National Association of Women and the Law forced to close office

Is there any chance an opposition member can bring a bill to resolve this situation?

This is an essential organization fundamental to the democratic progress of our country.

It's appalling to see the ongoing effects of the cuts to Status of Women funding. The Conservatives' actions on this front are despicable.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2007/200709/20070920.html]This story was on The Current today[/url], which featured interviews with Pamela Cross, Josйe Verner, the Heritage minister, and of course REAL Women, who have been aggressively lobbying against Status of Women.

The interview with the REAL Women rep made my blood boil, though it had its strong moments with a skeptical Anna Maria Tremonti. There was one point when the REAL rep complained that NAWL is a "handful of women lawyers" who do not represent women but are pushing an agenda that most women don't identify with, and Anna Maria countered that with "Are you saying that women can’t identify with pay equity, maternity leave, parental leave?" That was awesome.

quote:

---

The interview with the REAL Women rep made my blood boil, though it had its strong moments with a skeptical Anna Maria Tremonti. There was one point when the REAL rep complained that NAWL is a "handful of women lawyers" who do not represent women but are pushing an agenda that most women don't identify with, and Anna Maria countered that with "Are you saying that women can’t identify with pay equity, maternity leave, parental leave?" That was awesome.[/QB]

---

Me too .. I loved Anna Maria's counter!!!
That Real Women rep seemed to be stuck in a time warp. and did not seem to fundamentally understand what equity was, or that it was the govt's mandate to ensure everyone was treated equitably.

I agree that Anna Maria was great.

The REAL Woman was, of course, Gwen Landolt, who was almost inarticulate in her indignation and who pretty much implied that women choose to be unequal and that being paid less than men is part of the natural order. She called all the information around pay equity a well-known "feminist myth."

That is a really good and important catch, SGM.

Well, Moveguy's time here was short wasn't it?

Why do they have to close?

quote:

---

If women, feminist women, have fallen silent, it is not because a handful of worthy organizations fighting for their rights is now being denied federal funding. It is because of widespread complacency, a sense that the battles have been won, that women no longer need special advocacy. It is because feminist ideas -- if not the still-radioactive label -- have become mainstream. The prime minister may be exploiting that complacency, but he didn't, alone, create it.

---

[url=http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=9e88bfb9-17... Citizen[/url]

So,if you are outraged rather than complacent,as soon as you are finished raging at Steve,send NAWL a hundred bucks.

The funding is only a lousy $300k. that is a mere 3,000 people donating a hundred each. While I understand Ms. Cross's point that most women are marginalised economically,there must be at least 3,000 progressives in Canada with a good income stream.

Why is it that as soon as government funding is cut,progressive organisations throw in the towel and quit? If NAWL is truly representative of women,they shouldn't have any problem raising at the least,$300k from both genders.

So,quitcherbellyachin and send money! Not only will you get that warm and fuzzy feeling of doing good but you also share in the frission of delight at shoving Steve's nose in his own creation. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

$100 loonies each thats $101 in US monopoly money. Today! Quit whining and cough up.

You and jester bring up an interesting point.

I've heard some feminists say that things were actually better when they did their own grassroots collective organizing and funding of various feminist organizations, because then they couldn't have the rug pulled out from under them.

The other side of that argument, however, is that there is no reason why feminist organizations SHOULDN'T get government funding - it's our money too, and we should have a say in how it's spent, and get our share.

I waffle between the two points of view.

Sure,sure everyone and their dog are entitled to government funding. I'm sure the National Association for Wakeboarding Professionals has a legitimate claim on the public purse and the fact of the matter is that appeasing ALL these special interests is a lesser dollar value than the vintage wine bill at Foreign Affairs but we are not debating the legitimacy of special interest claims.

This has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with politics. While cutting funding that they consider ideologically driven,the CPC also INCREASES funding to women's groups and arts. They can legitimately claim to be responsive to a women's agenda politically while simultaniously grinding down the will of NAWL.

The funding amount is a pittance but it has the exponential ability to sow defeatism in a group that always has to persevere against the tide.

I know a lot about perseverance. One thing I've learned is that no one else will pick up your cudgel and walk in your moccasins if you don't have the jam to do so yourself.

If you want government funding,fight for it.

Living off the government is an option, but it shouldn't be the first, especially for such a mainstream group. I used to work for such an NGO, and of course we were always backing off this or that because it might disturb our funders.

The idea that a women's group must fold for lack of what amounts to a year's salary for thousands of people is...well, revealing. Organisations can just get too old --

I don't think that's what boarsbreath was saying...I think s/he (sorry, didn't check before starting this post!) was responding to the choice of basing your budget on government funding or trying to raise money from the grassroots to fund it.

I still waffle between the two. But I've gotta tell you, having seen the nitty-gritty of trying to raise funding from individual donors and progressive organizations for progressive causes, I know what a grind it can be, and what a full-time job that is in itself. So it's hard to blame feminist organizations for fighting for a share of tax money instead.

I meant that if any "Non-Governmental" Organisation could be expected to manage without money from the government, it would be one whose cause was as general as this one and which represented lawyers. 300 donations of a thousand bucks and there's the funding. $1000 is a lot to expect from many people, but not from lawyers, I think.

I [i]don't[/i] mean the common rant about government teats, because Michelle's right, scrounging for dollars donor by donor is a major distraction. And I agree with what I take to be Martin's point, that the generality of NAWL's cause is precisely why they deserve public money. (It's hard to see 'women's issues' as a special interest; half of my ancestors were female!)

And finally, I must, for internal coherence, agree that old ain't necessarily decrepit. NAWL's a lot less old than I am. But you know what I mean...voluntary organisations can lose their steam, get caught up in careers or personal issues, and generally fade. The problem with government funding is that it doesn't depend on the organisation actually furthering its cause.

So maybe NAWL got too effective, so got harperooned. But why wouldn't there be enough progressive lawyers who can spare a couple of hundred dollars? They probably deserve funding, but why do they, of all NGOs, [i]need[/i] public money? (And perhaps gratuitously, I toss in my bit that really, given the wealth of their constituency, they should on principle try to be non-governmental.)

Yeah, eh? The famous Western treadmill? You'd know better than I -- I haven't lived in Canada for ten years, and I have precisely one lawyer friend actually in practice. (And my $40G or so is a fine income here in the Pacific.)

OK; point taken.