source of
information or funding amongst those listed in the press release.
The unspecified qualifiers used in the key-quote in the irresponsible and incendiary
press release were: "gender-based", "world-wide", "death and ill
Among women aged 15-44 worldwide, gender-based
violence accounts for more death and ill health than cancer, traffic injuries and malaria
-World Bank Report, UNIFEM Press Release 2000-
Unless those sources turned a new leaf, which to my knowledge they didn't, you've got
to take their word with more than a grain of salt. The World Bank, for example, uses food
as a weapon for coercive tactics in granting loans to promote the implementation of
population reduction programs in underdeveloped nations. That is part of the strategy
outlined in [US] National Security Study Memorandum 200, whereby the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund, the UNFPA and the IPPF were to draw attention away from- and
provide camouflage for the U.S.. (World Population Control --
U.S. Strategy and UN Policy Program)
Shelternet's announcement in their press release is nothing more than a continuation of
strategies designed to rip apart the trust between the sexes; that being a prerequisite
for the implementation of
the planned destruction of the
family, and that being the most effective method of all imaginable for the purpose of
A "Shelternet" will do absolutely nothing for the
reduction of violence against women anywhere in the world, least of all in Canada or in
the U.S., because Canadian and U.S. violence statistics relating to women as victims are
so low as to be almost totally insignificant -- relative to victims of violence in other
population sectors, such as men and boys in general and especially violence statistics
involving children. The vast majority of children who are being hurt in families are being
hurt by women. Moreover, the hard and cold fact is that the vast
majority of people anywhere in the world who die in consequence of violence are men and
There are good reasons to doubt that the UNIFEM and World Bank "statistic" is
even close to the truth; besides, they mentioned no numbers or incidence rates, not even
what constitutes "ill health" (does "Not now honey, I've got a head
ache," fall under the category of "ill health"?). Moreover, not even
violence by animals would be non-gender-based, as all perpetrators of violence belong
without doubt to one sex or the other and direct their violence against members of both
sexes, human or not.
At http://www.acbr.com/causdeat.htm are
statistics for the causes of death in Canada (1992), showing that women are less likely
than men to die of virtually all causes of death, and markedly less likely so in the
categories that are consequences of violent acts.
In response to your question, I took both data sets at the preceding URL and combined
them into a common graph and a common table, so as to make the sex-related differences
more obvious. The table and the graph derived from it are accessible at
The table shown at the preceding URL is as follows:
Causes of Death (Canada 1992);Number of Deaths
|Cause of death
||Number of Deaths
|Circulatory system diseases
|Respiratory system diseases
|Digestive system diseases
|Suicide all causes
|Motor vehicle collisions
|Suicide by Firearms
|Homicides all causes
|Homicide, by firearm
|Homicide, by cutting/piercing instrument
|Fatal gun accidents
Source: "Causes of Death 1992" (Minister
of Industry, Science and Technology, Statistics Canada, Health Statistics Division, Sept.
1994); and, "Method of Committing Homicide Offences, Canadian Provinces/Territories,
1992" (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, Statistics Canada, Canadian
Centre for Justice Statistics, 1992)
A good rule-of-thumb is to assume that domestic-violence-related injuries of women
account for about one third of all injuries intentionally inflicted on women, and that not
all of those are inflicted by men. For a good idea of those proportions have a look at the
very last URL shown below. You'll find from that and from the other sources identified
that the proportions of non-fatal injuries that require emergency room visits are similar
or almost identical to those involving fatal injuries, with only a minuscule proportion of
women comprising victims of domestic violence in relation to all victims of violence.
As you can see from the links to other statistics shown below, the proportions of
causes of death hold true for the U.S. as well. I'm not aware of any reasons why the
proportions in other countries or "world-wide" would be substantially different.
Nobody has ever made a case, using reliable statistics, that they are substantially
different. Therefore the claim in the Shelternet press release appears to be more than
far-fetched, perhaps not world-wide but, rather, from out of this world, from way beyond
the far side of the moon.
The following URLs provide related statistics and comments of interest (in no
Differences in the life expectancies of the sexes in various countries in the world
A tool kit to destroy families
Deaths from Heart- and Cardiovascular Diseases
US Heart Disease Fatalities -- The Hype and the Truth
[US] Deaths from Cancer
World Population Control -- U.S. Strategy and UN Policy Program
USA Population Figures for the Years 1980 to 1996
(That page contains information about the leading causes of death for the sexes)
Is the world overpopulated?
If all of the world's people were located in the Province of Alberta (just a
touch smaller in area than the State of Texas) and each were to have an equal
share of all of the land in Alberta, then each of the world's people would have
98.6m2 of land to live on.
Assuming that the average household consists of three people, a family of three
would have enough space (3,184 ft2) for a moderately-sized house and
a garden large enough to grow some of the food consumed by the family.
- Alberta land area: 661,565 km2, 255,541 miles2
- World population: 6,706,993,152 (Source:
CIA World Factbook, July 2008 est.)
It is obvious that the world's population density will be
the controlling factor. Is that a problem? Will people any time soon
be standing on each other's shoulders?
How can the world be overpopulated if it is possible to fit the world
population, fairly comfortably, into a province the size of Alberta or a state
the size of Texas, even if we divide the whole population into families of
three and give each a bungalow and a good-sized garden to boot?
The following table list a number of nations, ranked by their population
Does anyone seeing those numbers still think that the world is overpopulated?
The search string I used to find the URLs shown above was "leading causes of
death", via the site-specific search engine that
is accessible on virtually every page of Fathers
for Life, but I'm sure that you already
Here is another URL of interest:
Emergency Department Injury Surveillance Report
South Fraser Health Region, April 1, 2001 - June 30, 2001
Lastly, I'm ashamed to say that most of my professional career was spent working for
one the companies listed amongst the sponsors of Shelternet. However, why should I be more
ashamed having worked for them than I am of being a citizen of a country that is being
increasingly ruled by ideologists and no longer by common sense or even common law?
The corporation in question is TELUS, a Canadian (now largely foreign-owned)
telecommunications company that, a little over ten years ago, came into existence through
the privatization of Alberta Government Telephones. TELUS eventually bought out Edmonton
Telephones and BC Telephones.
During its new existence as a private corporate entity, TELUS performed so
very poorly that it had to save itself from financial disaster once by laying off 6,000 of
its employees (then half of its work force). TELUS is now in the process of doing that
again. They announced that they have to lay off 6,000 of their employees (one quarter of
its combined work force), apparently to make them pay for TELUS' poor management decisions
that saw TELUS' bond ratings go from AAA to BB, just one step away from junk-bond
Why would TELUS, apparently slated to go under or at least to enter the Nirwana of
corporate oblivion, feel that it needs to scrape together the funding required to support
a hare-brained scheme by radical gender activists? Citizens of Alberta and British
Columbia, not radical feminists from Ontario, provide the lion's share of TELUS' operating
Officials from Shelternet and TELUS are receiving copies of this message. Perhaps they
will provide fitting explanations.