Court Challenges Program Axed

[Birdy]

I would just like to say that libertarians should vote for the Libertarian Party of Canada and not the NDP, Liberals, CPC, etc.

i would if there was a candidate in my riding!

[Birdy]

hamilton' date=' i will say cancelling it wasn't the best idea.... but leaving things as they are, isn't either. change is needed. had no idea about that case, btw![/quote']

Ok, neither are best but which one is BETTER?

no! bad, bad ollie! no time for settling.

[ollie]

hamilton' date=' i will say cancelling it wasn't the best idea.... but leaving things as they are, isn't either. change is needed. had no idea about that case, btw![/quote']

Ok, neither are best but which one is BETTER?

no! bad, bad ollie! no time for settling.

Did I just imagine that you said this a couple of posts back?

a lot of the time i don't respond to what you consider counter-points, because i really don't consider them 'points' at all. if there is ever really something you feel like needs to be adressed, call me out on it and i'll respond. i don't ever intentionally evade anything that i think belongs in an argument.

[Birdy]

hamilton, i will say cancelling it wasn't the best idea.... but leaving things as they are, isn't either. change is needed

So you've admitted your opinion has changed from the beginning of this discussion. This is progress.

I think you have to recognize the way you came out swinging at the beginning of this discussion, defending the killing of this program saying first it threatened the legitimacy of the Supreme Court (?), then this very dubious statement:

The fact that it is NOT only leaves me and a lot of Canadians to raise eyebrows and question whether specific interest groups were or are receiving preferential treatment at the expense of other interest groups. This is ONLY FAIR.

This statement (seemed!) to speak to a certain view about equality in our society, and seemed to indicate your view that no groups deserve the special treament that this program provided - which set off a few alarm bells, not just from me. Hard to argue such a view is not right wing (libertarianism and conservativism share a lot)

The CPC may say they cut the program as it wasn’t transparent enough, and you seem to agree, but it’s been widely reported that this cut was generally about principle/morals, namely that the CPC leadership is opposed to many of the legal changes this program has enabled, ie. Advancement of minority rights such as the fight for same-sex equality, language issues, first nations, etc.

You may not be socially conservative, but you’re giving these guys a free pass if you think it was truly done because of lack of transparency.

The Prime Minister and most of his Cabinet are social conservatives (Ref-oooorm!), each of them has a public record and it’s clear where a vast majority of them stand on these kind of issues.

This is probably the first real conservative government this country has ever had. Mulroney….not even close.

hux just to get it out there, a dissenting view point is not necessarily 'coming out swinging'.

i'm sorry my posts seemed to imply that i didn't think anyone deserving of the money.. this is NOT the case, nor could it ever be the case if it were coming from me. These groups are given the money because another group is not, and all I really want to know is who is getting the money and who isn't. It very well could speak volumes about the true social nature of the program itself and our government, something I am DEFINATELY interested in knowing. I can clearly identify that the PM is a social conservative, but i'm not the PM. how i feel about this particular program is how i feel, and whether that opens the door for evil and corruption to come, i really can't say. but I'm not the type to let some half-ass act or program slide by because i fear what happens if it didn't.

[SmoothedShredder]

About the original post: For certain, it's a step back for a Government when they cut a program like this, but that's what the Conservatives do, make cuts to minimize Government Spending (Relative to the previous governments)...

In general, those who would support this do it because it reaches an end which has greater significance in their minds. Take one step back now, so we can take two step forward later. From what I gather from the pro-side would see it as an attempt to strenthen our autonomy as a nation by lessening the international burden of carrying a debt load... also working towards removing our debt makes it much easier to justify removing African Debts from the books as well... but

Those who do not support this fear that it's an assult on the basic fundamental freedoms... which it is, but, the view I don't share is that it is done with a direct intent to fundamentally change the system. Sure it's a step towards no justice, but it's NOT 'no justice'. The courts are still there, the system is still vast, and it's not like it's a change in the actual Charter. The tone around here makes it sound like the Conservatives had changed the engine in the car (to something bigger, and less environmentally friendly of course), when instead, they probably did something more along the lines of choosing to use an inferior air filter, so they can save money at the margin, and watch the bank accounts grow, or more preciesly, to watch the number next to the negative sign in the deficit/debt line get closer and closer to zero. Which by the way will probably take 8 political terms (32-40 years) for the debt to be accounted for through debt reduction payments such as the one's the Paul Martin used to contol the Deficit, and see the debt actaully begin to shrink for once. Paul Martin made his Chops at working towards Deficit/Debt reduction, the Conservatives are working towards accelerating towards that end... and this time, unlike Martin and under Harris in his Majority, Harper's going to have to do it in a Minority... all the more reason to think he'll be treading lightly with his conservative Ideals, and not to worry that we'll all be swiming in poverty by the time Iggy comes in to 'save the day!'... Seriously I like that guy... reminds me of my Dad!

I see it as an attempt to save now, so it can spend more effectively later. In real terms, I see this as clearly a Harris-style slasher, designed clearly for a single goal (greater or lesser is up to you), and that is to reduce the deficit and to pay off the debt. But there's just no convincing some people that this is even important... believe me there's lots on the right that believe in 'Debt Management'... and the left that would continue to spend and 'increase the debt', essentially reaching the same end. But I do not agree with either of these ends when it means that the debt and deficit are in a state of increase. You just simply don't spend money you don't have... and the Government of Canada... Especailly, should not... We Literally 'owe' the rest of the world... not the same magnitude as the US, but we do, and it makes us no better... and maybe, just maybe, when we can return to a 'level playing field', one not burdened with debt and interest payments which is essentially money for nothing, or money for things used long, long ago! And when 'we' as Canada have the money, then we can spend it on these things to make Canada a better place (because of couse it sucks now), and work even more effectively at 'leveling the playing field' so we can all win and all be happy.

[Hux]

There's no question you've indentified the Conservative approach from a super macro level.

But this program was not the one that was preventing the country's books from improving, the savings of cutting this are something like .000004 % of total Gov't expeditures - a drop in the bucket. It has been identified (by political pundits, etc) that this is largely an ideological cut, ie. because it largely funds left-wing groups and causes (see my post above).

OH - I'm extremely pleased to be the one to break it to you SS, but the previous Liberal government elmininated the Budget deficit in 1998 and paid down over $60 billion in our national debt.

It's all about choices - you can be socially liberal AND economically prudent. A Liberal Gov't would balance the books and still maintain this type of program.

[SmoothedShredder]

OH - I'm extremely pleased to be the one to break it to you SS, but the previous Liberal government elmininated the Budget deficit in 1998 and paid down over $60 billion in our national debt.

It's all about choices - you can be socially liberal AND economically prudent. A Liberal Gov't would balance the books and still maintain this type of program.

Okay, I'll use your stats... as of 2004, the Canadian Debt was gross $700 Billion. $500 Billion if you take away our assests. Since 1998 when the Government got rid of it's functional Deficit, and decided to start paying down the debt. So in the six or seven years they were tigthening up their belts, they saved roughly $10 Billion a year. At this rate it would take 50 years to break even on the books, and 70 years to work all our assests of of the books and fully own them (Canada only own $200 Billion in Buildings and other 'sellable' assests, including Parliament if it came to that), this is assuming a steady rate of $10 Billion a year, it will actually accelerate on it's own as the interest payments become less and less, and our economy gains strength in a global market we have choosen a divergent path from in terms debt management in that we have actually choosen to pay it off!... so I was saying the new Government is accelerating that rate... instead of taking 30-50 years to pay off, they'll make it 20-40 years... something more within the reach of less than most of my life... something I'd be proud to leave the kids or grand kids at that point. Especailly considering that most of the seeds of the current debt were planted long before I was born... it might be boring, but it's the best legacy that our generation can leave behind... the day we bought Canada back!

But what is worse is that we pay interest on our debt... the faster we get to even, the less money will be used to essentially pay for nothing! If we accelerate the process, we will be able to do more with less, and that's what conservation and environmentalism have in common with the current state of the economy.

But what is more important than all of this is that we get the United States to follow our lead, much like how Martin was smart enough following Harris' lead in cutting the defict his budget 3 years after Harris accomplished the same thing in 1995. It's the wave of the future, get rid of your debt... now that the United States has started listening a little more to what we have to say, perhaps they too will pick up on this trend... I shudder to think what the war in Iraq is actaully doing to the American potential of realistically ackowledging the threat of debt to the very fabric of American Life... the holes have already been exposed (not able to win any war, growing poverty, violent quasi-police state perpetually in fear, devotion in god, cause well, nothing else 'seems' to be working), and for any of this to get better, debts have got to go, or atleast get to a place where American's interest payments are less that the total GDP of the worlds 80 smallest nation economies.

In the United States they run a deficit, and have roughly $150,000 American Dollars of debt per person... to get to the grand number of 44 Trillion and growing. To compare in Canada it's $2,300 of debt per person. I can see definate 'gasps for air' in America because of this... vast swaths are gripped in poverty. You can just see how the market has been 'rewarding' the Canadian Dollar by our distinguisment of dealing with the debt vs. the American deficit. But we are sometimes at the mercy of this Giant Elephant in the room... and we still have to worry about them, if only for us. And yes, Martin did a good job pointing the ship int he right direction... the conservatives are just going to get us there faster... it's about acceleration, and they set the goals Macro, and find the cuts eventually in the Micro... somethings gotta go to reach these goals... or maybe it would be better if they say we'll reach the goals, but never do anything to actually do it... say like Kyoto targets? Way to promise a decrease in emissions and actually post an increase in emissions Mr. Martin. Setting goals, and not reaching them is not what I would call balancing the books and maintaing programs.

[Hux]

Cool.

Couple things,

You've got some facts wrong, Harris did not balance the Ontario budget in 1995, it was 2000, so Martin did not follow his lead, if anything the reverse.

Then.....the Harris gov't actually went back into deficit, ie. when the party was taken over by Eves they lied during the 2003 election saying they had killed the deficit when there actually was a 6 billion dollar deficit. Hence the whole McGuinty's a promise breaker because he actually had to raise taxes (when they realized the mess they actually were inheriting) when he said he wouldn't.

And most of the Kyoto stuff happened while Chretien was PM, so give him his due, Project Green that was released under Martin brought Canada much closer to reaching our Kyoto commitments than anything under Chretien, he basically signed the deal and ignored it.

Aggghhhhh I can't get sucked in today I have to work!

Oh, and without knowing your age most of Canada's public debt was likely accumulated while you were alive, while Trudeau started deficit spending in the early 70's, and left a sizeable debt when he left in 84, it was during the Mulroney years our debt grew exponentially, most people especially Conservatives like to pin the debt on Trudeau when it was actually Mulroney who did by far the most damage.

[SmoothedShredder]

Cool is cool,

And yeah, sorry, misread the line in wikipedia under Mike Harris about the debt, but what's this all about transfer payments! And I bet Ontario's debt accounted for alot of Canada's debt as if the two were soul linked.

My point is just that I accept the past for this place in time it's delivered us, but the debt's not going to 'go away' if we don't do anything about it, and the sooner it goes away, the sooner we can maximize our potential and hopefully deliver the goods on all the social Utopia we can handle!

Have a nice day!

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

And here we go again -

(Really, this is getting pretty fucking sick.)

Tories to Cut off Funding for Women's Lobby Groups

The federal Conservative government says it will no longer fund women's groups that do advocacy, lobbying or general research.

The drastic change to the mandate and operation of Status of Women Canada also drops the word "equality" when listing the agency's goals.

Previous objectives such as helping women's organizations participate in the public policy process and increasing the public's understanding of women's equality issues have been eliminated from government literature.

Organizations that receive funding from the Trudeau-era agency were stunned.

"When you look at this Conservative government's policy it's like, 'Be good girls, be quiet.' It's shocking really," said Monica Lysack of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada.

Groups initially thought the agency's core program had escaped the axe during a government-wide spending review announced last week, when only the administrative side of Status of Women Canada was cut.

Move toward results-oriented projects

But they were told this week by Status of Women Minister Bev Oda that they would no longer be able to receive funding for projects that involved advocacy work, lobbying of the government or general research, as part of new terms and conditions for grants.

Oda was not available for comment Wednesday.

The changes are consistent with program cuts the government made to policy branches and advisory committees in several departments. Government watchers say it's indicative of a move away from "government-funded lobbying," in favour of results-oriented projects.

Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, argues without the funding the government provided her group, it would never have successfully struck down the use of Muslim shariah law in Ontario family court cases.

"That makes it very difficult, because if you don't lobby and you don't advocate, you're not going to make systemic changes," said Hogben.

Also in the new terms and conditions for grants is a general statement of objectives for the women's program.

'Facilitate women's participation'

The last document, published in 1993, said the program supported organizations that sought to "advance equality for women by addressing women's economic, social, political and legal situation."

It also had a list of four other key objectives that included women's involvement in the decision-making or public policy process.

The new, shorter stated objective is to "facilitate women's participation in Canadian society by addressing their economic, social and cultural situation through Canadian organizations."

Michele Asselin, president of la Federation des femmes du Quebec — the largest women's organization in the province — said Canadians expect their government do what's necessary to uphold Charter equality rights, and sometimes that includes funding outside groups to raise issues.

"It's fundamental to Canadian democracy because all groups and lobbyists aren't all equal. There has to be financing that supports independent groups that can question and analyze and give different perspectives to government," said Asselin.

"That's part of a democratic society to finance groups that defend rights."

[Birdy]

That's part of a democratic society to finance groups that defend rights.

no it's not.

yeesh.. i suppose though, as long as we are able to print ink on paper, [color:purple]all will be ok.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

(Sorry if that's a same-old-same-old - fact is, there are plenty of kinds of democracy.)

[Birdy]

if so, i really do hope bad times never come our way.

[Hux]

"That's part of a democratic society to finance groups that defend rights."

It may not be technically in the definition of democracy, but I'm glad we live in a democratic society that has decided such groups deserve those opportunities, I look at the peaceful and just society this compassionate approach has created - the envy of the world -and feel pretty good about what we've got.

[Birdy]

me too.. it's just off the hook statements like this seem to imply that we should expect nothing else... somewhat scary if there were ever to come a day when nothing else was all we could get.

also, (and this is just me pondering, not by any means a stand on social assistance, etc.) sometimes i think by continually singling out different groups, such as women, in an effort to promote equality, we're really doing the exact opposite. I mean as long as our government recognizes them as an underdog (for lack of better words), we're kind of conveying a message that yes you are an underdog and no you're not equal. kind of seems a bit ridiculous in this whole struggle to have everyone sitting at the same table eating the same meal.

it all makes me wonder what equality really is, and what criteria we as a society use to measure it.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Equality... if nothing else, it's not the same as identity. That's probably important on a a few levels. Life wouldn't be worth living if everyone was identical; that probably doesn't need commenting on.

For a lot of reasons, I have trouble with trying to reconcile the words "women" and "special interests".

I'll always remember someone once making clear to me the variety of theoretical points of departure for "feminism". On the one hand, there's what was called the "bourgeois liberal" school of thought that says that wherever men are there to foreclose on the mortgages of impoverished families, there too should a woman be, since that would render the genders equal. Then there's a counterperspective that argues that equality really has more to do with sussing out the roots of that poverty, which often enough will have to do with the fact that there are still discrepancies between what kind of money women and men make respectively, amidst other issues that need redress.

I think it's this second perspective that has been kicked in the gut by this latest move by the government.

Unless, of course, we can take it for granted that women's long run to stand on equal ground has finally been achieved, and nobody has any systemic issues to complain about anymore.

[Birdy]

OH, I agree with you DEM... i’m just saying that as long as we recognize and single out inequalities and grant money to entire GROUPS, that we are, in effect, keeping these groups (or whathaveyou) at arms length and really doing nothing to equal the playing field. maybe a better way to tackle these kinds of things would be on specific and individual case levels. that way the message we’re promoting isn’t that ALL women are victims of discrimination or unfair practice, but rather just your case, or your case, or your case. seems like it would be a much more positive message to put out there for public taking.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Heather Mallick weighs in:

Pay Attention, Feminists

We are women. We are half the human race. Are we considered equals of the other half? Don't get too smug.

The past two weeks have been disastrous for women. They began with the murder of Safia Amajan, the women's rights minister in Afghanistan. She was shot to death by the Taliban, not that this seems to have greatly distressed President Hamid Karzai or indeed U.S. President George W. Bush.

Then Canada's Stephen Harper did his own Bush copycatting and cut funding to the Status of Women Canada secretariat and to the Court Challenges program that funded citizens and groups fighting laws they believe violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now only the rich will have their day in court.

But the overall reaction was muted. We may never know if this encouraged the prime minister to take the next step. This week, the Tories killed all funding for women's groups that do advocacy, lobbying or research, essentially telling disobedient types to shut up.

Harper even removed the word "equality" from Status of Women Canada's mandate. Are we still "persons"? Not equal ones. The goal now is to "facilitate women's participation in Canadian society." I think he means the feds will shovel ladies' sidewalks, but who knows? Right-wing jargon is just as blinding as left-wing stuff.

If Harper waited a week or so after his initial cuts to see what the reaction would be, feminists were wasting precious time that could have been spent alerting Canadian women. No wonder Harper managed to slip this through. Feminists have had far lesser things to worry about. For instance, I spent that week being attacked online by feminists for bad language.

The academics and activists on this particular bulletin board-debate website weren't discussing the Taliban or women on welfare. Someone posted a passionate essay on how women stomp on other women once they get into power. She paraphrased Erasmus: "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed woman is Queen."

Another woman responded that she was offended by the implication that the disabled should worship less disabled people. Using the word "blind" is wrong, she wrote. She herself was a person of "low vision" ("I have the distinction of being a womyn with a disAbility, low vision and albinism" was how she put it) and decried phrases like "turn a blind eye."

My first thought was that this was a hoax from a Don Cherry fan. But I sent a message in which I strongly objected to anyone telling me I couldn't refer to someone as "blind" or indeed imply that blindness was a bad thing. I know two people with macular degeneration, an irreversible slide into blindness. They're stoic, but I can't say they're happy about it.

For this, I was chastised by the board's moderator (a sensation I associate with Jimmy Swaggart for some reason). Another of my sister feminists gently warned me that others had gotten in similar trouble with "guy," "boycott," and "blacklist."

To my sorrow, she sent me a style guide on "preferred language." It said writers should avoid equating bad, depressing things with blackness. Don't say "black mood, blackball, blackmail, black magic, black sheep, black day or black market." Oh, and pots shouldn't call kettles black.

My heart didn't sink, it clanked down to my ankles. I was in that cast of mood, having that shade of day, and with this column, I will be on that colour of list. Fine. I can take that. But if you find the word "black" pejorative, you might as well burn your Shakespeare. He was very big on things black and how to cope with them. Didn't he say, "Then will I swear beauty herself is b----"

Sorry. Damn that impossible man.

'Look, I am a feminist'

Look, I am a feminist. I use the unfashionable word because I hate bullying and women are bullied more than anyone on the planet. But I won't be told to shy away from vivid, evocative words and I don't like seeing English literature betrayed. Surely something has to describe the sky at night. And no, "dark" isn't good enough. This kind of rigidity matches that of the evangelical woman in Georgia who wants Harry Potter books banned because they glorify wiccans.

For the first time I understood why some women don't want to call themselves feminists. They see feminism as a kind of humourless GroupThink that excludes them. But the women slamming me for my English are extremists, the kind of people always to be avoided wherever they stand politically. Feminism is about equality. I thought doctrinaire feminism like this had died out after Naomi Wolf wrote Fire with Fire in 1993.

On the weekend I flew to Ottawa for a conference where I gave a speech urging feminists to work with other feminists around the world to fight brutes and bullies. We had to ignore what I call "tiny sorry-ass First World problems" (see above) and concentrate on the essentials.

The conference itself was marvellous. A Canadian woman doctor who works at a Canadian clinic in Lesotho described the horror of fighting HIV-AIDS in a country where grandmothers are left to raise orphaned children. A Colombian woman told of fighting for health and safety in a country where more trade unionists are murdered than in the rest of the world put together. Her own husband had been killed.

These women have raw courage. They get things done. It was a painful yet heartening reminder of why feminism is the most important humanist battle of our times. The story of male triumphalism plods on, as it always has.

So listen hard, women. The religious right is taking its place in our government, as Marci McDonald writes in this month's Walrus magazine. Be afraid. Abortion rights are next. Can we spend less time arguing about minutiae and more time fighting for the welfare of our daughters, please?

This Week

Adrienne Clarkson's memoir, Heart Matters, is a remarkable memoir, a precise, surgical study of what lies in the human heart. She examines her mother's love, her father's pride. She recalls the death of her baby daughter Chloe and the woman writer who approached her at a party and said she was glad the baby had died as it would take Clarkson down a peg or two. Reviewers who fixate on the governor general's tea parties are missing the point of this stunning book.

The British novelist Kate Atkinson has written One Good Turn>, a sequel to her great Case Histories. It's like a prose version of the American film Little Miss Sunshine, all about failure, yet full of humour and love. Henrietta Garnett's wise, affectionate biography of Anne Thackeray Ritchie, Anny, hit me like a drug. Suddenly I was back in the 19th century. With great sadness, I must tell you that it seemed more civilized than the times we are now enduring. And that's an indictment indeed.