Navigation

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Affiliates

  • Progressive Bloggers
  • Add to Technorati Favorites
  • Blogging Canadians
  • VLWC Conspirator
  • BANPC
  • Blog Directory - Blogged

Statistics

Blog powered by TypePad

« The post-election hiatus is almost over | Main | Alberta: Come for the job, stay for the... tailings ponds? »

March 08, 2008

This Just In: Feds DO care about women

...as long as they know how to wield a hammer. Or something like that.  On behalf of the federal government, Rona Ambrose announced friday that $1.39 million will be invested into Women Building Futures.  WBF is a not-for-profit training program that trains women in trade work.  Here is the mandate of this organization:

  • Attract more women into the construction trades;
  • Provide trades training that meets the needs of women and the industry;
  • Provide mentorship and long-term support for women entering and in the trades;
  • Examine and address systemic barriers to the recruitment, training and retention of women entering and in trades;
  • Increase the number of tradeswomen instructors and mentors.

This sincere and commendable move by the feds come close on the heels of one heinous "we hate women" bill that recently passed second reading in the House.  On Wednesday, the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" (Bill c-484) passed with flying colours when almost all Conservatives and a strong showing of Liberals stood in favour of it--including above mentioned 'pro-woman' Rona Ambrose.

Bill C-484 was introduced by local fan fave Ken Epp (and by local fan fave, I mean bland Tory backbencher from Edmonton-Sherwood Park), and is designed to double penalize people who assault pregnant women and in doing so, kill the fetus.  Essentially, if a fetus dies during the assault or murder of the pregnant woman, the assaulter is charged with two counts of assault.  Sounds okay, right? So what's the problem?

What pro-choice activists are arguing, is that this bill reintroduces fetal personhood thereby opening up the door for the anti-choicers to mount a legal challenge.  You see, once 'personhood' rights have been established, it becomes the first step in a legal and moral strategy which pits the rights of the 'fetus' against the rights of the 'woman'.  Since the fetus is inherently 'innocent' and the woman 'should have known better' it ultimately ends with the rights of the fetus trumping the rights of the women, thereby forcing her to continue through with her unwanted pregnancy and bear the child.  This is obviously a huge problem for the reproductive rights and bodily integrity of women in the country.  Now, Ken Epp and other defenders of this bill are arguing that it does not infringe on a women's right to access abortion, citing the fact that a person can only be charged for assaulting a fetus when the mother had been assaulted at the same time.  However, they are missing (zealously concealing) the point.  Bringing fetal rights into Canadian jurisprudence and law establishes a legal recognition of the fetus.  This interestingly brings it into conflict with the Criminal Code which expressly states that a person only becomes a person once it has left the birth canal.

Among the many ironies, 2008 is the 20th Anniversary for the Morgentaler Decision in Canada--the watershed court case that de-criminalized abortion, allowing it to become legal.  In another royal kick in the skirt, our fearless opposition leader, Stephane Dion, was missing from the vote that day because he was...wait for it... attending a party for International Women's Day.  The Bloc and the NDP all whipped their parties to vote against it.  And, on a twisted upnote, Josee Verner, the Minister for Women's Affairs, voted against the bill, too. Perhaps a silver lining? Who knows. We will keep you updated for the third and final reading.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2865634/26899836

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference This Just In: Feds DO care about women:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks for this post LV. I've been trying to wrap my head around the implications of Bill C-484 for weeks.

Hey LV - there's a good column on this bill with a list of the MPs who voted for and against at thestar.com

http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/

I'm glad someone else understands the painful irony of not only Dion's "ironic" absence from the vote but Josee Verner's blatant kick in the ass to womyn's rights.

As someone who hum... might... work.. in her department, I *may* be able to argue that she really could care less about the Status portfolio. If that wasn't obvious already, it sure was nice of her to point it out so clearly.

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In