hi-homolka-852

Ten Thousand Feminists at the Bottom of the Ocean

“I did not reinvent myself as a battered woman to save myself. In fact, my lawyer told me that the battered woman’s defense would not work in my case.”

These are the words of Karla Homolka, the most despised woman in Canada. With her husband, Paul Bernardo, she raped and murdered three teenage girls including her own younger sister. While Bernardo was sent to prison for the rest of his natural life, Homolka is now living in the Caribbean island of Guadaloupe with her new husband under another name.

Going back to the time of her crimes; after spending millions of taxpayer dollars on The Green Ribbon Task Force, led by the inept Vince Bevan, the Attorney General of Ontario, radical feminist Marion Boyd, had no evidence to connect Bernardo to the St. Catherine’s schoolgirl murders they had been tasked to solve over a year earlier.

Meanwhile, Toronto police had finally attained DNA evidence that Bernardo was the long sought after “Scarborough Rapist” and had a search warrant being signed. The Task Force met with Toronto police and threw in some questions for their interview with Bernardo’s wife who was photographed with a Mickey Mouse watch on her wrist similar to a missing watch from one of the dead teenagers.

Homolka fled to a lawyer the next day and confessed to knowing of the crimes. Not wanting to be outdone, losing the glory of an arrest, Vince Bevan recklessly rushed to offer a plea deal with Bernardo’s wife without even knowing what the contents of her confession were.

Bevan’s personal ambition became a travesty of justice. Bernardo was initially arrested on two counts of first degree murder. Those charges were dropped within twenty-four hours, as there was no hard evidence for the murder charges, and were changed to multiple counts of rape. Though the charges against Bernardo changed, it was Bevan’s search warrant in effect while the house was being scoured for evidence. Based on Homolka being the provider of testimony justifying the warrant, nothing found in the house could be used against her as long as she complied with the conditions of the plea bargain.

Enter the Battered Woman Syndrome.

While even Karla Homolka and her lawyer knew that Battered Woman Syndrome, had they tried to use it, could not justify killing strangers, that didn’t stop the Attorney General of Ontario and her prosecutors from applying that label when it suited their own purpose. The government needed Karla to be a Battered Woman and that’s what she became.

Defying the fact that Karla’s contributions to rape and murder started while she lived in her parent’s home and Bernardo only visited on weekends, “experts” testified for the Crown that Homolka was “under his spell” and suffering from The Syndrome practically from the moment they met.

They had to justify their plea bargain. The video tapes that eventually disclosed Homolka’s gleeful participation in the degradation of other girls had not yet come into their possession. Given that, for some time, Homolka was their best chance of convicting Bernardo you can almost forgive them for sacrificing one conviction for the perceived more important one. Except that they could have investigated the entire matter based on the Scarborough Rapist case. They could have bought time to get the full story.

Most prosecutors won’t cut a deal until they’ve got full disclosure on the informants role in the crime.

But Karla was a woman and they had a picture of her with two black eyes. They had proof that she was beaten and that she was wearing the watch of a dead girl didn’t seem as important.

One of their star profilers flew into town with a copy of “Compliant Victims of a Sexual Sadist” under his arm and everyone read it. They submitted it as evidence. They taught Karla about Lenore Walker’s book “The Battered Woman” and what battered women go through, then asked her to make a list of all the indignities that Bernardo had visited upon her.

While being assessed in a psych ward, pre-trial, Karla snapped naked photos of herself and sent them to her new boyfriend. She desperately did not want to lose him because he looked like Paul Bernardo and drove a car just like his. Battered women generally don’t do that kind of thing right after escaping their abuser. But the psychiatrists working for her were only interested in finding evidence that worked for the assessment they already had in mind.

Fuck the truth.

The most despised woman in Canada, Homolka earned her title not because of her crimes but because she got away with it. The public holds Homolka accountable for her choices. Three hundred thousand residents of Ontario signed a petition to overthrow her plea bargain based on the revelations of video tapes that were discovered later. But the video tapes didn’t matter to the Attorney General because lawyers and politicians have the primary goal of “cover thy own ass” and their asses were highly exposed.

Karla Homolka isn’t to blame for the governement’s “deal with the devil.” She’d never heard of Battered Woman Syndrome before. Karla’s “plan” was to turn herself in because she knew she was caught and she also knew things would work out better if she got a lawyer before they arrested her. The injustice lies at the doorstep of lawyers and politicians. Karla was always a dangerous person and a killer but the Attorney General of Ontario didn’t want her to be seen that way until her release date happened to fall upon an election year.

All of a sudden, the government agreed that Karla Homolka was a dangerous woman.

In her letter to the government, after being reclassified as a danger to re-offend immediately before her statutory release date, Homolka outlined the conundrum created by lawyers. While I have no sympathy for Karla Homolka, she asks a very pertinent question.

“According to seven experts, when I came into prison I was a clinically depressed, battered woman suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

After seven years in custodial care, in a system that is now, according to its own public relations, all about healing and rehabilitation, I have become a dangerous, unredeemable psychopath. How is that possible?”

The leading expert on Battered Woman Syndrome in Canada at the time of the trials was Dr. Graham Glancy. Glancy had declined to participate in Karla Homolka’s assessment while the Battered Woman Syndrome classification was being sought in Karla’s defense but he offered testimony when Paul Bernardo’s defense lawyer sought to establish that Homolka did not fit the definition. Glancy’s testimony was not allowed into court evidence.

According to Glancy, Karla’s test results were misinterpreted and she was deeply disturbed. As the leading expert in Canada, why wasn’t Glancy’s opinion given priority by the Crown? They obviously were not in the pursuit of truth and justice.

The original two assessments which did work for prosecutors came from doctors who typically testified for the defense, so the prosecutor insisted on finding a third “doctor” who fit better into their comfort zone. The main requirement was that the third assessment be in favour of a Battered Woman Syndrome diagnosis and that it be someone they hadn’t tried to discredit on the witness stand in the past. All the better if it was someone they wouldn’t try to discredit in the future too.

Where is truth? Where is justice? That’s not what happens in our criminal courts… but this is hardly a shock to the public. We have no qualms about despising lawyers.

What do you call ten thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.
Try the same old joke but switch lawyers for feminists and you’ll have the police at your door. News flash: The lawyers are the feminists.

Behind the clever facade of twitter feminists and social justice warriors you will find the true movers and shakers of the feminist movement calling themselves things like Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) or Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS)

Radicals like Catherine MacKinnon have played an integral role in shaping Canadian law.

MacKinnon, an American radical feminist lawyer, has been quoted in Canadian Supreme Court decisions three times, she was a founder of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, Canada’s top intervenor in Supreme Court cases, and there she was to offer expert testimony on the Karla Homolka case, recommending that the video tapes of Homolka’s involvement in the rapes and murders of three teenage girls be suppressed as evidence.

She argued that the criminal evidence recorded by Homolka and Bernardo as trophies of their evil deeds was not evidence, it was pornography. Though I have empathy for the families of the victims, it’s hard to deny that proof of crimes is important to preserve of evidence of crimes, even when that means finding a woman guilty.

When investigating feminist interference in justice, Kitty MacKinnon keeps showing up like the guilty blood stain on the hands of Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth. It’s unfortunate she doesn’t have the same final sense of conscience.

The public has been sold a script. They’ve agreed that, sometimes, it’s okay when women kill. They intended to only let women kill men (preferably husbands) because the script told them that men are horrid animals that pose a threat to women so great that women have no other choice than murder to rid themselves of the danger. But this script is not based in reality.

Karla Homolka lived in the safety of her parents’ home. She, her mother, and her sisters called her father a “dumb Czech” and women dominated her childhood home. The only threat she faced was other women who might “steal” Bernardo away from her before she got her dream wedding. Karla partook of the rapes and murders out of jealousy and rage. She put an invitation and momentos for her wedding in the casket of the sister she killed to gloat over who won the battle.

But feminists don’t think that equality before the law is fair to women because they are “oppressed.” Women should, according to Kitty MacKinnon, LEAF, and the Elizabeth Fry Societies, be granted exemption from accountability to the law.

Feminist lawyers don’t want women to be treated equally. Entire industries have been built to busy the courts and spend our tax dollars to shelter, defend, and justify the criminal acts of women. They get away with it because, contrary to mainstream rhetoric, society actually values women more than men. That’s why we go out of our way to protect them and justify their crimes.

Karla Homolka knew she wasn’t a battered woman.

What’s wrong with the rest of you?

Holmolka quotes come from Stephen Williams’ “Karla: A Pact With The Devil”, Seal Books, 2004

4 thoughts on “Ten Thousand Feminists at the Bottom of the Ocean”

  1. “What do you call ten thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start” This case was horrendous enough when it happened, but your post exposes intentional holes in the rule of law. Many still believe in the law. This is a huge mistake for thinkers, but if you are (cis) (hetero) (white) (male)s who (work) for a living, this game never ends. Thank you, Diana and John, for a dose of realism. I enjoy your words. I also believe that the law should fit easily in a pocketbook, be taught to youngsters and immigrants alike, and be broad, static and unyielding to religion, sex, race, or marxist trope of the hour. Full disclosure: I also read books about unicorns…. we will see which hand fills up first. Thanks.

  2. Being originally from Canada–now a dual citizen living in the USA–I will make the observation that Karla Homolka seems to be an absolutely unique case. Although originally she did get the benefit of the doubt as a woman, her uniqueness is that once her true role in the crimes became known, she seemed to lose her trump card as a woman. I’ve literally never seen that happen to any other North American woman. In 2010, for example, when Karla was due for a pardon, Canada’s four major parties–all led by men and traditionally bitter enemies–all came together to pass legislation to deny Karla a pardon. And–AFAIK–one didn’t see feminist organizations sticking up for Karla as a battered woman. The feminists let the men win this one and the woman (Karla) lose. Again–Karla’s case is absolutely unique.

Join the conversation