Bill C-484 wasn't debated yesterday in the House of Commons as expected earlier. As a matter of fact, the debate has been postponed to this Monday, March 3rd.
In the meantime, Conservative MP and proponent of the Bill, Mr Ken Epp, reassures Canadians that the so-called "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" has absolutely nothing to do with restricting abortion:
"Because we want to recognize the humanity of that unborn child. Whether that child was killed three months before birth or three months after birth, it was still a child, there was still a loss of life. The other side might wish to deny the humanity of that unborn child, but we want the law to recognize it."
***
For more debunking of the anti-choice bullshit in "women's protection" disguise regarding Bill C-484, click here.
***
And don't forget to do you part and write to Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and to your MP!
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Monday, December 10, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
"Reasonable Accommodation: A Feminist Response"
A statement from the Simone de Beauvoir Institute of Concordia University, challenging the moral legitimacy of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission:
As anti-racist, anti-colonial, feminists in Québec, we have serious misgivings about the Commission de Consultation sur les pratiques d'accommodement reliées aux différences culturelles. The Conseil du statut de la femme du Québec (CSF) has proposed that the Québec Charter be changed so as to accord the right of gender equality relative priority over the right to religious expression and to ban the wearing of "ostentatious" religious symbols in public institutions by public employees. Our concern is that the Commission and the CSF's subsequent intervention pave the way for legislation that will restrict rather than enhance the rights of women. We invite you to join us in questioning the exclusionary structure of the Commission, the assumptions it supports, and the negative impact it is likely to have on women's lives.
So, why call into question the legitimacy and the effects of the Commission?
1. because although we see the urgent need for dialogue about racism and sexism in Québec society, we object to how this consultation process has been undertaken. Listening to people "air out" their racism is not conducive to promoting critical reflection and dialogue, but instead creates a climate of fear-mongering and moral panic. Furthermore, in asking whether or not "difference" and "minorities" should be accommodated the commission assumes and perpetuates "commonsense" racist understandings of some "cultures" as homogeneous, backward and inferior. In addition, the Commission's reliance on the notion of "reason" must also be critically examined. Historically, white men have been positioned as the exclusive bearers of reason, and the Commission runs the risk of reproducing this in a context of ongoing social inequality.
2. because the design of the Commission and the language of "accommodation" assumes and perpetuates a system of power whereby western "hosts" act as gatekeepers for non-western "guests." A better consultative process would start with the recognition that Canada is a white-settler state, and that its history is one of colonial and patriarchal violence against Indigenous people.
3. because the public debates that the Commission has sparked construct certain ethno-cultural communities as perpetual outsiders and as threats to Québec identity rather than as integral to it. Concerns about ethno-cultural others as socially regressive obscure the everyday homophobia, sexism and racism that pervade Québec society.
4. because the ways that the Commission has been represented in mainstream English media promotes the idea that racism is a feature exclusive to Québec society and is not a problem -- or is less of a problem -- in the rest of Canada.
5. because the preoccupation with veiled women serves to deflect from the sexism and racism that has historically pervaded Québec and Canadian society. As feminists, we must challenge our complicity with the state's violence against women both in its colonial relations with Indigenous people and in its use of the figure of the veiled woman as an alibi for imperialist war and occupation in Afghanistan.
6. because appeals to secularism as a guarantor of gender equality effectively function to promote Christian culture as the norm and to scapegoat Muslims as inherently sexist, erasing secular forms of sexism.
7. because although it is still underway, the Commission has already prompted the proposal of laws that could restrict, regulate, and otherwise impede the lives of immigrant and racialized people in Québec.
8. because regulating women's public religious expression is gender discrimination insofar as it takes away women's freedom and inhibits their civic participation.
9. because the CSF is failing to meet its mandate of "defending the interests of women." The CSF would better serve the interests of women in Québec by focusing on the conditions of poverty, violence, criminalization and racism that many of us face, and not on what women wear.
Signed: The Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University, November 2007
***
Please go to the Institute's website (above) to read the full version of the statement.
To personally endorse this statement, kindly write to: acarastathis@gmail.com.
***
For another view on the matter, please go to Little Miss Brightside's blog.
As anti-racist, anti-colonial, feminists in Québec, we have serious misgivings about the Commission de Consultation sur les pratiques d'accommodement reliées aux différences culturelles. The Conseil du statut de la femme du Québec (CSF) has proposed that the Québec Charter be changed so as to accord the right of gender equality relative priority over the right to religious expression and to ban the wearing of "ostentatious" religious symbols in public institutions by public employees. Our concern is that the Commission and the CSF's subsequent intervention pave the way for legislation that will restrict rather than enhance the rights of women. We invite you to join us in questioning the exclusionary structure of the Commission, the assumptions it supports, and the negative impact it is likely to have on women's lives.
So, why call into question the legitimacy and the effects of the Commission?
1. because although we see the urgent need for dialogue about racism and sexism in Québec society, we object to how this consultation process has been undertaken. Listening to people "air out" their racism is not conducive to promoting critical reflection and dialogue, but instead creates a climate of fear-mongering and moral panic. Furthermore, in asking whether or not "difference" and "minorities" should be accommodated the commission assumes and perpetuates "commonsense" racist understandings of some "cultures" as homogeneous, backward and inferior. In addition, the Commission's reliance on the notion of "reason" must also be critically examined. Historically, white men have been positioned as the exclusive bearers of reason, and the Commission runs the risk of reproducing this in a context of ongoing social inequality.
2. because the design of the Commission and the language of "accommodation" assumes and perpetuates a system of power whereby western "hosts" act as gatekeepers for non-western "guests." A better consultative process would start with the recognition that Canada is a white-settler state, and that its history is one of colonial and patriarchal violence against Indigenous people.
3. because the public debates that the Commission has sparked construct certain ethno-cultural communities as perpetual outsiders and as threats to Québec identity rather than as integral to it. Concerns about ethno-cultural others as socially regressive obscure the everyday homophobia, sexism and racism that pervade Québec society.
4. because the ways that the Commission has been represented in mainstream English media promotes the idea that racism is a feature exclusive to Québec society and is not a problem -- or is less of a problem -- in the rest of Canada.
5. because the preoccupation with veiled women serves to deflect from the sexism and racism that has historically pervaded Québec and Canadian society. As feminists, we must challenge our complicity with the state's violence against women both in its colonial relations with Indigenous people and in its use of the figure of the veiled woman as an alibi for imperialist war and occupation in Afghanistan.
6. because appeals to secularism as a guarantor of gender equality effectively function to promote Christian culture as the norm and to scapegoat Muslims as inherently sexist, erasing secular forms of sexism.
7. because although it is still underway, the Commission has already prompted the proposal of laws that could restrict, regulate, and otherwise impede the lives of immigrant and racialized people in Québec.
8. because regulating women's public religious expression is gender discrimination insofar as it takes away women's freedom and inhibits their civic participation.
9. because the CSF is failing to meet its mandate of "defending the interests of women." The CSF would better serve the interests of women in Québec by focusing on the conditions of poverty, violence, criminalization and racism that many of us face, and not on what women wear.
Signed: The Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University, November 2007
***
Please go to the Institute's website (above) to read the full version of the statement.
To personally endorse this statement, kindly write to: acarastathis@gmail.com.
***
For another view on the matter, please go to Little Miss Brightside's blog.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Bill Watch - Fetus fetishizers edition
Apparently, Conservative MP Ken Epp brought forward a private bill that seek to create a "Laci Peterson"-type of criminal offence. This offence would punish those who cause the "death" of an unborn child during an act of violence against a pregnant woman.
The worst thing about this Bill is that it purports to protect "a mother's choice to give birth."
As the Unrepentant Old Hippie explains:
"The latest jeans-creaming dream come true for Gileadean fetus-fanatics is a private member's bill tabled today by Alberta MP Ken Epp, the 'Unborn Victims of Crime' bill. The UVOC bill would 'protect a mother's choice to give birth', making it a crime to cause the injury or death of a fetus in the commission of violence against the mother.
"Don't get excited. Nothing 'anti-abortion' to see here, noooooo, just move along. Why, the UVOC bill is just about protecting 'choice' -- the mother's choice to carry a pregnancy to term and have it culminate on Day 273 as a baked-to-perfection babycake. And anyone who wields a knife or baseball bat (or scalpel?) and stops that from happening would be committing murder, as surely as it would be murder to kill the mother. Fetus? Hell, never mind that, this bill would protect embryos... zygotes, even. 'At any stage of development before birth.'"
...
Predictably, Ken Epp identifies as pro-life, and opposes gay marriage. But he "advocate[s] fairness and equality of all Canadians."
Yeah, right. Straight, White, male, middle-class (and preferably unborn) Canadians, that is...
The worst thing about this Bill is that it purports to protect "a mother's choice to give birth."
As the Unrepentant Old Hippie explains:
"The latest jeans-creaming dream come true for Gileadean fetus-fanatics is a private member's bill tabled today by Alberta MP Ken Epp, the 'Unborn Victims of Crime' bill. The UVOC bill would 'protect a mother's choice to give birth', making it a crime to cause the injury or death of a fetus in the commission of violence against the mother.
"Don't get excited. Nothing 'anti-abortion' to see here, noooooo, just move along. Why, the UVOC bill is just about protecting 'choice' -- the mother's choice to carry a pregnancy to term and have it culminate on Day 273 as a baked-to-perfection babycake. And anyone who wields a knife or baseball bat (or scalpel?) and stops that from happening would be committing murder, as surely as it would be murder to kill the mother. Fetus? Hell, never mind that, this bill would protect embryos... zygotes, even. 'At any stage of development before birth.'"
...
Predictably, Ken Epp identifies as pro-life, and opposes gay marriage. But he "advocate[s] fairness and equality of all Canadians."
Yeah, right. Straight, White, male, middle-class (and preferably unborn) Canadians, that is...
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
In the news: Argentina's First Lady is elected as President
Next December, former lawyer Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner will make the transition from being Argentina's First Lady to being the country's first female President since Isabel Peron.
Aged 54, Ms. Fernandez defeated her opponent, Elisa Carrio, also a lawyer, by 10%.
Although there is quite a buzz in the media right now about female heads of state all over the world, it's always disappointing to notice that the media can't seem to be able to resist commenting about their appearance, style and behaviour instead of their personal background, beliefs and ideas.
Aged 54, Ms. Fernandez defeated her opponent, Elisa Carrio, also a lawyer, by 10%.
Although there is quite a buzz in the media right now about female heads of state all over the world, it's always disappointing to notice that the media can't seem to be able to resist commenting about their appearance, style and behaviour instead of their personal background, beliefs and ideas.
Friday, October 26, 2007
The Bouchard-Taylor Commission on Accommodation Practices: When racism and misogyny go hand in hand...
It's no secret that the Commission de consultation sur les pratiques d'accommodement reliées aux différences culturelles (aka la Commission Bouchard-Taylor) is nothing but a gross, useless and costly farce, which, instead of fostering genuine and thorough consultation of the Québec population and meaningful debate, serves as a soap box on which xenophobic urbanites and hateful small-town folks alike can bash "immigrants" and "foreigners" (i.e. those among us who are not White, Catholic and French-speaking) in total impunity.
I must acknowledge that, hopefully, a few reasonable people have also taken the stand, either to denounce the ridiculousness of it all, the incompetence and arrogance of the Commissioners, and the ignorance and hypocrisy underlying extremist point of views, or to express their support for a liberal, secular, egalitarian, feminist and culturally inclusive society.
On the other hand, I was quite surprised by the number of people who took the stand to say that they missed the good old days when the Catholic Church effectively ruled la Belle Province. In other words, those people only want a secular state as long as other religions are concerned; and if it were up to them, they would reinstate Catholicism as Québec's official religion.
For instance, Jean Tremblay, mayor of Saguenay, went to the Commission to read out a mémoire in which he argued that the Québec government should consult the Catholic Church before making any decision having to do with "moral matters", and that abortion is murder and should be legally considered as such.
(Subsequently, Mayor Tremblay was publicly criticized by city councillors for presenting his personal opinion as the official position of the municipal council. Many citizens also asked for his resignation, because of his extreme religious views.)
Another trend among the intervenors at the Commission was to blame - uh hum... guess who's to blame again? - Québec women for the so-called "accommodation problems". Basically, the reasoning is as follows:
If you've thought of tax credits for new families, better parental leave policies, or a better and cheap daycare and education system, you're wrong.
The good answer was: strip everybody of their right to vote. Then redistribute it only to Québecois who have married an procreated. (Oh, and the more babies you have, the more votes you get to cast...)
Seriously. I'm not making this up. Watch the Commission's tour and see for yourself.
Or not. It gets really depressing with time...
I must acknowledge that, hopefully, a few reasonable people have also taken the stand, either to denounce the ridiculousness of it all, the incompetence and arrogance of the Commissioners, and the ignorance and hypocrisy underlying extremist point of views, or to express their support for a liberal, secular, egalitarian, feminist and culturally inclusive society.
On the other hand, I was quite surprised by the number of people who took the stand to say that they missed the good old days when the Catholic Church effectively ruled la Belle Province. In other words, those people only want a secular state as long as other religions are concerned; and if it were up to them, they would reinstate Catholicism as Québec's official religion.
For instance, Jean Tremblay, mayor of Saguenay, went to the Commission to read out a mémoire in which he argued that the Québec government should consult the Catholic Church before making any decision having to do with "moral matters", and that abortion is murder and should be legally considered as such.
(Subsequently, Mayor Tremblay was publicly criticized by city councillors for presenting his personal opinion as the official position of the municipal council. Many citizens also asked for his resignation, because of his extreme religious views.)
Another trend among the intervenors at the Commission was to blame - uh hum... guess who's to blame again? - Québec women for the so-called "accommodation problems". Basically, the reasoning is as follows:
- Québec women selfishly work and have a life of their own instead of making babies by the dozen;
- Québec's birthrate has plummeted for the few past decades;
- Québec has allegedly been welcoming more immigrants lately to compensate for the gap that this lower birthrate has created in the workforce;
- immigrants are more noticeable these days because there are much more of them than before;
- since immigrants, who are not necessarily White, Catholic and French-speaking, have formed new minority communities all over Québec, the Québecois majority naturally feels threatened by them (not to mention ripped of its oppressed minority victim ideology);
- thus, if Québec women had more babies of their own, that is, good, Catholic, White and French-speaking babies, we would not need that many immigrants around.
If you've thought of tax credits for new families, better parental leave policies, or a better and cheap daycare and education system, you're wrong.
The good answer was: strip everybody of their right to vote. Then redistribute it only to Québecois who have married an procreated. (Oh, and the more babies you have, the more votes you get to cast...)
Seriously. I'm not making this up. Watch the Commission's tour and see for yourself.
Or not. It gets really depressing with time...
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Feminism 101 (Wacky Conservative Edition)
A few fun facts about feminism, brought to you by the good editors at Conservapedia:
Did you know?
"Feminism is originally an acknowledged medical condition where men take on female physical characteristics."
Distinguishing feminism as it is nowadays from its Suffragette debuts:
"This was at a time when neither men nor women could vote unless they owned property."
Paraphrasing the famous phrase "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice":
"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice."
And last but not least, my all-time favourite:
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
***
Conservapedia was created as a response to Wikipedia which was apparently criticized in conservative circles for its "liberal" bias, which is evidence by such horrific practices as:
***
Just to give you a glimpse of how outrageously liberal Wikipedia is, let's compare both Websites' entries on "women."
Conservapedia's article about women starts as follows: "Women are the female of the human species, with the biological role of bearing offspring (pregnancy and childbirth)."
It later (i.e. almost immediately) goes on to say that: "relatively few women have had impact on history as leaders in diverse fields". So, get it? Women are baby-making machines. They should not be distracted from their biological function by unnatural activities, such as, well, anything that has to do with public life.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, simply states, as an introduction, that "A woman is a female human." Simple, accurate, and it doesn't make you sound like your having a vagina makes you some kind of animal, sub-human form of life.
***
I fully acknowledge that Wikipedia is an easily corruptible source of information. But at least it's not complete bullshit nor borderline hate-speech.
Did you know?
"Feminism is originally an acknowledged medical condition where men take on female physical characteristics."
Distinguishing feminism as it is nowadays from its Suffragette debuts:
"This was at a time when neither men nor women could vote unless they owned property."
Paraphrasing the famous phrase "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice":
"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice."
And last but not least, my all-time favourite:
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
***
Conservapedia was created as a response to Wikipedia which was apparently criticized in conservative circles for its "liberal" bias, which is evidence by such horrific practices as:
- Featuring an entry on Richard Dawkins;
- Featuring entries on legal cases favourable to gay rights;
- Featuring "nearly irrelevant information", such as the fact that the president of Harvard University had to resign because of his comments on the abilities of women at math and science;
- "Supporting" abortion and gun control;
- Featuring articles about punk music;
- "Promoting" suicide (the "pro-life" folks at Conservapedia assure us that they don't have a single entry on this "depravity";
- Criticizing Fox News;
- "Wikpedia's (sic) entry on liberal former Vice President Al Gore contains no mention of the drug charges against his son" (don't be fooled: this is absolutely relevant);
- A survey of Wikipedia editors show that they identify as liberal six times more than the average American public;
- Not giving Jesus any credit for the Renaissance;
- Featuring pictures of naked people or body partws;
- Using British (or Canadian, for that matter!) idioms and spellings...
***
Just to give you a glimpse of how outrageously liberal Wikipedia is, let's compare both Websites' entries on "women."
Conservapedia's article about women starts as follows: "Women are the female of the human species, with the biological role of bearing offspring (pregnancy and childbirth)."
It later (i.e. almost immediately) goes on to say that: "relatively few women have had impact on history as leaders in diverse fields". So, get it? Women are baby-making machines. They should not be distracted from their biological function by unnatural activities, such as, well, anything that has to do with public life.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, simply states, as an introduction, that "A woman is a female human." Simple, accurate, and it doesn't make you sound like your having a vagina makes you some kind of animal, sub-human form of life.
***
I fully acknowledge that Wikipedia is an easily corruptible source of information. But at least it's not complete bullshit nor borderline hate-speech.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Just the right amount of freedom
Have you heard the shocking news?
Cecilia Sarkozy is rumoured to be about to divorce her husband and President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy.
But what signs are there of the imminent break up?
Well, apparently, she did not attend an official barbeque at the Bushes while she was vacationing in the U.S. AND she is apparently not planning to follow her husband to Morrocco next week. See?
You know, when a woman does not sheepishly follow her husband around like she's his lap dog, it's got to be because she wants to selfishly dump him like an old rag.
Not say, because she has a life of her own, and maybe she just doesn't care that much about politics and grilling steaks with George W. and Laura.
***
A reporter from Radio-Canada commented these "events" on this morning's news report, and noted that Ms. Sarkozy acted with a great deal of freedom, but that this "freedom" was not always approved of.
I think this reporter unwittingly made a very interesting point: the freedom enjoyed by women today is, to a certain extent, illusory, in the sense that our degree of freedom, and the matters in which this amount of freedom can be exercized still depends on the approval of our patriarchical society.
A woman is not completely free to have a life of her own and to attend to her own affairs if her husband's career is deemed to be more valuable than hers. On the other hand, women are "free" to become porn stars, or to "choose" to stay at home with the children instead of sending them to daycare...
Cecilia Sarkozy is rumoured to be about to divorce her husband and President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy.
But what signs are there of the imminent break up?
Well, apparently, she did not attend an official barbeque at the Bushes while she was vacationing in the U.S. AND she is apparently not planning to follow her husband to Morrocco next week. See?
You know, when a woman does not sheepishly follow her husband around like she's his lap dog, it's got to be because she wants to selfishly dump him like an old rag.
Not say, because she has a life of her own, and maybe she just doesn't care that much about politics and grilling steaks with George W. and Laura.
***
A reporter from Radio-Canada commented these "events" on this morning's news report, and noted that Ms. Sarkozy acted with a great deal of freedom, but that this "freedom" was not always approved of.
I think this reporter unwittingly made a very interesting point: the freedom enjoyed by women today is, to a certain extent, illusory, in the sense that our degree of freedom, and the matters in which this amount of freedom can be exercized still depends on the approval of our patriarchical society.
A woman is not completely free to have a life of her own and to attend to her own affairs if her husband's career is deemed to be more valuable than hers. On the other hand, women are "free" to become porn stars, or to "choose" to stay at home with the children instead of sending them to daycare...
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Bill Watch - Wacky Conservatives (and Liberals) Edition
Here is a brief list of wacky and/or anti-women Bills currently under consideration before the House of Commons or the Senate.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
- Bill C-206 (Liberals): A Bill to allow for 2 years of parental leave, under the Employment Insurance Act;
- Bill C-22 (Conservatives): This Bill would raise from 14 to 16 years old the age of consent to sexual contacts with an adult (while keeping a 5 year difference rule that will avoid criminalizing bona fide dating relationships between teenagers). Though I generally agree with this measure, there are a few details with this Bill that make me tick. First, it's called the Age of Protection Act. Give me a break. Please. Let's be honest: the real issue here is not to protect teenagers from themselves, but rather to criminalize the exploitative behaviour of adults who prey on vulnerable children. I know it's a shaky argument, but I can see a nuance here. Secondly, there is still a marriage exception. After all, I guess it's not as if marriage had been in and of itself an exploitative social structure for the few past thousand years or so... By the way, this Bill as yet to receive Royal assent;
- Bill C-338 (Liberals - surprise!): This Bill purports to make a criminal offence the fact of "procuring a miscarriage of a female person who he or she knows or ought to know is past her twentieth week of gestation." This offence would be punishable by a maximum term of five years' imprisonment or a $100,000 fine. Well. Ain't that swell. 'Seems now you can't trust the Liberals to protect women's right to choose. But it's not as if it was arbitrary or anything. There is a health exception. If you've been raped, you're still screwed, but they'll sure show you a little compassion if you're dying... *sigh* Don't we all love this great, grand "Americanization" of Canadian politics?
To be fair, here are the Bills that represent a laudable effort in the right direction:
- Bill C-235 (Conservatives): A Bill to amend s. 742.1 Criminal Code, so as to preclude a sentencing judge to impose a conditional sentence where the offender has committed an offence carrying a minimum term of imprisonment, an offence punishable by ten years or more of imprisonment, and/or a violent offence. That would mean, in practice, that offenders convicted of sexual assault would not be eligible to a sentence of "imprisonment" in the community. Now Bill C-9, it has just received Royal assent;
- Bill C-254 (Liberals): A Bill that would have the effect of including "women" in the definition of identifiable groups that can be targeted by hate propaganda. This Bill is apparently still in limbo;
- Bill C-326 (NDP): This Bill would add "gender identity" as a basis for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Tell your MP to Support Bill C-254
On April 19, Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre, introduced a motion in the House of Commons, requesting that the House unanimously supports Bill C-254, which would provide protection to women under hate speech laws.
As our criminal law currently stands, subsections 318(4) and 319(7) Criminal Code only prohibit hate propaganda and public incitement of hatred that is based on the colour, race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation of a particular group of persons. Thus, it is still not a criminal offence in Canada to public assert that “all women – or men, for that matter – must die”.
Bill C-254 must be enacted into law, so that Canadians can be protected from the most heinous forms of gender-based discrimination and violence, and that their dignity can be enhanced and preserved.
Yes, folks! The time has come to contact your MP to tell him/her that it will be a cold day in hell before you vote for him/her if he/she doesn’t support his Bill.
Here is a suggestion of what you can do:
1) Find your MP here;
2) Write him/her an email telling him/her to support Bill C-254 (should you lack inspiration, just copy/paste the models reproduced below);
3) Either CC your email to the Prime Minister and/or the Minister of Justice, or directly write to them;
4) Tell your friends/family/coworkers/random acquaintances about it. That stuff is important.
***
The Right Hon. Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca
The Hon. Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson: Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca
***
In English:
Dear [Your MP/Minister of Justice/Prime Minister],
I am writing to you as a resident of your riding, [your riding].
I have recently learned that Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, MP for Etobicoke Centre, had introduced a motion to request that the House of Commons unanimously supports Bill C-254, which adds women to the groups protected by the Criminal Code against incitement of hatred, as per subsections 318(4) and 319(7) Criminal Code.
I believe that this measure is a necessary step towards the elimination of all violence against women, the achievement of substantial equality between the sexes, and, generally, the respect of the fundamental human dignity of Canadian women.
Therefore, as a woman, a voter and a Canadian citizen, I am asking you to support Mr. Wrzesnewskyj’s initiative, and demand that you do everything in your power, as [MP for …/Minister of Justice/Prime minister], to ensure that Bill C-254 becomes the law of the land.
I thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Signature]
***
En français :
[Monsieur/Madame - votre député ici],
Je vous écris en tant que résidente de votre comté, [votre comté ici].
J’ai récemment appris que M. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, député d’Etobicoke Centre, avait déposé une motion devant la Chambre des communes demandant l’appui unanime au Bill C-254, qui vise à englober « les femmes » dans la définition des groupes identifiables pouvant faire l’objet de propagande haineuse et d’incitation publique à la haine au sens des paragraphes 318(4) et 319(7) du Code criminel.
Je crois que cette mesure est un pas essentiel vers l’éradication de la violence faite aux femmes, de la promotion de l’égalité substantielle entre les sexes, et tout simplement, du respect de la dignité fondamentale des Canadiennes.
En tant que femme, électrice et citoyenne canadienne, je vous demande d’appuyer cette initiative, et de faire tout ce qui est en votre pouvoir, en tant que [député de mon comté/ministre de…], pour vous assurer que cette proposition ait prochainement force de loi.
Je vous remercie à l’avance de votre considération et vous prie d’agréer, Monsieur le [député/ministre], mes sincères salutations.
[Signature]
As our criminal law currently stands, subsections 318(4) and 319(7) Criminal Code only prohibit hate propaganda and public incitement of hatred that is based on the colour, race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation of a particular group of persons. Thus, it is still not a criminal offence in Canada to public assert that “all women – or men, for that matter – must die”.
Bill C-254 must be enacted into law, so that Canadians can be protected from the most heinous forms of gender-based discrimination and violence, and that their dignity can be enhanced and preserved.
Yes, folks! The time has come to contact your MP to tell him/her that it will be a cold day in hell before you vote for him/her if he/she doesn’t support his Bill.
Here is a suggestion of what you can do:
1) Find your MP here;
2) Write him/her an email telling him/her to support Bill C-254 (should you lack inspiration, just copy/paste the models reproduced below);
3) Either CC your email to the Prime Minister and/or the Minister of Justice, or directly write to them;
4) Tell your friends/family/coworkers/random acquaintances about it. That stuff is important.
***
The Right Hon. Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca
The Hon. Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson: Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca
***
In English:
Dear [Your MP/Minister of Justice/Prime Minister],
I am writing to you as a resident of your riding, [your riding].
I have recently learned that Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, MP for Etobicoke Centre, had introduced a motion to request that the House of Commons unanimously supports Bill C-254, which adds women to the groups protected by the Criminal Code against incitement of hatred, as per subsections 318(4) and 319(7) Criminal Code.
I believe that this measure is a necessary step towards the elimination of all violence against women, the achievement of substantial equality between the sexes, and, generally, the respect of the fundamental human dignity of Canadian women.
Therefore, as a woman, a voter and a Canadian citizen, I am asking you to support Mr. Wrzesnewskyj’s initiative, and demand that you do everything in your power, as [MP for …/Minister of Justice/Prime minister], to ensure that Bill C-254 becomes the law of the land.
I thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[Signature]
***
En français :
[Monsieur/Madame - votre député ici],
Je vous écris en tant que résidente de votre comté, [votre comté ici].
J’ai récemment appris que M. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, député d’Etobicoke Centre, avait déposé une motion devant la Chambre des communes demandant l’appui unanime au Bill C-254, qui vise à englober « les femmes » dans la définition des groupes identifiables pouvant faire l’objet de propagande haineuse et d’incitation publique à la haine au sens des paragraphes 318(4) et 319(7) du Code criminel.
Je crois que cette mesure est un pas essentiel vers l’éradication de la violence faite aux femmes, de la promotion de l’égalité substantielle entre les sexes, et tout simplement, du respect de la dignité fondamentale des Canadiennes.
En tant que femme, électrice et citoyenne canadienne, je vous demande d’appuyer cette initiative, et de faire tout ce qui est en votre pouvoir, en tant que [député de mon comté/ministre de…], pour vous assurer que cette proposition ait prochainement force de loi.
Je vous remercie à l’avance de votre considération et vous prie d’agréer, Monsieur le [député/ministre], mes sincères salutations.
[Signature]
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Earth to Conservatives: Women have a life, too...
In the wake of past efforts to improve childcare measures, the Conservative government had already made clear to the Canadian population that such measures would be at the expense of moms in the workforce.
Remember when they made those budgets cuts in federal funding for public daycare programs, and substituted “childcare allocations” of $1,200 per annum for families with children under 6? WOW. What a bargain. You really have to applaud those geniuses who did the math and figured that families did not incur any daycare expenses when their children turn 6. I’m just so impressed.
But that’s not all! The Conservative have just come up with yet another wacky proposition to keep women where they should be, that is, at home, making babies, lactating, and picking up after their offspring. A Cabinet-appointed panel, the Ministerial Advisory Committee on the Government of Canada's Child Care Spaces Initiative, recently released the result of a study that was supposed to find solutions to the problem of the lack of spaces in daycare facilities.
The solution? Extending Employment Insurance benefits for parents from 50 weeks to 2 ½ years (which would allow stay-at-home parents to receive the equivalent of 55% of their salary), so as to provide an incentive to parents to stay at home to care for their children as long as possible.
Besides the obvious question of the tax increase that will be necessary to fund this measure, you’ve got to admire the reasoning behind this:
1) Women rely on daycare facilities to care for their children so that they can work ;
2) All women can’t work because there is a shortage of daycare spaces for their children ;
3) The Harper government appoints a Committee to find solutions to increase the number of available daycare spaces in order to allow women to work;
4) The Committee finds out that women who do not work and stay at home to care for their children because they can’t put them in daycares instead, don’t send their children in daycare.
5) The Committee recommends that if women stay home to care for their children, there will be more available daycare spaces.
Seriously : WTF ?!? Am I missing on something ?
If you can forget the blatant lack of logic of this plan for a minute, and look at the substance of it, it strikes you with its hypocrisy.
On the one hand, while this recommendation purports to benefit *parents*, its actual effect, if and when it is implemented, will be to remove women from the workforce on a long term basis. Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that EI benefits, when they are available to either or both parents, are close to essential to child-rearing. But they should not constitute an impediment to reintegrate the workforce, nor a disguised incentive for women to assume traditional roles and abandon their lives and careers outside the home.
Do the math. Suppose you’re a women in your mid-20s, and you have three children, 3 years apart. That’s a 7.5 year period out of the workplace, during which you have presumably not acquired additional professional skills, education or experience. Just try and find a job after that…
On the other hand, the rationale behind giving EI benefits on such a long period of time is either (1) that it is a social imperative that women stay at home to care for their young children, otherwise those kids will grow up to become delinquents and that will be the end of modern society as we know it, or (2) that women just work because they need the money, they would rather stay at home doing womanly things if they had a husband or the State to support them.
Either way, it is insulting and demeaning not only to mothers, but also to all the women in the workforce.
Remember when they made those budgets cuts in federal funding for public daycare programs, and substituted “childcare allocations” of $1,200 per annum for families with children under 6? WOW. What a bargain. You really have to applaud those geniuses who did the math and figured that families did not incur any daycare expenses when their children turn 6. I’m just so impressed.
But that’s not all! The Conservative have just come up with yet another wacky proposition to keep women where they should be, that is, at home, making babies, lactating, and picking up after their offspring. A Cabinet-appointed panel, the Ministerial Advisory Committee on the Government of Canada's Child Care Spaces Initiative, recently released the result of a study that was supposed to find solutions to the problem of the lack of spaces in daycare facilities.
The solution? Extending Employment Insurance benefits for parents from 50 weeks to 2 ½ years (which would allow stay-at-home parents to receive the equivalent of 55% of their salary), so as to provide an incentive to parents to stay at home to care for their children as long as possible.
Besides the obvious question of the tax increase that will be necessary to fund this measure, you’ve got to admire the reasoning behind this:
1) Women rely on daycare facilities to care for their children so that they can work ;
2) All women can’t work because there is a shortage of daycare spaces for their children ;
3) The Harper government appoints a Committee to find solutions to increase the number of available daycare spaces in order to allow women to work;
4) The Committee finds out that women who do not work and stay at home to care for their children because they can’t put them in daycares instead, don’t send their children in daycare.
5) The Committee recommends that if women stay home to care for their children, there will be more available daycare spaces.
Seriously : WTF ?!? Am I missing on something ?
If you can forget the blatant lack of logic of this plan for a minute, and look at the substance of it, it strikes you with its hypocrisy.
On the one hand, while this recommendation purports to benefit *parents*, its actual effect, if and when it is implemented, will be to remove women from the workforce on a long term basis. Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that EI benefits, when they are available to either or both parents, are close to essential to child-rearing. But they should not constitute an impediment to reintegrate the workforce, nor a disguised incentive for women to assume traditional roles and abandon their lives and careers outside the home.
Do the math. Suppose you’re a women in your mid-20s, and you have three children, 3 years apart. That’s a 7.5 year period out of the workplace, during which you have presumably not acquired additional professional skills, education or experience. Just try and find a job after that…
On the other hand, the rationale behind giving EI benefits on such a long period of time is either (1) that it is a social imperative that women stay at home to care for their young children, otherwise those kids will grow up to become delinquents and that will be the end of modern society as we know it, or (2) that women just work because they need the money, they would rather stay at home doing womanly things if they had a husband or the State to support them.
Either way, it is insulting and demeaning not only to mothers, but also to all the women in the workforce.
Friday, April 13, 2007
In the News: Belinda Stronach is leaving federal politics
Last Wednesday, April 11, Newmarket-Aurora M.P. and former Liberal minister, Belinda Stronach announced that she was leaving federal politics to resume employment with auto parts giant Magna International Inc.
She had left the family business in 2004 to run for the Conservative leadership, which she lost to now PM Stephen Harper. As a Conservative MP, Ms. Stronach embodied dissent in the party by supporting reproductive rights and same-sex marriage. In 2005, she unexpectedly crossed the floor and joined the Liberals, who offered her a position as Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. Her bold move was vigourously criticized, both by the media (the National Post called her a "blonde bombshell" and many Conservative MPs publicly called her a whore and a prostitute), while Stephen Harper's lieutenant, Peter MacKay, whom Ms. Stronach was dating at the time, made various distasteful comments that (unfavourably) compared her to his dog.
(Recently, Mr. MacKay, who apparently still can get over the fact that Ms. Stronach dumped both his political convictions and himself, despite his new fling with Condi, called her a "dog" in te House of Commons.)
She had left the family business in 2004 to run for the Conservative leadership, which she lost to now PM Stephen Harper. As a Conservative MP, Ms. Stronach embodied dissent in the party by supporting reproductive rights and same-sex marriage. In 2005, she unexpectedly crossed the floor and joined the Liberals, who offered her a position as Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. Her bold move was vigourously criticized, both by the media (the National Post called her a "blonde bombshell" and many Conservative MPs publicly called her a whore and a prostitute), while Stephen Harper's lieutenant, Peter MacKay, whom Ms. Stronach was dating at the time, made various distasteful comments that (unfavourably) compared her to his dog.
(Recently, Mr. MacKay, who apparently still can get over the fact that Ms. Stronach dumped both his political convictions and himself, despite his new fling with Condi, called her a "dog" in te House of Commons.)***
Canadians will miss Ms. Stronach's presence in federal politics. (Well, the non-mysogynistic portion of us.) For once, we were blessed with a female politician who did not seem to be apologizing constantly for being wealthy, professionally successful, young, physically attractive, unmarried, and – yes! – ambitious and opportunistic.
From a very young age, girls and women are indoctrinated into thinking that competitiveness, assertiveness and power are male attributes, and that women in positions of authority rather lead their people by being maternal, by seeking to make compromises between competing interests, and so on and so forth. Female leaders who do not conform to this model are considered cold, “bitchy”, ruthless and manly.
Women who work in traditionally male fields understand only too well that the latter – “feminine” - approach will not make them a better litigator, for instance, or get them promoted. Nor will being nice and low-key all the time. At the same time, however, they are often aware that they could be criticized and shunned by their peers and superiors should they rather choose to conform to the former – “masculine” – model.
Too often, we see female politicians bowing to the pressure, and apologizing for having a life of their own, for wearing too manly – or too feminine – clothing, or for being “visibly” wealthy or “opinionated”.
Girls and young women drastically lack assertive and self-confident female role models, both on the political scene and in the workplace. They need to be told that despite what the whole world might say, despite the unfair, uncalled for and degrading treatment that they may face one day, they are allowed to be ambitious and opportunistic in the pursuit of their personal goals and desires.
I am saddened by Ms. Stronach's leaving federal politics, but I rejoice at the thought of another strong woman leading a large corporation on the path to prosperity.
***
To learn more about Belinda Stronach's professional and political background, have a look at this article.
***
You can want to write to Ms. Stronach (free of charge!) at:
The Hon. Belinda Stronach, M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
or by email at:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
