Sunday, September 10, 2006

SOW Recommends Bill to Make Feminism Obligatory

Many people ask: just what does Status of Women do that merits its disbanding.


Good question.


Here is one example.


In July, SOW published a report by the Final report of the Expert Panel on Accountability Mechanisms for Gender Equality, entitled Equality for Women: Beyond the Illusion.

There are several aspects to this report. But one of the things that jumps out at me is that this taxpayer-funded report is calling on Parliament to basically make all policy, all programs and all laws correspond to feminist ideology, right down to the budget. Then it wants the government to pay non-governmental organizations to give it feminist advice to make Canadian law/policy/programs/budget more feminist.

This is not an exaggeration.

It would take an entire report in itself to detail each issue. But let's address the issue of making a law that would basically make feminism obligatory on all key areas of policy undergo a "gender-analysis". (Or in blunt language, a feminist analysis.):

The Panel is convinced that such administrative solutions are necessary but not sufficient to achieve equality for women in Canada. The second stage of action must be legislative. There are a number of powerful reasons for this conclusion.

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/resources/panel/report/report_10_e.html

Here's another gem of a quote:

Most Canadians undoubtedly think that the guarantees provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our country's human rights legislation and our international commitments (under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, among others) are sufficient to ensure equality for women. The reality is that those legal precepts need to be advanced further by more specific legal obligations.


Translations: most Canadians don't agree with the feminist principle of being entitled to feminist outcomes, but screw the democratic will, they need to be told what's right.

Isn't it enough that they foist judicial activism on us? Why no....

The Charter imposes an obligation on governments in Canada to respect equality for women. It does not, however, set out precise ways in which governments may act to achieve those ends. As most Canadians well understand, using the courts to force a government to respect the Charter can be a long, difficult and expensive process. A new law could approach the matter in a forward-thinking, cooperative manner that posits what the Government of Canada can and will do to uphold the Charter. A debate on a new law on equality for women would allow Parliament to determine the most effective means for the federal government to structure its own actions in a positive fashion.


This law would ENSHRINE the feminist sense of entitlement in the law. In other words, women would not have the freedom to be feminists, Canadians would be obligated to act like feminists, especially if they're in government.

For example, if the government decides not enough women are CEO's, then it has determined Canadian women did not make the right decision by deciding to stay home with their kids, or by entering job areas that do not lead to being a CEO.
Canadian Women are then, obligated AS A WHOLE, to make sure enough women go on to become CEO's. They don't have any freedom in this. If 100% of women want to stay home to have kids, or become teachers, or vending machine repairmen, that's just too bad, the government is REQUIRED to take measures to make sure that enough women make the right decision and become CEO's.

Where is the freedom?

If you read in between the lines, you get the feeling this panel is saying; "Listen, we can take you to court, and we'll win at the Supreme Court Level anyway, so why bother? Save us the trouble and just give us what we want, we're going to get it, anyway."

This law would be created "to ensure enhanced gender equality outcomes across Government, including the use of gender-based analysis, monitoring and reporting. The Bill would make it clear that in setting its policy directions, the Government would identify critical areas and departments that will use gender-based analysis and other tools to examine the impact of policies, programs and services on the achievement of equality for women."


The Bill would consist of two parts to come into effect five years apart. The first five years would focus on the Executive Branch of the Government of Canada, enabling in-depth learning on how to implement gender-based analysis and measurement of gender equality outcomes most effectively.



In other words, the Government would develop a way to measure how feminist our society is becoming.


The Bill would put priority on initiating change within the culture of Government departments in a meaningful way and with the involvement of civil society. The Bill would call for additional accountability and enforcement measures after five years. This would include the creation of an independent agent of Parliament, following a Parliamentary review of the lessons learned.


And if it's still not feminist enough, the government would get its knuckles rapped.

Here's a kicker:

The definitions in the legislation could include:


  • equality for women is to be interpreted not as formal equality but as equality in substance, which takes into account the achieved results. In some cases, different treatment for women is necessary to achieve substantive equality. Further, substantive equality for women must take into account the diverse forms of discrimination that women experience. Substantive equality also, therefore, requires eradicating systemic discrimination against women;


And if the Government doesn't do feminist bidding? Here is what would enforce the legislation:



  • a complaints mechanism with quasi-judicial powers, including sanctions;

  • a Commissioner for Equality for Women or an Ombudsperson for Women who would act as an agent of Parliament - either one would have powers comparable to those of the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The powers and duties could include annual reporting to Parliament, research, investigation, education, review of systemic issues affecting equality for women, resolution of complaints of systemic discrimination, orders to departments and agencies to take corrective action, review of other government mechanisms for achieving equality for women, and examination of Canada's compliance with obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discriminations against Women;

  • action plans by all departments and agencies, developed after consultation with non-governmental organizations; and

  • annual reports to Parliament by all departments and agencies.


And where is the people's voice in all this? What if they don't happen to agree with a particular feminist measure? Where is the democratic voice here? What if you want to vote in a government that doesn't agree with these measures? You get a bunch of bureaucrats to tell the government it can't do it, even if it has a mandate from the people?

And there would be one more Human Rights Tribunal imposing feminism on anyone who dares to dissent.

The time is now to get rid of this agency. In 2005, the House of Commons already established a Committee for the Status of Women, supporting the work of this agency, and it recommended 25% more funding. Do you want more of your taxdollars going to this?



Check out the Big Blue Wave Message Board