Six organizations support Harper's anti-choice initiative, chastise choice activists

Well I know who is coming off of my donation list

I think that anyone who cares about choice and who cares about comprehensive maternal health which includes reproductive health should consider cancelling any donations they're currently giving to these organizations:

• Plan Canada
• CARE Canada
• RESULTS Canada
• Save the Children Canada
• UNICEF Canada
• World Vision Canada

They are accusing Canadians speaking out against Harper's anti-choice stance of being responsible for the deaths of women and children if Harper causes a delay in funding due to his ideological objection to full reproductive health care.

These organizations are selling out not only pro-choice activists, but also millions of women in developing nations who need abortions due to rape during war, difficult access to contraception, and not enough power within their relationships to successfully insist on contraception during sex.

Plan Canada, for instance, had a widely publicized campaign, "Because I Am A Girl".  Oh yeah?  Hmm, let's think up some new slogans: "Because I am a girl, I don't need reproductive freedom."  "Because I am a girl, Stephen Harper can tell me what to do with my body."  "Because I am a girl, I am being sold out to anti-choice zealots."

The fact is, Harper is out of step with all other G8 nations in insisting that funding not go to initiatives that include abortion in maternal health.  If this deal falls through or has to be delayed, it will be Harper's fault, not pro-choice activists. 

Please don't give these people any more money than you may already have.  There are so many better organizations to support.  Like ones who have spoken out against Harper's initiative instead of cowering in fear of losing government funding.

Support Oxfam [4].  Support Doctors Without Borders [5].  Support the pro-choice Stephen Lewis Foundation [6], who funds the group Grandmothers to Grandmothers.

And perhaps let the other six organizations know you're doing it, and why:

secretary@unicef.ca [7], info@plancanada.ca [8], info@care.ca [9], office@results-resultats.ca [10], sccan@savethechildren.ca [11], info@worldvision.ca [12]

Great, life.  Please tell them WHY, too.

My letter to these organizations:

Facebook group: Canadians who want foreign aid spent on women's reproductive help

I first heard about this on Facebook from a number of friends, including writer.

I am so furious about this. So furious. This morning, I canceled my monthly donation to UNICEF, explaining why over the phone. After I calm down, I'll write to the betrayers, as well as the supporters of choice.

I fight for women's freedom. Not for pretty chains.

As Joyce Arthur points out, "Let's be clear that in developing countries, over half of all women will have at least one abortion in their lives, and that these same women are usually already mothers. Women have both abortions and babies, so this means ALL women are being abandoned and deemed less worthy of saving, simply because they sometimes must resort to abortion to save their lives and their families."

Me too, writer. 

I've heard that these six organizations stand to gain financially if this anti-choice initiative of Harper's goes through.  Is this true?  And if so, then how dare they accuse pro-choice women of being more concerned with scoring political points than with the health of women and children in developing countries? Seems to me that they care more about the money they'll get than they do about the reproductive health of women and girls.  What a disgusting sell out.

Thank you for the heads up Michelle, and the addresses, have actioned them directly and forwarded info on.

There is no clearer indication than this needed to affirm how women's rights, and women are directly under attack, moreso than we have been for decades.

Someone I know "sponsors a child" through World Vision.  They have an interesting thing going.  First of all, it's one of these Christian missionary-type organizations, which is a good reason not to support them to begin with.  They claim that they don't proselytize, but they discriminate against non-Christians when hiring people from the communities they support on the ground, and they say that they only talk to people about Jesus when people ask why they're doing all this nice stuff for them.

Anyhow, that person told me today that if he doesn't donate to World Vision, "his sponsored child" will not be able to go to school, etc.  Well, this is a common misconception due to World Vision's marketing ploy of implying that when you "sponsor a child" that your sponsorship money goes directly to your child.  Check out their sponsorship page here:

https://www.worldvision.ca/Sponsor-a-Child/Pages/HowitWorks.aspx [20]

Of course, when you read the fine print [21], you realize that actually, your money doesn't go directly to the child, but rather to the community as a whole (which actually is better anyhow).  But it's still deceptive - it gives people the impression they have a direct relationship with one child, and that their monthly donation is a life and death matter for that one child - so once you start giving, if you stop, your "foster child" suffers.  It's emotional blackmail, and it works - after you start giving, the organization can do pretty much anything and you will feel guilty for pulling your funding if you think that "your child" will suddenly have everything taken away from them as a result.

Furthermore, if all they're doing is putting money in a big pot for the whole community, then why are they making some select kids sing for everyone's supper by writing letters and sending photographs to the charity's donors? 

It just seems really exploitative to me, both of the children in the community, and of the people here who donate.

Perhaps those with Facebook access should go to Jann Arden's page and discuss with her, if she will still continue to be a World Vision spokesperson. Or tweet her about it.

Personally, have written to her asking her position, through her website contact link.

http://www.jannarden.com/contact/

pogge weighs in.

Please do not sponsor this child.

An interesting article about three of the organizations who are signatories to this letter: Plan Canada (used to be "Foster Parents Plan"), World Vision, and Save the Children.

It's very dated since it's almost 30 years old, and organizations have updated some practices (like direct sponsorship of individual children), but many of the points are still valid.

Michelle @ 11:

I got a good boss, eh? He's a guy, too, y'know? Amazing, but true. 

Yeah, I realized that in my letter I mentioned that I would share this with all the women I know, but the truth is, there are lots of guys in my life who would be just as disgusted.  And rr has been critical of orgs like World Vision and Plan way longer than I have, for other reasons.  This latest crap just reinforces his resolve.

Turning the debate around so that pro choice advocates are under attack for endangering the lives of women is a classic example of Swift Boating, and I hope those women with a more public voice call them on it, and link these organizations to right wing extreemist political tactics of the foulest, Karl Rovian kind.

I've been very busy the last while, so please bear with me because I've been sort of half hearing things and filling them away in my brain in a hap hazard fashion..... but it seems to me that earlier this week or late last week, there was a report on CBC radio about how charities are run in Canada, and how some are not exactly as charitable as they may profess to be; and some are outright frauds. 

Maybe this will jog better memories than mine, and someone might remember the name of the woman who researches charities.  There is a website with info.  

It would be interesting, perhaps to see how the above listed organizations charitable activities stack up against the public perception of them.  Odds are at least one is more into paying their CEO's exhorbitant salaries than they are interested in helping people.

They want to play hard ball; pitch em one high and inside and see how they like it.

Frankly, this can only be seen as the result of an act of  intimidation. as look what is up for grabs, the KAIROS money, as opposed to their becoming KAIROS the second, third, etc...

My money's going to Grandmothers to Grandmothers and Doctors Without Borders, unless I learn of better. I canceled my monthly UNICEF Canada donation today. Then I heard from a friend who has worked with that organization that this is just more of the same from them, organizationally.

Frauds.

... First they came for the desperate woman in another country ...

Wow. The only good conservative is a d**d conservative.

There's a lot of shitty ripoff charities ut there, and I've never supported any of them - as I'm hearing handicapped, the one charity I've supported most of my life has been the Canadian Hearing Society - but I stopped when I moved to Quebec, because they're strictly an Ontario organization, despite the "Canadian" in their name. They helped me with getting hearing aids and speech therapy when I was Ontario based, though. I can't afford to support charity on my retirement income, though. Maybe if I gave up the Muthaship I could afford a bit of generosity, but I've done my share.

I don't think they were talking about pro-choice activists. I seems to me they are talking about politicians playing games (read Susan Delacourt and you will see how both the Tories and the Libs are using this issue for scoring political points). My partner works for an aid organization and until she started there I had no idea the magnitude of the problem. I knew lots of kids were dying but not 9 million a year and I had no idea that those deaths were pretty much preventable. I want the G8 initiative to cover reproductive health services but the reality is abortion services if not funded by Canada will be funded by other G8 countries. Right now I get why the organizations are concerned about whether this government will step up on funding. They froze CIDAs budget so how will they pay for any credible plan? I want the opposition to ask questions about that too. 

I will take to the streets to fight for abortion rights in Canada and around the world, I just don't think that these organizations deserve attack for doing really good work and for pushing pols to focus the discussion on the funding. I will keep my ire directed at the Cons.

When these organizations tell us (Canadians) to just keep sending the money no matter what strings are attached, and to shut up about abortion rights, they cross a rather distinct line. What next? Our aid money will go to whites only, while other countries pick up the slack? Sort of just an innocent division of labour?

Perhaps these organizations are confused. Perhaps they just want the money. Perhaps they don't think access to abortion is as big a deal as... who knows what. Regardless, until they straighten out their heads and/or their pitch, they must not get one dime from people who support women's rights.

That would seem rather obvious, no?

I am a donor to one of the organizations and I will keep giving to them. Again I don't think the release is directed at Canadians but at politicians and from the media reports I have heard/read I haven't seen anything to suggest that these organizations are doing anything more than trying to encourage a substantive discussion on how the initiative will be funded. In my mind, it is part of their job to advocate for funding for those they help as much as it is to provide services on the ground. I just was listening to a good analysis of the issue on CBC Radio 1's The House. Not sure when  they will post the podcast of today's show but really worth listening to and really does address the kind of games playing that the libs and cons were engaged in over the issue (which is what I think was causing concerns for aid organizations):  http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/program/the_house

Exactly correct Unionist, and people who do not get this, really are not getting they do not have a right to shunt aside women's right's in order to play politics, while apparently now trying to accuse others of playing politics, as opposed to realizing these are WOMEN"s rights to be human and equal we are speaking of.

Yes, you are correct writer.

And if some want to try and smarmily state we should ignore this attack upon women, as it will save lives, then they are really failing to reale a woman dies every 8 minutes from a illegal abortion, and that number will grow, so what lives are being saved?

Stating that "other countries" will take up the slack is absolute bull shit appeasement to keep on grubbing for money at the expense of human rights.

Review this paragraph from the press release about the good that would be done:

That's exactly the government's position -- that they would fund contraception but not abortion. It seems clear to me that these organizations are encouraging everyone to simply accept what the government wants to do and stop "debating" it. Since those who side with the government would get what they want that way, it seems clear to me that it's only those on one side of the debate who are being told to shut up. I have a problem with that.

Edited to correct mangled English. Have I mentioned lately that I really detest this editor?

From the press coverage I have read, the government took the recommendations of not only maternal newborn and child advocates in Canada but of an international consensus including expressly pro-choice organizations like the Partnership for Maternal Newborn and Child Health and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. All of whom are calling for more funding for midwives, community health workers, etc. The government has included in their proposed initiative to G8 countries most of what NGOs and advocates are calling for but they have rejected one important element - abortion services.

I think it is despicable that they have rejected funding for abortion services but that doesn't mean I am not pleased that they are funding all the rest. It is not an either or question for me. The majority of women dying overseas are dying not because of botched abortions but because of infection and complications during labour and I don't think I need to ignore the needs of these women while I am also working/fighting for the rights of women to access safe and legal abortions.

According to Joyce Arthur:

Let's be clear that in developing countries, over half of all women will have at least one abortion in their lives, and that these same women are usually already mothers. Women have both abortions and babies, so this means ALL women are being abandoned and deemed less worthy of saving, simply because they sometimes must resort to abortion to save their lives and their families.

Canada is abandoning its UN global commitments to provide "safe abortion where legal", and related measures where it's not legal, including managing complications of unsafe abortion and not punishing women for having illegal abortions. Canada is ending its longstanding policy to support the full range of reproductive health necessities. (It has also funded Marie Stopes and IPAS in the past, as well as IPPF for the past 25 years.)

Canada is dividing the international community and turning abortion into a political football by saying that countries can pick and choose what elements to support. But the package of reproductive health strategies cannot be separated without undermining the whole program, and hurting/killing women. This separation and isolation of abortion funding will reduce or endanger safe abortion-related care across the board. It's all purely political and totally appalling.

Exactly. And this is what the Conservatives either don't get or are ignoring. I hope Canada is strongly condemned for taking this stance.

ActionAid CEO slams Ottawa over women's rights

Why do you think there hasn’t been more public objection to the cuts in funding?

People don’t know about it because it’s so hard for NGOs to speak out, because they get their funding cut. That’s what’s been going on. If your mandate is to help people around the world, you’re not going to rock the boat. It’s a very, very unusual time in Ottawa, the kind of censorship that is happening. At our event, for example, the people who are speaking out are not representing organizations that get Canadian funding. I’m an independent, so I can say what I want.

What do you think of the issue of abortion being raised in the lead-up to the summit?

If we are going to tackle maternal health, then we have to tackle reproductive rights. There’s a rumour going around Ottawa that the senior politicians didn’t know the difference between contraceptives and abortion.

Do you really think Stephen Harper didn’t anticipate the abortion issue?

I think Harper’s people were probably advised that this was a children’s issue. But you can’t take care of children’s health without taking care of women’s health, and you can’t take care of women’s health without taking care of reproductive rights. It’s that last piece that I don’t think they were aware they were getting themselves into.

Yep, as I stated, Harper made an example of KAIROS to shut everyone else up and force them to comply.

...this is part of the agenda of which we all spoke of in respect to the HarperCons. And then of course there is the inducement of the former KAIROS money being shared out....

And quite frankly, I have absolutely no use for those who support Harper and the CONS in anyway shape or form, including these "charities" who would trade human rights for their own wages, err careers, errr greed. They are traitors to human rights as a matter of fact and deserve  to have their funding avenues boycotted and shunned. As are those who are or were in the inner workings of the CONS and who support them knowing exactly how  evil they are.

Close to 2,500 members already - that's a lot, right? 

I never donated to these organizations anyway, but it seems to me their talk about "the G8 initiative" and urging people to shut up and fall into line is profoundly anti-democratic, especially for groups based on civil society .... who want to undermine any idea of a strong civil society challenging bad government decisions. I don't think it's about the KAIROS money, which was a lot to KAIROS but is peanuts to donation-scavengers like World Vision. But it sure does seem to be about NGOs running scared about saying a word that is anything other than slavish towards Bev Oda and Stephen Harper. 

Don't think close to 40 million is peanuts at all, nor would they.

KAIROS had a total annual budget of about $4-m, of which CIDA in 2008 contributed $1.57-m. The cancelled CIDA grant proposal would have seen CIDA grant KAIROS a little over $7-m over the next four year, less than $2-m per year. I think this is about a lot more than just those funds.

Why did the word "demonize" in the thread title get changed to "chastise"?

Who's going to own up to it, and what's their political agenda?

lol. It was probably Michelle. I don't know what she has up her sleeve. Good to be suspicious, though. Lord knows I've never trusted her.

I did it, M. Spector.

And I'll admit my agenda - I'm anti-choice!  Boo hoo hoo, I got caught out!  Oh lord, what will rabble do with me now?? 

Waaaaaaah!

Er...

Actually, my agenda was that I thought that "chastise" was more objective, and "demonize" was more subjective, and I felt like leaving the subjective stuff for the posts within the thread, including my own.

I'd like to thank World Vision for clarifying a few things for a friend of mine:

It's not surprising - they're an evangelical missionary organization, basically.

I'd be interested in learning about what, if any, religious affiliations or origins the other signatories have.

Ah, time and space - it's almost Einsteinian in its metaphorical simplicity! Where did I put my chequebook...

Not surprising, Michelle, but nice to see it so clearly stated. The real question: Why is our secular government funding religious-based interference in other countries? And why is UNICEF Canada associating itself with this explicit agenda?

UNICEF are an ambiguous bunch. There is a huge campaign led by anti-choice, Catholic, evangelical, and other groups accusing UNICEF of being "pro-abortion". But when you read what UNICEF itself says, it sounds very much like World Vicious - almost word for word - only if you read carefully, they don't say they oppose abortion (which WV does), rather, they don't support it as a method of family planning (which is probably unobjectionable from a "planning" standpoint):

Source - note it's from 1995!

Aid groups advised to "shut the fuck up" on abortion by Nancy Ruth

Nancy Ruth is about as pro-choice as you can be.  She's an amazing woman.  And I see the place she's coming from offering this advice.  And she's probably accurate when it comes to what kind of reaction Harper could have.

But to me, it feels like navigating around an abuser.  Shut up, or he might get more angry and hit you harder next time.

I don't agree with her advice - women should fight this tooth and nail - but I agree with her on what Harper's reaction will probably be.

NR has done a lot for feminism and women's rights in Canada.  But she's a Conservative (capital C) Senator.  Her advice not to rock the boat and make things worse benefits the Conservatives and their anti-choice views.  She might be right about the Cons' reaction but it's too late, the genie is out of the bottle and people have to fight this thing.  Don't listen to her advice on this one. 

It's not just "advice". The Senator is basically threatening NGOs with cuts to their funding if they don't tow the troglodite Conservative line on women's health issues. Work needs to be done to publicly expose and denounce Senator Ruth from the rooftops.

Can the Liberals be more stupid?

Harper and Senator must apologize for profane threats to foreign aid groups

I don't agree with Nancy Ruth. The threat may be real, but she reinforced it rather than challenging it. And I can't support the position that, because the withdrawal of choice for women in other countries doesn't affect our access, we should hush up and let things slide. But the notion that she was "sent in" to do Harper's "dirty work" - beyond idiotic.

Haven't the Liberals cacked up this file enough already? Could they grab a clue, stop grandstanding and actually *do* something? Something effective?

We need to organize, friends.

Anyone who knows NancyRuth knows that this is simply untrue.  I don't agree with her strategy, but there is no way that she is a pro-life Conservative.

My response to the response I got from UNICEF's Cathy Memah was:

 "No, I do not accept your reasoning and your willingness to cave to the Harper government's bullying.

  Your willingness  to cave, and not state who is doing what wrongly, will impact the lives of Canadian women as well as women around the world, and doing this in order to keep your funding levels in place, is even more unacceptable. 

  This is NOT a debate either, it is women's human rights and lives we are speaking of. That you trivialize it to a talking point of "divisive debate" is pretty much disgusting. You should have counted on public support, if you had stood against Harper policies, and done the righteous and correct thing, instead of trying to; first lay the blame on Canadian women, and now to try and state that it is the opposition  of whom you were speaking and not pro-choice Canadian women. As such, it is you professional charities who are now doubley in error. The only ones who should have been called on their actions were the Harper government.

  So in ill thought out action, you all have now compounded the travesty of Harper's actions.

  But thank you for your token response offering, and please note that I will continue to work towards an absolute charitable boycott of your, and your partner organizations, until public apology is made to Canadian women and a public announcement calling the Harper government on it's actions is undertaken."

From Antonia Zerbisias' Facebook page:

These groups have been defunded by HarperCons (CIDA and SOW) in past 2 weeks:

1. Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW)
2. CERA (Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation);
3. Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail (around for 25 years)... Voir la suite
4. New Brunswick Pay Equity Coalition,
5. le Réseau des Tables régionales de groupes de femmes du Québec,
6. Alberta Network of Immigrant Women,
7. Centre de documentation sur l'éducation des adultes et la condition feminine,
8. Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale (AFEAS),
9. Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses (OAITH) (a 75-member coalition primarily of first stage emergency shelters for abused women.)

I just received a fundraising letter from PLAN. Now I have a postage-paid envelope to tell them what I think of their caving-in to the anti-choicers.

Who said she was "pro-life" (a rather distasteful term if you ask me)? I think she's being accused of being pro-Harper and anti-women's health in countries which need Canadian aid. Her quoted comments, if contextual and accurate, condemn her on both counts.

By the way - well said, remind, in your letter. Let's hope someone over there still hears the voice of women louder than the jingle of loonies.

Um, I believe the original post to which I was responding described her as "basically theatening NGOs with cuts to their funding".  I don't agree with that characterization.

I must also add my voice about Nancy Ruth.  She may be a Conservative, but she is not in the least anti-choice.  She was a formidible pro-choice activist back in the day and she still is.  In fact, she just matched $7,500 in funds for the Canadians for Choice Norma Scarborough Fund, which helps women in communities where there is no access to abortion to pay to travel somewhere that they can access it.

I don't agree with her strategy, and I don't like the Conservative party, but she's no anti-choice Conservative, and I don't believe for a moment that she was making a threat with that statement.  I think she said it out of concern for what might happen, not as a threat that she's going to help make it happen.  In other words, she doesn't WANT that to happen.

Pro-choice women need to organize everywhere, not just on the left.  That's why the battle to strike down the abortion law succeeded in the 80's.  It wouldn't have, without a broad cross-partisan movement.

Who said she was anti-choice?

What straw man is being slain here?

Why can't we talk about whether "shut the f*** up" is appropriate advice to give to NGOs who are concerned about Harper's conditions on aid?

Why does this have to be about her, and why should N.Beltov or anyone else mitigate their criticism because she gives money to women in need - or for any other reason relating to her personal life?

I am painfully reminded of some other recent threads where another politician publicly condemned certain activists - and those who questioned her actions were promptly demonized (especially by Dr. Canine or some such name, can't recall exactly) because the politician in question was such a wonderful progressive person, second only to (if memory serves) Mother Teresa in virtue and honour.

I didn't "demonize" anyone.  N. Beltov said that Nancy Ruth should be "publicly exposed" and "denounced" and claimed that she was threatening pro-choicers if they didn't toe the Conservative anti-choice line.

I disagreed with that, and said that there's no doubt that she's pro-choice and that I don't think she would threaten pro-choice activists or support anti-choice Conservatives on this issue.

Nobody's stopping you from talking about anything, Unionist, and no one is demonizing you or anyone else.  I am simply offering my contribution to the discussion as well.  Is that okay with you?

Geez, Michelle, chill out please. I'll say it one more time. If someone tells activists to "shut the fuck up, otherwise the bad guys will get mad and things will get worse", that person's actions should indeed be denounced from the rooftops - no matter who that person is or what they have done - unless, of course, they say: "Oh, sorry, never meant that, I misspoke, you misunderstood, I think people should indeed fight back".

And I never accused you of demonizing me or anyone. My comparison was simply this: Being an all-round wonderful activist and noble historical figure does not give you a pass to tell activists to shut up. Ruth did that, and so did the other character whom I won't name.

Yes, Michelle, we've already had this same discussion in a different context. You said about that other person who condemned pro-Palestinian activists and refused to apologize:

I replied:

I asked you if Bev Desjarlais should be written off because of her position on just one issue.

You said:

Now we're up against the same problem again.

Yeah, and once again I don't have the energy.  I'm finding I have less and less energy for this sort of thing. 

from Michelle's link, above:

I think there's a major difference between what Di Novo did and Nancy Ruth's statement yesterday. Di Novo took a position on an issue -- actually, if you add in those Facebook exchanges, she took positions of substance on several issues. Speaking only for myself, I'd have to disagree with every position of substance she took, and I'd observe moreover that during the Facebook exchange she was expressing open hostility to some left activists, notably feminists (and on that score she was factually wrong).

Nancy Ruth spoke of nothing except tactics, and she wasn't expressing hostility to the activists she spoke to. We know she's a rock on all women's and LGBT issues -- except yes, I agree that tactics are never entirely divorced from convictions or substance. For most feminists, backing down from a bully is more than a questionable tactic; it's a real issue. If that's how we interpret her warning, then yes, I disagree with her.

But maybe that's not exactly how she was thinking of her warning. She's an insider; as she said, she sits in caucus and she knows what Steve might be prepared to do. That doesn't really make a difference to me -- it's no newsflash to me that Harper is pissy and vengeful. She seems to have thought, though, that it was worth signalling to us that things are worse than we think. I still don't see why that should shut us up, but I'm glad public attention has been caught. For once, it's not just committed lefties and feminists who are wandering around wondering "What did she mean? What can it mean?"

"When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak." — Audre Lorde

So the Liberals want to treat this crisis (that they helped to create) as a fundraising opportunity for themselves:

Liberals hope to profit from Tory profanity on abortion

Apparently, the Liberal opposition party did not realize  either, it was they, in part, who the charities allege they were targeting with their "shut up and stop being divisive" complying to bullying commentary.

Funny...how the only ones who "knew" that that is what they were doing were the charities, after the fact of course though.

Really, there is many facets, I believe to Harper doing this shit. At this point in time.

~

Thanks unionist

It's not the first time feminists have been told to "shut the fuck up." If we had listened women would still be in the kitchen

"Some women in this discussion express a fear that abortion could become an election issue.  Harper knows as well as I do that the vast majority of Canadians are pro-choice.  If abortion is an election issue, he will lose the election.  So to that I say, bring it on." — Judy Rebick

"... since coming to work at Oxfam, I've discovered that he did this entirely without consultation with groups who are providing these services. And that the status quo about funding for abortion/contraception was basically don't-ask-don't-tell, which is apologist bullshit for sure, but it was also the best we were going to get with this government. It was an issue that was off of the radar. What Ignatieff did was shine a spotlight on this stuff and put a lot of groups funding in jeopardy. Which literally puts the lives of majority world women in jeopardy." — Audra Williams

Belinda Stronach: Shut Up!

Susan Delacourt confirms Liberals' inept opportunism:

Shutting up — or not: And one more note about shutting up -- the Liberals' status of women critic, Anita Neville, was initially quite charitable about Senator Ruth's intervention at the aid-experts' meeting yesterday. She was in the room and prefaced her remarks about her fondness for Nancy Ruth. But by late in the day, Neville was quoted in a Liberal news release [78] condemning the "bullying."  Why the change of heart? I'm discouraged to report that it's because the Liberals saw a chance to score some points, even if it meant twisting Neville's more nuanced understanding of what happened yesterday.

Excellent - thanks for posting!

The most disturbing part (IMHO) of Ruth's comments are not the "profanity", but rather this portion from the audio clip in the Star story originally quoted by Michelle:

Yeah, as I stated way up in this thread, I can't support the notion that we should hush up because it only affects incredibly poor women in other countries. Unless someone participating in this thread states otherwise, I'm assuming anyone who is pro-choice and posting here would agree. This is bad politics. And plain old bad, morally. Here's another good link:

Ottawa to refuse abortion funding? Not in my name — Judith Timson

Quite the article by Ms Stronach, where is a puking icon when you need one?

"the gift of generations" my ass....WTF!

Ms. Stronach has smelled the coffee. Watch for her to cross the floor again.

Astonishingly wealthy people have so much to say about us regular folk shutting up when it comes to the fate of the extremely poor. Only millionaires can truly understand the plight of the impoverished, it seems.

It's true. I haven't flown to Africa and held a malaria net in my own manicured hands on that soil. In fact, I haven't flown anywhere for a long time. Nor have I ever had a manicure.

Even beyond the actual issue, their position is reprehensible in that it gives cover to thuggery and political intimidation on the part of the government. Indeed, the fact they probably knowingly do this for financial gain and to keep on the right side of this government, shows them to be opportunistic enablers of quasi-fascist behaviour on the part of the government. STFU indeed -- I mean if that's a warning to keep quiet, keep your head down, don't cause trouble, then it reveals all we need to know and already know about where this government is heading and the character of those enabling this goosestep march to authoritarianism.

Yeah, writer, I was kind of thinking that $7500 to Nancy Ruth (Jackman) must be sort of like $7.50 to you and me.

But I don't hold people's family fortunes against them, as long as they take good stands on issues of principle at the right time and place. Today - at this moment in time - and in this country of ours - anyone who suggests that Harper is doing a good thing for the women of the world, and we mustn't fuck it up for fear of ruining the good thing we've got going in Canada, has to be questioned - from the rooftops, as N.Beltov so graphically suggested.

Belinda Stronach was instrumental in "uniting the right" [88]* to create what we now know as the Conservative Party of Canada. I'm still waiting for a public apology. Until that happens perhaps she could take her own advice.

* That was my first ever blog post. I knew it would come in handy one day.

And Kady O'Malley from CBC takes it in a whole new direction. 

ETA from O'Malley:

Laugh? Cry? Laugh? Cry? I don't know. It's so hard to choose!

Women's aid group loses federal funding

A letter received by Antonia over at B&R. Nice exposure of Senator Ruth's privilege and complacency:

Harper should fire her if that's even possible. Foul mouthed politicians aren't fit to hold office. We need representatives who can muster a degree of civility.

Salty language doesn't bother me so much as the message telling women's groups to 'shut up' on the topic of abortion or risk having funding chopped. Screw civility, I want to see screams of outrage from the Opposition over this matter. I want to see angry protests on the Hill protesting the chopping of womens programs.

If protestors want to carry on like baboons, thats fine. Our elected representatives though need act in a civil manner.

The only ones behaving like baboons as far as I have seen over the last decade, are CONservativ.

3 [Ontario] NDP MPPs protest Harper government's women's health plans

(... One of the three happens to be the party's leader.)

Let's see more of this. Across the country.

[... One of these things looks just like the other, one of these things is just the same ...]

Having read the letter in the OP, I am reminded of Make Poverty History, and any number of lofty goals that are put forward with great fanfare by NGOs and signed into 'statements" by smarmy politicians before being quickly forgotten.

The NGOs that signed the above statement don't tell us what it is these women, and their children, are dying from that takes only dimes. But we know what they are dying from: lack of health care, lack of food, lack of clean water, treatable disease, war, violence, drought, displacement, ecological degradation.

But, in fact, we have the food, the medicine, the doctors, the technology, to house, feed, treat, and give these women and their children lives with dignity. The problem is these women don't have the money to pay for it. In terms of displacement, Colombia sports the largest internally displaced population in the world except, possibly, for Iraq. And that displacement is caused, in part, by Canadian mining companies and other global corporations supported by a murderous regime the Harperites, and the Liberals, wish to reward with "free trade". In terms of drought, violence, and war, our country not only refuses to act on climate change, the Harperites worked tirelessly to ensure Copenhagen would be a failure.

Harperism is ideologically opposed to assisting the poor and are ideological proponents of the global system of exploitation that uproots people from their homes and rapes their land.

Let us understand clearly why Harper put the issue of women's health on the agenda: The cynical, hateful, small minded fuckers who advise him believed it would be a means for Harper, without much controversy, to garner support among women while actually delivering sweet fuck all. It is nothing more than a cynical political maneuver that backfired because Conservative contempt for women and women's issues just can't be concealed.

The NGOs who wrote that letter, I suspect, did so because they think the money cut from organizations actually devoted to women's health may be directed to padding their administrative accounts if they just nose up to the Harperites and lick their toes.

Disgusting.

What does get funding under Harper:

Chakam School of the Bible Inc.: $357,146
Wycliffe Bible Translators: $495,600
Spinach Based Cosmetics: $281,586
Horse Canada Magazine: $24,920
4 Wheel Drive Magazine: $21,070
Ontario Golf Magazine: $26,070
Wine Access Magazine: $34,390
Twitter Campaign to promote seal hunt: $50,000—$100,000

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05/liberals-circulate-interesting-government-funding-list.html

Spinach make-up?! Cosmeceuticals!

And the Ottawa Senators, of course.

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2714072

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/bvf_eugene-melnyk-divests... [101]

http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/eng/media-room/news-releases/2009/06/2015.html [102]

These AID organisations have turned their backs on their brother and sister aid organisations (organisations that advocate for changes in policy, or organisations that are pro-choice), and may well garner their funding.

While I think that these orgs have a great many people of good will, its possible to see this as a very nasty piece of business.

The current government's strategy of the politics of division strike again.

Someone wrote earlier that there was a feeling of a wife speaking to children, telling them to STFP or the husband would come and *really* kick the shit out of them.  The desperate complicity of a mother to an abusive husband.  A dreadful analogy, and it seems terrible that Nancy Ruth has to be the mouthpiece for Harper's politics.  Are all the MPs in Harper's cabinet really so terrified of him?  Can none of them take a principled stance in their own party?

Re, Belinda Stronach et al article on how 'this is our chance to help'.
If you really wanted to help then you wouldn't gut the funding of organisations like KAIROS and Match who have been doing maternal and child health for more than thirty years.  It's absolute nonsense.

McTeer accuses Tories of putting women's lives at risk

I'd really like to know what others think of this: Shut the Fuck Up - The Prequel [106]

Please see update in Post #73 which corrects the record (and some incorrect info I provided). 

Nancy Ruth and "Backlash"

Nancy Ruth, who willingly joined Harper's Conservative Senate Caucas in 2006, is "warning-not-threatening" there will be a "backlash" by her Reformist Government if citizens do not "shut the F*** up". 
Aside from the obvious observation that: "with "feminists" like Ruth, who needs Harper theocons", the use of the word "backlash" is telling.
Ruth's demand for citizens silence from democratic dissent or else her party will flex its power to punish women further (that is the only meaning for "backlash" in this context) is outrageous but certainly not out of character with this government.
Ruth, of course, is not in the position to make  unauthorized "warning" statements on behalf of her party but  she has certainly captured its mentality.

Here is some comment on "backlash" from Wikipedia which seems appropriate:

 

Edited to Add:

Another "radical" group that must be warned to "Shut the F... Up"

Two in particular Geurgis and Ruth. Foul language reflects on one's upbringing or lack thereof.

No it doesn't.  That's ridiculous.

Michelle addressed the nonsensical nature of your "upbringing" comment. But I will address the shitty sexism part of it.

As it is nice and sexist of you to try and indicate such, and ignoring the herds of male CONservative MP's, and the 2 women mentioned come no where near John Baird, Gary Goodyear, Jason Kenney, or even Steven Fletcher.

Nor, Maxime Bernier, or Peter Mackay.

The ability of CONservatives to lie to themselves and others amazes me usually, but lately I am more than a bit sick of it

In addition to the general ability of politicians to lie, this lying also flows directly from the Straussian ideology shared by Harper and his closest henchmen. Lying is noble. Lying is necessary - especially to ordinary people and "the rabble" - and so on.

I'm not kidding. This is what they believe.

I've been thinking to myself that conservatism has embraced the role held by the Catholic Church in the dark ages.

What's ridiculous. If children are brought up to be polite and civil and not use foul language in everyday discourse, they are not likely to  become adult potty mouths either.

Tell my poor father that.  :D

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/safe-abortion/sign.html#se

I hope I'm one of the earlier signatures - not so many thus far.

bump

Before this thread closes:

Abortion: Don't ask, don't tell - Aid groups ‘dare not talk about it' for fear of cuts from Conservative government, one official says

And that is what they ALL should be talking about, as opposed to letting a dictator dictate in a democracy....but perhaps they are awatre that the media is complicit and wonèt cover them properly....

All depends on what they feel most important. The funds they use, or the principle. Personally I'd go for principle and scream loud and long but not everyone feels they can

Canadians reject PM's abortion stand: poll

Sun May 16, 1:24 PM

By Heather Scoffield, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper's much-vaunted maternal health initiative that was meant to galvanize next month's G8 summit is now causing some queasiness — among Canadians and internationally.

quote:
The Canadian Press-Harris Decima poll found that 58 per cent of respondents oppose Harper's exclusion of abortion funding in his drive to improve maternal and child health in poor countries.

That's up from about 46 per cent in March, when a similar question about aid for abortion access was asked. The increase suggests people are taking their time to think through the complex pros and cons before making up their minds, said Megan Tam, vice-president at Harris-Decima.

"It appears that the general sentiment of most Canadians is to have a maternal health policy that includes funding for abortion," she said.....

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100516/national/abortion_aid

It's quite shocking the "silencing" that's being attempted.  Or not...

Please don't interpret this as drift... but I think one of the reasons some outside of Quebec are "cool" towards the idea of separation is the fear of the loss of the voice of reason that comes out of Quebec. Well done, well done, well done.

One of the criticisms I've seen levelled against World Vision in the past is that by meeting the needs of the poor and compensating for the state's deficit in development the status quo is maintained - in a sense 'pacifying' the people from rebelling against the state. Governments know this, and encourage NGOs like World Vision to engage in their countries.

PS to the mods:  I have a slow dialup (48 kbps) connection, and this page only took a few seconds to load. Maybe let it continue a bit?

I get your reasoning Boom Boom, but I think it is a much easier sell so long as it is other people who are starving, suffering and dying.

On the other hand, I guess we could shut down all the food banks, close the shelters and see how that plays out here, eh?  

(edit)

Then again, maybe World Vision (and others) are  filling a need that government simply can't address.  Nevertheless, I'd still prefer to donate to OXFAM or PWRDF if I had the resources to donate. They have much less administrative and other overhead, so I'm told.

I have my own problems with World Vision too - specifically the fact that it is an evangelical organization, and as such I highly doubt that one of the important needs - birth control and access to abortion - is high on its list. And of course there is the prosletyzing, and the social and political messages that probably won't be too good for those communities in the long run.

But I don't object to feeding people and relieving suffering, certainly not because of the idea that it might slow down the revolution.

World Vision is extremely conservative and right wing and they are political - go back to the OP and those that follow. If I was in charge of a country's relief effort, I'd ban World Vision (and other-like minded groups) completely and instead bring in OXFAM and other agencies.

Sounds good, BB. We'll let it run a bit longer--let us know when the lag kicks in. Or just start a new one yourself.