Ahh, to be famous...

**Trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault, rape and victim blaming**

What do the President of the IMF, the former Governor of California, an information 'freedom fighter' and a Hollywood Director have in common? Why, sexual assault of course!

I know what you're thinking. "No, no Ms. FC, you mean sexual assault accusations." Ahh yes, pardon me! Rape accusations thrown at famous men because womyn are opportunistic whores. Ahh yes, my bad.

So the President of the IMF, Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) has been arrested on charges of at least 1 sexual assault of a hotel room cleaning staff. He's also been accused of sexually assaulting at least 1 journalist a few years ago. In fact, Mr. DSK was known as being quite the 'charmer'.

Then you've got the Governator himself who is not only filing for divorce from his Democratic wife Maria Shriver over allegations of cheating (and fathering a 'love child'), he also has a well documented history of being well... grabby.

Julian Assange was accused of sexually assaulting two womyn, but we all know that didn't happen because he's a lefty who wants to take down the greedy government, so it's clearly all just a big old conspiracy to take him down.

And Roman Polanski? Look dude might have anally raped a young girl that he had plied with drugs, but her mom shouldn't have let her come over anyway and it was such a long time ago. Plus, have you seen Chinatown? Cinematic gold!

FYI - This list fails to include athletes, although we could easily talk about Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger, and Check-Out-Photos-Of-My-Dick Brett Favre.

See, when it comes to sexual assault, you're pretty much off the hook to begin with, but if you happen to be famous? You're in the clear, my dear!

Every time these 'scandals' come out, we hear the same victim-blaming bullshit, we have other 'celebrities' coming out to 'support them' and we have this whole conspiracy theory machine that states that they're being unfairly scrutinized because they're rich and famous.

To which I say - so what?

Why are we appalled that Paris Hilton only spent a few days in jail for drinking and driving but we're downright infuriated that DSK's case is being investigated at all?

Sexual assault, unlike most crimes, is rife with stereotypes. There are stereotypes around who commits sexual assault, who is actually sexually assaulted, who 'cries rape', etc.

According to the myths, who commits sexual assaults? Well, old men with mental illnesses, of course! They are always strangers to the victim in question, have some sort of sick sexual fetish and in many cases are a person of colour/Queer/disAbled, etc.

Does that mean that never fits the profile? Absolutely not. But the % of people who sexually assault who fit this very narrow and specific profile is slim.

And because we continue to perpetuate this same sadistic bullshit, we are equally appalled by the profile of the rapist as we are by the crimes themselves.

Need I remind you of Colonel Russell Williams? People were SHOCKED that a decorated Colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces committed such heinous crimes and yet, it makes perfect sense. Here is a man with ample amounts of power who leads a secretive life where people who know him fully understand that they don't really know him. Not to mention how he was trained to do just that.

And because we continue to perpetuate the stereotype of who is a rapist we continue to victim blame those who are assaulted by someone who doesn't 'fit the profile', because we just don't believe someone like them could do something like that.

Newsflash, skeptics: Rapists come in every size and flavour. They are decorated military colonels, actors, directors, governors, weight lifters, city councillors, janitors, fathers, sons, cousins, colleagues and people of every background, ethnicity, age, socio-economic status, ability and sexual orientation.

Maybe we don't want to believe this because it's too scary to think about. Maybe we want to believe that rapists are easy to spot so that we can sleep better at night, knowing that our radar is on the right people. But this isn't helping anybody.

This mentality is blaming womyn unnecessarily, it's framing men of colour/queer men/ disAbled men/ poor men as sexual predators and it's allowing rich, entitled, privileged piece of shit dudes walk away, consequence free.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world in which we let people get away with sexual assault just because they wear a nice suit and have cushy bank accounts. I gotta believe that we are better than this.

** I'm willfully interchanging the words sexual assault and rape here just for the sake of being concise **

Félicitations!

As a franco-ontarian and a proud Canadian, I can't love the Bloc Québécois. I just can't.

But I can love Gilles Duceppe and individual MPs from their party. And I do love Duceppe. I really do.

I met him in the context of abortion rights and dude knew his stuff. He admitted to being the first Bloc representative for Status of Women because, by his own admission, the Bloc started off with a crappy record on female representation in the party. He also called on his party to refer to the 'pro-life' movement as 'anti-choicers'. Dude was for real.

He is an also an impeccable dresser. FYI.

So I want to join in on those who are wishing Mr. Duceppe congratulations on 20 years as an MP. As one Globe and Mail comment states, love him or hate him, the other parties would do much better if they had a leader like Duceppe running the show.

Félicitations M. Duceppe!

Why the Mandatory Long Form Census Matters

Reasons why cutting it is really, really stupid:

1- The "Leave-People's-Bedrooms-Out-Of-This" is less Trudeau-Chic as it is just plain bad policy making.

2- The "We Need to Trim The Bureaucratic Fat" argument is just... silly.

3- It screws over First Nations.

4- And well, the decision to cut it clearly didn't involve consulting with those who actually know what they're talking about.

This might seem like a ridiculously petty 'scandal' but it's very telling of the political climate that Canadians are living in.

If we keep cutting funding to organizations that the government doesn't agree with, and cutting important research and cutting important statistical information, then people won't know what they don't know.

And that's a serious problem.

No Honour in Misogyny

Rona Ambrose, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, spoke on Monday about wanting to include 'honour killings' in the Criminal Code.

Me, and lots of other peeps, are opposed to this.

First and foremost, it's not necessary, from a logistical point of view.

"Three law professors said the first-degree murder provisions of the Criminal Code already contain all the tools needed to prosecute and punish those who commit "honour killings" and they knew of no Canadian judge or jury who treated cultural family "honour" as a mitigating factor in sentencing." (National Post)

So it's clear from the outset that this is ideological and in no way a real "Crime and Punishment" agenda. It wouldn't be necessary to get a conviction and it wouldn't change sentencing.

Before I move on though, none of this should matter. When discussing issues around a specific group (and let's be honest, this is targeting a specific group of people), how about discussing that issue with them?

In this case, it would be the Canadian Council on Muslim Women. And they don't agree with adding it to the Criminal Code for reasons that I 100% support.

"We as an organization don't want the term honour killing used in Canada because it's making it exotic, something alien, and foreign, and people are using that as a rationale to understand the murders. Let's not go that route. A murder is a murder. Let's not separate us as new immigrants or ethnic groups from the rest of Canadian women. It doesn't matter which culture, which religion or which ethnic origin we come from, the same laws should apply to us." (National Post)

The Conservative Government wants to appear as though they are tough on crime (which they are) but also that they do care about the lady folk. Everyone (except the Cons) knows that the party has been horrid to womyn in Canada and so they've turned the gaze 'elsewhere' and made it about 'saving the womyn of the world'. And in this case, womyn of the world who come to Canada.

It's total bullshit.

As a Canadian-born feminist, I must also say that it offends me to no end that people are up in arms about 'honour killings' but sensationalize or worse yet, barely discuss the murders of womyn as a whole.

In Canada, we have over 520 missing and murdered aboriginal womyn. Just today we heard about a 61 year old womyn who was sexually assaulted and almost died while visiting a friend's grave. (I would link to the story but it's really awful, so feel free to Google it yourself if you're wanting some salacious details). Eight womyn are sexually assaulted a day in Canada's capital city.

Womyn across the country are assaulted, kidnapped and murdered on a daily basis often because they have 'wronged' a partner, taken children away from abusers, or done something in some way that resists (or attempts to resist) someone's power. More often than not, womyn are murdered because they are womyn. And quite frankly, just existing for many womyn is an assault on some people's honour. But we don't call those honour killings. Hell, we don't even call them hate crimes. It's just - one more murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, battery, etc.

The root of 'honour killings' and the vast majority of violence against womyn is misogyny. Unless they're going to include that in the Criminal Code and start targeting the real roots of misogyny, which include an emphasis on 'crime and punishment' rather than social services, then the label of 'honour killings' does nothing but perpetuate racism and isolation of immigrant communities.

Rona and her pack of Conservative thugs should focus instead of attacking all roots of violence and using existing mechanisms rather than making stuff up that may sound fancy but doesn't mean shit.

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....

I am an activist

I am an activist.

I am a proud, active, social justice activist who fights, day in and day out, for a more just society. I am deeply invested in anti-oppressive politics and am passionate about educating as many people as possible.

Because of all this, I have clearly had a very, very busy weekend. The G8/G20 has forced me to once again re-evaluate my politics, my tactics and quite frankly, my allies.

A few things first:

- I chose not to attend the G8/G20 demonstrations. I make this distinction because I believe there is a clear difference between people like myself who chose not to participate in such events and those who want to attend them but cannot.

- I am highly privileged and could afford to get arrested without enduring serious harm to my physical or political self. In fact, in many of the activist circles I run in, getting arrested would actually give me some serious cred.

Like every annoying intellect worth their salt, I have more questions than answers when it comes to Gs activism but at least I'm honest about not knowing it all.

First confession: I used to be unequivocally opposed to violent protesting and thought that anyone who refuses to show their face during a protest was a coward who was unworthy of the activist title.

Then I listened to Harsha Walia speak about the diversity of tactics. You should, too. You should also note, however, that after her amazing talk about the importance of all types of activism for all issues, the camera pulls back and you see that she is wearing Nike shoes. This should also be discussed.

I agree with Harsha and the principle of a diversity of tactics. I firmly, firmly believe that diversifying tactics is the only way that change will occur. I also now understand the politics of the "Black Block" and those who engage in Block like tactics.

Black Block et al, take note: The revolution will not happen from a burning cop car. Nor will it come from the shouts of "Fuck the police" or the shattering of bank windows (more on this later).

Nor will it happen from letter writing or lobbying alone. Not only is bureaucracy light years behind civilization, even decent, well timed laws or policies cannot single handily change the minds of individuals and create great change.

Change will happen when the grassroots meet the Ivory Tower and people below and above are speaking the same language.

The issues must be attacked from all sides at all times so that different people, with different approaches and different perspectives, are all receiving the same message.

Womyn have achieved a certain level of equity in society not because we fought for the right to vote. Nor is it because of conscious raising groups. It took both. It took womyn on the ground, building solidarity, educating our brothers and sisters about the reality of our lives and it took policies and laws that allowed us to be represented and created opportunities for retribution when our personhood was ignored.

And so my use of lobbying techniques for the G8/G20 go hand-in-hand with those who took to the streets over the weekend, said "Whose streets? Our streets!" and held their placards high.

Second confession: I am not a communist nor do I believe in anarchy. But I am not a pacifist. (I'm also not a terrorist).

I think police are a necessary evil, much like taxes and fluoride toothpaste. I think shouting "pigs" and vandalising stores/banks is short sighted and ineffective.

In the case of the police, good old Rex Murphy made the unfortunate comment that the #1 ally of the Black Block is Stephen Harper, and I believe him. The Black Block and the violent protesters over the weekend simply worked to justify the excessive police state at the Gs (and it was excessive. More arrests this weekend than during the entire FLQ crisis!)

When I speak of violence, I do not, in any way, shape or form include those who used violence in self-defense, in an attempt to protect their friends/allies or as a means of survival when being unlawfully attacked. As I said, I am not a pacifist.

But the BB knows full well that they get plenty of media attention, which was reflected in an iconic photograph (that I, of course, can no longer find... But I'm working on it!) where a member of the Black Block is charging a Starbucks window, staring at camera crews who number in the dozens. It has been argued that this is the point - drawing attention to the issues and forcing people to witness what violence against society looks like.

But what about those who protested with their faces shown, who engaged in the 'critical mass' bike ride or who marched with tambourines and placards? The irony, of course, is that many people who support the Black Block tactics also posted to various articles saying "What the media ignored: 25, 000 peaceful protesters". But many of them ignored it themselves.

Whether you are an activist or a member of the media (or the elite!), we must all acknowledge the 25,000+ protesters who came out en masse, in solidarity and chanted for queer rights, womyn's rights, animal rights, civilian liberties, etc.

I monitor the CBC quite heavily, either radio, internet or television, because quite frankly, my taxes pay for that shit. And as much as I love to hate on the media for their ignorance or selective listening, they have been quite excellent at giving voice to the protesters who came out with serious issues and clear messages. This is reflected in their photo galleries, for example, which gave room for images of protesters and their messages. And not simply pictures of them being arrested.

(Of course, I would argue that much of the press around the security state is because so many journalists were unlawfully detained and so like most people, when one of their own is affected, they take notice.)

All of which to say that insisting that violence demonstrations are necessary to get the message out has been proven false.

Why do I think vandalising stores and banks is ineffective?

Just look at BP. BP has created one of the, if not the, worst oil disaster in history. BP is evil, evil, evil. But independent retailers who carry the BP name are being hit really, damn, hard. Of course, their entire livelihood is built upon the exploitation of mother nature and so one could certainly argue that they are a liability in the fight against oil. Sure. But do you think the individual people who work there are concerned about that right now?

Individual workers at gas stations have had their hours cut or are being laid off because people are boycotting BP for its disaster.

I support the boycotting of BP but I also can't ignore those that are suffering from that. (And let's not pretend that people who pump the gas at the station are rolling in dough, either).

The same goes with the Starbucks and other stores in Toronto. First off, not only major corporations were hit. There is plenty of footage of people vandalising things like local antique stores, so there's that issue.

But let's take Starbucks.

Starbucks is indeed a ubiquitous, yuppie extravaganza that charges a fortune for a fancy coffee. Starbucks is a clear target. Yes, nobody was hurt and a window pane has no feelings. Many, many more people are affected by a brutal police force, violence from the state, state-waged war, etc. Abso-fucking-lutely.

But how can you claim to be fighting for the little guy/gal when you're destroying their store front and therefore keeping them away from their job? Do you think 'barristas' make enough money that they can afford time off work without pay? Most barristas I know are students or lower-class people working for tips.

What about those that were not directly affected by the vandalism but whose customers were scared away by the violence and didn't show up?

We can hate on capitalism all we want and there are great arguments for doing so, but that doesn't change right now. Right now, people are relying on 'capialist pig' jobs to pay their rent, to finance their education, to feed their children.

Hell, how many activists do we all know who stick it to the Man while bagging groceries, selling coffee or stocking shelves?

A diversity of tactics is necessary but so is the respect and understanding of those who do not agree with violence as a method of resistance. As activists, we need to understand that many people cannot engage in violent resistance, even if they want to. Deportation, state scooping up of children, lack of employment opportunities, inaccessibility, etc are all realities for many activists. To assume that only those who knowingly risk arrest are 'legitimate' activists is short sighted and detrimental to the movement. People use various tactics for various reasons and respect needs to go in every direction.

Personally? I choose not to participate in events or forms of resistance that could lead to arrest because much of the work I do requires a clean police check. I'm not being boastful when I say that I do excellent work with children and I could not do that work if I have been arrested. I could argue with my activist friends about the merits of a record of civil disobedience but it would automatically close many doors for me in the work that I do.

I may by highly privileged but I am also able to use that privilege and education to move others to action because I do not engage in violent resistance. This is a choice that I choose, without constraint, to make.

I do not expect this to be every one's politics but I suppose my hope is that others take these politics into account in their own work. I recognize direct action and hope that direct action recognizes my seemingly 'pacifist' methods.

Real change, as I said, will come when the top meets the bottom. I recently heard the term 'movable middle' to describe the vast majority of Canadians who are 'sitting on the fence' and can be moved to either side. These are the people that I actively pursue. These are the people that I think hold the key to the future.

I am not one of these people. I am firm in my beliefs, militant even, and I cannot be persuaded to be anti-choice, anti-immigration, etc. But I can work really, damn, hard to reach those that can be persuaded.

And in my experience, I am able to reach those people because I engage in tactics that are accessible, lack intimidation and take into account their experiences and perspectives.

My work alone will not accomplish much. I need bureaucrats and the Black Block on my side, too.

Lastly (I told you I've had to do a lot of thinking), as activists, we need to constantly remind ourselves that the state wins when we fight amongst each other. It's an age old tactic of the privileged to get the oppressed fighting amongst themselves so that they don't fight them.

My one hope is that the debates amongst activist circles right now remain dialogues and that they serve to strengthen us and not divide us.

While we're attacking each other (and windows), the oppressors carry on.

Oh Canada, Our Home On Native Land

And apparently, the land of the free... or something.

Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the opening of the "Truth and Reconciliation" talks in regards to Indian Residential Schools. (Also, a little reality check on that one as well: We have more First Nations children in care today than we ever did in residential schools. So the idea that it's over and done with, let's-just-do-these-talks-and-then-move-on-from-the-issue is bullshit).

Then we have a father and son who have finally pled guilty to murdering Aqsa Parvez, a 16 year old from Mississauga who was rebelling against her family's stronghold. It's been called 'an honour killing'; a term that is contested by both feminists and non-feminists alike.

Just this past week, another young womyn was attacked by her family, this time her mother, for a so-called shaming of the family's honour. Thankfully, the womyn in this case will survive her injuries.

Oh and we're apparently jumping on the bandwagon of hating on people who call out Israel. Apparently calling out violence against Palestine means you're 'anti-semitic'. NDP MP Libby Davies called out the very obvious fact that criticizing Israel is not something that is done by Canada's Parliament and that many people who support Palestine are silenced or threatened. In saying this, what's happened to ole Davies? She's being threatened.

Where the fuck has Canada gone and what the hell is replacing it?

FC Shout-Out

I would like to give a huge shout-out to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her recent comments at the G8 summit where she called out countries like Canada for not including REAL maternal health in their strategy.

"You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health, and that includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions." (Cbc.ca)

I'm glad somebody gets it.

Speaking of Trends...

I guess from now on, you can rely on me to keep you posted as to What’s Hot and What’s Not in Canada.

What’s Hot? Prorogation! Not only has Harper done it two years in a row, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is in on the fun, too!

Admittedly it’s for far less time and it doesn’t affect the country as a whole, but Ontario is the most populated province, so you could argue it affects enough people for it to matter. I certainly would.

What’s Not? Caring, apparently. I’m calling hypocrisy on the Left-Wingers. Why are we protesting in the streets about Conservatives proroguing but letting it slide when it’s the Liberals? Is it because Harper is a Neo-Con? Is it because he’s done it twice already? Or is it because we just don’t like the guy?

Either way, I call bullshit on both Harper and McGuinty.

How many times do I have to say this: Perogies, not Proroguing!

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.

Captain Obvious Strikes Again

You can also file these two stories under "It's about fucking time".

First, Canada is now finally proposing new rules for the live-in caretaker program. For those of you who are unaware, the Live-In Caregiver Program is one of the few ways that womyn are able to immigrate to Canada and the system is incredibly exploitative. The rules and demands on the womyn are incredibly high whereas those who are enlisting their services have very little to no monitoring, rules or necessary criteria.

Womyn come to Canada through the Program and have to live in an employer's home for what used to be 2 years and then they can apply for residency. This is obviously putting womyn into precarious situations where if they are subject to abuse, exploitation or neglect by their employers, they often have no means or resources to get out because they need to maintain steady work in order to be eligible for residency. These new proposed regulations would mean that womyn have up to 4 years to complete the 2 years of work. "In addition, they will no longer have to undergo a second medical examination when they apply, and employers wanting to hire a nanny from overseas will have to pick up the travel costs and provide medical coverage until they are eligible for provincial health plans."(CBC.ca)

I generally think that Citizenship and Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney is a Grade-A douche but this is good and long overdue, news.

And in news that is so incredibly surreal, I still haven't quite processed it yet, "P.E.I. will soon have legislation allowing medical professionals to apologize to patients when something goes wrong without worrying it could haunt them in court."(CBC.ca) Currently, it seems, in P.E.I, if a doctor apologizes for something, it's considered an admission of guilt in court and will screw them if they are sued for malpractice.

I'm not naïve to the ways of the legal system, which often runs completely contradictory to common sense but Geez Louise... The fact that politicians are spending time on a Bill like this rather than other important things like, you know, Climate Change, poverty, violence, etc. is mind-boggling. You hear shit like this and no wonder people have completely tuned out of the political world. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that this is finally going to be enacted into legislation but the fact that it even needs to happen is 10 levels of sad.

The Old Boys Club, Indeed

In case you really didn't believe that politics was an Old Boy's Club that was less than keen to ladies, here's more to convince you otherwise.

An Ottawa Conservative MPP had her evidence dismissed in the trial against Ottawa mayor Larry O'Brien because, and I quote, "the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement to the police. … ” “She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa". (source)

To add insult to injury, this dismissal was overlooked in the reading of O'Brien's sentence of not guilty and according to the MPP in question, her supporters were hard to come by. Once the news became public however, Equal Voice and others came out to dismiss and criticize the 69 year old judge's decision.

I'd add comment on this but I think it's rather obvious at this point: The idea that evidence from a female politician is invalid because she was busy being a politician AND a mother when she gave her evidence to police is beyond fucking insulting; it is sexism in the purest form. It is the reason why so few womyn enter politics and it is the reason why Canada is far from the beaming democracy it claims to be.

So if you still need evidence to believe the sexism in Canada's politics, there's no hope for you and you might as well join the commenters of the original Globe and Mail article. They are spewing such "clever" quips as "To all of the male posters here, every had a woman tell the truth in divorce court? Story is settled." (Great use of the word "every" kept from the original posting).

Crazies Come Out To Play In Calgary

If you're looking for a Canadian city with a perpetually negative reputation, look no further than Toronto. On any given day, someone, somewhere is bashing Toronto, actively hating Toronto or talking about the latest crime spree of sorts in Toronto.

Hell, there was an entire documentary based on hating Toronto!

But watch out T.Dot; Calgary is climbing up the ranks and looking to steal your much-coveted spot as the most hated city in Canada.

Why?

First, they went and invited former President George W. Bush to come and speak. (True, there were anti-Bush protesters, but still... they invited him at all. That's telling).

Then, religious folk from Calgary got upset with the atheists buying some bus ads, so they went and bought their own. Which, whether you agree with the atheists or not, goes to prove their point that people are uber concerned about "their" God.

And then, in a move that stunned the country as a whole, Calgarians witnessed 50 white supremacists marching down the streets on the International Day to End Racism, who then clashed with actual anti-racists protesters. Apparently those ever-clever aryan race asshats have called March 21st "White Pride World Day". Anti-racists advocates didn't like that, so they blocked their way and then riots ensued.

Calgary police are now being criticized for protecting both the white supremacists and the anti-racist demonstrators.

Personally, I don't believe in any violent protesting and I do believe in Freedom of Speech but I also believe that it's really fucking sad when in 2009, Canada has at least 50 people in one city alone who are wanting to march through the streets in support of White Pride.

I love Alberta, I really do, but shit shows like these only act to reinforce the stereotype of Alberta as the Conservative, racist, Bible Belt of Canada.

(For a healthy dose of the Alberta that I love and adore, check out Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying).

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.

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?

Rehearsing Our ABCs

Ahh, nothing says HAPPY NEW YEAR like a Conservative blunder. In this case, the fact that mere weeks after electing a new Parliament, and in the middle of a "prorogued" Parliament, right- wingers are already chanting the praises of reopening the abortion debate.

I've said many, many times before that this debate is as old as time itself and rarely, if ever, constitutes an actual debate. At this point, there's nothing left TO debate. That dead horse has been flogged for years.

Well it seems that the head cheese of the Conservative party, Canada's own PMO, had a brain wave once again and shot down the rumours of "re-opening" the abortion debate.

*phew*

There have been many, many outcries from the Left about this, but I wonder where they are were on election day. Didn't they hear the ABCs (Anything But Conservative) cries? Or maybe our numbers (ie: the lefty digits) are too low. Or maybe most of us, left, right and centre, are way too apathetic to care.

Can I blame them? Not really.

But truthfully, if there's a "debate" that could use re-opening, I say we attack capital punishment. Judging by the knee-jerk commentary on most news sites (CBC.ca and GlobeandMail.com in particular), "every-day" Canadians are wanting to go there. And those two sites are supposed to be bastions of lefty-thinkers, so imagine what the right-wingers are cooking up! And it's a debate that we haven't had in quite some time, so why not? Could be interesting. Maybe. Maybe not. But at least we're shifting the focus away from fetuses.

All I want for 2009 is to never have to write the words "abortion" and "debate" again. Let's see how it goes.

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*