Political Commentary and Opinion
NATIONAL NEWS
Cut off husband's penis, woman draws conditional sentence
VANCOUVER (CP) - A 38-year-old mother of six who told police she had no
choice but to cut off her husband's penis when he refused to end an affair with a younger woman was given a two-year conditional sentence Monday.
Kim Tran won't be going to jail but can spend her time in the community as long as she doesn't violate the conditions of her sentence. These include attending counselling with her children, taking English as a Second Language classes and participating in life skills classes as
directed by her bail supervisor.
She pleaded guilty last month in B.C. Supreme Court to aggravated assault. Court was told that when Vi Hoc Phung, 42, returned home to his wife of 18 years about 3 a.m. July 1, 1997, Tran pleaded with him to leave the other woman. Phung ignored his wife's crying and pleading. He sat and drank beer, telling her to leave him alone so he could sleep. After he went to sleep, Tran took a meat cleaver from the kitchen, pulled down his pants and cut off his penis, flush to the pubic bone. "I begged him but he didn't listen," Tran told a Cantonese-speaking police officer.
She cut off his penis "because I loved him so much," she said. Tran said her action would end her husband's affairs and keep him dependent on her. Under normal circumstances, said Justice Patrick Dohm, he would have sent Tran to prison because her act will have long-lasting physical and psychological effects on Phung, from whom she is now separated. Plastic surgeons managed to reconstruct a three-centimetre penis for Phung but he can't have normal sex and may have urinary problems later in life. But because Tran now is the sole support of her six children, aged four to 16, the circumstances are far from normal, Dohm said.
"These children are entirely dependent on their mother," he said. "It would be expected that the six kids would end up in foster homes, probably divided and with lasting effect." Phung said through an interpreter he wasn‚t upset that his wife won't be serving any jail time. "He doesn't mind, because the children need to be taken care of," said a woman who translated for him.
Men‚s groups reacted angrily to the sentence. "If we look at the example of a woman losing a breast because some butcher hacked it off in a mad confrontation or conflict, what would the
sentence in those cases be?" said Guy Thisdelle, spokesman for a coalition of Lower Mainland men's groups. "I think we'd find, historically, those types of incidents invoked jail terms," he said.
"I'm quite astonished that somebody who has done such a deed would be allowed back to have contact with the children, to continue raising her children," said Dr. Gerry Arthur-Wong, who runs a Vancouver-area group for abused men. But a representative of Women Against Violence Against Women, said the sentence was just. "A lot of women get abandoned with children," said Fatima Jaffer. "It would mean poverty for her if he left" her for another woman. Jaffer denied that there was a double standard in the sentencing of domestic-violence cases.
"For the most part - 90 per cent of the time - men don't get jail," she said. "At the most they get a peace bond asking them to stay away from women." The conditional sentencing option for non-dangerous offenders was brought in by the federal government last year to alleviate prison
overcrowding. Offenders are eligible if they do not pose a danger to the community and if the jail term imposed is two years or less. If they their conditions, they must serve the remainder of their sentence in custody.
(Vancouver Sun-Vancouver Province)
...............................................................................
The Court Case in BC and the Judgement
Date: 19980706
Docket: CC971149
Registry: Vancouver
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Reasons for Sentence Associate Chief Justice Dohm
July 6, 1998
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
AGAINST KIM PHUONG TRAN
Counsel for the Crown:
R. Keefer
Counsel for the Accused:
G. Barnes
[1] THE COURT: (ORAL) The accused, Kim Tran, pleaded guilty before me on June 7th, last, of an aggravated assault on her husband. The assault involved the severing of her husband’s penis while he was asleep. The assault has left her husband with, in effect, a one inch penis which allows him to void, but does not permit him to become engaged in sexual activity.
[2] The assault then is of long lasting duration, both from a physical point of view, and also, psychologically. It is not the sort of assault where some surgery can be performed such as with a stab wound or other such injury where medical attention can be given and the result is nothing more than a scar. The scar in this case is deep-seated, that is to say, it has significant psychological effects and also physical effects which may in the future cause urinary problems for the complainant.
[3]I have read the complainant’s statement. I have no doubt that it is authentic and that it realistically indicates the sort of effect that one can expect from this sort of injury. The only fortunate thing is that he is able to void, but of course that was no fault of his wife. It was rather the medical assistance which the complainant received that was able to provide at least that function to him. All persons, regardless of gender, would have extensive sympathy for the complainant and for his future.
[4]A little of the background of this couple is necessary. They were married in June of 1979. The marriage produced six children, the first of whom was born in 1981 and the last of whom was born in 1994. Four of the children, that is the ones born in 1981, 1982, 1984 and 1988, were born in a refugee camp where the parents resided with them for some 12 years.
[5]The parents left Vietnam in 1979 aboard a boat. They were aboard that boat for some six to eight weeks. They then entered the refugee camp where they remained for the next 12 years.
[6]They came to Canada with their four children in 1990. In Canada, two further children were born, one in 1993 and one in 1994, the last of which was born against medical advice. The husband was anxious to see if he and his wife could produce a male heir and as history will record, a male heir was born in 1994.
[7]I think the evidence is clear that medical advice had been given that further pregnancies would endanger the life or health of the mother. The complainant, the husband, was anxious, as I say, to see if a male heir could be produced and it was at his request or insistence that the accused became pregnant and produced her last child in 1994.
[8]The marriage seemed to be without incident until approximately six months prior to the assault which occurred on the 1st of July, 1997. In that last six months, the complainant found another woman, became romantically involved, and for the most part, ignored his wife and the children for that period of six months. There were frequent unexplained absences by him from the home. I suppose, in effect, that was in keeping with his controlling and domineering nature, but the attraction was another woman.
[9]The accused learned of this affair and together with the two older children did her best to persuade the complainant to cease his activity with the other woman and to return home on a full-time basis.
[10]After the incident had occurred involving the assault, the accused gave a lengthy statement to the investigating police officer and I think it clearly shows the frame of mind that the accused was in when she engaged in this assault. I am going to read portions of this statement.
[11]I had been arguing with my husband throughout the entire day. The argument was over the fact that my husband knows another woman. My husband wanted me to accept her and that the children will accept her. At about 8:00 p.m. my husband called this other woman up and wanted me to talk to her. I said no. I said there is no chance of that in this world. I spoke to the other woman on the phone for about 15 minutes and I told her and begged her to let my husband go and that I have six children and I need my husband. She replied that love cannot separate them. I couldn’t get through to her so I hang up the phone. Ten minutes later the phone rang and my husband picked up the phone. I asked him who it was and he told me that he was talking to the other woman. I asked my husband, what does she want. He replied that she wanted to meet my husband. I asked if I could go with them and she said no. I suggested that she come over and she refused. My husband then told me that he had to go see her. He said it won’t take very long. He left around 8:39 p.m. At around 11:00 p.m. I called him on the cellular but it was turned off. I then called the other woman’s cellular and she answered and I told her to ask my husband to turn on the cell. She quickly hung up. I then called the other woman’s pager and left three messages to have her call my house. She then called me back, telling me that my husband is going to call back. At approximately 11:15 p.m., my husband called back and I asked him when he was coming home. He said in about one and a half hours. He said he was eating right now. I said I was hungry and asked him if it was all right for him to bring food home for me. He said yes. I waited a long time but he never came home. I called on the cell and on the woman’s pager. When the woman called back, I told her to bring back my husband. I begged her and told her that the children are awake waiting for him. She said that I didn’t understand him and she kept talking, but I was crying so hard I didn’t know what she was saying. I was so upset that I went outside and sat in my car. At about 3:00 a.m., my husband came home. The other woman drove him back. He got out of the car and I met him at the door. I asked him, how did it go. Can you let the other woman go. He said no. He said he brought home food. He brought some food home. He went to the f ridge and took out a beer. He then sat in the dining room. By now the kids were all asleep in the living room. I woke the three girls up and told them to talk to their father. He said that what he was doing was for the better. I was holding him around the waist and crying. I was crying and begging. My second daughter was trying to pull me away. My husband tried to hit me with a beer bottle, but my daughter managed to pull me away. At that point, I told the girls to go to sleep. I then went back to my husband and held him while he continued to drink. He was very angry and kept saying he couldn’t leave the woman. He told me to go away so he could calm down and I refused. I told him that I would stay with him. He kept telling me that he needed to settle down. I told him we’d been married for 18 years and that we have six children. I told him that if he didn’t love me, then to think about the children. I told him we never had any problems until he met this woman. He replied that he has fallen in love and that he could not let her go. I told him as long as I live, he cannot have another woman. He then said, leave me alone and let me sleep. He then fell asleep on the chair. I woke him up and told him he would catch a cold, but he just pushed and kicked me away. I lifted him up and he just fell to the ground. At that point, I knew he didn’t want to go with me. I went out and cried for half an hour. I begged him and it didn’t help. My children begged him and he wouldn’t listen. My relatives talked to him, but he didn’t listen. I was so upset and confused. I haven’t slept for so long and haven’t eaten well. There was no other way. I had only this way left. It’s because I love him so much. Even if he wants to come home, I will have him. I took the knife from the kitchen. I knelt over him and cried. I took his pants off and I cut him. I cut his penis off and flushed it into the toilet. My husband got up right away and yelled, where did I put it? I told him I flushed it down the toilet. I then told my daughter to phone 911.
[12]The statement goes on in a question and answer format, but for our purposes, that, I think, sets out the theatre in which the assault took place.
[13]Under normal circumstances, I think the Crown’s suggestion for a period of incarceration is appropriate. That is to say, a period of incarceration of 18 to 24 months. The reasons for that suggestion I think are obvious. The devastating effect, both psychologically and physically, to the complainant demands that a period of incarceration be imposed. As I say, that is the Crown’s submission and in normal circumstances, I would have agreed with that result.
[14] We do not have, in my view, normal circumstances. I suppose the most mitigating factor here insofar as determining an appropriate sentence is the fact that there are six children, all under the age of 18, the youngest being born in 1994. Those children are entirely dependant on their mother and have been so from the time they were born. It would be expected, reasonably so I suggest, that if this mother were to go to jail, that the six children would end up in foster homes probably divided and probably with lasting ill effect. There is no suggestion anywhere that the mother is not a devoted one. The children rely on her as their lifeline and they are well looked after by her.
[15] The other mitigating factor, I suppose, is the insult delivered by the complainant towards his wife, sometimes in the presence of the children, the insult being the other woman. Now, of course, I acknowledge straight away that that is no basis for carrying out the actions which she did. Mr. Keefer, I think, is quite right when he says that in spite of that insult, that embarrassment, that it does not authorize such an unprovoked attack with such devastating effect.
[16]Having said that, I think this is an appropriate case to impose a conditional sentence. I do so for a period of two years, with the statutory conditions to apply, and the conditions which have been set forth in the report of Ms. Watchorn in her presentence report.
[17]I would be remiss if I did not express my deep appreciation for Ms. Watchorn and the effort that she has put forward in preparing that report. It is most illuminating and most helpful.
[18]Now, if counsel need any further assistance with respect to the conditions, then I suggest that they meet for five minute and put them in writing, including one which sets out that it is a condition that the accused take English lessons.
[19]Do counsel need that time or can you put them together?
[20] COUNSEL: Well, I think it’s relatively easy, My Lord, to just translate the recommendations of Ms. Watchorn into your order.
[21] THE COURT: Yes.
[22] COUNSEL: The first condition being that the accused attend counselling on an ongoing basis as directed by the probation supervisor; to arrange counselling for her children and require them to attend such counselling. We discussed that at some length, and while it’s an unusual condition, these are unusual facts.
[23] THE COURT: Yes.
[24] COUNSEL: Third, to have no contact directly or indirectly with the victim, Mr. Phuong, without the prior, written approval of the supervisor; to attend English as a second language training courses on an ongoing basis as directed by the supervisor, and finally to participate in any additional life skills or counselling programs as directed by the supervisor. I can indicate in respect of that last condition, that Ms. Watchorn’s thinking was that the counselling that Ms. Tran had had as part of the program while she was on bail focused on anger management and that was useful and should be continued.
[25] COUNSEL: I suppose, My Lord, with respect to the wording of the order, I don’t think any of these conditions cause any problems in substance, but just in wording. For example, where it says to arrange counselling for her children and require them to attend.
[26] THE COURT: Well, I don’t think you should use the word require.
(SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL)
[27] THE COURT: Facilitate their attendance.
(SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL)
[28] THE COURT: No contact with the complainant except as is required to see the children. Thank you.
Associate Chief Justice Dohm
..............................................................................
NATIONAL NEWS
Cut off husband's penis, woman draws conditional sentence
VANCOUVER (CP) - A 38-year-old mother of six who told police she had no choice but to cut off her husband's penis when he refused to end an affair with a younger woman was given a two-year conditional sentence Monday. Kim Tran won't be going to jail but can spend her time in the community as long as she doesn't violate the conditions of her sentence. These include attending counselling with her children, taking English as a Second Language classes and participating in life skills classes as directed by her bail supervisor.
She pleaded guilty last month in B.C. Supreme Court to aggravated assault. Court was told that when Vi Hoc Phung, 42, returned home to his wife of 18 years about 3 a.m. July 1, 1997, Tran pleaded with him to leave the other woman. Phung ignored his wife's crying and pleading. He sat and drank beer, telling her to leave him alone so he could sleep. After he went to sleep, Tran took a meat cleaver from the kitchen, pulled down his pants and cut off his penis, flush to the pubic bone. "I begged him but he didn't listen," Tran told a Cantonese-speaking police officer.
She cut off his penis "because I loved him so much," she said. Tran said her action would end her husband's affairs and keep him dependent on her. Under normal circumstances, said Justice Patrick Dohm, he would have sent Tran to prison because her act will have long-lasting physical and psychological effects on Phung, from whom she is now separated. Plastic surgeons managed to reconstruct a three-centimetre penis for Phung but he can't have normal sex and may have urinary problems later in life. But because Tran now is the sole support of her six children, aged four to 16, the circumstances are far from normal, Dohm said.
"These children are entirely dependent on their mother," he said. "It would be expected that the six kids would end up in foster homes, probably divided and with lasting effect." Phung said through an interpreter he wasn‚t upset that his wife won't be serving any jail time. "He doesn't mind, because the children need to be taken care of," said a woman who translated for him.
Men‚s groups reacted angrily to the sentence. "If we look at the example of a woman losing a breast because some butcher hacked it off in a mad confrontation or conflict, what would the sentence in those cases be?" said Guy Thisdelle, spokesman for a coalition of Lower Mainland men's groups. "I think we'd find, historically, those types of incidents invoked jail terms," he said.
"I'm quite astonished that somebody who has done such a deed would be allowed back to have contact with the children, to continue raising her children," said Dr. Gerry Arthur-Wong, who runs a Vancouver-area group for abused men. But a representative of Women Against Violence Against Women, said the sentence was just.
"A lot of women get abandoned with children," said Fatima Jaffer. "It would mean poverty for her if he left" her for another woman. Jaffer denied that there was a double standard in the sentencing of domestic-violence cases.
Note how they the radical feminist justify violence on men. and also note if a man had done that to one of them they would be screaming bloody murder as how anyone man could do anything to a women.
"For the most part - 90 per cent of the time - men don't get jail," she said.
Note again, how these radical feminist justify that abuse of the law that is one sided and how they continual to just make excuses for the issue of violence on men is ok.
"At the most they get a peace bond asking them to stay away from women." The conditional sentencing option for non-dangerous offenders was brought in by the federal government last year to alleviate prison overcrowding. Offenders are eligible if they do not pose a danger to the community and if the jail term imposed is two years or less. If they their conditions, they must serve the remainder of their sentence in custody.
Again note , these so called feminists just make false claims about how men are not jailed, the truth is men are jailed almost 100% of the time, as laws are set up to remove the man in all cases. If it was the other way around, women receive very little jail time or no jail time at all for violent crimes on men and children, thanks to the socialist stupidity in the legislation and in the laws. Talk about a double standard.
(Vancouver Sun-Vancouver Province)
......................................................................
Political Commentary and Opinion
Once again a man's penis is cut off, this time in Alaska, USA.
The woman named Kim Tran who is an 35-year-old person committed this crime. This case has the same look as the case listed above in BC Canada. The Kim Tran in BC at the time of the crime is a 38-year-old mother of six who told police she had no choice but to cut off her husband's penis when he refused to end an affair with a younger woman was given a two-year conditional sentence. Kim Tran won't be going to jail, but can spend her time in the community as long as she doesn't violate the conditions of her sentence. These include attending counseling with her children, taking English as a Second Language classes and participating in life skills classes as directed by her bail supervisor.
......................................................................
In Another Case a women in Alaska commits same crime, but this man was lucky this time.
Organ Recovered And Reattached
POSTED: 8:26 am EST February 21, 2005
UPDATED: 1:21 pm EST February 21, 2005
A woman in Anchorage, Alaska is charged with cutting off her boyfriend's penis and flushing it down toilet.
Slideshow: Searchers Save Man's Penis From Sewer
Video: Woman Allegedly Castrates Man
The man is hospitalized Monday, recovering from surgery to have his penis reattached. The suspect, 33-year-old Kim Tran (left), is charged with assault, domestic violence and tampering with evidence.
Police said the incident happened Saturday night when the 44-year-old man and Tran argued at their anchorage home. A short time later, the two were involved in sexual relations when the man agreed to be tied up to the windowsill. It was at that point, police said, Tran used a kitchen knife to amputate her partner's member and flush it down the toilet. Tran then untied the man and rushed him to the hospital as crews searched for and recovered the organ from the sewer, police said. Surgeons were able to reattach the member, but said it will take time to determine whether the operation will be successful. Police said they were surprised by the nature of the crime. "This is something that I have never seen before in my 15-years at the police department," said Anchorage Police Department spokeswoman Anita Shell. "It's a very unusual type of assault."
_________________________________________________________
Lucky man finds his penis
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=22&art_id=qw1108974962367B265
February 21 2005 at 10:53AM
Anchorage - A 44-year-old Anchorage man had his penis surgically re-attached after it was cut off by an angry girlfriend and flushed down a toilet, local police said on Sunday.
The events unfolded about midnight on Saturday, after the pair had been arguing over an impending break-up, an Anchorage police department statement said. At some point, the two decided to have sex and the man agreed to let the woman tie his arms to a windowsill.
But the woman used a kitchen knife to amputate her partner's penis and flushed it down the toilet, police said. She untied the man, drove him to a local hospital and was cleaning up the bloody scene when police arrived at the home, according to the statement. Summoned by the police, workers from the local water utility pulled the toilet up from the floor and were able to recover the severed penis, which was rushed to the hospital for the successful re-attachment surgery on Sunday morning.
Police declined to identify the victim, but said his assailant was 35-year-old Kim Tran. She was charged with assault, domestic violence and tampering with evidence, and jailed without bail.
Bite-sized news from here and there
Scripps Howard News Service - 2 hours ago
... after his girlfriend, apparently upset over a pending breakup, cut it off with a ... Police arrested Kim Tran, 35, at the bloodied home where the attack occurred ... |
Woman Flushes Boyfriend's Penis Down Toilet
Anchorage woman cut off boyfriend's penis, police say
ASSAULT: Wastewater worker retrieves organ from toilet; police rush it to surgeons who reattach it.
By ANNE AURAND
Anchorage Daily News
http://www.adn.com/front/story/6196470p-6070768c.html
Published: February 21st, 2005
Last Modified: February 21st, 2005 at 02:33 AM
Surgeons reattached an Anchorage man's penis over the weekend after his girlfriend, apparently upset over a pending breakup, cut it off with a kitchen knife, Anchorage police said Sunday.
A city wastewater utility worker recovered the penis from a toilet down which the woman had flushed it. It was rushed to Providence Alaska Medical Center, where doctors performed reattachment surgery early Sunday morning, according to police reports.
Police said the knife attack occurred during an argument involving the 44-year-old man wanting out of the relationship. The woman drove the man to the hospital after the attack. Police arrested Kim Tran, 35, Sunday morning at the bloodied home where the attack occurred. She was arraigned Sunday afternoon on charges of domestic violence assault and tampering with evidence and remains in jail with no bail set.
Neither drugs nor alcohol was involved in the attack, but it did involve a triangle of relationships, according to police spokeswoman Anita Shell.
The man, whom police would not identify, was married to Tran's aunt, Shell said. All three had lived together for a while, during which time Tran and the man had a relationship for at least a year, Shell said. The man moved out of the home on Moose Run Circle sometime recently, but Tran and the aunt still live together, she said.
"The aunt was aware of the relationship, and it was causing problems," Shell said. She would not release the aunt's name. Police don't know where the aunt was when the assault occurred, she said. The man wanted to break up with Tran, but the woman resisted that idea, Shell said. The two were arguing about the issue sometime before midnight Saturday, but at some point they decided to have sex.
After he allowed Tran to tie his arms to the window handle above the bed, she pulled the kitchen knife and severed his penis, Shell said. The man's testicles remained attached, she said. Tran flushed the penis down the toilet, untied the man and drove him to the hospital, according to police reports. She parked in a no-parking zone while she walked into the emergency room with the victim, who was conscious and able to walk, but shaking and in shock, Shell said. After finding a nurse, Tran said she was leaving to move her car but drove home instead, Shell said. Police rushed to the home and found her cleaning up the bloody scene. A trail of blood stretched through the house, Shell said.
Police got the details about what had happened to the penis. They summoned the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility to see if it could be recovered. "AWWU pulled the toilet from the base, tipped it into the tub and it fell out," Shell said. The penis had been lodged in the "S" curve of the toilet for more than two hours. Officials put it on ice and drove it to the emergency room. The AWWU worker who was summoned to the scene declined to be interviewed Sunday. AWWU general manager Mark Premo said utility staff work around the clock to be available for emergencies.
Around 6 a.m., about six hours after the knife attack, hospital officials said the surgery was successful, according to police reports. A hospital spokeswoman would not discuss anything about the case or the patient Sunday. Shell said she's never heard of such a case here. In fact, she doesn't know of it ever happening except for the famous Lorena Bobbitt case in 1993 in Virginia.
Bobbitt cut off her abusive husband's penis, then drove away and flung it out her car window. The penis was located and reattached. But Bobbitt claimed she had been raped and abused, and Shell said physical abuse did not appear to be a part of the Anchorage case. "This was, if anything, more of a mental anguish," Shell said. The surgery used to reattach a penis is the same kind of surgery used to reattach a severed finger but far less common, said Dr. Sarah Troxel, a local plastic surgeon.
The procedure is called micro-vascular surgery, and it requires reattaching blood vessels, the urethra and other parts under a microscope. She went through training for microsurgery at Stanford. With fingers, "if the blood vessels take, and the finger doesn't die ... with a good surgeon and a clean cut, it's not unusual that they survive." But in the case of penises, she said, the function of the urethra after the surgery could be a problem. "I'd say it's more likely that it might not work very well," she said.
Daily News reporter Anne Aurand can be reached at aaurand@adn.com or 257-4591.
Related
http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?storyid=59279
http://www.ktva.com/Stories/0,1413,163~6882~2723721,00.html
Brutal Knife Attack
By Christine Nangle
Before we start: a warning the story you are about to hear is both disturbing in its details, and graphic in its nature. It begins with a feud between an Anchorage couple a feud that turned into a bloody knife attack late last night. The couple had broken-up when the woman tied her 44-year-old boyfriend up. Police say she then took out a knife, cut off his penis...and flushed it down a toilet. Officers responded the scene and that's when this already bizarre story takes an even more unusual twist. When police got to the scene they found 35-year-old Kim Tran cleaning up blood, blood that was left over from the attack on her former boyfriend. Officers called Anchorage Wastewater and Utilities who came to the home and pulled out the toilet. Eventually, they were able to locate the victim’s penis. Police drove it over to Providence, where surgeons successfully re-attached the member.
Kim Tran is behind bars charged with domestic violence and tampering evidence. That Evidence: a body part... cutoff and flushed down the toilet. It all happened at Moose Run Circle. "Police got a call from the emergency staff hospital regarding a man who was brought in with an amputation to his genitals,” says Anita Shell. Police say it started when the couple got into the argument- the victim apparently wanted to get out of their relationship the two had been dating a year and a half.
Despite that breakup, the two decided to have sex the victim agreed to be tied up on his bed. "She then produced a knife and cut his penis off,” says Anita Shell. Police say Tran then flushed his member down the toilet. So officers called Anchorage Wastewater and Utilities for help... pumping experts came out to the home and dug up the toilet. “When they arrived they pulled out the toilet and recovered the severed body part. Officers put it on ice and brought it to providence ER. Surgeons were successfully at re attaching it," says Shell.
In 1993, Lorena Bobbitt made national headlines in a similar case. Bobbitt became famous after she cut off her husband's penis while he slept- and discarded it along the road as she drove away. John Bobbitt's member was successfully recovered and re-attached as well. But police say while the attack may be the same that's where the similarities stop. "There is no parallel to the two cases. Lorena Bobbit was abused and assaulted, and I recall by her husband and that is NOT the case in this situation, “ says Shell.
Tran needed a Vietnamese translator at her arraignment one was not available so it was post-poned. The judge did not set a bail. Tran's arrangement was re-scheduled for Monday afternoon- Meanwhile, it will take 48 hours to find out if the victim here will fully recover.
Penis retrieved from toilet
NEWS.com.au, Australia - 9 hours ago
A 44-year-old Alaskan man had his penis surgically reattached after it was cut off by an angry girlfriend and flushed down a toilet, police said today. ...
|
Lucky man finds his penis
Independent Online, South Africa - 10 hours ago
Anchorage - A 44-year-old Anchorage man had his penis surgically re-attached after it was cut off by an angry girlfriend and flushed down a toilet, local ...
|
Alaska Woman Cuts Off Man's Penis
WXIA-TV, GA - 2 hours ago
An Alaska man is recovering Monday after doctors surgically reattached his penis. Police say his girlfriend cut it off and flushed it down the toilet. ...
|
Severed penis retrieved from toilet is reattached
Expressindia.com, India - 5 hours ago
Anchorage, February 21: A 44-year-old Anchorage man has had his penis surgically reattached after it was cut off by an angry girlfriend and flushed down a ...
|
Brutal Knife Attack
KTVA, AK - 12 hours ago
Before we start: a warning the story you are about to hear is both disturbing in its details, and graphic in its nature. It begins ...
|
......................................................................
Institutional Resistance to Acknowledging Intimate Male Abuse
http://www.fathers.bc.ca/resistance.htm
Media, government, blind to abuses inflicted on men
A delegation of six men from the Victoria Men's Centre (including three Directors and an Executive member) attended the BC Legislature recently. A meeting with each of the Attorney General, the Liberal opposition AG critic, and Gordon Wilson (leader of the PDA) was sought. We wish to discuss the domestic violence of Kim Tran, her sentence, possible appeal by the Crown of that sentence, as well as the broader issues of gender bias in the BC courts that are revealed by this (and many other) cases. We will be demanding that a standing committee of men from our ranks be consulted whenever the government contemplates any changes to legislation that might have gender and/or family law implications.
To date, only the Opposition Liberal AG critic has agreed to meet with us. Gordon Wilson (leader of the PDA) has asked for more information. Ujjal Dosanjh (the NDP Attorney General) has not responded.
Victoria men were very surprised by the lack of newspaper coverage of the Kim Tran trial and sentence.
..........................................................
Betty Krawczyk response
Planet is at mercy of violent male vision
While Betty spreads hate towards the male gender, maybe she should have read some facts why men and children are still victims of women's violence...
See Institutional Resistance to Acknowledging Intimate Male Abuse*
Planet is at mercy of violent male vision
By Betty Krawczyk
WHILE NO ONE, male or female; should suffer the horror of having their genitalia excised, Ken Wiebe's July 29 opinion piece decrying the Times Colonist's lack of in-depth reporting on the Kim Tran case is spurious.
Let me note that neither does the Times Colonist do any in-depth reporting on clitoredectomy, the cutting away of the female clitoris and surrounding tissue in the belief that if women were unable to experience sexual pleasure, then they would make more docile wives. This operation is done on hundreds of thousands of female children and young women every year, some of whom live in Canada.
There is an enormous difference between an extremely rare, isolated case of female violence against a male and the insistent, systematic, unrelenting level of male violence against women.
** Also see Why Women **
If Wiebe actually looked at the statistics of male violence against women, he would be embarrassed that he made silly , thinly veiled threats in proclaiming a possible "gender war" should his view of the universe not be adopted. And if Wiebe actually knew anything about history, he would know that the "gender war" was enacted by men against women over 5,000 years ago.
ANY WOMAN WHO has lived on this Earth very long knows that the "gender war" is well and thriving - indeed, that it lies at the very heart of our society. As the mother of five daughters and the grandmother of four, my over whelming concern for them is, and has always been, the fear of male physical violence, either randomly from strange men or from men who are supposed to love them.
I am exasperated not only at the incidence of individual male violence, but that this very violence has become so institutionalized by our society. Violence is everywhere one looks and men, in the aggregate, are attracted by it. If this were not so, would simulated rape, murder and torture so often be offered up for entertainment in movies and TV? Would rape, murder and battering be so prevalent? Would athletes and their promoters be paid such obscene sums of money if they didn't periodically deliver violence?
Would any of us be able to accept a world where half of it is strewn with landmines that kill and maim children on a regular basis, where military weapons of the most destructive kind are coveted by men everywhere, even when their nations' children might be starving or malnourished? Would we have the stockpiling of nuclear waste and nuclear weapons that threaten the life of the planet itself if violence were not a supreme value in the world of men?
If women as a group can't find the determination to face up to the fact of male violence in the aggregate as well as in the particular, then we are are all in serious trouble. Men have created a world where greed and aggression are the marks of a successful man, and it is this very powerful and persuasive mindset
that has spawned the corporate value system of profit worship.
This corporate mindset of profits above all is responsible for the gutting of the last of the world's rainforests, for the killing off of life-giving streams and rivers, for putting the oceans themselves at risk with chemical pollution and over- fishing, and for the destruction of much of the topsoil on Earth. In the corporate world's greed to extract everything from the Earth and its waters that can be sold, we are losing the life-support systems that sustain us all.
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM women face in the struggle to be objective about male violence is that most of us love individual men, fathers, husbands, sons, brothers, friends and lovers. And because we love, we tend to "make nice" when we are talking about male violence with them and say, in effect, "Oh, no, honey, not you.. . we're talking about those other violence-prone men over there." And so our most important discussions with our men about violence are derailed, or watered down.
I know there are some men out there who are just as troubled by male violence as some women. But just being troubled isn't enough. For every man who rejects the speed, greed, and macho corporate carnage, there are legions of other men who strive mightily for the greed and aggression route that marks men in our society as "true" men. This planet and just about everything on it is at the mercy of this collective male vision concerning male dominance and aggression.
Women have a clear choice. We can turn a blind eye and pretend we don't notice our own men's attraction to violence. Or we can do something different. We can insist that men confront their individual predispositions to violence and then perhaps we can all start trying to protect this planet, our children and ourselves.
Betty Krawczyk is a Victoria writer and long-time community activist.
[Published as Op-Ed article in the Victoria Times-Colonist Newspaper, August 18, 1998. page A13]
| Do you think Betty's Op-Ed article is "Hate Literature"? Here is what the BC Human Rights Commission said: human.htm |
Media, government, blind to abuses inflicted on men
A delegation of six men from the Victoria Men's Centre (including three Directors and an Executive member) attended the BC Legislature recently. A meeting with each of the Attorney General, the Liberal opposition AG critic, and Gordon Wilson (leader of the PDA) was sought. We wish to discuss the domestic violence of Kim Tran, her sentence, possible appeal by the Crown of that sentence, as well as the broader issues of gender bias in the BC courts that are revealed by this (and many other) cases. We will be demanding that a standing committee of men from our ranks be consulted whenever the government contemplates any changes to legislation that might have gender and/or family law implications. To date, only the Opposition Liberal AG critic has agreed to meet with us. Gordon Wilson (leader of the PDA) has asked for more information. Ujjal Dosanjh (the NDP Attorney General) has not responded.
Victoria men were very surprised by the lack of newspaper coverage of the Kim Tran trial and sentence. Many people are now somewhat confused about what Victoria newspapers consider newsworthy, and what they do not consider newsworthy. I can understand that confusion, since a domestic violence story about someone slicing off a sleeping spouse's sexual parts (to the pubic bone), flushing the flesh down a toilet, the children witnessing the crime and phoning 911, and then the assailant receiving a sentence of only "english lessons"... is fairly provocative, food for thought, and might be interesting news to those who follow the administration of justice in BC. A quick perusal of the Criminal Code of Canada will reveal that this type of crime falls within the definition of "Aggravated Sexual Assault" and carries a penalty of up to 25 years in prison. Besides which, it's a graphic, gruesome and sensational story, just the sort of thing to boost circulation... and the Vancouver Province ran the story as front page news.
There is an opinion that the Times-Colonist and the Vancouver Sun might have given this story a wee bit more coverage if it was about a husband who excised his sleeping wife's labia and uterus with a meat cleaver, flushed the flesh down a toilet, and then got sentenced only to french lessons (or whatever) so that he could continue to work (or stay home) and provide for the six children of the crime victim. Most people who know about this case (WAVAW, excepted) are outraged at the ridiculous sentence, but not many in Victoria actually seem know very much about it. Why was Victoria media coverage so light in this case?
Over the past few years, many letters have been written to various media personalities, politicians, and Ministry officials on the topic of differences in the treatment of men vs. women in the BC courts. Scholarly studies that clearly show a collective media blindness to all non-female victims of crime have been provided to media people. Scholarly studies showing that men are not the sole perpetrators of domestic violence are numerous, and have been quoted at length. All have been ignored or (deliberately?) misunderstood or deflected. Rather than addressing all domestic violence concerns in some positive fashion, governments and media have allowed and often encouraged the development of a nightmarish Orwellian situation in BC where a woman can now maim and sexually mutilate a man with virtual impunity. The time for letters is passing, and we must now get 'direct and personal' with the policy shapers and makers.
If occasional visits to the legislature and letters to newspapers do not raise awareness then we will institute a campaign of monthly, and then weekly actions. If anyone in BC has written materials that they wish to have presented to politicians during these visits, or questions that they would like raised in the house, please advise me or any member of the Victoria Men's Centre. We intend to be very persistent about this.
Several other things are being done to address the problem. One man, Pat Ellis, has now begun challenge of the Canadian charter of rights. This is a class action suit against the federal government, and other people may be party to it. Pat's basic assertion is that gender specific funding by any level of government is prohibited by the charter. A recent opinion from a prominent Toronto legal firm regarding his action says:
|
"Mr. Ellis had discovered an anomaly in the law under the equality rights provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") More specifically, he has found that subsection 15(2) of the charter with respect to the prohibited ground of 'sex' conflicts with subsection 28 of the Charter. It does not appear as though the issue of the conflict between the two provisions of the Charter has been litigated. In that respect, this would be a test case. What might be required is an authorizations to do a Constitutional Reference on this point to the Supreme Court of Canada."
"Section 28 of the Charter, provides that, "Notwithstanding anything in this charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons." Whether this provision supersedes subs.15(2) of the charter is an issue. The override clause of the Charter, section 33, does not apply to section 28 but does apply to section 15. This is further evidence of the anomaly."
"It appears to us that the gender bias argument of Mr. Ellis has merit, and is of considerable importance to about half the population of this country, who happen to be male, and have been or are likely to be subjected to the gender bias in the various laws of Canada, which may conflict with the supreme law of the land."
|
|
This is not a "gender war" yet, and that need never come to pass. At this time, we still have an opportunity to resolve differences peacefully, if people will listen to each other's views. To that end, we are now increasing men's activism and visibility one small notch. Membership in 'men's rights' groups has grown enormously over the past few years, so we can do more, but the membership (as most people might guess) consists mainly of men with few or no remaining financial resources. By the time they are desperate enough to reach out for help in our men's groups, they are pretty beat up. We all know how guys are... proud, strong, and all that macho jazz. Nevertheless, we intend to make the issue of bias against men by the courts and government as public as possible, with all the resources we have. People may then judge for themselves the actions (or inaction) of the various politicians, bureaucrats and political parties involved... so that everyone may respond appropriately come next election.
It is worth noting that the federal government consider some gender-legal issues sufficiently important that a joint Senate and Commons Custody and Access Committee was created to hear people's concerns. When asked, men responded in droves. The provincial governments should follow suit, more so, since family law is provincial jurisdiction. Somebody has to take some action to ensure that our sons are not subjected to the same injustices inflicted upon the men of our generation.
Many feminist groups are government-funded to produce opinions, whenever gender or family-related legislation is contemplated. To have balanced laws, men's groups should also be consulted on such matters (especially father's groups). There is quite a divergence of opinion about whether men's groups should be government-funded at the same level as women's groups, but for the moment, the majority of men appear to reject government-funding due to the 'strings attached' problem. All that is asked is that men's views be sought, respected, acknowledged, and acted upon by the powers-that-be.
Ken W
Leader, BC Libertarian Party
Director, Victoria Men's Centre
[Published as Op-Ed article in the Victoria Times-Colonist Newspaper, July 29 1998. page A13]
Males damned by generalizations
John Weston, Victoria.
Betty Krawczyk neatly sums up all of the world's problems as nothing more than male tendencies (Voices, "Planet at mercy of violent male vision," Aug. 18). I could not believe I was reading such generalizations as "Would we have the stockpiling of nuclear waste and nuclear weapons.. if violence were not a supreme value in the world of men?" and "Men have created a world where greed and aggression are the marks of a successful man." These are the remarks of one who seems to feel genuine hatred toward everything male.
Krawczyk blames violent television (of course) and sports for the prevalence of rape, murder and battering. What exactly does she want? A world where everything seen in television and movies is pleasant and comforting? Sure, I see Saving Private Ryan with no blood and a purple dinosaur inciting sing-alongs with the Germans.
So we are to circulate only the "good" stuff; we'll just pretend that horrible things don't really happen. To imagine what the people in that fluffy world would be like makes me cringe. Television is communication - we need to communicate about the real world. The sport connection is so absurd that I won't comment on it further.
Plastering blame on half of the world's population is not going to solve anything. We men are certainly not any happier as a result.
[Published as letter-to-ed in the Victoria Times-Colonist Newspaper, August 22, 1998. page A17]
Another Comment from Maclean's Magazine
Dear Dick, this a letter I sent to Maclean's Magazine in response to their story "Why men do it" Aug.7th 2000 issue
Dear Chris Wood, I am writing in response to your article "Why Men Do It" (Maclean's, August 7, 2000). I am not in the habit of writing letters like this, but I am, quite frankly, disgusted by the slant you chose to take. Yes, the women you mentioned were brutally murdered. All of those stories are tragic and my heart goes out to their families. Why did those men do it? We will never know, but I doubt it was the result of some physical or genetic deficiency. Attempting to blame those murders on testosterone overload is pretty much like a woman murdering her infant and blaming Post-Partum depression, don't you think?
You, like so many others, seem all too ready to downplay the violence of women. And why not? After all, society in general accepts it. If a man hits a woman, he is an abuser and she should leave him, or at least defend herself. If a woman hits a man, he must have done something to deserve it, so he should take it like a man and not retaliate in any way.
Women are actually encouraged to use violence against men. They certainly aren't punished for it, at least not to the same extent as men.
A woman cuts off her husband's penis because he had an affair (doctors were able to reconstruct a two centi-metre penis). Her punishment: probation. A woman stabs her lover in the chest because he went back to his wife (he survived and managed to hold her for police). Her punishment: 4 months house arrest. Do you consider these sentences to be a deterrent? I don't, and I'd be willing to bet their fast talking lawyers were paid for by Legal Aid (i.e. our tax dollars).
You mentioned a computerized registry of restraining orders that B.C. Police can access at any time. A restraining order is not proof of violence. In fact, any woman in B.C. can get a restraining order without showing any evidence and without giving the man a chance to defend himself. I know a man who was not informed about the order until it was already issued, even though he had a copy of a police report in which his ex-wife stated that no violence had been committed. Once a restraining order is in place, it is nearly impossible to have removed.
Now, let's talk about the statistics. I suppose they are as accurate as they can be considering the sources used. The actual murders, obviously, cannot be refuted. However, stats for other forms of violence could be skewed in many ways:
1. Women routinely make allegations of violence in order to gain custody of their children and/or to limit the father's access. 2. Most men will not report violence committed by a woman. Why should they? Unless the police rush over in time to actually witness an assault, they do not take it seriously and end up doing nothing. 3. Often, when the woman is the aggressor in a domestic dispute, she is the one taken to a shelter in order to separate the two. Why? There are no shelters for men. Why? Men's groups receive no funding from the government, while the women's groups receive millions every year.
You seem to be under the illusion that all women are innocent, gentle people who are victimized by Evil Men. What about the leader of the N.A.C. who stated publicly that she would like to see men reduced to 10% of the total population? Replace the word "men" with the ethnic group of your choice, and she would be branded a racist. As it is, this woman wants men to be mere sperm donors. Is this how she views "equality"? Why do men do it? Maybe those murdering men were abused by their mothers. It's possible, since women commit more child abuse than men (especially single mothers), and boys are abused more often than girls. Maybe they were just nuts. Who knows? Perhaps if you had actually spoken to Kirby Inwood ("self-styled men's rights activist") or any of the many Men's groups across Canada, you might have been able to write a more balanced piece. I am a woman, but I am not a feminist. I believe that men and women can, and should, be equal. I would like to see all violence stopped, but this cannot be achieved if we condemn male violence and excuse female violence. Thank you for your attention.
Miss. Tess L. British Columbia Canada