Re-Re-Opening the Abortion Debate in Canada

photo from the straight

"We don't want to re-open the abortion debate" is a popular line deployed by the majority MPs in Ottawa when a minority of Conservative MPs - backbenchers like Stephen Woodworth – bring up a woman’s right to choose.   

As I have documented before, there have already been backbencher attempts at re-opening "the debate.” The most prominent attempt was by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth who felt that all members should get together to discuss what legally constitutes life.

 And so, after many Canadian women became rightfully pissed off and tweeted, blogged, marched, signed petitions and spoke up in parliament, the Woodworth-induced outrage subsided for a while.

Unfortunately, as I was tuning into the ever-entertaining circus that is Question Period yesterday (for my non-Canadian readers, this the live televised proceedings of parliament in which members of all parties can address various issues and policies) I learned that the "debate" was emerging once again. Megan Leslie, the NDP Health Critic, asked the Prime Minister why the issue is being raised yet again.

In response to Leslie, Harper replied:

"I think all members of this house, whether they agree with it or not, understand that abortion is legal in Canada and this government, myself included, have made it very clear that the government does not intend to change the law in this regard”

Why then, did a trio of Conservative party members – Maurice Vellacott, Leon Benoit, and Wladyslaw Lizon – go out of their way to compose and sign a letter to the RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson regarding abortions after 19 weeks and the “killing of born children”?

 First of all, as many of us know, the Harper government tends to silence any in-party dissent (such as during the lead-up to the CNOOC deal) so why is abortion the exception?

Why does this particular practice, which neither involves nor impacts any of these white Conservative men, continue to surface? What are the possible repercussions for women’s reproductive justice, sense of bodily autonomy, and access to health services and resources in Canada?

 The content of Vellacott and Co.’s letter, however, seems even more troubling as they discuss the possibility of women being charged with homicide. Rather than discussing the concept of “life” and who is considered legally “human,” this letter alludes to a potential criminality of pregnant women or women who, for whatever reason, require abortions at or beyond 19 weeks of pregnancy. These late-term abortions, however, are very rare in Canada as 90% of all abortions take place in the first trimester.

But I digress,

The CBC news article features part of the letter to the RCMP Commissioner on their website, it reads:

“From 2000 to 2009 in Canada, there were 491 abortions, of 20 weeks gestation and greater that resulted in live births," reads the letter dated Jan. 23.

"This means that the aborted child died after it was born.”

It is quite clear in this letter that the authors, similar to Stephen Woodworth, have confused human children with developing fetuses in their interpretation of Criminal Code Section 223(1). In  Section 223(1) of the criminal, a fetus becomes a human after it completely emerges from a woman’s womb, breathes on its own and has an independent circulatory system.

These statistics, which were gathered by the MPs from a blog called “Run with Life,” was followed by a reference to Section 223(2), which contradictorily defines  homicide of a child as causing injury to a child “before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.”

This definition of human, however, does not seem to match the definition in Section 223(1).

These MPs feel, because of this seemingly contradictory set of laws, that “late-term” abortions (those after 20 weeks) do constitute child homicides under the Criminal Code Section 223(2) even though Section 223(1) disagrees. These Conservative MPs feel that these alleged “killings of children” must be investigated by the police as the “killing of Canadian children may continue to grow if these apparent crimes are not investigated, and the perpetrators prosecuted.”

However, unlike Stephen Woodworth who held a televised, public debate on his interpretation of Section 223(2), Vellacott and Co. took a much more furtive approach by directly contacting the head of the RCMP, suggesting he take some form of legal action.

Leon Benoit, one of signatories, spoke about the letter in Ottawa yesterday:

"But I thought the letter said exactly what I said — there was an attempted abortion, the baby was born alive, then killed."

He continued, "In fact, that's not what it says. It says there was an attempted abortion, the baby was born alive and died as a result of the injuries caused through the attempted abortion, so I just wanted to correct the record as to what this is about."

Benoit continues on to say that the 19-week mark is not really an issue for him (like the letter suggests) in fact, he’s mainly concerned about this supposed “botch” abortion wherein a doctor allegedly killed a baby that fully emerged from a woman’s womb. But why then, does the letter say something much different?  

Yesterday unlike in the letter, Benoit asserted that there was AN attempted abortion and THE baby was born alive then killed – indicating there was ONE incident of a born-baby being killed.  The letter he signed, on the other hand, alludes to far more of these incidents.

Nevertheless, this letter—like the Stephen Woodworth debate—is part of a much larger campaign by Harper’s Conservatives to challenge the legal status of abortion in Canada. 

As Canadians, we must stand up and defend women’s human rights. We must understand that all of these attempts are dangerous and may impact all Canadian women.

Let us all stand up, like Megan Leslie did in Question Period yesterday, and remind the Conservative Party of Canada that abortion is NOT murder.

For those who don't conceive...

Life has been a tad unpredictable lately, forcing me to adapt to everything, resigning my desire to feel in control. Such unpredictability refers to my recent loss of a lady-bit due to possibly lady-cancer. Yes, I underwent a preventative oophorectomy. This procedure removed my left ovary, a hideously large mass attached to it and the accompanying fallopian tube. Further, since they were gyno-cancer-surgeons-specialists, they procured some other slabs of tissue (appendix and a hunk of belly chub) for possible cancer staging. 

My sister had ovarian cancer in her early twenties-- totally random, but she survived. And so, with her past and my 9cm mass, they figured they would not risk it. Luckily, and as I predicted, I am so far void of any cancer. However, my inkling leans more towards endometriosis, explaining the painful-nausea-inducing menstrual cycles I have endured for 10+ years. But I have yet to receive this confirmation. 

So, what the fudge does this all have to do with feminism and the personal/political divide? 

Well, the reactions to my situation have been shocking, to say the least. 

The first concern that many had when they learned of my health issues regarded my (in)ability to make babies - Not a worry for my health, no does she have cancer? Is she okay?

 No, No..
Instead more the responses were more akin to

"Oh my god, will you be able to have kids?" 

and even, "Well, no kids for you!" 

After my initial shock over the realization that many people have already affirmed my position as incubator, I informed the so-called concerned folks that in fact, I have no plans of creating, housing, and raising babies (can you believe it?!) and, further reminded them that a woman with only one ovary can get pregnant. 


What I find so troubling, however, is how concerned people are - particularly other women - with my (in)ability to conceive offspring, as if my body was merely a holding capsule for a fetus and nothing more. Also, if a woman shares her refusal to house a fetus and take on the role of mother to another person, she will likely be shamed for her decision. Why? Because all women are taught that our bodies, particularly our reproductive organs, dictate our "womanliness" - our place in the world is defined by our ability to bear children. If we are not smiling while tossing shit-drenched diapers into the trash, we are bad women. If we refuse to conceive at all, or cannot physically do so - we are useless women. How would any decent woman find any joy in life without becoming a mother?


Women's universal role of man-loving baby-producer is so embedded that many fail to understand how anything but producing children would be of concern in the case of a gynecological health issue. It was bordering on comical for me, as fertility was the last thing on my mind, in fact - until my male surgeon quickly informed me that he could put me through some crazy fertility-industry treatments if I wanted. He, of course, was assuming I would be wanting it. I mean, what 22 year old wouldn't be into shitting away a bunch of money to further fuel the baby-making-business that preys on women's bodies and their perceived 'failures'? It was as if the only worry that I should have had was whether or not I could reproduce, not whether or not my body was healthy and not engulfed in cancer.


Fortunately, my recovery is going well and I am trying to stay positive (and cancer-free) - however, a point of advice for the  many well-intentioned baby-enthusiasts, not that intent really matters in the end, but - consider your words before you speak to a woman who is suffering with gynecological issues. Female sex organs serve a multitude of purposes beyond producing and housing babies.  As someone who values my body's holism, I am saddened the loss of my ovary - not because it involves fertility, but because it is a part of me. 

Prescribing Patriarchy: Dr. Oz

                     found here

With the recent upsurge of television doctors and shrinks (targeting mainly women) it should come as no surprise that patriarchal propaganda is alive and well in the West. Television aficionado's spend hours every day in trances, listening to these so-called “professional” doctors spew advice on everything from what a healthy turd look like to how to maintain a boner. As someone who knows many people who tune into gawk at these star-struck docs, I feel obligated to discuss the trend. Since this post will likely be lengthy, the others may be discussed separately. Nevertheless, these “experts” include:

Dr. Drew Pinsky (addictions specialist)

Dr. Mehmet Oz (heart/lung surgeon)

Dr. Phil McGraw (psychologist)

Dr. Laura Berman (sexual health educator, relationship therapist)

Dr. Laura  Schlessinger (right wing commentator, private marriage/relationship counseller, radio host)

I want to focus on Dr. Oz as he has a strong hold over the "medical-entertainment" market and spouts the most "advice" regarding women's bodies, sexual activity, and food consumption. 

Oz's cuddly promo!!

The infamous Dr. Oz is actually a cardiothoracic surgeon with a net-worth of 7 million dollars. Before nabbing his own day time show, he was a habitual "expert guest" on the Oprah Winfrey show. With her help, The Dr. Oz Show was on the air and continues to be a popular choice for televised health enthusiasts. On the show,  Oz conducts interactive demonstrations that seem to have been inspired by kindergarten classes in order to explain bodily processes. He often has guests from the audience take part in these demonstrations. His range of expertise, apparently, extends from heart surgery to mental health, sexuality, weight-loss and something he refers to as "Anti-Aging." 


Preventing  aging  is a hot topic on the Dr Oz Show,  he has a "superfood" to make you stop "looking old",  because old people are not beautiful nor are they valuable (he openly uses the term "anti-aging" and has created an entire section for it on his website!) In this section, Oz asks, "Are your bones making you fat?"  Clearly, our very bodily structure - our skeleton, is really to blame for our wrinkled woes! Dr. Oz's  anti-aging agenda is closely linked to his obsession with the size of women's bodies.The surgeon in scrubs measures guests' waist sizes and weighs them on novelty scales. He has all kinds of diets and suggestions that are aimed at making everyone's body's the same - slim/fit
He manages to cram his weight-loss advice into other markets such as magazines and books. But his obsession with women's body size also ties in with his obsession with women's sexual activity. In his 100 weight loss tips, he suggests "Healthy sex may help control the amount of food you eat and it's great exercise." 


Healthy sex? As opposed to unhealthy sex? Does the type and healthiness of the sex act change the number of calories burned? 

This "you" expert has also stirred up controversy in the last few years. He featured a debatable topic referred to by his show as the "Arsenic Apple Juice Crisis!" This Crazy-McCrazerson episode has been referred to by some as nothing more than a  "ratings ploy"  but hey, Fox News thinks its all legit because a consumer report told them so!


With so much expertise and loyal viewership, the Dr Oz show has a lot of "buzz-creating" advice on sex and sexuality. 

"Shocking Ways Your Hormones Are Affecting your Marriage!" 

Oz makes his millions by giving his  millions of viewers “doctor-approved” 
sex advice, or should I say, intercourse advice. This advice is easily marketable and likely ups Oz's ratings. 


He even offers sex advice on his website. Here, users can take the quiz, "How healthy is your libido?" Such a quiz does nothing more than perpetuate (hetero)normative ideas about sex-drives and sexual activity, the notion that high-libido is the standard and "normal." This is considered "normal" for men have high-libidos, it is "normal" for men, but a woman with a high-libido would likely be perceived much differently. However, low-libido in women is much more medicalized than a high-libido, this is because men are perceived to be hyper-sexual at all times and women are expected to be sexually available at all times. In fact, one of Oz's  key-to-a-healthy-life tips is to have as much heterosexual intercourse as possible. Indeed, he claims up to 3+ times a week is adequate to maintain health. This degree of intercourse, he claims, will actually make you live longer!

Such advice fails to really discuss how "normal" sexuality has been socially constructed within a society that has a history of male dominance, colonialism, racism, and heteronormativity. Dr. Oz spouts out the same old, same old - he offers the same regurgitated, limited view of sexuality. His view is clear in this statement:

“It means, number one, that the penis works and for the male, the penis is a dipstick for your health. If it's working, everything else is probably working, too. When it's not, it could be a bunch of things, but something's not right. So it's a good litmus test if things are shaping up the way they're supposed to. For women, it's not about amount of sex. It's about quality of sex. They need loving, nurturing, sexual relationships in their lives.” 

His incredibly phallocentric and sexist perspective is obvious from this quote. He proposes that men and women are so incredibly different, that is why they need different sex. For men, it is all about getting laid as much as possible, but for women, being as passive and sensitive as we are, require “quality” sex, which essentially means that our assumingly male partners must be able to “nurture” us while they penetrate us four times a week. This will gratify our apparently universal sexual needs as women! Our silly woman-brains are to blame! But, his advice is patronizing and downright silly. It is ridiculous to suggest that women require “different” sex simply because we are women, as if all women are heterosexual and that ALL heterosexual women desire to have intercourse. Of course, Oz points to a study that dates back to the 1960s to prove that men require intercourse. I have an inkling that Oz is alluding to Kinsey's sex research. To understand why such studies are not the best sources, one only needs to read Andrea Dworkin, who took to deconstructing Kinsey's work and his biases. Also, couldn't Oz pull up some recent studies? Possibly studies not conducted by a man...

Self-Explanatory 

Like many doctors, though, Oz claims that this need is complicated and is due to the extensive “biological differences”  in men and women’s brains (he even insists women's brains shrink during pregnancy!) Also, like many other doctors operating from a male-centric perspective, Oz believes in the seemingly new problem of “sex addiction." This "diagnosis" informs men that they actually cannot control using and buying women's bodies or consuming pornography. But men have different brains!
With this sexual equivalent of a “get out of jail free” card, it is easier for men to see themselves as victims and “powerless” over their decisions and actions that affect women, women's status in the world and society as a whole. Why don't we ask ourselves: what does such a diagnoses say about our society and what does it say about how we construct our social realities?

Patriarchy has a way of normalizing itself and the media assists in that normalization by providing men with reassurance that they indeed are not in control of themselves. Not only do men need to maintain sufficient erections, but they need to place that erection into a woman’s body or "deal with" their erection through using pornography. Women are then held responsible. Women are told to facilitate this apparently "inevitable" need that men have, this apparent healthy-life requirement. Women are to do this by providing constant access to their bodies -- through physical access, the male gaze and consuming self-criticism. How dare any woman (assuming, as Oz does, that she is heterosexual) try and shorten her husband’s life and negatively impact HIS health by not having intercourse with him?

Such televised medicalizing and public devaluing of women’s bodies, health, and sexuality, which is masked as“liberation” furthers sexual inequality and oppression. When rich people with lots of power spout out restrictive advice as "scientific truth" they truly allow propaganda to flow freely; propaganda that is intended to maintain the patriarchal status quo and keep women in a subordinate social position.

Canada Day under the Harper Regime

the "Queen of Canada," Elizabeth II looking enthused during a Canada Day performance in 2010

photo found here

It is Canada Day today and with a Harper majority government, I am not so proud to be Canadian. The union-busting of late, the bloodshed in Libya and the lack of responsibility for dealing with asbestos has created a Canada unworthy of much praise.


Also, nationalism smells bad.

Regardless, my ass will still be planted in a grassy park somewhere absorbing some festivities for the day. Enjoying the festivities not because they are part of the Canada Day itinerary but rather because they are free and provide this boner killer with much needed photography time.


Despite my current feelings, one can remember when Canada Day used to feel worthy of some kind of celebration. For instance, our health care or whatever is left of it, remained to be a celebration point, but sadly the current reality has made that a difficult task, especially under the uber-oppressive Harper regime. 


Oh, and the anti-abortion groups usually infest the streets on this day, with their blood-drenched propaganda of dismembered fetuses. Perhaps there will be Canada Day Confrontations, too!






Notes:

Links - June 16, 2011

Links for June 16, 2011

Cherry Blossom Life "A Use For The Word Empowerment"

Gender Trender "Boys Just Want To Have Fun as Fake Lesbians"


Rad Fem Hub "Queering Women Invisible"

Nimbostratusparade "A Second Flush on Yesterday's Shitty News" (Prostitution Laws in Canada)

News


Anthony Weiner to Resign

Flaherty sells Canada in New York as low-tax jurisdiction for corporations

NDP and Health Activists Call For Asbestos Ban


Saudi Arabia Must Fulfill Its Promise To Let Women Drive

Harper Intent On Ruining Canada

Just thinking about Stephen Harper's desire to guide Canada into a "Conservative direction" makes me truly terrified. Terrified for human beings but terrified more for women and any non-heterosexual people.


Terrified, horrified, mortified, petrified for the safety of our food, earth, and standard of life.

The Kids Are Not All Right **TRIGGER WARNING**

**Trigger Warning for Self-Harm, Abuse, EDs and Suicide**

Self-injury now outnumbers strokes in the number of hospitalizations per year in Canada. A recent study has found that more than 45 people a day are hospitalized in Canada for self-harm and the average age range is 15-19 years old - kids, basically. A revealing report claims that 85% of these self-injury cases involved poisonings and 9 out of 10 of these self-injury cases were attributed to prescription or non-prescription medication. 10% of the self-injuries included cutting or piercing and 2% were caused by strangulation. Currently, Canada is the only industrialized country to not have a national strategy for suicide or organizing the current prevention services that are available (CBC News). The CIHI Health Indicator Report shows that the numbers of self-injury hospitalizations between women and men differ significantly in all of the provinces of Canada. Here are the 2009 numbers - these are per 100,000 people. 

Graph from here

Note: The bottom axis simply lists every single province and various hospitals within each province. As you can see the differences are staggering. Keep in mind that these results are taken from hospitalizations and not everyone who self-injures is hospitalized for various reasons. Nevertheless, it is difficult to argue with these numbers. One of the most alarming differences was in Parkland, Manitoba where 390 per 100,000 females were hospitalized for self-injury compared to the non-existent numbers or "†" for numbers that were suppressed "due to small numbers or incomplete data" for males. This is in one year. 

For a chart including all figures see full report

Rates per Province, Image from CBC News

With more and more kids trying to kill themselves and harm themselves, more real conversations are needed to create REAL and lasting solutions. An increase in government spending for better medical care for all (including improved therapy without immediate reliance on medication) would be an obvious starting point - but it is clear that this self-harm epidemic is stemming from our larger cultural climate, particularly in the "developed" world. 
In the same article, the journalists made a note to include what the Canadian government wants to do to solve the problem [I will put my commentary in bold]: 


Canada is providing $27 million aimed at improving mental health of youth across the country.


[I think funding is great, but 27 million dollars could be increased if Harper bothered to properly tax the Big Oil companies existing in Canada. This likely will not happen because of the loyal camaraderie that the Oil companies have with the Harper regime. It is true that more funding is necessary to provide more programs dedicated to mental health and finding long-lasting solutions instead of rushing to medicate kids, but for having no national strategy in place, more money will likely be needed. This should not even be up for discussion - the health of the people should be a top priority]


The federal government is funding the projects through the Public Health Agency of Canada to support projects that focus on fostering mental health for children, youth and families in rural and northern communities, aboriginal communities, and those of low socio-economic status, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq announced separately Wednesday in Toronto..


[Again, government funding is good but it will cost a lot and with Harper's recent "cut-backs" to public spending we may not see it happen. Throwing a bunch of social workers and public health workers into First Nations reserves with anti-self injury and anti-suicide campaigns are going to be merely scratching the surface of larger, systematic problems. When health workers leave the reserves will they also take all of the poverty, malnutrition and abuse? Will they take away the isolation and racism experienced on reserves? Will their money and campaigns truly end suicides and self-injury in Aboriginal youth? How will it shift the social consequences of institutionalized racism? How will those caught in the cycle of poverty be assisted by public health campaigns put out by the same government that requires them to work 2 jobs and still not have enough money to live? How can their needs truly be met when society is the real culprit?]


The projects address bullying, change and loss, substance abuse and suicide, and seek to strengthen family and community interactions and promote healthy relationships.


[I find it difficult to believe that these anti-bullying programs will end bullying, particularly online bullying. I would be interested into hearing about how they plan to tackle cyber-bullying. 


This money should also be used to create programs in schools and communities, like those mentioned above and create ones that challenge the status quo and call for Ottawa to take mental health seriously. Excuse me, I'm clearly being idealistic here, but it is just so brutally necessary. One can only dream of radical shifts in how we think and how we deal with one another]


For a full-list of programs and initiatives see here

These programs, if they are ever implemented, will likely not significantly decrease the incidences of self-harm because the culture -- this culture need to fundamentally change. This culture has an ever-growing love for violence, money, greed and power. In fact, this Western culture has provided a never ending buffet of self-hatred, apathy and loneliness sustained by a dominant class obsessed with self-starvation, sexy violence and out-of-control consumerism.


To deal with this we must address and critique the societal factors at play. 'First-World' children and teenagers from all socio-economic backgrounds are taking part in this harming behavior. 


Why? 


Young girls are starving, cutting and poisoning themselves while being abused and exploited en masse and yet we still collectively ask ourselves, why? Why would girls and women experience so much self-hatred, shame and trauma? why why why!? 
Of course, there are differences in experiences and reasons for harming oneself. But, despite our diverse reasons and experiences, I can confidently declare that there is nothing  inevitable or natural that causes women and girls to harm and hate themselves at such high frequencies. This hatred and desire to harm or damage oneself or to escape one's reality , my readers, is a result of the ruins of the male operated capitalist machine that has lead to the mass-scale destruction of civilization - both of the natural world and everything that dwells within it.


Women and girls as a sex-class have been and continue to be oppressed in various ways, some subtle and some horribly evident; Oppressed by delirious and out-dated institutions. Evidently, The Mass-Media Machine continues the practice of pop-culture driven woman-hating. The Mass Media Machine asserts that we, as women and girls, do not own our bodies  - our bodies are wrong, dirty, degraded, too fat, too skinny, too short, too tall; too-freckled, too black, too brown, too muscular. These bodies, our bodies are viewed and accepted as commodities under our current system. Likely this internalized commodification is a result of endlessly staring at ourselves; contorted, starved and constructed, plastered all over bus-stops and magazines - typically in pieces. 


Self-harming behavior, in my opinion, must be looked at within the culture that sustains it. The culture, our Western culture that sexualizes and normalizes violence and rape. It normalizes the abuse that can often lead to self-harming behavior. This culture is one that seems to require that any new horror film must include footage of a woman being viciously attacked or brutally raped. But, the evidence is everywhere and if you're not a horror-movie fan, fear not -  you could just turn on a television to see an episode of CSI. Or why not wander into the gas-station to look at the latest issue of FHM or playboy? The propaganda is endless. 


One cannot help but ask what if men were portrayed in the same ways and at the same frequency as women? What if males were self-injuring themselves at the same frequencies females are? There would be an outcry!


But I digress. 


Along with more funding, we must start to think critically and radically. New ideas are necessary - radical ideas.


But, is it even possible?


Is a world where rape and violence against women is not considered sexy even possible? I want a world where young women do not feel obliged to starve themselves only to feed the beauty industry - a world where kids don't feel it necessary to poison themselves to escape from their pain. I want that world.

Canadian Election 2011: Harper "Controversial" Quotes Leaked (Healthcare, Abortion and Bilingualism)

Stephen Harper is known for keeping his followers quiet and in check - he forbids all of his party members from speaking to the press or even commenting. This silence has contributed to Harper's lack of transparency and inability to be honest and upfront with Canadians. Today has revealed, however, that Harper's converts were sharing some of the Prime Minister's most "controversial" quotes. I have the parenthesis to indicate that I personally feel the comments are offensive and completely terrifying, not simply "controversial." 


Here are some of those quotes

found here

Here are some more of Harpers quotes from the CBC.ca website:

          From the Jan. 7, 2004 update, page 12 - on health:

"The solution is to have a healthcare system where people pay some of the costs themselves." "If we had a healthcare system based on insurance and we paid for these services out of our own pocket, this would be a non-issue." - referring to what the article's writer called broad-brush swipes at people whose behaviour is deemed costly (March 22, 1999)

           5. From the June 26, 2003 update, page 18 - on social conservatism:

    "We need to rediscover Burkean or social conservatism because a growing body of evidence points to the damage the welfare state is having on your most important institutions, particularly the family. Conservatives have to give much higher place to confronting threats posed by modern Liberals to this building block of our society." Jan. 6, 2003

   

      7. From Aug. 28, 2003 - page 3 - on Elections Canada and then-Chief Electoral                  Officer       Jean-Pierre Kingsley:

'"The jackasses at Elections Canada are out of control." Please excuse my language, but when I learned Elections Canada's bureaucrats have pressed charges against a Canadian citizen, I just blew my cool. That is the exact language I used ... This is not the first attack on freedom by Elections Canada. Its heavy-handed chief, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, has been an advocate of the most minute of controls and regulations - and stiff punishments - on every aspect of "free" elections.' 08/2001

Voting day is May 2, Canadians! Go out and vote!!!

Canadian Politics: The Youth Vote, Global Interest, and Coming Together

        photo from here

  A Canadian federal election is looming overhead and I am trying not to see the dark clouds. The possible storm would be a majority government for the Conservative party of Canada. This, of course, likely mirrors more of American Democrat values. In Canada, however, this is considered pretty right-wing. As a political junkie and a Canadian citizen, I feel an intense urge to participate in this election. This urge does not stem from nationalism or even pride of being a Canadian, although it’s hard to pinpoint a universal Canadian Identity; it stems from the recognition of a right that many people in the world do not have. A right to have some kind of say in who runs a country, what rights the people have within a country and so forth. In addition, I find that elections really bring Canadians out of our shells. Our voices are usually subdued by the loud howling of the United States, which truly dominates the world’s interest, whether it be politically based or situated in a Hollywood scandal.

 In Canada, it is rare that we actually become aware of Stephen Harper and his activities in parliament. Luckily, the campaign trail has lead to the revealing of the Conservative Party’s misdeeds. Usually our political arena is quiet; we seem to be content with staring idly at the television, listening to Obama battle it out with the Tea Partiers. All the while Mr Harper purchases war planes and violates human rights at the G8 summit.


The month of April has revealed its ability to wake up Canadians - particularly those in my age group (b. 1980s). Suddenly, "vote-mobs"  have been breaking out on campuses - shocking, since the young adult voter turnout in the last Canadian election was feeble to say the least. What is making people interested? Could it be the Canadian youth are closely watching the UK's student movement or picking up cues from the activists fighting for a stop to cuts in the U.S? Maybe we can look even further, to Egypt, where the people (predominantly 30 years old and younger) decided to revolt. They demanded change. Clearly, Canadian elections do not compare to the struggles in Egypt - but within a global society, where one can interact with someone thousands of miles away in mere seconds, we can easily be inspired by the actions of others. Youth apathy is becoming more a myth than a reality and the proof of this is only building. Is apathy really of value in our world right now, when so much is changing so fast?


With the constant flow of tragic news in 2011, from the disaster in Japan, the continuing bloodshed in Libya and the Ivory Coast and tensions in other parts of the Middle East, we can find solace in coming together to reach a common goal. The common goal varies – as so many issues need to be addressed immediately. The safety of our food, the liveability of our planet and the possibility of peace are all at stake in a constantly evolving world. We cannot afford to be apathetic, even in Canada. In Canada, much of the youth vote is for a government that will support real democracy. What we have in Canada right now, under the Harper regime, is not democracy.


Several days ago, at U of G or the University of Guelph in Ontario, a Conservative party member attempted to confiscate a ballot box that was set up by Elections Canada for an advanced poll in the U of G. This advanced polling has taken place for several years at the University with no problems reported in the past. In Canada, as in many other countries, tampering with election boxes or ballots is illegal. Not only is it illegal, but it is downright undemocratic and terribly repressive. This is the kind of deceitful and totalitarian behaviour that personifies the Conservative Party of Canada or as it is better known as, the Harper Government of Canada. Harper actually managed to change the government’s name, but that is another post all together.


Harper's politics resemble more of the American, Laissez-Faire model that promotes little to no government intervention - in fact, the opposition parties have been calling Harper's reign the "Americanization" of Canada. This of course reflects the value we place on universal healthcare in this country. Harper wants to start to privatize healthcare services and continue to advocate corporate relations similar to the U.S. Relations that do not support many regulations being required for businesses and corporations. Harper would rather invest in dirty oil and energy than focus sustainable energy resources; he has even gone so far to say that Canada still holds a high ranking in environmental sustainability! 

But I digress.


Despite our usually calm political waters, Canadians - particularly young Canadians, have proven to have political opinions after all. It is reprehensible that the Conservative Party has attempted to shut down the youth vote in Guelph, but at the same time, the attempts to literally throw away votes has sparked something profound in many young voters. People are actually coming together, discussing important issues and coming up with ideas. It really demonstrates how politics can enrage us and while bringing us together - at least long enough to crack off a joke about the English-language debate or how Stephen Harper's hair has its own life-force. And, while we may not make US headlines with our political debates (both French and English) regarding Quebec separatism, the economy, universal health care or First Nations rights - we manage to reach out to others, even some from south of the border (i.e. Michael Moore) who find interest in our politics. Regardless of how much the American media cares about Canadian elections – it’s big news here and it’s getting Canadians all riled up, which just doesn’t happen enough anymore. 

Disowning of Women's Rights in America. Cutting Funds and Slashing Choice.

The amount of rage I feel inside regarding the recent cutting of funds for essential women's reproductive and general healthcare in inexplicable.  Since the extreme-right wing got into some position of power in America recently, the country is launching assaults on various groups, but most recently, women. The extreme cuts will encompass planned parenthood and various other women's health facilities and access to contraception, abortion and so forth. 


A piece in the New York Times states that, 

The egregious cuts in the House resolution include the elimination of support for Title X, the federal family planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases. In the absence of Title X’s preventive care, some women would die. The Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health, says a rise in unintended pregnancies would result in some 400,000 more abortions a year.

Everything listed above is a basic human right. These are basic rights for women and women's healthcare. These services and facilities must be written in stone - plastered in the constitution like a stain. Patriarchy, capitalism, and religion are all institutions working to put women in America back into full-on submission with little to no bodily control, reproductive choice or basic access to necessary health care.


I feel such a sickening anger for those who believe women are worth nothing. This disregard of basic human rights in America - the robbing of women's bodily control, reproductive choice and access to necessary health care. This is intolerable, absolutely unacceptable. I can barely believe it is happening in America, that the clock could be turned so far back. What can women do, what can we do? How do we upturn the pedestal that these so-called representatives stand on when they give their speeches about women's bodies, experiences and wombs. We must uproot it, burn it, slash it - destroy it forever. Then we must cement the rights of women in the government's concrete so that the hands of greedy godbags and misogynists cannot reach them, touch them, or destroy them.