Equality and the Environment: Who Needs 'Em?

21 Oct 06

When it comes to equality for women, Stephen Harper is all for it – as long as the women are in Afghanistan.

Rabble: Girls, to the kitchen. Gays, back to the closet

Canada’s fisheries minister, Loyola Hearn, wiggling out of it with little explanation, said that Canada “does not see a moratorium [on bottom-trawling] as the way forward.”

Rabble: Canada overboard: bottom-trawling for bad politics

Ending a particularly nasty and wasteful rape of our environment? “Not the way forward”. Equality for women? No longer a goal.

Saturday, October 21^st, 2006 · 12:48am

Discussion

Reading rabble frustrates me. Who even voted this guy in!! I’m of the opinion that we would have been better off with a Liberal Government that pissed our money down the drain. This guy is all about cut cut cut.

Although, on another note. I have to say I’m not sure that I agree with the whole $0.72 for $1.00 I’ve seen a lot of these equations and stats, and they simply can’t account for a lot of really basic factors. For example: maternity leave, mom’s that stay home (still an economic benefit with well-known significant spillover benefits for society but with no applicable measurement), “trophy wife” women, etc etc. But the problem is the law itself – those equality laws are just barely usable and they need to be more relevant and accessible to the people that actually need them. That way we can actually make some progress with respect to pay equality.

I mean, come on – even the Human Rights commission says that it’s mission is to ...discourage wage discrimination… – shouldn’t they be trying to stop it!

When the NDP dropped their newsline I ripped it up a bit. I was disappointed to see that people still have a backwards mindset.

Sometimes I wonder if getting rid of research that proves that two things are different when they are trying to be equal is necessarily a bad thing. But then I also remember my own very egalitarian perspective on life. It’s the people that are marginalized that need to be looked after the most.

Harper seems to be more interested in paying fiscal debt, than dealing with the soft issues that the Libs were willing to tackle…

Trade-offs, what can you do?

Brandon Erik Bertelsen · Tue, Oct 24^th, 2006 · 8:41am · §

Yes, I don’t know that we can straight across compare numbers to numbers, or know what they actually are, as I’m sure it also varies by where you live and what industry you’re in. It is definitely uneven, though, in some places, particularly when we include things other than visible, take-home pay. Indeed, families with (or will soon have) children can receive various benefits, such as tax exemptions and maternity leave. I don’t think anyone can complain about having those things. The remaining problem is that it is so often when traditional female roles are chosen that the comparatively best, enthusiastic support is received from various government sectors and employers.

What bothers me is when a very conservative government will no longer even feign caring about your rights and liberties. I worry about what comes next. “The measure of civilization/society is how they treat their weakest members.” Apparently the Conservatives are also considering not allowing Canadians to have dual citizenship. To me they seem far too enthusiastic to take away all kinds of rights and freedoms, and always, always in the name of the highest ideals and intentions.

Mary · Tue, Oct 24^th, 2006 · 8:43am · §

Mary, are you in Western Canada?

Brandon Erik Bertelsen · Wed, Oct 25^th, 2006 · 1:06am · §

Yes, in Alberta, aka Conservative central.

Mary · Wed, Oct 25^th, 2006 · 4:52am · §