Take Your Foul Postcards and Go Home, It's Over

There is plenty to say about the brand-spanking-new Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

But for now, I want to focus on one exhibit, entitled "The Safety of Women."

The default position of the museum is stridently progressive. That factor alone will lead many to conclude it is biased and ignores the sentiments of many Canadians.

For example, in one gallery visitors will view videos depicting forceful pro-life and pro-choice arguments. The videos appear on screens above a circular table with digital tablets that allow visitors, upon completion of the videos, to vote on the issue -- for or against.

It's all fair save for the fact the subject of that exhibit is called The Safety of Women. It is a reference to the 1988 Supreme Court decision that found using the Criminal Code to deny a woman's access to safe abortion services violates her rights to "security of the person" under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The exhibit is factually accurate, and unfailingly fair. Having said that, the title of the exhibit leaves no doubt the museum is celebrating the SCOC decision as a victory for human rights. That alone will be viewed as offensive by those who condemn abortion.

Let's repeat that, shall we? "[T]he museum is celebrating the SCOC decision as a victory for human rights."

A new museum funded in large part by the Canadian Harper government celebrates abortion rights.

Oh, and look at this.

Once the CMHR is open, the operating budget will be provided by the government of Canada, as the CMHR is a national museum. The estimated operating costs to the federal government are $22 million annually.

Yep, that's right, fetus freaks. Your tax dollars will continue to be handed over by your friends the Harper Government to CELEBRATE abortion rights.

It's all over. The fetus freaks have lost. Decisively.

And while all things ain't hunky dory in Lawless Abortion Land, there is clearly no going back now.

Even the Harper Conservatives, so willing to meddle in areas outside their jurisdiction or remit, dare not mess with this museum exhibit.

Because it is the only fitting accompaniment to the life-work of a true hero, Dr. Morgentaler.

Whose life-work is now properly commemorated for all time. At taxpayer expense.


Image source.

"New" New Democrats: Ambition over Principles

You gotta wonder: WTF is up with the NDP?

There's this recent genius move from Niki Ashton, a motion for the House to "formally affirm" a woman's right to choose abortion.

Unlike the Woodworth gambit — which was ultimately defeated despite garnering the support of just over half the government caucus, including a half-dozen senior cabinet ministers — Ashton's motion could easily be interpreted as a criticism of current government policy, which would make even the most stridently pro-choice Conservative MP pause before giving a thumbs-up.

Such an outcome would almost certainly provide a major boost to the morale of the anti-abortion movement, which, despite taking centre stage briefly during the Woodworth and Warawa debates, has had little to no success in forcing the issue back onto the floor of the House of Commons.

That flagging political relevancy was apparent during last week's March for Life. According to police estimates, the annual Hill rally attracted just over 8,000 activists in 2014, which would put it at as little as half the RCMP estimate for the previous year, when Warawa's gender selection motion was still in play. Even the 23,000 claimed by march organizers was lower than their 2013 estimate of 25,000.

After formally affirming for years that abortion is a settled matter not open for debate, the NDP decides to take a swipe at the Liberals, kinda overlooking what ammo such a move serves up to fetus fetishists.

Well, we shouldn't be surprised. This isn't the first time the NDP has seen an opportunity to poke the Liberals by turning women's rights into a political football.

A couple of days later, the NDP brain-trust got a grip and decided to nix opening the abortion debate in favour of whinging about CBC funding cuts.

OK, then.

But here's Chantal Hébert's take (bold mine).

On the heels of Trudeau’s announcement that future Liberal candidates will have to toe the party’s pro-choice line on abortion, the NDP is seizing the House with a motion to force MPs to pronounce on abortion rights.

Since Trudeau is actually shoring up the pro-choice line in Parliament and not threatening to drive a tank through it, the only rationale for the NDP move is to sow embarrassment and division in the Liberal caucus.

A handful of its existing members are anything but pro-choice.

Not since Gilles Duceppe ended up having to take yes for an answer to his challenge to the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a nation has an opposition party come up with as bad of a good idea.

The NDP has argued for years that the debate over abortion rights was closed, maintaining with admirable consistency that Parliament should not interfere in the reproductive choices of Canadian women.

On that basis, the party has mercilessly attacked the prime minister for not preventing his backbenchers from putting forward motions dealing directly or indirectly with abortion.

Its critics have repeatedly accused Stephen Harper of having the hidden agenda to restrict the reproductive choice of women.

But it is hard to square the notion that Conservative MPs should not be allowed to put their long-held convictions on abortion to the test in the House while New Democrats would be free to do so to score points on the issue.

The fate of the NDP motion — the text of which includes language pertaining to the government’s existing policy on maternal health in developing countries that could make it hard for pro-choice government MPs to support — is uncertain.

The vote might yet deliver anti-abortion advocates a rare victory on Harper’s watch in the House of Commons.

But whatever the result, it speaks volume about the current mindset of the NDP.

Dealing first with substance, the party’s eagerness to score easy points in an empty goal stands in sharp contrast with its gingerly-approach to more current social policy debates such as the one involving assisted suicide and euthanasia.

And here's her conclusion.

At this juncture, all is apparently fair in the NDP/Liberal war — including turning the issue of women’s reproductive choices into ammunition in the House of Commons.

This might be as good a time as any to remind both parties — but in particular the NDP — that if supremacy in the Caviar Left strongholds of downtown Toronto won elections, Harper would not be prime minister.

And here's where I bitch again about the fucking uselessness of the Fucking Useless Opposition®. They're arguing over the keys to Stornaway while the country goes up in flames.

Sowing embarrassment, scoring points, potting empty-netters. This is NOT why I -- and, I submit, millions of others -- voted NDP.

We voted for your principles, NOT your ambition.

And for this former NDP-voter, both federally and provincially, the party's rank and rancid ambition now outweighs any sentimental attachment I might have to principled social-justice warriors (ahem) like Dan Heap.

I'm done with the NDP.

No Proclamation for Fetus Fetishists

Woo-hoo! After five straight years of bending over for fetus fetishists, the City of Kelowna has declined to proclaim the last week in September "Protect Human Life Week".

It's a yet another straight-up victory for sane people who oppose this tiny minority of fanatics in our midst.

In a long overdue move, Kelowna has changed its criteria for issuing proclamations to focus on local common issues and, more importantly, to take into account the human rights issue so often glossed over by these anodyne statements.

"Although the wording of the proclamation may have sounded harmless, anti-abortion groups can and do exploit official declarations," said [Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Joyce] Arthur, arguing cities must look critically at the groups behind these requests.


She pointed to an incident in August when Regina declared European Heritage Week which the mayor immediately rescinded after discovering a white supremacist group was behind the request.


"The underlying intent of the Protect Human Life message is instantly recognizable by women who are aware of right-wing attacks on their rights," said Arthur.


"The main purpose of the Kelowna Pro-Life Society is to oppose abortion. The organization has used proclamations in the past as a vehicle to challenge women's right to access safe and legal abortion, and thereby women's basic legal rights and equality. The mayor was right to deny the group its proclamation this year because it amounted to discrimination against women.


"All cities across Canada need to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights codes by not approving cloaked messages from groups seeking to overturn those rights," added Arthur. 


In an earlier statement opposing the proclamation, [local pro-choice activist Dianne] Varga described the society's display graphic photos of fetuses at KSS and other actions as "disgusting, fanatical, offensive and inappropriate."


"While it's legal for them to have done so, it does give a clear indication of the extremist nature of this organization. It's been 40 years since abortion was legalized in Canada and the majority of Canadians support a pro-choice position. Yet the anti-choice movement continues to employ this and other shock tactics to try to move public opinion."

Last week, the forced pregnancy gang took their gory fetal pron signs to protest outside a high school. As usual, this upset people and caused controversy.

These are the grounds on which to oppose attempts to strong-arm local governments: the groups are fanatical, anti-human rights, and not at all representative of the community. In fact, their message is offensive to the majority and needlessly divisive.

Maybe the good people of Ottawa can offer a similar schooling to Mayor Jim Watson in time to cancel the annual proclamation of "Respect for Life Day" to coincide with the March of the Feti in May.

ADDED: Wingers whinge: Mayor kow-tows to pro-aborts. Hee.

Dead, Brainless Baby + Tortured Woman = All Good

So, the El Salvadoran woman known as Beatriz was *granted* a C-section at 27 weeks to save her life and the brainless baby has, as expected, died.

Latin America, like Ireland, pretends it doesn't have an abortion problem.

But it sure does.

Despite the region’s tough abortion laws, there has not been a drop in abortion rates.

In fact, they have had the opposite effect.

According to a 2008 study by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Guttmacher Institute, Latin America has one of the world’s highest abortion rates, with 31 per 1,000 women of childbearing age, compared to 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

According to WHO, botched abortions are a leading cause of maternal death in all parts of the world, accounting for 12 percent of maternal deaths in Latin America and the Caribbean, based on 2008 figures.

These laws cause not only needless death and suffering, but also the criminalization of miscarriage and obstetric complications.

Since abortion was made illegal in El Salvador in 1998, 628 women have been jailed for having abortions, according to local rights group Citizens for the Decriminalisation of Abortion (CFDA).

In 2010, the case of one Salvadoran, known as Manuela, shows how women end up paying with their lives because of the country’s absolute abortion ban.

Manuela, who suffered from advanced Hodgkin’s lymphoma, was sentenced to 30 years in prison after suffering severe complications giving birth.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which campaigned on her behalf, doctors treated her as if she had attempted an abortion and immediately called the police. She was shackled to her hospital bed and accused of murder.

Manuela did not receive appropriate medical treatment for lymphoma, the rights group says, and died less than a year after being sent to prison, leaving behind two young children. Her case was put before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2012.

On Twitter, someone sensibly asked 'WTF was the point of dragging Beatriz through all that?'

Answer is simple. So the fetus fetishists can maintain their fantasy that abortion is never medically necessary.

Claudia Handal, a spokeswoman for the anti-abortion group Red Familia, said the rights of all had been respected.

"We're very happy because as we said from the beginning, it wasn't necessary to perform an abortion, the point was to respect the baby's life and to give Beatriz the care and the right to health that she deserved," Handal told Reuters.

See? It's all good.

UPDATE: Actually, a correction. Beatriz did not have a c-section, she had a very high-risk procedure called a hysterotomy. The bullshit gets piled higher and deeper to perpetrate the denial that abortion is frequently a life-saving measure.

Of Hijabs, Burkas and Haircuts ...

At DJ! we have approached the question of women wearing religious coverings in the same manner that we consider the sexual violation of women and children, femicide, access to abortion, and the eradication of female genital mutilation.

How does it affect women facing these situations, what have women with knowledge and experience said and how can we support leurs revendications?

We have also pointed out Islamophobia in all its overt and covert forms.

Thus, we're perplexed that this complaint has not been challenged by other women.

Could it be that there's a fear of being slagged for being un-progressive, sexist and homophobic for not supporting Faith McGregor's grievance?

[...] a woman with a penchant for men’s hairdos walked into the Bay St. Terminal Barbershop. Faith McGregor asked the male barbers if they offer the “businessman cut” and, of course, they do but when it became clear she wanted the cut for herself the men demurred, saying their Muslim religion forbids them from touching women who are not their relatives.

Almost immediately, McGregor filed a human rights complaint with the tribunal, saying she felt like a “second class citizen.” Later, on a point of principle, McGregor declined the barbershop’s offer of a haircut from a different barber.

Life in Toronto is already complicated, with gridlock, unaffordable housing and Rob Ford’s football schedule, and now we have to contend with this?

In the barbershop case, a wise coach, or adjudicator, would say that both rights must be accommodated. So here’s a solution that won’t require months of testimony before a quasi-judicial hearing: In the future, barbershops whose staff have particular religious restrictions must ensure they can serve all clients by hiring a person with different beliefs or by offering an appointment with a fill-in barber willing to do the job.

Even better, here’s another way out: Let market forces prevail by giving your $20 polymer bill to a welcoming barbershop down the block.

How would an Ontario Human Rights Commission resolution - in favour of McGregor's demand - advance in principle or improve in practice the status of women in Toronto or anywhere, whether they're lesbians, muslim, or struggling to survive in a misogynist world?

There are many battles worth fighting but I don't see how this one is valid.

Like knee-jerk legislation here and elsewhere that forbids niqab face coverings, I sense that this complaint veils a deliberate expression of islamophobia.

UPDATE: Information about the business in question. Mixed reviews from the male clientele, it would seem.

Poland Gets Slapped Again by European Court of Human Rights

I first blogged about this horrible story from poor benighted Poland in 2008. (I've been at this too long.)

A 14-year-old girl was raped and got pregnant. Her mother braved Poland's insanely restrictive abortion laws and got permission for a termination.

But the local Catlick priest got wind of it and tried to bully the girl out of it -- in the FUCKING hospital.

All kinds of further hoo-haw ensued but the girl did get the abortion.

Apparently, they took the Polish government to the European Court of Human Rights and won with compensation of 61,000 euros.

In their ruling, which is subject to appeal, a panel of judges at the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been numerous breaches of the girl's rights.

The court found that she should gave had unhindered access to lawful abortion and that the details of her case should not have been made public by hospital authorities.

The BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw says that Poland's abortion law is unlikely to become more liberal soon.

Poland's Catholic church is fiercely opposed to any attempts to ease the restrictions and a majority of mainstream politicians support the status quo.

This is not the first time Poland's Christian Sharia law has come to the attention of this court.

And as for having such draconian abortion laws, how about this?

An estimated 150,000 clandestine abortions take place annually in Poland, generating around $95 million of undeclared and tax-free revenue.

When abortion is restricted or illegal, it goes underground. Women and girls are put at risk and society loses.


h/t's for rape victim follow-up link Stephen Lautens and for clandestine Polish abortions link to Claudine Jacques

Welcome Progressive Canadians!

The essential bit in the word 'progressive' is 'progress'.

Moving ahead.

A group of committedly progressive Canadian bloggers has moved on to Canadian Progressive Voices.

Brand-spanking new and evolving into we're-not-quite-sure-what yet.

There's no litmus/purity test. Just read this:

We are bloggers who advocate for social, economic and labour justice, for human rights, sexual freedom and reproductive choice, for non-violence, the protection of the commons, including universal healthcare, public broadcasting and Canadian culture in an independent Canada dedicated to true representative democracy, the well-being of our environment and the betterment of all in the world.

Sound OK to you?

Then come on in.

ADDED: We are still figuring things out. Please be patient with us. ;-)

Well said, Chris!

NatPo has a pair of columns today on abortion. (I hadn't noticed that it was a slow news day.) Babs does her usual hand-wringing that I won't bother linking to, but Chris Selley makes an interesting point about the value of the fetus versus that of the woman.

In June, Gallup asked Americans to identify themselves as pro-choice or pro-life, and then ran some scenarios by them. Among the pro-lifers, nearly 70% think abortion should be legal when a woman’s health or life is in danger — meaning, logically, that they value an adult life over one in utero. Even more interestingly, 35% of self-professed pro-lifers think abortion should be legal in the first trimester, 59% think it should be legal in cases of rape or incest, and about a quarter think it should be legal when the baby might be physically or mentally impaired. Abortion equals murder? Not for these “pro-lifers.”

A majority of fetus fetishists agree that so-called fetal rights are subordinate to women's rights.

He then draws the inescapable conclusion.

The law is far too blunt an instrument to impart any wisdom on this endlessly complex and emotional issue. When the vast majority of people believe abortion should be legal in some circumstances, the only legal demarcation between medical procedure and murder that makes any sense is the one we have now: Birth.

Kansas North Loses Another One

Well, imagine that. As we keep saying, abortion access is a human right.

The New Brunswick government has lost a bid to block the Human Rights Commission from investigating the province's abortion policy.

The policy has been a source of controversy for years and is at the centre of an ongoing lawsuit, which was filed by Dr. Henry Morgentaler, Canada's leading abortion activist.

With the Morgentaler lawsuit still in the court system, an unnamed doctor filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on two grounds. The doctor argued that, on behalf of women, the provincial government's restrictions on access to abortion are discriminatory.

As well, the doctor argued the restrictions make it difficult for her to help her patients get a full range of medical services.

The provincial government only pays for an abortion performed in hospitals and a woman must have two doctors certify that it's medically necessary.

By cracky, we'll drag New Brunswick -- kicking and SHRIEEEKING -- into the 20th century yet.

What's a little human rights abuse and corruption matter?

Remember this?



In the UK, kettling was just ruled illegal.

One night last December, having already spent five hours trapped by the Metropolitan police in Parliament Square, I was imprisoned on Westminster Bridge along with 1,000 other mostly young protesters, in sub-zero temperatures, for more than two hours. We were held in such a tight space that some suffered respiratory problems and chest pains: the symptoms of severe crushing. This is kettling, and in its strategic brutality and unabashed doublethink, it is the perfect hallmark for the Cameron era.

In a landmark ruling, the high court ruled on Thursday that the Met's use of the tactic during 2009's G20 protests was illegal. Their wider use of kettling, common throughout this winter's student and anti-cuts protests, is currently being challenged at the European court of human rights. Despite the high court warning that it must only be used as a "last resort catering for situations about to descend into violence", the Met are unrepentant. "At the heart of this case," they responded, "lies a vital public order policing tactic that prevents disorder and protects the public." They will appeal against the high court ruling, and continue to use kettling "where necessary".

The practice is a prime example of collective punishment and as such violates the Geneva Conventions. Major human rights abuse, in other words.

We in Toronto are well aware of what human rights abuse looks like up close and personal. And now from the Star we learn that the abuse is ongoing.

Hundreds of citizens were documented by police in mostly non-criminal encounters during last year’s G20 summit — and their names and personal details still live on in an internal police database.

Over three days, more than 500 people were stopped, questioned and documented by Toronto police officers in key G20 patrol areas downtown and near a temporary jail location, according to a Toronto Star analysis of police contact card data obtained in a freedom of information request.

Police use the database as an investigative tool to connect people, places and times. For example, in the case of a homicide, detectives can enter a victim’s name and see who they associated with in the past — and where and when.

The level of “carding” was unusually high during the summit, which could be expected given the police presence.

And that, of course, was in addition to the largest mass arrest in Canadian history, along with assorted beatings, rubber bullets, mistreatment, and bubble-blowing.

Silver lining? For a change, the white folk were targetted.

In a 2010 series, the Star examined six years worth of city-wide contact card data and found that Toronto police document black people at a higher rate than whites.

This was not the case in downtown Toronto on summit weekend. In fact, the proportion of white people who were documented increased 27 per cent from the 2008 daily average.

There is soooo much we need to learn from this travesty.

Some of it is already known but we are NOT allowed to see it, because, ironically or idiotically, we are in the middle of choosing the next gang of corporate bought-and-paid-for flunkies to rule over us.

The least you can do is sign the damn petition urging the release of Auditor General Sheila Fraser's report. Nearly 69,000 people have signed since 11 a.m. Thursday morning.

Pro-choice in Egypt

There's been much discussion since January 25th about the role of women in a democratically engaged Egypt. During the peaceful, millions-strong demonstrations in Cairo's Tahrir Square and across the country, women participated next to their confrères.

Unfortunately last week, the ugly despotic face of institutionalized gynophobia appeared in the form of thugs sent to harass women demonstrating in Tahrir.

The fight to achieve human rights for all - women and men - is ongoing in Egypt, just as women as experiencing push-back in many countries around the world, including Canada.

And now that Stockwell Day is abandoning the Harper Regime, who will Faytene "Serena Joy" Kryskow use as her wing man when she flashes her *all-access-pass* on Parliament Hill to lobby politicians and advance her evangelical cause?

On a deeper optimistic note, here's a blogpost that has waited for a good time to be shared with our readers. From monasah: I was created with love.

The story of how I was conceived:

I was created with love. I was born while my dad was in prison. He was sentenced to spend 5 years in prison because he was part of a communist group opposing Mobarak and his regime.

When the verdict came, my mother was not in Egypt. Their friends managed to hide him away and bring them together before he goes to prison. Mama knew Baba will be away for years. They both wanted a baby girl and she thought that having a baby would soften the coming years with out him. So they hid away, took their time in creating me and in bidding each other farewell.

When they were certain my mother was pregnant in me, my dad went and turned himself in. [...]

Do something every day which honours women and brings each one closer to the respect of her human rights.

Working mother wins human rights decision

In the 1970s feminists applied their intellectual acumen, emotional clout and political savvy to ensuring that women's work, in all its forms, was valued. The expression: 'Every mother is a working mother' became a rallying cry and women's right to work was supported. To a certain extent, this was also of benefit to men who became more engaged in childcare and educating their offspring.

In spite of the ditzy perorations of Sara "Choice for me, me, me" Landriault, there have been major advancements for working mothers - at home and in the labour force.

The sight of men pushing strollers in public places - on their own! - no longer shocks.

Yet there are still work environments who have resisted the needs of their employees' rights to fair accommodation, with regard to balancing their family responsibilities.

A Canada Border Services Agency officer who had to give up her full-time position after the birth of her first child has won a six-year battle with her employer over its failure to accommodate her. [...]

Johnstone had been working a variety of shifts as a full-time officer at Pearson Airport in Toronto and had a good record with her employers when she had her first child in 2003.

Both before going on maternity leave and before returning to work in 2004, Johnstone had asked her employer if she could come back on an altered schedule, one in which she worked three static 13-hour shifts a week, with no preferred start time. The unusual schedule was suggested so that she could care for her child on the four days she could not find available child care, while at the same time working the weekly hours needed to maintain her status as a full-time employee and retain her maximum pension.

Johnstone said because of the unpredictable shifts of the job, public or private child-care options were not available, but that she had found three days in which family members could care for her child. [...]

Her employer denied the requests, saying the Canadian Border Services Agency had an unwritten policy not to provide full-time hours to those requesting accommodation on the basis of child-rearing responsibilities. [...]

"When I asked for clarification on the policy and when I asked to come back full time they told me I couldn't and there was no reason given that was good enough," said Johnstone [...] The tribunal agreed, saying that the agency didn't establish a strong enough case that altering the schedule to accommodate Johnstone would have constituted an undue hardship for the employer and other workers.

This is a very important decision for working mothers and fathers, as well as other workers who may request an accommodation of their employer to handle family responsibilities, such as caring for a spouse ill with cancer or an elderly parent with Alzheimer's.

After all, mothers - and fathers - are working, productive members of our society.

Uganda's 'Death Penalty for Homosexuals' Bill: The USian connection

Unfrickingbelievable.

As a gay Ugandan, Frank Mugisha has endured insults from strangers, hate messages on his phone, police harassment and being outed in a tabloid as one of the country's "top homos". That may soon seem like the good old days.

Life imprisonment is the minimum punishment for anyone convicted of having gay sex, under an anti-homosexuality bill currently before Uganda's parliament. If the accused person is HIV positive or a serial offender, or a "person of authority" over the other partner, or if the "victim" is under 18, a conviction will result in the death penalty.

Members of the public are obliged to report any homosexual activity to police with 24 hours or risk up to three years in jail – a scenario that human rights campaigners say will result in a witchhunt. Ugandans breaking the new law abroad will be subject to extradition requests.

"The bill is haunting us," said Mugisha, 25, chairman of Sexual Minorities Uganda, a coalition of local lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex groups that will all be banned under the law. "If this passes we will have to leave the country."

Surprise, surprise, the Murrican Kristian Taliban is party to it. Watch.

Get Over It Already

The annual Fetus Fetish Festival is going to be especially um, spirited, this year, according to Mr. Kicking Abortion's Ass. They've got a round number to commemorate.

This year on May 14, 2009, Canada will mark 40 years to the day Canadian Parliament passed the infamous Omnibus Bill, C-150, the legislation decriminalizing contraception, abortion, and homosexuality.

SHRIEEEK!

Before he goes on to detail the ensuing decades of moral decay, he adds this:

(Votes: 149-55).

Wow. I did not know that 40 years ago just about three-quarters of our MPs stood up for human rights. Not to mention common sense.

Maybe the fetus fetishists should try real hard and wrap their tiny minds around the fact that THEY LOST THIS FIGHT FORTY FUCKING YEARS AGO.

Happy Valentine's Day, everyone.