As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
CAN Politics: Minorities are Serious Business
Lee
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Well, they are. Precarious, what.
So those guys who picked up the election (because the guys who always win forgot to run an campaign) are slashing the budget of an office with a high level of international visibility and prestige. At least, it has such among those who follow its issue-area.
The Status of Women Canada office is losing 5 million of its 23 million dollar budget. Supposedly this massive *sarcasm* savings is being wrought at the expense of a special interest group. Also, according to Minister Oda, “We don't need to separate the men from the women in this country.... This government as a whole is responsible to develop policies and programs that address the needs of both men and women.†Apparently, you accomplish this end by ignoring the fact that women's issues are legitimate ones and slash the funding used to address them both domestically and abroad.
Myself, I see this as an indication that the social conservative side of our government is coming out to play. They haven't got the vote on same-sex marriage that they wanted (and who knows why, considering Harper campaigned on the promise of a vote), so they need to find some other social issue to roll the clock back on. Perhaps they're working up to something fun, like making homosexuality illegal again.
Your thoughts?
So those guys who picked up the election (because the guys who always win forgot to run an campaign) are slashing the budget of an office with a high level of international visibility and prestige. At least, it has such among those who follow its issue-area.
The Status of Women Canada office is losing 5 million of its 23 million dollar budget. Supposedly this massive *sarcasm* savings is being wrought at the expense of a special interest group. Also, according to Minister Oda, “We don't need to separate the men from the women in this country.... This government as a whole is responsible to develop policies and programs that address the needs of both men and women.†Apparently, you accomplish this end by ignoring the fact that women's issues are legitimate ones and slash the funding used to address them both domestically and abroad.
Myself, I see this as an indication that the social conservative side of our government is coming out to play. They haven't got the vote on same-sex marriage that they wanted (and who knows why, considering Harper campaigned on the promise of a vote), so they need to find some other social issue to roll the clock back on. Perhaps they're working up to something fun, like making homosexuality illegal again.
Your thoughts?
Lee on
0
Posts
Just because some organization has Women in the title doesn't mean they're actually working to improve the status of women in society in any meaningful way. This organization seems to be of the style of "look good, feel good, accomplish nothing" charities, of which there are way too many.
No, but they are a marginalized group in many respects. They still perform the majority of unpaid labour in Western society. They're still not paid as much as men when they do participate in the labour force. They're still disproportionately the targets of violence, both domestically and internationally (genital mutilation, honour killings, etc). They aren't proportionally represented in politics and business. Many areas of research in academia still don't have equal representation of women. In short, there are many real issues based on gender that this office attempts to bring attention to and create solutions for.
See, now, I bet you're doing what most people on the Globe & Mail's comment page did. Forming an opinion without investigating what you're talking about.
The office has three main priorities.
1) Improving women's economic autonomy and well-being.
2) Eliminating systemic violence against women and children.
3) Advancing women's human rights.
They were largely responsible for setting up the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, even in the face of significant opposition and resistance from that state's government. I wasn't exaggerating when I said this office has a great deal of international prestige.
They pro-actively create policy to promote gender equality, and ensure that all policy and legislation enacted by government does the same. They fund research on gender theory and issues. They fund municipal groups like women's shelters. So yes, they do attempt to affect women in positive, meaningful ways. There is absolutely no good reason to cut their funding, especially considering the country is running an eight BILLION surplus (which was inherited by the Conservatives) and that the 5 million being cut represents about 1/42 580 of federal spending in 06/07.
No party gives a flying fuck about the environment or protecting our resources (of the combustible and non-combustible varieties), and that's bullshit. So get off your high horses, Liberals - the Quebec matter is becoming less and less important. Maybe you should take heed of the London election results and get the damn message?
...
Are you a Californian republican?
Beats me. Québec is clearly a distinct topic. It deserves and independant thread.
Oh, are we not supposed to make megathreads anymore? I noticed there wasn't a general Canadian politics one anymore, so I made this one.
Personally, I'm grateful that Morton didn't get it. Having a social conservative in office when the rest of the country is becoming more and more liberal could spell nothing but trouble for relations between Alberta, the feds, and the other provinces. I didn't like Dinning because his run was pretty opportunistic. He left the party back in the late 90s and only returned for the leadership race. Plus, he had more money than God, and who wants to cheer for the guy on top? Stelmach seems like a pretty solid choice. He'll probably continue the PC dynasty for another few decades, which, considering how Alberta votes, wouldn't be that great of a feat. Thoughts?
Also, all the Quebec hate - from people who really have NO IDEA OF THE ISSUE is getting annoying. Instead of Quebec GTFO, why don't you STFU
I take issue with this. Unless you have something to qualify that, I give you:
So, women commit less violence, but they don't recieve any more of it then men in a meaningful way. Unless you were talking about specific violent crimes, such as sexual assault, but you didn't say that, you just gave some vague examples.
I don't disagree that the funding cut may be unwise, but in Canada, women aren't victimized more than men.
The OP got me worked up, reads like a Liberal "we love all minorities, group hug!" thing. Quebec just happens to be a very large minority that, because they're all in one place, gets treated distinctly.
The same arguments that Federalist Quebeckers use for special privileges are the same ones other minority groups use, IMO which I realize isn't shared by everyone else. Freedom of association, self-determination, free speech under the Charter and such.
Re-addressing the OP again:
Parties don't look for issues to "roll the clock back on." The reason why we have democracy as opposed to a benevolent dictatorship (i.e. the Chretien years! zing) is because not everyone agrees on things. The Conservatives will eventually come around to the core principle of conservatism: SMALL GOVERNMENT and not interfering in people's lives except to collect taxes. IT will take time, sure. But rest assured, that's where this argument will end up. Nevermind that amending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn't going to happen, and it's pretty clear if you read it that if you want to have a bum chum, that's your business and noone elses (assuming your bum chum consents, ofc).
As for this women's charity, $5m is nothing. But show me what this charity, which I've never heard of before reading that post, has actually done, and maybe I'll agree that slashing its budget is bad. Maybe it was their marketing budget, which clearly is not being spent very well and should probably be taken away.
edit: upon re-reading, that post sounds very angry. I'm not, though. sorry about bumchum, too, if someone takes offense i'll change it.,..
And from the more serious pages: New Alberta Premier says his province won't be a push-over. He says that any new powers the Federal government extends to Québec, he wants for Alberta too. Coming soon: Alberta, a nation within Canada?
I just keep repeating that in my head.
yeah, i'm thinking nationhood during the week, part of canada on the weekend
Because with Mad Morlock up there, I think I'd be willing to just make a clean break of it and never look back.
is he the one with the chip cooling ideas?
There's an editorial on this topic by John Ibbitson over on the G&M, but it's only available to subscribers. Basically, his argument is that Dossa should be fired for going to the Holocaust conference in Iran on the grounds that he was being "irresponsible" for attending what Makay has called a "despicable, provocative conference". If St. Francis doesn't fire him, they're forfeiting their good name.
Besides finding it ironic that a journalist would argue for stiff penalties for participating in unpopular discussions, I think this is a pretty dangerous line of reasoning to follow. First off, Dossa isn't a Holocaust denier. He has said as such, and his research backs that claim up. While he's not a denier, he is of the opinion that the Holocaust, and its related imagery, has been co-opted to provide legitimacy to present day persecution of Arabs. Presenting a paper on this topic was why he was invited to the conference.
The university itself has distanced itself from both Dossa (an 18-year vet of StFX) and the conference, saying that "this conference has rightly been condemned in no uncertain terms by our Prime Minister on behalf of all Canadians. The StFX community and I [StFX President Sean Riley] join in this condemnation." Isn't it dangerous to allow institutions to determine which topics of discussion are and aren't permissible? I would think that the worst thing the academic world could do would be to bury their collective heads in the sand and ignore this gathering. It should be engaged at every level possible, and every idea that it promotes should be heavily questioned. Under this kind of scrutiny, the Holocaust denying proponents of the conference will probably be unable to properly defend their ideas, and they'll be discredited in a very visible way; on their own terms, in their own arena. This is an opportunity, but because it's about a taboo subject it can't be acted upon.
Additionaly, what do the calls of some for Dossa's firing say about our commitment to free speech as a society? We already have laws against inciting hatred against a definable group. Do these laws need to be extended to all those who are even marginally connected to loaded topics?
I don't know what to say really other than I hope the minister didn't just cancel it on a whim, it seems like it was only rejected because they hadn't made up their mind what they wanted to do? Seems like a pretty good opportunity that were squandering here. I like Canada's space role with the Canadarm and such, but that isn't going to last forever if this kind of stuff happens.