Canada Kicks Ass
International Womens Day

REPLY

Previous  1  2



mike2277 @ Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:27 am

I thought it was the Dutch who colonized large portions of Africa.

And yes, figfarmer, I know we're off topic.....but International Women's Day is over. :D

   



AdamNF @ Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:41 am

Well yes they did. Belgains were in the Gongo area/ central affrica.

   



sodomy_eh @ Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:44 am

AdamNF AdamNF:
Don't you fucking correct me. You have done nothing but flame and spam on this site. All you are is a troll looking to cause shit, so please take you're bullshit somewhere else.

i am very selective about what i intelligently respond to.

   



karra @ Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:22 pm

Even the Graspers agree with allowing the NAC to die an ignoble death. Read all about it in the National Putz - Right on boys!

$1:
[align=center]Let NAC die[/align]
National Post
Tuesday, March 09, 2004

In a way, the demise of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) marks the end of Pierre Trudeau's master plan to "democratize" Canadian politics. In the early 1970s, the then-PM and his advisors devised a scheme for creating and funding large special interest groups through the public purse rather than voluntary private donations. Over the next 25 years, Ottawa spent billions aiding organizations representing women, aboriginals, gays and lesbians, the poor, environmentalists, multiculti groups and minority-language communities to ensure more "voices" would be heard on national issues. At best, it was a bald-faced subsidy to special interests. At worst, it was fundamentally undemocratic: Because much of the funding went to underwrite suits challenging the constitutionality of Canadian laws, Ottawa was essentially financing the co-option of its lawmaking authority by professional plaintiffs and activist judges.

NAC was one of the highest profile beneficiaries, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to pay salaries, hire lawyers and host conferences. But thanks to cutbacks, it now gets no annual core funding from Ottawa: Like all charities, it has received federal grants only on a project-by-project basis since 1998. It is $200,000 in debt and cannot even pay its president or keep its telephones answered.

NAC is now demanding $100,000 from Ottawa, no strings attached, to jump-start a renaissance. It mustn't get the cash. The feminist group had become one of the most pernicious and politically extreme special interests in the country before it fell on hard times, and it would be a delight to see it expire. This is a group, recall, whose last full annual lobbying day on Parliament Hill in 1998 resembled a freak show. Members visited MPs and harangued them in their offices. When other MPs agreed to attend a NAC briefing, they were booed, hissed and shouted at by the feminists in attendance. Is this how most Canadians want their tax dollars spent?

Lobby groups shouldn't be funded by the governments they seek to influence. Like all special interests and charities, NAC should survive or fail on the basis of the donations it can extract voluntarily from individuals and corporations. Compelling Canadians, through their taxes, to fund lobbies with which they disagree is unconscionable. Free-will donations and membership fees are the only true measure of a group's support.

NAC's claim to be the largest women's organization in the country was always phony anyway. It had almost no direct members of its own, but instead insisted it spoke for three million women because its 700 affiliate organizations -- such as church groups, the YWCA, women's business associations, labour unions, student groups and lesbian advocacies -- had among them that many members.

As much as it would be gratifying to see NAC close its doors, we don't hold out much hope. The group's recent alarms about going under mark at least the third report of its imminent demise in the past six years. On both previous occasions, it was saved by a last-minute government contract. The same is likely to occur this time. Still, we're keeping our fingers crossed.

   



Rev_Blair @ Tue Mar 09, 2004 6:24 pm

$1:
At worst, it was fundamentally undemocratic: Because much of the funding went to underwrite suits challenging the constitutionality of Canadian laws, Ottawa was essentially financing the co-option of its lawmaking authority by professional plaintiffs and activist judges.


Okay, this kind of bullshit just pisses me off. The constitution is the highest law in Canada. Laws that contravene it are illegal. Laws are deemed to be unconstitutional based on what the Constitution, the highest law, says. Laws may contravene the Constitution if they are put in place to protect the community from a greater evil (hate literature is illegal, for instance) of if a government (including the government of Canada) invokes the notwithstanding clause in order to promote community values.

Challenges to the constitutionality of laws in no way co-opts the law-making authority of government. They are a check and balance to prevent any given government from trampling the rights of Canadian citizens. The Judges who rule on these challenges are not writing law, they are deciding whether any given case has merit based on previous case law and the constitution itself.

What the hell is with these people who refuse to understand that our constitution isn't just some scrap of paper put there to piss them off? Are they too ignorant to understand democracy or are they too dim to understand that people deserve rights?

Sorry for the off-topic diatribe, but I keep seeing these attempts to paint the constitution and those who enforce it as some sort of secret society trying to destroy us all. It's one of the big lies.

You may now return to discussing the benefits of keeping women preganant and barefoot.

   



figfarmer @ Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:52 pm

it was womens' month.

   



sk1d @ Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:52 pm

when's international men's day?

   



figfarmer @ Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:26 pm

pay day!

   



Rev_Blair @ Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:37 am

When the hell is payday anyway? I have a tax question for the new accountant.

Let's see...men make about 20% more than women and hold the majority of upper management positions. More women live below the poverty line and are stuck in dead-end jobs. I think "payday" was a pretty good answer, figfarmer.

   



AdamNF @ Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:16 am

30% of the Woman in Newfoundland are making under $7 an hour. Many of who are single mothers.

   



F/sgt Cam @ Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:52 am

AdamNF AdamNF:
$1:
In Africa most of the racists are black guys.


Actually most racists in Africa are white guys from Belgium

That was then this is now, most of the racist white guys are in south africa and we ousted their government 20 years ago...

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2