Big Fat Hairy Living

Tell me:

What do I believe?

No cheating.

Apparently another Holly’s Law already exists, albeit in a different country. It’s not the same Holly’s Law that I wrote about a few days ago. This Holly died for some other reason.

I wonder if there’s a protocol for naming laws after kids when two kids die in the same jurisdiction. If “Holly’s Law” gets passed in Canada and another Holly kid dies for some reason, what will they name it? Holly’s (Not the One Who Was Molested) Law? That Other Holly’s Law? Holly’s Law II: Revenge of Holly’s Law?

The only two men I’ve ever seriously dated both have two degrees each. The guys that it never went anywhere with didn’t even have one.

I think I like the combination of slutty and smart. There’s something arousing about being slam-fucked by someone who can explain how Byzantine iconography anticipated cubism centuries beforehand. Not that I’ve ever jerked off thinking of that happening. Because I haven’t. I swear.

Someone at work forwarded an e-mail to me pointing out a site with a petition to enact something called “Holly’s Law,” another stupid reactionary law that claims it will make the world safer “for the children.” The e-mail itself makes several claims that are patently false — they claim that

Convicted child molesters are allowed to interact freely with our children even when there is a known and real threat for them to reoffend. Holly’s law will clarify the definition of a child molester [and] make it a federal offence

The person who wrote that drivel obviously does not realize that not only are convicted child molesters not allowed to interact freely with children, but also that all criminal offences in Canada are federal. Should I really pay attention to someone who is petitioning for changes to criminal law when she doesn’t even understand basics Constitutional facts about it?

What’s more, the petitioners don’t even claim to want “the definition of a child molester [clarified].” That’s because it’s already defined clearly!

Let’s take a look at the text of the petition:

We the undersigned request federal legislation, to be named “Holly’s Law,” that will protect the public from child molesters. The law will provide that any sexual offence against a child will result in an automatic dangerous offender hearing for the convicted offender. At the hearing, the sentencing judge, with the help of psychiatric testimony, will determine whether the perpetrator should be declared a dangerous offender and held in custody until he is no longer a threat to the public. The law will also mandate that all federal and provincial prisons should provide sex offender treatment to all inmates convicted of sexual offences, and that the federal government should create special facilities for the incarceration and treatment of sex offenders.

Let’s not even talk about the stupidity of being told that some “Holly’s Law” will “protect the public from child molesters.” The public is already protected from “child molesters.” That’s why “child molesters” are put in jail and are subject to supervision upon their release.

As for “Dangerous Offender” hearings? The organizers behind this petition haven’t done some basic homework, as they’re already provided for in the Criminal Code. As the law is written currently, the Crown may make an application at trial — or up to six months after conviction — for a Dangerous Offender hearing. Such hearings take place in front of judge and require the testimony of a psychiatrist. If the judge is satisfied that the individual in question is a Dangerous Offender, an indefinite sentence will be imposed by the judge.

The Criminal Code also contains provisions for a “Long Term Offender” category, less narrowly defined than the Dangerous Offender category. Anyone found to be a Long Term Offender is automatically be subject to ten years of supervision upon completion of his sentence. The “Long Term Offender” category applies to anyone convicted of a sexual offence, or of any offence with a sexual component to it.

In other words, most of what the petitioners want is already in existence. Either they didn’t do any research or they’re relying on the fact that most people are grossly ignorant of current events in Canada.

The petition is already mostly irrelevant, but let’s destroy the rest of it. There are only three things that the petitioners request that aren’t already in existence:

• Mandatory Dangerous Offender hearings for those convicted of a “sexual offence against a child,”
• Mandatory treatment for convicted sex offenders, and
• Separate facilities for the incarceration and treatment of sex offenders.

The last one is the easiest to dismiss. What possible reason could there be for separate facilities? What benefit is there that would justify the cost? What is it about sex that’s so awful that requires those who are convicted of sexual offences to be housed in separate facilities? Nothing. Next!

The demand for mandatory treatment for convicted sex offenders bothers me, mostly because there are plenty of sex offences in Canada that in reality offend nobody, or at least nobody whose opinion matters. For example, threesomes are illegal in Canada if anal sex is involved. Yes, that’s right: You can’t have anal sex if there are more than you and your partner in the room. What’s more, consent is no defence. Just imagine how many kinky people you could protect the public from by turning them in right now! Better wait until after “Holly’s Law,” though, so that those nasty threesome-having “sex offenders” will get the mandatory treatment that they need.

How about anal intercourse? With the exception of two provinces, anal intercourse is illegal for couples under 18. A 17 year old man can stuff his dick into his 17 year old girlfriend’s twat no problem, but if she wants it up her ass, he’d better not oblige her; then he’d be a “sex offender.” And heaven forbid that they get off on someone watching them. That would be two offences!

Someone who fucks his girlfriend (or boyfriend for that matter) up the ass isn’t a sex offender in need of treatment, despite what the Criminal Code says; he’s an innocent person who should be left alone by the police. And lest you think that such things aren’t a problem in the real world, just ask the owner of Goliath’s, a bath house in Calgary that was raided not that long ago. If convicted, he’ll be a convicted “sex offender” under Canada’s antiquated morality laws. Mandatory treatment for a “sex offender” who operates a bath house where consenting adults go to have sex with each other? Are you serious?

For me, the final straw is the demand for mandatory Dangerous Offender hearings for anyone convicted “sexual offence against a child.” I find the unstated assumptions behind this proposal particularly offensive. Mandatory hearings for someone who rapes a child, but not for someone who kills a child? Mandatory hearings for someone who rapes a 13-year old, but not for someone who rapes a 14 year-old? Once someone turns 14 — the age of consent in Canada — they’re no longer all that important any more and someone who rapes them shouldn’t automatically be considered a Dangerous Offender? Are the petitioners seriously saying that they think rape is worse than murder and that children are more important than teen-agers and adults?

I’m sure the average mouth-breathing citizen will disagree with my analysis, but then again the average citizen neither understands this country’s laws, nor cares that much about personal freedom. Unlike the average citizen, I think that only good laws should be enacted.

Good laws are laws that have been thoroughly thought through and not passed in the heat of emotion. Good laws are laws that don’t have many unintended consequences that haven’t been considered. Good laws are narrowly written so that they don’t interfere with people who want to enjoy their lives how they wish in the privacy of their own homes.Good laws are not laws that create senseless distinctions, like “Holly’s Law,” which would place more value on the life of a 13 year-old than a 14-year old and more serious consequences on a rapist than on a murderer. Good laws are not laws that enselessly throw money at problems for things like separate facilities for “sex offenders” just because something terrible happened.

A few months ago, I wrote about seeing the hot director’s uncut dick while he was pissing at the urinal next to me.

I managed to find a picture of him online. I’ve edited it to remove all the nasty gross people from it. Bask in the glow of his foreskinny mega-cock!

OK, I lied. There’s a distinct lack of foreskinny mega-cock in that picture. And please ignore the ugly-people fragments obscuring the view of his face. He’s hot, I promise.

It’s somewhat heartening that some of the feedback on the Toronto Star’s web site regarding DNA testing is written by intelligent people who don’t support the abolition of civil and human rights because of the murder of yet another little kid. Unfortunately, too many of the comments are written by simpering idiots who have no idea of the importance of privacy. For example, someone named Mitchell Santaw writes

I think DNA samples should be taken from all people entering this country who wish to stay. Also, when a child is born, they fingerprint and footprint them, they should also take DNA prints too. The rest of us, well the next time you have your yearly check-up, provide a sample for DNA recording.

Tell you what, Mitchell. How about every year with your tax return, you should also be required to submit a detailed report of your movements and your political and religious activities. That way we’ll be able to save little girls from being killed and we’ll be able to stop terrorists too. After all, you have nothing to hide.

Right?

Reading the latest issues of the local gay rag, I run across a classified ad for a cub who will clean your house in the nude, then massage you and (presumably) do Other Things. I decided to respond to the e-mail address (no pager!) and ask for rates and a picture. Two days later, he replied that he will send me a picture of himself if I send a picture of myself to him.

I can almost forgive the fact that he doesn’t have a pager, but requiring a picture of me? Is this really how whores are supposed to do business? If I’m paying him to clean my house in the nude, why should what I look like matter? If I’m willing to pay him good money, I’m damn well going to want to see what he looks like before I tell him to come over.

I just finished my dinner. Getting up to put away the dishes, I noticed the little card that I got at Dan’s wake lying in my letter rack.

I cried.

I decided to take a different route home from work. I took the bus down Don Mills and walked home from Pape and Danforth.

Crossing the Prince Edward Viaduct with its new suicide barrier, I started thinking about all the people that killed themselves by jumping onto the highway below.

Why did they kill themselves? What was the final thing that went wrong that pushed over the line from suicidal depression into actual suicide? Was it fear of death? Fear of not dying? What made them want to stop living? What made them jump?

All the times I thought about committing suicide, what was it that kept me from doing it?