Did Conservatives actually cut Women's programs?

[DrGreenthumb]

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??

Conservatives aren't allowed to express any opinions about anything until Harper sends them a letter telling them exactly what they think, and even then they may only express that opinion to Harper approved media.

Harper has been trying very hard to prevent Canadians from knowing what his MP's really think. He is afraid that people will discover the true nature of his party. For the sake of Canadian women I hope he is unsuccessful and his plans for Canada are averted.

[Keepitsimple]

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??

Topaz - your question is phrased in a manner that shows that you are looking for a "gotcha" answer. The fact is, your question is an important one and should not be treated lightly - and cannot be summed up as "for or against". The broader social issue involves morals, the sanctity of life, and the importance of a loving family/parent in raising children. I do not support the morning after pill as an encouragement or condonement to having frivolous sex and multiple partners" - but you can pretty well guarantee that is how the "marketers" will be pushing their product, albeit in a very charming manner. Having said that, the morning after pill probably has its place. As these new products become available, we as a society have to continually re-assess where we want our society to go, what we want our children to think. So am I for or against? Life is a bit more complex than that.

Topaz - since you asked me my thoughts on the subject - would you share yours with me? Do you think that the morning after pill requires that we think about what affect it might have on society? Do you think that it might have an affect on some people with regards to their thoughts on sex? Do you think that we should be careful on how we communicate it's purpose to young adults?

Edited December 25, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Bluth]

Harper has been trying very hard to prevent Canadians from knowing what his MP's really think. He is afraid that people will discover the true nature of his party. For the sake of Canadian women I hope he is unsuccessful and his plans for Canada are averted.

*Scary* *Scary* *Scary*

Not once in this thread has anyone posted any evidence or public statements linking the Conservative Party of Canada to these lies about ending a woman's right to choose.

More than a year as leader but Steph and his gang who can't shoot straight still can't come up with anything better than the strategy that cost Paulie the election two years ago.

[Topaz]

*Scary* *Scary* *Scary*

Not once in this thread has anyone posted any evidence or public statements linking the Conservative Party of Canada to these lies about ending a woman's right to choose.

More than a year as leader but Steph and his gang who can't shoot straight still can't come up with anything better than the strategy that cost Paulie the election two years ago.

IF you go to the Cons website you can't find too much of anything BUT if you go to the NDP or the Libs, at least you know were they stand. So for Canadians who are not sure were their vote will go, the Cons really don't help themselves.

[Topaz]

Topaz - your question is phrased in a manner that shows that you are looking for a "gotcha" answer. The fact is, your question is an important one and should not be treated lightly - and cannot be summed up as "for or against". The broader social issue involves morals, the sanctity of life, and the importance of a loving family/parent in raising children. I do not support the morning after pill as an encouragement or condonement to having frivolous sex and multiple partners" - but you can pretty well guarantee that is how the "marketers" will be pushing their product, albeit in a very charming manner. Having said that, the morning after pill probably has its place. As these new products become available, we as a society have to continually re-assess where we want our society to go, what we want our children to think. So am I for or against? Life is a bit more complex than that.

Topaz - since you asked me my thoughts on the subject - would you share yours with me? Do you think that the morning after pill requires that we think about what affect it might have on society? Do you think that it might have an affect on some people with regards to their thoughts on sex? Do you think that we should be careful on how we communicate it's purpose to young adults?

Since the morning after pill is taken usually by women who aren't on birth control, ie being given after a rape, at the hospital. IF a young adult , doesn't know the problems that can arise from having unprotected sex, then society has failed them. Be it , their parents, church or school.

[Visionseeker]

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.

Bwahahaha! Great standard there. The Charter says women are equal, therefore they are. What freaking nonsense!

Having a bill of rights that advances the principles of equality does not intrinsically produce equality in society. In order to benefit from the rights enshrined, disadvantaged groups necessarily need to "fight the system" through court actions that (when successful) oblige a willfully ignorant majoritarian legislature to accept or undertake remedy.

Improvements in women's equality have necessarily occurred over the last 50 or so years, but significantly more needs to be achieved for "full" equality to become a reality. On the question of income gap alone, progress on wage equality has stymied and, I suspect, will soon begin to backslide when women find themselves disproportionately responsible for managing the social strains that the "sandwich" generation will have to bare.

In reality, there is a growing need for research and support in the pursuit of women's equality. On the issue of incomes, we need to examine how it is that important trades in medicine and education are seeing drops in income at precisely the same time that they are experiencing growth in female practitioners. On a different note, as our country is increasingly drawing its new arrivals from societies that possess some rather archaic notions regarding gender relations, it becomes ever more beholden on us to find sophisticated and effective means to counter repression shrouded behind "cultural" exceptionalism.

Cutting the Court Challenges program and funding to Status of Women as well as the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) are not simply misguided moves; they are in complete opposition to the notion of advancing equality for women. Ergo, the Conservatives are rightly seen as a party that is hostile to the notion of advancing equality for women.

[jdobbin]

IF you go to the Cons website you can't find too much of anything BUT if you go to the NDP or the Libs, at least you know were they stand. So for Canadians who are not sure were their vote will go, the Cons really don't help themselves.

It would help if Harper would simply say that he supports choice. He hasn't. He has left it open to the possibility that a woman's right to choose might be taken away.

[Michael Bluth]

It would help if Harper would simply say that he supports choice. He hasn't. He has left it open to the possibility that a woman's right to choose might be taken away.

Here is what Harper has said on the issue:

"I've been clear. A Conservative government led by me will not be tabling abortion legislation. It will not be sponsoring an abortion referendum,"

He said that before he became Prime Minister. Guess what he is PM and they haven't tabled abortion legislation and they haven't sponsored a referendum. Link

The Conservatives won't re-open the debate because it is political suicide and they know it. What is the use of changing abortion laws just to be guaranteed a loss in the next election? Harper isn't stupid and has no hidden agenda.

Anything else is *scary* *scary* *scary* lies and falsehoods.

[jdobbin]

Cutting the Court Challenges program and funding to Status of Women as well as the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) are not simply misguided moves; they are in complete opposition to the notion of advancing equality for women. Ergo, the Conservatives are rightly seen as a party that is hostile to the notion of advancing equality for women.

It is probably why women continue to support the the Tories less than they do other political parties. And it is probably contributing to why in two polls in the last week, they are in a statistical tie with the Liberals.

My mistake: I forgot the Angus Reid poll was just outside the margin or error.

Edited December 25, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

It is probably why women continue to support the the Tories less than they do other political parties. And it is probably contributing to why in three polls in the last week, they are in a statistical tie with the Liberals.

Pointing out the misrepresentations in the post.

1. No political party has a majority with either gender.

Therefore in saying that women support the "Tories less than they do other political parties" it could be equally accurately said about any political party, not just the Tories.

2. Which three polls are those? It is nice to see the resort to the old 'statistical tie' chestnut. Of course it is tough to judge the further accuracy of the post without an actual link to those three polls.

[bush_cheney2004]

Pointing out the misrepresentations in the post.

1. No political party has a majority with either gender.

Therefore in saying that women support the "Tories less than they do other political parties" it could be equally accurately said about any political party, not just the Tories.

2. Which three polls are those? It is nice to see the resort to the old 'statistical tie' chestnut. Of course it is tough to judge the further accuracy of the post without an actual link to those three polls.

Indeed...the same poll "statistical tie chestnut" was served up in January 2006.....we all know what happened then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Combine...s-39Cdnelxn.png

[jbg]

It would help if Harper would simply say that he supports choice. He hasn't. He has left it open to the possibility that a woman's right to choose might be taken away.

Perhaps maybe he doesn't personally support choice but recognizes that Canadians don't want abortion legislation. Honoring people's democratically expressed wishes does not mean keeping a wet finger in the air for polling results.

[Kitchener]

Well, there's no question that they cut the Status of Women program. So the answer is, obviously, Yes: they cut women's programs.

The only remaining point seems to be that you think the Status of Women program was bad. Fair enough. As a piece of mental autobiography, that's no worse than any other random report of your likes and dislikes. Dressing it up as a factual matter apt to be illuminated by consideration (of what? anti-feminist bile?) "with an open mind" is rather ridiculous, though.

The Conservatives cut the Status of Women program. You think that was good. Roger -- got that. What kind of ice cream do you like, while you're reciting your various non-rational preferences?

[Keepitsimple]

Well, there's no question that they cut the Status of Women program. So the answer is, obviously, Yes: they cut women's programs.

The only remaining point seems to be that you think the Status of Women program was bad. Fair enough. As a piece of mental autobiography, that's no worse than any other random report of your likes and dislikes. Dressing it up as a factual matter apt to be illuminated by consideration (of what? anti-feminist bile?) "with an open mind" is rather ridiculous, though.

The Conservatives cut the Status of Women program. You think that was good. Roger -- got that. What kind of ice cream do you like, while you're reciting your various non-rational preferences?

Depends on your point of view. The $5 million that they cut was directed at Lobby Groups. All of that money was subsequently re-invested in programs that directly benefit women. So.....as far as an overall investment in Womaen's programs - it was a re-allocation, not an outright cut. Priorities change.....just because you qualify for gover4nment money doesn't mean it will be there in perpetuity. Here's an excerpt from Bev Oda's defense of the funding changes:

On Thursday, cabinet minister Bev Oda, who oversees Status of Women Canada, defended the cuts.

Cabinet minister Bev Oda, who oversees Status of Women Canada, is defending the federal government's cuts to women's programs.

(CBC)

She said the cuts of $5 million were mostly administrative costs that will help the government streamline its operations.

That $5 million will be made available in April to fund groups who work directly with women in Canadian communities.

She stressed that Status of Women isn't the only department fighting for women's rights in the Canadian government.

She said the minister of immigration has fought to end human trafficking, which affects women, while the minister who oversees aboriginal rights is working to secure native women's property rights.

"We don't necessarily say that women's issues only have one minister and one door to go through," she told CBC News Friday.

Still, she said she respects the protests women are staging.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/08/women-rallies.html

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There are no rights in Canada any more, the entire notion has been sidetracked and murdered in the spirit of political correctness. We have special rights and privileges available to "certain citizen" while those same protections are denied to others. That is a travesty of justice. Special interest groups deserve no funding at all, not a dime of tax payers money should be spent unless it can be proven to be applied equally to all.

[Kitchener]

Depends on your point of view.

No. It only depends on whether you're speaking English. The Status of Women program was cut; it follows that a women's program was cut. If you wanted to discuss total budget, you should have said as much.

The $5 million that they cut was directed at Lobby Groups.

Indeed. One thing that a women's group might be expected to do is lobby for women's concerns. So what's wrong with that? You write of "programs that directly benefit women". A reasonable person would expect women's groups to simply aim to benefit women, full stop -- without worrying about Keepitsimple's personal fixation on "directness". Often what will benefit women is lobbying for their interests. Who opposes this, except for someone who resents attempts to change the status quo -- perhaps even while making sad noises about it? It reminds me of the quote from Hélder Câmara, Archbishop of Olinda and Recife: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."

[capricorn]

Special interest groups deserve no funding at all, not a dime of tax payers money should be spent unless it can be proven to be applied equally to all.

I say no funding period. Special interest groups who advocate for truly noble and worthwhile causes will always attract funding from private donors who support such causes.

[scribblet]

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

Good work sir!

Indeed... Real Women do their own fundraising, no handouts from the taxpayer, unlike Status of Women who do not speak for me. I don't agree with everything Real Women say or do, but I'd rather support them then the other slurpers at the trough. SOW is an outdated militant feminist outfit and should receive no funding from the taxpayers.

As for abortion, Harper has made it clear that it is not an issue for the CPC, and as a matter of fact, Harper campaigned on a platform to not change Canada's abortion laws, and the Prime Minister's Office said in 2006 it has no plan to reopen the issue. It was a Liberal MP Paul Steckle who introduced the first piece of pro-life legislation in the current conservative parliament bill C-338,So Jdobbin, trying to make it appear otherwise is flatout not true.

One does not have to be a conservative to be against abortion, the Liberals are busy trying to chip away at that one too, so don't try to lay it on the CPC cos it just ain't so. I'm conservative but am pro-choice as are many of the other conservatives I've been around.

[jdobbin]

As for abortion, Harper has made it clear that it is not an issue for the CPC, and as a matter of fact, Harper campaigned on a platform to not change Canada's abortion laws, and the Prime Minister's Office said in 2006 it has no plan to reopen the issue. It was a Liberal MP Paul Steckle who introduced the first piece of pro-life legislation in the current conservative parliament bill C-338,So Jdobbin, trying to make it appear otherwise is flatout not true.

The Harper Conservatives have not said they support choice. The other parties have.

Paul Steckle's bill didn't get support in the minority Parliament. Steckle won't be running in the next federal election.

The Tory government has said they won't introduce the abortion laws as a government. They haven't said they will support choice as a party which leaves an opening for similar private members bills to take hold.

[Michael Bluth]

The Tory government has said they won't introduce the abortion laws as a government. They haven't said they will support choice as a party which leaves an opening for similar private members bills to take hold.

How?

You have the three opposition parties opposed and a number of Conservative MPs on the record as saying they are pro-choice. The Prime Minister won't support such legislation.

[jbg]

The Conservatives cut the Status of Women program. You think that was good. Roger -- got that. What kind of ice cream do you like, while you're reciting your various non-rational preferences?

I like Haagen Daaz Pineapple Coconut, you?

[Kitchener]

you?

I prefer argued claims to mere statements of preference.

[margrace]

A woman I knew had only one child, the birth was horrendous both for her and her husband so there were no more. She always said that all families would only have one child if the husband had to birth the first one. Nurses get a big kick out of looking after men who have stones to pass, no sympathy from them. The comment is women experience that all the time having babies. It is always easiest to tell other people what they should do, there has been a lot of promotion lately for poor fathers who can't get their children or who are left with them. Women have been doing that forever.

The womens groups were formed out the horrendous treatment of the woman in Alberta whose husband threw her off the ranch she had worked on for 25 years with nothing. At that time it was his right and men have never forgiven women for claiming better treatment.

[Moxie]

A woman I knew had only one child, the birth was horrendous both for her and her husband so there were no more. She always said that all families would only have one child if the husband had to birth the first one. Nurses get a big kick out of looking after men who have stones to pass, no sympathy from them. The comment is women experience that all the time having babies. It is always easiest to tell other people what they should do, there has been a lot of promotion lately for poor fathers who can't get their children or who are left with them. Women have been doing that forever.

What does this paragraph have to do with "Womens Issues", so some men pass out during the birth of a child. I pass out when I get hot, should the goberment start a special program for me?

The womens groups were formed out the horrendous treatment of the woman in Alberta whose husband threw her off the ranch she had worked on for 25 years with nothing. At that time it was his right and men have never forgiven women for claiming better treatment.

Sure this could and did happen thirty years ago, but it's a rare occurance when a female isn't aware of her legal right to half the value of Marital Property. What men haven't forgiven women for claiming better treatment? You seemed married to the past, men are victims of spousal abuse but does the government give them equal access to programs and safe houses? NO! Women do not need organizations like SOW who do NOTHING but perform Statistical Studies on useless topics such as "Women and Natural Disasters". As a female I speak for ME, I do not want the government funding special interest groups or lobbyist.

[jbg]

The womens groups were formed out the horrendous treatment of the woman in Alberta whose husband threw her off the ranch she had worked on for 25 years with nothing. At that time it was his right and men have never forgiven women for claiming better treatment.

Some things are just morally wrong. I suspect, however, that the pendulum has swung too far the other way.