The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

The Good: "Africville Apology Coming"

Residents of a black diaspora/suburb in Nova Scotia were kicked out of their neighbourhood in the 60s under the pretense of building a bridge. In reality, it was systemic racism aimed at "cleaning up" Halifax. Congratulations to the former residents of Africville on your victory!

The Bad: "Women Lose Ground in Push for Equality: Report"

Anyone who has been paying any attention didn't need this report to confirm that womyn have been sliding backwards in Canada since the Conservatives got into power. (Although the Liberals have been no better...)

Do yourself a favour: Do not read the comments on that article. In 24 hours online, it has over 500 comments and the vast majority prove what this report is saying: womyn have a long way to go.

The Ugly: "Woman Who Traded Kids for Pet Bird Sentenced"

That's just fucked.

So Many Stories, So Little Time

It’s been an incredibly interesting news day, today. So interesting that I could easily write 4-5 different posts. Instead, I’m going to do a round-up for you.

“Calgary Family Negotiates Homework Ban” – Headline pretty much says it best. A two child household was tired of spending hours on what they saw as “busy work” and so they negotiated with the school to only have them be marked on work they do in class. I think occasional homework is fine but only in high schools. Children need to be engaged in life and homelife in particular and so I say, go Calgary family!

“Better family planning could curb climate change: UN”- A new report by the UN Population Fund suggests making condoms and other family planning services more available will help combat global warming by reducing the world's population. Sex education around the world needs some serious, serious love (pun fully intended) and so whatever the reason, I say bring it on.

“Florida snowbirds take risks with HIV: study” - One more time with feeling, we need better sex education. A recent study has found Canadians age 50+ have skyrocketing rates of HIV, in particular those who vacation in Florida for the winter. The reason being that many of them go down to Florida and live the swinging single life, getting it on and being carefree without protection and thus end up with HIV. The rate of condom use for this age group is dismal. But part of the reason is that if you don’t get quality sex education when you’re young, you probably won’t get it all and yes, people over 50+ still get laid.

Add on that most people only use protection to avoid pregnancy and you’ve got menopausal womyn thinking “I don’t need protection now; I’m good to go!” They’re good alright; at getting the HIV.

And finally,

“McGill anti-abortion student group suspended” - Now, let the record state that I fully support an anti-choice organization's right to express their viewpoints. FULLY. However, in the case of McGill and other similar incidents, the anti-choice organizers were willfully spreading medical misinformation and postering campuses with graphic images in places where people had no choice but to see it. In McGill’s case, after many complaints from students, the McGill student association has suspended their official club status until they can reach some sort of resolution with the student council. Squashing freedom of expression? Not in my view.

Update - Quebec is Suing Mad, too

Looks like Quebec has jumped on the bandwagon, too.

There's Nothing like the Smell of Victim-Blaming in the Morning

I am one pissed off Carleton University graduate.

And now, for some good news!

Good news is so few and far between in the world lately. Or in general really, when you're the type to be concerned about social justice.

But it appears that David is slowly slaying Goliath in at least one department.

Some Canadian consumers have learned the valuable lesson of each purchase being a vote. Combining that with a new resurgence of environmentalism and smart eco-thinking, consumers have made a big enough push for local products that grocery stores in Southwestern Ontario have de-listed themselves as "Sobey's" chains and joined a co-operative.

Reason being? Sobey's existing policies discourage and outright deny owners the ability to buy local products. Since consumers were asking and the demand was clearly there, they said screw The Man.

They are now seeing success in sales AND helping Mother Nature.

Now doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Mmmm.... Controversy.

There are few things that I love more than food and controversy. Today, we get a meal of both!

So I have rather mixed feelings about the position of Governor General but I have very good feelings about this particular GG. I've met her on two different occasions and was really impressed with how knowledgeable she really is in the areas in which she throws herself into. She's incredibly warm and although not 100% genuine (By that I mean that you can tell that she's "on") she's pretty great.

But apparently, by eating a piece of raw seal meat while visiting the North, she's 10 levels of awful.

Seriously? Give me a break.

Never mind the animal rights activists who've been touting the "CLUB SODA, NOT SEALS" crap for years, critics across the Pond are saying that what she did was a political act and that the GG is supposed to do ceremonial acts only.

Let's break that down.

Political Part: It's only been deemed political because mostly overseas critics (I'm looking at you, McCartney) have viewed the seal hunt as political. Hunting animals as a whole is not inherently political. It's been going on forever and if I'm correct, the Queen herself is a big fan. Hence why she's got dogs!

Furthermore, people use the "Ceremonial Symbol Only" balogna all the time but the Monarchy is pretty freakin' political in itself and much more controversial than eating meat, I would argue.

So GG -1, Critics - 0

Controversial Part: Regardless of how it became that way, yes the seal hunt in Canada is controversial. Personally, I'm a huge supporter of the seal hunt but that is not the point here. Attending the Inuit ceremony/event was not deemed controversial but only when she ate some of the meat was it deemed that way. Okay... well what if she hadn't eaten the meat? What if she had been offered and then refused? What kind of controversial message would that send? It would certainly be a giant slap in the face of Inuit people and seal hunters, too.

Once again, GG -2, Critics - 0

As far as I'm concerned, seal hunting is an indigenous way of life and a huge economic boost to people living in the North and on the Canadian Coast. And until anti-hunting asshats can come up with a more environmentally friendly and sustainable means of making money, then they can shut the hell up. And leave Madame Jean out of it, too! If for no other reason than the fact that she has fabulous shoes and used to host one of my favourite shows.

Is there an Echo in the Building?

And the "C" word strikes again!

Keeping in mind that the source isn’t exactly impartial but, a Toronto lawyer has publicly come out in support of the increasing numbers of womyn who are being laid off while on Maternity Leave.

The excuse given? The economy.

Technically, it’s illegal to lay someone off when they are on Mat Leave. That’s the whole point; that you help society reproduce while we hold down the fort until you come back. BUT! If the company is “doing multiple lay offs” then its okay. And what is happening is that while womyn are away, the new person they hired in the interim is cheaper because they’ve just started and so the company would rather keep someone with less seniority than pay the rates of the womyn who left.

Wow.

I guess the only solution is for babies to make and raise themselves. Well, we could socialize people to be equal partners in the child raising department and create child friendly work environments but the first solution is probably more likely.

Who Pays?

Mmmm... recession. It seems we can speak of nothing else these days. With good reason, of course.

Recession talk leads to the next big "C" word. (Not C-U-Next-Tuesday, you dirty kids) but cuts. Job cuts, budget cuts, tax cuts, etc. Everything is cut. It's a scissor fest these days. And without any real critical analysis, it would appear that the cuts are not discriminatory. Sure, they are in terms of class, because let's face it: It's Jim, Bob and Jane who are making the cars that are losing their jobs and not Robert So-and-So who runs the joint.

But the evil "c" word is also becoming a way to really conveniently "do away" with things that folks weren't too happy with to begin with.

Exhibit A: We've got Women's Studies at Guelph that has been chopped due to "budget constraints". Ahh yes, that other evil "c" word. This would seem like just another run-of-the-mill, aww-shucks cut if it weren't for the fact that "Cutting the Women's Studies program will save *less than 0.17%* of the University's predicted $46 million shortfall. And yet Women's Studies is the only program in the university that's slated to be cut." This was written in a petition to save the program; the program has now officially been cut.

You gonna tell me that this isn't just a wee bit suspicious? I'm not saying this is a full on witch hunt but when cuts are needed and the first thing to do is Women's Studies, which represents such a measly part of the total budget, one's gotta start asking questions.

Exhibit B: Oh Alberta! The land of bounty! Or not. Seems they're hurting in the Health Care department so they are making cuts, too. Massive cuts, it seems. Although there have only been two major cuts announced and they are *drumroll please*

Chiropractor services: Which will save them 53 million a year

and

"Sex Change Surgeries": Which will save them 700,000$ a year.

"The latter move has become particularly controversial. " No shit, CBC.ca 53 million vs. less than one million. Hmm...

I get that these will be two of many cuts but once again, you gotta start thinking this through. It's no coincidence that when the axe comes down, things like Women's Studies and sex re-assignment surgery are seen as disposable and easy to chop.

Women's Studies is chronically underfunded everywhere and in the case of Guelph, represents peanuts in terms of financing. Sex re-assignment surgery in Alberta, with only 26 people currently undergoing it and 20 people on a waiting list, represents such small numbers in terms of people and in terms of money, but represents so much to the livelihood of trans people that it makes no sense to see it go at this point. Unless there's a hidden agenda at play here.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I call bullshit on both the University of Guelph and the province of Alberta.

And the Conservatives Continue with their Classy Ways

Taken from the March 2nd Question Period in the House of Commons:

Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshawe, ON, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was International Women's Day. Unfortunately, in Canada, our celebrations were marred by the regressive actions of this Government when it killed pay equity. Worse, they've insulted Canadian women by telling us that this decision was in our best interests. Mr. Speaker, women are not naive. We're sick of the half truths and we will fight back. Will the Government table any legal opinions that show it has contravened the Charter, and if not, what is this Government hiding?

Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board): Well, Mr. Speaker, this Government thought it was wrong that women would have to wait for 15 or 20 years to achieve pay equity in the workforce, and so we brought forward legislation that was, in fact, partly inspired by the Liberal taskforce on this issue in 2004. And, in fact, we, in fact, ensure that … and I know the Member from Beaches got an issue and maybe she can speak later, but she just keeps on whining and whining and yelling, but it's very difficult for me to speak in these kind of circumstances. (FC's Note: Emphasis mine).

Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshawe, ON, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Minister is so constable sending (FC's Note: I think this is supposed to read as condescending) and we're tired of the sales job. We can see through it, which is with disproportion at alI affected by the recession. Globally, 70% of the poor are women and in wealthy countries like ours, women are the majority of the poor. Women still earn less than men, and as a result, have less to fall back on when times are tough. Killing pay equity is an afront to women's human rights. Can this Government explain by muzzling women was necessary as part of their so-called economic plan? Or are they admit that it's ideologically driven and a swipe at human rights?

Oh the Conservatives; an ever classy bunch.

Story of My Life

"Women Still Feel Neglected By Car Repair Sector: Survey"

This Canadian survey, financed by Speedy (a car care company!) found that 43% of womyn felt that they received poorer customer service as compared to men.

A similar study, conducted in the US in 2008, found that 90% of womyn reported receiving different treatment in comparison to men.

I am not only a young womyn but I also drive an antique classic car and so I've had people not just short change or over charge me, but flat out charge me for a part that does not exist on my car.

This is just one more aspect of the car industry that needs an overhaul. They need to build cars that people actually want to buy, learn how to spend their money and overhaul their archaic gender stereotyping.

And a bailout won't do shit for that last part.

Screwed Over Employees Don't Take It Lying Down

... and this is news?

"Shocking" new report states that 59% of employees in an American study, took information with them when they left.

"Of those:

• 65 per cent took email lists.
• 45 per cent took non-financial business information.
• 39 per cent took customer information, including contact lists.
• 35 per cent took employee records.
• 16 per cent took financial information."

Is this really that shocking? It isn't good, don't get me wrong. As a frequent internet shopper and Debit Card addict, I don't like thinking about where my information has been and is going. But I also can't blame people, especially in a recession where job competitiveness is high and jobs in general are hard to find.

So when you get fired from your only chance at a paycheck, you're a little bitter so you take a little something with you. Or the competitor says that if you come and join them, they'll sweeten the deal if you sweeten your end with say... a list of contacts. Tit for tat, in either instance.

I can understand why people do it. But I also see how it's a vicious circle. You hate your job because your employer treats you like a child and micro-manages your every move, so you leave and take something with you for revenge, therefore reinforcing that you probably weren't very trustworthy to begin with and needed to be monitored.

See what I'm saying?

The only winners here are the researchers of this study. This is the kind of research I wish I was doing. I wish I was being paid to be Captain Obvious.

The Pavement On the Road To Hell

So the world is living in tough economic times and Barack Obama has the pleasure of taking over the US with no moola or prospects. So he puts together this ginormous stimulus and bailout package that includes a tiny, little catch. The catch is that infrastructure projects must "buy American". Sounds fine and dandy until Canada got wind and got its panties in a giant twist.

See Canada (and more precisely here, the conservatives) fear that it will start a trade war and that the loss of jobs here in Canada will be tremendous, since the US won't be relying on Canadian metal exports.

A valid point.

But an equally valid point is what Mr. Layton has just proposed, which is a "Buy Canadian" clause to how we operate. (Keeping in mind of course, that Canadian standards for "Made in Canada" products are sketchy and patchy at best. Maybe this should be the main issue?)

But "Buying Canadian" is a complicated request. If Canadians bought Canadian products, then we would give the economy a nice little boost. But unfortunately, there are little to no Canadian products left to buy, even if we wanted to.

And personally, I want to. I desperately want to. I'm one of those patriotic Canadian suckers who sheds a tear everytime a Canadian company gets bought or shipped overseas. (I'm looking at you, HBC). I mean, Tim Hortons is considered a Canadian icon and it doesn't even belong to us anymore! All we have left is Giant Tiger, Rona and a peppering of a few others.

So we couldn't simply "Buy Canadian" anyway, otherwise we'd starve. Or at the very least get scurvy and wear really ugly clothes.

But had we kept these companies here, we would have created jobs, stimulated the economy and possibly been able to avoid the giant fear of US protectionism. But that would have required not having a neo-liberal attitude and creating decent products that people actually wanted to buy. *coughFordcough*. We don't buy North American vehicles or North American clothes because the companies are cheap and consumers are cheap. And now, it's costing us.

Personally, I don't blame President Obama for wanting to include that clause. He's the President of the United States, not the world. And how can the US even be competitive traders, comrades or allies if they can't take care of their own first?

I think Canada should take this as a wake-up call to start really reading the fine-print and doing your homework on what you buy and where you buy it. And holding people accountable! I think the real lesson here is that is important that everyone do their part.

These past few years have taught us that its important to read the label, test products and use your consumer power. If we're going to be consumer whores, then let's make it productive at the very least.

FC Takes On The Budget

So this is it, folks. The moment you've all been waiting for. (Or not). But still; the Conservatives have unleashed their 2009 budget.

First things first, on a little digression, thank Goddess that Jim Flaherty is not a lecturer. Dear Moses, that man is monotonous! His voice alone practically put me to sleep.

And before I start ripping into politicians for all their lack of sensibility and pizazz, I would like to acknowledge that I was quite pleased with the lack of buffoonery. There was some cheering but very little of the booing and "SHAME!" fist pounding as usual. Which means, they have the capability! They can do it! So why don't they always do it? Seriously, people.

Canada's real 2009 mission should be to bring some civility back to Parliament Hill. But I've been flogging that dead horse for a while now, so I guess I'm just old school.

Anywhoo, as I'm sure you've heard by now, the economy is in the toilet and so the Conservatives have said that we need to go into a deficit. But fear not, wee children! They're apparently going to pull us out of this deficit in 5 years. Which if they can pull it off, well I might even vote Conservative sometime. Alright, who am I kidding? But seriously. If they can pull it off, I'll be mighty impressed.

Some of the highlights of the budget, for me, was the inclusion of broadband internet access under the infrastructure package. This is a new one and its quite interesting. Canada has long treated internet access as a type of infrastructure necessity but this is the first time they've really made it clear. And I think this is great.

If you're going to make internet access a necessity then make it accessible. Seems obvious to me.

The big part of the budget that was made to cater to lefties is the so-called 1-2 billion for social housing. One to two billion for social housing! Wow! This is a lefty's dream... except that it's not. Because "social housing" includes elderly people, single mothers, students and aboriginal reserves.

Quite frankly, in government terms, one billion isn't that much to begin with. And then when you include so many demographics under that one project, it starts to look pretty shabby. It was clearly a way of trying to appease the "Coalition of the Left" and yet the fine print points out that there isn't much there.

Like most things in politics, it sounds nice but is pretty shit in practice. Better than nothing, I know, but not enough to get excited about.

Same with the apparent shitload of money for infrastructure and employment. Municipalities desperately need money for infrastructure and have been saying so for years. The new budget does indeed give money in these areas, but it requires 1/3 Fed money, 1/3 Prov money and 1/3 municipal money. So once again, looks fancy but in practice, how better off are they really?

My take? This is an impressive Conservative budget. With a capital C. For a bunch of right-wing nuts, I'm impressed with their acknowledgment that "Hey, people need places to live in order to spend money!" and "Jobs matter!"

But I'm definitely not impressed with their lack of Green initiatives (which hey, create jobs, too!) and they're denial, once again, about the importance of pay equity. Job creation = Great! Doing the same job for lesser pay = Not so great!

Conservatives still haven't figured out that equation yet.

Morally, I would vote this budget down if I had a say. But practically, I'd vote for it. Canadians need something fast and right now, this shitpile is better than nothing. What I'm really hoping for is that Ignatieff's demand for an amendment to the budget passes. The amendment would require the Conservatives to report on the projects they've proposed and how the money is spent. Basically, an economic update a few times a year to show that the money is going (or not going) where it was intended to go. Once again, smooth move Ignatieff.

Only time will tell if the budget will pass and make a difference to Canada and its economy. Personally, I'm crossing my fingers but not holding my breath.

Canada's Newest Parliament - Part I

So today was Canada's newest Speech from the Throne. Which, if you're into overkill and drama, is the cat's meow.

On any other year, there's military gunshots and a mini-parade just for the Governor General's arrival to the Hill! This was canned this year because well.. it was -32 and so it was borderline torture to do so.

Then there's a bunch of hoopla and fancyness all culminating in 8 minutes of the GG reading some of the most vague statements of all time.

The economy is in trouble - Check
People are losing their jobs - Check
Being in debt is bad - Check
Something needs to be done - Check

And then they call it a day.

For me, the only real riveting part of the whole thing is the chaos in the Chambers afterward, where the opposition leaders (who are supposed to act as though this is all news to them) react to the Speech. Ignatieff, newest leader of the Liberals, made what I think is a pretty smart move and said that the Liberals wouldn't respond until at least Wednesday. Seeing as though the Speech doesn't mean much without tomorrow's budget, I've gotta agree with the man. Why knee jerk react to 8 minutes of vague hoopla when you can instead crunch the numbers, read the fine print and come out with an educated decision?

Ignatieff isn't my favourite person in the world but smooth move, operator.

Layton on the other hand. Oy Vey! Before the Speech had even happened, he'd already stated that the NDP were going to vote down the latest budget because "We don't trust Harper".

I've got news for you, my friend (And I do consider us friendly, FYI). I don't trust Harper either and neither do most people. But they also have very little trust in a leader like yourself who is willing to see Parliament drag on forever with in-fighting rather than solving the damn problems at hand.

People didn't vote for you and I know Layton, that hurts. But seriously dude, think outside of the Party for once, will ya? You tout yourself as the people's person who cares more about kitchen tables than boardroom tables and yet you're playing unfairly in the sandbox to the detriment of us all.

Could you at least pretend that you're going to read the damn thing first before you cast judgement?

Seriously dude.

Personally, I'm hoping that the Conservative Party spin doctors are going to get a raise over this because it was mere months ago that Harper ran his entire campaign on the idea that there was no economic crisis, that the Canadian economy was sound and that the opposition parties were playing to people's fears. Now, they've re-branded themselves as the economic shithole salvation party.

Very clever. Very, very clever.

We'll see if they can actually put propaganda into practice. Stay tuned for Part II when the o'le numbers come through tomorrow.

An Obama-Mama Reflects

President Obama! Not only does it roll off the tongue a lot easier than President-Elect Obama, but it certainly gives a much warmer feeling than President Bush.

It goes without saying that the world has been captivated by Barack Obama and his family. The entire campaign was memorable and it got people around the world rooting for the US again.

As a human being, political junkie and lover of all things classy, I definitely have a crush on the man. And not just because he's incredibly handsome (although that, he certainly is). I've had a crush on him since the start, but I've found myself critically questioning why. Which is something that a lot of people now seem to be doing.

Obama penned the idea of his campaign as being one of "hope" and hope, they have. People have high hopes for the first African-American President, a democrat, a fairly lefty thinker, a powerful orator and a very charismatic man. And a young one to boot! Obama, the person, has won many fans. A recent poll here in Canada found that Canadians certainly do have a crush on Obama the man, but that they are "lukewarm" about his policies. (More on that last part in a second).

But in building up his campaign on the prospects of "hope", he is doomed to disappoint and outright fail many people. Bush left the place in shambles, with little money and little "hope" of there being more anytime soon. To quote the always clever Someecards.com "This inauguration feels like a first date with a really great guy after a dysfunctional eight year relationship with a loser who took all my money".

So Obama isn't exactly starting off in prosperous times.

But personally, I still have "hope". He has made decisions that I have not supported, including his inclusion of crazy homophobe Rick Warren at inauguration.

However, he has a pro-choice stance, gave a shout out to the GLBTQ in one of his most important speeches to date, is a fan of social security and wants to close down Guantanamo Bay. There are also rumours about his desire to reverse the Global Gag rule, which denies funding to aid organizations that include abortion in the list of options they give clients. I'm thinking this is all a step in the right direction and if his policies continue down this road, never mind lukewarm, I'm in love!

As feminists, I think we need to move past the constant discussions, arguments and dialogue about whether or not Obama is a feminist. Ms. Magazine claims that he told them he was and so far, his policies have demonstrated that he most certainly could be. (Oh and for the record, if you don't believe me, watch Naomi Wolf totally prove it to you). But let's wait and let his actions speak for themselves.

As Canadians, I think we need to embrace the new wave of change in the US of A and quite frankly, turn our attention to our own country. A majority of people I spoke to watched Tuesday's inauguration but had no idea that the Speech from the Throne is happening on Monday and that the budget is going to be released on Tuesday; which is major, major stuff for Canada. And quite frankly, will directly impact our daily lives more than the Obamas ever will.

And I know what you're thinking and yes, you're right. What dog the Obamas choose is far more exciting than listening to what 4 old white guys have to say next week. But you don't pay your taxes to the Obamas, so what's really more important?

If You Weren't Already Convinced...

... that the economy is going to shit, this headline pretty much seals the deal.

"Ten Cheap Ways To Be Happy".

That little sentence sums up the entire problem. The economy is going to shit and will continue to stay there until the idea that being happy doesn't require money is commonsense and not a headline.