The Green Party is (Not-So) Choice II

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
writer writer's picture

The first letter is in, responding to Colby Cosh's column:

quote:

May’s idea that “[i]f we make [abortion] illegal, women will die ... it happened for hundreds and hundreds of years” is just nonsense. The only reason women sought out abortions then was because of the social stigma of out-of-wedlock pregnancy at the time. News flash: times have changed. Why not look at the pro-life/pro-abortion debate in a different light?

[url=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=... of life and death[/url]


... Because of the subcription thingy, you will see the last part of the letter, which is not quoted above.

writer writer's picture

And now, some of the "butchers" May speaks of:

[url=http://www.fwhc.org/jane.htm]Jane[/url]: a secret women-run collective that took matters into their own hands when abortion was illegal and created a safe underground network in the Chicago area

[url=http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-74-107/people/morgentaler/]Dr. Henry Morgentaler: Fighting Canada's Abortion Laws[/url]

For Cosh and May, "it is time to dispel the myth about the number of women who died from so-called back alley butchers. In fact, most women who died pre-Roe, died from self-induced abortion." [url=http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/drama/asl_introduction.html]Life and Liberty for Women[/url]

[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis... of self-induced abortions.[/url] (U.S.)

And wise words from the Pro-Choice Action Network:

quote:

[i]If a woman has sex, she has to pay the consequences. Too many women have abortions for their own convenience or on "whim."[/i]

This vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished. Motherhood should never be punishment for having sex. Forcing a child to be born to punish its mother is the ultimate in child abuse. Anti-abortionists trivialize motherhood and childbirth by dismissing pregnancy as a mere inconvenience. They ignore or belittle the needs of the woman and the conflict she endures in making her decision. Guilt is inflicted when compassion is needed.

[url=http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/abortioninfo/misconce.shtml... about abortions[/url]


quote:

These are stories told by mothers, single women, rape victims, medical personnel, orphaned children. They tell of illegal operations taking place on kitchen tables and in sleazy hotel rooms, or self-induced on bathroom floors. They are powerful accounts of physical and mental anguish, disturbing to remember and painful to tell. Yet they are stories that must be told. We don’t want to forget, and as a woman we call Nancy expresses it:

I never want my daughter or anyone else’s daughter to go through what I did. Never again.

[url=http://www.cbctrust.com/nochoice/begin.html]No Choice[/url]
Canadian Women Tell Their Stories of Illegal Abortion


[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

Michelle

quote:


If a woman has sex, she has to pay the consequences. Too many women have abortions for their own convenience or on "whim."

This vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished.


One could replace "for their own convenience or on 'whim'" with "frivolous reasons", wouldn't one?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

quote:


This vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished.

Therefore, upon meeting people with this attitude, we should avoid intimate relations with them - as it can reasonably be inferred that they are bad at sex.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by writer:
[b]For Cosh and May, "it is time to dispel the myth about the number of women who died from so-called back alley butchers. In fact, most women who died pre-Roe, died from self-induced abortion." [url=http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/drama/asl_introduction.html]Life and Liberty for Women[/url][/b]

Thanks for the links writer, they will be very useful, I have been reading and reading, and now have them book marked. It would be hoped that most do not just read your post, but go to the links, there is much true and salient facts that can be used, if needed ever. And one hopes that it will never be needed again, to discuss self determination and defending the right to have it.
However, with people like Cosh and May espousing falsehoods who knows, I never thought I would again be having these types of feelings and conversations ever again.

Th following is bite from the Life and Liberty link. The images are graphic, disturbing, insightful and make me as a woman very angry, that again, some would play with our lives and that of our daughters and granddaughters too. Further, they need to be shared, as showing the juxposition between living women's lives and that which is not yet formed, nor will ever be when the host dies anyway. I am so unbelievably fucking angry and sad, I can hardly see the keyboard!

quote:

The stories are vivid - true - and heart wrenching. The images we share with you are graphic.

It has been said that without a knowledge and understanding of the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat those mistakes.

Unless post-Roe generations come to intimately know the history of illegal abortion, the havoc on women's lives it reeked - the number of women's lives it took without saving any "baby" - a history silenced by fear and intimidation, they will unwittingly allow abortion to be criminalized again and again thousands upon thousands of women will die.

That's inevitable.


writer writer's picture

More useful international information/support here:

[url=http://www.womenonwaves.org/]Women on Waves[/url]
- [url=http://www.womenonwaves.org/set-1020.41-en.html]Abortion Facts[/url]

[url=http://www.womenonweb.org/]Women on Web[/url]
- [url=http://www.womenonweb.org/attachment.php?status=portrait]Show Your Face[/url]

remind, I expect you were especially disturbed by the photo of a woman dead on the floor. She deserves to be more than a sensational image:

quote:

Geraldine Santoro
August 16, 1935 - June 8, 1964
The photo of Geraldine Santoro dead on a hotel room floor has become a symbol for the horror of illegal abortion. Gerri, as she was known, lived on her family farm in Coventry, Conn., with her two daughters. At the age of 28, separated from her abusive husband, she became pregnant by another man, Clyde Dixon. Afraid that her husband would kill her if he found out, she and Dixon looked for ways to terminate her pregnancy. With no other options, they attempted to perform the procedure themselves. When the operation went awry, Dixon fled, leaving Santoro behind where she bled to death. A chambermaid found her body the next morning.

[url=http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/120904women-who-died.html]In Remembrance: Women Who Died from Illegal and Unsafe Abortions[/url], NOW


[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by writer:
[b]I expect you were especially disturbed by the photo of a woman dead on the floor. She deserves to be more than a sensational image: [/b]

Yes, she does, and the picture of the beautiful girl standing there could have been my daughter.

But also, I was speaking of the erroneous pics, and that were debunked there, that are commonly used by those who want to control self determination and put out garbage to do it.

Thanks for the neww links, I will share them around and keep on file.

writer writer's picture

The young woman standing in the long dress is part of a dramatization (just in case you thought otherwise).

The debunking section is very powerful, I agree.

But I didn't find myself crying till I toured this section of Women on Web:

[url=http://www.womenonweb.org/listpublish-162-en.html]I had an abortion[/url]

[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by writer:
[b]The young woman standing in the long dress is part of a dramatization (just in case you thought otherwise).

The debunking section is very powerful, I agree.

But I didn't find myself crying till I toured this section of Women on Web:

[url=http://www.womenonweb.org/listpublish-162-en.html]I had an abortion[/url]

[/b]


Oh goodness, was wondering, did not realize!

[img]redface.gif" border="0[/img]

I am just touring it now and reading, thanks!

writer writer's picture

quote:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 20, 2006

Access to abortion in the province has become critically limited, according to a group of women concerned with the issue, including the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada and the National Abortion Federation.

"For the last couple of weeks, referrals for abortions in the province have not been possible. No referrals are accepted until mid January by the two physicians who provide the service, and the provincial government is not providing alternate arrangements," said Ginette Petitpas-Taylor, Chairperson of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

"There have been several cases of appointments cancelled. These women are not then referred to any other service. Women are not being referred to hospitals outside the province. New Brunswick does not have reciprocal billing arrangements. Those who can pay make their way to the Morgentaler clinic. That clinic is struggling to keep up with a 25% increase in procedures."

"Last week I had yet another patient turned away," said Dr. JoAnn Majerovich of Fredericton. "She actually was given an appointment to have the procedure done and then the hospital cancelled on her. The government is adding psychological insult to injury by creating a climate of fear and shame around a legal procedure. The government of
New Brunswick has recriminalized abortion through the back door by using the Medical Services Payment Act to restrict funding through situations it can control, like hospitals, ultimately limiting access to abortion. In doing so New Brunswick is discriminating against women and especially those who are the most vulnerable."

According to Ginette Petitipas-Taylor, "Access to abortion should not depend on the schedules of two physicians. It must be a service provided by the public health system. The government must create access points for women who have no family doctor, who have an anti-choice doctor or who are faced with impossible waiting times for a hospital abortion. As a nurse has written to us, requiring written consent, especially when so many people do not have a family physician, restricts access for the most vulnerable, the young and the isolated - the very same women who are the least able to cope with an unintended pregnancy and an unplanned child. The written approval of two doctors should not be required to have the procedure and general practitioners should be allowed to perform abortions in the public system."

"New Brunswick does little to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and then we make abortion only available to a few. The Advisory Council promotes a planned pregnancy initiative."


remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by writer:
[b]The government is adding psychological insult to injury by creating a climate of fear and shame around a legal procedure. The government of New Brunswick has recriminalized abortion through the back door by using the Medical Services Payment Act to restrict funding through situations it can control, like hospitals, ultimately limiting access to abortion. In doing so New Brunswick is discriminating against women and especially those who are the most vulnerable."[/b]

This is sickening beyond belief, women had better start standing up and quickly.

My daughter was just telling me this morning of a friend of hers, who was just refused an abortion by her family Dr. He would not even give her a referral, she had to go to a walkin and get a referral to another Dr. This is on Vancouver Island. He came straight out and told her he was pro-life. They say they are going to try and get/force him to post a sign on his clinic door notifuying his women patints of this.

writer writer's picture
DrConway

If I may be permitted to re-open an old issue that was discussed on a thread that has now been closed, I think Judy R's first thoughts on May's ascendance to the Green Party leadership were not so different from my own when Sam Sullivan became mayor of Vancouver.

In Sullivan's case, a quadriplegic became Mayor, and this, I felt, was a great leap in terms of societal acceptance that disabled people (I am one; I wear hearing aids and without them my effectiveness is sharply diminished) could be just as capable of great things as "normal" people.

In May's case I suspect Rebick was referring to the fact that a woman, on her own merits, managed to gain visibility from a very marginal portion of the political spectrum. That's a pretty notable achievement, but it seems that since then the luster has fallen from May.

My two cents.

writer writer's picture

[url=http://rightofcenterice.blogspot.com/2006/12/radical-feminism-and-aborti... Feminism and Abortion: "It's my body and I'll do what I want to"[/url]

[url=http://dipperchick.blogspot.com/2006/12/elizabeth-may-and-helena-guergis... May and Helena Guergis: Social Conservatives' Women of 2006[/url]

[ 24 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

remind remind's picture

writer, nice of the "Christian" guy to say the Supreme Court is all wrong regarding a woman's body is a woman's body, he who spells surrounding "sorounding"! [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

But I would really like to know how one is supposed to do this power relationship sharing of a foetus?

quote:

...it sounds like you and "it's my fetus/body and i'll do what i want to" feminists suffer from penis envy. Otherwise, the power relationship between men and women through child baring would be more equally shared.

[img]mad.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]

Debra
remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Debra:
[b]Excellent post on reproductive rights[/b]

Thanks Debra, it is a superb little treatise. I really enjoyed this:


quote:

...I think that Mary is actually the perfect symbol for reproductive freedom.... God chooses Mary and sends the angel Gabriel to tell her. Mary asked how this would happen, and Gabriel told her, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee." Mary then said: "Let it be done according to Thy will." I’m directly quoting the Anglican Parish of Camp Hill with Norman Park, part of the Diocese of Brisbane, Australia on this next part: “This one simple action of saying "Yes" to God changed everything. Mary became the mother of the Lord.” Mary made a choice. In her case, she said she’d be willing to have a child that she didn’t plan, but it was still a choice.

So this Christmas, I am making the (potentially blasphemous) argument that if Mary was allowed to make a choice as to whether she’d be willing to carry God’s baby to term, all women are allowed to determine what is best for themselves. No one has the right to force any woman to bear a child. Even God abided by that principle, and if it is good enough for God, it should be good enough for his people. Merry Christmas!


writer writer's picture

Sheila Wilmot, [url=http://leftqueries.blogspot.com/2006/12/weighing-in-on-rebick-vs-may.htm... in on Rebick vs May[/url]:

quote:

There’s a public debate underway at the moment between Elizabeth May and Judy Rebick, the latest installment (Dec 22, rabble.ca) of which ends with May giving Rebick a virtual hug. Oh, please.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by writer:
[b]Sheila Wilmot, Weighing in on Rebick vs May
[/b]

Another great blog, she covers it mosty clearly! This is pretty much terrific!


quote:

please, let’s not pretend that ‘dialogue’ with those that control ‘the economy’, those that control the definitions and access to recognition of social and human rights, those that are in power, that is – let’s not pretend that making nice with the ruling class is going to bring about the sexual and other equality May refers to.

writer writer's picture

Well, pro-choice silly heads, it seems we've taken all this rights crap way too far. I do hope Sheila Wilmot gets the memo before it's too late:

quote:

[url=http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2006/12/last-word-on-abortion.html]The last word on abortion[/url]

For some of the gender Stalinists around, there is only one position on anything permitted. The word "pro-choice," in their hands, is fast becoming a cultish password to determine who is an in-group purist and who is the enemy.


Oh, and for all of Dr. Dawg's tisking about the hardliners silencing his nuanced ass here and at EM, check this out: [url=http://www.progressivebloggers.ca/blog/diary.php?cmd=view&id=1617]Dr. Dawg drives out progressive feminist bloggers[/url] from "Progressive" Bloggers.

Yay! More room for the guys to hold forth about how they can't hold forth enough because of prissy moderating and hysterical complaining ultra-feminists! Let me guess: "prissy" was a well-chosen word to label a female moderator! Let me guess: this is FUCKING SEXISM.

Dear baby Jesus and Mother Mary: I am so sick of idiot sexism my eyes are beginning to bleed. I suspect I am not alone. Miracle, please.

[ 26 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by DrConway:
[b]In May's case I suspect Rebick was referring to the fact that a woman, on her own merits, managed to gain visibility from a very marginal portion of the political spectrum. That's a pretty notable achievement, but it seems that since then the luster has fallen from May.[/b]

I'd be surprised if Rebick thought in such apolitical terms as you describe.

What was Rebick's reaction, for example, to the accession of Kim Campbell to the leadership of the Conservative Party, when she gained visibility from a not-so-marginal portion of the political spectrum?

Surely politics has to come into play to some extent.

skdadl

But writer. He's got all those pro-feminist credentials. Isn't that exactly the kind of guy you'd expect to be insisting on leading the Take Back the Night marches?

I mean, who are you to complain? You some kind of ... [i]woman[/i] ... or something?

Tehanu

Ha, well that "prissy moderator" would be me, in [url=http://enmasse.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6376]this thread[/url]. And my prissiness? To ask him for the second time to stop telling another member to fuck off. I am quite, quite happy to have anybody read the thread and judge for themselves who was being nuanced, who was being polite, who was being disrespectful, and who was attacking other people with little or no provocation.

But I will say that I am delighted, by inference, and by inference a whole lot of the rest of us, to have been called a [url=http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2006/12/last-word-on-abortion.html]"gender stalinist"[/url]. And by none other than that very same nuanced, moderate fellow who so much desires respectful debate.

You know, such breathtaking defensiveness really makes me think that a nerve got struck. I would have hoped that someone who had spent so many years working for CARAL and on choice issues might have absorbed a little bit of feminist discourse analysis, and a bit of an understanding of how language such as his can be silencing of women. Perhaps not.

[ 26 December 2006: Message edited by: Tehanu ]

writer writer's picture

You are right, skdadl, though my inner humourless feminist is, you know, [i]nagging[/i], and I simply can't help but emotively and senselessly feel kinship as a result of this statement by Polly:

quote:

You've opened my eyes. I think the guys on the 'right' are less dangerous than you people.

You have lost so many of us...don't count on us to build critical mass against your ping pong match against the right of the blogosphere...Don't count on us to shut up and sit pretty.

We're on to you.


Irrational and churlishly girlish, I know.

A stroke of moderating brilliance on Dawg's part: whine about the [i]insensitive, brutal and oppressive[/i] moderation of other boards, then shut down debate on your own because, y'know, it's critical of you and your pals.

Whaa. Whaa. Whaaaa. But gosh, he did stand beside Judy Rebick once, vying for the mike. Glorky. I will do better to know my place. Before the airbrush comes out and I'm [i]removed from the picture[/i].

Edited to add: and Tehanu, just to be clear, here, [i]you are female[/i], right?

[ 26 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

Tehanu

quote:


Edited to add: and Tehanu, just to be clear, here, [i]you are female[/i], right?

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] You betcha. Otherwise I wouldn't be being incivil. I'd be using fewer polemics and more nuance when it comes to reproductive rights. And I'm [i]sure[/i] I would be able to be [i]quite[/i] so [i]prissy[/i] (or use so many italics) if I were male.

But you shouldn't be trying to make me laugh, writer. That's just wrong. We are humourless gender stalinists, after all.

writer writer's picture

Well, Tehanu, but I beg to differ. There is room for rudeness. It just means a lateral move from [i]prissy[/i] to becoming an official [i]man-hater[/i]. This is what I've learned over the last two weeks:

[LIST] [*][b]Okay:[/b] A guy proposing that women (voluntarily!) pull their uteruses out as a form of birth control.[*][b]Okay:[/b] A guy joking about women's gut feelings (cause the discussion is about abortion, [i]get it[/i]?)[*][b]Not okay:[/b] Humourless sexist feminist suggesting an anti-feminist, nuanced sorta-but-not-really anti-choice dullard can suck her dildo, then return it clean and unscathed.[*][b]Not okay:[/b] An angry woman with a nasty chip on her shoulder objecting to a reactionary man's cartoonish rape fantasy postings used as an argument for gun deregulation.[/LIST]

I do hope they come out with a handbook or something, so we can learn to be good little feminists.

Loved your post on [url=http://enmasse.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6376&start=3]EnMasse[/url], BTW.

Say it with me! [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=001142]We are man-hating vagina-warrior gender Stalinistas![/url]

Edited to fix the EM URL - thanks, T!

[ 27 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

remind remind's picture

Truly I wonder, it seems some have absolutely no ability to read their own words and/or see their own actions through a clear lense!

For JBaglow aka Dr Dawg, it seems well..nigh impossible! I invite you DrDawg/JBaglow to come back and read you posts, you did the attacking pal, not the other way around!

Indeed he had the gall to say this after the heinous way he behaved here, in his blog and at the progressive blogger site:

quote:

Our styles became different: we stopped the ritual denunciations and public humiliations, and began to talk to people, in all of their complexity, contradictions and diversity--and, with differing degrees of success, to listen to them too.

Oh yes, he certainly tried to "talk", NOT, and if this is the way his lack of "public denunciations" are, hell, his public denunciations must be breath taking! [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

I mean, he goes on at off topic length at progressive bloggers (another place I will stay away from) and then he chastizes everyone else for degenerating the thread into

quote:

a series of accusations and namecalling. There is little to be gained by more incivility of this kind.

And closes it!

Apparently, us feminist women are getting a little too uppity for him so now he has to label us in such useful terms too. Glad he allegedly is on "our" side. In fact, so much so I wonder what name he posts under at the dark site?

This all come back to the fact, that not only is May not progressive and not pro-choice, neither are her knights in shining armour who defending her.

Apparently, he, the baglow, learned nothing during the "70's, 80's and 90's", perhaps even he was not there to do so, only foster himself as a political entity? Because I cannot believe someone who is a committed progressive for decades can say:

quote:

For trying to inject the notion that one could be pro-choice and anti-abortion

[ 26 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]

writer writer's picture
remind remind's picture

quote:


Anger is neither inappropriate nor enough. It is not time for nuances nor debates.

It is time to choose up sides, you believe that women have the right to live as autonomous human beings or you do not. You believe our society is better served when all people are free and equal or you do not. You believe that women’s voices are important or you do not.


Wow, I feel humbled by Debra's words. They need to become part of literature for a larger campaign about the regressive component pretending to be progressive.

quote:

This even as they claim that their voices are being silenced.

We are allowed to be feminists just as long as we are nice little feminists who listen when the boys tell us what feminism means, how feminists should act and what issues we should see as meaningful.


writer writer's picture

We're in Italy: [url=http://www.ecquologia.it/sito/pag706.map?action=single&field.joined.id=4... Canada: Green Party Slammed after Leader Elizabeth May Suggests Personal Dislike of Abortion [/url]

Oh, and let's just throw this in for the heck of it:

quote:

Prominent environmentalist, Elizabeth May, has been creating a lot of headlines since she was elected leader of the federal Greens. But that election wasn't without controversy. A 24 hours' investigation raised questions about a cross-country climate change tour May undertook while she was running for that post. May initially said that tour - set to be funded by an American charitable foundation - wouldn't be counted toward her campaign expenses because it wasn't a campaign event. But those climate change tour talks were advertised on May's website as "future campaign events" - a mistake according to the future party leader.

She later agreed to include part of the costs of the climate change tour as a campaign expense.

[url=http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/2006/12/26/3003214-sun.html]24 Hours Vancouver[/url]


And this! [url=http://www.greenparty.ca/page314.html]Push back against the holiday shop-a-thon[/url]: "Gift memberships in worth-while organizations, like the Sierra Club of Canada, are a great choice and can be managed over the web (www.sierraclub.ca). "

Not mentioned by Ms. May: that she used to run the Sierra Club! So clean. So pure. So [i]moral[/i]. So worth a discussion.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by writer:
[b]We're in Italy: Green Party Slammed after Leader Elizabeth May Suggests Personal Dislike of Abortion...Not mentioned by Ms. May: that she used to run the Sierra Club! So clean. So pure. So [i]moral[/i]. So worth a discussion.[/b]

Wow, Italy? Who would've thought? And all links to discussion, even BnR and Lifesite.

And I see that Lifesite had to label Judy as a "militant" feminist 2 times in the first 2 sentences. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

So, I guess that makes May, Ms. I want to dialogue on your rights as a human, an "acceptable" non-militant feminist.

Lifesite does an attempted juxposition [url=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06122107.html]here[/url]of what is a "suitable to society" feminist and what isn't. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

May is being portrayed by Lifesite as the "Barbie" of feminism as she is a self professed: "Christian", "feminist","environmentalist" and just recently announced herself "anti-choice". That type of portrayal, and May's commentary, won't go over well in the Green feminist world anymore than it did here at home!

I would say see the new face of corporate/political NGO's!

writer writer's picture

quote:


[url=http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21001250-5001028,00.... women entitled to 'all options'[/url]

Centacare, the Catholic church's health and welfare arm, has reportedly won part of the Federal Government's $51 million pregnancy counselling contract aimed at reducing the number of abortions.

The Daily Telegraph, Australia


remind remind's picture

Interesting article from several perspectives writer.

The first one being the obvious fact the Catholic Church, has commenced another phase in its campaign against women's self determination and now are doing it with a world nation's government a complicit partner, a true faustian pact: [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

Senator Stott Despoja said [b]women have the right to transparent information and any advice offered by the Catholic church would not be.[/b]

.."If the Government is committed to a diverse range of agencies being involved in the counselling process, then[b] the remaining funds should be awarded to genuinely non-directive and dedicated counselling services[/b]: those that do provide information and referral on all three options


Secondly, see the new face of corporate/political and religious NGO's/NPO's.

Accent on the religious.

Here in BC, contracts to run BC's Low Income Housing were given to various church organizations to manage and maintain. Most likely a pay off for delivering votes from the pulpit.

As these man driven cults, supported by unliberated women, are working their way into our government control and branches, we are going to be seeing more and more of this. What do the heads of all these religious orgs talk to political leaders about once a week afterall?

May,is just the precursor of others, like her, that are moving into positions of power and regard, that are so indoctrinated by their "faith" they cannot see how regressive and controlled they are.

I have been watching this phenom grow here in BC over the last 6 years or so with government contracting out to religious orgs.

Women across Canada that consider themselves permanently self determined, had better start paying attention to anti-choice buzz phases and words and calling people on each and every one, if they are not already.

If people are not doing this, and are calling themselves [b]progressives[/b] and [b]pro-choice[/b], they then need to realize; silence or the planned ignoring of anti-choice rhetoric is equivalent of ignoring bigoted and racist slurs, at the very least, and/or giving tacit approval for the abolition of a person's rights, at the very worst.

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

writer writer's picture

quote:


[b]Zip up the political rhetoric[/b]

The recent flare-up over ad lib comments made by rookie Green party leader Elizabeth May to a bunch of nuns during the recent federal by-election in London underlines again why Canadians are fed up with camp-centred politics. In a rather rambling answer to a nun's question about abortion, May allowed that while her party has no intention of ever reopening the abortion debate and that she herself supports a woman's right to choose, she could never imagine a circumstance where she would opt to have an abortion. Choosing her words quite poorly, May has inflamed the blogosphere by saying "no one in their right mind would want to have an abortion- and that she doesn't think women "have a frivolous right to choose.-

Famed feminist and founder of lefty website Rabble.ca Judy Rebick shot back an open letter to May saying, "You have questioned the most important victory of the women's movement of my generationЙ. Since you have so little respect for me or for the women's movement that mobilized for so long to win this hard-earned right, I hope you will understand that I ripped up the cheque I had written to the Green party and you can no longer rely on me for support.- Perhaps Rebick hadn't read May's clarification of her comments in a blog post on the Rabble site a week before she tore up her cheque. In it she says, "I personally strongly support legal access to abortions for any woman (under whatever circumstances) who chooses to have one. What I was trying to suggest was that slogans distort the reality that there are moral dimensions to both positions."

It's a reasonable position and probably reflects what most pro-choice Canadians think: women must have the choice, but abortion often is a difficult psychological experience. It makes sense to say "Abortion is legal; now, how do we create a society where fewer women need to have one."

Rebick is having none of it, but her position, like partisan brinksmanship, strikes me as similar to the Bush doctrine of "If you aren't with us, then you are for the terrorists."

Say what you want about the Greens, and there is much to question about their supposed progressive credentials, but May gets the drift that we're at the end of the era of the slogan.

By ANDREW CASH
[url=http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2007-01-04/news_feature.php]Now Magazine[/url]


[email]letters@nowtoronto.com[/email]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by writer:
[b] Zip up the political rhetoric......but May gets the drift that we're at the end of the era of the slogan.[/b]

Oh great, another man weighs in and tells us women what we women probably think/feel, and speaks for most pro-choice Canadians too!

quote:

It's a reasonable position and probably reflects what most pro-choice Canadians think: women must have the choice, but abortion often is a difficult psychological experience.

I am getting so sick of this BS rhetoric, it is unbelievable in its unsupported assumptions and content.

Plus Andrew lies about time frame, he says May answered at Rabble before Judy wrote her the letter? WTF?

quote:

Perhaps Rebick hadn't read May's clarification of her comments in a blog post on the Rabble site a week before she tore up her cheque.

Now, let's talk about May's slogan comment to which Andrew cash refers:

quote:

What I was trying to suggest was that slogans distort the reality that there are moral dimensions to both positions."

Oh really, just where were her examples of slogans? Where did she mention slogans distort the reality in her dialogue with the nuns?

Notwithstanding is the fact it is HER opinion there are "moral dimensions". Who is she to decide what is mine, or anyone else's morality? The fact that she does this is just another point showing how NON-progressive, non pro-choice she is.

Nor apparently, does she, or Andrew, realize her, and indeed his, words were nasty "sloganeering" of the worst kind.

writer writer's picture

remind, Cameron W [i]did[/i] post what he said was May's response.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=006190]El... May Answers Abortion Questions[/url]

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: writer ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by writer:
[b]remind, Cameron W [i]did[/i] post what he said was May's response.[/b]

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=006190]El... May Answers Abortion Questions[/url]

Oh yes, I know, and am fully aware that CameronW did post what [i] he [/i] told us May's response was. I just do NOT ever take [b] hearsay [/b] postings, or commentary as hard evidence of anything or put solid credence to it. Now, if CameronW had held a press conference saying this is what May’s response was I would have put store in it. So truth be told, May said nothing about her words to the nuns until she responded to Judy, until then it was a; CameronW said that May said those things, kinda situation.

Sorry, I thought I was clear on that at the end of my first post to Cameron on that thread when I said:

quote:

BTW Cameron "mr message man", May should be speaking to this herself here, her inability to do so says much in itself. Having a man do her talking says even more IMO!

Further, what Cameron W said that May said, did not match/jive too closely with what May said in her response to Judy. Nor did May’s words to Judy, or indeed CameronW’s words to us here, that he said May said, match what May actually said to the nuns.

Andrew used Cameron’s quote as May’s words, I am merely pointing out that indeed they were NOT May’s words. May's "own" words did not actually happen until after Judy's letter to her.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

minkepants

Remind, why do yo bother to post on discussion boards which allow men to comment if men, in your view, have nothing to contribute to the discussion?

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by minkepants:
[b]Remind, why do yo bother to post on discussion boards which allow men to comment if men, in your view, have nothing to contribute to the discussion?
[/b]

Why don't you get lost? Or did you just take a wrong turn and end up in a healthy discussion forum?

minkepants

What was in my post that warranted the hostility of your reply?

As for why I don't get lost; am I not entitled to see the preservation of my sisters liberty as crucial to the preservation of my own? To see the extension and maximization of her liberty as both a good in and of itself as well as a precursor to my ability to live in greater liberty, justice and freedom?

Without personalizing it to me specifically, what right, if any, does a man have to question a dialogue on a forum without a gender barrier? Any at all? Do I have any right to question whether a conversation is being dominated by the angriest rather than the best arguments?

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by minkepants:
[b]Remind, why do you bother to post on discussion boards which allow men to comment if men, in your view, have nothing to contribute to the discussion?[/b]

No, its okay unionist, I can handle this one, because it's so very nice having to explain things over and over. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Men are not allowed to comment in the feminist forum only, except from a pro-feminist point of view.

WHY?

Because they, men, have NOTHING to contribute to the topic other than give unquestioning, unequivocal, unstinting and unfettered support for: a woman's, NOT a man's, right to self-determine, women to engage society for equality rights and freedoms in a manner that we women, NOT men, see fit to do.

Everywhere else at babble men can give themselves unequivocal, unstinting and unfettered support for whatever they choose to dialogue on, as it is their [i]right[/i] to do. Just a I can.

BTW, glad to see you joined and made your first post to me on the feminist forum yet. And that it as a request of me to defend why I do things, made it even more enjoyable!

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Edited to add unquestioning.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

minkepants

I presume that implicit in that support is an UNQUESTIONING support, even within topics which are the subject of debate between individuals of good will. My role is to obey and not question.

writer writer's picture

If you have questions about how the feminism forum works, I encourage you to raise it in rabble reactions. Please stop derailing the discussion on this thread. Many thanks.

minkepants

My question was based on the reaction to each and every post which did not unequivocally conemn Ms. May's statements. My question was specific to the debate within this thread. if there is a LESS agressive way to post that question I fail to see it. Clearly any contribution which questions the presumption of complete malice and guilt on Ms. May's part, until proven otherwise, even the posing of a question itself, is unwelcome here. I appreciate the clarification. I respectfully withdraw.

writer writer's picture

I see that you have extensively edited the derailing post. I do encourage you to look at past threads and possibly PM some male posters who understand the culture of this forum if you need a helping hand.

Many thanks for the gacious withdrawal.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: writer ]

minkepants

Ummm? Over the course of 3 minutes, for syntax, expansion and clarification. Why do you ask? Anyway, I should be going.

I don't see what changed in the post i have left to make it less "derailing" in your opinion, than the rough post I originally posted. I think I changed the sentence structure for clarity perhaps. perhaps you would like to clarify what component is "derailing" as this would seem equivalent to calling it deliberately disruptive

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by writer:
[b]
[email]letters@nowtoronto.com[/email] [/b]

Here is mine:

First of as a man, Mr Cash had no business weighing in on feminist issues and women's rights.

Secondly, Andrew's article was wilfully misleading, un-factual and distorted.

Initially, he sets the tone by trying to portray May as a naive rookie. May is not a rookie in the political arena; she was an advisor to Brian Mulroney. He paraphrases May's words while directly quoting Roebuck’s.

Not only that, he accuses Ms Rebick of not paying attention to May's words on rabble of a week prior. That is disengenuous, the words he quoted were actually not from May’s hand, they were send hand from a poster who said May had given him the email and the right to post it. At best it can be considered hearsay. To ask, or expect, anyone to respond to hearsay, especially a clear-sited and even minded professional such as Ms Rebick is not only foolishly immature, its unprofessional.

Ms Rebick could only officially make comments on what Ms May herself said to the nuns. Too bad Mr Nash does not understand legalities and ethics, he might not be so hasty to cast aspersions from a position of ignorance on both.

Thirdly, he is trying to make a case for partisanship occurring rather than acknowledging women across Canada are expressing justifiable outrage over May’s words. He belittled our anger and tried to minimize her words by saying “they were poorly chosen” and “rambling” and then he furthers this by inferring that he knows “what most pro-choice Canadians think” and that May’s views are reasonable. If he did he would not be having dialogue on it all.

In conclusion, it appears that Mr Nash is using a topic he has no business discussing in order to bash/discredit Ms Rebick and indeed feminists across Canada. I mean; “slogans are dead” as an excuse to discuss, when he uses the most over used slogan of all to conclude with.

quote:

Rebick is having none of it, but her position, like partisan brinksmanship, strikes me as similar to the Bush doctrine of "If you aren't with us, then you are for the terrorists."

There are some posts[url=http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19181&start=0]here[/url]on opinions of Andrew's weighing in, and some good comments that were written to Now.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]Oh really, just where were her examples of slogans? Where did she mention slogans distort the reality in her dialogue with the nuns?[/b]

If you cut through all of the extra verbiage, I think that she was actually suggesting that [b]the term "pro-choice"[/b] is itself a slogan (one that make her "queesy", because she doesn't believe that there is "a frivolous right to choose").

Andrew's political analysis is usually much better than this. It appears that he's been sucked in by May's (and others') suggestion that the reaction to her comments is an NDP-inspired plot to score political points. It's not.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
[b]If you cut through all of the extra verbiage, I think that she was actually suggesting that [b]the term "pro-choice"[/b] is itself a slogan (one that make her "queesy", because she doesn't believe that there is "a frivolous right to choose").[/b]

Well, I think she used all the extra verbage in a foolish and frivolous manner. The slogan explanation never arose until after the fact.

quote:

[b]Andrew's political analysis is usually much better than this. It appears that he's been sucked in by May's (and others') suggestion that the reaction to her comments is an NDP-inspired plot to score political points. It's not.
[/b]

Well, as I normally do not follow him, I have to take your word on that.

However, I addressed what you call his buying into the partisan BS in my letter to Now, which I just noticed I had not posted in my response to writer, when I came to read your post, as I had meant to do. But it is there now.

oldgoat

minkepants, please do not post in the feminism forum anymore. If there is any more derailing threads just to be argumentative your stay here will be a short one.

Pages

Topic locked