Lex Luther AGAIN?!

By the fall, I will officially find out if Ottawa's current Mayor is dimmer than I thought or City of Ottawa residents are dimmer than I thought.

Ottawa's current Mayor has just announced that he will be running for re-election.

Let's just recap the epic fuckups so far:

1- He called Ottawa's homeless "pigeons" and insisted that if we stop giving them money, they will go away. Delightful.

2- His entire campaign was around 0% tax increases and then... increased taxes.

3- Then there was that whole, let's bribe the opposition thing.

4- Oh and hey, can't forget the ridiculously long transit strike that saw people walking miles in the dead of winter.

Then there was the lawsuit over the canceling of a giant contract for the construction of new transit, his recent comments about his competition, Jim Watson, being a 'old lady' and the list goes on.

Considering transit has been defined as the #1 issue concerning Ottawa residents for the upcoming election, here's hoping that people take a clue and realize "Hey, maybe Larry's not the guy I want in charge".

Here's hoping....

Latin American Progressive Politics

Good News: Costa Rica elects its First Female President. Woo!

Bad News: She is, by her own admission, a social conservative who opposes both abortion and gay marriage.

The CBC.ca article about it is particularly sad since it interviews a 24 year old womyn inmate who says she voted for Laura Chinchilla because she said “she would fight for women’s rights”.

I wonder what rights she’s referring to.

In any case, kudos to Costa Rica and other Latin American countries such as Nicaragua, Panama, Chile and Argentina who have recently elected female presidents.

Is Bruno a No-No?

As a lover of politics and humour, I have a soft spot for satire. I love satire. I love comedy in general, really. But I've found myself in more than one conversation with people about the merits of comedy as a tool of activism.

I've decided that yes, only people of a certain group can mock said group and no, that is not "reverse racism". It's just the reality that in order for something to be reclaimed, it has to take its power from the marginalized group. Otherwise, it's just racism. Now exceptions can be made if you're a well known ally in a certain community; see Kathy Griffin for example. She identifies as straight but is also considered a gay icon and therefore can drop bombs that would be seen as homophobic in another context. The reason being that she's gained the respect of the GLBTQ community, has supported, donated, etc for years and therefore is an ally and not some hillbilly making bad jokes. (Her jokes might be bad, to some, but they're not homophobic).

But what about satire? The big question about satire is:

When is it satire and when is it just stereotyping?

Jon Stewart's The Daily Show = Satire
Stephen Colbert's entire persona = Satire (Sorry Right Wingers; he's on our team)
The Simpsons = Satire

But then it gets tricky. What about Family Guy?

In having these discussions with various people, it seems that the measurement of whether something is satire or whether it's simply stereotyping is to look at both the creator and the audience.

Seth MacFarlane, who created "Family Guy" is also the mastermind behind "American Dad", a clearly satirical cartoon. Which would make one assume that Family Guy is in that category too, but then, I look at the Family Guy audience.

Most Family Guy audience members are not hispters, ex-academics or yuppies. Or even politico junkies. The Family Guy audience is high school dudes. Which is not the pigeonhole all high school aged dudes as being incapable of being down with satire. But "Family Guy"'s following is what troubles the issue for me.

Basically: If it's meant to be satire, but people take it at face value, is it satire anymore?

Ironically enough, this issue has come up in the last few days regarding (in my opinion) brilliant satirist Sasha Baron Cohen. SBC is the genius behind "Da Ali G Show", which consisted of him putting on various characters and then taking them to the streets, so to speak. Ali G was his first big character and since he wasn't exactly that different, nobody really paid any attention. But when SBC gave his one character "Borat" his own movie, then people started paying attention.

"Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" was a huge success in North America. In promoting the movie, SBC stayed in character a la Colbert style. Not only is the guy a brilliant satirist, but he also has amazing timing. North America and the US in particular was really focused on the Middle East upon the release of "Borat" and so SBC attempted (I'll come back to this attempt piece) to highlight how Americans viewed Middle Easterners. The joke was not on people from Kazakhstan but rather on the reactions of real-life people to a Middle Easterner, in the film itself.

BUT! Like "Family Guy", if you don't get satire, then you take the movie at face value and see it as a crazy guy from Kazakhstan who can't speak English and hates Jews. And if that's what you're laughing at, then is it satire anymore?

Sasha Baron Cohen is running into this problem again with his new movie "Bruno" which is based off another "Da Ali G Show" character. This time the character is a flambouyant gay stylist from Austria. Considering Proposition 8 and the opposing Proposition H8 campaign in the US and how it's highlighted GLBTQ folks in the US of A, Sasha's timing is impeccable.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in the US of A is upset with certain scenes they saw in the pre-screening of "Bruno". These scenes, they say, cross the line of satire and are outright stereotypical; therefore the joke is on them and not the homophobes. But where's that line?

Coming back to the original descriptors of creator and audience, SBC is clearly a satirist and the hope is that the majority of people who see "Bruno" will understand that Sasha Baron Cohen is playing a caricature composed of stereotypes, therefore highlighting the lunacy of these stereotypes rather than promoting them. Like "Borat", the hope is that the viewers will laugh at the homophobic and outlandish responses that "Bruno" gets, rather than siding with said homophobes.

But what if they don't? Does it matter? Do the intentions of the creator matter if the audience takes it in a different direction? It's hard to say.

Although this might seem like a hipster's diatribe, I do think it's important. I think comedy has an important role to play in making social commentary and political commentary in particular. For example, one can't underestimate the role that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert play come election time. Rick Mercer, to a lesser extent, has that effect here in Canada. But their roles have been clearly established; their respective shows are so heavy on politics that they would naturally only attract audiences that are into that, too.

But what about Family Guy? Or hell, The New Yorker?

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.

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?

Canada, Communists and Cry Babies

As a political junkie, I'm a tad overjoyed by the sudden interest in Canadian politics. The left (ie: The NDP and Liberals) are wanting to join together to overthrow the Conservative Minority. They have the numbers to do it apparently and the Bloc won't join but have given their written approval. So it all comes down to a confidence vote next Monday and a decision by the always-elegant Michaelle Jean.

And Canadians are abuzz. For or against, they are abuzz. And I'm digging it, I really am.

And I could go on and on about this coalition business but everyone else has, so I'm gonna shift the focus. I'm gonna shift the focus to where I think it should of seen a hell of a long time ago.

Some Canadians are bitching and complaining that "We elected people for a reason and a coup wasn't it". Well last I heard, I also elected adults and yet all I get is a bunch of whiny children.

Let me demonstrate.

First: We have the hyper paranoid Conservatives who recorded a "secret" NDP meeting where they talked about this infamous coup. Of course, the recordings are now being considered illegal because well.. they are but bossy boots Harper is marching all proud that he really stuck it to 'em. Sure Bud, whatever you say.

Second: The Conservatives have begun referring to the "Left" as "power hungry", which you know.. is hilarious because it's Harper. Like, I squash-civil-liberties-for-breakfast Harper.

Third: The Conservatives are also referring to the "Left" as "communists" and "seperatists". How very 1950s of you, sir.

Especially since, as the Fourth example demonstrates, it's rather ironic that Harper played himself out as the Quebecor Prime Minister who recognized Quebec as a "Nation" and now that they're not getting along, he's throwing that old school label at them. Fancy.

Fifth: Well Harper flat out outdid himself today. This one really makes me happy. Not only did he call this new Coalition the "Alliance of communists and seperatists", he also made a comment about they are so anti-Canada that they were photographed signing this agreement without any Canadian flags in the background. Which you know, is pretty fucking immature and very "well...well.... I know you are but what am I?" to begin with. But then add on the fact that there were actually two Canadian flags in the background and you've just made my day.

Stay classy, Canada. Stay classy.

Instead of focusing on whether or not parties have a right to form this damn coalition, I think we should be questionning some people's ability to even be an MP in the first place. Most of the behaviour these people demonstrate isn't even acceptable for kindergarten kids.

I think it's time we learn to play together in the sandbox.

Has Anyone Checked Hell's Thermostat?

Canada might have a united Left.

The US will have Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

*and the peasants rejoice*

Wow.

So the purpose of this election was what exactly? Oh yeah. There was none.

Except, I suppose, to highlight how apathetic Canadians have become.

*sigh*

Ladyfolks and the Canadian Election

So as the Canadian election day gets closer, one can draw some serious patterns of this campaign.

1- Attack ads are all the rage with the Cons. Paging Stephen Harper: A little creativity never hurt. Ask Jack Layton.

2- Every party seems to have an obsession with the image of Stephane Dion shrugging.

3- The only mention of womyn is... wait...there's been mention of womyn?!

There is a complete and total absence of ladyfolk in this current election campaign. There are only a few days left and so I highly doubt we're going to be inundated with a load of womyn-friendly mention and discussion. Sadly I think it's safe to say that womyn have been completely written off the election.

Case and Point: During the French language debate, the word woman-women-girls-female was not mentioned once.

During the English language debate, at 9:19pm Jack Layton spoke of how lack of employment and poverty affects all sectors of Canadian society, specifically womyn. I nearly wet myself I was so excited. THEN at 10:57pm, a whopping 3 mins before the end of the debate, Stephane Dion mentions briefly that his party has put a universal day care plan into their platform.

Now don't get me wrong, I was impressed with some other things that didn't specifically discuss womyn. Layton went on a rant at one point about the plight of Aboriginal peoples in this country and went beyond tired metaphors to bring up real issues like crowded housing, high rates of incarceration and boil water advisories. That was mighty impressive.

And the zinger of the debates, in my opinion, went to Gilles Duceppe in the English debates when he said "You know what's really shocking? The only party that's pushing for a by-Canada plan for the manufacturing sector is the Bloc Quebecois!"

Oooooh the irony.

But beside the occasional mention in debates, there was a whole lotta nothing going on for womyn's issues during the election. Womyn were mentioned briefly at the beginning of the election campaign but only in the form of Harper repeating that "He will not re-open the abortion debate". Wooo.

So as we head to the polls on October 14th, try to think special thoughts about Canada's ladyfolk. Because if you don't, nobody will.

White Privilege and American Politics

So I could write another biting and clever post about Sarah Palin and the tragedy that is the American election right now.

Or I could let Tim Wise do it ten times better than I ever could.

I'm going to stick with that.

Oh and do yourself a favour. When you follow the link to his article, DON'T read the comments. They just reinforce the need for these types of articles in the first place.

Who is Afraid of Elizabeth May?

I'll tell you who. It's three old white dudes from Canada.

Elizabeth May is the leader of The Green Party; a once marginal party that now has a seat in Parliament. You can thank the green agenda in general for that I’m sure. People are paying attention to environmental issues and the result is the Green Party slowly coming up the ranks.

So last election, May fought to be included in the televised debates. The televised debates are a big deal (well, as big of a deal as can be in a country with a shitty voter turnout, but I digress). But last time around, May was denied on the basis of the fact that she had no seats in Parliament. A slippery slope, they said. Let her debate then you’ll have to include the Marijuana Party, The Rhinoceros Party and every other fringe party out there. Makes sense.

This time, however, ole May’s got herself a seat in Parliament. But that ain’t good enough for three white dudes called Harper, Layton, and Duceppe. They fought her inclusion tooth and nail. They had different excuses, including the idea that May had talked to Dion and decided not to run a member in whichever riding he had. Basically a tag team against Harper. Whether or not that was true, we will never know. Either way, May fired back with the allegation that Harper and Layton said behind closed doors that if May was included, they were boycotting the debates.

Well now it seems that Harper and Layton are “willing” to include May in the debates. Thanks for your fucking generosity, boys.

It’s clear that they really don’t want her there. Why is that? Do they think that their overall dismal environmental records have steered voters to the Green bill? Are they worried that she’ll slam dunk them in the debate? Or do they think she’s just that pesky student in the corner who constantly waves her hand in the air, asking for their attention? Who knows.

But this is what I do know.

I think that not including May in the debates and then threatening to back out if she does join is a slap in the face to democracy. The democratic process is about letting people have their say and letting voters decide what they want. People want to know their options and as far as I’m concerned, leaders should have to attend these things. Question period is a joke and it isn’t until the leaders are on full display in a televised debate do real arguments come forward.

And lastly, how is it a big deal to let Elizabeth May debate but its kosher beans that the Bloc is there and have been since the beginning? They don’t even run any candidates outside of Quebec.

Let’s be real here. If anyone is running a fringe party, it’s Gilles Duceppe. (And this man is an ardent feminist, so it pains me to say this because I love the guy. But let's cut the bullshit).

Oh and as someone who bleeds orange, I’m disgusted with you Layton. Seriously, dude. Get with it. This whole debacle has you looking as childish as Harper and there’s nothing creepier than a kid with a mustache.

Why I hate Sarah Palin

So I’ve done my best to stay away from American politics because well… that shit is ugly. And complicated. And well, let’s face it, there are a bajillion other blogs out there that tackle it so I figured, why bother?

But this Sarah Palin business has got my La Senza’s in a twist, so I have to add my voice to the mix.

I want to love Palin, I do. She’s a SHE, she’s young, she’s a mother and she’s from freakin’ Alaska. Nobody cares about Alaska! But then, she’s also anti-choice, a homophobe, a creationist and pro-gun. Now I understand being pro-gun and from Alaska; I’m from Northern Ontario after all. I’ve been hunting, I know these things. But you can’t take a pro-gun attitude into the White House. Washington is nobody’s Alaska.

And when the shocking announcement was made that Palin was going to be McCain’s VP, Obama had plenty of opportunity to knock her down a few pegs by bringing up this anti-womyn, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-logic business. But no, he chooses instead to call her to task on having “no experience”.

Paging Obama: Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.

And now it seems that Palin has a 17 year old daughter that is *gasp* PREGNANT and of course, unmarried. Well this has sent the “journalists” into a frenzy now hasn’t it? Is she a good anti-choicer for having a daughter who kept the baby or is she coveting a slut? (Forgetting of course that this is the same womyn who cut funding to young mothers and who is a creationist and therefore anti-sex education).

I hate talking about Palin’s private life but I suppose that as long as we can cut up McCain’s rehabbing wife and Michelle Obama’s mothering skills, then everything is up for grabs, like it or not.

But of all the Palin talk of late, I could care less about her daughter, and not just because she has a horrible name (Bristol? Really?).

The latest Palin-ism is her speech at the Republican National Convention where she went on a tirade against Obama for having attacked her lack of experience. Admittedly, she had every right to. But the way in which she did it seemed so… childish. A very “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” kind of attitude.

In response to being accused of lacking experience, she took a stab at Obama’s days as an activist. Her exact words

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

Really Palin? Honestly? That’s your response?

I’d give you my response but I will choose instead to let the delicious Jay Smooth to do it for me instead, because I couldn’t have said it better myself.

“The difference between a community organizer and a politician is that community organizers are the ones who take the responsibility upon themselves to help their fellow citizens without the benefit of a government budget behind them.”

Amen.

**Thanks to Feministing for the IllDoctrine heads-up**

Update: This Daily Show clip is a must-see.

And The Feminists For the Win!

Today, a Canadian feminist rejoices.

Yesterday the Conservatives announced that they were revoking Bill C-484 and wanting to replace it with another more appropriate Bill after the (inevitable) Fall election. This new more "appropriate" Bill will be worded much more clearly and will place the focus on preventing violence against pregnant womyn as people and not as incubators.

BOO-FREAKIN’-YA

If you’ve been following my musings here or the news in general really, you will know that Bill C-484 hasn’t sat well with feminists, lawyers and the medical community alike. Well it seems that us rabble rousers scared the Neo-Cons just a wee bit, so they are backing down on this Bill in order to win some votes in the election. I guess they figured that if we can mobilize quickly around this, then we can mobilize people to vote, too.

This hasn’t warmed me up to the Tories one bit and I don’t think the battle is over, quite yet. I mean, the very root of a Conservative platform is anti-feminist, in my opinion. But I think it is safe to say that this is an excellent example of Canadian democracy in practice.

Let’s face it, politicians of all stripes (with the exception of the Bloc) dropped the ball on this Bill. The Liberal Party has a pro-choice platform and yet the party was divided on the Bill. But the pro-choice community mobilized and demonstrated that we know what’s what.

And now you can see the results.

Canadian Feminists: 1, Conservatives: 0

G.I Harper

First, he armed border guards. Now, he's arming National Park wardens and we’re dumping 30 billion into the armed forces.

Good Lord have mercy.

Now I’m not a pacifist hippie at all costs, don’t get me wrong. I understand that you can’t exactly walk into Rwanda with a beer and an extended hand and get things accomplished. I understand that armed conflict is often necessary. But looking at the park wardens for instance, it’s easy to make a case for park wardens needing riffles to shoot wild and insane animals that are on the loose and potentially killing campers. Bears and raccoons and whatever else are wild animals and since we’re on their turf, they’re bound to not exactly like it. Is it fair that we shoot ‘em? Not really when you consider that we’re hanging out in their environment. But the argument of needing to give wardens guns for their vehicles in this case is a solid argument. However, they are arming park wardens with handguns.

They apparently need handguns for “law enforcement”. Are you kidding me? I’m not saying that being a park warden is a walk in the park (ha..ha..) but do we really need to be bustin’ caps into campers? It’s been proven that when you arm yourself, you raise the risk of someone shooting you in the first place and you reduce the chance of being able to talk someone down. They see you with a gun, see you as a threat and then chaos ensues.

And the military spending? I’m not anti-military per se. I understand that if we’re going to have a military, we need to have these people properly equipped and not to mention, paid properly. But I think that this government is making a huge statement here, by decrying our shitty economy, cutting social spending and then promising 30 billion over 20 yrs on military spending. And arming everyone and their neighbour.

Harper and his gangsta friends are very obviously suffering from some masculinity complex where they feel the need to militarize the living snot out of this country and I’m not having it.

For the love of Pete, someone call a gdamn election.

Hi, My name is Pro-Choice Taylor

When I made the decision to start this blog, I really didn't intend to include so much discussion of reproductive rights, but the Jesus-Freak anti-choice crazies seem to really be revving it up lately.

You thought this guy was nuts? Well apparently the Americans have their own version of the crazy. His name is Pro-Life Richardson.

You're waiting for the punchline, right? I wish there was one but honestly, the jokes are writing themselves at this point.

A Senate candidate has legally changed his name to Pro-Life and will appear on the ballot that way this year, state election officials say.

Yes, that's right. An abortion hatin' freak from Idaho legally changed his name to Pro-Life so that his name would appear that way on the ballot. And in case this story couldn't get any funnier and weirder, he's running in the riding to replace disgraced US Senator Larry Craig. Yeah, that Larry Craig.

Idaho: I used to only know you for your potatoes, but now you will forever be in my heart for consistently bringin' the crazy.

Yes, the photo you see on the right is of Mr. Pro-Life. He looks frighteningly similar to Larry Craig. Must be an Idaho thing.

It's the most wonderful time of the year!

What time is that you ask? Election Time of course!

Usually we are hounded with ridiculous attack ads and broken promises. But this year, all that jolly good stuff is drowned out by the debate on Muslim womyn. Yes, muslim womyn.

Now usually I would say "YEAH! Womyn are making the issues during election time!" but alas, not this time around. Instead, there has been a hell storm of a recent decision by Elections Quebec to allow Muslim womyn to keep their faces concealed while going to the polling stations. This inflamed o'le Stevie Harper and he shot back that it was against Parliamentary rules, it reduces the democratic process, same rules for everyone, etc.

He claims that his biggest beef is that everyone else has to show proper ID and so why the preferential treatment? Well, apparently Mr Harper isn't totally aware of the rules himself because you can vote through the mail, which obviously doesn't require that you show your face, right? So when it comes to this issue, Harper is obviously not wanting to keep the rules equal for everyone, he's just not content with lady folk. Muslim lady folk in particular.

However, believe it or not, this isn't my issue here. What strikes me the most is that this story is everywhere. Everyone and their neighbour (and their neighbour's blind dog) is getting in on this story, reporting it like crazy. Yet hum... anyone think of asking Muslim womyn what they think? Well after hunting and hunting, it was the beloved institution that is the Canadian Broadcasting Commission that came through for me.

Sarah Elgazzar, spokeswoman with The Council on American Islamic Relations Canada says only a small number of Muslim women wear the niqab or burka, and they have never asked for special treatment, Elgazzar said.

Afifa Naz, an engineer in Montreal, wears a niqab but uderstands there are situations in which she must unveil. "This is not something we demand," she told CBC News. "We can accommodate the needs of society while practising our religion." Naz said she's always taken off her niqab to identify herself before voting, and also removes it when passing through airport security or border crossings.

Oh and the best of all,

The majority of Muslim women in Quebec don't wear niqabs, and none are on record as asking Elections Quebec for the right to vote without showing their faces.

So let me get this straight: Muslim womyn who wear burqas and niqabs, the womyn in question in this situation, had no problem with the status quo but everyone else apparently felt like their opinion meant something. Apparently, the white man knows more about Muslim womyn's needs than Muslim womyn themselves. So they created a shit storm that is now affecting everyone but helping no one.

My head hurts.

I never thought I'd say this, but I miss tacky attack ads. At least their lunacy and lack of importance was blatant.