R.E.A.L. Women of Canada WATCH
Women of Canada Press Release, February
Women of Canada, Press Release, September 26, 2006
September 28, 2006
John-Henry Westen, dd September 26, 2006
Family News, Focus on the Family (FOTF) dd September 13,
Catholic News dd August 30, 2006
Party of Canada Press Release dd August
Hilary White, dd August 14, 2006
Anti-Status of Women Canada Blogs dd August 25, 2006
by Hilary White, dd August 25, 2006
Women of Canada dd August 7, 2006
News Viewpoint, Heather Mallick,
dd June 30, 2006
Women of Canada dd June 24, 2006
Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) 13th
National Womens Conference Paper dd June
Ontario dd April
Ontario dd April
Women of Canada
Post Thu 06 Apr 2006 Issues & Ideas A22, Andrea
Women of Canada Press Release dd
Feb 15, 2006
Women of Canada newsletter, Issue
Women of Canada newsletter, Issue Jan-Feb 2000
ACTION: Send an email in support of
Women of Canada Press Release
The House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, on which the opposition holds the majority, is conducting four days of televised hearings on the topic of the potential impact of the funding cuts at Status of Women Canada.
The Committee selected the groups which were to testify before it. The score: 27 groups who opposed the cuts and a total of only 3 groups who supported the cuts, including REAL Women of Canada. Although REAL Women has extensive background knowledge about Status of Women funding, we didn't even make the initial selection. Only after extensive pressure was the Committee prepared to hear our views on the subject.
The 27 witnesses opposed to the cuts with only a couple of exceptions, are all funded by the Status of Women and according to their testimony, regarded these grants as their "entitlements." Having no other source of income but taxpayers' dollars, they described the cuts as "anti-women", crippling the involvement of women in the public debate in Canada. REAL Women does not receive funds from the Status of Women but has managed to be involved in the public debate solely with the financial support of our members.
This remarkable lack of balance in the number of witnesses appearing before the Committee raises the question as to why was a review held in the first place, since the Committee's conclusions are obviously preordained?
Since the committee proceedings are televised by CPAC, it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of these hearings is to provide fodder for the upcoming election to attempt to back the claim that the Conservatives are, in fact, "anti-women." Not only have these special interest groups of women already received many millions of dollars since 1973 from the Status of Women - now this Committee is spending even more taxpayers' money paying all the witnesses' expenses in order to hoodwink the public into thinking that these cuts are offensive to "women". The cuts are only offensive to the special interest group of feminists whose extremist views are not supported by mainstream women.
Women of Canada Press Release
The decision by the Conservative government to cut back on some of the egregious abuse of taxpayers money is a great relief.
Canadians over the years have been more heavily taxed than any other country in the industrialized world. The Conservative government has apparently now decided to do something about it. This action is long overdue as literally billions of dollars have been wasted on programs and activities that not only are ineffective, but also have promoted agendas which most mainstream Canadians reject.
REAL Women is especially pleased that the Status of Women's budget will be reduced by $5 million in these cutbacks. This is a good start, and we hope that the Status of Women will eventually be eliminated entirely, since it does not represent "women", but only represents the ideology of feminists. That is the Status of Women was established in 1973 under Prime Minister Trudeau and over the years, it has funded feminist groups to serve as agents of change, never recognizing that other women have different views and have no wish to be represented by these feminist organizations.
REAL Women was also delighted that the budget cuts included the elimination of the troublesome Court Challenges Program. This Program was supposedly established to fund "disadvantaged" groups, but instead, it has constantly funded only left of centre organizations and by way of this abuse of the taxpayers money has carried out social restructuring by way of the courts. The promotion of social changes by way of judicial fiat funded by the Court Challenges Program has resulted in the bypassing of the democratic process of public debate in Parliament. In fact the Court Challenges Program was a profoundly undemocratic use of taxpayers money to restructure society, with the public being deprived of having any input in these changes. The elimination of the Court Challenges Program will go a long way to promoting democracy in Canada.
Finally, REAL Women was pleased that the Law Reform Commission was eliminated in the budget cutbacks. The Commission was established to make recommendations for the improvement and modernization and reform of federal legislation. However, the Commission's recommendations were not rooted in legal principle, but rather were rooted in the personal bias and perspective of the appointed Commissioners. As a result, the Commission became notorious for its promotion of the agendas of special interest organizations only. Moreover, the Commission's recommendations reflected the opinions of no one but the Commissioners themselves, and its recommendations served as a platform for the left-wing to launch their programs and perspectives.
All in all, the budget cut-backs announced by the Conservative government were an excellent start in the Government gaining control of our national agenda instead of allowing it to be dictated by special interest groups.
Urged to Counteract Leftist Media Campaign Against Removal of Court Challenges
OTTAWA, September 28, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) REAL Women of Canada today warned that the taxpayer funded Court Challenges Program and its supporters have begun a strong counter-offensive to persuade the Conservative government to reverse its decision to eliminate the Program.
In its announcement today the non-taxpayer funded conservative women's group stated, "Numerous newspaper articles and letters to the editor have been flooding the country over the past few days. However, these articles and letters have not been telling the real story behind the CCP which has had such a powerful influence in shaping the social values of our country over the years. The truth about the CCP is that it has been used to allow left-wing special interest groups to bypass Parliament and allow controversial social issues to be resolved by judicial fiat. The cancellation of the CCP was long overdue."
REAL Women sent a letter today to the editors of media across the country and urged other Canadians opposed to the abuse of democratic process and taxpayer funds by the Court Challenges Program to also write letters expressing their support for the government's decision.
The REAL Women letter stated:
Conservatives Look for End of Liberal Founded Court Challenges Program
Government Funds Radical Homosexual Activist Organizations Through Court Challenges
and Status of Women
Conservative Government Slashes Funding to Wasteful Anti-Family Programs
OTTAWA, September 26, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The budgets of some of the most wasteful and at the same time biased Canadian government funded programs have been slashed by the new Conservative Government. Three organizations which have been overtly pushing for same-sex marriage have been denied millions of tax-dollars they have been receiving for years under the previous Liberal government.
In an announcement of over two billion dollars in reduction of waste spending, the Conservative Government has included five million dollars in "administrative reductions to Status of Women Canada", a $5.6 million dollar saving in eliminating the Court Challenges Program, and another $4.2 million dollars in cuts to the Law Commission of Canada.
LifeSiteNews.com has reported frequently about the abuses of these three organizations. The Court Challenges Program has been the engine with which homosexual activists altered laws in Canada on marriage. (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04041305.html ). The Law Commission of Canada also endorsed same sex marriage in 2002 (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jan/02013004.html ) and even suggested that the legal privileges of all marriage should be eliminated. Status of Women Canada, has pushed both abortion and same-sex marriage (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06081501.html )
Thousands of Canadians have raised their concerns to their Members of Parliament regarding the waste of taxpayer dollars funding these totally one-sided and ideological organizations.
Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) has repeatedly urged its membership across Canada to demand that public funding to these biased programs be cut. Jim Hughes, National President of CLC congratulated the Conservative Government on the move.
"I'm happy to see them doing something that is a common sense solution to a problem that has existed for a long time," Hughes told LifeSiteNews.com. Speaking of the end of the Court Challenges program he said, "I think its excellent, wonderful that taxpayers are not going to have to shell out for this. If someone wants to take something to court they can do it at their own expense. For too many years it has been solely at the disposal of the left wing in political struggles and I'm happy to see it come to an end. It is a small step toward restoring democracy in Canada."
REAL Women Canada, a conservative women's group said in a press release today that they were "especially pleased" at the cut to Status of Women. "This is a good start, and we hope that the Status of Women will eventually be eliminated entirely, since it does not represent 'women', but only represents the ideology of feminists," said the group. "The Status of Women was established in 1973 under Prime Minister Trudeau and over the years, it has funded feminist groups to serve as agents of change, never recognizing that other women have different views and have no wish to be represented by these feminist organizations."
film fest under attack
The Department of Canadian Heritage should cut $23,000 in funding to the Vancouver Queer Film Festival because the films are degenerate and degrading to humanity, according to conservative lobby group REAL Women of Canada. In an article posted on Lifesite.net, a Christian-conservative news site, REAL Women vice president Gwen Landolt is quoted: The films are used as a political statement against established social mores, a way of showing contempt, of saying, We dont have to be held to normal standards of behaviour. I think the government is trying to show how wide-open they are to all diversity, but surely there is a limit to tolerance.
The authors of the August 29 article, John-Henry Westen and Gudrun Schultz, urge readers to write to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Heritage Minister Bev Oda asking that the funding end.
Michelle Bruehler, media coordinator for the Out on Screen society (which presents the festival), discovered the piecewhich is the top-hit article on-line about the 2006 festival and has been posted to dozens of conservative activist siteswhen she was gathering festival coverage for her files.
At first I laughed. It was really innocent. I just thought, Well, this is something to add to the media file, Bruehler told the Georgia Straight. Then, she said, she started to realize the power behind Canadas conservative lobby and Landolt, who is an outspoken lawyer and has addressed the United Nations more than 30 times. This has become a serious issue.
Bruehler and OOSs executive director, Drew Dennis, are asking their organizations 3,000-strong membership and other supporters to write to Harper and Oda in support of the festival. They phoned Heritage Canada on September 11, and local program officers assured them that their funding is not in immediate jeopardy.
Our hope is that the squawking wont have a huge impact, but we dont want to turn a blind eye to it, Dennis said.
The article, at www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06083101.html, lists what Landolt called degenerate and degrading films from Augusts festival: Deconstructing Crack Ho, Dyke After Dyke, I Cum I, Lesbians on Ecstasy, Post-Porn & New Technologies of Pleasure, and Toilet Sex in Canadian Cinema. Dennis pointed out that these are mostly independent lesbian shorts and dont represent the range of films at the festival. In fact, Dennis and Bruehler said they dont believe Landolt has seen any of the festivals films, so she wouldnt know whether theres no artistry there, as she said in the article.
On behalf of Landolt, REAL Women researcher Diane Watts returned a call from the Straight. She said Landolt wouldnt have to see any queer films to know theyre unartistic because they are easy to categorize, like cowboy films; people either like them or they dont. Canadians, Watts said, are overtaxed to the point where most families have little discretionary income. A queer film fest, she said, should be paid for by those who want to see queer films, not by the general taxpayer.
Weve always objected to the government handing out $1 billion per year to special-interest groups, she said. I dont even think the majority of homosexuals would attend that type of festival, because its too fringe.
Watts went on to say that REAL Women doesnt support federal funding of any controversial art. As an example of noncontroversial art, Watts suggested the Pierre Auguste Renoir exhibit at the National Gallery of Canada. (The 19th-century French court consistently refused to show then-fringy Impressionist paintings, including Renoirs, at the Louvres Salon dApollon.)
The whole situation reminds Heather Redfern, executive director of the Alliance for Arts and Culture, of her days in Edmonton. The conservative Canadian Taxpayers Federation had a radio spot called This is what they spent your tax dollars on.
We had a festival called Loud & Queer, and they went on the same rant, she told the Straight. Its just not to be taken seriously.
Redfern predicted that REAL Womens members will send indignant e-mails to Ottawa and that nothing will change. This is why Canadas arts-funding bodies stay at arms length from politicians and bureaucrats, she said.
Dennis noted that as long as the festival doesnt lose its funding, the dialogue is appreciated. Next year, Dennis suggested, the festival may invite Landolt to speak in a workshop, a exercise in bridge-building similar to the censorship workshop they organized years ago with the B.C. Film Classification Board.
Challenges Program Under Review
The federal Court Challenges Program (CCP), which funds historically disadvantaged groups wanting to launch a constitutional challenge of federal laws, is once again facing an uncertain future, CanWest News Service reported last week.
The program is currently under scrutiny by Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda as part of an overall review of government programs to ensure that money was spent wisely and in a transparent and accountable manner, spokesperson Nancy Heppner told CanWest.
Launched in 1978 under the Liberals to fund cases involving minority-language rights, it was expanded in 1985 to include funding for precedent-setting cases alleging discrimination in contravention of the equality guarantees in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It was cancelled when the Conservatives were in power, only to be reinstated in 1994 by Jean Chretiens Liberal government but essentially as a taxpayer-funded private corporation. As such, the CCP is not required to disclose which groups it chooses to fund, how it makes its decisions, or how much money is dispersed.
The secrecy that the program is shrouded in, that the public doesnt know who is being funded or indeed what kind of criteria is being used, is rather shocking when we are responsible for the money we receive from you to fund particular programs, he said.
Pro-family groups have long regarded the CCP as being inherently biased against the institution of marriage and the right of parents to spank their children.
As REAL Women of Canada noted in 2003, By assisting in the framing of the legal action for one side only in these controversial social issues, the Program gives that position an undue advantage and influence in the Canadian courts. This would appear to be defeating the very objectives of the Charter itself.
In 1998, then-Reform MP Maurice Vellacott told the House of Commons that whenever REAL Women had applied to the CCP for funding assistance, it was turned down.
On many issues, their view contrasts with that of the [feminist] Womens Legal Education and Action Fund or LEAF for short, he said. Time and again, REAL Women has been denied funding by the Court Challenges Program while LEAF has been consistently handed out cheques.
In an editorial, the Halifax Daily News urged the government to maintain the program on grounds that some of the cases it has funded have helped shape Canada into a place where there is a great deal more equality than in some other western nations.
National Post columnist Lorne Gunter, on the other hand, said the sooner the government kills the Court Challenges Program, the better.
Most Canadians, he wrote, have probably never heard of the CCP. . . . Yet no other federal program or law has done more damage to Canadian democracy. No other has so fundamentally altered Canadian society without recourse to Parliament."
Le gouvernement conservateur de Stephen Harper souhaite-t-il voir disparaître les groupes féministes? C'est ce que nous saurons d'ici quelques semaines, lorsque le Conseil du Trésor annoncera les conclusions de son exercice de révision des programmes gouvernementaux, dont fait partie ceux du ministère de la Condition féminine.
Au bureau de la ministre de la Condition féminine, Bev Oda, on nous assure qu'il s'agit d'un examen normal des subventions qui a lieu régulièrement, peu importe le gouvernement au pouvoir. Si c'est le cas, personne ne contestera le droit du gouvernement de veiller à la bonne gestion des fonds publics.
Mais l'inquiétude est vive au sein des groupes féministes, en particulier à l'extérieur du Québec où certaines associations dépendent complètement des subventions du fédéral.
Plusieurs féministes craignent que les Conservateurs tentent de transformer le programme de promotion de la femme- dont l'objectif premier est de soutenir le travail de groupes de femmes qui oeuvrent pour l'égalité entre hommes et femmes et la participation des femmes à la société canadienne- afin de réduire les subventions destinées au groupes féministes. Une rencontre est prévue au début octobre entre la ministre responsable, Bev Oda, et des représentantes de groupes de femmes. Sera-t-il trop tard? La date limite pour le versement des subventions est fixée au 26 septembre... Déjà, l'organisme Femmes et droit a dû fermer ses portes il y a quelques semaines et vendredi, ce sera au tour de l'Alliance féminine pour l'action internationale de mettre ses employés à pied, faute d'argent pour les payer.
Les craintes des groupes féministes sont alimentées, entre autres, par le lobby de l'association REAL Women (un groupe anti-féministe bien implanté dans l'ouest du pays et qui fait la promotion du rôle traditionnel de la femme), association qui a pourtant déjà reçu des subventions du programme de promotion de la femme qu'elle dénonce aujourd'hui. Difficile à dire si ce groupe, on ne peut plus virulent à l'endroit des féministes, jouit d'une véritable influence à Ottawa.
D'ici quelques semaines, la ministre Bev Oda doit également répondre aux recommandations du comité permanent de la condition féminine, dont le rapport a été adopté en mai dernier, et qui suggère d'augmenter de 25 % les subventions aux organismes qui font la promotion de l'égalité entre les sexes tout en privilégiant un financement plus stable qui assurerait la pérennité des petits organismes. Bref, des recommandations qui vont à l'encontre des souhaits exprimés par les anti-féministes.
Le gouvernement Harper y sera-t-il sensible? Respectera-t-il une des valeurs fondamentales de ce pays, soit l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes, ou coupera-t-il les vivres aux groupes féministes, donnant ainsi raison à ceux et celles qui l'ont accusé de vouloir ramener les femmes à la maison avec sa subvention de 1200 $ accordée aux parents d'enfants de moins de 6 ans. Stephen Harper ami ou ennemi des féministes? C'est ce que nous verrons.
et les femmes
Does the Conservative government of Stephen Harper wish to see feminist groups disappear? This is what we will know in several weeks, when the Treasury Board will announce the results of its review of governmental programs, including those under Status of Women.
At the office of Minister responsible for Status of Women, Beverley Oda, we are being assured that this is a normal procedure, regardless of the government in power, for a program that distributes grants on an ongoing basis. If this is the case, no one will contest the right of the government to oversee the responsible management of funds, to pursue good government.
But the worry is real amongst feminist groups, in particular those outside of Québec, where several organizations are entirely reliant on federal grants.
Many feminists fear that the Conservatives are trying to transform the Women's Program whose main goal is to support women's organizations working for gender equality and the full participation of women in Canadian society to reduce grants for feminist groups. A meeting is scheduled for early October between the minister responsible, Bev Oda, and representatives of women's organizations. Will to be too late? The deadline for the current program which gives grants to groups is fixed at September 26th. Already, the National Association of Women and the Law was forced to close its doors several weeks ago, and on Friday, it will be the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA) who lays off its employees, because there will be no money to pay them.
The fear of women's groups is being fed, amongst others, by the efforts of the organization REAL Women, an anti-feminist group well established in the west of the country which promotes the traditional role of women, an organization which nevertheless has received money from the Women's Program, a program they are denouncing today. It is difficult to say if this group, which could not be more harshly critical of feminist organizations, is enjoying real influence in Ottawa.
Within several weeks, the Minister Beverley Oda must also respond to the recommendations of the Parliamentary committee on the Status of Women, which adopted a report last May suggesting a 25% increase in the funds available to equality-seeking organizations, while also emphasizing the need for stable funding to ensure the stability of the often small organizations which do this work. These recommendations go against the express wishes of anti-feminists.
Will the Harper government show that it cares? Will it respect a fundamental Canadian value equality between men and women or will it starve feminist organizations of the funding they need, giving reason to those who accused it of wanting to push women back into the home with its $1,200 grant to parents of children under six? Is Stephen Harper a friend or an enemy of feminists? Time will tell.
for Marriage and Family (AMF) seeks to protect family as 3-parents case
seen as impacting definition of marriage
OTTAWA, Canada (CCN) The Alliance for Marriage and Family (AMF) has filed a factum in the so-called three parents case, saying its member groups have a common cause to protect the traditional family unit in Canadian society and law.
The case, which comes before the Ontario Court of Appeal Sept. 25-26 in Toronto, involves a lesbian couple raising a child conceived by artificial insemination. Both women want to be considered the legal mother of the child. The biological father is also actively involved in the childs life. If their case is successful, it will mark the first time a child would have three legally recognized parents.
The AMF, composed of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), REAL Women of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship (EFC), Focus on the Family, and the Christian Legal Fellowship, opposes the change on the basis that the law has always recognized two parents for a child.
This is effectively providing an impetus for affirmation of multiple or group parenting rights, said CCRL president Phil Horgan in a telephone interview with Canadian Catholic News.
It fundamentally changes our fundamental understanding of family, said REAL Womens national vice president Gwen Landolt in a telephone interview with CCN.
Not only does the notion of three parents undermine the traditional notion of a mother and a father, but also it will open up a Pandoras box of complications, Landolt said.
Party of Canada
Liberal Critic for Status of Women and Multiculturalism Maria Minna
today called on Heritage Minister Bev Oda to reveal the Conservative governments
true intentions for the future of Status of Women Canada.
Blogger Reaction against Canadas Status of Women Prompts Media Action
at Big Blue Wave: It is time to eliminate Status of Women
at Every Good and Perfect Gift: Feminists Dont Speak
at Climbing Out of the Dark: One Mad Woman!!
Shaidle at Relapsed Catholic:
We need Status of Women Canada like a fish needs a bicycle
Wood at Family Matters:
The old SOW has got to go
McMillan at Small Dead Animals:
With the election of the Conservatives in January 2006, REAL Women believed that the time had come to examine this serious abuse of taxpayers' money, as well as the hugely unnecessary House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women. (The latter had recommended that there be a 25% increase in funding to feminist only group.)
REAL Women sent a letter dated April 4, 2006, addressed to the Prime Minister as well as to "friendly" MPs from various political parties requesting that this entire matter be objectively examined.
REAL Women's efforts to disband the Status of Women and its outrageous policies and funding, however, has recently been met by a massive counter offensive with letters pouring in to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet and individual MPs from across the country expressing concerns about the disbandment of the Status of Women.
Although we have no way of proving it, we are confident that this well-coordinated campaign has been instigated by the Status of Women itself, whose future is on the line, since its efforts may no longer be required.
There is no one better placed administratively to coordinate this counter offensive than the Status of Women which has first-hand information on the developments and has on record all the feminist groups and shelters across the country. Further, an application has been received under the Access to Information Act for a record of all correspondence received by the Status of Women on this issue. The purpose of this is to expose (and pressure) MPs who have written to the agency to support REAL Women and its perspective on the Status of Women.
The theme of these many letters is that "shelters for abused women and children protect them from the violence." (No mention of the studies which indicate that half of domestic violence is instigated by the women.) The letters also claim that women need the support of the Status of Women to work for pay equity, marital property and senior women's income, etc.
Never is it mentioned that the Status of Women, including women's shelters themselves, are matters of provincial jurisdiction only. They do not fall within federal jurisdiction and there is no reason why the federal government is funding so generously these provincial issues and organizations. Further, there is no reason why the Status of Women portfolio is included in the Cabinet.
In order to offset this national feminist effort to protect feminist control in Canada, it would be appreciated if you would write immediately to the Prime Minister, relevant Members of his Cabinet (list below), and your MP and the opposition leaders who are all being inundated with letters to support feminist policies and funding of the Status of Women.
Please write to the following: (addresses removed)
Right Honourable Stephen Harper, PC, MP
Hon. Beverley J. Oda, PC, MP
Hon. Rona Ambrose, PC, MP
The Hon. Diane
Finley, PC, MP
Hon. Josée Verner, PC, MP
Hon. Carol Skelton, PC, MP
Hon. Bill Graham
Hon. Jack Layton
REAL Women are on the warpath, as I guess I would be too if I were REAListic, Equal, Active, and for Life. Hey, I am all those things! Oh, they mean "not in your unREAL way." I think.
REALists have been quiet for a long time. But they see the Stephen Harper minority government as their chance to change Canada back to the way they say it used to be. Whatever that was, I'm sure it was lovely. And frankly, their view of the future does verge on the dire.
"We are living in the best of material times Yet, simultaneously, we are also living in a time of moral decadence: abortion on demand, the legalization of same-sex relationships as marriages, the cultural and legal acceptance of homosexuality despite its destructive ramifications, both psychologically and medically, rampant sexual promiscuity and euthanasia, legalized drug use and legalized prostitution just around the corner."
I'm for all these things. Not sure about rampant euthanasia (get it in writing,
I say, and point out the drawbacks: "Yer dead") or prostitution, but
perhaps they don't grasp that legal changes regarding prostitution are aimed (by
good men and good women) at saving hundreds of sex workers and other women who
have vanished into the thinnest of air in Canada. Some of them might have been
fed to pigs.
June 24, 2006
REAL Women of Canada has obtained an additional Access to Information request on feminist groups for 2004 - 2005 through Status of Women Canada.
In their latest newsletter (May-June 2006), they've posted budgets to organizations such as LEAF, NAWL, & NAC on their website as a part of their Letter Writing Campaign to MPs.
Links to the specific articles in their online Newsletter:
Discrimination of Status of Women:
Feminists Face Changing Times:
From REAL Women website:
April 25, 2006
for Letters in support of increased funding for women's equality-seeking groups
to the Prime Minister and send copies to the Minister Responsible for Status of
Women and to the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québecois Critics for Status of
Women, in support of increased funding for women's equality-seeking groups!
(see sample letter) As
previously posted, the R.E.A.L. Women of Canada group has
been lobbying for the last 7 years to disband Status of Women. With Harper and
the Conservatives in power, the time to act is NOW!
Le 24 juin 2006
R.E.A.L. Women of Canada a eu gain de cause dans une autre demande d'accès à de l'information concernant les organisations féministes pour l'exercice 2004-2005, par le biais d'une requête concernant Condition féminine Canada.
Dans la plus récente édition de son bulletin (mai-juin 2006), R.E.A.L. Women affiche sur son site Web les budgets d'opération d'organisations comme le Fonds d'action et d'éducation juridique (FAEJ), l'Association nationale Femmes et droit (ANFD) et le Comité canadien d'action sur le statut de la femme (CCA), dans le cadre d'une campagne de pressions visant la députation fédérale.
à ces articles de leur bulletin en ligne:
site de R.E.A.L. Women:
DISCRIMINATION SE POURSUIT À CONDITION FÉMININE CANADA
contrepartie, sauf pour quelques subventions restreintes du Programme de promotion
de la femme, R.E.A.L. Women a été forcée de s'en tenir aux
cotisations et aux dons de ses membres et de ses supporters. Malgré la
générosité de nos membres, cela signifie que nous ne disposons
que de revenus limités et ne pouvons fonctionner sur un pied d'égalité
avec les féministes.
Le 4 avril
2006, R.E.A.L. Women a fait parvenir une lettre décrivant les politiques
discriminatoires du Programme de promotion de la femme à tous les député-es
« amicaux » à notre cause, soit les Conservateurs et quelques
élu-es du Parti libéral et du Bloc québécois qui ont
manifesté leur soutien à la cause pro-vie et pro-famille.
OBJET : LES POLITIQUES DISCRIMINATOIRES DE CONDITION FÉMININE Canada (CFC)
Depuis 1973, les contribuables fédéraux ont versé des centaines de millions de dollars à des organisations exclusivement féministes par le biais du Programme de promotion de la femme de Condition féminine Canada. CFC a pour mission de « promouvoir l'égalité entre les sexes et la participation active de toutes les femmes à la vie économique, sociale, culturelle et politique du pays ». En pratique, cependant, il n'y a que les objectifs féministes et les femmes féministes du Canada qui bénéficient du travail de promotion effectué par cet organisme. D'autres organisations de femmes, dont les perspectives diffèrent de celles du féminisme, se voient refuser financement et reconnaissance.
refuse de financer les organisations qui ne sont pas féministes, sous prétexte
de ne financer que les groupes de femmes « oeuvrant en faveur de l'égalité
». À leur sens, seules les organisations féministes oeuvrent
de façon valide à l'égalité des femmes. Cette politique
est hautement discriminatoire puisque la plupart des femmes appuient l'égalité
des femmes, mais qu'il existe différentes façons d'interpréter
et d'atteindre cet objectif. Par exemple, la promotion de l'égalité
des femmes est un des objectifs inclus dans les motifs d'incorporation de R.E.A.L.
Women; néanmoins, CFC ne reconnaît pas notre organisation comme un
groupe « oeuvrant en faveur de l'égalité ».
Il faut savoir que les organisations féministes ne représentent pas les femmes canadiennes en général mais bien un groupe d'intérêt particulier de femmes dont l'idéologie est celle du féminisme. L'idéologie féministe n'a pas actuellement et n'a jamais eu le soutien de la vaste majorité des Canadiennes. C'est dire que le financement du groupe d'intérêt particulier que constituent les féministes est hautement biaisé et discriminatoire et qu'il crée une situation inéquitable pour l'ensemble des autres groupes de femmes du Canada.
cause de ses politiques discriminatoires, le Programme de promotion de la femme
de CFC n'a accordé que quelques contributions symboliques à R.E.A.L.
Women of Canada depuis ses débuts, et ces micro-subventions ont entièrement
a été invitée. Toutefois, les participantes féministes
à cette conférence, des membres d'organisations qui dépendent
exclusivement de CFC pour financer leur existence, ont insisté pour obtenir
le retrait de l'invitation faite à R.E.A.L. Women. Lorsque notre représentante
a refusé de quitter la conférence, les participantes féministes
l'ont isolée, ignorée, puis huée et empêchée
de participer d'aucune façon à la conférence. Depuis cet
événement, R.E.A.L. Women n'a été invitée à
participer à aucune autre conférence marrainée par CFC, même
si notre organisation représente les
Beverley Oda, députée conservatrice
vous objecter aux politiques de financement de Condition féminine Canada
et aux politiques discriminatoires du Comité permanent sur la condition
féminine de la Chambre des Communes.
à des lettres de soutien pour un meilleur financement des groupes oeuvrant
pour l'égalité des femmes
the Blues - What the Social Conservative Agenda Means to Women
June 16, 2006
REAL Women Canada is a key partner in the alliance of social conservative groups which strongly supports the Conservatives. In this statement, REAL Women acknowledges that the future they have planned for us is something that will alarm Canadians. What is their agenda? Should we be alarmed?
Social Conservatives to Sell Tory Daycare Plan, read the headline of a Globe and Mail story on April 19, 2006. The Globe and Mail reported what many in Canada may have known intuitively. On April 3, the day Parliament re-opened the Conservative government had met with far right-wing groups to strategize around how to convince the public that a taxable $1200/year/pre-school child was preferable to setting-up a public system of early childhood learning and care. Their ideological base of support is really the far right. The most vocal critics of public child care come from small, fundamentalist religious-based groups; the Conservatives are relying on them to counter the voices of working families and child care advocates. And they now have a direct link to the Prime Ministers office.
The Globe reported that to try and avoid negative publicity for Prime Minister Harpers office, Conservative Senator Anne Cools organized the meeting. When questioned about the meeting, Sandra Buckler, spokesperson for the Prime Ministers Office admitted that it had taken place, but refused to name the groups and individuals in attendance. The only thing I can possibly say is that were reaching out to all interested groups who agree with our child care plan, Buckler said.
Exactly which groups support the Conservative policy of parental allowance and oppose publicly-funded child care, and what are their objectives? REAL Women Canada was one of the organizations at the April 3 meeting. It describes itself as upholding the ideal that even in a changing world, every family, who so chooses, be able to look after their children in their own home. Hand-in-hand with this is the view that women staying at home to raise children are making a career choice, as well as a
According to REAL Women then, a womans proper place is in the home, she should be encouraged to stay there and those who support a publicly-funded, safe, and accessible child-care system are Communists.
Another organization in attendance at the meeting was the Canada Family Action Coalition. On the front page of their website there is a similar message:
conservative groups clearly understand that the Conservative policy to provide
a family allowance instead of
Unraveling Conservative arguments favouring direct allowances for parents instead of and as opposed to public child care helps to lay bare their vision for Canada in the context of growing inequality between rich and poor, and persisting inequalities between women and men.
the full document:
Update: April 30, 2006
As a follow up to our Call for Letters in support of increased funding for women's equality-seeking groups, please see excerpt below from the April 28th Hansard containing the question posed by Maria Minna, Liberal critic for Status of Women and the response from Bev Oda, the Minister Responsible for Status of Women.
Status of Women
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches-East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, conservative-minded groups are actively campaigning to have the Status of Women Canada program disbanded. Can the minister reassure the House that the government will take no such action and that no cuts will be made to the budget of this very important department?
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member's question gives me the opportunity to indicate that this government recognizes the importance of women. They represent 50% of all Canadians. We will support them in their endeavours. The resources they require so they can fully participate in Canadian life will be assured.
Now is the time to ACT and stand in solidarity with women's equality-seeking groups who on a daily basis, struggle to advance women's equality with very little resources.
I encourage every member of DAWN Ontario and our allies to share this far and wide. Please ask the same of women in your respective networks.
Write to the Prime Minister and send copies to the Minister Responsible for Status of Women and to the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québecois Critics for Status of Women, in support of increased funding for women's equality-seeking groups! (sample letter appears below)
As previously posted, the R.E.A.L. Women of Canada group has been lobbying for the last 7 years to disband Status of Women. With Harper and the Conservatives in power, the time to act is NOW!
your local MP's contact info at this link:
Harper, Prime Minister
Maria Minna, Critic, Status of Women, Liberal Party
Irene Mathyssen, Critic, Status of Women, New Democratic Party
Mme Maria Mourani, Critic, Status of Women, Bloc Québecois
April 20, 2006
Apparently, R.E.A.L. Women is engaging in a letter campaign to the federal government to have the Status of Women Canada (SWC) disbanded.
Hence letters supporting SWC to the government from feminists and feminist groups are needed at this point. (If you are unfamiliar with R.E.A.L. Women check out their website at: http://www.realwomenca.com)
Below is a copy of an article from the REAL Women website that provides some ideas for where they are going with the new government. We've highlighted one section that you should look at if you don't have time, or the stomach to read the whole sorry thing.
Also below, appears a copy of a National Post column that is no doubt the start of the right wing press to support their agenda.
This would be a good time to write your MP, Stephen Harper, with copies to the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women Canada, and to the Liberal, NDP and the Bloc Québecois critics for Status of Women, in support of increased funding for women's equality-seeking groups! (sample letter appears below)
Let's not let them do to women in the whole country what they've done to us in Ontario!
your local MP's contact info at this link:
Harper, Prime Minister
Maria Minna, Critic, Status of Women, Liberal Party
Irene Mathyssen, Critic, Status of Women, New Democratic Party
Mme Maria Maurani, Critic, Status of Women, Bloc Québecois
ELECTION 2006 AND ITS AFTERMATH
REAL Women was one of the few organizations in Canada which predicted last spring that there would be a Liberal defeat in 2006. We were well aware that the political situation had changed dramatically between the 2004 and 2006 elections. We predicted, in fact, a Liberal defeat in 2006 in a press release dated last June 29, 2005. In that press release, we stated:
REAL Women predicts that the Martin Liberals will meet defeat within the year during the next federal election as history repeats itself:
Canadians, and by compelling the Cabinet and pressuring the Liberal backbenchers to vote for the Bill, plus the Liberals' overt corruption, will lead to its defeat in the early 2006 federal election.
Liberal government has outlived its usefulness. It will not recover from Bill
C-38. Corruption, imposing on Canadians third world politics by way of arrogant
top-down government, open bribery to obtain votes, and the manipulation of the
Parliamentary process will bring down this despotic Prime Minister and his cronies.
The public knew then that the Liberals genuinely believed that they were entitled to govern as a right. All the bumps in the Liberal road that occurred since then, were not the defining moments but rather, the moments to confirm what Canadians knew about the Liberals and their leader Mr. Martin. In contrast, at the time of the June 2004 election, Mr. Martin had been Prime Minister for only six months. Few at that time had an understanding of Mr. Martin or his policies. By January 2006, they did, and they did not like what they saw. They saw a political leader who would do whatever it took to stay in power. The preservation of power was all that mattered to him.
Liberal MP Belinda Stronach
What is so interesting in retrospect is that the crossing of the floor by MP Belinda Stronach (Newmarket - Aurora ) last May from the Conservative to the Liberal party, which saved the Liberals from defeat in a non-confidence vote at that time, was ironically a decision which saved the Conservative party and led it to its victory in the 2006 election. That is, if the non-confidence vote had been successful in May, the Conservatives would not at that time, have developed their extensive platform which did so much to dispel the alleged "scary" perception of Mr. Harper and the Conservatives. Without this platform on which to campaign in May, Mr. Harper would have been restricted to campaigning only on the issue of Liberal corruption - not enough to turn the voters away from the Liberals, and to demand the change in government that finally occurred in this January's election.
The Road Ahead
The Conservative win of 124 seats means that Canadians will not have to struggle with the projected Liberal policies such as the decriminalization of both prostitution and marijuana and the easing of legal access to the non-medical use of drugs. A Conservative government will also not bring in a euthanasia bill, planned by former Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler. We must be watchful, however, for anti-life and anti-family private members bills that may gain support from a united opposition of Bloc (51 seats), NDP (29 seats), and Liberals (103 seats).
Another advantage of the Conservative Party win is that the Canadian presence at the UN will change. No longer will Canada work with its former ally, the rabidly anti-Christian left-wing European Union. Instead, hopefully, Canada will, for the most part, be supporting the US government's pro-life / family positions at the UN. Also the Canadian Ambassador to the UN, Allan Rock, will soon be recalled and replaced by an individual more amenable to Conservative policies.
A Conservative government will also begin the difficult work of dismantling the Liberal infrastructure that has served the Liberals so well over the years in perpetuating its left wing policies. These include the funding of feminist only and homosexual organizations, multicultural organizations, and the Court Challenges Programme. The Status of Women and the Law Commission must also be dissolved. The Conservatives must also devise a transparent and honourable method of choosing judges for the courts - there is already one vacancy on the Supreme Court that must be filled immediately.
The road ahead for change will not be easy for the Conservatives. They will have to move very slowly so as not to alarm the electorate. They will also be harangued by the propaganda of the hostile mainstream media.
Further, Mr. Harper spoke the absolute truth on January 18, 2006 when he stated that his government would have to deal with a Liberal-dominated Senate, a liberal judiciary and the civil service.
The 105-seat Senate has 67 Liberals and only 23 Tories - the remaining senators are either Independent or old-time Progressive Conservatives who never approved of the merging of the Alliance Party with the former Conservative Party. The senators are patronage appointments who owe their position for their hard work for their respective parties. Unfortunately, they see their job in the Senate not as being a quiet reflective voice of sober thought, but rather as cheerleaders for their party. Conservative legislation passing through these raucous Liberal senators will not be easy.
Similarly, many in the civil service will not be willing to be neutral despite their claims to the contrary. This is especially true in regard to the Departments of Justice and Foreign Affairs, where feminist/lesbian/homosexuals have dominated the policy decision-making positions for several years. Many of these latter see their role in government as promoting the "progressive" agenda of the left in government policy. They will not quietly depart, but will remain on, if at all possible, to fight any changes in a conservative direction. We can expect their attempting to undermine the Conservatives by such actions, for example, as arranging significant leaks to the media, which will be ready and willing to raise controversy over any changes in the left agenda.
Finally, the Liberal appointed judges will be ready with pens poised to block any affront to their personal philosophies and ideologies by a conservative government. They have no problem, as evidenced by some of the articles in this issue of Reality, in making up so-called "constitutional" reasons to block legislation not to their liking.
Despite these real problems, however, the Conservatives will have to show they can govern and govern well. It will not be easy having regard to the triple obstacles mentioned above. However, the entrenched liberalism in the government and our courts must be shown up for what it is - sheer opportunism and manipulation to promote an agenda for self-serving reasons, not for the benefit of the public.
In this regard, one of the first obligations of the Conservative government will be to reform Parliament so as to return to us once again a truly democratic government - not one controlled by a handful of paid advisors in the Prime Minister's Office.
Although the Conservative Party is forming a minority government, its election marks the beginning of renewal for Canada. The government must judicially and reasonably carry out its responsibilities. If so, a conservative government will be in power for many years to come.
Please let the new Prime Minister know that Canadians want a pro-life/ family Ambassador appointed to the UN. It will mean a great deal to Canadians as well as to the world internationally, if he does so.
of Foreign Affairs
Hold your noses ...
Feminist Shell Game
300 women claiming to represent all Canadian women met on Parliament Hill February 13-14 to supposedly celebrate their work 25 years ago which resulted in the inclusion of S.28 in the Charter of Rights. Section 28 guarantees that the Charter's provisions apply equally for male and female persons. Ironically, Section 28 of the Charter has turned out to be unused, unproved and without effect, according to the decisions brought down by the Supreme Court of Canada on the Charter.
Feminists do not now, and never have had the support of Canadian women. They are a special interest group representing their own ideology only. Moreover, feminist organizations continue to exist in Canada today only because they are funded by the federal Status of Women, without which funding they would collapse, since they have little or no grassroots support.
This week's feminist meeting in Ottawa, true to form, was supported by the Status of Women and other government departments such as the Department of Justice, and government tax-supported agencies such as the National Film Board, Law Commission of Canada, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and International Development Research Centre (IRDC).
The meeting made such unpopular recommendations as championing a universal national day care plan, thereby ignoring the enthusiastic reception given to the $1200 child care support paid directly to all parents equally proposed by the Conservative Party in the recent election.
This meeting also recommended the imposition of proportional representation to ensure that 50 % of elected parliamentarians are of the female gender. Feminists refuse to accept that women vote on the basis of issues, not anatomy. Reasonable voters reject tampering with our democratic process by legislating gender quotas which bypass merit and reward the pre-set criteria chosen by undemocratically appointed committees.
Canadian women from diverse backgrounds and values are not represented by the narrow feminist agenda and reject their undemocratic manipulations. They prefer to work through a democratic system of government.
The federal government must stop funding these unrepresentative women and their irrational policies.
IMPOSING FEMINISM IN CANADA
Feminists have not been too popular in Canada for a number of years. This is due to the fact that most women do not support their extremist ideology and impractical, often incoherent policies.
Women have moved on to other more important matters, such as balancing their lives between the family and workplace, the care of vulnerable family members because of age or disability, and in general, the health and well-being of their families.
This rejection of feminism does not sit well with feminist Liberal MPs, who are determined to revive feminism in Canada.
In the fall of 2004, they managed to establish the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, supposedly to "study" the problems of women but, in fact, to serve as a platform to spread feminism in Canada.
One of the first decisions made by the Committee was to recommend to the government that it increase funding by 25% to feminist volunteer groups, (See REALity September/October, 2005, p. 14, "Increased Government Funding for Feminist Only Organizations.")
A further step was taken by the Committee when it tabled its second report in the House of Commons in April 2005, in which it recommended that a "gender analysis" be conducted in all federal government departments and agencies on legislation and policies, supposedly to ensure that the equality of women is not detrimentally affected by government decisions. The Committee's proposal means that the government must develop programmes and legislation that are women-specific as well as to:
ensure that legislation, programmes and policies which are not specifically targeted for women do not inadvertently maintain or exacerbate any equality gap.
In practical terms, the purpose of this proposal is to ensure that all government decisions are subject to feminist overview and approval so that the feminist ideology will be integrated across the country.
This is not the first time however, that feminists have tried to impose "gender analysis" in Canada.
Ten years ago in 1995, at the time of the UN International Conference on Women held in Beijing, China the federal government, under the direction of the Status of Women, put in place a 5-year plan on gender equality. This was called the Federal Plan on Gender Equality (1995 - 2000). This was followed by another gender analysis plan called the Agenda for Gender Equality (2000 - 2005). In accordance with these plans the Canadian government adopted a policy requiring the 24 individual federal departments and agencies to conduct gender-based analysis of policies and legislation. While the various departments were responsible for conducting gender-based analysis, Status of Women Canada provided training and support for this project.
To the dismay of the Status of Women Committee and their feminist adherents, the application of this gender-based analysis in the federal government was "uneven". According to the Committee, this was due to the lack of a binding obligation to conduct this analysis, internal resistance, and the lack of shared responsibility, all which contributed to the dismal failure of the plan.
Therefore, the Status of Women Committee began consultations in the fall of 2004 with multiple so-called "equality-seeking" women's organizations. The expression "equality-seeking" groups is used as a means to deliberately exclude REAL Women because we support traditional values which, in their view, is not "equality seeking." Never mind that the equality of women is included in our objects of incorporation! The purpose of this consultation was to determine what to do about the problem of the supposed negative impact on women by the failure to implement gender analysis within the federal government. All the women's groups that were consulted pronounced themselves, to the last woman, shocked, shocked, and appalled by this failure to properly implement gender analysis by the federal government.
In their study of this unsatisfactory situation, the Committee did, however, award gold stars to a few government departments, which were obediently carrying out gender analysis. These included:
* Citizenship and Immigration Since 2001 the department has been very good indeed
about applying gender analysis to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
That Act also requires the department to report its performance on the crucial
issue of gender analysis to Parliament - a move which the Committee highly approved.
Gender based analysis was first formalized at Health Canada in 1999 with the development of a "Women's Health Strategy". This commitment to gender based analysis was further strengthened in 2000 with Health Canada's release of a Gender Based policy. Remarkable.
The Committee found that although Finance Canada, as a key central agency, had an important role to play in promoting and implementing gender based analysis, it had not adequately fulfilled its duties in this regard. It had made no effort to either enforce a requirement by departments to induct a gender based analysis on funding proposals or to evaluate the adequacy of the gender analyses submitted to it.
This definitely was not good news to the Committee. However, the situation was at least partly redeemed by Minister of Finance, Ralph Goodale himself, when he stated, in the House of Commons, on December 13, 2004, that he was committed to ensuring that all policy proposals for the 2005 - 2006 budget would require a gender based analysis. This made Mr. Goodale a very good boy, according to the Committee.
Recommendations by the Status of Women Committee
After its extensive study of the failure by the federal government to properly apply gender based analysis, the Committee made the following recommendations to the government to enforce gender analysis.
1. That the Government of Canada immediately initiate consultations, in time for
the 2006 - 2007 budget, aimed at the development of legislation that would ensure
the systematic application of gender based analysis to all federal policy and
No "half-measures" for these feminists! They are clearly convinced that gender analysis is the answer to their prayers to have feminism dominate the national agenda.
Status of Women Canada
The government agency, the Status of Women Canada, thrilled by the Committee's recommendations, which would provide it with increased stature, recognition and power, decided to do its part in encouraging this fortunate turn of events. It did this by announcing that it had commenced an online consultation with regard to gender equality. The first question asked on this consultation is whether the respondent supports gender equality, and the second question asked is whether gender based analysis would be the best route to follow in order to achieve gender equality. The purpose of this consultation was to point out that there was overwhelming support for gender analysis by the general public. Gerrymandered to produce the desired result, the consultation will make the feminists' point, which is the entire object of the exercise, but not necessarily the truth.
Finally, in order to ensure that gender analysis is properly applied by the federal government, the Status of Women Canada also established an "expert" panel to study "accountability and to provide advice on strengthening gender equality in Canada." We have no doubt that these feminists "experts" will arrive at even more rules and recommendations to further ensure that gender analysis is enforced in Canada.
Please write to Prime Minister Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance, Ralph Goodale, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, Liza Frulla, and your MP, strongly objecting to this proposed take-over by feminists, who have little or no support from the general public in imposing their gender analysis in Canada.
THE STATUS OF WOMEN MUST BE DISBANDED
In 1973, in response to a recommendation by the 1970 Royal Commission Report on the Status of Women, the Status of Women section of the federal Department of Secretary of State was established. The purpose of the Status of Women was to advance the equality of women in Canada.
However, in the nearly thirty years since it was formed, this government agency has degenerated into a caricature of what was intended, and has become an agent for the promotion of a radical feminist revolution in Canada. It remains locked into the ideology of feminism and its discredited policies, established back in the 1960s and 1970s. That is, although womens needs and interests have moved on, the feminists at the Status of Women haven't noticed. They are still busily promoting pay and employment equity and universal day care, long discarded policies. Women today are more concerned about the stress in their lives caused by divorce and family breakdown, job insecurity, excessive taxation, and lack of support and respect for the effort of parents in raising their children. Yet, the Status of Women keeps sputtering the extreme left-leaning agenda of the old-time feminists and lesbians in Canada.
Moreover, the fact that the Minister for Womens Issues, Hedy Fry, represents the riding of Vancouver Centre in the House of Commons is significant, since the riding has a large homosexual/lesbian population. This has considerable influence on Ms. Fry's support and advocacy for lesbian groups.
In fact, the Status of Women, under Hedy Fry, has paid out $253,918 to lesbian causes alone in the fiscal years 19961998. More than half of this went to lesbian groups in Ms. Frys own BC province. Lesbian advocacy groups there received $145,418 during this twenty-month period (April 1996 - December 1998). The grants to lesbian groups are as follows:
REAL Women of Canada, which supports traditional marriage, applied for and was denied a grant by the Status of Women in 1999. We apparently dont rate as a genuine women's group by the Status of Women.
The lesbian groups which are the beneficiaries of such generous funding from the Status of Women are intolerant and discriminate against REAL Women and other traditional women's groups. (See, "REAL Women Experiences Discrimination at Federal Conference," p. 1.)