courthouse_crime_scene

Vigilante Killing Saves Canadian Economy

Canadian lawyer Elizabeth Sheehy lives in a country that does not employ capital punishment but, after twenty-five years of diligent work, she has found a way to get around that inconvenience with a legal backdoor. A carefully stylized form of lethal vigilante justice. Sheehy has written a book explaining to Canadian women, and their lawyers, how they can use case law and performance art to legally execute men, and simultaneously save Canadian taxpayers the expense of a costly trial.

In addition to teaching law at the University of Ottawa, Sheehy is a prominent public intellectual, legal activist, co-counsel to the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) and to the Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS), and has a curriculum vitae impressive enough to warrant her classification as an expert in women’s legal issues.

Professor Elizabeth Sheehy is as mainstream and connected as it gets, and she is advocating murder.

So, why isn’t the mainstream talking about State Feminism’s push to legalize the murder of men by women?

The answer is simple. Journalists within our mainstream have been convinced of the expertise of this educated, connected, and sophisticated professor who has not only a long history of legal and academic success, but an agenda which she has not previously exposed to public scrutiny.

Now, after eight years of research, Elizabeth Sheehy, acclaimed professor of law, has published her masterpiece Defending Battered Women On Trial, in which she posits that women who have murdered their male partners are not only “morally just”, which is a legal term describing acquittals, but that they show “moral courage”.

She argues that these praiseworthy killers, should not be tried for murder in the Canadian court system, for a number of reasons, not least of which is that they are rarely convicted.

This, she claims, is evidence of public sentiment that female perpetrated murder is justifiable. What she omits to mention in this train of “reason” is that all violent crimes, committed by all people have very low rates of conviction. Feminists have frequently used these low conviction rates – narrowly examined for rape offences to claim that society condones the commission of that crime; “rape culture”. Sheehy is effectively using the feminist “logic” commonly used to claim ours is a rape culture to say it is actually a murder culture. (of men, by their wives). The only difference being that rape of women is bad, and we should oppose it, whereas murder of husbands by their wives is apparently no problem. It’s courageous even!

Recognizing that her conclusions are unconventional, Sheehy maintains it is simply the will of the wider population, expressed through the acquittal of female killers in Canadian criminal courts. It is not actually her own, personal opinion that female killers should be given a legal pass. It’s just an opinion that no one else has ever promoted in the form of a book.

Finally, after 25 years of diligent activism and lobbying in pursuit of legally permissible husband-killing, she has pulled the curtain back to let the world see her great creation. Pieced together from ill-fitting, mismatched assertions and pseudo-logical legal loopholes, Doctor Sheehy’s monster is almost ready to lurch upright, and begin terrorizing Canada’s unwary villagers.

Sheehy’s book argues that when a woman kills a sleeping victim, charging her with murder is “unfair”, it’s “arbitrary”, and it fails to recognize the reality of women’s lives. Also it is a waste of Canadian taxpayer dollars to prosecute.

With the book’s publication and over a dozen interviews reiterating and clarifying the book’s thesis, Canada’s most influential and respected feminist legal scholar has been very clear about her intentions. She’s not merely telling us to legalize female-committed spousal murder, but hoping to provide Canadian women a legal how-to manual.

So, why is the twenty-five year long feminist project of legalized husband killing not now a mainstream news feature, talked about by anyone besides the human rights activists on this so-called hate site?

When she is correctly accused of advocating murder, Sheehy says the motive for her book is that lawyers must provide clients with the best defence possible and women don’t seem to be aware that fighting a murder charge instead of settling for manslaughter is more likely to result in acquittal. Somehow, while maintaining that the law disadvantages women, Sheehy happily reports that courts rarely convict women for murder.

But Professor Sheehy isn’t just redefining words like and “unfair” and “disadvantaged”, she’s also redefining what it means to be an expert. In this case, it means she has a very, very, very strong opinion, while remaining largely ignorant of her own topic of specialization.

In the course of promoting her book the professor has conducted interviews and written articles, explaining and justifying her position. Having examined more than ninety cases in her research, she is an expert on domestic violence, and on spousal murder in Canada. However, when asked by the CBC, on December 19 of 2013, if the changes in law she recommends would help battered men she responded “Well I don’t know. I’m not an expert in men’s experience of violence at the hands of women. You’d have to find a different expert on that topic.”

When asked if her recommended changes would apply to same sex couples where a woman is battered by her female partner Sheehy replied “Well, again, I’m not an expert on that.”

This self-defined expert either has no knowledge of the reciprocal nature of most domestic violence common in dysfunctional relationships or she is being wilfully obtuse. It is like a biologist studying the plant ecology of a species which is codependent upon another species – but that scientist emerges from a twenty-five year career knowing nothing about that partnering plant.

It’s unclear whether, in Sheehy’s case she is incompetent in the field of her own expertise, or if she is simply a fraud.

On the question of why women don’t leave abusive situations, Sheehy told the CBC on December 19th, 2013, that women can’t leave abusive men because, upon leaving, their risk increases “nine fold”. However in January she told Meghan Murphy of Feminist Current that the risk is eight fold.

On December 16th, 2013, she told the Loop that a woman is killed by an abusive partner every six days, but relaying that claim in her CBC interview it became a woman killed every four days. Over at Feminist Current it went back to every six days again.

The market for truth fluctuates on a monthly cycle.

But probably, more importantly, it’s actually quite dangerous for women to leave. And the most dangerous time, the time at which women face, ah, I think it’s an eight times increase, eight-fold increase in being vulnerable to intimate femicide is within the eighteen months after a woman has left the man. So telling a woman to just leave, or expecting women to just leave, is actually putting their lives at risk, and the lives of their kids. And it is simply, um, you know, bad advice, unless the woman has had a very careful, um, risk assessment. And safety plan put in place.

Never heard of “intimate femicide” before? Neither had we.

It’s another one of those social science terms that feminists made up. It describes a special kind of death. One of the pioneers of the term, Diana E.H. Russell, describes it as “”the killing of females by males because they are females.” If that wasn’t a cherished enough gift to the English language, they bless us with the ensuing assurance that “intimate partner femicide only accounts for 5–8% of all murders of men, disproportionately affecting women to a large extent, making it a gendered problem.

You are invited to reread the previous sentence, and check the source. Femicide: 5-8% of all murders of men. That was not a typo.

After explaining that women are safer to stay in abusive relationships and kill their partner instead of leaving, because of femicide, and reasons, Sheehy complained about accusations that she’s advocating for murder. According to Sheehy, fewer men would die if they just gave women the things they need.

Um, women also who leave face issues around custody and access with respect to their kids. We don’t place control in the hands of women so they can in fact keep their children away from an abuser like this that we’re talking about. So we have a problem there. You know, many battered women are mothers, and that makes them doubly vulnerable, because they cant simply escape with their children without facing sanction by the criminal justice system and family law. Then of course there are all the other problems. Access to money, social welfare. You know, long term housing. All the things that women need, if they’re going to leave and create new lives and freedom and safety.

Incidentally, as an “expert” on domestic violence, Sheehy likely knows that it is women who are the primary killers of children. Infanticide is a word specially created for women who kill babies and is given lighter sentencing than the murder charge a man would face for the same crime. Husbandicide, the female killing of men, is really just the new black. By “black” , of course, we mean ni***r.

Predictably, Sheehy feigns surprise at critics who assert she is telling women it’s justified to kill men.

But you know For those people that are very concerned that somehow I’m not doing justice to men’s lives. What I say to them is – what we need to do is invest in women’s safety, because when women are safe, are able to exit, with their children and protect their children, men do not die.

Men, do what women want, or we’ll kill you. This would be contemptuously pathetic, except for the fact that Sheehy is a veteran of twenty-five years of legal activism which has been spent changing laws in favour of her ideology. Professor Elizabeth Sheehy is the law.

To understand this as anything other than overt and flamboyant evil, it’s necessary to see Sheehy’s feminist vision of what a woman is: so weak that all the available supporting female centered infrastructure is not enough. Even though only four of the ninety-one women she studied were sent to prison for murdering their spouse, she thinks women are disadvantaged and misunderstood by the law – the law which suggests they not kill people.

Conversely, men’s human rights advocates take the view that women are competent and capable adults. Some of them even vote, obtain law degrees, and teach at major Canadian universities.

In the debate over whether Sheehy is incompetent or an outright fraud, there is a third possibility. She entered the profession of law with a malevolent intention of perverting it.

3 thoughts on “Vigilante Killing Saves Canadian Economy”

  1. And, with the unofficial ‘affirmative action’ female bias in higher education (due to elementary and secondary school feminized methods) and then the subsequent higher enrollments of women in law schools, controlling law societies, controlling Ministerial budgets in government, and favouring female judiciary, I might as well but my sorry ass on the chopping block. Mixed metaphor, no pun. They want you DEAD, or LIVING DEATH, sans testicles.
    FACTOID: In Ontario, Canada, ‘Domestic VIOLENCE Courts’, (emphasis mine) says, to just OFFEND any woman, and their hurt feelings MAY BE legal cause to criminalize a MANE, ruin a career, end for life, ALL he may personally value. Charter (of Canadian Rights and Freedoms) reference to ‘cruel and unusual’ has no place there… done daily, between 3-5000 ‘convictions’ of men, annually… (plead or you’re F’kd!) for ‘criminal harassment’. i.e. State activism ‘use’ of a statute for ‘stalking’, you know the really sick kind?

    Could it be being a man murdered is just a form of kindness, in a world that also allows HER a ‘battered woman’ excuse to do ANYTHING, even just the exchange of insults equates VIOLENCE? Coming to a Government near you… criticizing the good Professor above, for OFFENDING her, criminal charges. Facts to be damned. If She FEELS her truth in the suffering feelings of womyn and ideology of feminist supremacy; ’nuff said. Good’nuff. 911! You brute. Ugh……

  2. Fantastic analysis and great job cutting through the bullshit. Except at the end where you hint at the words “evil” and “malevolent” to describe the concern.

    These terms describe mere shadows. There is no physical “evil” – male or female. We use these words to describe threats to us we sense by immplication but cannot yet see more directly.

    Just as a shadow warns a rabbit of a hawk circling overhead, experiencing “evil” warns us of problems through the indirect perception of an interest adverse to our own.

    I have become disinterested in fighting “evil” over time. I have seen people spend lifetimes fighting shadows, as though a world without shadow is somehow preferrable.

  3. … And we end with the good Professor’s laundry-list of “women’s needs,” advanced as a palliative to reduce the dangers of husband-cide. I decline to provide for Cupcake’s “needs;” I choose instead to give her what she deserves from me – ABSENCE.

Join the conversation