Back in the days of the Mulroney Government, a report on women and the criminal justice system was commissioned. The purpose of this was to funnel a few million in salaries to the otherwise-unemployable feminist hacks who wrote it.
The report is lost in the mists of the pre-Internet age; but allow me to summarize the authors' conclusions: No woman should ever be sent to prison, for any reason whatsoever. Fraud, arson, murder -- women would never commit these crimes unless they had a very good reason to do so, and a man made them do it anyway.
So everyone had a good laugh about it, and the report was shelved. But O happy day, they've blown the dust off just in time for this horrendous child-abuse case in Edmonton:
Darcy Bannert, 26, was handed an eight-year prison term this morning on convictions of sexual interference, unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, common assault, uttering threats and two drug charges.
"This was not a circumstance of poor parenting skills," said Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Darlene Acton. "Mr. Bannert was the player in control of this case and the focus in this particular case can only be on Mr. Bannert.
"This was not a momentary act or an angry outburst of a person who loses control because a child has misbehaved," continued Acton.
"This was a systematic plan and an abusing and controlling pattern of behaviour within an environment where Mr. Bannert chose to focus his attentions on (the girl) in a physically abusive as well as sexually abusive manner."
Acton said if she would have added up the sentences on each conviction, the result would have been a 12-year prison term, but said she had to reduce it to a global sentence of eight years based on the totality principle.
Bannert was also given 28 months credit for the 14 months he spent in pre-trial custody, leaving him with five years and eight months left to serve.
The former drug dealer, who himself was physically and sexually abused as a youth, showed no emotion during the sentence and simply listened to the judge while sitting in the prisoner’s box with his arms folded across his chest.
Bannert was also ordered to surrender a sample of his DNA for the national DNA databank and placed on the national sex offender registry for 20 years.
Acton noted the victim, who is now six and in foster care, suffered "significant emotional and psychological distress" at the hands of the man she used to call "daddy."
Court heard the "escalating" abuse included the girl being handcuffed to various objects such as a milk crate, an iron grate, table and chairs for Bannert’s "amusement."
She was also locked up in a dark, spider-filled basement where Bannert had a marijuana-growing operation.
The liquid-deprived child was also tormented by being sprayed with a water bottle during meal times.
And she was sexually abused during showers.
Court has heard the girl has been diagnosed as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and reactive attachment disorder and needs extensive therapy.
However, social workers say she is very resilient and there is hope for her.
And where was mama when all this was happening?
Bannert’s ex-girlfriend, the girl’s mom, [her name suppressed by court order, to "protect the girl's identity" -- ed.] was earlier found guilty of assault for punching and slapping the girl and for causing the child to be in need of protective services.
She was handed a two-year conditional sentence to be served in the community, which the Crown is appealing.
In other words, house arrest. Which is probably not unusual, given the kid-glove charges levelled by the Crown. The prosecutors must have agonized for months finding excuses for this woman's behavior.
Make no mistake about it: She knew full well of and was deeply complicitous in every aspect of this child's torture. Either that or she is so oblivious to reality that she should be institutionalized for her own protection.
She didn't even have to play the usual trump card, what I've come to call the Nuremburg defence -- I vas chust volloing orders!
By which we are to understand that women are inherently timid, passive creatures, incapable of defying a man's will (if only!).
(Which perhaps would also lead to the inconvenient question of why we let people of such frail and flickering character operate heavy machinery, let alone give them the responsibility of voting or occupying elected office.)
If anything, the comparison is insulting. To the Germans. The officer or politician who objected to a command from on high couldn't very well ring up the Gestapo and denounce his superiors. He'd likely have been on the wrong end of a firing squad by that same evening.
Whereas that telephone would have been an instrument of deliverance in this case.
Do you doubt that had she made that phone call and alleged half of what was reported above that the police wouldn't have been dragging her boyfriend out in handcuffs within five minutes?