back in october a few here decided to be a part of a anti-human rights protest
Reject a 2 sided framing of women's rights!
Fri, 2014-11-21 12:10
#1
Reject a 2 sided framing of women's rights!
Fri, 2014-11-21 12:27
#2
More to follow?
Fri, 2014-11-21 12:27
#3
my mom got right uppity about the "chain of life" demonstration and framed the reality in an alternate and truthful way. i think we all need to reject the 2 sided frame being imposed on us and say it how it is, anti-human rights!!! reason why starting this now is terry towels and my comments here and i don't want to derail the thread.
my mom's article in the local paper:
Human Rights: Do you want to live in a Canada without them?My immediate response to this question is of course “no” and I believe the majority of Canadians would respond the same.
Human Rights simply put means ‘equality, justice and freedoms for all’ and I believe we all can agree we have the right to be free from discrimination and discriminating behaviour.The fundamental truth to rights and freedoms is that no person shall be discriminated against for any reason and 32 years ago, in 1982, the Canadian government recognizing this truth brought into being the “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” and set out the ground rules for all. The Charter basically states no one has the right to discriminate against another based on; whether you are male or female, the colour of your skin, your type of religious or spiritual beliefs, your sexual orientation, any physical or mental disabilities, what age you are, where you or your ancestors come from originally, or the language you speak, what body type you are, and numerous other points of being. The Charter also contains the truth of the human right to life, liberty and security of person.
In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada Justices ruled that the criminal laws which had governed women’s reproduction were against women’s human rights and struck them down. Their reasoning was based on the human rights of; liberty, fundamental justice, security of person and the right of freedom of conscience. Further in 1989, because some did not believe that women were equal and were thus entitled to equality rights, they challenged women’s rights in the judicial system. The end result was that the Supreme Court Justices ruled that there was no other persons, or non-persons, rights involved in the reproductive equation, nor would there ever be, a woman has the right to control her own body, full stop. They determined there is no “we” in pregnancy, a woman bears all the physical and mental consequences, not society, nor the male in the equation. They also determined a woman is entitled to security of person without the fear of discrimination or discriminatory actions when exercising their rights to have self-dominion.
The Justice’s position was based on the long standing legal principle that “a person may not (cannot) be compelled to use his or her body at the service of another, even if the other person’s life is in danger”. This legal principal prevents slavery, conscription into war and now women’s rights to self-determine their life, liberty and security of person.Contrary to what some would have you believe there is not 2 sides to women’s reproductive Rights. There is 1 side only and that 1 side is a woman’s human right to have dominion over herself and the right to be free from discrimination when she exercises self-dominion.
Canadians would not tolerate people demonstrating for; the right to be racist, the right to oppress differing peoples or religious beliefs, the right to be a slave owner, the right of governments to take our children without their consent to be a part of the war machine, or the right to throw someone in jail based upon sexual orientation.
The question we should ask ourselves is:
Why are we tolerating people demonstrating and advertising for a right to take women’s human rights away from them?
It is not a positive thing in this community, nor any other, no matter what some people may try to say.
Fri, 2014-11-21 20:59
#4
Nice job. Now, if only she would come back and say those things here. :)
Fri, 2014-11-21 23:14
#5
Yeah, I'd kinda love to see her come back here!
Sat, 2014-11-22 03:51
#6
We know why they get away with it:
religion, and it's a womens issue, debated and decided by primarily men.
Were it not for the close ties between extremist religious fanatics, mainstream religious groups and people in power, abortion probably wouldn't even be an issue.
and if the religious men really believed their own BS, they'd stop masturbating.
Wed, 2014-11-26 03:54
#7
RevolutionPlease
They get away with it because men wont speak up. I'll speak up, I stopped masturbating, it's fun to wait. I'm not religious. We NEED WOMEN to speak up. Do I need to ask my female friends to speak up here? I'm messed up, I think there's women with more coherent thought than I to contribute? YES?
I can get my sister to join here, what help is that? C'mon women, tell us why you're so scarred? Sorry for my bluntness, but if women can't feel like they can post here it aint dude's fault, it's the moderators, do your job or ask someone to step in, dont pretend this is the place you built.
Wed, 2014-11-26 18:16
#8
i thought mom was off base for rejecting vocally evangelical and catholic religions now i'm taking a 0 tolerance attitude towards them and their filthy anti-humaqn rights bs.
Wed, 2014-11-26 20:07
#9
Quizzical - seriously, say hi to your mom for me and tell her she is missed here! Hope she's doing well!
Wed, 2014-11-26 23:31
#10
They get away with it because men wont speak up. I'll speak up, I stopped masturbating, it's fun to wait. I'm not religious. We NEED WOMEN to speak up. Do I need to ask my female friends to speak up here? I'm messed up, I think there's women with more coherent thought than I to contribute? YES?
I can get my sister to join here, what help is that? C'mon women, tell us why you're so scarred? Sorry for my bluntness, but if women can't feel like they can post here it aint dude's fault, it's the moderators, do your job or ask someone to step in, dont pretend this is the place you built.
I haven't been here long enough to know for sure but I suspect it has to do with the predominant attitude that porn/prostitution= sex positivity and anyone who disagrees is an oppressor.
While there are certainly some feminists who would agree with that I think most feminists and women in general still agree that porn and prostitution do not empower women in general even if some individual women find it personally empowering. That does not necessarily mean that they agree with legal remedies, only that they see those activities as damaging to women and contributing to objectification. (no I didn't take a survey)
I know that I find it quite discouraging to see prostitution and porn presented as positive career choices for women. Unsurprisingly most men seem to support that perception. Men feel justified because they are agreeing with some women but when it is mostly men posting it heavily skews discussion.
I've been saving this link http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/michael-laxer/jian-ghomeshi-_b_6135598.html because I wanted to post it and have a discussion but I haven't done so because I cannot face the arguments that porn and prostitution are not part of rape culture or that rape culture doesn't exist or that Canada is different.
Call me judgemental but that isn't progressive and you will find few women that think porn and prostitution are a good thing.
Anti-feminists who claim to be feminists are defended here. It's the equivalent of arguing with climate change deniers.
Progressive men want progressive women to join them but too many don't want to join progressive women. Like gamers, they want us around, but not if we make them uncomfortable.
I'm not afraid to post here. I just don't consider it a good feminist forum. Someone suggested changing the name to "women's issues" a while back. I didn't respond but I kind of agree. Having a woman only thread within the feminist forum became a debate. Since then I have felt very ambiguous about posting in this forum. I have done so a few times but I generally don't find it rewarding. I don't want to participate in ugly battles over feminism dominated by men.
Thu, 2014-11-27 13:41
#11
susan davis
surprise that once again, women's self determination and dominion over their own bodies is supported in the context of reproductive rights but not in the context of sex work.
its ok to take away the rights of sex workers because some women feel sex work is a bad thing...this is why i do not post here very often either, i am tired of the double standard. why are only the rights of some women important?
what does ghomeshi have to do with sex work? is that our fault too?
i don't appreciate how its framed that every challenge faced by women is some how related to sex work or caused by sex work. it isn't fair and isn't true, we deserve the right to dominion over our own bodies as well.
don't we?
Thu, 2014-11-27 16:24
#12
its ok to take away the rights of sex workers because some women feel sex work is a bad thing...this is why i do not post here very often either, i am tired of the double standard. why are only the rights of some women important?
I specifically excluded supporting legal remedies against it as that is not what I am referring to. I am not promoting any kind of laws.
I am speaking solely from the perspective of understanding objectification and the negative impacts of porn and prostitution on society and on women as a class.
Fri, 2014-11-28 14:10
#13
huh...how about you people keep prostitution outta this thread
unionist will say hi to mom for you, she can't help if she's missed here though, it wasn't her choice to leave!!!!!!
Fri, 2014-11-28 14:18
#14
huh...how about you people keep prostitution outta this thread
unionist will say hi to mom for you, she can't help if she's missed here though, it wasn't her choice to leave!!!!!!
Sorry, I was just answering the question as to why more women were not posting here.
I believe Catchfire said he's willing to give amnesty to people who want to return.
Fri, 2014-11-28 14:41
#15
i don't know if she wants too, she barely gave me permission to post her letter to the editor here.
Mon, 2014-12-08 06:52
#16
Am I the only one who has no idea what this thread is about?
Perhaps someone could provide me with some clearity?
Mon, 2014-12-08 13:51
#17
the point is the anti-human rights abuses the 'pro-lifers' stand for, and some in society let them when they would actively stop other anti-human rights actions.