Last episode June pretty clearly indicated that it's only been 7 years since this madness began. "What happened to chips in the last 7 years" shows that June hasn't eaten chips in 7 years. The Boston Globe newspaper reporting the aftermath to the President's Day Massacre is dated September 15, 2014. How is it, then, that this new crop of compliant, obedient handmaid's have only known life in Gilead their entire lives? They look much older than 7. Let's say they are 20. That would make them 13 when the world turned upside down. The handmaid's in that scene looked much older than early teens.
The writers must all have failed basic math, or the producers failed to hire a competent continuity person. I've been in numerous arguments on the YouTube review channels, explaining approximately how many years it's been for June since her capture and estimating how long Gilead had existed before that.
It drives me right up the wall and up the chimney when I hear people say it's only been 5 years or whatever. Some harridan on YouTube kept screeching at me that I was wrong, the Reddit fans were right, because they'd gone by some piece of set design that had dates on it.
I told her you can't go by set design, and that you have to go by what the characters establish in Season 1, episode 1 (when June and Emily talk about their kids), and keeping in mind that the Waterfords were
not June's first placement. By the time she gets there, she's been a Handmaid for 3 years (including her initial orientation and brainwashing in the Red Centre).
As for the chips... they were in a Canadian grocery store. We have a lot of flavors of chips the Americans don't have, and in some cases have never heard of. And this taking place in Ontario, where it's more likely to run across brands/flavors of chips that are available in Ontario but not in other provinces (it's annoying to see some of them listed online, only to be told I can't order them because they're not available in Alberta).
Well... good for Lawrence for calling out Lydia on her penchant for physically torturing people (even though he called it a 'hobby').
A gilded cage is still a cage, but the Waterfords are held in a nice cell. Why they are allowed private time to collaborate with each other is beyond me.
It's long been my belief that they are not being held in a Canadian prison. Even the nicest Canadian prison isn't as luxurious as that, and while I've never been to any embassy, it does make sense to me that an embassy would have secure facilities in case they ever needed to detain high-ranking political prisoners. So my take is that "Little America" - in the middle of Toronto - has a branch office of the American Embassy that should actually be in Ottawa but isn't, because the showrunners prefer to pretend that Toronto is the capital and it and an Ontario farm are the only parts of Canada that exist.
It's a shame the Aunt died as I would have also liked to have seen her turn state's evidence. That was my thinking when she was begging for forgiveness. I was hoping Emily would tell her to go confess to the authorities. It is a comfort to know that there are other former handmaid's in Canada, as well as a few Marthas now.
As we saw, Emily tends not to be in a forgiving mood when it comes to Aunts and Wives. She killed a Wife in the Colonies, killed the Mayday agent during the Salvaging (to put him out of his misery before the rest of the Handmaids tore him apart), ran over a guard, and tried to kill Aunt Lydia.
Why are the Waterfords on trial in Canada specifically? Shouldn't this be at the World Court? Isn't Gilead responsible for crimes against humanity? Perhaps these are just early proceedings. After all, it is a pre-trial hearing.
I did some Googling and learned that the official location of the International Criminal Court is The Hague, Netherlands. However, the proceedings of this court can take place anywhere.
Canada is a member. The U.S. is not. Therefore, I conclude that the Waterfords are being tried in Canada as the nearest secure nation that is part of this international court.
So it's not Canada that is actually prosecuting them, it's the world court doing it in Canada.
I did think it was interesting that June asked about a bible. Did she want one to swear on? Did she want one so she could make a point of not swearing on it?
I don't know how it is in the U.S., but in Canada people may, but are not required, to swear on the holy book of their choice. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees this choice, which is why people doing oaths/affirmations in public notary offices have the option, and I had the option back when I worked either as a municipal census taker and Deputy Returning Officer for elections, and for Elections Canada as an enumerator and Deputy Returning Officer for federal elections.
I do recall, however, that when the City Clerk asked if anyone had an objection to swearing on a bible and I raised my hand, he gave me a dirty look and my colleagues all gave a collective gasp that translated to "OMG, how could she possibly object to swearing on a bible?!". They were horrified, and the City Clerk was irritated that extra paperwork would be required for an affirmation. But after years of coercion in schools about religious rituals, after 1982 saw the Charter come in, I finally had the legal right to say no. I was therefore pleased to see that there was no bible-swearing in the episode.
How long can a government remain in exile before it's no longer a government? Free France existed in London during WWII, but they were eventually restored to France. Taiwan still exists but, then again, they do have some land to control. Well, there still are Alaska and Hawaii, so there still is a US government of some kind. Why again is the US government in Toronto? Perhaps it's just an embassy and the real capitol is in either Alaska or Hawaii?
Just an embassy. But then I've noticed that a lot of American viewers on the YT review channels are hopelessly ignorant about Canada, and seem to take it as "of course the Americans have authority in Canada, and the Canadians should just give them Little America for a state of their own."
To which my reaction was a very sincere WTF?!
To see how absurd such a notion is, just reverse it. If Gilead happened in Canada and there were Canadian refugees in the U.S. and a Canadian government-in-exile (let's suppose that maybe Newfoundland might have remained free of a Canadian Gilead since it's an island, or maybe Vancouver Island might have and the temporary capital might be Victoria)... would the Americans just GIVE land to Canada for a new province?
Of course not. So why should Canada just give away part of a city as a "state" of a foreign country?
You keep using this phrase "righteous anger." I'm not sure that I agree. Righteous anger has it's limits. June seems to be pushing past those limits and wants to bring the others along with her. Moira discussed how the group was supposed to be a place of healing and June wants to know why can't it be both - June is tying healing with revenge. Understandable, but not right nor healthy. Everyone damaged the way these women have been need to heal. Many people damaged this way cannot face their abuses or seek revenge. Does that mean they can't heal? Of course not. Therefore, healing is not tied to revenge.
It might be more apt to say "self-righteous anger." June doesn't have much regard for what other people think is right. Her view is the only one that matters to her, and I think she was like this pre-Gilead as well. I have to say that while she has gone through some horrific experiences and genuinely loves her children, I don't really like her.
Can these women heal, though? I suppose they can. What the former handmaid's have endured really isn't much different in terms of trauma than what many victims of the Nazi death camps went through. Those who survived that holocaust needed to heal. While some did not, many no doubt did. Few of those victims were able to face their former oppressors. Sure, there were the Nuremburg trials, but that doesn't always help the individual. Trials aren't going to satisfy June.
Trials are pointless without an outcome, and it has to be obvious that the Waterfords are guilty as hell, along with every other "Son of Jacob". The only one I can give wiggle room to is Nick, since he's been a double agent for a long time (have to admit that so far we don't know just when he allied with Mayday, just that it was before June first came to the Waterfords; we don't know all his allegiances in the four years or so prior to that).
I didn't think it went far enough, though I'm' hard pressed to figure out how June could have done any better. The horrors are beyond words. Plus, the scope of this pre-trial hearing was limited to the Waterfords. June's experiences and sufferings extend far beyond the Waterfords.
Hopefully at some point June will get to tell someone of the atrocities she saw in Washington, with the Handmaids whose mouths are ringed shut. I can't figure out why they're not all insane by this point, not to mention malnourished from not being able to eat properly, they'd have breathing problems, they'd choke if they ever threw up, and some of their piercings would have become infected.
I'm sorry, but even with Timewalker's verification, I find that court exit scene far-fetched. Timewalker, I'm anxious to hear your take after you get to watch the episode. Considering that Canada shares these socio-political similarities with the USA, then I can't believe such a one-sided protest or support crowed could have formed. There would have been just as many, if not more, anti-Waterford people there. The two groups would have fought. Even if they didn't fight, there should have been just as many people booing and cat-calling and shouting vitriol at the Waterfords. It should have been chaos. What happened to all those protesters Moira was with when Fred went on that diplomatic mission to Canada back in, what, season 1?
I actually felt physically nauseated when watching that scene. Someone sympathetic to Gilead would have to have organized it, and would likely have had to apply for a permit. Protest permits don't have to be granted to all sides of an issue (usually resulting in further protests on the grounds of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly). If the show did this like it would happen in RL, there is probably an additional site where the anti-Waterford protesters would have gathered. But it would not be anywhere near the location where these proceedings are being held.
(I'm thinking about the way the G20 protests were held some years ago and the massive overreaction of the police; there are lawsuits pending even after all this time for false arrest and detention, assault, and so on)
The show hasn't ever said whether Canada is also experiencing the same severe drop in birthrate as the U.S. and Mexico. Maybe it is, and that's one reason why all those sign-waving sycophants came out.
As I mentioned a couple of seasons ago, reading between the lines of how the Canadian government behaves in each season, I have to conclude that the Liberals were in charge during the Waterfords' diplomatic visit, and decided to kick them out once the Handmaids' letters were released online. Later on, when there's talk of sending some of the refugees back, that tells me there's been an off-camera election and the Conservatives won.
If this were a real-life situation, the Liberals would never send women and children back to a country where they would be enslaved, tortured, denied basic human rights and an education, and so forth. The Conservatives (the Reform kind led by Stephen Harper) would consider doing so if it were politically expedient, as they have a dismal record when it comes to hostages and asylum issues. *
* That's not to say that the Trudeau government has accepted every asylum seeker who crossed over the border into Canada since Trump decided Muslims from certain countries weren't welcome. They still have to be interviewed and satisfy the examiners that they have a valid reason for requesting asylum, and those who fail these interviews are deported.
So it doesn't quite work the way we saw for Emily and June at the border. In practice, it's usual to be helpful first and ask the questions later. There's TV footage of the Roxham Road location where thousands of asylum seekers crossed a ditch to get into Canada, and the U.S. authorities glared at the RCMP who helped the kids and some of the women so they wouldn't fall or trip in the snow (all the while reminding them that what they were doing was illegal and they would be detained; were they sure they still wanted to cross? - and not getting violent about it when they answered yes).
I'm not in a great headspace about right-wing government these days. There's an intense social media protest going on right now in Alberta against the Minister of Education, after an unmarked mass grave of 215 native kids was found in Kamloops, BC, on the grounds of a former residential school. Our Minister of Education was silent for 5 days, while the outrage grew on her FB page and Twitter. And while she has no authority in BC, the fact is that there were residential schools in her own riding - one of them just a few blocks from where I live and am typing this post - and now they're going to go over these sites again. They expect to find something like 800 or so bodies among the sites in this city. So yeah, this is very much something she needs to address, and someone speculated that the reason she didn't show up to a local vigil is that she's afraid for her safety.
Well, so far Canadians aren't socially wired for political assassination, at least not most of us. She's likely in danger of being yelled at and called every name in the book, but unlikely to be physically harmed. So far the physical protests have consisted of writing messages in chalk in front of her office - something she passionately scolded them for, claiming it was illegal (it's not) and would damage the building (so don't use a high-pressure hose to clean the sidewalk; brush it away and let the rain deal with it, like normal people do).
One reason I bring her up is because she would be among the Waterford supporters if this was a RL thing. This is a woman who used to be head of the Catholic Board of Education here and saw nothing wrong with bussing classrooms' worth of teenagers from Catholic junior/senior high schools to an anti-abortion rally, where they learned the fine art of harassing women and teen girls who were attempting to access entirely legal reproductive health services.
That is what is my MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) is like. And she chose an openly racist POS to oversee the new Social Studies draft curriculum for the K-6 grades... who never misses an opportunity to mock the residential school survivors and the victims of the Japanese internment camps in WWII (yeah, we did that as well, in BC).
There are people who are openly musing that the federal Reform/Conservatives and the provincial UCP in my province would love a Gilead-type of government. Get the homeless, disabled, elderly, and natives out of the way, women to stay in the home making babies and sandwiches, and mandatory religious indoctrination would be a matter of course.
The latter is already being planned in the new curriculum... pushing Christianity on kids as young as 5, telling the kids that immigrants bring new and strange beliefs (apparently Buddhism and Wicca are "new and strange" and while this might be scary, they have to be "tolerated."
Not kidding, btw. That's how it was phrased in an earlier online version of the curriculum before someone toned it down a bit. This provincial government is attempting an end run around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that guarantees freedom of religion. Of course those who favor indoctrination say this means the Charter guarantees they are allowed to push, coerce, and indoctrinate, and they don't care that their targets have the right
not to be pushed, coerced, and indoctrinated.
So this season is hitting a bit close to home for me. I'm in no danger of becoming a handmaid, but the public school students are in danger of their basic rights being violated in the same way that was routine in some of the schools I attended prior to the Charter being enacted.
