Opinion

Canadian Women Might Envy Obama's US

As Harper's replay of Bush policies hurts the vulnerable, we no longer can look south and feel superior.

By Alison Brewin, 24 Feb 2011, Ms. Magazine

HarperBush

Smarter than Bush, but same ideology.

Related

We Canadians are nicer and less violent than our southern neighbours. We address conflict through compromise, smile politely when faced with difference and only get drunk and belligerent when hockey is on.

At least that's what we like to think of ourselves.

We point to our universal health care system, welfare programs, gun control and robust equality rights. Our 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms was designed to institutionalize those values. We even added a funding process to help Canadians bring equality and minority rights challenges to the Supreme Court.

The growth of the Christian Right in the United States seemed laughable to Canadians. Did Americans really feel that Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson had a special bond with God? Did they really think that "the right to bear arms" meant no limit to their gun ownership? Did they believe in creationism... seriously?

Then Bush, Jr., was "elected," and he was stiff and odd and didn't care about facts and research. He implemented brutal policies against low-income Americans and women, and followed that with two wars.

But as progressive folks up north clucked complacently at U.S. folly, the winds of change were gathering around Canada's snowy Parliament Hill. In 2006 we elected a minority Conservative government under the leadership of a grey-faced, thin-lipped man named Stephen Harper. In typical Canadian fashion, progressive forces immediately froze in disarray. We wrung our hands and hoped his Conservative party's status as a minority government would keep Harper's right-wing policies from actually having an impact on our Canadian way of life. We were wrong.

"I'd say Tricky Nixon in character," says long-time Canadian feminist writer Michelle Landsberg, when asked which U.S. president Mr. Harper most resembles. "But Nixon wasn't so vicious."

Harper's actions against women's needs epitomize the wide swath of Bush-style policies he has inflicted on Canada in the last four years.

Day care: In 2005, after 30 years of feminist lobbying, the federal government announced a $5 billion national day care plan. This was wiped away in Harper's first budget.

Pay equity: Canadian feminists looked on in awe as President Obama chose to make his first piece of legislation the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The first bill Harper introduced after re-election in 2008 was an omnibus economic stimulus bill. Buried deep inside was what his minster of finance described as "legislation designed to integrate pay equity into collective bargaining." But it actually eliminated the power of women in the civil service to file pay-equity complaints and allowed the government to fine unions that take up such a complaint. This, despite the 70 per cent gender wage gap in Canada.

Abortion services and the "Unborn Victims of Crime" Act: Thankfully, in this area Harper has been challenged by his minority control of the government and so has had only limited success. While Obama moved quickly to eliminate the "global gag rule" that limited funding to international organizations providing abortion services, Harper's government announced that they would not support any funding of abortion services in international aid.

Combined with a stealth effort to introduce the Unborn Victims of Crime Act -- which would allow separate charges in the injury or death of a fetus when a pregnant woman is attacked (i.e., the fetus would be judged a person) -- this illustrates the strength of the Christian Right's role among Harper's Conservatives. Fortunately the government was defeated before the act got through, leading to the 2008 election.

But Harper's Conservative Party won an even stronger minority in that election, increasing their representation in the House of Commons to 143 of 308 seats. The bill may well be reintroduced.

Violence against women: As many as 3,000 Canadian women missing or murdered -- 80 per cent of them Aboriginal -- have been the subject of little or no police investigation. Violence against women, particularly indigenous women, remains the starkest illustration of women's continued inequality in Canada. The story of women vanishing from both urban and rural settings is not only a story of indifferent or limited police action: it's a story of the feminization of poverty, of cuts in public services necessary for women's safety, of the real face of racism in Canada and of badly written and badly implemented prostitution laws.

Meanwhile, Harper's "crime and punishment" agenda is silent on the subject of violence against women. He will increase mandatory sentences and build new jails, but you won't hear him acknowledge that domestic violence continues to be the single most common violent crime in the nation.

No reason to feel superior

Canadians can no longer point south and chuckle smugly. We have a prime minister who is stiff and odd and brutal to low-income Canadians and women, who doesn't care about facts and research and who is powered by the ideology of the Christian Right. His minority status means he must continue to collaborate if he is to avoid defeat, but the three opposition parties refuse to pull together their majority of seats to oppose him and thereby force an election. Instead, each one supports him on separate occasions -- just enough to keep him going.

In this way, Harper's minority status hasn't stopped him from quietly manipulating power while fundamentally altering government data collection when the results don't suit his ideology. What is truly frightening is that he seems smarter than George W. and more vicious than Nixon -- what would he do with a majority?

So instead of continuing our tradition of being a peaceful haven for runaway slaves and Vietnam draft-resisters, Canada may now become a refuge for fans of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, fleeing from the "socialist agenda" of President Obama.  [Tyee]

12  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • MaleMatters

    1 year ago

    the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

    No legislation yet has closed the gender wage gap in the U.S. — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action, not diversity, not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission..... Nor would the Paycheck Fairness Act have worked.

    None of the legislation pushed by pay-equity advocates works because the advocates continue to overlook the effects of this female and male behavior:

    Despite the 40-year-old demand for women's equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of "The Secrets of Happily Married Women," stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. "In the past few years,” he says in a CNN August 2008 report at http://tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier....” at http://tinyurl.com/qqkaka. This may or may not reflect a higher percentage of women staying at home than in the previous decade. But if the percentage is higher, perhaps it's because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs, and so why bother working if they're going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.)

    As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Because they're supported by their husband.

    If millions of wives can accept no wages and live as well as their husbands, millions of other wives can accept low wages, refuse overtime and promotions, take more unpaid days off, avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (http://tinyurl.com/45ecy7p) — all of which lower women's average pay. They can do this because they are supported by a husband who must earn more than if he'd remained single — which is how MEN help create the wage gap. (If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.)

    See “A Response to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act” at http://tinyurl.com/pvbrcu

    By the way, the next Equal Occupational Fatality Day is in 2020. The year 2020 is how far into the future women will have to work to experience the same number of work-related deaths that men experienced in 2009 alone.

  • Bailey

    1 year ago

    Faith based reasons permit lies to succeed

    In the 19th century, the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Salvation Army made common cause to outlaw alcohol consumption in the US. This led to a situation where small Italian American men's clubs would be rapidly converted to one of the richest elements in the largest economy on Earth.

    That money has since been used very effectively to corrupt elected public servants in the Western democracies and assume control of corporate power bases across the board throughout our societies.

    Whenever you hear howls from oppressed populations who thought their governments were sworn to serve society, but discover that they have been bought and paid for by forces opposed to their interests, look for corporate money changing hands in large amounts.

    Mr Harper feels that the religious are somehow a constituency for him. In reality, the ethics of his position forbid him from acting in any interests but those of the whole body of Canadian society. Those of faith are supposed to be left to use persuasion alone to influence the behaviour of people. They really ought not to be allowed to use legislation for that purpose.

    And any public servant who allows such an improper use of legislation needs to have his books looked at quite closely, by an independent auditor.

  • realisticman

    1 year ago

    Ideological rhetoric from a Hidden Agenda lover.

    "Day care: In 2005, after 30 years of feminist lobbying, the federal government announced a $5 billion national day care plan. This was wiped away in Harper's first budget. "

    We suppose that "feminist lobbying" didn't work for 30 years, including 13 years of Liberal rule. Let us not forget that the Liberals promised and promised and promised, then promised once again just as they read the tea leaves and the polls and could see the fact looming that they were losing.

    Then, all of a sudden, the Conservatives and Stephen Harper were elected and a Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) was implemented almost immediately.

    Lois Brown explains:
    http://www.loisbrown.ca/EN/8285/93885

  • snert

    1 year ago

  • RickW

    1 year ago

  • offended

    1 year ago

    It is apparent that the author

    has little or no knowledge of the war against women that is being perpetrated by the Republican party in the States right now.

    No contest; the US wins for trying to take back whatever rights women have had.

  • offended

    1 year ago

    And here's an example from the state of Virginia from today

    "Virginia took a big step Thursday toward eliminating most of the state's 21 abortion clinics, approving a bill that would likely make rules so strict the medical centers would be forced to close, Democrats and abortion rights supporters said."

    huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20110224/us-xgr-virginia-abortion/

  • Finewine

    1 year ago

    Harper's agenda

    Harper has managed to erode democracy in his role as a minority PM. He's sneaky, secretive and dictatorial. Read Harperland and The Armageddon Factor if you really want to know what he's up to. Scary, boys and girls.

  • greengreen

    1 year ago

    reality check

    realisticman...I hope you are not in any way equating the UCCB with a national day care program. I understand that Sarah and Newt wouldn't know the difference, but you....[OFFENSIVE COMMENT DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]?

  • jwstewart

    1 year ago

    It's all rather presumptious to blame the leader...

    This is not a womens issue even though the author would like to play that card to pander for support.

    The fact is that for about 100 years women have had equal voting rights, as well as party afilition rights.

    So could we not just accept that the 50% of the people supporting these decisions are female?

    Or does the author want us to beleive zero women voted for the Conservaties or Republicans?

  • OwlRol

    1 year ago

    Not a women's issue

    justewart, I suggest you take a few sociology courses, especially a couple mentored by women.

    To say this is not a women's issue is absurd.

    Many women, especially immigrants, vote as their husbands, or to a lesser extent, their fathers and brothers do, for cultural reasons, or because they have not been fully informed in their busy lives of work and looking after kids and home (only some males share domestic work equally), or just to keep peace in the home.

    Of course, the fiasco around the long form census won't help make future analysis of such issues more accurate and less Fox news like.

    The notion that women have reached parity with men in the workplace or society as a whole is as much of a myth as the idea that anyone who would reign in big business excess could become Prime Minister.

    Another myth is that the women's movement has won its battle and is no longer needed. The "feminist" brand has been stereotyped negatively and many young women are afraid to identify themselves as such, even though they agree with many of its principles. There is a new and growing movement of rebElles, but it will be some time before they have the force of 60s and 70s Women's Lib.

    For the most part the mainstream media has not helped as they continue to pump out inferiority producing, brain numbing, cosmetic industry ads and programs where beautiful, brainy women are mostly evil schemers or victims to male shananigans.
    Only a few exceptions.

  • OwlRol

    1 year ago

    Future to the Back

    The ongoing and now accelerated attack on the public sector unions' bargaining rights is most instructive (eg. Wisconsin).

    Most of the lower end workers in the public health care, education and administrative (formerly called secretarial) positions are women. Many have a reasonable, but not great, salary. Just like in the private sector, the top end, mostly male, administrators are riding the gravy train while many working in the trenches are struggling to stay afloat, especially with the now, long ongoing cutbacks..

    Yet the low end is under attack as collective bargaining rights, so essential to these workers' well being, are being dismantled.

    As the Wisconsin Republican governor said, We have to do this because "The system is broken." Who broke it? Top end bankers, fund managers and investors, almost exclusively male. Who has to pay for it? The little guy and more so, due to the demographics of the public sector, the little gal.

    Despite the responsibility for breaking the system, the top end is not being held responsible, lets say, through increasing wealth tax over $250 000 a year.
    Rather the opposite.

    Let's keep cutting corporate and top end taxes. U.S. Republican governor Rand Paul recently said that the U.S. needs to cut corporate tax down to Canadian levels, yet the Harpo gang would lower these taxes even further.

    Lower taxes, fewer and less effective public services, including women's services. This should be obvious in our health care, judicial and educational systems, amongst others.

    The result; the top end, after being bailed out with tax dollars, are back to making money hand over fist, while the middle and working classes, many of these being women, are further being gouged and disempowered. The middle class is surely disappearing.

    And the Harpo religious cabal claims to help women with child tax credits while they demolish various women's organizations, including shelters, through funding cuts (their preferred method of getting rid of those who don't tout their ideologies). Funny how economics and religion can be so conveniently melded. After all, isn't that how the Protestant work ethic, the root of capitalism, got going.

    The bible has very few female heroes, usually relegated to assistant supporters of a patriarchal system (at least as interpreted about the 5th. century onward). Aside from a few work based technological changes, this federal govt., amongst other conservative governments, would drive women back to the 50s "Father Knows Best" mentality.

    Would women have any more rights and benefits in a 21st. century corporate feudal system than they did in the religiously driven midevil feudal system?

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.