Jump to navigation
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.....
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?
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.
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?
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.
Quote: 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?
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.