Ottawa police offer useless, victim blaming "advice" for women to avoid rape

Two Ottawa women are recovering from some very terrifying moments after they were sexually assaulted in the city’s west end.

The Ottawa Police Sexual Assault and Child Abuse section is investigating after two separate sexual assaults were reported  Monday July 14, 2014.

The first assault happened around 2:30pm in the 2800 block of Dumaurier Avenue when a woman in her late 30’s was attacked.  Just hours later, around 7pm, another woman, also in her 30’s was attacked along a walking path near Richmond Road and Bayshore Drive.

Police say in both cases the female victims were walking when they were grabbed and sexually assaulted (source: ottawctvnews)

In response to these horrific crimes, the Ottawa police department offered advice to women:

  • Try not to walk alone at night but if you do, be alert and avoid dark or isolated areas.  Instead, walk out in the open, away from walls, doorways and pillars.
  • Whether you are walking or driving, determine the safest route before you leave.  Take the longest route if that is the safest.
  • Tell friends or family members where you’re going, and then let them know when you reach your destination.
  • Have your key ready as you approach your house or vehicle.
  • Don’t enter environments where you feel unsafe. Trust your instincts.
  • Know your physical capabilities and limitations.
  • Don’t carry offensive weapons such as knives. They may be used against you.

Ottawa Police say if you suspect you are being followed:

  • Cross the street or walk on the side of the road.
  • Go immediately to the nearest well-lit or populated area.
  • If others are within hearing distance, turn to the person following you and say in a loud and assertive voice: “Stop following me!”
  • Contact Police immediately—go to a house or a store and call the Police or flag down a taxi and ask the driver to call the Police for you.
  • If the person following you is driving a car, take out a pen and paper, look at the licence plate and write the number down, making sure that the driver sees you do this.

Ottawa Police say if you are attacked:

  • Try to remember the complexion, body build, height, weight, age, and type of clothing worn by the attacker. If possible, write down the information while it is still fresh in your memory.
  • If an attacker is after your purse or other valuables, don’t resist. If you have the opportunity, throw your purse away from you to the distance the attacker from you.

I’ll just get it out of the way:  the Ottawa police department may have had the best of intentions, but none of this shit helps.  Why?  Because rapists rape. They’re the ones with the power to NOT rape.  Women are not in control of being raped.  Women are already taught from a young age to watch their behavior, to be careful in public, and other ways of guarding themselves.  This advice is patronizing and tone deaf.  It’s also not informed by facts.

Women are often sexually assaulted  in familiar surroundings.   Telling a woman to be careful at night, or in unfamiliar areas is making an assumption that they’re more likely to be raped under those conditions.  Women are raped at home, at church, at the convenience store, at the mall, or at work.  There is no “safe” place from rape.

Women are raped in the morning, the afternoon, at night, at dusk, at dawn.  There is no time of day women are not raped.

Women are raped whether they wear a full body burqa, or a bikini.  They can show NO skin and get raped, or they can be completely nude and get raped.

Women get raped whether or not they carry a weapon.

Women get raped if they’re stone cold sober, have had a sip of wine, are buzzed, or are shit faced drunk. The level of sobriety has no bearing on whether or not a woman will be raped. Rapists often get women drunk to facilitate their rape bc they know society will look at the woman and blame her (we so often hear about the “I didn’t like the sex so I’m calling it rape” excuse by victim blaming assholes).

Women are raped by family members.  Friends. Lovers.  Spouses.  Exes.  Bosses.  Co-workers.  And yes, strangers.  There is no way to “avoid a rapist” bc theoretically anyone can be a rapist*.  There’s no way to know who is a rapist and who isn’t.  A woman cannot look at someone and determine if they’re going to rape them or not. 

Over at femifesto, the Ottawa police “advice” is searingly mocked:

How To Not Get Raped: The smart way

  1. Start Young: Learn self defence but know that you are physically limited and cannot defend yourself. Learn not to talk to strangers before you learn to talk. Learn not to walk alone before you learn to walk. Especially learn how to be accountable for your rapist’s actions.

  1. Trust Your Instincts: Avoid all environments where you feel unsafe and where sexual assaults commonly take place: walls, doorways, pillars, streets, sidewalks, corridors, elevators, lobbies, parking lots, cars, public transit, cabs, parks, bars, restaurants, apartments, houses, offices, universities, colleges, nursing homes and government institutions.

  1. Always Conform: Don’t embrace the power and pleasures of your own desires. Don’t dress to impress – yourself. Don’t find yourself gorgeous and alive and wanting to share that. Don’t wear flirty skirts or revealing dresses. On the other hand do not be tomboyish. Avoid any expression that does not conform to gender norms as some people may use rape as a way to “discipline” you.    

  1. Don’t Ask For It: Do not smile or be charming. Be pleasant and polite to everyone you meet — if you’re hostile, you may be asking for assault. Also, be sure you don’t lead on your attacker. Never invite anyone into your home, but never be alone. Don’t be coy. Don’t be brazen. Don’t confuse anyone — mixed messages can be dangerous.

  1. Protect Yourself: If you live alone, install extra locks, buy a dog, and carry a small weapon. If you live with others, carry the dog and weapon around your home. Also, make sure you don’t carry the dog or weapon with you, as weapons could be used against you.

  1. Date Smart: Don’t go on dates alone, you could be attacked. Don’t go on dates in groups because then you could be attacked by a number of people. But don’t decline date offers either – insulting a potential suitor is just asking for trouble.

  1. If Attacked: Scream and struggle unless your attacker is the type who will kill you for fighting back. If you stay still for survival, make sure that they wouldn’t have let you go if you had resisted. Talk kindly to them, but don’t say anything that might sound bad in court. Protect yourself from injury, but make sure you get some bruises to count as evidence.

  1. Call the Police: Unless you face institutional barriers to accessing justice i.e. Aboriginal peoples, women of colour, persons with a disability, trans* people, queer folks, sex workers, Muslim women that wear the niqab, youth, low income individuals, homeless people, newcomer women, those with precarious status, Deaf people…you get the picture.

  1. Avoid Rapists: Most importantly stay away from those who commonly commit assaults; strangers, family members, friends, partners, spouses, co-workers, bosses, clients, teachers, doctors, teammates, and police officers. Be extra careful during peak times when rapes occur i.e. daytime, nighttime, dawn, afternoon, early evening, tea time, nap time. If you suspect you are being followed, go to a well lit area: unless you can’t because it’s dark outside – then set off a flare gun or light a torch. (Why are you outside when it’s dark anyway?)

I get that the Ottawa police department wanted to help, but they really need to target men, since the vast majority of rapes are committed by men against women.  If they want to truly do some good, target men.  The campaign Don’t Be That Guy is a good start:

Don’t Be That Guy – a behavioural marketing campaign sends the message that sex without consent is sexual assault. We are sending a visual message to men between the ages of 18 and 25, graphically demonstrating their role in ending alcohol facilitated sexual assaults. Don’t Be That Guy shifts the emphasis to men to take responsibility for their behaviour. Studies involving 18-25 year old men revealed that 48 per cent of the men did not consider it rape if a woman is too drunk to know what is going on.

The original vision for Don’t Be That Guy was a community collaboration in Edmonton, Alberta in response to recognition of increased reports of alcohol facilitated sexual assaults in their city. The community collaboration called themselves SAVE (Sexual Assault Voices of Edmonton) and their major partners were Edmonton Police Service, Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton, University of Alberta Sexual Assault Centre, Saffron Centre, Alberta Health Services – Covenant Health, Prostitution Action and Awareness Foundation of Edmonton, University of Alberta Women’s Studies Program, Red Cross (Edmonton), Responsible Hospitality Edmonton and several community advocates. Here’s more about SAVE.

Stop putting the responsibility for ending rape on women. Men, if you’re opposed to rape and sexual assault, step up.  Don’t remain silent.  Don’t Be That Guy.

 

*Hence the idea behind Schrodinger’s Rapist

Ottawa police offer useless, victim blaming "advice" for women to avoid rape
{advertisement}

The young Boy Scout heard the snap of a holster and found a loaded gun aimed at his head

What the ever loving FUCK?!

A Border Patrol agent allegedly held a member of an Iowa Boy Scout troop at gunpoint while another threatened another boy with arrest and a 10-year prison term for taking a picture of him, KCCI-TV reported.

The incident reportedly took place while members of Mid-Iowa Boy Scout Troop 111 and volunteers traveling with them were attempting to drive through the border between Canada into Alaska. Troop leader Jim Fox told KCCI that the group was detained and searched after the scout took the picture. The agent allegedly told Fox that the scout had committed a federal offense.

“The agent immediately confiscated his camera, informed him he would be arrested, fined possibly $10,000 and 10 years in prison,” Fox was quoted as saying.

Fox and his troop complied with the agent’s order, but as another scout was unloading luggage from one of the group’s vans, “He hears a snap of a holster, turns around, and here’s this agent, both hands on a loaded pistol, pointing at the young man’s head.”

The troop was released after being detained for four hours, and made it back to Iowa this past Sunday.

Reason.com reported that federal regulations (PDF) allow for non-commercial photographs of federal facilities “only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned.” But according to the American Civil Liberties Union, federal buildings and police in plain view fall under the definition of “public spaces,” and can therefore be photographed when someone is “lawfully present.”

“There is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs from public places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply,” the ACLU wrote in a guide about public photography rights updated earlier this month.

 

The abuse of power committed by many law enforcement officers in the US is spiraling further and further out of control.  I don’t care if it was unlawful to take a photograph:  YOU DO NOT THREATEN A CHILD WITH A GUN.  You don’t point a goddamned gun at a child and threaten them with anything.  What the ever loving FUCK was going through the head of that border patrol agent?  I don’t know, but I sincerely hope a full investigation is performed.  This should be grounds for termination.

The young Boy Scout heard the snap of a holster and found a loaded gun aimed at his head

Amazing Art

Bird clips for lightbulbs?  What a brilliant way to offer pizzazz to a room.

(source:  Hommin, via thisiscolossal)

 

Here are some amazing halftone photographs:

(source: Hideyuki Sawayanagi, via thisiscolossal)

 

Last, but certainly not least:

(source: Tomoko Shioyasu, via thisiscolossal)

Japanese artist Tomoko Shioyasu was born in Osaka in 1981 and majored in sculpture at the Kyoto City University of Arts. Her immense floor-to-ceiling tapestries are meticulously cut by hand from enormous sheets of paper using utility knives and soldering irons. Her work evokes some of nature’s most complex creations: the organic patterns of cells, the flow of water, and the forces of wind. How these are hung without tearing seems nearly impossible.

Hand. Cut.

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaamn!

 

Amazing Art

The idiocy of Ken Ham

 

Are we alone in the universe?  According to NASA astronomer Kevin Hand, extraterrestrial life will likely be discovered in the next 20 years.  Whether or not you believe him, that’s a bold statement to make (I do not. However I do think it is highly like that life exists elsewhere.  The universe is just a wee bit big).  Answers in Genesis president and CEO Ken Ham had something to say about this search for extraterrestrial life:

 

I’m shocked at the countless hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent over the years in the desperate and fruitless search for extraterrestrial life. Even Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” in our recent debate, happily gloated about tax dollars being spent toward this effort. And now, secular scientists are at it again.

 

Clearly Ham is not interested in attempts to find out if we’re alone in this vast universe.  Other people disagree and think there’s value in searching.  He thinks it’s fruitless though, and offers up no proof of his opinion.  It’s fruitless? How? Oh yeah, Ken Ham is a creationist. He believes in biblical nonsense and clearly thinks life only exists on Earth.  I also love the use of “secular” to describe scientists searching for extraterrestrial life.  It’s a pointless adjective that merely highlights Ham’s disdain for the separation of church and state.

Of course, secularists are desperate to find life in outer space, as they believe that would provide evidence that life can evolve in different locations and given the supposed right conditions!  The search for extraterrestrial life is really driven by man’s rebellion against God in a desperate attempt to supposedly prove evolution!

No, you nitwit.  Scientists don’t need to search for life in space to find evidence for evolution. That’s already been done and there are mounds of evidence in support of evolution.  There’s no need to look off-planet for that evidence.  If you’d ditch your religion-tinged glasses for a moment, you’d see that the prospect of life in the universe aside from this pale blue dot is an idea that many find fascinating.  It’s not driven by some silly rebellion against an unproven deity that you can’t even define.  I don’t believe in your god, nor any other gods, and you, as well as the believers of every other religion that has ever existed have no evidence to prove your flavor of deity exists.  Until you provide evidence of that, the idea of “rebelling” against your god is silly.  It’s like rebelling against invisible pink unicorns that fart rainbows.

You see, according to the secular, evolutionary worldview there must be other habited worlds out there. As the head of NASA, Charles Borden, puts it, “It’s highly improbable in the limitless vastness of the universe that we humans stand alone.” Secularists cannot allow earth to be special or unique—that’s a biblical idea (Isaiah 45:18). If life evolved here, it simply must have evolved elsewhere they believe.

I don’t think scientists think there must be life out there, just that its statistically likely.  The conditions necessary for life to arise here on Earth could very well happen elsewhere.  We have no proof that life originated because of a deity, so there’s no reason to continue adhering to that unproven hypothesis.  There are naturalistic explanations offered for the origin of life, explanations that actually have a foundation in reality rather than fantasy.  Are any of these explanations “the one”?  At present, we don’t know (a phrase often found in scientific attempts to discover the origins of life, but not one found in religion).  As for not allowing Earth to be special or unique…WTF? Where is he getting that from?  Can he point to a secularist that thinks Earth is not special or unique?  Does he not realize that even if life is found on other worlds that Earth can still be special and unique (rhetorical question)?  As he did in his debate with Bill Nye, Ham falls back on the bible as “proof” for what he believes.

The Bible, in sharp contrast to the secular worldview, teaches that earth was specially created, that it is unique and the focus of God’s attention (Isaiah 66:1 and Psalm 115:16). Life did not evolve but was specially created by God, as Genesis clearly teaches. Christians certainly shouldn’t expect alien life to be cropping up across the universe.

Yes, the bible says all that, without one shred of evidence to back any of it up. Outside of the bible, there’s no verification of this version of the origin of life.  Reality does not match up to what the bible teaches as the origin of life.  There’s no reason to keep returning to the bible as a “source” for anything.  Life did evolve, and there’s plenty of evidence to prove that.

Now the Bible doesn’t say whether there is or is not animal or plant life in outer space.  I certainly suspect not. The Earth was created for human life. And the sun and moon  were created for signs and our seasons—and to declare the glory of God.

Sigh.  Dude, you don’t know that.  You’re assuming it. You think the bible is a valid source of information on the nature of reality, and yet science has shown, over and over again that it is not.  “The Earth was created for human life”? Then why the hell can we not survive on most of the planet.  We require a very specific set of conditions to survive.  Given that the majority of the planet is covered in water, and humans are not amphibious, there’s no reason to think this planet was created for us (not unless you’re engaging in a silly fine-tuning argument, which doesn’t work).  And really, this god guy (of course he’s male gendered ::eyeroll::) is incredibly vain if he created everything to glorify himself.

And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation. One day, the whole universe will be judged by fire, and there will be a new heavens and earth. God’s Son stepped into history to be Jesus Christ, the “Godman,” to be our relative, and to be the perfect sacrifice for sin—the Savior of mankind.

The bible makes that clear?  Where? Nevermind, it doesn’t matter, because the bible is a man-made creation and there’s no reason to think it was divinely inspired (and there’s no reason to think that anything “divine” exists).  By the way, you can consider Jesus Christ to be your savior, but I don’t.  There’s no evidence for god, and there’s no evidence for any supposed divinity of Jesus Christ.  There’s no reason to believe that anything Christ did was to benefit all of mankind.  That you believe that god recreated himself in a pseudo-human form, and allowed himself to be tortured to death in some sort of sacrifice to atone for the deeds of humanity–deeds that god himself is responsible for (in your worldview)–is warped and utter nonsense.

Jesus did not become the “GodKlingon” or the “GodMartian”!  Only descendants of Adam can be saved.  God’s Son remains the “Godman” as our Savior.  In fact, the Bible makes it clear that we see the Father through the Son (and we see the Son through His Word).  To suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong.

Ironically enough, if Jesus had claimed to be a GodKlingon, that might well have been some good evidence of precognition.  Seeing a Gene Roddenberry creation thousands of years before it was created?  That’d be kinda cool.

Many secularists want to discover alien life hoping that aliens can answer the deepest questions of life: “Where did we come from?” and “What is the purpose and meaning of life?” But such people are ignoring the revelation from the infinite God behind the whole universe. The Creator has told us where we came from: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1; Nehemiah 9:6). And He told us what life’s purpose is: “Fear God and keep His commandments” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

More meaningless, unsubstantiated drivel.  Since I don’t believe in any deity (there’s just as much proof of Ham’s god as there is for Odin or Hephaestus), there’s no reason to believe life has a purpose.  There’s no divine hand, no force that gives life meaning.  WE give life meaning.  WE give purpose to our lives.  I find it sad that Ham thinks the meaning of life is to be scared of his deity and do as he commands.  Ham.  Dude.  That’s slavery.

The answers to life’s questions will not be found in imaginary aliens but in the revelation of the Creator through the Bible and His Son, Jesus Christ, who came to die on a Cross to redeem mankind from sin and death that our ancestor, Adam, introduced.

I pity Ken Ham. He thinks all the answers in life can be found in the bible.    There’s no need to reach for the stars and advance our understanding of ourselves and the world around us.  As sad as I am for him, he’s free to lead that life if he chooses, but he needs to quit trying to indoctrinate others into that sad, small belief system.

 

The idiocy of Ken Ham

‘America Ended Slavery’ according to Richard Land

Let me get this out of the way first:  contrary to Richard Land’s beliefs, no, America did not end slavery.

Richard Land, the former head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s policy arm, is sick and tired of liberal public school propaganda about slavery in colonial America and the early United States. Subbing for Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on yesterday’s “Washington Watch” radio show, Land told listeners that Americans “ended slavery, we didn’t bring slavery to North America.”

[…]

Movies and books like Dinesh D’Souza’s book ‘America’ are so important because if you are younger than forty and you’ve been taught in the public schools, you have not learned the real story of America. You have been taught a lie about America as a colonial power, as a rapacious power. As Dinesh points out, we ended slavery, we didn’t bring slavery to North America. Slavery was there, the Native Americans were enslaving each other before we got here. Eventually, we ended slavery. We have been a civilizing influence in the world.

Despite efforts to whitewash history-efforts right-wing whackadoodle Richard Land continues-the founders of the US did not abolish slavery. Following the founding of the US, slavery continued, unabated.

Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery. The considerable investment of Southern Founders in slave-based staple agriculture, combined with their deep-seated racial prejudice, posed additional obstacles to emancipation.

In his initial draft of the Declaration of IndependenceThomas Jefferson condemned the injustice of the slave trade and, by implication, slavery, but he also blamed the presence of enslaved Africans in North America on avaricious British colonial policies. Jefferson thus acknowledged that slavery violated the natural rights of the enslaved, while at the same time he absolved Americans of any responsibility for owning slaves themselves. The Continental Congress apparently rejected the tortured logic of this passage by deleting it from the final document, but this decision also signaled the Founders’ commitment to subordinating the controversial issue of slavery to the larger goal of securing the unity and independence of the United States.

Nevertheless, the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory. Such antislavery policies, however, only went so far. The prohibition of foreign slave imports, by limiting the foreign supply, conveniently served the interests of Virginia and Maryland slaveholders, who could then sell their own surplus slaves southward and westward at higher prices. Furthermore, the ban on slavery in the Northwest tacitly legitimated the expansion of slavery in the Southwest.

Despite initial disagreements over slavery at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Founders once again demonstrated their commitment to maintaining the unity of the new United States by resolving to diffuse sectional tensions over slavery. To this end the Founders drafted a series of constitutional clauses acknowledging deep-seated regional differences over slavery while requiring all sections of the new country to make compromises as well. They granted slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their slave population when it came to apportioning the number of a state’s representatives to Congress, thereby enhancing Southern power in the House of Representatives. But they also used this same ratio to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, thus increasing the direct federal tax burden of slaveholding states. Georgians and South Carolinians won a moratorium until 1808 on any Congressional ban against the importation of slaves, but in the meantime individual states remained free to prohibit slave imports if they so wished. Southerners also obtained the inclusion of a fugitive slave clause (see Fugitive Slave Acts) designed to encourage the return of runaway slaves who sought refuge in free states, but the Constitution left enforcement of this clause to the cooperation of the states rather than to the coercion of Congress.

 

Land is technically correct-  slavery did exist among the Indigenous People of North America:

Some Native American tribes held war captives as slaves prior to and during European colonization, some Native Americans were captured and sold by others into slavery to Europeans, and a small number of tribes, in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, adopted the practice of holding slaves as chattel property and held increasing numbers of African-American slaves.

 

The point has little merit though, given that Indians did not indulge in large scale slave labor, whereas the colonists did.  While slavery was abolished as an official practice with the addition of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution  (which went into effect nearly 6 months after the end of the Civil War on December 6, 1865), it took some time to fully take effect.  The 13th Amendment declared slavery unconstitutional, but it was merely words with no enforcement.  Former slaves had the protection of federal troops from 1865-1875, but after their departure, white found alternate methods to practice indentured servitude.  Moreover, whites re-enslaved former slaves for some time after Reconstruction.  African-Americans were held in indentured servitude or slavery well into the 20th Century:

With the exception of cases of peonage, beyond the period of Reconstruction, the federal government took almost no action to enforce the 13th Amendment until December 1941 when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt summoned his attorney general. Five days after Pearl Harbor, at the request of the president Attorney General Francis Biddle issued Circular No. 3591 to all federal prosecutors, instructing them to actively investigate and try any case of involuntary servitude or slavery.  (source)

 

The Civil Rights Movement saw African-Americans ostensibly gain equality and the full range of civil rights as white Americans, but centuries of slavery and indentured servitude left many black Americans far behind white Americans socially, politically, and economically (hence the need for Affirmative Action programs; programs which ameliorate the problem, but do not fix it).

A final point on the “end” of slavery in the United States:  it may be officially abolished, but it still continues, in the form of child sex trafficking.    No one should listen to Richard Land  (or  Dinesh D’Souza) on history.  He is unequivocally wrong.

‘America Ended Slavery’ according to Richard Land

'America Ended Slavery' according to Richard Land

Let me get this out of the way first:  contrary to Richard Land’s beliefs, no, America did not end slavery.

Richard Land, the former head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s policy arm, is sick and tired of liberal public school propaganda about slavery in colonial America and the early United States. Subbing for Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on yesterday’s “Washington Watch” radio show, Land told listeners that Americans “ended slavery, we didn’t bring slavery to North America.”

[…]

Movies and books like Dinesh D’Souza’s book ‘America’ are so important because if you are younger than forty and you’ve been taught in the public schools, you have not learned the real story of America. You have been taught a lie about America as a colonial power, as a rapacious power. As Dinesh points out, we ended slavery, we didn’t bring slavery to North America. Slavery was there, the Native Americans were enslaving each other before we got here. Eventually, we ended slavery. We have been a civilizing influence in the world.

Despite efforts to whitewash history-efforts right-wing whackadoodle Richard Land continues-the founders of the US did not abolish slavery. Following the founding of the US, slavery continued, unabated.

Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery. The considerable investment of Southern Founders in slave-based staple agriculture, combined with their deep-seated racial prejudice, posed additional obstacles to emancipation.

In his initial draft of the Declaration of IndependenceThomas Jefferson condemned the injustice of the slave trade and, by implication, slavery, but he also blamed the presence of enslaved Africans in North America on avaricious British colonial policies. Jefferson thus acknowledged that slavery violated the natural rights of the enslaved, while at the same time he absolved Americans of any responsibility for owning slaves themselves. The Continental Congress apparently rejected the tortured logic of this passage by deleting it from the final document, but this decision also signaled the Founders’ commitment to subordinating the controversial issue of slavery to the larger goal of securing the unity and independence of the United States.

Nevertheless, the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory. Such antislavery policies, however, only went so far. The prohibition of foreign slave imports, by limiting the foreign supply, conveniently served the interests of Virginia and Maryland slaveholders, who could then sell their own surplus slaves southward and westward at higher prices. Furthermore, the ban on slavery in the Northwest tacitly legitimated the expansion of slavery in the Southwest.

Despite initial disagreements over slavery at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Founders once again demonstrated their commitment to maintaining the unity of the new United States by resolving to diffuse sectional tensions over slavery. To this end the Founders drafted a series of constitutional clauses acknowledging deep-seated regional differences over slavery while requiring all sections of the new country to make compromises as well. They granted slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their slave population when it came to apportioning the number of a state’s representatives to Congress, thereby enhancing Southern power in the House of Representatives. But they also used this same ratio to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, thus increasing the direct federal tax burden of slaveholding states. Georgians and South Carolinians won a moratorium until 1808 on any Congressional ban against the importation of slaves, but in the meantime individual states remained free to prohibit slave imports if they so wished. Southerners also obtained the inclusion of a fugitive slave clause (see Fugitive Slave Acts) designed to encourage the return of runaway slaves who sought refuge in free states, but the Constitution left enforcement of this clause to the cooperation of the states rather than to the coercion of Congress.

 

Land is technically correct-  slavery did exist among the Indigenous People of North America:

Some Native American tribes held war captives as slaves prior to and during European colonization, some Native Americans were captured and sold by others into slavery to Europeans, and a small number of tribes, in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, adopted the practice of holding slaves as chattel property and held increasing numbers of African-American slaves.

 

The point has little merit though, given that Indians did not indulge in large scale slave labor, whereas the colonists did.  While slavery was abolished as an official practice with the addition of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution  (which went into effect nearly 6 months after the end of the Civil War on December 6, 1865), it took some time to fully take effect.  The 13th Amendment declared slavery unconstitutional, but it was merely words with no enforcement.  Former slaves had the protection of federal troops from 1865-1875, but after their departure, white found alternate methods to practice indentured servitude.  Moreover, whites re-enslaved former slaves for some time after Reconstruction.  African-Americans were held in indentured servitude or slavery well into the 20th Century:

With the exception of cases of peonage, beyond the period of Reconstruction, the federal government took almost no action to enforce the 13th Amendment until December 1941 when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt summoned his attorney general. Five days after Pearl Harbor, at the request of the president Attorney General Francis Biddle issued Circular No. 3591 to all federal prosecutors, instructing them to actively investigate and try any case of involuntary servitude or slavery.  (source)

 

The Civil Rights Movement saw African-Americans ostensibly gain equality and the full range of civil rights as white Americans, but centuries of slavery and indentured servitude left many black Americans far behind white Americans socially, politically, and economically (hence the need for Affirmative Action programs; programs which ameliorate the problem, but do not fix it).

A final point on the “end” of slavery in the United States:  it may be officially abolished, but it still continues, in the form of child sex trafficking.    No one should listen to Richard Land  (or  Dinesh D’Souza) on history.  He is unequivocally wrong.

'America Ended Slavery' according to Richard Land