So if a child is married to an adult in another country where such things are legal, is her husband allowed to keep raping the child if they move to Canada?

Because according to the CONs, she is still the old fuck's wife.

And if a woman moves to Canada from a country where women aren’t allowed to vote or run for office, does that mean she can’t vote in Canada when she becomes a citizen?

What a bull-shit line of reasoning to impose narrow, twisted, vile beliefs on others.

Harper keeps saying he won’t re-open same sex marriage debates, but he is changing our laws through the back door, getting Canadians used to the ideas, altering our very identity as he clearly has been stating he intends.

No one in steve’s party publicly expresses intent to change legislation without clearing it through him first.  Enough retired MPs, senators, and insiders have told us so and we have seen what happens to those who oppose him – Bill Casey, Garth Turner, Chong…

So when his CONsorts keep gunning for women’s wombs across the country, there is no doubt fatso wants the abortion issue to come out.  He can claim he didn’t open debate,  he can claim Canadians want it.  He can let his atavistic crew push through some law that opens the door to abortion (giving fetuses same status as Canadians when a woman miscarries due to an attack) then say it’s really a legal argument and he can hardly stop debate.  Or hell, just do away with debate at that point.

Death penalty?  Oh, no…he won’t go there, he says.  But once again, he is trying to change our mindset by picking and choosing which Canadians on death row in another country will be defended by our government.  You know, while all people are equal, some just plain don’t deserve equal treatment.

It’s a gut knowledge thing, ya know?  Tim Horton type wisdom if you get my meaning. 

The CONs play on that gut thing, play on divisiveness, point fingers at “other” until too many fail to look to reason when our laws are modified.

Because by then, too many just think it’s right because it kind of feels right.  And for those who in frustration try to protect our rights and freedoms as well as fair and equal systems for all, the systems that had been in place to defend those rights are so eroded and murky that there is less and less hope for sanity to prevail.

Our crime minister has no hidden agenda.  It has always been obvious – through his early speeches, his early affiliations, his ongoing actions in politics.

The almighty Economy seems to trump everything here in Canada.  Canadians buy into the bullshit that CONs are more fiscally responsible and that The Economy takes precedence over human rights, health care, the environment, the future of our children, decent public services, housing…

But too many Canadians forget that money – especially in a system where wealth resides in the hands of a privileged few – cannot guarantee a safe, healthy environment, equality, care for those in need, separation of church and state, health care for all regardless of wealth, protection of the innocent: things Canadians have long valued above all else.

If you think Occupy folks should be beaten and locked up...

You have a model.  It’s been done before.

By this sandal-wearing hippie, according to what a lot of anti-occupiers believe -

He said such radical, anti-government things like:

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life." - Timothy 6:17-19

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.  -Matthew 25:41-45

Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” -Matthew 19:21

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." -Matthew 7:12

Imagine that.  Advocating redistribution of wealth and equal treatment.  Good thing they killed that radical, eh?

Maybe we can bring in the death penalty for rabble rousers.  If it was good enough for Jesus...

You know it must be a good Bill if REAL Women of Canada oppose it

Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette, a former Montreal business executive, is behind Bill S-206. The bill would require all publicly traded companies, banks, insurance companies and trust companies to have 50% of their board of directors made up of women.

Hervieux-Payette points to a 2009 study that shows women make up just 14% of corporate board members, an increase from 13% in 2007.

REAL Women of Canada, a lobby group that calls for equality without the use of legislation, told QMI Agency it would never back such a bill.  “We want to be hired because we are qualified, not because we are women,” said Diane Watts of REAL Women.

Sure, don’t we all want that?  But until women are considered as qualified as men, gender bias will continue to favour men since there is still a very real prejudice against women as equally capable leaders, business people, politicians, heads of families, CEOs...

One of the opponents of this Bill has kindly taken the time to comment on the above article, showing us that there is a real need for Payette’s Bill (emphasis mine):

Neil Bird writes:  This is nuts!, you won't like my observations which are real! We need the best persons for the job regardless of gender! Females seem to screw up financially more often, make poor decisions in selecting spouses & friends. they also do not seem to know or care about basic manners so are a greater endangerment to staff and customers than males are. They have a reputation for being poor bosses. Many seem to have a 'gender' chip on their shoulders, justified or not, does not make for a good workplace. If we hand females all they want based on gender and not performance, where is the challenge and reward of achievement, just as one does not give top wages and position to a new grad? I knew you would not like reality!

Uh-huh

Well, Neil, based on what you think women are capable of, what’s the point fore them to even try to do more than breed, serve and obey men (who know so much more about finance, decision making, healthy marriage, choosing friends, and heavens!  Good manners!), and just shut the fuck up and be grateful that the invisible sky monster created the male to keep them in line and to make sure they don’t screw up too much.

It is because attitudes like Neil’s towards women still exist that we need legislation that will allow skilled, intelligent, capable women the same opportunities as men.  More importantly, this type of legislation is necessary so that boards have representatives who understand the needs of  the public they serve  - half of that public being female.

And how many pregnancies have you had, Lawrence Cannon?

The Conservative government has offered an explanation for why it will exclude contraception from its initiative to improve the health of mothers in poor countries: Birth control doesn't fit with saving lives.

"It does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives," Mr. Cannon told the Foreign Affairs committee.

Riiiiight.

I wonder if Cannon has ever been to a puppy mill. 

Here is a 12-years-old dog in very frail condition (after she was been rescued and treated), a Athrowaway mom@ from a puppy mill. Her front feet are permanently crippled and she is unable to walk properly . Too many pregnancies and no exercise leached the calcium out of her bones.  

It stands to reason that if the mother suffers from deficiencies, her pups will not fare well resulting in health issues, and even early death in some cases.

Now consider a human female deprived of birth control.  Her body has no chance to recover from one pregnancy as she faces the possibility of getting pregnant again.  She may be breast feeding a baby while pregnant.  Give her a few years, she could end up, pregnant while breastfeeding and caring for a half dozen or so kids under the age of twelve.

Think of this woman living in poverty - belonging to the group Cannon wants to deny birth control to so that the Harper party of Canada doesn=t alienate its base - and think how her and her children=s health will be affected as she exhausts herself caring for her brood and cannot come up with enough healthy food for her kids and herself.

Look at this woman as she gets pregnant yet again, and see how she suffers a miscarriage because her body is just too unhealthy to spare anything for a foetus.  Watch as she dies far younger her sisters in Canada who have access to birth control and can work on their health between planned pregnancies, can take the time needed to raise their children, can feed them quality food so that they are not as likely to catch whatever illness is travelling the neighbourhood that week.. 

Now, Cannon, you pompous, self-righteous bastard - tell us again how birth control doesn't fit with saving lives.  Or better yet, get a woman living in extreme poverty with 8 kids and preggers with #9 to tell us.  If she has the energy.

(photo)

Does anyone not see death's shadow here?

You have blood on your hands for that, Larry.

more on the École Polytechnique massacre

I can let go of things in the past, as long as they are in the past.  December 6 is the anniversary of the brutal massacre of 14 women, targeted, as the murderer himself told us, because they were what he considered feminists.

In Lepine’s world, a woman who pursues a career that was traditional one dominated by men is a feminist.  And in Lepine’s world, feminism is a bad thing.

Men did nothing special to earn special rights to such fields.  They did, however, perpetuate an attitude that kept women suppressed through many means: denying them the right to vote; treating domestic violence as a private matter between husband and wife; through the dictates of many religions which consider women as inferior and subject to the man’s will;   by denying them the right to make their own sexual and reproductive choices; by trivializing their opinions...

Having had social advantages over women, it must have been frightening for many men to suddenly have to compete with them in the work force, to suddenly have them disagree over family matters and insist they had the right to disagree, to demand enforcement of the same rights men have not to be beaten, harassed, or verbally assaulted.

Many men helped women fight for equality.  Many more did not, and still others opposed what is balatantly obvious to any human being with a reasonable perspective: that women are indeed equal to men, and should be treated as equals.

When it comes to the anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre, I cannot let just let it go because the attitudes that lead to the massacre still exist, and honouring those victims for a single day as though it were an isolated incident does no more than appease our conscience.  We do the same with days of remembrance for certain acts of genocide, but always, always decades after the act while current genocides occur even as we remember the past ones, and we do little to nothing to stop them.

If anyone doubts that there are still men in Canada who think uppity women (as they consider them) should be killed, that killing them, in fact is an act of heroism, simply look at the comment sections of several posts.  Here’s a sample (emphasis mine):

CRIMINAL OR FOLK HERO?
(Lepine is) undoubtedly a hero. This is the future. No matter how hard feminist hide behind Women's rights. This is the future. U will see one Marc Lepine at every corner waiting with guns to kill women.
Year after year of atrocities leaves people totally void of any kind of reasoning. Feminism is not about women it about hating men and making them suffer. Every feminist infected nation is suffering.
This soceity will fall and women will lose all their so called rights. MARC LEPINES ARE COMING!!!
 
“Feminism is not about women it about hating men and making them suffer.”

How do we overcome such incredible ignorance?  Asking for the right not to be beaten carries the hidden intent of making men suffer?  Working in fields they enjoy and qualify for is not for self-actualization, but to make men suffer?  Desiring the right to walk down a street in the evening without being sexually assaulted has the sole goal of making men suffer?  Expecting a father to continue to help support his children after his divorce is done to make him suffer? (but will someone please think of the children!).

“This soceity will fall and women will lose all their so called rights. MARC LEPINES ARE COMING!!!”

That is why I can’t let go of l’École Polytechnique massacre – there are still men in our own precious country who would very much like to see more of the same.  Men who do not want women to have a voice and rights equal to theirs.  Men whose self esteem depends on knowing that there is someone lower on the scale than them, someone who can never achieve what they achieve, thus minimizing the appearance of their own failures.

The first step in overcoming this gender imbalance is acknowledging that it does indeed still exist, as much as it is terrible to think that in the 21st century, in Canada (!), while women have come a long way on paper, equality does not exist until it is never questioned as a fuindamental right.

We do not think of the rights of black haired men, or short men, or men with freckles.  That, of course would be ludicrous, because why would one group be entitle to fewer rights than another?

Yet we continue to have to determine rights for women, (and certain minority groups) because whether some people like to admit it or not, they do in fact think that women and certain minorities are less than human.

Sticking our heads in the sand because we don’t like to think that this is the case in what is supposed to be an enlightened society, a country that not only defends human rights but pushes for them abroad is assuring that acts of violence against women will continue.  Acts of violence specifically targeting women simply because they have the courage to act upon the knowledge that they are indeed equal to men.
What can we do to help forward a fair society?  At the very, very, very least, point out injustice and inequality, speak out against it, and teach others through whatever means available to you.