1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Tories to cut funding for womens' advocacy work
Updated Wed. Oct. 4 2006 5:16 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- The federal Conservative government says it will no longer fund women's groups that do advocacy, lobbying or general research, leaving some to wonder what's left.

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.

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 the 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.

"A majority of us are new immigrants, we don't know all the systems, we have to struggle with adaptation . . . to say we're going to get money, or any large sums of money to do this work is just not reasonable.''

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

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.''

How long before Conservatives are sexist?

Not going to cry over this one. This is a Liberal pet project and does not serve Canadians.

As long as SoCons are part of the Conservative party, I hope that only "real women" vote Con. Keep this up and we won't have to worry about Stevie and majority government. I hope the Libs can get their act together to present an alternative. Please don't nominate Rae.

I have no issue with Harper stopping funding to a "Special Interest Group" some recipients were no doubt deserving but this organization is just a bloated make work program for a "Few Females". I like a complete list of those who will "Suffer" before I cry any tears.

I have no problem with him reducing funding for this particular group.

I dislike having a group of strangers step up & think that because they have a vagina, and that I have a vagina, that they are somehow a representative of me and/or that I should share their opinion.

Feminism was a great idea when originally born, and it reached its goal, but I totally do not agree with the extremist version of it which is what this group appears to be all about.

They screwed up from time to time, but I thought the things they got right (like when they lobbied hard against sharia) outweighed the things they got wrong, which is about as much as one can say for any government agency. When they took on the subject of violence against prostitutes (and law enforcement's frequent lack of response to it), they were standing up for a group which has virtually no political or financial clout -- which is pleasantly unlike politics as usual.

I suppose what sealed their fate was the study they recently completed on the polygamists in Bountiful. They recommended trying to help those who had been victims of the arrangement, which was not the law-and-order approach favoured by the current government, and definitely raised a few hackles.

Oh well. I'm sure they'll pick up where they left off before terribly long.

Can't say I don't mind that my tax dollars aren't being pissed away on something so irrelevant. Kudos to the Conservatives for axing funding that could be spent on more important things.

Nothing if not predictable.

I'm 24.

I suppose to some the goal isn't reached, but to me the goal is reached. Women are acknowledged as human beings. Women have the right to vote. You're trying to look at our current "feminist goals" as equivalent goals to those of the founders of feminism altogether, and they're not at all the same, they've evolved over time.

In regards to women not making as much as men and women not being represented as they should be in various forms of employment, I have to say I think those are irrelevant factors. Perhaps women are not "represented" in various forms of employment and perhaps there's not equal 50/50 margins for CEO's etc simply because 100% of women, don't feel the driving burning urge to "become everything a man can be" as if having an equal 50/50 ratio of men to women number of CEO's somehow makes a statement. We no longer live in a world where men run things because "women don't make decisions" or because women are not involved in these decisions. We live in a world that is mostly run by men because women do not need to be 100% equal to men in all walks of life. There's the few extremists out there who want to be "everything a man can be" and I'm most adamantly NOT one of them. Do I care about "first woman to..." these days? No. The founders of feminists way back when, did their job they did a great job & carrying it on to extremes, in my opinion, is bullshit. Do I care about how much money women overall make as a wage? No, I care about how much money *I* make as a wage. I'm not going to bawl my pretty little eyes out because on average men still make more than women. On average, men still WORK more than women too I'd be willing to bet. Am I worried about women "being represented in upper management positions" ? No, I'm not. If that is where a woman as an individual truly wants to be, she can make it. Do men need to be passed over for the position, simply because "there's not enough females in upper management" ? No.

I am not in a union, nor do I need to be. I work for an excellent company and frankly if more women took control of their own destinies instead of bitching about how "it must be because I'm female" then they'd probably get a lot further. Life is about choices. You can make good choices, or you can make bad choices.

You agree that not every woman was represented -- That's nobody's fault, that's the way of life. My point is that this particular group seems to be one of the feminists extremist groups that needs to continuously push the envelope, and runs under the assumption that because their members feel similarily, then all women across Canada must feel similarly. I find this particular form of feminist most offensive to be completely honest, they seem particularly ashamed of their femininity, unable to embrace the female qualities that women have that men do not have, and frankly a disgrace to the entire gender. They can't be happy with what they have they have to 'be everything a man can be' which is bullshit. That will never happen. I don't want to strive to be everything a man can be, I have no desire to be a man. I am perfectly content within my own body, my own skin, and my own gender. I accept that females have physical limitations that prevent us from being everything a man can be, and I accept that the same works in vice versa.

The other thing I feel I must reply to, Lily, is your last sentence.

I'm not one of the women complaining about wages or gender representation in the workforce. If women (on an individual level, case by case) feel they are being sexually discriminated against, then they do have the power to change their situation, on their own. Sitting & bitching about how horrible their circumstance is, isn't doing a damn thing.

Very good point Tricks.

That's one example of many situations where women in the workplace get special treatment simply because they are female.

Can the same be said for men?

Lets take a look at the issues happening with the Richmond Fire Department, where they've issued standardized uniform underwear that all members of their department have to wear, regardless of gender. They had serious issues of sexual harassment in that firehall, which is what led up to this. Now I ask you, if you work in a coed environment where you'll be stripping & taking off your clothes, should you not be expected to think & dress in a professional manner? Wearing lacy thongs in a changeroom that you know full well is going to be composed mostly of men, IS ASKING FOR COMMENTS. It isn't professional conduct, yet because of some comments being made, the taxpayers of Richmond are now paying $16,000 for the fire men & women to all wear the same style of underwear. (Even the same brand!)

That's a great example of women wanting to be everything a man can be, which is great. Good for those ladies. But lets be realistic, and lets all dress professionally instead of purposely dressing in a manner that we know full well is going to invite comments which will make us uncomfortable. Don't want to be sexually harassed? Perhaps they shouldn't invite trouble. I'm sure the guys didn't run around commando either.

1  2  3  4  5  6  Next