Friday, June 7, 2013

Why it can only be the woman’s choice



Those adamantly opposed to a woman’s right to choose when it comes to abortion want to take away her right to decide but do not consider how all of the responsibility of pregnancy and child rearing would still rest on the woman.  She would be completely responsible for the outcomes, while having been denied the right to decide if she wanted to – or was capable of – taking them on.
The only time I hear men mentioned by anti-choicers is when they say the man has a right to “his” “unborn baby” and the woman has no right to decide on her own, as though the fetus has nothing to do with the man.
However, these same people never state that the man has responsibilities toward the issue of his sex act.  Nor is it ever said that if the guy doesn’t want a baby, he shouldn’t have had sex.  That burden is placed on the woman.
Consider a world where abortion is illegal, but equal onus is placed on the man since he is generally equally responsible for the pregnancy (and in cases like rape, fully responsible).  In such a world, the man would have to take on 50% of all consequences related to an unplanned pregnancy.
The cost of raising a child would have to be determined so that he pays that amount, by law, or is charged with abandonment, or child neglect and goes to jail.  He would also be forced by law to pay half of the costs associated with the pregnancy and the recovery of the woman.
Child rearing costs would include day care costs since he must share in anything that affects the woman as a result of the unwanted pregnancy.  If the woman had to interrupt her career or leave school due to the pregnancy, the man would be held responsible for helping her – 50% responsible – get back on track.
If the guy won’t do it, or can’t do it, there would have to be social assistance fully in place to meet what he fails at since, as anti-choicers insist, all life is sacred and someone has to look out for the children.
If the woman suffered a miscarriage, the man would have to be investigated as well to see if he made sure the woman had access to good food, plenty of rest, and was not exposed to any of his bad habits or addictions that could have caused her to miscarry.
Her bosses and employers would also have to be investigated.  Did they provide a pregnancy friendly environment?  Did they do everything required to reduce her stress level, to make sure she wasn’t exposed to anything in the environment that could affect her pregnancy?
Crazy, right?  Well, these are the things that anti-choicers would force on a woman, and the woman alone.  They do not say those things and they probably don’t intend for those things to happen, but they sure don’t address them or consider them when pro-choicers try to explain why abortion can only be a woman’s choice.
When social issues are raised with the anti-choicers, they brush them off, or at best, claim these matters can be dealt with later, after anti-abortion laws are passed.  But that would never happen.  A male dominated world will never make men 50% responsible for all aspects of pregnancy and child rearing.
Women are unquestioningly made responsible for all aspects of pregnancy and child rearing.  They are the default breeders and caregivers.  There are some excellent fathers, yes, and more praise to them for doing it without being forced to.  And yes, some men are forced by law to provide the bare minimum to their offspring, but it is often not even enough to feed the child for a month.
The rest is on the woman.  She has to sort out day care so she can work to provide for the child.  She has to set aside her personal goals to have and raise the child.  She alone faces the related health issues.  And if she abandons the baby because it’s too much for her to handle, she is charged with abandonment.  She can’t drop the baby off at the biological father’s and say, ok, your turn, your responsibility, because that’s abandonment unless he agrees to adopt the kid.  But if the guy turns his back on the baby, that’s not abandonment since the mother is default caregiver.  That says a lot.  If the child goes hungry – mother’s fault.  No one goes chasing down the dad.
All the responsibility on the woman means the choice to go through with a pregnancy is her choice and hers alone.  If we lived in a different world where responsibility was naturally shared and needed no laws to enforce it, that would be different.   But we don’t, and we never will.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Moore hypocrisy


yes, I Sun-media-ed that title.  Sorry.
Moore is pretty concerned that “Canada" or "canadien" may be removed from an informal identifier for Radio Canada.
A new branding exercise by the French-language CBC has Heritage Minister James Moore warning that Canadians won't tolerate any move away from a pan-Canadian identity..
Selon le ministre Moore, « la grande majorité des Canadiens vont être un peu préoccupés quand on parle de diminuer la présence du mot Canada ou canadien dans l'une de nos langues officielles ». (According to Moore, « the great majority of canadians will be concerned when we talk about diminishing the presence of the word Canada or canadian in one of our official languages.)
How does Moore think they would feel if the word was removed in both official languages?  From, let's say, The Government of Canada>
And lest anyone forgets, a directive went out to public servants late last year that "Government of Canada" in federal communications should be replaced by the words "Harper Government."
...Even the Treasury Board Secretariat is using the term. Treasury Board is the federal department charged with policing government communications policy, including the Federal Identity Program - which to a layman's eyes appears to forbid such off-handed personalization in government titles. Among other things, the policy states that "the criteria for creating an applied title include that it must: incorporate the word Canada or appear with the words Government of Canada. ..."
I guess Moore isn’t too concerned about that re-brand:
Harper Government Unveils Lineup for Canada Day 2013 Celebrations on Parliament Hill
OTTAWA, May 29, 2013- Today, the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, and Russell Mills, Chair of the National Capital Commission (NCC), invited all Canadians to participate in the 2013 Canada Day celebrations and announced the program for the Noon and Evening shows on Parliament Hill... (from Canadian Heritage site)
One rule for thee, another for me.  Rathgeber can relate to that today as his old CPC pals are saying he should quit and run in a by-election.  Like Emerson, Khan, and Comuzzi did.  Oh, wait.  They never did.

Friday, May 31, 2013

Putting faces to the election fraud story

Duffy has the great misfortune of looking like a caricature of what it turns out he is.  Wallin is less porcine in appearance but still holds looks like someone who believes she is better than others, naturally entitled to perks and law breaking activities.

For many people, it is easier to relate to a story and to stay interested in it when it has a face.
I believe this is part of the reason why the PMO/Senate stories are getting so much attention, while the more serious issue of election fraud is scarcely mentioned.  In fact, some people seem to think that the matter is resolved because a judge made a ruling and no charges were laid.

Charges were not laid because it wasn’t that kind of a case.

The Council of Canadians launched a lawsuit to ask for by-elections to be ordered in seven ridings where complaints were received and where Conservatives had won by slim margins.   Judge Mosley ruled that there was no proof that robocalls changed the outcome in those ridings so he dismissed the case.

He did, however rule  “that electoral fraud had indeed been committed by Conservatives in six ridings across Canada.”

So the story isn’t over, the matter is not resolved.  The election results in the ridings in question are, for now, to stand, but there is now a clear ruling that election fraud has been committed.

What does the law do when fraud has been committed?  It investigates, finds who committed the fraud, and charges them.

We know that the current elected government will not order an investigation into anything that could make them look bad unless the public outcry is so loud and constant that it causes them to drop sharply in the polls.  We know that other bodies, like the RCMP also act more quickly under public pressure.

Not all the pressure from the opposition will make a bit of difference if the issue is not picked up and repeated over and over by the press and makes its way into the daily discourse of many, many Canadians.

So with all of that in mind, here are some of the faces of this election fraud story:
 
Joyce Bateman

Kelly Block


John Duncan


Ryan Leef
 
Lawrence Toet

 Joe Daniel

Were they knowing participants in the election fraud which occurred in their ridings?  Only a criminal investigation can help answer that although they should know what their campaign is up to, and they are responsible for how it is run.

Did those ridings, and others all across Canada simultaneously and independently engage in election fraud?  Not likely, not remotely reasonable to think so.

And who is it that sets the tone for a party to believe that committing fraud to win an election is not only fine, but encouraged?

This guy:

  
Whether or not harper had direct knowledge or direct involvement in the election fraud , he still set the tone.  He’s the leader, and he is responsible for what those under his leadership do.

Not surprising harper hates artists.


Through their art, good artists reveal the nature of their subject.
By chance, I came upon a 2010 blog post by Ottawa photographer Tony Fouhse entitled STEPHANIE + STEPHEN.  
In the post, he shows photos he took of “drug addict” Stephanie, and “power addict” Stephen Harper.  Tony writes about his experience photographing both, offering us the perspective of an artist trying to capture their nature.

I think he did a phenomenal job with harper – 

 
Considering the restrictions imposed upon his shoot by harper & Co., Tony’s results are amazing.

"But before I get into the vibe of the Harper shoot I have to tell you that his people gave me 45 minutes to set up and he would sit for 5 minutes. So it’s not like I know him like I know Stephanie. But a fotoshoot can be a charged, intense situation, one which provides all kinds of dynamic and input that allow you to see more clearly.
And you walk away with proof….. "

Yes, you do.

That is without doubt the most chilling photo of harper I have seen.  Cold, emotionless, a touch of contempt and cruelty showing in his pressed lips.  Slight impatience in the posture and eyes. 
Tony tells us something more of what the experience told him of harper's nature:

"But the way Steph does it is, she acts, she gets in touch with some emotion and shows it to me. Not in a pretentious way, but in a way that approaches some truth. She wants to connect.

Stephen, on the other hand, doesn’t act. He just stands there and is himself. No emotion, no connection.

And that’s a kind of truth, too."

Yes, it is.

Three years have passed since that photo was taken and harper has since learned that he needs to soften his image, needs to appear more human, needs to pretend that he is approachable.  I doubt he would allow an independent artist to take his photo now unless he could stage the shots to his pretend heart’s content and own full rights of the product.




Despite his best efforts at staging photo ops to project a nature he wants Canadians to believe he has, photos of him over the past few years fail miserably to warm Canadians to him.  They are so obviously staged, so contrived, and harper is so very uncomfortable having to pretend to be something he isn’t.

In five minutes, Tony Fouhse saw something three years ago that is only becoming obvious  to many Canadians now -

“He just stared into the camera.  There was no transparency.”Tony Fouhse, MacLean’s Portraits, 100 Years of Celebrity, Power and Personality, Saturday, April 27, 2013