Talk Radio Topics-Lady Refuses an Open Door, Earth Hour

Two topics on Talk Radio today, a Man held open a door for a Women and was unhappy that she didn't appreciate his decency, but vows to do it again and It's Earth hour again "How it oppressed Me".

The story goes, a Man held open a door for a Woman, she said she didn't need a door held open for her, he continued to hold it open till the woman gave in and walked through. He didn't get her attitude, after all, he was  just being polite. Then there was mention made of how emasculating society is; men not able to be men.   He was not trying to subjugate her by holding an open door nor was she really asserting her Independence by refusing to walk through. Just a bit of human kindness.

The callers were split evenly between those that thought He was right to hold the door and those that thought She was wrong to object. Some people had thought he should have let the door swing close on her, being that is what she deserved by refusing the gallant offer. I believe I caught the implied five letter abbreviation of Feminist. The callers definitely thought the Man had committed no sin.

Lets take a fresh look at he incident. Man offers open door, Women says no, Man continues to hold door till she acquiesces. It was reasonable for him to open the door, it was acceptable for her to decline, it was wrong for him to hold open the door till she gave in and went through it. Just imagine the scene, the gentleman refusing to let go of the door and continue his day until she was forced to accept his polite offer. It takes all the chivalry out of the act don't you think.

It may seem rude if a person chooses not to take advantage of a proffered door, but then you nod and move on. You don't stand there and make them go through. I thought it odd this didn't occur to the man, further he asserts that he would do it again. It would seem that she was obligated to accept his actions regardless of how she felt about it. I'm sure there is a word for that kind of thinking and no it's not chivalry.

The earth hour topic come around every year, appropriately on Earth Hour; where like minded people gripe about how bad 1/8760 of the year can get. Some people turn on all there lights and electronics in protests. No way will they be forced to conserve electricity and maybe save some money. Today's comments concerned how the keeping of earth hour by other people, made life intolerable. Restaurants and bars truing off lights or Televisions. Reminds me of first world problems. I get it, you paid for a dinner or a night out and it sucks that for an hour you get a little less light and sound, but really, I mean Really. Oh and the Obligatory  observation about David Suzuki; how insufferable he is with all that "caring about the clean Air,Water and Land". Imagine the gall of that man desiring a sustainable environment. He gets paid to Talk.

Those were two topics I heard on Talk Radio today.

Comment on Bill C-279 Amending CCC, CHRA inclusion of Gender Identity and Expression

On Wednesday the House of Commons will vote for a third time on Bill C-279 . The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) to include the words, gender identity and gender expression. If it passes then it will be illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of gender expression and identity; and it adds this wording  to cover in CCC section 318 "Hate Propaganda" (4) identifiable groups; and section 718.2 CCC on sentencing.

The effect is to protect Trans people from discrimination and hate crimes. If you read the purpose of the CHRA, the amendment is in keeping with the Acts stated purpose. The changes made to the CCC are reasonable as they merely reflect the changes being made to the CHRA.

There is nothing novel in expanding Human rights coverage to Trans people. Since the Acts inception in 1977 it has been altered to prevent discrimination on the basis of Sexuality, amended to include hate communication (recently that was repealed, C-304 also know as "Protecting Freedom"). It was also changed to include First Nations people. I am of the opinion that a Human Rights Act should be as expansive as is necessary to ensure Canadian citizens are as free from discrimination as we can manage.

Great news! As I write this commentary C-279 has passed third reading by a vote of 149-137 and is off to the Senate. My congratulations to the bill's sponsor NDP Randall Garrison. I noticed my MP Rick Dykstra voted nay on second reading, I hope he changed his mind this time around.

This Bill has received some opposition from the likes of the Campaign For Life, a small anti -choice group. Canada Family Action, which should not surprise anyone who reads the Section called "what we stand for",

Canada Family Action Coalition has a vision to see Christian principles applied in Canadian law, politics and society.

Christian principles applied to Canadian Law, I don't blame you for the shiver you just felt after reading that. The Bill to expand Human rights coverage to Trans people has Gained the moniker "the Bathroom Bill from its opponents. The opposition has come at C-279 in two ways an appeal to reason and a panicked shortness of breath. The first and only attempt at reasonable discourse is the suggestion that the new terms are "undefined" and would task Judges to interpret the law, Conservatives religious or otherwise are not happy with Judges interpreting law. I'm not sure exactly how you might misinterpret Gender Identity and Expression. It seems clear Identity being what gender you feel you are and expression being how you show that in your outward appearance. 

They are also concerned over potential "costs" associated with this Bill, additional bathrooms, human rights complaints( these people are not fans of the Tribunals); increased Heath care spending; and violations of the CCC . But these are really a throw away points like when  MPs Warawa andWoodworth  talk about supporting women's rights or science to promote back door anti-choice motions like motions 408 and 312. Their intention is to end Reproductive Choice.

The bread and butter points for this group of religious conservatives, (self described), are the children, women but not so much men. Children might be taught about tolerance or shudder,  understanding and acceptance of trans people. We don't want to confuse children, but I see the confusion arising perhaps from being taught one thing at home and another in school or the wider world. 

All arguments resolve into the meaning behind  the appellation "Bathroom Bill" attached to this amendment by those in opposition. If this Bill passes, women and children, will face assaults in bathrooms and showers across Canada. A  Mr. McVety considers the bill "a danger to our children". He describes a situation, 

If gender identity is enshrined in the Criminal Code of Canada, any male at any time will be permitted in girls bathrooms, showers and change rooms as long as they have an innate feeling of being female,” said McVety. “If I then try to stop such a man from showering with my little girl at the local pool I could be in breach of the Criminal Code of Canada and could face imprisonment.” 

It is quite clear what Mr. McVety thinks of Trans people. We all want to be safe, Children, Women and Men. It is beyond intolerable to conflate Trans people with sexual predators. A low point in political discourse. These are the same people that wished to deny rights to the LGBT community, like protection against discrimination; ability to adopt, marriage rights. This subset of christian believers "knows" what is right and good and true; everything that doesn't meet with that definition must be opposed and the chief tool in opposition is fear; of sexual abuse, societal breakdown and perversion. They fight against expanding rights to the LGBTQ now, but before that came opposition to minority rights, before that and still sadly Women's rights. All change seems apocalyptic. 

They are part of a larger group that understands change brings loss of place and privilege for the formerly dominate people. When you extend equal rights to cover more people or circumstances you don't diminish the rights the dominate group but you do effect their ability to discriminate and so marginalize. This inevitably leads to a transfer of some  power and opportunity to the formerly disenfranchised groups. They won't stop fighting and hopefully won't stop losing.

UPDATE: I just checked the Voting on C-279, my MP, Rick Dykstra Vote Nay on amending the CHRA and CCC to include Gender Expression and Gender Identity. 

The NHL Strike is Over, and a Dash of Context

It appears that the NHL strike is nearing and end. A draft agreement is in the hands of the interested parties; seeking only their approval. Once signed, an abbreviated training camp, followed by a shortened season will be there for all fans to enjoy. I like hockey; it's not the centre of my life but i do like listening to the games, and truly hope it will be Toronto's year.

I won't spend a lot of time wondering if the strike was worth it. Millionaires fighting billionaires, I didn't care. If asked I'd say paying people millions to play hockey was foolish. In the next breath would follow, $200 seats, $20 beer and a hot dog and a Toronto Maple Leaf jersey upwards to $250 is equally unreal. The ridiculous follows the absurd. It is however what comes from of living in a free market country, I shrug my shoulders, if I don't want to pay I won't go to games or but the clothing.

You know what else happened during the strike. The Harper government voted down Bill C-398. A piece of legislation that would have made it easier to get life saving drugs to those in need in poor countries. Why did Harper do that? Was it too rigid an ideology? Maybe it was because they are engaged in trade  negotiations with Europe that involve pharmaceutics patents and didn't want to send mixed messages. The outcome is not mixed, some that might have lived thanks to this C-398, will now die.

The papers will be filled in the next few days with commentary on the NHL strike, this content will push other content aside, old news for new. Like the Gang Rape and death of an Indian women Delhi and it's follow on protests. I'll quote a statistic I found, a woman is raped in India every 21 minutes. Horrible isn't it? The social stigma attached to rape is almost as debilitating as the rape itself. So much that it is not reported in the numbers that it must be occurring. Victims are made to feel it's their fault, face pressure from the police: the people there to help you, to press charges. Even when reported, the conviction rate is 26%.  Now before we begin to preen ourselves here in the West, on how we handle the issue of rape let's revisit some commentary on the act. The God intended rape; you haven't been raped if you get pregnant or the vile notion put forth by a Judge, that if the victim's body shows no sign injury, can't be rape. I make no assertion that the level of violence faced by women in India is equaled here in Canada; I simply wish to indicate the attitude that a women is somehow complicit in her assault is alive and well in some corners of our community.

In Canada there was an attempt by members of the Harper Government to open a window into Women's Reproductive Rights; and this stealthy little motion M-408 on sex selective abortion; in order to close a door on a women's right to chose. While not disgusting to the same degree as revealed in the proceeding paragraph, it is an indication of how precarious the notion of security of person can be for women.

So we'll get together with our friends for a launch party and celebrate the salvaging of the NHL season and try not to think of the 26 deaths in Newton CT; or the NRA response; more guns mean more safety. Both of which have already moved down the page, be it paper or electronic.

A news broadcast can quickly overwhelm a normal person, and deliver a weeks worth of pain and anger in thirty minute; so I don't begrudge anyone their entertainment. I'm not trying to scold people for being happy their favourite game is back, or tell them that any celebration is out of order. It's just that hockey is a game and in the scheme of things less important than it would appear to be.

Go Toronto Maple Leafs, it's our year.

Word Usage Matters: Anti-Choice not Pro-Life

It is my habit to refer to people in the manner that they prefer. I find it causes me no problem to use First Nation, or if i know, by their Tribe or Band name. The use of Developmentally or Physically Disabled to refer to a person so affected seems reasonable to me. I don't find this in anyway restrictive to my freedom of speech or Kowtowing to the masters of  Politically Correctness; it is being respectful. Communications between people should not be a humiliating experience for either party. So when i found myself in conversation with Anti Choice advocates, I quite natural used the term Pro Life.

After receiving a polite comment or two about the usage of "Pro Life" instead of Anti Choice. I accepted the critique and looked at what I was doing. On a narrow level I was carrying on my normal habit of referring to a party or person in the manner of their own choosing. But was it the same circumstances as using LGBT when talking about the Gay community. I came to the conclusion that it was not the same. The flaw in my thinking was idea that self description was the same as accurate description. Using First Nations to describe our founding people is accurate and full. It doesn't mislead the listener or by using confusing or partial definitions.

"Pro Life" is accurate within a narrow space. They care about keeping the fetus alive till it is born, they express less interests after the birth. They seem to care little or nothing for the woman. Their stated goal is the elimination of Reproductive Choice. No choice means the fetus gets to live. So to call them Anti Choice is an accurate description because it encompasses the totality of their position.

So is there hypocrisy in my position now? Not at all. I am obliged to be respectful and conscious of other people and their naming conventions. But not to the point where is shifts from polite and honest recognition, to the participation in a masquerade. When the purpose is to draw the listener into some fictional space, I retain the right to disagree and call it as I see it.

Pro-Choice M312, M408 the second kick at the Can

The fight over Motion 312 is over and the count was 203-91 against. The 87 of the 91 votes for the motion were conservatives, including 8 cabinet ministers. Elizabeth May of the Green Party, all the members of the NDP and all but four Liberals voted against the M312. Of note was Rona Ambrose Status of Women Minister, who voted for the Motion. She has come under fire for siding with Pro Life MP Stephen Woodworth. I think it is a fair criticism. The purpose of the Ministry for the Status of Women is the advancement of women. It is reasonable to say that supporting a motion that is a thinly veiled attempt to open a path to abortion regulation and eventual criminalization, runs counter to the Minister's portfolio. Ms Ambrose's  vote may be excused somewhat if she was voting her constituents wishes. But if she was voting her conscience, she should have resigned position as Minister before the vote. How can Ms Ambrose properly represent women if she is conflicted.

Fast on the heals of the defeated M312 came M408.

M-408 — September 26, 2012 — Mr. Warawa (Langley) — That the House condemn discrimination against females occuring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

This is a vote to condemn the selective abortion of females fetuses. How can that be a bad thing. How can anyone support aborting fetuses because they are female. So what we Recognized is a condition in which abortion is not acceptable. In comes Pro Life. They might say "if you agree that it's acceptable to limit a woman's choice in this instance, then how about...". That is the whole problem with the issue of Abortion. Pro Life wishes to end legal abortion, outright or a little at a time. Motion 312 was an attempt to create person hood for a fetus and a conflict of rights between the Mother and the fetus. Such a conflict would have to be addressed by the Courts, Legislation or both. The outcome would likely be an end to Legal abortion, or it's severe curtailment. The aim of Pro Choice is to preserve a Women's Reproductive Rights, and that must included abortion though it does not demand it. What a woman, unsure of whether she wants to be a mother, needs is support, information and compassion. What doesn't help is to be coerced, either to have an abortion or to keep the child. 

So the motion condemning sex selection is a trap of sorts. An attempt to suggest Pro Choice, Feminists or what have you are hypocrites. How the question is spat out "can you say you support women, only to allow their extinction in the womb". The Pro Life arguments will be rife with exaggeration, free of context and accusation. They will also be completely wrong. Wrong because Pro Life doesn't get what Feminists and Choice supporters are trying to do. 

I support Choice because a women must be secure in her body as men are in theirs. Part of that security is to be free of coercion. I'm not Pro Abortion, I'm Pro Choice. I accept that abortion is just one of the choices available. That brings us around to sex selective abortions. The CBC investigated fetal gender testing. Already pundits have staked out their positions decrying it's arrival in Canada. Many begin by quoting the down right awful incidence of selective female abortions in other countries. It is reasonable to believe it is happening here. The tools are available as are people who might desire to use them. The question is how many are doing it. From the Globe and Mail and article on sex selection in Ontario. Selected from the article is this point.

"During the study period, about 4,100 babies were delivered to Indian-born mothers who already had two or more children. Using the “normal” ratio of 1.05 males to female births, the number of baby girls expected to be born in that group would be 1,999; the actual number was 1754.

The calculations show the total number of “missing” girls is 245, which equals about 35 births per year, or less than one per cent of the total births to Indian-born women."

Sex selective abortion if occurring at all, has yet to reach a point where it presents a real problem. This indicates that in Canada those pressures that lead to sex selective abortions are being mitigated. This is where the Pro life chatter fails as usual. Sex selective abortion results from social or cultural pressure or more intimately from the family's desire for a male child. It is coercion. The problem with sex selective abortion is not the abortion, that is the end result; instead it is the desire for a male child due to the implied superior value of a boy, that drives it. If you want to stop sex selective abortions you need to address why women are so devalued? Why a family doesn't want a girl? The Pro Choice position is about ending coercion of any kind. It is about listening to the woman, understanding what she needs and providing it with compassion but without judgement.

It is not a surprising revelation that sex selective abortions seem quite rare in Ontario, if they occur at all. It says that in Ontario and in Canada, quite loudly; where women have equality and opportunity; where women have value outside the womb,they will have value in the womb as well.  

Motion 408 is another Pro Life attempt to strip women of choice. The argument that it protects women is shallow at best, at worst it's the hypocritical one. How do you protect and value women by reducing their status and rights whenever pregnant. I still have no problem supporting women or their reproductive choices. 

There is no Debate, M312

Yesterday I was writing a piece on my twitter interactions with Pro-Lifers, about M-312.(scroll down) I was writing about  the debate, what arguments they made and my counters. I was trying to make the point that their arguments were invalid, filled with grand sweeping narratives, exaggeration,and repetition. I ended up abandoning the story because I didn't like the way it was going. I slept on it. This morning I know why the post didn't feel right.

Each time I answered a pro-life question or posed my own, I was legitimizing the discussion. That is the mistake I made.There is no legitimate debate, being secure in your own body and having the right to decide what is done to it, is not negotiable. Debate maybe enjoined on how best this right maybe exercised or expressed. Not whether it is or is not be enjoyed.

Is this a bad decision? I don't think so, because I'm leaving the field to the opposition, rather I'm denying them one more stage to produce their theatre. We don't seriously debate the health benefits of smoking, the efficacy of taking Mercury pills, or whether seat belts save lives. Over time these issues have moved to the margins, as have their proponents, or completely fallen away.

So I will consign M-312 and Abortion Rights to the same dust bin that houses Marriage Equality and The Right to Die. These issues share many similarities to the M-312. They were also proscriptions against acting, drawing legitimacy from Religious doctrine, passions and belief. They press(ed) the State for legislation to prevent others from exercising choice. Choices that affect only the parties involved, having no wider (legitimate) implication or concerns.

We must continue to oppose such men as Stephen Woodworth, and those people and institutions that follow his kind of thinking. But it is better done by withdrawing, the legitimacy that honest debate proffers. It is better to oppose and engage them with satire, polite ridicule and laughter.

Vote against Motion 312.

Motion 312 and the Right To Chose

MP Stephen Woodworth has introduced an motion 312 that a committee be established to review the Criminal code section 223 dealing with when the status of human being is conferred. At present the the Law does not confer the status of human being on a baby it is born. It is not nearly as menacing as it sounds. It is a legal definition, albeit an important one, but the anti choice groups, do hope it sends chills up and down your spine.

Woodworth declares a need to update a 400 year old definition of what and when a human becomes a being.What has until now been the province of philosophy, Woodworth is attempting to inject scientific method. The meat of the motion seeks to employ the science of medicine to establish person hood the parameters. It may seem odd that the a religious position, and make no mistake anti-choice is a religious pursuit, would make use of science to support its position. I would remind the reader of Intelligent Design, which attempted to re brand Creationism as a science. 

The committee would be charged with answering 4 questions:

(i)            what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

   (ii)            is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

 (iii)            what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

 (iv)            what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

The first two questions are try to establish a physical definition Human being, where before there was only a philosophical one. To wit, the fetus a moment before birth is no different than the baby a moment after. If you determine that there is no discernible physical difference then rationally, section 223(1) would have to be altered to fit the facts, isn't science wonderful. I would suggest the attempt here is to push back as far as possible the point at which medical science might declare that a fetus meets a physical definition of human. 

Question three asks of the impact on a child rights as a result of section 223(1). This is a leading question because it infers that the child, before it's born has rights, that are being denied. The question can't be asked unless you already think that a fetus is in fact a legally recognized human being before it is born. Or that the first two questions will establish that fact.

The last question deals with how, after having found that fetuses are in fact human beings before being born, how can we make laws taking away reproductive choice from women but not call it that exactly.

Let's not mistake motion 312 for anything other than an opening move in the fight againsts a woman's right to choose, by establishing person hood before birth. The law would confer upon the fetus a full slate of rights, one such I imagine being the right to live. Anti- abortion legislation concerning person hood springing up all over the United states.  

I feel that it is not debate that Woodworth  desires but exposure, and the legitimacy offered, by way of parliamentary committee. The anti-choice movement is at its core religious, I do not accept that a secular state should be forced to adopt laws that are wholly religious in nature. A person must be secure in their body and be secure from unreasonable intrusions by the state.

Slut Walk

Yesterday women in Toronto marched in protest. Its was called the slut walk and it is the second one. It was sparked by the comments of a police officer who said at a seminar last year that

“women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”.  


What the officer was saying is that it's your fault, in whole or in part if you are assaulted. Women have been subjected to this particular belief for a very long time. It's not you it's you outfit, but since you chose to dress that way i guess it is you after all. 


Around the world the dress code for women can differ greatly. In less free nations laws require women to cover their entire bodies. In some other countries modesty requires covered heads and plain dress. In my country and much of the West there are no laws regarding dress. That does not mean women are exactly free to dress as they like. Women face cultural and social pressures to conform to a standard of dress.


Moral and religious codes displaced from our time by thousands of years and a chunk of geography, urge women  dress modestly. As an outward sign of Chasity, Obedience and Submissiveness. It is uniform; marking out Good women from Bad women. 


So women are to dress modestly as a protection against sexual assault. How offensive is this? The temptation of the female body is so great, that men are powerless to restrain themselves. Men as victims? Women as wanton sexual creatures? We are all powerless in the face of biology and desire. The message is that Men can't restrain themselves. So women must cover up, avoid certain situation and above all comport themselves with modesty; so as not to tempt men. 


That kinda of thinking needs to stop. It is why they had the slut walk. There is no justification or provocation for any type of sexual assault. It is a decision made by one man to attack one women because he wanted to. She dressed a certain way is an excuse, she was drunk is an excuse, she was in the wrong place is an excuse. No women is ever asking for it.


A reworking of how culture and society describes and defines women is occurring. This time it's in their hands.  Everything from the right to choose, to pay equity. The right to dress as one likes is just one of many fronts that women are fighting on. The purpose is to end the "woman as a possession or object". Equality.


A note on the comment sections following the slut walk articles. Even if you discount trolls, there are a large number of people that still find fault in females that don't safeguard themselves. A position that ultimately excuses the assault.