The Other Press, December 9th, /982

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the surface, we have a reputation of being a
peaceful, non-violent country. ’it’s a terrible myth
really, that‘must at least partially prevent us from
seeing ourselves as we actually are.

Violence against women is a problem of major
proportion. It has capital gain in pornography.
Pornography is big business, and the entrance of
video equipment into the market promises to swell
profits; profits made at the expense of women. In
my mind it horribly violates human rights.
Censorship, right to property and free enterprise
must be secondary issues in the face of human
exploitation. It doesn’t mean one has a license to
counter-violence. It does mean that the situation

‘demands a hard look at priorities.

The real point is then, that there is a serious
problem in our attitude, value and belief system,
with respect to women. It’s not so much an
“‘anti-women’’ attitude, as it is an uncertainty of

2). 1G

women’s ‘‘worthiness’’. This is not a new comcept.

It might explain why Canadians haven’t acted in

outrage at violence against women. Canada does
not, as a whole, support fair and equal treatment for
women.

Violence against women by men must stop. We
desperately need a solution. I believe it means
tackling head-on, old, worn out myths and
misunderstandings in an intelligent, non-violent
manner.

I would hate to see further violence on the part of
the Wimmin’s Fire Brigade. Not that | fear that it
undermines the collective efforts of women’s
groups. More importantly, it would feed an already
violent situation.

 

 

 

 

The Other Press, December 9th, / 982. 3
. 4:

ge 9

 

you cant fight —

The arsonists who attacked Red Hot
Video stores last month forgot logic in
their fight against pornography.

Fighting ‘pornography is ‘in’ right
now, which is fine. But many who
oppose pornography privately feel the
vandals’ method was right.

They oppose pornography because it
promotes violence against females, an
injustice.

Yet they support violence in another
form. To fight violence with violence
discards the principles of justice you
need to argue that pornography is
unjust. Two wrongs do not make a
right. _.

They support the firebombing bec-
ause they think the harm done there is
justified. ‘‘Pornography causes more
harm,’’ they say. They point to media
interest in pornography since the
firebombing, assuming that any pub-
licity they get is good.

“While the arsonists did attract
attention to pornography, we. must
ask, ‘‘was it the right kind of
attention?’’ People may think that if
Red Hot Video’s tapes inspire ‘‘crazy
feminists’? to burn buildings, then
the films must be exciting. In other
words, the arsonists advertised Red
Hot Video.

One woman defended the arsonists:
“Violence is okay in self defense.’’
She compared the arsonists to captive
Jews in Nazi Germany hypothetically
using violence to escape. But her
analogy is feeble. Is this really a case
of self- defense? The Jews would have
no alternative, but the women. do.
Violence in self-defense is okay only to
prevent your own death. Most of these
women will never be direct victims of
pornography.

The arsonists tried to defend them-
selves by writing that their legal

efforts have failed. Just because anti

violence with violence

porn laws arn’t enforced’ now doesn’t -
mean you can take the law into your »

own hands and destroy a building. If
everyone burned a building whenever
they didn’t like the system, Society
would collapse. And we wouldn’t get

an anarchist utopia, we'd probably get

a police state.

The arsonists don’t fully understand
the consequences of their action;
nobody can. But the action may have
lost,the support for the cause: many
people who oppose pornography are
unable to condone violence. The
arsonists draw support largely from
activists, not from the passive public.
If you say violence is wrong, will
people take you seriously if you make
your own rules about when it is
wrong? Would the store-owners be
‘right’ to firebomb the homes of the
arsonists, if they were known? Given
that the store owners deny being
‘wrong’ (‘‘We’re just making an
honest buck’’), they might justify to
themselves a reciprocal firebombing if
they accepted this ‘two wrongs’ moral
standard. Finally, there’s no ade-
quate reply to the fact that the
arsonists could have killed someone.
Somebody might have been in the
store. Or the fire might have spread
too far. Or a fireman might have been
killed putting it out.

‘They might have phoned the store
beforehand’. But they might not.
And so what--that wouldn’t completely
end any risk of killing. If they had
killed someone, would anybody say the
firebombing was worth it?
Christopher Page

Nancy Powell
| Sean Valentini

Caroline Hardon
Annette Murray