Updated update: see press release from women's groups after meeting with the minister, in comments below.
More evidence, if evidence were needed, that your New Government of Canada has learned its lessons at the knees (and likely on its knees) of some American masters, this lesson in particular:
"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." -- Grover Norquist
Hard on the heels of last week's news that Status of Women Canada (SWC) has lost 40 per cent of its operational budget comes word of a new diktat from the department run by one of cabinet's biggest losers, the sad and ineffectual and utterly pathetic Bev Oda.
Two days ago, via the notice of the "five things" meme supported by progressive bloggers, a warning was sent up by pamused that changes to SWC's mandate had also been made:
The worst of it is that they have now banned ALL domestic advocacy and lobbying of governments with any funding received from SWC. What this means is that even though they've preserved the program funding available through the Women's Program, they've chopped at the knees those orgs who utilize that funding for anything other than service or program delivery. Case in point: without funding for advocacy from SWC, groups like the Canadian Council of Muslim Women et al could not have successfully mobilized and advocated against Sharia law in Canada (religious arbitration). So today's changes signify a brutal blow.
That redefinition of the department's mandate has now been confirmed on SWC's updated website.
In the progblog alert of 2 October, pamused expands on her earlier interpretation of this move:
Interesting thing about the advocacy ruling today. Because charities cannot advocate or lobby on their constits behalf they were already stuck in a weird position of trying to "educate" government about their issues, but not lobby, under pain of Revenue Canada revoking their charitable status. There has been discussion of this changing because groups like Heart & Stroke and smaller ones like women's shelters were always at risk of violating the rules just because they were trying to develop proper health and legal policies. ie. govt. wanted their input, cause they are front line, but had to jump through hoops to do it legitimately.The only way to fund activities like this, was through SWC. And now, these groups are screwed and so is government in the long run. even on non-controversial files, like cancer.
Just before I launch into my usual rant about democracy and the anti-democratic tendencies of our New Government of Canada, I will make one historical observation that may complicate things a bit. Certain especially elevated notables of our federal civil service, most famously the grey men/persons of the Finance Department and RevCan (or whatever the hell we call it these days), have been committed neo-lib slashers of social programs for generations. Their encroachments on our social consensus are what pamused is referring to when she mentions the difficulties that Canadian charitable organizations already have in obeying "the rules." Whoever the first movers were of the recent CPC government assault on funding for women's programs, aboriginals, museums, the Court Challenges program, and so on, their socially conservative ideology would have dovetailed very neatly with the ideological pathologies of the most powerful (often Liberal) members of the mandarinate in Ottawa, who have had many earlier successes in denying creative housing programs in Canada, eg, or in making sure that you never get a disability pension or even a disability tax deduction unless you are at death's door. Charming people. They probably feel bad about the museums, though.
Back to democracy. We all remember John Baird's rationale for cutting the Court Challenges program, the rationale that presumably also pretends to justify any refusal of federal funding to groups that "advocate" on behalf of women still facing legal structural disadvantage:
I just don't think it made sense for the government to subsidize lawyers to challenge the government's own laws in court.
Now, there is a man who has not grasped the difference between a particular elected representative government and the state -- ie, the people, all the people, all the time, their protective symbol in Canada being the Crown, but never doubt: the Crown are us, all of us -- and the responsibility that the one owes the other.
A democratic government always owes all the people free access to study, to criticize, to organize against, and to resist laws or institutional structures that can be shown to discriminate against citizens in ways that violate our constitution. It is a frightening state, certainly not a democracy, that would suddenly declare that no better law is possible than the ones it has conceived of.
Elected governments, the seldom-quite-inspiring-enough collections of politicians who attempt to make or improve our laws, often under the influence of narrow ideologicall commitments or even -- perish the thought, but yes -- venal considerations ... elected governments are passing things, cute in their presumptions, perhaps, but here today, gone tomorrow (let's hope).
We the people, all of the people, are always here. For many of us, elections don't necessarily work very well, a fact recognized by our Charter above all. Majority rule is tyranny, and in a democracy it must always be checked by structures that ensure that minority groups can make their voices heard. Equal access to our courts, to challenge discriminatory or merely flaccid laws, would be one such structure. Many of the programs formerly funded by Status of Women Canada have been another such commitment to the advance of democracy, of liberty for all our citizens.
No one advocates through our courts or to our elected representatives without money. A tiny but powerful minority in our society have always had that money privately, but it has been our civil consensus until now that we will support other groups fighting for liberties that our laws do not yet protect effectively. It seems to me little short of an attempt at a coup that the current CPC government would declare an end to all advocacy and lobbying except by those who are rich.
Or perhaps those who are in ideological favour. When news of the new constraints to be placed on SWC funding first broke, the ever-prescient sparqui at Bread and Roses wondered:
For example, is it not in the realm of possibility that 6 months from now we see Status of Women money going to a teen abstinence program?
Gosh. Why would sparqui be doubting that such a program was deeply desired by the women of Canada? What other struggles could they possibly be facing?
A clarification to this post: Pam at Pamusement did not make the 2nd "interpretation" that is talked about here and at our site. That was from a different blogger (who is involved in Liblogs and has some expreience with lobbying) who I decided to keep anonymous for now.
Thanks, Scott. My bad. There I was, leaping to conclusions about great sources.
It is good, though, to hear that we have so many great sources. You and pamused and all your other contacts have done us a great favour, a number of great favours. Let's keep going.
Update: this press release from an alliance of women's groups, listed in the last paragraph of the release.
>A democratic government always owes all the people free access to study, to criticize, to organize against, and to resist laws or institutional structures that can be shown to discriminate against citizens in ways that violate our constitution.
No-one is stopping you or others from doing that. It's just that the government isn't going to pay you to do it. That puts you and them in exactly the same position as me. Isn't that what you conceive to be fair?
Why is it when you type Status of Women that you use SWC? Isn't it SOW - Status of Women?
Yesterday’s meeting with the Minister included representatives from the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, Canadian Federation of University Women, Canadian Research Institute of the Advancement of Women, FAFIA, Fédération des femmes du Québec, National Association of Women and the Law, National Council of Women, and the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible
Minority Women.
In other words, small organizations who don't have the support of the majority of women across Canada.
No, actually "None" - its SWC. Status of Women Canada. SWC is its proper acronymn. SOW is just the clever little substitute (in their minds) conservatives have come with... thy like to paint anything that gets funded they dont like ideologically as being a waste of money.
Thats a pretty bold statement you're making NONE.. about those organizations not having the majority support of women.. got any facts to back that up? Or is that just another conservative talking point?
I tell you this.. I bet they have a lot more support of women across this country then the dinosaur-neanderthal group "REAL" Women.. who would take us all back to the 1950's - or worse.
None, the department is called Status of Women Canada.
I don't know where you went to school, but "of" is a preposition. We don't capitalize prepositions when we're writing out titles, and unless we feel the need to be cute in inventing acronyms, we don't include them in abbreviations.
Try referring to adult women as SOWs one more time on this site, and your history here will be sadly short.
I feel that I should add that I have the highest respect for pigs of both sexes. Pigs, male and female all, are, imho, lovely beings, and I would never myself stoop to exploiting them as metaphors for something I hated -- as those who would refer to adult women as SOWs are obviously doing.
IrC, but of course. "The law in its majesty equally forbids the wealthy and beggars from sleeping under bridges ..."
So, beyond reasserting your absolute belief in private property, do you have an argument to make?
In other words, small organizations who don't have the support of the majority of women across Canada.
No organization has the support of a majority of women across Canada. The current minority government doesn't either.
Anyway, re the comments on charities and the CRA, I don't have time now to talk about charitable taxation policy, but I assure you that there are very good reasons - for historical, public policy and tax policy reasons - why charities are restricted from carrying on political activities. Most of which we would agree with.
OK, I lied... I have a *little* time. Put very simply, very broadly, very quickly and without the subtle reasoning that underlies the argument, the idea is that charities are intended to do good works that are in accordance with public policy. (Historically, charities have had to fit into enumerated categories of activity in order to qualify as charities).
Lobbying the government (or undertaking other political activity) for a change in the law is by definition something that is not uncontroversially in accordance with public policy. Otherwise the law wouldn't be the way it is. That's one reason why it doesn't have charitable status. Charities are supposed to be doing things that are uncontroversially good - that's why they get a highly privileged tax status.
I know this is quick, but it contains the germ of the reason. Anyway, there are also other reasons but this is the most central.
Otherwise the law wouldn't be the way it is.
Huh? I have no idea what that means, Craigers. Like, none. The law is hardly a geological formation.
And charities are supposed to be doing things that are "uncontroversially" "good"? Who decides which kinds of new research we have are "uncontroversial"? New research about cancer, or dementia, or autism, or any one of a myriad of social problems? Who? You?
The Cancer Society would already challenge what you have written, Craigers, and they come closest to being generally unchallengeable. Charitable societies certainly DO carry on publicly funded advocacy campaigns in this country, as they should. They lobby governments and they lobby the people, as they should.
Oy. I told you what I said was a simplification. There's a good research paper from the Parliamentary Library that says it much better... I'll find it. It addresses your points.
Found it!
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0590-e.htm
Sorry if what I said was unclear. This should give you a good introduction to the issue.
Quote from the paper that best sums up what I was trying to say:
"The scope of the accepted purposes of charities is often narrowly defined, and encompasses engagement only in non-contentious societal problems carried out in conventional ways."
Again, if you have a problem with this, and I can understand why you might, you have a problem with what a charity is. Not with how the government applies the law.
engagement only in non-contentious societal problems carried out in conventional ways
Do I have a problem with that kind of flannel? Bank on it.
I would also observe that it is a principle much more observed in the breach than in the practice, and every major health-advocacy group in this country would agree with me, if they had time, given the never-ending twists and turns they have to go through to justify every penny they get from our irresponsible governments.
Look: I already wrote a long paragraph up there admitting that the mandarinate of this country has long preferred polite lies about what "charities" can do in this country -- mainly stuff that doesn't cause them too much trouble, doesn't affect their families, or, if it does, they can pay for it privately and bury the evidence.
Seriously: you expect me to sign on to that?
>So, beyond reasserting your absolute belief in private property, do you have an argument to make?
I'm wondering whether you have one. This isn't a hallmark of someone working up to a well-argued conclusion: "one of cabinet's biggest losers, the sad and ineffectual and utterly pathetic Bev Oda."
You're miffed that the tap has been turned off, and you and others have been vocal about it, but that's unremarkable. What is your argument that the tap should have been turned on in the first place? I mean, something other than "because we want it".
jonny
First a quibble:
Status of Women Canada (SWC) has lost 40 per cent of its operational budget
Now I could be wrong, but I heard the government was planning on cutting $5m over 2 years ($2.5m a year), from a yearly budget of $24m. That would be about 10% drop, not 40%.
However, if by "operational budget", you mean the non-grants arm (which, ofcourse, may have been a sly tactic to frame the cuts as greater than they were), than it's still only 2.5/13, which is about 20%, not 40%.
Was I misinformed?
Now, substance: Equal access to our courts, to challenge discriminatory or merely flaccid laws, would be one such structure. Many of the programs formerly funded by Status of Women Canada have been another such commitment to the advance of democracy, of liberty for all our citizens.
Other organizations raise their own money. Is there some reason why the womens groups supported by SWC, who represent fully half of the population, could not raise the requisite funds for legal challenges? Groups with a far far smaller constituency do it, why can't women's groups? Especially if their causes are of such pressing importance to equality, you'd think that it would be womens charity of choice, wouldn't you?
Secondly, would you be equally supportive of a program which supported other groups which challenged Canadian laws? Like religious groups which challenged same-sex marriage laws? Or Chaoulli-like private health care advocates challenging laws which restricted their access to health care?
I mean, if you're gonna take a self righteous "equal access to challenging laws" position, surely that would not only be the case for laws that you, in particular, diagree with, could it? Surely it would apply to even those laws that you hold most dear.
As you said: It is a frightening state, certainly not a democracy, that would suddenly declare that no better law is possible than the ones it has conceived of.
Does this not apply to all laws, even those you find important?
Or worse could you imagine if they adopted the ABC approach? Abstinance Before Condoms. That's what the bush admin implemented and now social service agencies, public health offices and any place that recieves federal funding cannot hand out condoms. It's as if they want to promote AIDS.
Hi, skdadl. Funny that you should use the "sleeping under bridges" thing. I alluded to it on my blog, but none of my interlocutors got it.
What patience you have, skdadl, arguing such basic stuff with the morons.
Great piece. Keep up the good work.
What patience you have, skdadl, arguing such basic stuff with the morons.
Now that's a little harsh, fern hill. I mean it's pretty easy for it to slip some people's minds that women have had to fight for the right to vote, the right to be treated equally under the law, equal pay for equal work and all that stuff. And it's not as if all those things got any attention in the media or got written up in the history books or anything. And of course all the problems have now been solved in this best of all possible worlds, right?
Well, I won't call anyone a moron, especially not when some are being "sly" in ways that would never have occurred to me, but there is a limit to how far one can play duelling premises.
Mandos, great post of yours on the 2nd, but I can't see where you used the quote. I ask because, on a quick google, I find the line attributed to all sorts of people/traditions. Is it Oliver Wendell Holmes? Somehow that didn't convince me. Anyone know? I'll be over to visit at your place shortly, Mandos.
Olaf, forgive me, but is there something wrong with referring to the SWC's operating budget that way? Maybe "operating" is the better term. That is indeed where the cut of $5 million was made, to a budget of $12-13 million. That isn't the topic of this post, of course, but I don't see where my quick reference to that first blow, which came last week, is in any way "sly." So it takes the government two years to do it; they are still planning to cut the operating budget of that department by 40 per cent.
The topic of this post was the further, perhaps worse news that the very mandate of the department has changed. The minister's announcement to women's groups on Monday and the revised SWC guidelines that have appeared on their website apply most obviously to the grants program, but as this CTV report points out, they amount to a redefinition of the department:
Back to your second point, Olaf, although I think that you, like IrC, are simply refusing my premise.
Can some "Groups with a far far smaller constituency" raise the money to advocate and to approach governments with challenging research? Boy howdy! Extremely rich people can do that. Representatives of powerful industries can do that. Tax-exempt religious organizations with international funding and other organizations with international funding (Hi, NRA!) can do that.
But Muslim women (most of whom are recent immigrants only starting to build up supports and contacts and resources) who wish to oppose the institution of sharia-based arbitration panels in Ontario? No, they can't do that. If they want to lobby the Ontario government, they need help, legal help especially, and that costs money they don't have.
Y'see, as our Charter recognizes, some groups AS groups have been structurally disadvantaged in the past, have been actively excluded from equal participation in Canadian society. The promotion of their inclusion in our public life is supposed to be a Good Thing. Perhaps you disagree (well: obviously you disagree), but it has been until now an assumption of many of our federal programs and of our courts that human equality is a positive value.
Did Stephen Harper and the National Citizens' Coalition have the money to challenge the attorney-general of Canada (on limits to third-party election expenses -- ie, political advertising paid for by rich people) all the way up to the Supreme Court on their own? Yes, they did. Did some of the major intervenors opposed to the NCC's "sly" interpretation of freedom of expression in a democracy have the money to speak against that challenge all on their own? No, they didn't. They needed some help from the Court Challenges Program, some of them did.
Stephen Harper and the NCC lost. For good reason, imho. For reasons consonant with the arguments in favour of equal access that I am making here, that used to be part of SWC's mandate too.
Which is no doubt one of the reasons that Stephen Harper has just killed the Court Challenges Program. You wanna talk about hypocrites? John Baird can't see why the government should pay to have its own laws challenged. He implies there that there is something wrong with challenges to the laws, but in fact he doesn't believe that -- how can he? His own boss led such a challenge. No: all John Baird believes is that only rich people should be able to challenge our laws. The poor and the vulnerable can shut up. I mean, seriously: you see any other message?
What a mean and petty, vengeful man Harper has shown himself to be.
If you're reduced to making up what you imagine to be the base motives of others, you're not making an argument. You're ranting.
The idea that some people deserve public funding to pursue their agenda while others do not is a non-starter. You want public money in order to pay people to try to change things to suit your beliefs. So you're selfish, but that's no big deal and you share that in common with many people. But no-one has to oblige you.
I guess lawyers have priced themselves out of reach and the people who like adding layer on layer of regulations have built a mountain they can no longer climb. Shame, that.
Skdadl,
I really do understand your points, and I respect the position and it makes sense to me. And shockingly, although of a heartless conservative mindset, I do in fact promote the inclusion of all groups into our society.
My point, is that women do have a far greater constituency from which to derive funds, and as much as it is hard for you to believe, some women are in fact wealthy! Muslim women even!
Now, what about the lonely pro-life crusader. Is he/she necessarily wealthy? Is their cause of inherently less importance to society than Muslim women opposing sharia law? Or is it just a position that you disagree with? Or what about the elderly pensioner who wants to challenge the legality of restricting access to private health care, as he writhes in pain on a waiting list? Is he necessarily more capable of challenging laws?
I would submit that it is in these cases of individuals, who would have far less access to funds than even Muslim women's groups, who at least have more than one persons income on which to draw.
My point, which I think is valid, is if you're supporting the CCP as essential for those who are unable to raise the funds necessary to mount court challenges, than surely that should not just be available for those challenging on the grounds of s. 15. Many people are without a spare $500,000 to mount a court challenge, why should government resources be available only to a select few?
What? To pursue "their agenda"???
In a democracy, there is only one agenda: democracy.
The people who will succeed in their applications for public funding, in theory, are the people who are attempting to advance the "agenda" of democracy.
This isn't some kind of personal competition. It ain't no beauty pageant. We are talking liberté, égalité, fraternité, eh? And maybe even a little sororité.
Sorry, Olaf: the previous post was a response to IrC.
As for your examples though: the "lonely pro-life crusader" -- ha ha ha ha. That is one of the best privately -- and internationally -- funded campaigns in the country. I wouldn't call them "pro-life" m'self, either. They are anti-abortion. Most of them are fairly ruthless about the deaths of many other categories of human beings, including children living in poverty.
I happen to be an "elderly pensioner" -- well, I am arguably that. I have just lived through six years as the primary caregiver for an "elderly pensioner" who was dying, and our struggle, which I remember in the minutest detail and living technicolour, all the way through was for a better public health-care system. Being as we were people of modest means, genuine pensioners, how the hell could we have chosen to leap to expensive private care? The only people who are arguing for private care are people with enough money to pay for it, which, believe me, people living on pensions do not have.
What a bit of illogic.
And otherwise, my statement of principle to IrC applies as well.
Hi, skdadl, it was in the title of my post in a series in which IrC was a participatnt.
http://politblogo.typepad.com/politblogo/2006/09/a_buys_luxury_y.html
I didn't use the quote directly, but twisted it to fit the situation.
Wouldn't it be nice if workers had the same access to their companies' public relations and charitable donations swag as their colleagues in management have?
Then we wouldn't have to rely on hand-outs from mewling and/or cynical governments and the self-serving bromides from the Ayn Rand Institute that results from accepting them.
>In a democracy, there is only one agenda: democracy.
What twaddle. What is it that you imagine under the umbrella of that word?
>The people who will succeed in their applications for public funding, in theory, are the people who are attempting to advance the "agenda" of democracy.
Yeah. I'm sure the gatekeepers will all be objectively minded people with an unerring instinct for deciding correctly which groups deserve funding and which don't. Who defines the "agenda"?
But let's discuss pure democracy. If SWC needs $5 million, it could use $50 from each of 100,000 people or $1 from each of 5 million Canadians. Either head count is demonstrably a minority. If the money doesn't show up in the mail, we can suppose that not only the majority you cherish so much hasn't spoken, but the minority evidently doesn't share your sense of priorities either.
>Hi, skdadl, it was in the title of my post in a series in which IrC was a participatnt.
I was? I'm not "Dave".
What twaddle. What is it that you imagine under the umbrella of that word?
Oh, pretty much the short-list of necessary and sufficient principles and basic structures hammered out through the C17-C18 by every major thinker on the topic in Western Europe and then enshrined in every democratic constitution/bill of rights/declaration/charter worthy of the name.
The agenda is pretty obviously liberty and equality. Well: it was. Any group applying for funding that wished to reinscribe arbitrary discrimination against females as females was clearly not eligible, since in a democracy, we clearly don't want to be doing that. Well: we didn't.
Your fund-raising fantasies are entertaining, IrC, but I have to tell you: that's not how the NCC does it. Any fund-raising campaign aimed at five million Canadians would be prohibitively expensive for just about anyone (maybe not Big Pharma, or the arms industry, but most everyone else).
Skdadl,
I call them pro-life because they call themselves pro-life. Just as I use the acronym SWC, because they use the acronym SWC.
Secondly, the pro-life organizations may be well funded, but why aren't women's groups? Are pro-life supporters necessarily rich? And for the record, in the Borowski abortion case, LEAF was provided funds by the CCP, and REAL wasn't. How does this advance democracy, equality and pluralism?
The only people who are arguing for private care are people with enough money to pay for it, which, believe me, people living on pensions do not have.
I suppose it depends how much you had before you recieved a pension, and not all private treatments are outside the financial reach of the pensioners, especially considering their desperation to not end their life in pain. You clearly have more experience in the matter, and I do not mean in any way to take away from that, but your experience doesn't necessarily apply to all.
But in any case, you're ignoring my point, which is simply that it is inconsistent to provide funds for certain groups to challenge laws based on s. 15, while not providing funds for other groups challenging every other section of the charter. It is further inconsistent to provide funds for groups which represent certain ideologies, and not those who counter those ideologies. This is my beef.
It's not, as much as it may seem, that I am against funding for practical womens programs, such as women's shelters, for example. I'm against the use of "democracy and equality" as a justification to funding the court challenges of certain groups and not others.
I've elaborated my position further on my blog, if you're interested (although admittedly it's more or less a recap of what I've said here already, but it may be more conherently put.)
IrC: That's why I mentioned a "series". ie, a set of related posts. But yes, they became related after the fact because Dave posted on a thread to which you responded.
I call them pro-life because they call themselves pro-life.
Well, gosh. You're more polite and well-mannered than they tend to be. The chronology goes like this: women's activists fighting for women's right to choose referred to themselves as "pro-choice." (And Olaf, I am assuming that you will want to use that term for feminists as well, won't you.) "Choice" meant a range of options, including abortion. The anti-abortionists for a time campaigned as such, and then it hit them: "Hey! we can slander the pro-choicers by playing rhetorical games! We are 'pro-life' and they are 'pro-abortion'!"
So, like, that was always a lie and still is. Feminists all remain pro-choice, punkt. Most feminists have children, for pity's sakes. The "pro-life" people are still entirely worked up about abortion. Well: they are worked up about sex in ways that I do not understand and don't particularly want to.
So if you insist on being the courtly gentleman in referring to the anti-abortionists, I hope you will do feminists who favour choice the same favour, yes?
Why aren't women's groups well funded? Well, that is a serious question, although your attempt to reduce it to contributions from individuals seems to me just a touch disingenuous.
The fact that we aren't well supported is the very reason that enlightened governments accepted they had to go to bat for us with programs like SWC, eh? I mean, the government runs StatsCan. They see the figures. The figures are bad. For some groups of women, really bad. Like, disastrous. Single mothers and single women over 65: cat-food diet territoire. Government of Canada finally recognizes: not good.
Am I making this simple enough for all to follow?
Do the anti-abortionists have massive institutional support, including international financial support? Yes. You do the research. The Vatican would be peanuts compared to what comes from the U.S., but, y'know, it's kind of obvious.
On to Borowski, which, I promise, is the last time I do the kitchen clean-up for provocateurs on this thread. But many readers may be interested to learn about Borowski. It is hard but important to recognize how much hatred Canadian women have faced from ideologues who had no other purpose but an abstract argument against women's autonomy. The zealot's case of course failed, partly on that basis. The Wikipedia summary is not bad, and it gives you a link to the SCC decision.
Section 15 of the Charter is the section that guarantees equal rights to individual persons. It is the section that many groups, including women, that have suffered historical structural disadvantage have appealed to before the courts. It is also the section that those who believe that foetuses are persons have appealed to, unsuccessfully in the past, and that is the issue that Olaf wishes to raise here now.
Why did LEAF qualify for support from SWC when REAL Women didn't in Borowski? I suppose because LEAF were arguing on behalf of women's autonomy, when REAL Women were arguing what the court itself considered a moot point. I'm no legal expert, but I think that I, like the court, would have been puzzled by the case in the first place, so I assume that SWC was too.
Olaf, you keep claiming that there are fairly competing ideologies at work here, but I don't see that, not on the grounds of women's autonomy and equality I don't. I do see competing ideologies. I see zealots absolutely determined that women's autonomy must be stifled and stopped. I see that, for sure. It was certainly never SWC's mandate in the past to aid those who oppose women's rights as full and equal citizens, and I can't imagine why you would expect SWC to have funded such groups.
If you are here simply to argue as an anti-abortionist, then you've lost my interest entirely. I consider that a pathology, especially among men. And anyway, it is an irrelevant view, always has been, through history, in every society we know of. Women will control their own bodies, whatever you wish to do with them -- well, unless you wish to capture, control, torture, and/or kill them. But try to stop women from controlling their own fertility? Fool's errand. Command the waves.
>Oh, pretty much the short-list of necessary and sufficient principles and basic structures
I have bad news for you, then. They didn't envision replacing tyranny of the one with tyranny of the many, or that equality meant anything more than the fundamental equality of moral stature (ie. each person belongs to himself) and of equal benefit and protection of law. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights were pretty much the high water mark of the achievements of those people you admire, and in terms of how they lay out individual and state rights, remain so.
>But try to stop women from controlling their own fertility?
FYI, the Liberals already did that. Try renting out your womb. It's already a fact of law in Canada that women don't have full control over what they may do with their reproductive functions. The battle over principle has been decided.
Regardless, you missed the points. 1) $5M isn't out of reach, nor is the entire funding of the organization. 2) If people won't step forward, their (and your) apathy and indifference isn't a licence to loot the public treasury. I realize fund-raising isn't as glamourous as working the courts and media, but if you're unwilling to do heavy lifting, it certainly isn't important to me to pick up your burden.
They didn't envision replacing tyranny of the one with tyranny of the many
Precisely. They did not. The great democrats of the Enlightenment certainly grasped that democracy did not equal voting, and that majority rule would be another kind of tyranny.
It strikes me as very odd that you would grasp that truth, and then go on to contradict yourself.
I am a student of the European Enlightenment, so I consider the U.S. Constitution a pretty good but historically/locally flawed and of course highly derivative document. I would hardly call it the "high water mark" of anything except American history, given the brilliance that preceded it and from which it was derived. I mean, really: credit where credit is due.
As for your continuing apologetics for rich people, IrC, I am just not interested.
Wow. What a merry-go-around! How fast can one spin back to basic principles over and over again?
Skdadl,
I must take issue with you on a number of counts, please bare with me:
So if you insist on being the courtly gentleman in referring to the anti-abortionists, I hope you will do feminists who favour choice the same favour, yes?
I do insist on being the courtly gentleman. However, I don't refer to all feminists as pro-choice (there are some feminists who disagree with abortion, if you can believe it.) I'm quite sure that it was those who countered prevailing opinion in the 1970s (feminists, aboriginal groups, etc.) who recognized the importance of defining oneself (hence, the advent of "first nations"). If these groups expect those who disagree with them to respect their decision to name themselves, you'd think they'd provide the same respect to those they also disagree with. However, I do call those who believe that abortion should be available (including myself) as pro-choice.
So, like, that was always a lie and still is.
It is not a lie if you truly consider fetuses to possess life. It's only because you disagree with this that you consider it a lie. Its not something that can be proven, and thus cannot be a "lie". It's a matter of philosophy and opinion.
The fact that we aren't well supported is the very reason that enlightened governments accepted they had to go to bat for us with programs like SWC, eh? I mean, the government runs StatsCan. They see the figures. The figures are bad.
The figures are bad. As they are for single fathers, who, although are less numerous than single mothers, are still disadvantaged. As they are for those men who grow up fatherless, and for certain ethnic groups, who, incidentally, don't have their own ministry. As they are for many people, who unfortunately for them, do not fit into the "historically disadvantaged" crowd, and thus have no advocacy group, although they may be far more disadvantaged than many who do fit into superficial categories. In summary, there are MANY who are disadvantaged, but don't get government support through SWC because they aren't disadvantaged women.
Single mothers and single women over 65: cat-food diet territoire.
What about homeless men, who don't have the benefit of a federal government program to take refuge in? Because their gender has not been historically disadvantaged, despite their personal circomstances which may include abuse and psychological afflictions, they should not be eligible for federal government funding?
Am I making this simple enough for all to follow?
Yes, you are, your position is not very complicated, but the fact that reasonable people disagree with it does not imply that somehow we are intellectually deficient. But I appreciate the condescention, always the sign of an openminded foe.
Do the anti-abortionists have massive institutional support, including international financial support?
I granted this point, and asked why, if women's equality was in such great jeopardy, were women unable to raise the funds from other women, to fight such injustices? You didn't suggest a necessary connection with big business and pro-life groups... I'm still waiting.
On to Borowski, which, I promise, is the last time I do the kitchen clean-up for provocateurs on this thread.
I don't know if you're referring to me, but again, your absolute authority on the matter is by no means assured.
The zealot's case of course failed
The zealot represents many Canadians, although they are in the minority. But wait, I thought you were all for the rights of the minority to express their opinion, aren't you? I know you and the majority disagree with their opinion, just as the majority disagree with the radical feminist opinion. So I'd urge you to recognize the blatant hypocricy in fighting for the rights of the minority, when you don't believe that a minority that you disagree with, no matter how reasonable your arguments against them may be, should be equally heard.
It is the section that many groups, including women, that have suffered historical structural disadvantage have appealed to before the courts.
So are you saying that if there is ever a conflict between s. 15 rights, whether they be s. 7 (security of person) or s. 3-5 (democratic rights), or whatever, they are necessarily less important than s. 15 rights. Otherwise, you'd feel it was equally important that those not able to fund their challenges under the other sections should be funded. I recognize that s. 15 is important, will you recognize that the protection of all of the other rights are important? And thus provide an opinion as to why s. 15 should be funded for court challenges, but none of the other sections should be eligible? Or you can just ignore this point again, and tell me why s. 15 is important.
It is also the section that those who believe that foetuses are persons have appealed to
The Borowski case is the only case I can think of which attempted to challenge abortion based on legislated rights (in this case, a section of the Bill of Rights, which would be comparable to s. 7 "right to life"). Which case do you refer to where someone attempted to proclaim the illegality of abortion based on the non-discrimination clause? I can't concieve of how that argument would go.
I suppose because LEAF were arguing on behalf of women's autonomy, when REAL Women were arguing what the court itself considered a moot point.
First of all, it wasn't the court which distributes CCP grants, of course. Second of all, the court only declared the REAL position a moot point after the Morganthaler decision (1988), which was after REAL applied for and was denied CCP funding (the 1987 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal case).
I see zealots absolutely determined that women's autonomy must be stifled and stopped. I see that, for sure
This is exactly the point. They don't see themselves that way, and they see you in a less than favourable light. Which is why you are in no place to claim that we should recognize and federally fund your opinions for the sake of equality and democracy, if you're not willing to accord those who have different opinions on what equality and democracy entail the same benefit.
It was certainly never SWC's mandate in the past to aid those who oppose women's rights as full and equal citizens
Is this a part of REAL women's charter that I missed? They don't see themselves as opposing womens rights to full and equal citizenship, but as supporting a different conception of what full and equal citizenship entails. You can't take your opinion as fact, unfortunately.
If you are here simply to argue as an anti-abortionist, then you've lost my interest entirely.
I am not anti-abortionist at all. If you care, here's my take on the issue. But that isn't the point. The point is that you can't claim some sort of monopoly on moral or on the principles of democracy, if you think only those groups which agree with your particular ideologies should be funded, and not those who oppose it (like pro-life organizations).
As you said:
It is a frightening state, certainly not a democracy, that would suddenly declare that no better law is possible than the ones it has conceived of.
Is this only the case regarding those laws you disagree with? Are you a modern day philosopher queen, granted the powers to discern which laws of the country are in fact the best laws possibly concieved of? Or can you grant, in one out of a billion cases, that there is the slightest possibility, that once in a blue moon, you could be wrong too?
In any case, I'm quite exasperated, because you are so sure of yourself that you can't even consider other's opinions as valid.
In such a case, you can't quite expect others who disagree with you to consider your opinion either, I suppose. But somehow, you have been granted the intellect and morality which everyone who disagrees with you lacks.
So, the government should give a shit about what you think, even if they disagree with it, because you're a citizen of Canada, and thus should have a voice. Should REAL women not have a voice, simply because you disagree with their principles? Are you the final adjudicator?
Please understand that there are those who disagree with your opinions who are far more intellegent than you are, just as there are many who disagree with my opinion who are far more intelligent than I am (which you may be yourself).
Also understand that as sure as you are of yourself, there are many who are very moral people, who do far more to help their fellow person, who disagree with you. Your opinions, although you should fight for them and defend them, are not somehow beyond criticism or absolutely right. If they were, there would be no debate. There would be fact. Ok, I'm done... thanks for reading this far if you did.
>It strikes me as very odd that you would grasp that truth, and then go on to contradict yourself.
Where do you see a contradiction?
there are MANY who are disadvantaged, but don't get government support through SWC because they aren't disadvantaged women.
The SWC is a program specifically created to deal with the status of women in society. That's kinda why they call it that. I haven't noticed the people protesting this funding cut and change in mandate suggesting that others who may need support should be denied. You're the one who seems to be treating it like some zero sum game in which support for women is taken away from someone else.
Women have fought hard for generations to make the progress they've made and their fight isn't over. If there are disadvantaged men in society, why would you expect women to fight that battle too in addition to their own? Why aren't the men fighting for their own programs? Canada's Shiny New Government™ can take some pocket change out of the 1.3 billion they give to the oil and gas industry to fund them. (Yes, I'm aware the Conservatives didn't start that but I notice they didn't cut it either.)
Maybe what you interpret as condescension is really sheer frustration at having to fight the same fights decade after decade.
*yawn*
Meant that *yawn* for IrC.
Olaf, one last reply, and then I'm turning to the news that interests most of us more. My personal "opinions" about the necessary and sufficient conditions for democracy aren't the issue, given what a weak vessel my wee brain is. The necessary and sufficient conditions for democracy have been well laid out over centuries by much smarter people than I. My only purpose in debating libertarians as far as I do is to challenge the continual insinuation that there are no established principles or structures at stake here, that it is all a question of the competing "opinions" of individuals. Hogwash. And have a nice day.
In other news:
The opposition to Canada's Brand Shiny New Government of Newness's (&trade Idealist Pragmatist) dismantling of SWC is proceeding apace. Both the NDP and the Liberal government critics concerned have spoken out and are beginning to organize citizen forums to challenge the undemocratic changes to SWC's mandate. Lots of good blogging at progblogs, too -- I think that Eugene Plawiuk at Le Revue Gauche has come up with the title I like best.