Harper’s male bomb When you head to the polls on Monday, remember how the Conservatives have repeatedly cut funding for groups that help women.
I was glad to see the Conservatives stepping into some well-earned shit last week over women’s reproductive rights. When Saskatchewan Conservative MP Brad Trost bragged that the Harper government had cut off funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, I thought of the Christmas episode in last season’s Mad Men. A drunken Don Draper is locked out of his apartment until his loyal secretary brings him his keys. Once inside, Draper pulls her onto his couch, fucks her, then acts as if nothing had happened when he arrives at work next day. “Thank you for bringing my keys,” he says handing her a Christmas bonus. Inside the envelope is a thank-you card “for all your hard work” and two $50 bills. The rampant exploitation of women during the 1960s is one of Mad Men‘s major themes. Fifty years ago, “women’s place was in the home.” In Canada, contraceptives and abortion were officially illegal, leaving women, as another saying went, “barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.”
Fast forward to the 2011 federal election campaign and it looks like the Conservative-Reform-Alliance Party is itching to roll back the clock. Trost boasted that the Harper government had cut funding to International Planned Parenthood because the agency pays for abortions in Third World countries. However, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix quoted Federation spokesperson Paul Bell as saying that its 2010 application for $6 million in federal funding specifically excluded abortion services, because the Conservative policy on funding for maternal health in poor countries forbids using federal money for abortions. Instead, the Federation promised to use the money exclusively for birth control, nutrition and health services for mothers and infants. Meantime, Bell said the Federation’s 2009 application for a three-year $18 million core funding grant was simply ignored.
On the campaign trail, Stephen Harper was quick to deny he had any intention of re-opening the debate on abortion without mentioning that his government restricts abortion services overseas. In fact, the attack on Planned Parenthood International, after 40 years of federal funding, is part of a concerted Conservative assault on any agency that advocates for women’s rights. A report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives points out, for example, that in 2006, government budget cuts forced Status of Women Canada to close 12 of its 16 regional offices. Worse still, the government revised its funding criteria to exclude money for women’s advocacy groups. As a result, many organizations have faced funding cuts. The long list includes the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women and the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. Federal funding cuts also forced the National Association of Women and the Law to close its Ottawa office. In its 30 years of existence, the organization had fought for and won changes in sexual assault laws, improvements in divorce law and the adoption of women’s equality rights in the Constitution.
Aside from its refusal to finance women’s advocacy groups, it’s also worth recalling the Harper government’s pathetic child-care plan—paying families $100 a month for each child under six, but making the money taxable. Not only is the scheme completely inadequate to pay for child care, it disproportionately rewards higher-income families with one parent— usually the woman—staying home to raise kids. To help finance the child-care payouts, the Conservatives quietly abolished the $249 annual young-child supplement which helped lower- and middle-income families most. According to right-wing logic, it makes perfect sense. The Conservatives claim there’s no need for universal child care because of their stingy monthly payouts, yet working families hardly benefit at all.
Canadian women have come a long way since the bad old days of the 1960s. The Conservatives pretend they’re all for women’s rights, but their systematic assault on women’s advocacy organizations, their opposition to women’s reproductive rights and their refusal to support working women, all point in the opposite direction. Here’s hoping that on Monday, the voters toss them out of office.
This article appears in Apr 28 – May 4, 2011.
Really, still comparing Harper as Hitler through illustration? I think there’s a few million in mass graves that would beg to differ. Horrible taste.
Bruce, Haper is not Hitler then you must be Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin then
Stalin? Yob Tvoyu mat! He’s a low rent Michael Moore. Rick Salutin Lite at best. Replace self-promotion with self-righteousness; he’s still nothing but a pedlar of monkey doodle and baked wind.
more like Pol Pot not Michael Moore
My memories of the 1950’s and 1960’s includes lots of working women.
In the Wark world there were no widows, no women doctors, no women police officers.
Contraceptives were illegal ???? Where do you find such rubbish.
In WW2 women were flying fighters and bombers from America to Europe and then training the men to fly the planes. After the war women had families but the idea that they just meekly gave way to their husbands is complete twaddle.
Revisionist nonsense.
Joeblow: Huff and puff all you like, but you provide no evidence to refute my arguments. For example, you write that it’s “rubbish” that contraceptives were illegal in 1960s Canada. Well, sorry Joeblow, but contraception in Canada was not legalized until 1969. That is a fact and try as you might, you will not be able to show otherwise. Here, for example, is what the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (formerly Planned Parenthood) has to say on this subject:
“Preventing conception was illegal in Canada from 1892 until 1969, but the law was inconsistently interpreted and applied in Canada. There were varying degrees of tolerance toward people who provided support to women and couples that wanted to control their fertility. By law, Canadians were to practice abstinence or coitus interruptus (withdrawal) to prevent pregnancy. Even counselling on natural methods was prohibited under the law. Decriminalizing contraception in 1969 gave all Canadians the right to prevent pregnancy and to protect themselves against sexually transmitted infections without engaging in criminalized behaviour…Condoms could generally be bought at drug stores although they were kept out of sight. In 1961 a Toronto pharmacist was charged, convicted and fined for selling condoms.” http://www.cfsh.ca/files/pdf/srh_day/histo…
The 1969 Criminal Code amendments permitted abortions, but only under extremely restrictive conditions. As the Canadian Encyclopedia states, women would have to wait nearly 20 years longer for the right to legal abortions:
“Abortion became a legal right for Canadian women in 1988 and is now considered a medically necessary service. Dr. Henry Morgentaler, who had been repeatedly charged with providing abortions, challenged the right of the government to prohibit abortion services in Canada. Prior to 1988 the Canadian Criminal Code had been used to charge medical doctors and others who provided elective abortions.” http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind…
The Canadian Encyclopedia entry goes on to note that today, access to abortion services is highly uneven in Canadian provinces.
Keep huffing and puffing dear Joeblow, but wind alone won’t blow my arguments away. You need evidence. For example, even after the post-war baby boom, female teachers were expected to resign in 1940s and 1950s Canada when they got married. After all, women were not family “breadwinners” and it was widely considered that they should not be taking jobs from the men who were.
Here, for example, is an excerpt from a report by Barbara Richter on Ontario elementary school teachers:
“Most [school] boards forced women to resign when they married. During the war years many married women had returned to work as temporary employees. They were expected to leave at war’s end and go back to homemaking. In 1945-46 some 1,700 teachers didn’t return to the classroom: 1,000 of them were married women—some of them newly married during the year.
“However, the baby boom and the resulting increase in enrollments, as well as the general postwar teacher shortage created opportunities for women teachers not available to women in other occupations. Believing it to be a short-term measure, school boards reluctantly hired married women as ‘special staff’ at lower pay on temporary contracts that they renewed annually and could terminate on short notice, especially if they found teachers they considered more desirable. And often they considered even 17-year old men with only a six-week summer course more desirable than more qualified married women.
“When women teachers on permanent staff married, their contracts also became temporary so that, the boards claimed, they could leave when family responsibility demanded, or if they became pregnant at inconvenient times.” http://www.etfo.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments…
Sorry Joe, but your comments are the ones that are “revisionist nonsense” unless you can show otherwise — with evidence, not just unsupported assertions.
BTW, have you watched Madmen? The series rings completely true to my 1960s experience when men said routinely that, “My wife will never work.” Yes, it was a real point of pride, even though of course, women did work at plenty of menial jobs that paid significantly less than what men were getting. And in case you haven’t noticed, equal pay for work of equal value is still an issue today, even though the Harperites have done their best to prevent female civil servants from pursuing their rights. http://rabble.ca/news/equal-pay-not-negoti…
Oh Joeblow, you just don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?
Well Bruce, I had no idea Canada was so backward before I arrived.
Where I lived working women were a common sight and contraception was not illegal. If the women had not worked in offices, factories etc I don’t have a clue how Europe would have recovered from the two wars.
I wonder what women did after WW1 when so many men were killed. In Europe life was obviously much different, and they didn’t have all those advocacy groups so beloved of the past 30 years.
Obviously Canada was, in your view, and perhaps in the view of others, a backward nation compared with Europe and the USA. Perhaps you can blame the Presbyterians, Calvinists and the Catholics, although the latter in Europe had a more relaxed view of women working.
if you doubt the record of Yankee women flying the aircraft to Europe I suggest you do some research. into this well established fact. The book I had was passed on to the grandaughters of a good friend.
By the way, the women were better pilots, as the rookies in the RAF, USAF and RCAF soon discovered.
One last item, women earning less than men is nonsense. Nurses,doctors,teachers, police, fire, military, post office, transit and a raft of other positions get paid the same. Ditto for the fast food outlets. Never did figure out how ‘work of equal value’ was calculated.
Just like I cannot figure out why women get the same pension as men for the same contributions but the men die earlier. Fairness would give men a higher pension. I see the buffoons in the EU have decided that it is discriminatory to give men higher annuities based on life expectancy and the knock on effect will see insurance premiums for life & auto for women increase dramatically.
Equality apparently has a price.
Bruce, you’re once again spot on. Harper is anti women. No reasonable person could surmise otherwise. The usual suspects are out trolling I see from the comments. It is amazing to see how even well thought out arguments, with evidence to back them up, are never enough for the neanderthals who dispute everything you write.
Fair enough Charles – although I’m leaning more toward Kim Jong-il – the Team America version.
http://www.morethings.com/fan/south_park/t…
US dept of labor study findings about the so-called gender wage gap:
http://thenononsenseman.com/Media/GenderWa…
The gender wage gap is feminist propaganda as far as I’m concerned.
I agree that men and women should be treated equally, however many women’s groups, in my opinion, want to take rights away from men and give them to women. This isn’t equality. Examples include family law, the fastest growing legal field. Ask any family lawyer, women have all the rights.
This isn’t exclusive to marital/family law My friend was arrested when his ex gf tried to seduce him, he refused her advances and told her to leave, then she went and called the police and told them HE tried to rape HER. They believed her with no proof and refused to hear his side of the story. Showed up to arrest and charge him with no evidence or proof whatsoever. Her word gets taken over his word no matter what. Situation if roles were reversed would be the same? Scoff scoff f’ing scoff. This isn’t equality.
That being said I agree that they shouldn’t be slashing funding for the groups you mentioned, but in a world where women can be doctors, lawyers, CEOs, soldiers etc.. they don’t deserve and special treatment when it comes to employment opportunities. They can do whatever they want. Legislation exists to prevent employers from denying women opportunities based on gender.
According to feminist dogma, women are weak when it suits their needs/argument and they are just as strong if not stronger than men when it suits their needs/argument. Can’t have it both ways.
I don’t respect self-entitled people, male or female and neither should the feds.
Hey, tommyjules902, No need to cite a Yankee study on the gender wage gap. We’ve got plenty of detailed studies right here in Canada. (See below) Unfortunately, you don’t provide any evidence to support your assertion that the wage gap is “feminist propaganda.” The U.S. study quarrels with the methods used to determine the wage gap, but that is hardly the same as claiming the gap itself is feminist propaganda. And, all the other stuff you write about regarding family law and your friend’s troubles with his ex do not support your assertion either.
The 2010-2011 (6th edition) of “Women in Canada: A Gender-Based Statistical Report” from Statistics Canada has a lot of detailed info on women’s earnings. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010…
This snippet attracted my attention: “…when women and men working full-time, full-year are compared, women’s earnings remain at about 71% of men’s, a ratio that has fluctuated between 70% and 72% since 1999.”
StatsCan goes on to note that women employed full-time tend to work about 3.7 fewer hours per week than men. When the pay gap is adjusted to calculate full-time hourly wage rates, the StatsCan study says that, “Comparing the average hourly wages of women and men, the ratio was 83.3% in 2008 – up from 75.7% in 1988.”
Whichever method you use, there is still a considerable average wage gap, although as StatsCan points out, the gap widens or narrows depending on many other factors including age and education.
A Sept. 2009 report from the Conference Board of Canada shows that Canada ranked 12th out of 17 peer countries and earned only a “C” grade for its performance in closing the gap. Here is a snippet from that report:
“Many Canadians believe that the gender gap has been dealt with. Yet the gap in income between men and women in Canada is 21 per cent. Canada ties with Finland and the U.K. for 12th spot and earns a “C” grade. The gender income gap ranges from a low of 9 per cent in Denmark to a high of 32 per cent in Japan.” http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/…
Finally, the Equal Pay Coalition points to a main factor in the pay gap: “…in Canada 70% of women with paid employment are concentrated in a few female-dominated sectors including health, teaching, clerical, sales and service. This sex segregation of work has been and continues to be linked with wage discrimination and low pay. In general, work traditionally or predominantly done by women is paid less than work traditionally or predominantly done by men regardless of the value of the work to the employer or the consumer. The more heavily women are concentrated in a job, the less it pays. This has created a significant wage gap between men and women.”
Is this merely “feminist propaganda” or an example of those women’s groups which “want to take rights away from men and give them to women” as you assert? I argue that the wage gap is real and that discrimination against women is partly to blame for it.
The Harperites are hostile to pay equity, but as my editorial points out, they are also hostile to women’s rights.
One not need look further than his own wife to see what he thinks of women- they were interviewed about what they were doing for the wedding in Engalnd-she spoke of their own small wedding where she dressed the cats in tuxs…..so why do you think he would think women are any more than that….
Bruce why do you use numbers instead of facts.
Teachers earn the same pay for the same job and the same qualifications. The contract does not discriminate.
Deduct all women teachers from any study.
Police officers earn the same money based on position and years in the position.
deduct all women police officers from any study.
Women nurses earn the same as men nurses.
Deduct all women nurses from any study.
women in the military earn the same as men.
deduct all women in the CAF from any study.
Ditto for bus drivers.
Ditto for municipal employees.
Ditto for university employees.
Ditto for fast food employees.
Ditto for welders, carpenters,electricians, plumbers.
Ditto for real estate agents.
ditto for women in auto plants, oil refineries and shipyards.
You based your original argument on ‘work of equal value’ and now you have switched to citing ‘earnings’.
Go ahead Bruce, file a rebuttal.
More shit from Bruce’s keyboard. Joeblow, you are spot on about the workplace. Can Bruce provide any info on any business where a man and woman get paid different for the same job? And let’s not forget the other side of the coin. How many men actually win custody cases or get alimony? Not too many. How many women get thrown in jail for domestic violence? Very few as it is automatically assumed that the male is always the aggressor. Ask any cop, male or female (with equal pay and benefits). So if harper is so anti-female, why are there female ministers and females on comittees (again getting equal pay and benefits). Yup just more anti-Harper shit from Bruce complete with, of course, the “Hitler/Harper” editorial? cartoon. I think your “carttonist” should have a talk with a much better Bruce, Bruce MacKinnon, about editorial cartoons. Your guy is just a one trick pony that gets boring rather quickly.
You guys are all focusing on one small argument, rather than the main point of the article, which is that the Harper gov’t opposes women’s reproductive rights, has cut funding to numerous groups that spent decades working hard to advocate for women, and is basically trying to ram their “Christian Family Values” down the throats of all Canadians. The gender wage gap is frankly irrelevant when you look at the fact that the Conservatives don’t even want women to have safe access to abortions and would like to deny funding to groups that dedicate themselves to things like preventing violence against women. This isn’t an issue of Cons vs Feminists, it’s an issue of Cons vs Basic Human Rights.
Funny but I’ve never seen the word Christian or anything referring to any religion in the Tory platform. So what clinics have the government shut down? Has the government refused to pay for abortions? I believe the answers to that are none.
From their website:
“The Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (CFSH, formerly Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada) is a voluntary, charitable organization, managed by an Executive Director who reports directly to a voluntary Board of Directors. Staff and volunteers work with the Executive Director to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights in Canada and abroad. CFSH is a pro-choice organization.”
It is a charity as they clearly state, not an arm of the government. How many other charities get federal funding? If not all of them, then none of them.
A couple of interesting links on Conservative Party ties to religious groups:
(1) BEHIND HARPER: THE NEW FACE OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT by Marci McDonald. http://www.thearmageddonfactorblog.com/201…
(2) Canadian voters polarizing over Christianity: Like in U.S. by Douglas Todd, Vancouver Sun. http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun…
Bruce, both left wing jounalists, nuff said.
Bruce A: Any response to my last comment or are you off on a tangent ?
Religion cuts across party lines as does abortion. Pro & con views are available in all parties even the NDP who kicked a woman MP out because she disobeyed orders from Layton.
Meow – abortion is anathema to many religions besides Christians. It is not a choice I would recommend to a woman but I do believe it is her decision.
What I do find offensive is the prevalence among certain cultural groups to abort female fetuses. It is a rare day that so called ‘womens groups’ complain about that issue to the same extent that they vilify conservative people.
You have no evidence to support your assertion “…. the Conservatives don’t even want women to have safe access to abortions …” unless you can find some mysterious document that no other Canadian has ever seen. The Supreme Court of Canada has put the issue to bed so I suggest you give it a rest. No serious person expects the legislation to change.
So the Conservative candidate that told the Pro-Life Convention that it was largely because of their influence that the gov’t defunded Planned Parenthood was just making it up?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavote…
“You have no evidence to support your assertion “…. the Conservatives don’t even want women to have safe access to abortions …”” – Before the 2004 election, 83% of the Conservative Party was publicly anti-choice (59 out of 71 MPs). As of the 2006 election, one-third of MPs could be considered anti-choice, the majority of whom are Conservative (74 out of 90).
In 2004, Harper stated that he would not allow government-backed abortion legislation “in this term,” but refused to rule out such action in a future mandate. He admitted he would allow a free vote on abortion if an MP introduced a private member’s bill: “Absolutely … I would generally continue the practice of allowing free votes on all private members’ legislation.”
The Conservative Party has historically demonstrated its anti-choice position. If you’ll recall, in 1989, the Progressive Conservatives introduced Bill C-43 to recriminalize abortion. On May 29, 1990, the House of Commons passed the bill. Before it was approved by the Senate, however, 2 Canadian women died from botched illegal abortions, and the bill was defeated.
You can guarantee that if the Conservatives get a majority, the abortion issue will be on the table again. Even if the legislation does not change, the Conservatives can still make it more difficult for women, both in Canada and abroad, to have access to abortions and reproductive counselling by defunding programs that provide these services, which is exactly what they’ve done with PP.
“It is a rare day that so called ‘womens groups’ complain about that issue to the same extent that they vilify conservative people.” – Where’s the evidence of YOUR assertion, Joeblow? That’s a straw-man argument that I’m not even going to dignify with a rebuttal.
Again, where does it say that government HAS TO fund charities. If they fund one, they should have to fund them all. Again what clinics have the Tories closed or abortions not paid for? As for Private Members Bills, the PM DOES NOT control what gets entered or not. All he said was if someone submitted a bill on this, then he would allow a free vote. My question would be, would the other parties allow the same thing. Harper already said that for him the abortion issue is dead. But some people don’t like his looks and personality and that’s what they base their negative judgements on.
“I’ve never seen the word Christian or anything referring to any religion in the Tory platform.” Only because the Conservatives aren’t total idiots. They know damn well that, unlike the States, they could never get widespread support if they came right out with their religious rhetoric. Harper has worked very hard to play down his ties to the evangelical Christian right, and to keep a muzzle on the more extreme and outspoken members of his party. It’s no secret though, that Jason Kenney does all the PM’s courting of the Christian lobby for him so he doesn’t get his hands dirty, and Harper’s made subtle nods to those supporters throughout his career as PM. Like I said to Joeblow, all it would take is a Conservative majority for the Cons to start showing their true colours. Good thing it looks like that’s not going to happen 🙂
“How many other charities get federal funding?” -All kinds of charities get federal funding. I’m sure you know how to use google.
“If not all of them, then none of them.” -That would maybe make sense if Harper’s gov’t was defunding all charities, instead of just the ones that it doesn’t like.
The Harper gov’t has been ridiculed and condemned on the world stage for its views on reproductive and maternal health. Canada used to be a leader when it came to how it addressed these kinds of issues, both here and internationally, but now we’re a complete and utter disgrace.
It’s not about looks or personality, Bro Tim (if it were, I’d never be able to vote again!). It’s all about actions and policies for me, and that man’s actions and policies make me ashamed to be Canadian.
Harper said the abortion issue was dead, and then allowed one of his backbenchers to put forth a new private members bill to penalize anyone who “coerces” a woman into having an abortion. Backbenchers do not hold news conferences or introduce legislation without PMO consent. Even if Harper personally does not wish to reopen the debate, if he gets a majority, private legislation limiting access to abortion could easily be passed because two-thirds of his caucus is anti-choice.
So he should cut off the charities he likes? If your concerned then you and other supporters should give more to your charities if you want them around.
@brotim you need to remember that it’s Canadian tax dollars he’s allocating. It’s not supposed to play a role, what he personally likes or dislikes. He represents the people and makes decisions (we hope in consultation with, and delegating to) a lot of people. Not just basically going with what he wants, like it’s his money. We need this person to be committed to respresenting the people as THE PEOPLE SEE IT and doing what Canada needs to do in the world, meeting responsibilities we have in the world to others. He can have a pitch on how that should go too, that’s a given. But he’s still acting with tax dollars and makings choices on our behalf.
The point is, Tim, he shouldn’t be basing his decisions on petty personal preferences at all. Some of these organizations he’s pulled the plug on have been funded by the Canadian gov’t for decades and have been crucial in improving and saving the lives of women and children both in Canada and around the world. Harper may be vague about where he stands on women’s reproductive rights in Canada, but he’s taken a clear stance against organizations that provide contraception, abortions and maternal care to women in developing nations. 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. Harper is catering to his supporters in the religious right with his policies and, in doing so, ensuring that women continue to die unnecessarily.
Missus someone decide to contribute to it in the first place. Who was it? I don’t think any charity should be getting tax dollars. It’s the charity’s job to raise funds.
As for responsibility in the world, it’s funny that it’s ok to give cash, food, etc (and a good thing) but as soon as we get involved in sanctioned missions then we’re the bad guys. What the fuck is that? Our troops do something and it’s all why should we be there, it’s not our fight. Okay let’s bring them home and when we do that we stop all the humanitarian aid because it’s over there and not our problem. It’s the same thing. If it’s not our problem, either with aid or troops, then to hell with them all. You can’t have it just your way.
Bro Tim, charity and non-profit organizations are a major part of how our country contributes to humanitarian aid. So by saying you don’t think tax dollars should go to any charities, you’re essentially saying you don’t think we should fund any humanitarian aid.
You then bust out (yet another) straw-man argument that tries to imply that anyone who supports humanitarian aid doesn’t support sanctioned military missions. Besides being an attempt at distracting from the debate at hand, it’s also utter bullshit. Not once in my life have I ever said that we shouldn’t be involved in a military operation because “it’s not our fight”. Just because people don’t blindly throw their support behind every military operation ever concocted, it doesn’t mean they’re totally naive pacifists. If you want to talk about why I don’t unquestioningly support our government every time it decides to send troops overseas, we can talk about it on another thread.
Back to the issue at hand, you seem to be conveniently ignoring the impact that humanitarian aid has on global stability. One look around the world today should give you a pretty good indication of the volatility and conflict that result from desperation and poverty. You can’t just ignore human rights issues in other countries and expect to never feel the repercussions here, and all the world’s problems can’t be solved by dropping bombs. Unless you’re a big fan of watching Canadian soldiers die in larger numbers overseas, you should realize that it’s in out best interest to continue to fund aid organizations.
Joeblow:
“I suggest you do some research”
it isn’t our responcibility to go out and verify your unamusing rantings. Some of us here are more generous than I, however, and they did additional research just to try to get you to open your eyes.
BroTim:
Your ignorant blanket statements astound me.
“I don’t think any charity should be getting tax dollars. It’s the charity’s job to raise funds.”
Dictionary deffinition: “Charitable giving is the act of giving money, goods or time to the unfortunate, either directly or by means of a charitable trust or other worthy cause.”
I ask you: where should pregnant single woman go when they can’t afford an abortion? She may have made a mistake, or been raped, or the contraseptives may have failed, but either way, she knows she can’t afford the child and to have it would be irrisponcible and an even bigger drain on Canadian resources than the medical abortion.
So give us an alternative, BroTim. Show us what you think rather than just scoffing and complaining.
All I can say is WHOOOOO HOOOOOOO TORY MAJORITY. Jack can thank Quebec for becoming the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
Bruce,
we got a Conservative Majority! I wonder how many women voted for the Conservatives I bet a lot
On behalf of all those who voted Conservative, either from conviction or because they were the least repellent option I’d like to thank Messrs. Wark & Pillsworth for the role they played in helping to grant Mr. Harper his well deserved majority. Harvard gets a new professor, Dizzie Ms. Lizzy gets to attend the debates in 4 years time and Duceppe goes back to making cheese.
And, we get these beauties:
http://markosun.files.wordpress.com/2010/0…
So, suck it up hippies.
Ivan, imagine of the Bloc kept their seats. They would now be Her Majesty’s Disloyal Opposition.
In the words of Ralph Kramdem, HOW SWEEEET IT IS.
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.as…
So, what do we do first? Take away wimmin’s right to vote or repeal the theory of evolution.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YTJBDUN8iSE/SuE9…
MWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
There are a lot more Conservative supporters than the average lefty thinks. I know I am one of them, but would never dream of telling anyone at my workplace. I just quietly support Stephen Harper and am cheering today (on the inside) while everyone around me is gloomy and saying “isn’t this awful?”. NO! 🙂
I’m thinking the schadenfreude will be all but gone by next year’s tax time, but until then it’s going to be a fun ride.
And did I mention; we’re getting really cool fighter jets
http://www.ceasefire.ca/wp-content/uploads…
Ouch!
Well I knew it was a possibility but I honestly didn’t think it would happen. I thought we’d end up with another Conservative minority with the NDP as the Official Opposition.
Congratulations to Stephen Harper and his supporters. I’m not one of them, of course, but the Conservatives have won a governing majority (with 40% of the popular vote) and they should give themselves a pat on the back.
I was happy that my local seat (Dartmouth- Cole Harbour) was won by Robert Chisholm and went back to the NDP and I’m very happy that the NDP will now be the Official Opposition. They also did something that neither the Conservatives or the Liberals could do, and that was offer Quebecers a viable option to the Bloc and bring Quebec voters back into federal politics in what I hope will be a productive outcome for them.
I am also happy that Elizabeth May was elected for the Green Party, taking out Conservative cabinet minister Gary Lunn in the process. It’s a good first step for the Greens and good for the country since the Greens point the direction in which all political parties should be moving. Shame on the CBC who in their television coverage couldn’t bring themselves to post Ms. May’s seat as a “Green” win and carried it as “Other” the whole evening while the other networks called a spade a spade and showed it as “Green”. The media dismissed the Reform Party’s lone MP Deborah Grey in the same manner until the party developed a higher profile and started winning seats across Western Canada. Now, of course, their political descendants run the country.
Finally, I happen to agree somewhat with Stephen Harper on one point. With the Harper Conservatives in a majority government and the NDP, the nation’s only reliably progressive party, serving as official opposition, the country will be given a clear choice as to what kind of democracy Canada should be.
I’m not a fan of two party systems, but in my opinion the prominence of the Liberals, who were not all that reliable as a voice on the Left, and the Bloc Quebecois, who were progressive proponents of social democracy but limited in their national appeal for obvious reasons, only clouded the issue. Now Canadians will have a clear choice as Stephen Harper says. The Conservatives will have the next four (or five) years to showcase their vision without having to compromise. Obviously I’m hoping that, in the long run, and after four (or five) years of Conservative government, Canadians will choose my vision and not Stephen Harper’s.
Okay cut me some slack. I’m trying to find a silver lining here 😉
It otay Farmer Bob. When the Harperites turn Melville Island into a “detention facility” for dissidents I’ll bring you a cake.
http://media.cakecentral.com/modules/coppe…
Can you guess what’s hidden inside it?
A hacksaw I hope.
If they try to persuade me that dinosaurs are only 6000 years old, I just might have to. >; )
They’ll come for the leftists first.
It’ll take them awhile to get around to the heretics and the atheists.
Bring some snowshoes and dried seal flippers when you show up with that hacksaw.
Comandante, very classy and nice. Don’t worry Jack will speak out. It is his time to shine. As for the Liberals, they may be down but certainly not out. Remember the Tories after Mulrooney, only two seats but they came back.
I have cut you slack.
Comandante, the NDP strength in Quebec has nothing to do with the NDP policies or anything remotely related to the NDP’s position on Quebec. It is solely due to Quebecers wishing to give Canada the collective finger once again by electing 19 year-old desperation candidates who forged nomination papers and left the country during the campaign. Shameful.
It does make me feel good, however, to see Bruce Wark go down in flames yet again.
Quebec didn’t even factor in with the results. It was a Tory majority with or without them.
You all are bandwagon jumping idiots. Really? Wark is a lefty asshole who never let facts get in the way of any of his “lofty lefty” childish worldview!