Liberal Policy to Guarantee Gender Parity in Parliament

[scribblet]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/11...2431573-cp.html

Another Liberal policy: A party plan to guarantee gender parity in Parliament within three elections. How on earth do they plan to implement that without usurping the democratic process. What next, guarranteeing affirmative action for visible minorities in parliament. I don't see how they guarantee quotas.

[Warwick Green]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/11...2431573-cp.html

Another Liberal policy: A party plan to guarantee gender parity in Parliament within three elections. How on earth do they plan to implement that without usurping the democratic process. What next, guarranteeing affirmative action for visible minorities in parliament. I don't see how they guarantee quotas.

Let's not forget Herr Rae who, if an elected Senate came about, was, as Premier, going to "guarantee" 50% of the senators from the Province of Opportunity would be from the distaff side.

This guy could be PM one day.

[cybercoma]

It's too bad the best person for the job isn't always elected and politics WERE dominated by men (and very much are still to this day). It doesn't matter what we think should be or could be, etc. The perception of politics is that it's a man's game and it has been that way right up to the last generation.

We need more women in politics, or do we? The lack of women in politics is not for lack of opportunity, they're quite capable of running for office and becoming cabinet ministers or more, etc. (I don't need to list the countless examples do I?)

This is a democracy and the public will vote for whom they feel will do the better job. Perhaps it's an uphill battle for women, who are perceived as the weaker gender by many cultures, but it is not an impossible battle and any strong, intelligent woman could win if she were so inclined.

No, we don't need regulations and laws to force more women into the political arena... all that will do is put poorer quality candidates in a seat in Ottawa. A courageous, strong and intelligent woman will do just fine as things stand today and those are the women we need in office. The last thing we need is people outside of the Senate being handed seats for no reason other than what's between their legs.

[Warwick Green]

No, we don't need regulations and laws to force more women into the political arena... all that will do is put poorer quality candidates in a seat in Ottawa. A courageous, strong and intelligent woman will do just fine as things stand today and those are the women we need in office. The last thing we need is people outside of the Senate being handed seats for no reason other than what's between their legs.

Right. And the only way Rae could have made his proposal work is to designate some Senate seats as "women-only" seats. And then others, Aboriginals, blacks, Muslims etc would say, "What are we, chopped liver? Don't we get guaranteed seats too?" Soon we don't have a democracy any more.

[normanchateau]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/11...2431573-cp.html

Another Liberal policy: A party plan to guarantee gender parity in Parliament within three elections. How on earth do they plan to implement that without usurping the democratic process.

It remains to be seen how the discussion will go and how Liberal delegates will eventually vote on this issue.

It is not uncommon for ideas to be discussed at political conventions. A majority can usually be counted on to shoot down the unpopular ideas. For example, at the March, 2005 convention in Montreal of the Conservative Party of Canada, only 45% of delegates favoured new legislation against abortion. 55% of delegates opposed such legislation. Of those who opposed such legislation, a number indicated that they were in favour of new legislation against abortion but did not want to deal with the issue of abortion in the next election.

[scribblet]

This is true, it may not even reach the convention floor.

As far as the CPC convention re abortion I don't have the figures, but I do know inane rants about how Harper would regulate abortion have always been absolute nonsense, although there supporters in both the Liberals and the CPC who would like to do that.

Policy declaration 58. Abortion Legislation A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.

Now back to the topic of gender parity in parliament, which I feel is incompatible with democracy. However, it does make for a good political vote getting instrument. The Swizz people rejected it and I believe so did France

Bob Rae, has said "a quota of 50 per cent of the seats in the Senate being occupied by women," in addition to striving for gender parity in the elected Commons." I guess as long the Senate is un-elected that could be done, but the Commons - nada.

I do believe that a parliamentary 'code of behaviour' is a good idea, even without the issue of gender 'disparity'.

[Warwick Green]

Bob Rae, has said "a quota of 50 per cent of the seats in the Senate being occupied by women," in addition to striving for gender parity in the elected Commons." I guess as long the Senate is un-elected that could be done,....

A hint of what will happen when Rae becomes PM. He would have allocated half the Senate seats in Ontario to women in the event the Senate became elected. So only women could have run in those seats.

Rae keeps telling us how much he has learned since then. Lets hope one of those things is that this approach is undemocratic

[normanchateau]

This is true, it may not even reach the convention floor.

As far as the CPC convention re abortion I don't have the figures, but I do know inane rants about how Harper would regulate abortion have always been absolute nonsense,

Nonsense because only 45% of CPC convention delegates voted for it. The other 55% realized that this would not help them get elected. But I wonder how they'd vote if they had a majority. Even among the 55% who voted as they did, some acknowledged that they opposed abortion.

[scribblet]

Bob Rae, has said "a quota of 50 per cent of the seats in the Senate being occupied by women," in addition to striving for gender parity in the elected Commons." I guess as long the Senate is un-elected that could be done,....

A hint of what will happen when Rae becomes PM. He would have allocated half the Senate seats in Ontario to women in the event the Senate became elected. So only women could have run in those seats.

Rae keeps telling us how much he has learned since then. Lets hope one of those things is that this approach is undemocratic

Bob Rae didn't care too much about democracy and equality when he pushed 'employment equity' legislation (affirmative action by any other name). This is a timeline of goals,

http://annemclellan.com/response_summary.pdf he does say that using power to parachute candidates should be used sparingly and the party needs a cultural shift. He also wants an 'equity officer', something similar to 'employment equity officers' employed by larger org. when he was premier. They reminded me of the Russian 'political

However, I vividly recall what happened with employment equity and how it was supposed to be voluntary etc. etc. I saw some of the tactics used and what happened when visible minority job applicants didn't get the highest score. I suspect that similar things will happen, rules will be bent or broken to achieve these ends, likely resulting in lesser qualified candidates. At that time, it all seemed very similar to a book I read years ago, Children of the Arbat,

The NDP had a number of resolutions up for convention debate: one proposed that an affirmative action committee "charged with recruiting affirmative action candidates for nomination" prior to the 2009 provincial election. And the women's rights committee is calling for changes that would ensure at least 50 percent of constituency association convention delegates and constituency association executive members are women.

I don't know if they passed, but the wording 'affirmative action' is indicative of their intent I suppose.

BTW if anyone else wants to discuss abortion they can open another thread.

[MightyAC]

Policy declaration 58. Abortion Legislation A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.

Did the party have a policy about how to deal with income trusts or was that just a promise?

Now back to the topic of gender parity in parliament, which I feel is incompatible with democracy. However, it does make for a good political vote getting instrument. The Swizz people rejected it and I believe so did France

Didn't the Conservative party appoint a floor crosser to a cabinet position, appoint an unelected man to the senate and fire an MP, without reason, who was nominated and elected by the people then refuse to allow that card carrying member of the party to seek nomination again? Considering that the entire reason for your existence on this forum seems to be for the promotion of the CPC it may be in your best interest to steer clear of using the word democracy in your arguments.

[Saturn]

Seeing that the NDP has over 40% women in its caucus, the Bloc has 35%, the Liberal party close to 30%, and the CPC is at a mere 12%, I can see why many posters in this forum would be upset over giving women a more equitable representation in Parliament.

Given that the US forced Iraq to put a 25% quota for women in the Iraq legislature, a move I didn't see anyone complaining about, I can hardly see what you are complaining about. Canada is at the bottom of the list of female representation in politics of all developed countries. Even countries like Rwanda have nearly 50% female deputes (that happened to prevent future civil wars because women are much less likely to support wars). The reality is that if women had the same access to the political system, they would be fairly represented and females would make up close to 52% of MPs reflecting the fact that 52% of Canadians are women.

But white men who make up only 30% of Canadians and 75% of MPs can't stop complaining about how undemocratic this would be. What is undemocratic is how outrageously overrepresented white men are in Parliament.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Seeing that the NDP has over 40% women in its caucus, the Bloc has 35%, the Liberal party close to 30%, and the CPC is at a mere 12%, I can see why many posters in this forum would be upset over giving women a more equitable representation in Parliament.

Given that the US forced Iraq to put a 25% quota for women in the Iraq legislature, a move I didn't see anyone complaining about, I can hardly see what you are complaining about. Canada is at the bottom of the list of female representation in politics of all developed countries. Even countries like Rwanda have nearly 50% female deputes (that happened to prevent future civil wars because women are much less likely to support wars). The reality is that if women had the same access to the political system, they would be fairly represented and females would make up close to 52% of MPs reflecting the fact that 52% of Canadians are women.

But white men who make up only 30% of Canadians and 75% of MPs can't stop complaining about how undemocratic this would be. What is undemocratic is how outrageously overrepresented white men are in Parliament.

HEAR HEAR!!! And in prison, too. There aren't nearly enough women in prison - VERY underrepresented as a percentage of the overall population in prison

We gotta WORK HARD to eliminate these inequalities wherever they may exist.

As for "access", plase tell me how women do not have "access" to the political system.

[scribblet]

Policy declaration 58. Abortion Legislation A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.

Did the party have a policy about how to deal with income trusts or was that just a promise?

Now back to the topic of gender parity in parliament, which I feel is incompatible with democracy. However, it does make for a good political vote getting instrument. The Swizz people rejected it and I believe so did France

Didn't the Conservative party appoint a floor crosser to a cabinet position, appoint an unelected man to the senate and fire an MP, without reason, who was nominated and elected by the people then refuse to allow that card carrying member of the party to seek nomination again? Considering that the entire reason for your existence on this forum seems to be for the promotion of the CPC it may be in your best interest to steer clear of using the word democracy in your arguments.

Wot in ell does that all have to do with gender parity

[MightyAC]

Policy declaration 58. Abortion Legislation A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.

Did the party have a policy about how to deal with income trusts or was that just a promise?

Now back to the topic of gender parity in parliament, which I feel is incompatible with democracy. However, it does make for a good political vote getting instrument. The Swizz people rejected it and I believe so did France

Didn't the Conservative party appoint a floor crosser to a cabinet position, appoint an unelected man to the senate and fire an MP, without reason, who was nominated and elected by the people then refuse to allow that card carrying member of the party to seek nomination again? Considering that the entire reason for your existence on this forum seems to be for the promotion of the CPC it may be in your best interest to steer clear of using the word democracy in your arguments.

Wot in ell does that all have to do with gender parity

The point is you seem to have a problem with gender parity in parliament and its detremental affect on democracy yet you support every move made by a party that doesn't give a rats ass about it.

[jefferiah]

Policy declaration 58. Abortion Legislation A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.

Did the party have a policy about how to deal with income trusts or was that just a promise?

Now back to the topic of gender parity in parliament, which I feel is incompatible with democracy. However, it does make for a good political vote getting instrument. The Swizz people rejected it and I believe so did France

Didn't the Conservative party appoint a floor crosser to a cabinet position, appoint an unelected man to the senate and fire an MP, without reason, who was nominated and elected by the people then refuse to allow that card carrying member of the party to seek nomination again? Considering that the entire reason for your existence on this forum seems to be for the promotion of the CPC it may be in your best interest to steer clear of using the word democracy in your arguments.

Wot in ell does that all have to do with gender parity

The point is you seem to have a problem with gender parity in parliament and its detremental affect on democracy yet you support every move made by a party that doesn't give a rats ass about it.

Its not that people dont want women in politics, its that we dont want equality to be enforced by numbers. Imagine if society were completely free from prejudice. Do you think in such a society an equal number of people from each race and each sexuality and each gender would naturally just have the same career? Do you think this would all work out magically with an even number? Enforcing such a policy would be detrimental to democracy. It says you have to vote for so many women whether you like it or not. Not voting for a woman does not mean you dont like women, it means you didnt like the candidate no matter the gender. This is the same logical fallacy in affirmative action times 100.

[jefferiah]

You know this whole gender parity thing causes me some concern. I think a lot of voters might buy into this platform simply because it promises equality, and maybe many people won't see that these are the wrong means to equality. I have no problem voting for a woman, and I dont think most Canadians have a problem voting for a woman either. What matters is policy. If I agree with a candidates policies than I will vote for them, woman or man. But there is no way this gender parity could work at all without taking away the right to choose all canditates due to policy. Gender parity rather than making the political system not about sexuality, will make it more about sexuality. Male and female candidates will be guaranteed so many positions whether they are good politicians or not-----simply because they are male and female and the numbers will have to even out. I think voters should be made aware of this because I fear people supporting it because it promises a good result, but delivers them unfairly.

[ClearWest]

I think a lot of voters might buy into this platform simply because it promises equality, and maybe many people won't see that these are the wrong means to equality.

I totally agree. This happens so often in government. If I may take this line a thought a bit further... Universal Health Care promises equality -- but it involves claiming further stewardship over people's money and taking away their choices. Universal Day Care likewise, as well as public education, public garbage disposal, and every other scheme which claims to create equality.

[jefferiah]

Liberals are certainly not very liberal, are they? I think they are not far from being communists. I ask that Liberal supporters consider these issues and understand why we dont support them. I ask that you reconsider supporting them yourself. I understand that people want equality. But it is not always because of discrimination that things do not even out. Employing interventionist policies that seek to eliminate discrimination by making the numbers even would only make sense if, in a society free from discrimination, everything would work out in even numbers. Although in some cases this might prevent certain acts of discrimination from happening, it would do it at the cost of allowing free choices to prevail....including choices that are not based on discrimination but on reason and attention to qualifications. What are the reasons that women are not as prevalent in politics? Is it simply because of discrimination? Ask all the conservatives on here whether or not they would vote for a Liberal male simply because the Conservative candidate was female. Maybe there are less women interested in politics. There could also be other factors. People look at the numbers in certain situations and when they are not even they say "Oh, well this must be discrimination." I dont think women should be discouraged from politics, but I am not trying to keep them out. If you want to see more women in politics then you could begin by trying to encourage more women.

Consider this gender parity proposal. How would this be enacted? The most fair way to implement this very unfair policy, would be to require gender parity in each party. But then you could still not achieve gender parity in parliament. Let's say the Elephant party won the election, but the candidates who won were primarily from one sex and not another. Would we then have to go back and ask people to change their votes? This would be highly unfair, to both sexes, potentially. And if gender parity was not required of the parties then in some cases the party with more men or women would have to win seats simply because of their sex in order to fill the quota.

This is the fallacy behind much Liberal thinking. It is certainly not liberal and does not allow freedom of choice or democracy. This is closer to communism. And this attempt to make everything even will end up being more unfair than the perceived problems in the first place.

[jefferiah]

sorry.... i made a mistake...."at the cost of not allowing free choice to prevail"

[scribblet]

The point is you seem to have a problem with gender parity in parliament and its detremental affect on democracy yet you support every move made by a party that doesn't give a rats ass about it.

?? What party doesn't give a 'rats ass' about gender parity' and please provide a source.

I don't have a problem with equal access, I do have a problem with with a process that would be in conflict with democracy.

[Saturn]

You know this whole gender parity thing causes me some concern. I think a lot of voters might buy into this platform simply because it promises equality, and maybe many people won't see that these are the wrong means to equality. I have no problem voting for a woman, and I dont think most Canadians have a problem voting for a woman either. What matters is policy. If I agree with a candidates policies than I will vote for them, woman or man. But there is no way this gender parity could work at all without taking away the right to choose all canditates due to policy. Gender parity rather than making the political system not about sexuality, will make it more about sexuality. Male and female candidates will be guaranteed so many positions whether they are good politicians or not-----simply because they are male and female and the numbers will have to even out. I think voters should be made aware of this because I fear people supporting it because it promises a good result, but delivers them unfairly.

What the heck are you talking about? What policy? Mr. Harper does not allow his MPs to say a word and all the policy is written by the PMO. His MPs may as well be a bunch of robots who vote the way they are told to vote. Why do you care whether you got a female or a male robot?

The reality is that the other parties have way more women - roughly 1/3 while Mr. Harper has a mere 12% women in his caucus. This just brings out the fact that the Conservatives are a bunch of sexist, racist, homophobic bigots.

[Saturn]

The point is you seem to have a problem with gender parity in parliament and its detremental affect on democracy yet you support every move made by a party that doesn't give a rats ass about it.

?? What party doesn't give a 'rats ass' about gender parity' and please provide a source.

I don't have a problem with equal access, I do have a problem with with a process that would be in conflict with democracy.

If the current system was democratic then the people in parliament would look much more like the general population. The fact that white men make up only one third of Canadians and three quarters of MPs definitely shows that things are not exactly democratic. Besides, if 3/4 of MPs were Asian women, you'd be crying murder right about now.

[Wilber]

Right. And the only way Rae could have made his proposal work is to designate some Senate seats as "women-only" seats. And then others, Aboriginals, blacks, Muslims etc would say, "What are we, chopped liver? Don't we get guaranteed seats too?" Soon we don't have a democracy any more.

Did I miss something? When did appointment to the Senate have anything to do with the democratic process?

I don't know whether to view the idea of guaranteeing gender equality in the Commons as just plain nutty or downright frightening.

[jefferiah]

The point is you seem to have a problem with gender parity in parliament and its detremental affect on democracy yet you support every move made by a party that doesn't give a rats ass about it.

?? What party doesn't give a 'rats ass' about gender parity' and please provide a source.

I don't have a problem with equal access, I do have a problem with with a process that would be in conflict with democracy.

If the current system was democratic then the people in parliament would look much more like the general population. The fact that white men make up only one third of Canadians and three quarters of MPs definitely shows that things are not exactly democratic. Besides, if 3/4 of MPs were Asian women, you'd be crying murder right about now.

I think this is a mistake. How do you know? If society were perfect and without discrimination of any sort who says that jobs would always have a "population-proportionate" representation of every possible category you can divide humanity into. I dont think this reflects a natural outcome in a discrimination free society. Also I certainly believe that to tweak the end result to make the numbers even is a ridiculous way to combat discrimination. It increases discrimination. Because right now you cant say that the reason there are less women or less anything is predominantly because of discrimination. You don't know what other factors could account for this. But under your system there would be hiring to fill quotas, without a doubt. There would be hiring based on sex, race, etc. There would be cases where someone who may do a much better job is discriminated against because of what sex, race, etc they belong to. Perhaps there are things you are not accounting for. How many women run for political office or pursue political careers compared to men?There could be many questions you are not acknowledging. Statistics can be very misleading. People can use statistics to push an idea or to say look there is discrimination here. But statistics are raw data, they dont take individual cases into account.

[scribblet]

?? What party doesn't give a 'rats ass' about gender parity' and please provide a source.

I don't have a problem with equal access, I do have a problem with with a process that would be in conflict with democracy.

If the current system was democratic then the people in parliament would look much more like the general population. The fact that white men make up only one third of Canadians and three quarters of MPs definitely shows that things are not exactly democratic. Besides, if 3/4 of MPs were Asian women, you'd be crying murder right about now.

I would, and you would know that how? If they where voted in under our current system, then we would have nothing to complain about.

I too find it down right frightening that these ideas to subvert our democratic process are being floated, especially where Bob Rae is concerned. I saw what happened under employment equity, supposedly voluntary action, the same would happen given the opportunity, and voluntary action becomes coersive.

It is extremely frightening to hear potential prime ministers speak of a limitation to the political process in order to accomodate quotas, and we know that very often, voluntary compliance becomes forced. But exactly how do you get the voters to 'voluntarily comply' with quotas - tis a puzzlement.