Reasonable Accommodations Debate, Part II

She has? How do you know this, do you have evidence?

Yes, I concur unionist, once you start compartementalizing peoples, and accommodating "small groups", then everyone has a potential to be small grouping of their own asking for special dispensation.

Exactly.....

I'm sorry if my tone sounded provocative, U. I didn't think I was any more pitched than the general tone throughout the previous thread. This discussion, while indeed dynamic and interesting, is touching on some fundamental principles, and I am very upset--as a former resident of Quebec and consistent defender of Quebec's right to self-determination--at this recent ruling.I'll try to take a step back.

What is curious about your response is that I posed a question of cultural acceptance and expectations and you countered with legal precepts. Wearing a niqab is not illegal--unless you are suggesting it should be? As much as I am concerned with why stories like these incite such a furious media firestorm, I am also, as always, concerned with praxis: here we have an immigrant trying to take part in a Quebec institution, to learn French up to the national standard, and she has instead been given a social ultimatum: of the kind that would never--mark my words, never--be instituted by a government minister if it were any other kind of sartorial expression. If she wore a t-shirt that said "F*ck all Jews" she might well be expelled from class--by the teacher, not by the government. But because she is wearing a conspicuous manifestation of Islamic faith, we have a government official stepping in and ensuring that she cannot learn French at a gov't-funded institution. Short of deporting her, I don't see how this policy encourages anything else but insularity, resentment of dominant culture and state-sanctioned humiliation. Whatever threat she represents to Quebec society--and I don't believe she is any--she is still, at the bottom, a human being.

Since Unionist's question to me has been imported from the last thread, I'll answer. Unionist wrote:

I was writing about section 2 of the Charter, most specifically about conscience, and you are tossing in the kitchen sink?

These are very easily answered questions and they have been answered in law in Canada for a long time. We have a public education system; we have a public health system; we have (mostly) public roads ... et cetera. All citizens must contribute to those public systems through their taxes, punkt.

Christian Scientists, if adult, are not required to submit to our medical care. Actually, no adult is required to submit to our medical care, although if you happen to be unconscious when you arrive in emerg, they will do what they can do. So if Christian Scientists want to set up their own centres to treat themselves, that's cool with me as long as 1) they pay for them themselves; and 2) they pay their taxes.

The physical safety of a child, however, is an extreme case. I believe that the state has a right to step in on medical grounds or when a child may be being abused or mutilated.

Opting out of evolution classes or sex ed classes is fuzzier. I don't know for sure, but I don't think that the Amish, eg, care whether their kids get Ontario government diplomas at the end of high school. That seemed to be your claim on the last thread, that no province would give a diploma to a student who hadn't had evolution classes or sex ed. Really? As I understand the system, it isn't the curriculum that gets tested at the end of high school -- it's the student. Maybe not having studied evolution would compromise a high school student at exam time -- I doubt it, but maybe. Sex ed? lol. Unionist, I'm a high school grad and I have two and three-quarters university degrees -- what?  -- you're going to take my diplomas away from me because I never had sex ed? I shall never stop laughing.

Catchfire, am not sure what you do not get about her going to a publically funded educational facility, and wanting special consideration. If she wants special consideration, then she should be going to her own private institution that she pays for, as unionist clearly pointed out in the last thread.

Why do I have to start every paragraph with "you didn't get my point". I'm not talking about the unquestioned right of individuals not to patronize the health care system and to refuse any and all treatment. My point is this: No one in Canada is allowed to provide certain defined "medically necessary" services without complying with the strictures of the Canada Health Act and the respective provincial legislation. I'm talking about those who remove tonsils - not the right of patients to keep their tonsils.

This is a bit frustrating. Sorry for the tone, but why don't you simply read what I said? In a post addressed to you, I very specifically said that this applies to Québec and not Ontario, and I cited the sources:

I wouldn't touch your diplomas, skdadl, and I'm not seeking to apply Québec's laws retroactively. Anyway, I've made my point several times in the last thread about schools here having to include the provincial syllabus or be figuratively padlocked - you can go back and read that. If you think that the content of education should be left in the hands of parents (god forbid) and individual children, then perhaps we can dispense with society. I am not your brand of civil libertarian.

Unionist, you quote selectively from me, and then you claim that I didn't read you, when it is pretty obvious to me that you didn't read me (and you are seducing other readers into not reading the rest of my paragraph). I think you just plain don't like complex argument, at least not on this topic, or maybe not from me.

That's why I am leaving this conversation. This has become childish and absurd. "Are too!" "Am not!" I mean, that's about the level we're at.

And you wonder why a lot of women decide not to pipe up on this board?

I don't think this is islamophobia - if she was wearing a veil, she would still be muslim and none of this would have happened.  The clothing article hindered the ability of the teacher to teach the student. 

But if it is only about the teaching outcome it is clear she is only making it more difficult for herself to learn and why is that anyone else's business?

If I choose to take a night school course and sit at the back and barely pay attention does it matter if I am wearing a veil?  Should I be thrown out for flunking or for wearing a veil?  I am not sure but is anyone actually arguing that veils should be banned in public spaces in Canada?  

Sorry you feel this way, skdadl. I feel strongly on the issues I've raised:

- no multi-tier education for children; (this does not mean no private schools, for the nth time)

- no multi-tier health care; (this does not mean no right to decline treatment, for the nth time)

- and most important - no one's religious beliefs or practices will in any way call into question equality of women and men (this does not mean trying to rescue women from their own beliefs and culture).

You don't agree with me on some of these points, and I don't need you to. But I think I understand why you and others feel strongly about a threat to ban certain dress practices and beliefs, and under almost all circumstances I share that concern. All I ask is that you understand my point of view.

If there are complexities in your argument I've missed or ignored, please point them out to me. I'm not a genius. If I quoted you selectively, it was meant to clarify or correct specific places where I thought you misunderstood my argument. It was not meant to truncate or distort your discourse.

No, I don't wonder why a lot of women decide not to pipe up on this board. But if that's because of me, what would you like me to do? Leave? Nod my head in silence when people say that covering one's face is an individual choice that has nothing to do with subordination and objectification and ownership of women? I'll leave if you can suggest another forum where I can express these opinions without making people feel bad. Or when I'm kicked off this board.

Meanwhile, I have sincerely - from the heart - welcomed you from the moment you re-entered some discussions here. If you're withdrawing from this discussion because of me, I guess you're old enough to make your own choices in life. I don't like it, but you haven't given me much indication as to what I should do about it. I suppose agreeing with you on this issue is one option, but I'm not there yet.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. But that's not about Islam. It's about colonialism and imperialism - and Islamophobia and other kinds of xenophobia have been dragooned into their service in the last few years for reasons that we well know. I suppose you could ignore all my posts about every single instance of Islamophobia and other forms of racism discussed on this board for the past few years, and conclude that I don't make that connection.

For my part, I don't see how anyone could view this problem without an eye to the ugly abyss of misogyny and subjugation of women that suffused Québec society until the Quiet Revolution - and for a long time after. Women as baby-making machines. Women who couldn't participate in politics. Who couldn't serve on juries. Who were excluded from the workforce. Who lived under the dictatorship of the priests and nuns. Who couldn't enter a tavern, with or without a man in tow.

The reality and the symbols of gender equality, in such a society emerging from such darkness, are indispensable. If someone walks into a classroom and makes requirements that distinguish between men and women - in order to accommodate her beliefs - the answer must be no. Maybe somewhere else such demands are less threatening, less offensive. Maybe somewhere else, people believe (rightly or wrongly) that the emancipation of women has been achieved and is secure. That's not the case here. And I'm going to have to repeat, for the nth time, that I am not talking about the forced "emancipation" of some individual who, I have no doubt, freely chooses to cover her face. I'm talking about everyone else.

Unionist:

You realize that that sentence, taken as a whole, is self-contradictory? And further, and worse: you actually dare to insist that no one's beliefs may "in any way" call into question the equality of men and women? You can do that, but I will fight you if you try to make that public policy of any kind.

I don't know why you think this is so particularly a Quebec story. I am a Canadian woman against whom it was legal to discriminate openly in terms of how I was paid, eg (and that's just one way) until I was into my forties. That means that every man my age will always have a bigger CPP than I will; you will have a bigger CPP than I will -- doesn't matter how hard I worked, how long, how well -- that discrimination follows women my age all the way through our lives.

You think that only women in Quebec faced misogyny and subjugation? Well into my adult life, it was legal for men to have their daughters arrested and imprisoned for "immoral" behaviour -- I'll find the best-know babble reference tomorrow. No, that didn't happen to me, but it is the society I was raised in, and you cannot possibly know what it is like to grow up and spend your young adulthood the way that I did, required to support myself on the one hand and yet treated in many ways as a second-class citizen on the other.

I am an impoverished widow who gave up her career to live for six years as a caregiver to my dying husband, who for that and other reasons will never live as well as you do, and you dare to lecture me on misogyny? 

You didn't write the book on feminism, Unionist. And women are definitely capable of understanding and defending civil liberties in less operatic and particularist ways than you choose.

lagatta, I just said that I don't think this is a story particular to Quebec. Then you rush on stage and claim that I said it had something to do with Quebec's being "a discriminatory rump." That foul language would never have occurred to me; I challenge you to show me where I used it; I would never have used it, since I don't think it.

I don't care where this story is happening in Canada. I just want to see it resolved justly.

I don't get it?  I'd question this no matter where it happened in Canada.  How does this become about Quebec.  It's about reasonable accomodation that is being denied.  I'm puzzled by the defence especially in light of the new story.

Perhaps.

Thanks for that information. I think I'll take a break now. Good night.

Unionist wrote:

Let's translate that into babble practice: If a woman starts a thread in the feminism forum and sets requirements that distinguish between men and women -- in order to accommodate her beliefs -- the answer will usually be ... hell, yes!

And we don't do that because

but for precisely the opposite reason.

SJ, I've requested from the start that we wait to hear all the facts. But now you've offered up a new one - that this woman was asked to leave because her covered face "offended people"? Haven't seen that claim expressed by anyone, either in the media reports nor these two threads.

If your Roman Catholic priest entered the classroom and said: "I would just like to mention that, for religious reasons, there should be a distance of at least two desks between me and any Jew, Protestant, Muslim, or atheist - unless they're women, in which case no problem" - would you say: "Well, that does no one any harm, so of course we'll accommodate your deeply held religious beliefs! Have a seat!"

"Freedom to practice her culture"? What kind of freedom is that? "Multi-cultural"?? Choose what to wear?

When such "freedoms" (which are absent from our laws and charter - never even heard of anyone proposing they be added) conflict with the struggle for the emancipation of women, I thing the choice for progressives is straightforward. Less so for "libertarians".

And this is not like standing up for free speech when you agree with it. It's like someone coming into your classroom and saying, "I just need one minute per day - no more - to speak about the proper role of women and the importance of not being seen by men". The answer is no.

I believe we can agree, and I seem to have interpreted your previous comments on the matter as proof that an agreement exists, in viewing practices of this nature as being influenced by patriarchal dictates, which offends on many levels. This society continually accommodates offensive ideologies. For example, it provides tax exemptions for faith based institutions that preach homophobia, while allowing them the space under freedom of speech to influence the political discourse. There exists a range of public gestures that accommodate beliefs that are held to be deeply offensive and detrimental to many citizens.

I'm of the opinion that it is vital for the sake of progressive social evolution that all of it should be rolled back to the point that if one wishes to be exposed to the various manifestations, it will become necessary to seek out the hidden places where fewer and fewer people absorb the nonsense on the fringes of society.

This desirable push back against the traditional forces of intolerance in this country doesn't appear as a priority for any level of government. My proposition is that the first place to start, leading by example as it were, is to deal with the traditional forms of patriarchy in this culture, and not by setting a precedence upon the head of an immigrant woman who already has enough obstacles to contend with.

That is not to say that classes should be completely disrupted and rendered dysfunctional as per your example with the priest. What it means is that until we deal with the wider issues, starting among ourselves, it should be the function of public institutions to find creative ways to accommodate different practices, instead of dismissing them outright and barring them from participation entirely.

Then the question is Unionist, where do you think we should start?

I would like to express my support and appreciation of the posts in this thread, and part 1, of skdadl, Slumberjack and Catchfire. I have almost nothing further to add to what they've said.

In deciding to enter this thread, I thought it would be a cool idea to check out some Muslim feminist bloggers I know, see what they have to say about this incident or the veil in general.

Guess what? I didn't find much. It seems that the day to day expression and experience of living with mysogynist Islamophobia in the US and Canada doesn't make this particular incident stand out for some Muslim feminists.

Muslimah Media Watch

The Tales of a Modern Muslimah  Please check out the section of posts in the category Islamic feminism.

Margari Aziza  

Aqsa Zine  (sadly not updated in for a couple of months but I link to them whenever possible because they fucking rock!)

A gentle reminder that there are some people in this world who will never choose between prioritizing the issues facing women or the issues facing racialized people. Those people, also known as women of colour, live gender oppression and racist oppression every day.

Thanks for listing the folks who are on the correct side of this issue - and thanks also for explaining to me that I have given priority to people suffering from gender oppression over those suffering from racial oppression. That really brings a new perspective to this discussion that I hadn't seen anyone make explicit before. I'm also thrilled to hear that the good folks never have to prioritize.

Unionist, when you say stuff like this:

... then I will respond. There is a marked lack of voice on babble and never is it so evident as in a thread like this. That voice is of course the voices of women of colour. It's not a joke.

Back to lurking for me.

Maysie, if you seriously believe my opinions are responsible for the absence of women of colour on babble, then have a chat with the mods and delete my account. Otherwise, please take it to rabble reactions. Everyone has been dealing, quite respectfully I thought, with the substance of this very complex issue, until your last two posts.

In fairness Unionist, as much as we perceive ourselves to be at the cutting edge of analysis on this particular topic, we come to the issue in our own fashion laden with internalized beliefs.  For others on the coal face [now there's an overused analogy] of an entirely different reality that we know little about except as spectators, the mere act of interjecting an opinion can be somewhat of a drain on the reservoir of civility.

Yes it does. And that's a crucial point. 

What is considered neurotic is entirely what you make of it of course, however it could also be considered as a side effect of the obscene ballet that one must perform in the absence of mythological persuasion, in order to respectfully approach the underlying issue without resorting to scatology.

@ 54:  What did I miss? There've been seminars in selective quotation around here?

"If I perceive that actions of some women, based upon their mythological beliefs, are going to diminish my continued seeking of our equity rights, there will be a fight on against it Their beliefs DO NOT outweigh my rights."

in what way does her being in the class diminish your ability to seek equity rights?  i think your confusing her mere presence in the class to with forcing something on you/the students.  i agree that someone's beliefs shouldn't translate into action that infringes of anyone's rights, but isn't that a kind of paternalistic attitude that even if their beliefs (and i'm assuming you don't just mean sexist beliefs) conflict with yours they should be banned from public institutions?  To me that leaves the door open to some pretty harsh discrimination at the discretion of a government that often has it all wrong.

i think instead of limiting HER freedom, we'd be better of using ours and trying to change her mind through solidarity and conversation.  

Never mind. I responded to something and on further reflection decided it's the kind of thing you don't respond to.

I do not understand why is it of anyone's business -whether in Afhanistan, Zimbabwe, Canada or Tibet- to tell a woman what she should or should not wear. The argument that a teacher should see the woman's face for pronunciation etc.. is lame. There are indeed women who learned foreign languages without showing their faces. The argument of "safety" that Tarek Fatah (for example) never ceases to raise is flimsy: should I, walking the streets at night have the right to direct a flashlight at every passer-by's face so I can feel "safe"? Should I just keep at home at night because there are people walking by whose faces I cannot see?

I have not hear or red one tenable argument(s) for telling a woman what to wear or not to wear. Until I hear or read one, I remain convinced that sexism or another form of bigotry is driving people to dictate to women what they should or should not wear. 

Well, my view is that some things harm us all. It's not just about individual choice. Several people (including Unionist) have expressed some version of this view quite articulately above. And whether you agree with it or not, surely it is a tenable argument. 

When you say the "anti-veil campaign", are you talking about me - Rosa - remind - the Québec government - the PQ - Sarkozy - Mario Dumont - Julius Grey - many Muslim feminists? Some of us, all of us? Does the "anti-veil" issue turn us all into allies of some strange kind?

Could it be possible that different people could have different motives for questioning the hiding of women's faces from men in various contexts?

What if I said, "to me, behind the pro-veil campaign is the good old attitude of picking on the weak, the women" - to parallel your statement. When skdadl, SJ, Catchfire, many others, point out clearly the danger of suppressing the liberty of an individual, or putting the burden of opposing patriarchy on its victims - do you think we don't understand those arguments, sympathize with them, feel conflicted about them? Should I just accuse them of being allies of misogyny!?

Do you think it is possible for progressive people to differ on such difficult issues without connecting them with other, darker forces?

Remind - just a small editorial correction, your post made it look as if I was saying that, but obviously I was just quoting mahmud.

unonist, I have deep respect for you, Rosal and all Rabble's free-thinkers.  I have said "organized campaign" and I am very very far from accusing you or Rosal of being part of that organized campaign. The PQ and the PLQ, Tarek Fatah and his organization (the MCC whose members could hold a AGM in a phone booth) come to mind. I will come back to reply to comments on my post.

That is your opinion. I know hordes of Egyptian, Kuwaiti, Lybian etc women who wore the viel throughout all their studies of forreign languages and they do speak these languages as good if not better than their respective native speakers. That is, unless you and the Quebec government would like to eradicate any hint of what we call "accent". While "accent" may be troublesome to some people, I have even worse news for them. In the case of Naema Ahmad, the accent had already taken hold and it will take almost a miracle to eradicate it.

But you seem in agreement that in this case, the "phonetics" arguments i bs as the government while kicking the student out of the classroom, suggested that she pursue her course online. 

Quebec's health insurance board has no obligation to accommodate special requests related to religious or cultural beliefs, the province's human rights commission has ruled.

In three separate opinions issued Tuesday, the commission weighed in on accommodation requests made by people registered in Quebec's health- care system - the Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec (RAMQ).

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/16/reasonable-accommodation-ramq-health-board.html#ixzz0iMmwYOV3

I would like to see the decision on the third case.  The first two sound like the Board telling idiots complaining about "reverse discrimination" were they can go.  The last one is interesting because it seems to say that women have no choice as to the gender of their doctors.  The actual words are important because I find that outcome to be rather stark and if it was a blanket statement it will inevitably be heading for the court system. 

Personally I really like my doctor and wouldn't trade her for any male doctor.

I'm with Kropotkin on this one... I wonder how the case would have been handled if it had been a middle-aged male theist who wanted a male doctor on the grounds he was worried about ritual pollution as a result of coming into contact with a menstruating woman? Then again, the word obligation was used... so maybe I am just being cranky.

So in Quebec every woman must show her face to receive any government services?  That is an interesting view of accommodation.  I really hope they post the decision and someone translates it because without the nuances all we have is the news report and that is not very well written.

More urban legends...

They have to uncover their face to have their photo taken for their Québec medicare card.

Is that a problem?

I've been starting to get what Unionist is on about but still disagree that it's not an unreasonable accomodation in the 3rd case.  It's a very easy accomodation and that which my company strives to maintain in Ontario regardless of gender, we are accomodating to cultural needs.  They're humans too.  Whatever, I'm getting pissed off.  Treat them how you like.  Hopefully, they'll move here.

I apologize for my tone - I just wanted to warn about the danger of posting about "doctors" and having a mis-impression become reality via Google and other ways that these things spread.

No, I haven't read the actual decision, but the various media (other than CBC of course) have enough detail to make it very clear what it was about:

Voile intégral à la RAMQ: pas d’obligation d’accommodement

I'm busy and a little tired, but if anyone doesn't get the drift of this (it's what I said in my previous post) or can't find an English media report, let me know and I'll translate a bit later.

ETA: Ok, don't know why I missed it, but here's the Gazette report:

I live my life as a male in a very non-male fashion but carry on facades.  I have multi-personas but keep them hidden.  Would they come for me too?  It's all I've known and my identity. 

Would you deny this?

U, you result to hyperbole.  If everything was just with the genders I could agree 100% but you and I know it isn't.

I will just say your politics are obviously different there and I don't want to offend you anymore.  I appreciate your answers, I will take a break in deference to my respect for your answers to which I hold no sway.  Just asking you to ponder it a bit more.  I'm getting your side of it. 

And what if those cultural beliefs (note: move away from religious belief because gender differences are not always produced by religion) dictated that a woman did not ask a strange man for help - especially one that didn't speak her language - on the account he might expect much more in return, despite the service being public and paid for by the government?

Can you articulate this as being a radically different case than the one presented?

We should rearrange our society on gender lines because someone has a "cultural belief" that you can't deal with strange men?

No, j.m., never. And your question lies at the very heart of the matter. Someone may have a well-founded "cultural belief" that you don't deal with a stranger of another ethnic group, or a caucasian, or a non-caucasian, or (to take the example I gave in another thread) with any Gentile.

Never can we "accommodate" such beliefs. We just explain patiently to people that that doesn't work here.

No, SJ, this has nothing to do with reviling someone's religious belief, which we have no say over. It has to do with not rearranging our society along racist or gender or classist lines - repudiating victories we have won - in order to allow someone to act upon some belief.

They are free to believe what they want - just don't (for example) call the Montréal police and ask them to send only a male officer because you're not allowed to deal with strange women. That was one of the "scandals" Mario Dumont and the MSM pointed to - that the Mtl police department had a policy of not sending female officers when they received calls from Hassidic Jewish callers or neighbourhoods. In fact, various Hassidic spokespersons protested loudly that they had never sought such a policy. That's how urban legends and mass frenzy spread (at least, that was what the fascists hoped for).

Agree with you completely unionist.

Would it be tolerated if someone said their religious/cultural beliefs ensured they could not have a homosexual serve them in public and that they had every right to demand service from someone who wasn't?

No...never

That is why marriage commissioners who tried that schtick were told correctly they could not.

If that's what you took from all my posts defending women's rights, then I guess we're talking past each other and I'm really sorry about that. Sometimes one doesn't rehash years of posts in defence of feminism and equality and women's rights when dealing with a particular issue. The regulars here know where I stand on those questions, but you may not have been in all those discussions obviously, so I'll take your comments in that context.

Let me just say one thing in reply: Not only are women not equal to men in our society, but it is the oldest form of subjugation known to humanity and I'm convinced it will be the very last to fall, and I've said so here over and over again. But if someone comes along and says we should march BACKWARDS in that struggle because of some religious or cultural belief!!?? Our society must resoundingly answer NEVER - just as we must resoundingly answer NEVER to those who would spread our supposedly "more civilized" superior White Christian Western values to the "inferior" peoples by force of arms or economic pressure or trade policies or missionaries or NGOs or nauseating condescending lectures... Their societies are their sovereign business - and ours is our heavy responsibility.

ETA: Thank you so much, remind and Ghislaine. For a change, I muzzled myself and let the women speak first. I promise to keep working on that...

Well unionist,  the truth is on extended thought that such a thing could NOT be accomodated under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor Canadian equity laws.

Just as i stated as with the case of the marriage commissioners who felt because of their religious beliefs they should not have to marry a same sex couple. And we could add the not wanting to rent  halls to SSM couples too, because of religious beliefs".

A precedent like this on public accomodation of "religion/culture" when pertaining to publically paid services, and even really privately owned business, come to think of it, cannot be made, as it would extend out, and out, and out. The Jack Van Impes of this world would challenge each and every instance of similar type.

We would have JVI et al going into public places and demanding that they not be served by a women, a POC, or someone in a hijab/niqjab, and have every right to be bigots, all because "their religion" says they can.

Yes the rights of those poor male civli servants are being trampled on because a woman wants another woman to take her picture.  Apparently the woman has to choose between her beliefs and services provided by the government.  Are we losing sight of the fact that the Charter is primarily designed to protect people from the government not to protect government employees' schedules from citizens requests that are not unreasonable. The woman did not insist that this be made into a standard practice and thus would be setting up gender based services she herself asked for an accommodation that only required her being sent to a customer service employee who was also a woman.

in Canada we protect against discrimination not reverse discrimination. I have little time to spend wondering whether any religion should be tolerated in Canada because I think they are all problematic and most are patriarchal at best but since we protect freedom of conscience why is this woman's conscience is irrelevant.  

Unionist, this is getting confused and we're about to be EPU'd anyway. I was responding only to statements you made @ 94, not to the general argument re this case introduced into the thread quite late, and about which I gather we still don't have good evidence.

So let me just say this in summary of my own position. The Charter does not tell you or anyone else, certainly not any male but no self-righteous female either, to go out and liberate women. It tells you something about your own behaviour. It tells you that you cannot discriminate against women. And that's all it does -- except it will certainly pull you up short if your proselytizing among women becomes newly oppressive to women.

Women will liberate themselves, not by patriarchal state edicts but by their own free choice, which the Charter only acknowledges and protects, did not create, since women's rights are inherent. The Charter recognizes that women are fully human, which is still news to a lot of people and which is a principle that has still to be asserted every day. Being human does not mean being perfect -- it can mean being just as mediocre as most men are. That's as far as the Charter goes.

The Charter is about your behaviour, not women's reality. Go thou and sin no more (and try to talk some more men into the same headspace).

continued over here

Closing.