Liberal Policy to Guarantee Gender Parity in Parliament

[Saturn]

?? 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.

Wow! It is not a concern to you that Harper's MPs are a bunch of robots with no say in parliament and policy. The big concern to you is the gender of the robots. Are you concerned about the colour of their clothes? I find it hilarious that Harper's fans would ever even raise the issue of democracy.

[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.

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.

I never said it would be population proportionate. I said roughly population proportionate. As women make up 52% of the canadian population, I would expect 40-60% of MPs to be women. Not 25% or 12% as in Harper's caucus. Since white men make up 35% of the population, I would expect 25-45% white men in parliament, not 75%.

The fact that there is discrimination in politics against women and visible minorities is blatantly evident. Any woman who speaks for herself is considered a bitch and any man who speaks for himself is a "good leader". Besides, why wouldn't women run for office if they had the same opportunities as men? Because they are dumb?

[White Doors]

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.

haha. My, what a balanced view point you have there!

Harper has the same % of women is his cabinet as martin. Do you consider Martin and the liberla party the same as you consider the conservatives?

[scribblet]

Wow! It is not a concern to you that Harper's MPs are a bunch of robots with no say in parliament and policy. The big concern to you is the gender of the robots. Are you concerned about the colour of their clothes? I find it hilarious that Harper's fans would ever even raise the issue of democracy.

I'm not aware about the robot issue, or that robots have a gender or wear clothes, please enlighten me, your post makes no sense. and as far as I know robots and gender are not issues for any of the parties, I wouldn't believe everything you read in the liberal media either.

I have not been nor am I greatly concerned about the 'gender issue', what I am concerned about is the statement by Bob Rae (and other potential leaders) and the potential for changing our democratic process by somehow manipulating the system to bring about those quotas .

[Saturn]

Wow! It is not a concern to you that Harper's MPs are a bunch of robots with no say in parliament and policy. The big concern to you is the gender of the robots. Are you concerned about the colour of their clothes? I find it hilarious that Harper's fans would ever even raise the issue of democracy.

I'm not aware about the robot issue, or that robots have a gender or wear clothes, please enlighten me, your post makes no sense. and as far as I know robots and gender are not issues for any of the parties, I wouldn't believe everything you read in the liberal media either.

I have not been nor am I greatly concerned about the 'gender issue', what I am concerned about is the statement by Bob Rae (and other potential leaders) and the potential for changing our democratic process by somehow manipulating the system to bring about those quotas .

If I were you, I'd be concerned about it too if our "democratic" process WERE democratic. Seeing that in the current process it takes 30,000 votes to elect a Bloc MP, 100,000 to elect an NDP MP, and 600,000 votes were not enough to elect a single Green MP, I'd be more concerned about the fact that the in the current process 1 Bloc voter is worth 3.3 NDP voters and more than 20 Green voters. A process that treats voters so unequally can hardly get more undemocratic by the possible imposition of quotas of any other sort. The current "quotas" on how many votes it takes to elect MPs from different parties are enough to make a mockery of this so called "democratic process".

[Wilber]

If I were you, I'd be concerned about it too if our "democratic" process WERE democratic. Seeing that in the current process it takes 30,000 votes to elect a Bloc MP, 100,000 to elect an NDP MP, and 600,000 votes were not enough to elect a single Green MP, I'd be more concerned about the fact that the in the current process 1 Bloc voter is worth 3.3 NDP voters and more than 20 Green voters. A process that treats voters so unequally can hardly get more undemocratic by the possible imposition of quotas of any other sort. The current "quotas" on how many votes it takes to elect MPs from different parties are enough to make a mockery of this so called "democratic process".

It depends on the population of the riding of course. Many parts of the country are under represented compared to others when it comes to population. In any democratic system the people who didn't vote for the person who won aren't represented by the person they voted for.

I take it you are for proportional representation according to party. In that case I suppose all liberal thinking people who believe in proportional representation would be in favour of a womens party.

The problem I have with this policy is any time you set quotas to include a certain category of people, you have to exclude others. When it comes to who gets to run for election in this country, that is not on.

[jefferiah]

To assume that in a perfect society without discrimination that the numbers of people representing each possible sub-division of humans would be "roughly" equal, is still quite a leap. I was chatting about this online in an American politics chatroom. A fellow chatter brought up the case of his workplace (something computer related) where women are being hired now at a greater rate than men, because of hiring policy. He pointed out that men are applying left and right for this job, but are being turned down because they are men, while, in comparison, very very few women are applying and getting the jobs. This is ridiculous. You are assuming that the reason numbers are not even is due to discrimination and discrimination only. If I were to do a study and found that in a certain field left-handed people do not hold near as many positions as would be equal to their ratio in society as a whole---would you say that this was due to left-handed discrimination? Do all things have to work out even? Is it not possible that things just happen?

[Canadian Blue]

For one of the career's I'm looking at women make up about 79% of the occupation. So far I haven't heard any complaints about needing to hire more men in order for the job to be more "balanced". Personally, I think it should always be best person for the job.