Did Conservatives actually cut Women's programs?

[Keepitsimple]

I encourage you to read the entire material surroundeing the so-called "cuts" made to Women's Rights that were mainly cetered around the Status of Women program - I've included some of it below (my bold) with a link to the Real Women of Canada website. If you read it all - and try to keep an open and objective mind, I think you'll find that their approach was logical and in the best interest of Women - except for those who wish to actively promote their own brand of "Feminism" on the taxpayer's dollar. It also provides another example of how much anti-Conservative venom comes from the media - because let's face it, all we've heard is how the Conservatives have gutted Women's Rights.

Link: http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2006.../article_4.html

Change in Criteria for Funding

The Status of Women with an annual budget of $23 million, lost $5 million by budget cuts. This reduction was to be applied to the administrative side of the programme, but the $10.8 million in its appropriation allotted for grants to women's groups across the country was left in place and not affected by the cuts. As a result, feminist groups gave a huge sigh of relief, believing they had missed the bullet and would be able to continue on undisturbed with their abuse of the taxpayers' money to promote feminism across the country. They were wrong. They did not realize that the day following the announcement of the budget cuts, the Conservative government had changed the criteria for groups eligible to receive these grants. Under the new criteria, lobby or advocacy groups were no longer to be funded and money for "research" (inevitably feminist research) would no longer be funded. Further, funding for so called "capacity" building, i.e. the promotion or publicity for special interest groups to increase their membership and influence, were also prohibited under the new funding criteria. Instead, funding was restricted to organizations that provided actual services to women within their communities and which could show measurable results for their activities. That is, groups that directly assist women, such as assisting seniors, or increasing women in upper management roles in Canadian businesses or integrating immigrant women into Canadian society or reducing violence against women, would be funded. It is significant, however, that Statistics Canada released a report in early October, 2006 on a study it carried out in 2004, which showed that 7% of women and 6% of men were victims of spousal violence at least once during the previous five years. More women were beaten (i.e. 14% : 124,000) compared to 8% of men. These latter figures, however, means that 44,000 Canadian men received beatings by their female partners during the relevant five year period but that this considerable violence against men is not addressed by any SOW grants.

Change in Objectives

The objective of the Status of Women now is to support women in their economic, social, and cultural life, but conspicuously deleted from the previous criteria was the objective of achieving so-called "equality" for women which had been one of the prominent goals of the programme since its inception back in 1973. The Minister for the Status of Women, Bev Oda, explained, however, that since women already had equality under the Charter of Rights, it was no longer necessary to fund special programmes that promote "equality" for women. It is noted by the way, that the criteria on "equality" was used by SOW as a method of excluding organizations, such as REAL Women, from funding because we didn't support the feminist definition of "equality".

Feminist Fury

The feminists were enraged when they finally learned of the changes in the criteria for funding about a week after its implementation. During debate on the cuts to the Status of Women REAL Woman was viciously attacked by the raging feminists MPs including Liberal MP Judy Sgro, chairperson of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The attacks were so relentless that the Conservative MP Mark Warawa (Langley, BC) felt compelled to come to our defence reminding the feminists:

Edited December 24, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[margrace]

Please, Please don't quote Real Women to me. I have tried to talk to them, they are the most closed group I have ever encountered.

You reall can't mean this????

[Michael Bluth]

Please, Please don't quote Real Women to me. I have tried to talk to them, they are the most closed group I have ever encountered.

You reall can't mean this????

Are you trying to bully Keepitsimple for expressing an opinion you don't agree with?

[jdobbin]

Please, Please don't quote Real Women to me. I have tried to talk to them, they are the most closed group I have ever encountered.

You reall can't mean this????

Step one: cut women's advocacy groups.

Step two: support Real Women

Step three: outlaw abortion?

[Michael Bluth]

Step three: outlaw abortion?

Yet another off-topic scare-mongering piece of drivel.

Good work sir!

[kitchenerlrt]

Yet another off-topic scare-mongering piece of drivel.

That's the direction the Conservatives are going in so far.

[Michael Bluth]

That's the direction the Conservatives are going in so far.

Outlawing abortion?

How?

[kitchenerlrt]

Outlawing abortion?

How?

I said that's the direction they're going in. They can't outlaw abortion since they have a minority government. They're strongly opposed to it, so it wouldn't be a coincidence if they do outlaw it if they get a majority.

[Michael Bluth]

I said that's the direction they're going in. They can't outlaw abortion since they have a minority government. They're strongly opposed to it, so it wouldn't be a coincidence if they do outlaw it if they get a majority.

Something not being 'a coincidence' is far from heading in a 'direction'.

Again, this isn't Rabble.

If you want to post something like this substantiate it or expect to get called on it everytime.

[margrace]

Yet another off-topic scare-mongering piece of drivel.

Good work sir!

Oh yes sir they do not believe in abortion. That's where they and I disagreed. I don't like it either but it is a womans choice, and is not Real Women's right to tell others what to do.

[Michael Bluth]

Oh yes sir they do not believe in abortion. That's where they and I disagreed.

This is nothing more than *scary* *scary* *scary*.

There is an element in the party that opposes abortion, as there is in the Liberal party.

However it is the minority.

Steph and his gang that can't shoot straight has to come up with constructive policies.

*scary* *scary* *scary* is in the past.

[MontyBurns]

The Conservatives cut off funding for feminists not for women. The feminists are a bunch of sick women and should not be given money to promote their hateful agenda. A society where women decide they dont want to be women is screwed (which is what feminists want).

[Keepitsimple]

Oh yes sir they do not believe in abortion. That's where they and I disagreed. I don't like it either but it is a womans choice, and is not Real Women's right to tell others what to do.

They have a right to state their position - that's called Democracy....trouble with many on the Left is that the right to state a position on abortion or same sex marriage (for example) seems to only apply where the Lefties agree with the stated position - otherwise, a venomous attack ensues. Please don't forget that Tom Wappel ran for the Liberal leadership on an anti-abortion platform. Granted, he only got a couple of hundred delegates to vote for him but it proves that there are extremists in every party.

[Moxie]

The Conservatives cut off funding for feminists not for women. The feminists are a bunch of sick women and should not be given money to promote their hateful agenda. A society where women decide they dont want to be women is screwed (which is what feminists want).

Eggactly, SOW is a lobby group and it shouldn't receive any public funding in my opinion. An internal audit of SOW stated it's out lived it's usefullness. Women rights and Feminist have nothing in common.

[jdobbin]

Oh yes sir they do not believe in abortion. That's where they and I disagreed.

Incremental conservativism means chipping away at choice just as it has means chipping away at the death penalty.

Edited December 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

They have a right to state their position - that's called Democracy....trouble with many on the Left is that the right to state a position on abortion or same sex marriage (for example) seems to only apply where the Lefties agree with the stated position - otherwise, a venomous attack ensues. Please don't forget that Tom Wappel ran for the Liberal leadership on an anti-abortion platform.

Exactly.

Despite the lies of the left.

"Incremental conservatism" is not a back door for a social conservative agenda.

Just a failed and impotent attack of the Liberal Party of Canada through a surrogate.

[jdobbin]

I said that's the direction they're going in. They can't outlaw abortion since they have a minority government. They're strongly opposed to it, so it wouldn't be a coincidence if they do outlaw it if they get a majority.

I think anyone who supports choice should vote any other party until the Tories make it policy that they are a party of choice. They aren't.

[Michael Bluth]

I think anyone who supports choice should vote any other party until the Tories make it policy that they are a party of choice. They aren't.

You just think that *scary* *scary* *scary* will work in your never-ending tirade against the Conservatives.

The argument is flaccid and impotent. Just as Steph's leadership is limp. Your party is incapable of providing a vision for governing the country.

Such falsehoods on abortion are interesting given your inability to get up a coherent argument.

[MontyBurns]

The ugly old feminist hags are what scares me. Not the current government.

[MontyBurns]

Stephane Dion as PM is also a scary concept.

[Borg]

Please, Please don't quote Real Women to me. I have tried to talk to them, they are the most closed group I have ever encountered.

You reall can't mean this????

Well Margrace - to stay on topic here - I asked my wife to comment.

Her response was simple: "Those women do not represent me or any of my friends. I would cut all their funding and make them self supporting".

Seems you and she might very well agree.

Borg

[jdobbin]

Well Margrace - to stay on topic here - I asked my wife to comment.

Her response was simple: "Those women do not represent me or any of my friends. I would cut all their funding and make them self supporting".

Seems you and she might very well agree.

At least that would be a more forthright policy that one where they tried to redirect money to pro-life women's groups.

[Keepitsimple]

At least that would be a more forthright policy that one where they tried to redirect money to pro-life women's groups.

I guess you guys didn't read the initial Real Women newsletter - they don't get any funding because the Status of Women have chosen to interpret their "cause" as being counter to Women's Equality.....and while we're on the topic of abortion, it's popular for Lefties to paint the entire Conservative party as Pro-Life - which to ignorant people means against having the right to choose. I am a Conservative and I think it's safe to say that an overwhelming majority of Conservatives support a Woman's right to choose - that's common sense. Where we differ from the Lefties is that we feel there should be a versatile support system in place to help women make their choice. Many of us also believe that our children should be taught a high respect for the sanctity of life. There are so many stories of women having abortions and greatly regretting their choice - many have dealt with depression and even suicide after having an abortion. Isn't it better to get objective and impartial counselling to help in such a life-altering decision - and we're not talking about counselling from some bible-thumping extremist. You can be Pro-Life and still support a Woman's Right to Choose - it's not an either/or proposition. I can't help but think that Lefties who don't agree with this approach have a callous disregard for life and the welfare of individual women.

[Topaz]

I guess you guys didn't read the initial Real Women newsletter - they don't get any funding because the Status of Women have chosen to interpret their "cause" as being counter to Women's Equality.....and while we're on the topic of abortion, it's popular for Lefties to paint the entire Conservative party as Pro-Life - which to ignorant people means against having the right to choose. I am a Conservative and I think it's safe to say that an overwhelming majority of Conservatives support a Woman's right to choose - that's common sense. Where we differ from the Lefties is that we feel there should be a versatile support system in place to help women make their choice. Many of us also believe that our children should be taught a high respect for the sanctity of life. There are so many stories of women having abortions and greatly regretting their choice - many have dealt with depression and even suicide after having an abortion. Isn't it better to get objective and impartial counselling to help in such a life-altering decision - and we're not talking about counselling from some bible-thumping extremist. You can be Pro-Life and still support a Woman's Right to Choose - it's not an either/or proposition. I can't help but think that Lefties who don't agree with this approach have a callous disregard for life and the welfare of individual women.

As a Conservastive, please state how you feel about birth control? FREE birth control for men and women may solve the problems of abortions. I never under stand people who are against abortion then say except in rape. Abortion is abortion no matter HOW the woman got pregnant. What about the "morining after pill"? For or against??

[jdobbin]

I guess you guys didn't read the initial Real Women newsletter - they don't get any funding because the Status of Women have chosen to interpret their "cause" as being counter to Women's Equality.....and while we're on the topic of abortion, it's popular for Lefties to paint the entire Conservative party as Pro-Life - which to ignorant people means against having the right to choose. I am a Conservative and I think it's safe to say that an overwhelming majority of Conservatives support a Woman's right to choose - that's common sense. Where we differ from the Lefties is that we feel there should be a versatile support system in place to help women make their choice. Many of us also believe that our children should be taught a high respect for the sanctity of life. There are so many stories of women having abortions and greatly regretting their choice - many have dealt with depression and even suicide after having an abortion. Isn't it better to get objective and impartial counselling to help in such a life-altering decision - and we're not talking about counselling from some bible-thumping extremist. You can be Pro-Life and still support a Woman's Right to Choose - it's not an either/or proposition. I can't help but think that Lefties who don't agree with this approach have a callous disregard for life and the welfare of individual women.

I wasn't referring to your post or the newsletter when I responded.