Women have reason to fear another Harper government.
by Linda Silver Dranoff, Tuesday, October 07, 2008
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature8.cfm?REF=522
Women have a lot to fear from a Harper government, whether he gets a majority or a minority. The polls show that in battleground ridings across Canada, the Conservative party leads among women voters. How can this be? How can we have forgotten?
Just because Harper's stylists and public relations advisors have tried to soften Harper's tough image by putting smiles on his face and sweaters on his back does not change the fact that women's interests have suffered at the hands of Stephen Harper and his government's misguided policies in the two years since he has been Prime Minister. Everything he has done indicates that women's interests will continue to suffer if he is re-elected.
Soon after taking office, Harper broke the promise he made during the 2006 election campaign to "take concrete and immediate measures... to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women." By a simple stroke of the pen (and without parliamentary involvement), he removed "the pursuit of equality" from the mandate of Status of Women Canada (SWC).
Before that, SWC's role was to protect the equality interests of women in government policies and programs. Harper ruled that SWC could no longer fund any organization that did research, advocacy or lobbying to promote women's equality. Then he financially crippled their ability to do the part of the job he had not excised, by cutting $5 million from a $13 million budget.
Twelve of the agency's 16 regional offices were closed. Any available funding was short-term and for projects; there was no core funding and no funding for administrative costs.
Many organizations lost their financial underpinnings. Because advocacy was no longer eligible, the National Association of Women and the Law was a casualty. For more than 30 years, NAWL's lawyers did advocacy and research to support legal improvements for women. Under Harper's government, it had to close its office and terminate its paid staff.
The Court Challenges program, in place since the early 1980's, was another fatality. This program subsidized test cases to interpret and clarify the1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It financed some of the work of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund ("LEAF"), founded in 1985, which has intervened in over 150 constitutional equality cases on a wide range of issues including violence against women, sexual assault, workplace inequities, socio-economic rights and reproductive freedoms.
LEAF's goal is to ensure that the law guarantees substantive equality for all women in Canada. It now relies on donations.
The Women's Future Fund closed, another victim of the 2006 government funding cuts. The WFF had raised money for national women's organizations that fostered equality rights for women and girls, like the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, National Congress of Black Women Foundation, and the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women.
Then there's childcare. Women have sought for thirty years to establish a universal and accessible childcare plan with substantial government funding to ensure that as many Canadian children as possible have access to safe and regulated programs. Under the previous government, all the provinces and the federal government had agreed to a major initiative, by which more childcare centres would be built and financially supported.
One of the first things Stephen Harper did when he took office was to summarily and unilaterally terminate the program. There was no parliamentary vote; there was only executive fiat. Harper's choice to make a limited cash payment to select families did not provide any daycare spaces (much less a national system) to care for children. You can't buy daycare services for $100 a month.
Stephen Harper slashed or terminated funding to the organizations that were vigilant on women's behalf. He made these funding cuts to equality-seeking women's groups and to women's programs apparently for ideological reasons. He wasn't facing a deficit when he did it; he was rolling in the bountiful surplus inherited from the previous Liberal government.
In only two years, the Harper government has done a great deal to dismantle major advances won by the women's movement, working with woman-friendly governments, over the previous 30 years — advances such as family law reform, pay equity, maternity and parental leave benefits, modest improvements to childcare programs, domestic violence programs and much more. Important, respected and effective programs have been crippled and then shut down.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade website still tells the world that, "Canada is a world leader in the promotion and protection of women's rights and gender equality." Ironically, the main link on that page leads to a 404 — File Not Found. And that is exactly what is likely to happen to women's rights if the Conservatives manage to form the government again.
Linda Silver Dranoff is a Toronto lawyer and author of Every Canadian's Guide to the Law. She spearheaded the lobby effort for family law reform and is a former vice-chair of the Ontario Status of Women Council.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
This is NOT a Conservative Party!
Join us TONIGHT at the King's Head Pub (120 King Street) for a rockin' night of music and video with performances by:
Quinzy
Drums & Wires
Patrick Keenan
DJ Rob Vilar
Les Klassen, Hope Peterson, & PO-MO
Cover is PWYC... we just wanna see you there!!!
Quinzy
Drums & Wires
Patrick Keenan
DJ Rob Vilar
Les Klassen, Hope Peterson, & PO-MO
Cover is PWYC... we just wanna see you there!!!
An open letter to Prime Minister Harper by Wajdi Mouawad
This open letter to the Prime Minister was published in Le Devoir a few weeks ago; the translation is thanks to John van Burek. We just realized that we'd not included it here as well, for all of you to read, in case you haven't already.
***
Monsieur le premier ministre,
We are neighbours. We work across the street from one another. You are Prime Minister of the Parliament of Canada and I, across the way, am a writer, theatre director and Artistic Director of the French Theatre at the National Arts Centre (NAC). So, like you, I am an employee of the state, working for the Federal Government; in other words, we are colleagues.
Let me take advantage of this unique position, as one functionary to another, to chat with you about the elimination of some federal grants in the field of culture, something that your government recently undertook.
Indeed, having followed this matter closely, I have arrived at a few conclusions that I would like to publicly share with you since, as I'm sure you will agree, this debate has become one of public interest.
The Symbolism
Firstly, it seems that you might benefit by surrounding yourself with counsellors who will be attentive to the symbolic aspects of your Government's actions. I am sure you know this but there is no harm in reminding ourselves that every public action denotes not only what it is but what it symbolises.
For example, a Prime Minister who chooses not attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, claiming his schedule does not permit it, in no way reduces the symbolism which says that his absence might signify something else. This might signify that he wishes to denote that Canada supports the claims of Tibet . Or it might serve as a sign of protest over the way in which Beijing deals with human rights. If the Prime Minister insists that his absence is really just a matter of timing, whether he likes it or not, this will take on symbolic meaning that commits the entire country. The symbolism of a public gesture will always outweigh the technical explanations.
Declaration of war
Last week, your government reaffirmed its manner of governing unilaterally, this time on a domestic issue, in bringing about reductions in granting programs destined for the cultural sector. A mere matter of budgeting, you say, but one which sends shock waves throughout the cultural milieu rightly or wrongly, as we shall see- for being seen as an expression of your contempt for that sector. The confusion with which your Ministers tried to justify those reductions and their refusal to make public the reports on the eliminated programs, only served to confirm the symbolic significance of that contempt. You have just declared war on the artists.
Now, as one functionary to another, this is the second thing that I wanted to tell you: no government, in showing contempt for artists, has ever been able to survive. Not one. One can, of course, ignore them, corrupt them, seduce them, buy them, censor them, kill them, send them to camps, spy on them, but hold them in contempt, no. That is akin to rupturing the strange pact, made millennia ago, between art and politics.
Contempt
Art and politics both hate and envy one another; since time immemorial, they detest each other and they are mutually attracted, and it's through this dynamic that many a political idea has been born; it is in this dynamic that sometimes, great works of art see the light of day. Your cultural politics, it must be said, provoke only a profound consternation. Neither hate nor detestation, not envy nor attraction, nothing but numbness before the oppressive vacuum that drives your policies.
This vacuum which lies between you and the artists of Canada , from a symbolic point of view, signifies that your government, for however long it lasts, will not witness either the birth of a political idea or a masterwork, so firm is your apparent belief in the unworthiness of that for which you show contempt. Contempt is a subterranean sentiment, being a mix of unassimilated jealousy and fear towards that which we despise. Such governments have existed, but not lasted because even the most detestable of governments cannot endure if it hasn't the courage to affirm what it actually is.
Why is this?
What are the reasons behind these reductions, which are cut from the same cloth as those made last year on the majority of Canadian embassies, who saw their cultural programming reduced, if not eliminated? The economies that you have made are ridiculously small and the votes you might win with them have already been won. For what reason, then, are you so bent on hurting the artists by denying them some of their tools? What are you seeking to extinguish and to gain?
Your silence and your actions make one fear the worst for, in the end, we are quite struck by the belief that this contempt, made eloquent by your budget cuts, is very real and that you feel nothing but disgust for these people, these artists, who spend their time by wasting it and in spending the good taxpayers money, he who, rather than doing uplifting work, can only toil.
And yet, I still cannot fathom your reasoning. Plenty of politicians, for the past fifty years, have done all they could to depoliticise art, to strip it of its symbolic import. They try the impossible, to untie that knot which binds art to politics. And they almost succeed! Whereas you, in the space of one week, have undone this work of chloroforming, by awakening the cultural milieu, Francophone and Anglophone, and from coast to coast. Even if politically speaking they are marginal a nd negligible, one must never underestimate intellectuals, never underestimate artists; don't underestimate their ability to do you harm.
A grain of sand is all-powerful.
I believe, my dear colleague, that you yourself have just planted the grain of sand that could derail the entire machine of your electoral campaign. Culture is, in fact, nothing but a grain of sand, but therein lays its power, in its silent front. It operates in the dark. That is its legitimate strength.
It is full of people who are incomprehensible but very adept with words. They have voices. They know how to write, to paint, to dance, to sculpt, to sing, and they won't let up on you. Democratically speaking, they seek to annihilate your policies. They will not give up. How could they?
You must understand them: they have not had a clear and common purpose for a very long time, for such a long time that they have no common cause to defend. In one week, by not controlling the symbolic importance of your actions, you have just given them passion, anger, rage.
The resistance that will begin today, and to which my letter is added, is but a first manifestation of a movement that you yourself have set in motion: an incalculable number of texts, speeches, acts, assemblies, marches, will now be making themselves heard. They will not be exhausted.
Some of these will, perhaps, following my letter, be weakened but within each word, there will be a spark of rage, relit, and it is precisely the addition of these tiny instances of fire that will shape the grain of sand that you will never be able to shake. This will not settle down, the pressure will not be diminished.
Monsieur le premier ministre, we are neighbours. We work across the street from one another. There is nothing but the Cenotaph between our offices, and this is as it should be because politics and art have always mirrored one another, each on its own shore, each seeing itself in the other, separated by that river where life and death are weighed at every moment.
We have many things in common, but an artist, contrary to a politician, has nothing to lose, because he or she does not make laws; and if it is prime ministers who change the world, it's the artist who will show this to the world. So do not attempt, through your policies, to blind us, Monsieur le premier ministre; do not ignore that reflection on the opposite shore, do not plunge us further into the dark. Do not diminish us.
Wajdi Mouawad
***
Monsieur le premier ministre,
We are neighbours. We work across the street from one another. You are Prime Minister of the Parliament of Canada and I, across the way, am a writer, theatre director and Artistic Director of the French Theatre at the National Arts Centre (NAC). So, like you, I am an employee of the state, working for the Federal Government; in other words, we are colleagues.
Let me take advantage of this unique position, as one functionary to another, to chat with you about the elimination of some federal grants in the field of culture, something that your government recently undertook.
Indeed, having followed this matter closely, I have arrived at a few conclusions that I would like to publicly share with you since, as I'm sure you will agree, this debate has become one of public interest.
The Symbolism
Firstly, it seems that you might benefit by surrounding yourself with counsellors who will be attentive to the symbolic aspects of your Government's actions. I am sure you know this but there is no harm in reminding ourselves that every public action denotes not only what it is but what it symbolises.
For example, a Prime Minister who chooses not attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, claiming his schedule does not permit it, in no way reduces the symbolism which says that his absence might signify something else. This might signify that he wishes to denote that Canada supports the claims of Tibet . Or it might serve as a sign of protest over the way in which Beijing deals with human rights. If the Prime Minister insists that his absence is really just a matter of timing, whether he likes it or not, this will take on symbolic meaning that commits the entire country. The symbolism of a public gesture will always outweigh the technical explanations.
Declaration of war
Last week, your government reaffirmed its manner of governing unilaterally, this time on a domestic issue, in bringing about reductions in granting programs destined for the cultural sector. A mere matter of budgeting, you say, but one which sends shock waves throughout the cultural milieu rightly or wrongly, as we shall see- for being seen as an expression of your contempt for that sector. The confusion with which your Ministers tried to justify those reductions and their refusal to make public the reports on the eliminated programs, only served to confirm the symbolic significance of that contempt. You have just declared war on the artists.
Now, as one functionary to another, this is the second thing that I wanted to tell you: no government, in showing contempt for artists, has ever been able to survive. Not one. One can, of course, ignore them, corrupt them, seduce them, buy them, censor them, kill them, send them to camps, spy on them, but hold them in contempt, no. That is akin to rupturing the strange pact, made millennia ago, between art and politics.
Contempt
Art and politics both hate and envy one another; since time immemorial, they detest each other and they are mutually attracted, and it's through this dynamic that many a political idea has been born; it is in this dynamic that sometimes, great works of art see the light of day. Your cultural politics, it must be said, provoke only a profound consternation. Neither hate nor detestation, not envy nor attraction, nothing but numbness before the oppressive vacuum that drives your policies.
This vacuum which lies between you and the artists of Canada , from a symbolic point of view, signifies that your government, for however long it lasts, will not witness either the birth of a political idea or a masterwork, so firm is your apparent belief in the unworthiness of that for which you show contempt. Contempt is a subterranean sentiment, being a mix of unassimilated jealousy and fear towards that which we despise. Such governments have existed, but not lasted because even the most detestable of governments cannot endure if it hasn't the courage to affirm what it actually is.
Why is this?
What are the reasons behind these reductions, which are cut from the same cloth as those made last year on the majority of Canadian embassies, who saw their cultural programming reduced, if not eliminated? The economies that you have made are ridiculously small and the votes you might win with them have already been won. For what reason, then, are you so bent on hurting the artists by denying them some of their tools? What are you seeking to extinguish and to gain?
Your silence and your actions make one fear the worst for, in the end, we are quite struck by the belief that this contempt, made eloquent by your budget cuts, is very real and that you feel nothing but disgust for these people, these artists, who spend their time by wasting it and in spending the good taxpayers money, he who, rather than doing uplifting work, can only toil.
And yet, I still cannot fathom your reasoning. Plenty of politicians, for the past fifty years, have done all they could to depoliticise art, to strip it of its symbolic import. They try the impossible, to untie that knot which binds art to politics. And they almost succeed! Whereas you, in the space of one week, have undone this work of chloroforming, by awakening the cultural milieu, Francophone and Anglophone, and from coast to coast. Even if politically speaking they are marginal a nd negligible, one must never underestimate intellectuals, never underestimate artists; don't underestimate their ability to do you harm.
A grain of sand is all-powerful.
I believe, my dear colleague, that you yourself have just planted the grain of sand that could derail the entire machine of your electoral campaign. Culture is, in fact, nothing but a grain of sand, but therein lays its power, in its silent front. It operates in the dark. That is its legitimate strength.
It is full of people who are incomprehensible but very adept with words. They have voices. They know how to write, to paint, to dance, to sculpt, to sing, and they won't let up on you. Democratically speaking, they seek to annihilate your policies. They will not give up. How could they?
You must understand them: they have not had a clear and common purpose for a very long time, for such a long time that they have no common cause to defend. In one week, by not controlling the symbolic importance of your actions, you have just given them passion, anger, rage.
The resistance that will begin today, and to which my letter is added, is but a first manifestation of a movement that you yourself have set in motion: an incalculable number of texts, speeches, acts, assemblies, marches, will now be making themselves heard. They will not be exhausted.
Some of these will, perhaps, following my letter, be weakened but within each word, there will be a spark of rage, relit, and it is precisely the addition of these tiny instances of fire that will shape the grain of sand that you will never be able to shake. This will not settle down, the pressure will not be diminished.
Monsieur le premier ministre, we are neighbours. We work across the street from one another. There is nothing but the Cenotaph between our offices, and this is as it should be because politics and art have always mirrored one another, each on its own shore, each seeing itself in the other, separated by that river where life and death are weighed at every moment.
We have many things in common, but an artist, contrary to a politician, has nothing to lose, because he or she does not make laws; and if it is prime ministers who change the world, it's the artist who will show this to the world. So do not attempt, through your policies, to blind us, Monsieur le premier ministre; do not ignore that reflection on the opposite shore, do not plunge us further into the dark. Do not diminish us.
Wajdi Mouawad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
