From the category archives:

Politics

The Persons Case: A complicated chapter in Canadian history

by Sabine on October 19, 2009 · 1 comment

Yesterday was the 80th anniversary of women in Canada being recognized as persons under the law (the law at that time being dictated by the British North America Act). This was as the result of a real struggle on the part of the group of women now known as the Famous Five. The state did not simply hand over this victory to women; it had to be fought for by a ballsy bunch of old broads.

It’s an important history lesson for all Canadians, especially Canadian women, to know about. But it does also need to be studied in conjunction with the darker side of Canadian women’s history, like Emily Murphy’s fondness for eugenics. She, Nellie McClung and Louise McKinney all agitated for the successful implementation of the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act, which resulted in the sterilization of over 4,700 people deemed to be mentally disabled (and that includes, according to the Wikipedia entry, epileptics, alcoholics and prostitutes–plus sexual perverts, which one can only assume includes gay men).

This is a complicated aspect of Canadian history. The women who fought so boldly for the simple recognition of women as persons–persons!–really only had a certain segment of women in mind: those that matched their own white, middle-class demographic.

Adding to the mixed feelings is the story this week that saw the Famous Five becoming posthumous senators, long after they’re able to kick up any fuss in the Senate. But even if they could, whose interests would they be fighting for?

Tagged as: Famous Five

{ 1 comment }

Alberta’s Bill 44: Teaching kids to opt out

by Veronica on May 20, 2009 · 1 comment

in Politics

Alberta’s Bill44, the Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Amendment Act, has spurred a heck of a lot of controversy lately. Most concern is over Section 11.1, which allows parents who have children attending public school to pull their kids out of class if instruction includes “subject matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality, or sexual orientation.” So, what happens if a teacher plans to cover these topics in class? S/he must inform parents in advance so that they have the opportunity to decide whether they’d like to remove their children from class. If teachers fail to comply with the proposed legislation, parents may lodge a complaint with Alberta’s Human Rights Commission.

There are a whole whack of reasons why people are upset about this bill, and as the left battles the right, tempers are flaring. But outside of the political issues that Bill 44 stirs up (and, oh, there are plenty!), I think we need to stop and consider what children and teens will learn from this legislation.

Kids are sent to school to learn stuff (math, science, English, geography, etc.). But, in addition to presenting the usual academic fare, public schools should be a place where students learn about diversity, acceptance and tolerance. If this bill passes and parents start pulling their children out of class, we’re teaching young minds that if they disagree with someone or something, the best way to deal with the difference in opinions is to close their minds. Don’t listen to the debate and then formulate a point of view. Just opt out.

When I teach students how to write a persuasive essay, I tell them that the crux of a really solid argument is understanding the opposition’s point of view. In order to effectively persuade, you need to be able to address the other side’s concerns and sometimes even make a few concessions before you move on to argue your side. The thing is, if kids are learning to opt out of listening to the other side before they’ve even had a chance to fully formulate their own (i.e., not their parents’) opinions, we’re not teaching them to be critical thinkers. Rather, we’re teaching kids to close their eyes and put their hands over their ears whenever they encounter a viewpoint they (or their parents) disagree with. And I’m not so sure that’s a skill that’s going to serve a kid (or an adult) very well in the real world. Last time I checked, religion, sexuality and sexual orientation are part of the real world and part of people’s identities. Here’s hoping that public schools in Alberta will be allowed to continue teaching kids about the complexity of life and that every kid will be allowed to participate in the discussion.

Tagged as: education, law

{ 1 comment }

The current crap state of Canadian politics

by Sabine on May 13, 2009 · 1 comment

in Politics

I know that you needed something to be bummed out about this morning, so I thought I’d deliver these steaming heaps of crap from Canada’s national political stage.

First up: Canada’s auditor general, Sheila Fraser, has released a report indicating just how much lip service the federal government gives women. According to the Edmonton Sun, despite the fact that the feds have a 15-year-old committment to pay attention to how policy affects men and women differently, an array of departments are failing to do so. The Sun sez:

Fraser found few government departments actually conduct gender-based analysis, and those which do perform the work don’t actually use it to design programs. Fraser gave thumbs up to Indian and Northern Affairs as a “leader” and the only department that has fully implemented a sound gender-based analysis framework. Transport Canada and Veterans Affairs Canada, on the other hand, have no framework at all.

Great, ’cause the concerns of women riding in and driving cars, for example, has nothing to do with anything, right (oh, except things like airbags being the wrong height/size…)?

Second: Oh, BC. You’ve let us down. No, not with Gordon Campbell getting re-elected and all, but with your rejection of electoral reform. What do people have to do to ditch the first-past-the-post system and leave it behind as a 20th-century relic?

Third: Nobody has been proven guilty of anything, but wow, this she-said-she-said between Ruby Dhalla and her “alleged” caregivers is getting, as they say, curiouser and curiouser. This may all be some crazy mixup, as Dhalla suggested on Monday, but am I the only one inclined to think that the “alleged” caregivers don’t have much motive here except to tell the truth? If you were a Filipina nanny who had come into the country on the live-in caregiver program and were waiting for an employer to sponsor you, what motive would you possibly have to stir up political shit? Wouldn’t your primary fear be deportation? At the same time, I am getting really pissed at the media coverage that insists on making constant references to Dhalla’s beauty, as though that was at all relevant. Yes, Christie Blatchford, I’m talking about your shiteous piece in the Globe today.

Finally, how about a touch of schadenfreude from across the pond to make you feel a bit better? Doug Saunders’ story about the crisis facing the UK–to vote for the party of flagrant, porny spending or vote for the party of flagrant, moat-spending–had me gasping and laughing (and, um, you know, frowning at the, you know, wastefulness of it all) simultaneously.

Tagged as: Politics, women

{ 1 comment }

Leona Aglukkaq, pioneering woman politician

by Sabine on April 30, 2009 · 0 comments

in Politics

What with the whole swine flu is-it-or-isn’t-it-a-pandemic thing, Canadians have been seeing a lot of Minister Leona Aglukkaq on the tee-vee lately. I hate to admit it, but I was surprised to find that our health minister was a woman, and that we actually had an Inuit person in cabinet (really, how did I miss this?)

As it turns out, our health minister is actually the first Inuk to become a federal cabinet minister. Prior to becoming an MP, Alukkaq was an MLA in Nunavut. She served on the Executive Council (I’m assuming this is the territorial equivalent of a provincial cabinet) as finance minister and house leader, and then health minister and minister for the status of women. All that, plus she’s a mom to an 8-month old kidlet.

I’m not the only one to have been impressed with Aglukkaq during the swine flu outbreak. She seems to be completely devoid of the bullshit air that most politicians have floating around them; rather, she seems to be a steady, to-the-point, non-ego-driven kind of person who just wants to get shit done. She’s even phoned opposition health critic Carolyn Bennett to keep her apprised of the swine flu sitch (and maybe she’ll be coordinating efforts with her brand-new American counterpart, Kathleen Sebelius). Now, that’s a little bit of an Obama-style maneuvre that I really respect.

Tagged as: Health, Politics, women

{ 0 comments }

Ms. Magazine’s assessment of Obama’s first 100 days

by Sabine on April 27, 2009 · 1 comment

in Politics

As Canadians continue to ask ourselves where our Obama is, I got this press release in my inbox today from Ms. Magazine:

Ms. Magazine’s editors conclude President Obama took “giant strides for
women” in his first 100 days. He not only reversed some of the most
egregious Bush policies, but also took powerful actions to advance and
empower women.

“By any measure, the work President Obama has done for women and girls in the first 100 days is impressive. I have been working for women’s rights in Washington since the Carter days and I have never seen anything like these first 100 days,” said Eleanor Smeal, Publisher of Ms. “In employment, reproductive rights, and global women’s rights, thus far he is keeping his promises.”

“In looking at the list of accomplishments, we’re checking off major goals for women’s rights at a rapid pace,” said Ms. Executive Editor Kathy Spillar. “We’re excited a large portion of Obama’s appointments are women ofcolor, but his appointments are one area in which he could improve. He has appointed some outstanding women, but only 32% of his top appointments, thus far, are women (using the Washington Post Tracking Poll).”

Listed below are key Obama Administration actions for women and children:

JAN 23 Overturned “global gag rule,” which will help re-fund international family-planning groups

JAN 29 Signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring women’s ability to
sue for pay discrimination

FEB 4 Expanded government health insurance to cover 11 million children

FEB 17 Saved and created jobs in traditionally women-heavy fields-health care, child care and education-in $787 billion economic stimulus package; also increased Medicaid, food stamps and unemployment benefits

FEB 27 Moved to rescind the Bush administration’s “conscience” clause-which could have let health-care workers deny patients abortion and contraception

MAR 2 With the choice of Kathleen Sebelius as Health and Human Services secretary, appointed a total of seven women to Cabinet-level positions

MAR 6 Instituted a new ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues

MAR 9 Lifted restrictions on stem cell research

MAR 11 Established the White House Council on Women and Girls

Restarted U.S. contributions to the United Nations Population
Fund

Reinstated low-cost birth control availability at college health
centers and at some 400 clinics serving low-income women

MAR 19 Pledged to sign U.N. declaration to decriminalize homosexuality, which Bush refused to sign

MAR 20 Obama appointee Elena Kagan is confirmed as the first woman
Solicitor General

APR 3 Obama calls Afghanistan’s proposed Shia Family Law “abhorrent”

APR 23 To date, Obama’s appointments to posts needing Senate
confirmation were 32% women with a substantial portion women of color

The spring 2009 issue of Ms. also reviews the economic stimulus package and reproductive health initiatives of the new Obama administration as well as the new Obama/Clinton foreign policy approaches.

Tagged as: Ms., Obama, women

{ 1 comment }

Pesticide pushers upset over Michelle Obama’s organic garden

by Veronica on April 24, 2009 · 0 comments

in Politics

Remember last week when I wrote about the Michelle Obama action figure and applauded Obama’s status as a woman of action? Remember when, in that same post, I alluded to Obama’s creation of an organic garden on the White House grounds, using that act as an example of how progressive and wonderful America’s new First Lady really is? Well, it seems that not everyone is overjoyed about Obama’s organics. According to The First Post, Obama received a letter from The Mid-America CropLife Association (MACA), urging her to reconsider the decision to pursue organic gardening. Why would MACA oppose organic gardening, you ask? ‘Cause they represent pesticide and fertilizer companies, that’s why.

As ludicrous as this story already is, what’s even more ridiculous is this statement made by Bonnie McCarvel, MACA’s executive director: “While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made (us) shudder.” Oh, Bonnie, darling, I know. Organic vegetables scare the bejesus out of me! Thinking about all of that untainted, natural goodness almost makes me wet my pants.

For some interesting questions that Obama can ask the pesticide industry, visit The Daily Green’s post on this story. And while you’re doing that, I’m going to ponder adding a tablespoon of Miracle-Gro to my next cup of tea.

Tagged as: Michelle Obama, organic gardening

{ 0 comments }

Alberta cuts gender reassignment surgery funding

by Anastasia on April 8, 2009 · 0 comments

in Politics

How sadly timely that we here at Confabulous have been discussing opinions on state funding of gender reassignment surgery: to save $700,000/year, the Alberta Government has now cut the procedure from its list of funded services. The estimated savings amount to about 19 cents per Albertan.

The decision may have dire consequences, highlights a Calgary Herald article:

“Ignorance is fuelling the decision,” said Kris Wells, a researcher at the Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services based at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

“This is a case of sacrificing people’s lives. … These medical transitions end up saving people’s lives. This is a community that has higher rates of suicide, depression, drug and alcohol abuse because there is so little understanding.

Opponents of the change plan to file a human rights complaint. For updates and to lend your support, check out the “Reinstate Gender Reassignment Surgery Funding in Alberta” Facebook group.

Tagged as: Health, Politics, trans

{ 0 comments }

Was the war in Afghanistan ever really about women’s rights, anyway?

by Sabine on April 2, 2009 · 1 comment

in Politics

The news about Hamid Karzai “legalising sexual inequality,” as Doug Saunders put it so aptly, has pitched Canadians back into a debate about our involvement in Afghanistan. “According to United Nations organizations that have seen it,” the Globe and Mail reported yesterday, “a law backed by the Karzai government would legalize rape within marriage and would forbid women from going to the doctor or leaving their home without their husband’s protection. It also reportedly grants custody of children only to fathers or grandfathers.”(Of course, this is the whole “we rob women of their freedom in order to protect them” rationale).

Trade minister Stockwell Day seemed to struggle to find words to say other than, “Holy shit, what are we going to do now?” What he actually said was:

“If these prove to be true, this will create serious problems for the government of Canada, for the people of Canada,” Mr. Day said. “The onus is upon the government of Afghanistan to live up to its human-rights responsibilities, absolutely including the rights of women. If there is any wavering on this point … this will create serious difficulties, serious problems for the government of Canada.”

Well, that’s definitive! It will create serious difficulties, all right–starting with the Canadian population wanting the government to pull our troops out or risk getting booted from office. The public was partly swayed on going into this war because it would supposedly help the girls and women being brutalized by the Taliban (also interesting: it was only 26 years ago that Canada’s own laws changed to make marital rape a criminal offence).

So what should happen next? Canada currently has 2,800 troops in Afghanistan, and 116 others have died there. I have no idea how to proceed, being entirely unschooled in both the history of the region and military history. But I am totally repulsed at the idea of Canada backing a regime that, in 2009, is actively moving to suppress women’s rights. A UNIFEM report from March 5 indicates that what women in Afghanistan need is security. Has Canada’s presence in the country brought Afghan women any closer to it?

Margaret Wente’s op-ed in today’s Globe and mail was, I thought, troublingly accurate (yes, Margaret Wente and I agreed on something!). But her article raises several thorny issues: when is a foreign military presence in another country morally right? And what is Canada doing in Afghanistan, supporting a government which is robbing women of their human rights? But as a democratically elected leader, Western countries don’t have a right to dictate policy to Karzai. At what point does a country intervene, then, when human rights abuses occur? And why are we so damn selective about which human rights abuses to pounce on which ones to turn a blind eye to?

According to its own website, UNIFEM is currently carrying out its largest women’s rights program in Afghanistan. And though this may be news to us in the West, the concept of women’s rights is not something that is foreign to Afghan culture (as some commenters have claimed). The report notes that, “expanding the opportunities of women in the country was not some strange foreign notion; on the contrary, surveys had shown that the majority of the nation supported the principle of equal rights and opportunities for men and women.” This suggests that the hand-wringing over the legitimacy of importing “Western” values to other regions might be a bit of a red herring.

What do you think? What should Canada and the international community do to advance women’s interests in Afghanistan?

Tagged as: Afghanistan, Canada, war, women

{ 1 comment }

“Shrill” is just another word for “frightening woman”

by Sabine on March 24, 2009 · 3 comments

in Politics

Toronto media outlets today were buzzing today over a revelation that Karen Stintz, a city councillor, spent $4,500 (USD) (reported here as $2,650 and here as $1,850) of the public’s money on public speaking lessons with an American trainer. Now, anytime someone starts banging on about someone wasting taxpayers’ dollars, my eyes tend to glaze over because I feel like I need to save up my political indignation for matters that I think are much more appalling, like war.

But when Andy Barrie and co. were discussing the issue on Metro Morning today, my ears pricked up. This is because, as the Toronto Star reported, Stintz enrolled for the public speaking lessons after some of her constituents “told her she spoke too fast and sounded ’shrill’”.

“Shrill,” of course, is a code word for “frightening woman that no one listens to.” And we’ve all been there, haven’t we? You’re in a meeting, and you start feeling pissed. You open your mouth to talk, and your emotions take over, and all of a sudden you realize oh, my god, they’ve totally stopped listening to me because you know that people are now only responding to the intensity of your feelings, rather than the content of your language.

When you’re on city council, you need people to listen to you–especially if you’re planning on taking a run against the still-popular mayor in the next civic election. So you sign up for public speaking lessons. And your office has a budget for that kinda thing, so it gets paid for.

The thing is, when you go to the Star website and click on the story about Stintz, you’ll find an embedded video giving samples of Stintz speaking in council before and after her Eliza Doolittle treatment. And what’s truly astonishing about the video is…there’s absolutely nothing wrong with her voice at all prior to those costly elocution lessons.

It’s galling for Stintz’s voice–voice being such an important marker of gender–to be criticized in the first place. Sure, male politicians’ voices are parodied and satirized frequently–but no one expects them to actually do anything about them. And what’s with the excessive media attention paid to Stintz, given the other councillors and their expense reports? Plus, the implication in some of these stories is that what’s really wrong with Stintz spending this dough is she’s grooming herself for the upcoming mayoralty race. To which I reply: so? Politicians and other professionals pay huge sums of money for this kind of professional development all the time. If we’re going to criticize Stintz, let’s let it be for meaningful things like her voting record in council.

Tagged as: feelings, labour, Politics, voice, women

{ 3 comments }