Oda not welcome at provincial meeting on women's issues

[normanchateau]

Wonder how long it will be before he backtracks on his gutting of women and childrens programs as this move by the provinces put hims to great disadvantage, and renders the Feds irrelevant.

Harper backtrack? I thought he was a man of principle.

Here's what he'll backtrack on next. In June, 2006, he raised the personal income tax rate by 1% (on the same day that he lowered the GST by 1%). In the next Conservative budget, he'll announce that's he's lowering the personal income tax rate hoping that Canadians are so stupid that they'll forget that he raised the rate in 2006.

[Canadian Blue]

Are you saying that the average woman opposes feminism?

Feminists support social, political and economic equality for women. Do "average women" oppose that?

No, I'm saying that it's wrong to paint all women with the same brush. I'm sure that many have differing political views, and some feminists are pretty radical.

I view everyone as individual's, not as some stereotype.

They have a minority government which means they have NO mandate to do the things they are doing. The Liberals let a lot slip through because of their leaderless state and not wanting an election. Those days are over.

What in the fuck should a minority government do, nothing? Honestly, if you look at the past election's very few have won a majority of the popular vote so they didn't have a "mandate".

Wonder how long it will be before he backtracks on his gutting of women and childrens programs as this move by the provinces put hims to great disadvantage, and renders the Feds irrelevant.

If its provincial jurisdiction, than yes the feds are irrelevant.

Here's what he'll backtrack on next. In June, 2006, he raised the personal income tax rate by 1% (on the same day that he lowered the GST by 1%). In the next Conservative budget, he'll announce that's he's lowering the personal income tax rate hoping that Canadians are so stupid that they'll forget that he raised the rate in 2006.

Canadian's are pretty stupid, look at the leaders we have had for the past 30 years.

[Catchme]

Wonder how long it will be before he backtracks on his gutting of women and childrens programs as this move by the provinces put hims to great disadvantage, and renders the Feds irrelevant.

Harper backtrack? I thought he was a man of principle.

Here's what he'll backtrack on next. In June, 2006, he raised the personal income tax rate by 1% (on the same day that he lowered the GST by 1%). In the next Conservative budget, he'll announce that's he's lowering the personal income tax rate hoping that Canadians are so stupid that they'll forget that he raised the rate in 2006.

Well, he has proven strongly over the last year he is not, and of course he had already proved he was not when in opposition so really no surprises.

Now that the provinces have stepped in because the millions of federal funds gutted from the programs mean the closures of: safe houses, work re-entry programs, and the stopping violence against women and children programs, plus plus plus.

And yes, that 1% increase will come back to bite him too.

[mikedavid00]

No Mikedavid you are wrong, a father is a vital part of a child's development IMO.

Yes I know.

This is the new age, feminist, anti-father, athiest agenda that I speak of.

[mikedavid00]

How much of the funding going to women's groups actually makes it's way to these shelters and to the women who need the re-entry programs?

How much of the funds are used for "administrative" purposed that give an income to women who run these programs and spend the funds to "talk" about the problems?

Exactly. The cutbacks are because people getting a free lunch off our tax dollars are no longer getting the free lunch in life. They aren't for nothing. Here's proof:

Please amuse yourself with this link and look to the picutre to the right

http://www.thewomenareangry.org/whoarewe.html

"Harper Owes me.."

Ladies, Ladies, if you want public money then go on welfare. Canadian tax payers are not paying for your cushy, white collar welfare jobs any longer.

Money in Canada get's put in other people's pockets. It's that simple. Could it be that 40% of every tax dollar we pay goes into needles agenda oriented white collar welfare?

Let the churches handle the womens shelter issues like old days and do this through their own private donations.

[mikedavid00]

equal representation in parliament.

Ahhh... So you don't believe in democracy?

Exactly.

Women are a majority of the population, if they wanted more women, they'd either run or elect more. Setting quota's on certain races/genders/visible groups is a very dangerous road to go down.

And you notice how these 'womens issues' are always the same white, university educated, arts degree, athiest, socialist women who pretty much don't work unless it's for the gov't? The leaders of these groups out for public funds are not the average poor women or 'common' women. They are clever women with an agenda to give themselves $70,000 a year gov't jobs.

They certainly do not represent the average woman in Canada who has to struggle to make ends meet and put food on the table. I can introduce you to many of these women. These groups do nothing to help these women at all. (nor should they).

[mikedavid00]

Does the Status of Women Canada really help the average women, or is it simply their for feminist lobby groups. How do we know that all women have the exact same priorities. Aren't women individual's like the rest of us who can think on their own.

They are out to line their own pockets. I grew up in Ottawa and worked at DND for 8 months. There is a heavy, heavy culture of 'handouts' and chasing public funds in Ottawa.

Since when is a lobby group funded by the gov't?

For instance, there is a group that cries racism in Alberta.

They are funding a "Young Muslim Video Contest" to promote Islam in Alberta. Well suprise suprise,

NAARR is primarily funded by the following:

- Alberta Lottery Fund, Community Initiatives Program

- Department of Canadian Heritage

- Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Education Fund

- Wild Rose Foundation

- Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

- Edmonton Housing Trust Fund

- Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

- City of Edmonton

- Citizenship & Immigration Canada

And who's collecting all the money?

Chairperson: Andrew Hladyshevsky

Vice-Chairperson: Mike Murakami

Secretary: Seetwantee Woosaree

Treasurer: Donald Strong

General: Ali Abdi

General: Ramon Antipan

General: Jackie Ferner

General: Danika Littlechild

General: Rawle Teekah

General: Thomas Palakkamanil

When is this 3rd world style of looting tax payers dollars going to stop?

I sent this groups an email just now asking for info:

"Hello,

I noticed that public funds primarily fund your organizatoin. As a tax payer, I am interested in viewing the financial expendatures of your organazition including monies recieved and payrolls. I could not find this on the website. Could you please direct me to where I can find this information?

Thanks,"

[jefferiah]

I think thats well said Mike. Advisory Council for the Status of Women is just a name. I could start a group called the Equality Liberty Happiness and Justice Association, get lots of funding for nothing, and then when the Gov finally tries to make cuts I can raise a public fuss by saying "The PM is against Equality Liberty Happiness and Justice."

[mikedavid00]

The CPC did not win their minority government status because of campaign promises, they won because of people's anger with the Liberals.

That's true.

But they will lose their minority government because of their actions, such as this and by their NOT creating the National Child Care program.

In your dreams.

Please explain where the money will come from to start this mass new gov't unionzed program?

They have a minority government which means they have NO mandate to do the things they are doing.

That's true. That's why we're not being goverend to our best abilities. Because we have to please people like you who believe money falls from the trees.

Harper having to play to his base that elected him, on some things is going around the end on them with others.

Working canadians elected harper. neo-libs like yourself continued to vote NDP, Green, and Liberal. You just didn't get enough votes in your ridings to win seats. That's all.

Wonder how long it will be before he backtracks on his gutting of women and childrens programs as this move by the provinces put hims to great disadvantage, and renders the Feds irrelevant.

That will depend on the CBC.

[mikedavid00]

I think thats well said Mike. Advisory Council for the Status of Women is just a name. I could start a group called the Equality Liberty Happiness and Justice Association, get lots of funding for nothing, and then when the Gov finally tries to make cuts I can raise a public fuss by saying "The PM is against Equality Liberty Happiness and Justice."

Exactly. This is how it's done. A group of 10 from this very forum can start a neo-lib group of any name that helps.. I don't know.. The Action Group for Visible Minority Women In Calgary Who Speak French And Suffer Disctimination.

The 10 of us can sit on a board, pay ourselves $70k a year, get student volunteers, and basically let them wash cars to raise money.

And the minority french women in Calgary? Well... we can just give them a paphlet.

This is honestly, truly how it's done. It just helps if you know the right people.

[jefferiah]

Lets brainstorm then Mike.... what could we start.

It cant be called the society for straight white males thats for sure. Hmm.... I am left-handed though. That puts me in a minority. So left-handed could be a part of it.

But yeah the head of the Advisory Council for S of W in NB writes in the Moncton newspaper. I think, if I remember right, in one of her articles she proposed the idea of an "Adivisory Council for The Status of Acadian Women". We could hire this woman to brainstorm names for us.

[mikedavid00]

Lets brainstorm then Mike.... what could we start.

It cant be called the society for straight white males thats for sure. Hmm.... I am left-handed though. That puts me in a minority. So left-handed could be a part of it.

But yeah the head of the Advisory Council for S of W in NB writes in the Moncton newspaper. I think, if I remember right, in one of her articles she proposed the idea of an "Adivisory Council for The Status of Acadian Women". We could hire this woman to brainstorm names for us.

Lol!

Yeah for sure.

gotta love 'Acadian Women' part.

How many groups of these do have in Canada. It's almost scary to think about it?

[jefferiah]

But I mean imagine what the general reaction would be if someone formed a group with such specifications but called it The Society of White Anglo-Saxon Males. Really. First off I wouldnt endorse it myself. But I mean it seems to be ok for other groups to do this when forming a group of the sort I just mentioned would certainly cause some concern.

[mikedavid00]

But I mean imagine what the general reaction would be if someone formed a group with such specifications but called it The Society of White Anglo-Saxon Males. Really. First off I wouldnt endorse it myself. But I mean it seems to be ok for other groups to do this when forming a group of the sort I just mentioned would certainly cause some concern.

Yeah I totally agree.

[normanchateau]

No Mikedavid you are wrong, a father is a vital part of a child's development IMO.

This is the new age, feminist, anti-father, athiest agenda that I speak of.

The feminist agenda calls for social and economic equality for women. What's wrong with that?

[Canadian Blue]

Not all feminist's are like that normanchateau, some are pretty radical in their beliefs.

When I mean radical, basically believing that the only people capable of evil are males.

Another point is if the government gave money to NOW, and feminist organization's, why not organization's like REAL Women.

[normanchateau]

Not all feminist's are like that normanchateau, some are pretty radical in their beliefs.

Some Conservatives are also pretty radical in their beliefs. Darrel Reid for example.

[Canadian Blue]

I'd say more along the lines of Ron Gray.

I don't think that social conservatism is particularly extreme as a political philosphy. Social conservative's do bring up a reasonable argument as to what government involvement should be with regards to what moral's and virtues a country should have. The problem is that too often they identify faith with politics, which will be considered radical for any Canadian.

The feminist agenda calls for social and economic equality for women. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, except why should my taxdollars go to a pro-choice organization, when I am pro-life. We see the same thing with abortion, these group's will claim to represent all women, when even many women disagree with abortion.

As for social and economic equality, sure. However what does that even mean.

[scribblet]

Does the Status of Women Canada really help the average women, or is it simply their for feminist lobby groups. How do we know that all women have the exact same priorities. Aren't women individual's like the rest of us who can think on their own.

IMO know it doesn't, that org. lost its credibility a long time ago when it became too radicalized, they have lost their usefulness. They are simply putting forward a self serving agenda of extreme feminists. Maybe shutting down this and more lobby groups will help put more discretionary income back into the pockets of Canadians.

If you support taxpayer funded lobby groups and feel they are important to you, then you should pay for these groups to exist. Did you ever really occur to anyone that many women are quite happy and don't want or need the help of org. like the Status of Women.

[jefferiah]

No Mikedavid you are wrong, a father is a vital part of a child's development IMO.

This is the new age, feminist, anti-father, athiest agenda that I speak of.

The feminist agenda calls for social and economic equality for women. What's wrong with that?

Just because something claims to represent social and economic equality, does that mean they have the monopoly on it? I believe in equality, social and economic, but I think alot of these groups have a logic that I find is weak. Why should I have to support them for fear that I will be called a bigot if I dont support their version of equality? The way these modern groups seek equality is by trying to even out the end results of every facet of life to make it appear as if there is equality. The assumption they seem to make is that in an ideal society every career would have employees from every race and gender proportionate to their percentage of society itself. As if by magic, proportionate numbers would all apply for the same jobs. As if by magic, proportionate numbers would all magically be just as qualified. The flip-side to this assumption is that if jobs do not have proportionate numbers for every race, the only reasonable explanation is discrimination. Enforcing the appearance of equality is a very very unreasonable way to seek equality. However if you disagree with these people, they will lynch you in the papers as a "bigot" who does not support equality.

[jefferiah]

You know, Norm, very often people who support a more Liberal view will accuse, and rightly so, some of us Consevatives of using patriotism as a weapon. I know alot of people who do this and I find it can be frustrating myself when it is not applied fairly. By this, I mean, if you dont agree with everything they say you are anti-Canadian or anti-American. Well I experience this same frustration when arguing with many people of the feminist lobby, who (because I dont support many of their views, or socialist solutions) accuse me of wanting women to stay in the kitchen. They never even asked me what I thought. But if you dont support them, thats it. They will start telling people that you want women to stay in the kitchen and we want to keep them down. But anyways here is the problem. And I will try to simplify it to a very very small situation.

Lets say I owned a small corner store, and I had two employees. One of my employees is male and one is a female. They are both good workers. Everything is fine, until one day it is discovered that at the end of the week the female recieves a smaller paycheck than the male. Well there is a newspaper article about it. On the face of it this seems to the public to be an injustice. Until I write into the paper in my own defense. I say look, I give both my employees the same hourly wage. The girl just happens to work less hours. Well then soon I am facing charges that I give my male employees more hours than my female ones. So then my defense is well look this girl leaves early two days a week to pick up her son at school and take him to karate class. This is her own personal choice. She gets the same hourly rate. And I give her less hours because she works less hours. But apparently even this is not a satisfactory defense. Because despite this defense a lot of these feminist lobby groups think it is the employers responsibility to pay an equal salary to the woman who works less hours. Why, maybe the argument is that women are being forced by society to work less hours because they have to take care of kids. I dont know if thats totally true. Do the feminists ask the women whether they do this of their own personal choice? And even if in many cases it is true, for the sake of argument, why should the employer have to pay for it? He is not the one forcing them to go home?

[normanchateau]

You know, Norm, very often people who support a more Liberal view will accuse, and rightly so, some of us Consevatives of using patriotism as a weapon. I know alot of people who do this and I find it can be frustrating myself when it is not applied fairly. By this, I mean, if you dont agree with everything they say you are anti-Canadian or anti-American. Well I experience this same frustration when arguing with many people of the feminist lobby, who (because I dont support many of their views, or socialist solutions) accuse me of wanting women to stay in the kitchen. They never even asked me what I thought. But if you dont support them, thats it. They will start telling people that you want women to stay in the kitchen and we want to keep them down. But anyways here is the problem. And I will try to simplify it to a very very small situation.

Lets say I owned a small corner store, and I had two employees. One of my employees is male and one is a female. They are both good workers. Everything is fine, until one day it is discovered that at the end of the week the female recieves a smaller paycheck than the male. Well there is a newspaper article about it. On the face of it this seems to the public to be an injustice. Until I write into the paper in my own defense. I say look, I give both my employees the same hourly wage. The girl just happens to work less hours. Well then soon I am facing charges that I give my male employees more hours than my female ones. So then my defense is well look this girl leaves early two days a week to pick up her son at school and take him to karate class. This is her own personal choice. She gets the same hourly rate. And I give her less hours because she works less hours. But apparently even this is not a satisfactory defense. Because despite this defense a lot of these feminist lobby groups think it is the employers responsibility to pay an equal salary to the woman who works less hours. Why, maybe the argument is that women are being forced by society to work less hours because they have to take care of kids. I dont know if thats totally true. Do the feminists ask the women whether they do this of their own personal choice? And even if in many cases it is true, for the sake of argument, why should the employer have to pay for it? He is not the one forcing them to go home?

I mostly agree with your points in the above post. Of course someone who work less hours should not receive the same pay as someone who works more hours. But if two people work equal hours and are equally capable and efficient, shouldn't they receive equal pay? That's my interpretation of the feminist position, i.e., equal pay for equal work. Any feminist group that would demand equal pay for less work is unreasonable in my opinion.

[Catchme]

I don't think that social conservatism is particularly extreme as a political philosphy. Social conservative's do bring up a reasonable argument as to what government involvement should be with regards to what moral's and virtues a country should have. The problem is that too often they identify faith with politics, which will be considered radical for any Canadian.

The feminist agenda calls for social and economic equality for women. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, except why should my taxdollars go to a pro-choice organization, when I am pro-life. We see the same thing with abortion, these group's will claim to represent all women, when even many women disagree with abortion.

As for social and economic equality, sure. However what does that even mean.

Well, it is nice that you think that, however, history and present day, has proven that social conservatism can be particularly extreme, especially as a political philosophy, after all we would not be in Afghanistan if this were not the case, now would we? It is only a manner of degree.

What is this reasonable argument, you say that social conservatives have with regards to what morals and virtues a country should have? Furthermore, who are social conservatives to denote the morals and virtues in the first place?

Why should my tax dollars go to fund military, and military organizations that I do not agree with, or indeed to any infrastructure or program I do not agree with by the same token? W

Pro-Choice does represent ALL women, what do you not understand about the word choice? Choice is just that, choice to do/think whatever the woman chooses to do or think. Not what some other woman, or man, chooses for them. If a “woman” chooses to be pro-life, that is still her own choice, in the feminist mind. The difference is the impingement on rights. Pro-choice means absolute rights of choice/self determination by the woman but we do not allow others I.e. pro-lifers, neo-cons, the right to self determine ourselves, no one has that right. And this equality of mind and body, is not limited to abortion access, this covers all levels of society, in every situation.

Now you said above:

radical, basically believing that the only people capable of evil are males

Well, then there can’t be many radials out there, as I have never met 1 woman, in my life, who believes that the only people capable of evil are males. In fact, I have never even heard 1 refer to males as evil in a generality. There are quite a few male feminists you know.

[Catchme]

I mostly agree with your points in the above post. Of course someone who work less hours should not receive the same pay as someone who works more hours. But if two people work equal hours and are equally capable and efficient, shouldn't they receive equal pay? That's my interpretation of the feminist position, i.e., equal pay for equal work. Any feminist group that would demand equal pay for less work is unreasonable in my opinion.

Your interpretation is absolutely correct norman. No feminist would even think to demand equal pay for less hours worked no matter the gender of the person, at the same pay rate and position level.

Those that throw up such straw man arguments, as an analogy situation, have not even bothered to research what it is they are speaking against to speak against it correctly from an informed position.

[normanchateau]

I don't think that social conservatism is particularly extreme as a political philosphy.

I suppose it depends on whether you view no change as extreme. I do.

In the 1920's, when alcohol was illegal and marijuana was legal, social conservatives campaigned tirelessly for continued prohibition. That was the position of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the Ku Klux Klan and other influential social conservative organizations of the time.

You and I know, or at least have reasonable grounds to suspect that if today, alcohol was illegal and marijuana was not, social conservatives would likely support that position on the grounds that alcohol was a gateway to worse drugs and there's no point in prohibiting marijuana given that it's already legal and not as harmful as alcohol.