Pauline Marois, troll queen

Especially after that helpful pictorial, Québec premier Pauline Marois has proven herself all at once Canada's media troll-in-chief! I can just imagine her late at night in her pyjamas, surrounded by empty bags of Cheetos, rubbing her hands and chuckling to herself as she presses "submit."

Everyone has more or less admitted that this isn't really principally about kippahs* and blingy crucifixes. It's mostly about two things: (1) totally unsurprising PQ opportunism in the face of their minority-government situation, meaning their need to throw "red meat" to the base and (2) hijabs. Of which (1) is the more important consideration, naturally.

But then, consideration (1) is sort of pivotal on (2). I won't get into the reason for the panic about (2), nor the larger issues about (1). For the PQ opportunism, I recommend this sage article in Le Devoir.

I'm sure the regular readers of this blog can recite the "symbolic" and "political" feminist arguments against sumptuary regulation aimed at women off by heart**. But this is actually about putting a hijab ban---for public service workers, but that's a big part of the economy---into practice. That means talking about its effect on the hijab-wearing women itself.

I have written about this before in the context of Muslim-majority countries that have a very rigid idea of the exclusion of hijab (and other traditional garments) in official contexts, namely Turkey---this is sometimes invoked in newspaper comments in favour of the "Charter of Values***." In real life, things do not always work the way the symbolism seems to say it ought. The situation is complex, there is a class of women who is not helped in any kind of personal or financial independence when political restrictions on personal religious expression are in force. Which, as far as concerns hijab-wearers, is the point.

It's not at all clear that this has anything to do with the liberation of the women in question themselves. Of the women who really don't want to but are forced by their stereotypical, big-bearded husbands or fathers, this risks either (a) sending them home from whatever public service jobs they may hold and/or (b) exposing them to even greater violence/oppression from their patriarchs.

And for the women who are affected by this and wear the hijab for genuinely-held reasons (whether or not one agrees)? It places them in a position of choosing between their personal identity/conscience and the livelihoods of their families. If the goal is "integration" of these women, something so alienating cannot possibly be a good thing. It's "gender-equality" legislation enforced principally upon women.

So here's the deal: there's a good principle to follow in all such situations. In matters of what we put on or in our bodies and what goes within a limited amount of personal space...we should be sovereign. You shouldn't be able to make someone give you a haircut, if they don't like being very close to you. And you shouldn't be able to make someone take off their yarmulke.

Some "clever" people may whine, "What about the nudist primary school teachers?" Or maybe, "What happens when the baby's adorable little feetses is still stuck in the birth canal? Can the mother perform her unholy ritual THEN???" You know, we can deal with these little details on a case by case basis. Nothing is simple when it comes to people, their feelings, and their personal space.

But as for the whole charter business, it's based on a series of cynical political calculation. The sovereigntist project is a bit moribund for the time being, and some of its leaders clearly feel that an insipid "interculturalism" is not working---and there's nothing better than a little ethnic us vs. them to get the nationalist fervor going. Hence the over-the-top reaction to Maria Mourani: they think that her bridge status is dispensible now, or was never very useful in the first place.

But in the meantime, they've deliberately or inadvertently decided to put the lie to the idea that the sovereigntist movement was about the forward momentum of an evolving, inclusive, social-democratic French-speaking polity. It's amazing how easy it seems to have been to shed that. Will it be worth it for Pauline Marois' little trolly thrill? Only time will tell.

*The whole YWCA business in Montréal notwithstanding---haha, get it? Notwithstanding? Like the clause? *rimshot*

**Of which, ironically, this charter is one, but I'll get to that.

***The V-word (values) is always a dangerous "dog whistle".

Le théâtre politique, Québec-style.

What is currently unfolding in La belle province is a spectacle.  It's not Grand Guignol yet, but given the inflammatory issues involved, it may yet descend to that.

The knives are certainly being sharpened, and they will be used judiciously to silence critics and opponents.

MP Maria Mourani was expelled from the Bloc Québécois caucus following comments she made about the proposed Quebec charter of values: la charte des valeurs québécoises.

In an interview with Radio-Canada on Wednesday, Mourani said Quebec's charter of values was a political miscalculation on the part of Premier Pauline Marois.

Mourani was making the comments as a spokesperson of a pro-sovereignist group in favour of secularism which calls itself "les indépendantistes pour une laïcité inclusive."

Bloc Québécois Leader Daniel Paillé said Mourani's comments are "irreconcilable" with the party's position.

The Parti Québécois claims that this Charter will unify all Quebecers within a secular state, one that is devoid of all image and symbols of adherence to religious beliefs.

Crucifixes prominently displayed on provincially funded public institutions are to be exempt from the Charter.  Its continued presence is defended as a valid historical and cultural artifact for the majority of Quebecers, in patronizing rhetoric uttered by Bernard Drainville.

Last year, PQ candidate Djamila Benhabib had the temerity to suggest, as a follow-up to the recommendations of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, that the MASSIVE crucifix hanging in the National Assembly be taken down.  She was attacked and

... forced by members of her own party to recant, she was castigated as a foreigner with alien values and an unpronounceable name by Saguenay mayor Jean Tremblay. Her crime? Not having enough cultural Catholicism to know that the principle of secularism only applies to other religions.

The crucifix is a reminder of the oppressive, authoritarian and violent power that the Catholic church wielded.  Many First Nations people and descendants of the survivors of La grande noirceur do not wax nostalgic about the crucifix.

...Charles Taylor, the well-known academic who co-chaired a provincial commission into reasonable accommodation in 2007, describes the proposal as an “absolutely terrible act of exclusion.” So the debate is on.

Former Quebec Premier Bernard Landry has lashed out at English Canadian media for “Quebec bashing” while covering the matter. Landry told CBC Radio’s As It Happens that Quebec welcomes immigrants but wants them to join society. “When you change country, you change country,” he said. “And you have to get first the language, then the culture and integrate.”

In the same interview, Landry even goes on to ridicule the idea of police wearing turbans, which harks back to the Reform Party’s 1989 convention resolution stating that Sikhs should be barred from wearing turbans in the RCMP.

Landry’s comments on religious accommodation obviously shift quickly to immigration policy although individuals barred from wearing religious symbols would likely include native-born Quebecers.

From here. 

I have been reading La Presse, Le Devoir, Le Droit and listening to Radio-Canada with regard to la Charte des valeurs québecoises almost non-stop since last Tuesday.  My head hurts from the intellectual dishonesty and contradictions advanced by those who support and vigorously defend la raison d'être of this project.

Yesterday I had a long chat with a neighbour who wears le hijab about faith, spiritual devotion and cultural adaptation, while we were waiting on OC Transpo.  On the bus, I noticed a young man of African ancestry who may have been an immigrant — or born in Canada as my neighbour was.  He wore un chapelet around his neck. This rosary was made of fluorescent green plastic.  It was quite ostentatious.

It reminded me of cab-drivers who prominently display cross or large medallions that feature Catholic saints.  These objects are usually dangling from rear-view mirrors.  I have asked a few of them:  Do you put these in your taxi so that customers will know that you are not a muslim?  The answer is always an embarrassed yes.

And why is there a photo of Tonto, as embodied by Johnny Depp at the beginning of this blog?

Publicity, even negative, is considered by public relations flaks to be a *good thing*.  Which is why the PQ leaked information about la Charte to engineer a "crisis" ahead of its release, and to provoke a negative reaction from the Rest of Canada.  A win/win situation for the PQ.

Like Depp's costume, la Charte is a shallow, histrionic contrivance designed to create a furor, and to disguise the inherent racism and white privilege oozing from this political tactic.

So. Islamophobia exists. Christian and white privilege exists in Canada.  Religious fundamentalists are using the same tactics as the PQ, framing the *problem* to suit their ideology as well as exploiting people's fear and anger.

Violence against women occurs all too frequently; it seems it's only when a crime is motivated by fundamentalist muslim patriarchal ideology that femicide is rigorously investigated and prosecuted according to existing laws.  When the killing of women is fuelled by christian fundamentalism, only feminists feel that the media should equally denounce it.

Fortunately Tabatha Southey rescued me from feeling as gloomy and grumpy as Depp seems — and I don't even have to choose to wear (or not) head-gear for business, cultural, religious or political reasons. 

“The state has no place interfering in the moral and religious beliefs of Quebecers,” Bernard Drainville, the minister responsible for the charter, said in a bid to explain its stated rationale.[...]

Mr. Drainville’s voice remained remarkably steady for a man who, we’re asked to believe, understood himself to be addressing the confused population of a province whose citizens have been soldiering on through what he called “a crisis.”

The crisis, he clarified in a follow-up interview, stems from the “tensions” and “much frustration” caused by the “clearly unreasonable religious accommodations” that minorities in the province have been granted on occasion.

By “tensions,” was he referring, for example, to a case this summer when a newspaper reported that Muslim and Jewish groups were allowed to bring their own food into the La Ronde amusement park – which offers no kosher or halal dining option? The outrage caused the park to forbid the practice.[...]

Last year, my mum lost her hair to chemotherapy. She found wearing a wig too uncomfortable to bear and so played around with a scarf for a while but was unhappy with the results.

“I was trying to achieve the graceful look I’d seen on Muslim women,” she told me, “but instead I looked like Princess Anne at the races.”

Eventually, she called the Islamic Society of Guelph and asked if someone could help her. “I’ll give you my wife’s cell number,” the man she spoke to said. “She’s awesome.” The two women met at the rec centre it turned out that they both frequent and my mother was scarf-schooled.

 

Just a reminder: the head covering worn by La Piéta is a *traditional* garment. 

It seems quaint now, just as the babushka certainly was when hundreds of Ukrainian Catholic women immigrated to Canada, their scarves firmly knotted under their chins.

A much earlier DJ! post about women being solidaires with women who choose to wear the hijab, here.

Negative Option Fetus Fetishizing

I get junk mail. You get junk mail. We all get junk mail. In my apartment building there is a recycling bucket right under the mailboxes for quick and easy disposal.

So when a pro-choice woman recently got something from Swift Current & District Pro Life, she wondered how they got her name and opened the envelope looking for a clue.

Good thing she did. Look what the deceptive shits are up to now (PDF).

For the click-averse, the letter starts out 'Dear Fellow Christians', then explains that when the organization interacts with government types, the government types want to know how many people it represents.

It sounds like the government types haven't been very impressed with Swift Current's fetus fetishist population, because some bright light has come up with a plan to inflate increase those numbers.

They intend to create a 'Pro Life Supporters Identification Index'.

And look how they're going to count up their 'supporters'.

With this in mind we want you to know that we will be counting you among our "life supporters" as far as numbers go when interacting with elected officials.

If you wish not to be counted as a Pro Life supporters, please kindly call, e-mail or send us a letter stating that you wish not to be counted in our supporting life index and we will remove your name.

Canadians of a certain age will remember the furor caused by a certain cable company *cough* Rogers *cough* when it tried to institute a similar negative option billing scheme.

Their plan was just like the Swifties' -- we are going to bill you/count you as a fetus fetishist unless you explicitly tell us not to.

In fact, Canadians were sooooo pissed that the practice was made illegal*.

Clearly, the Swifties figured what's good for avaricious cable companies is good enough for duplicitous forced birthers.

So, if you got junk mail from the Swift Current & District Pro Life gang and tossed it, congratulations, you are now a Pro Lie Supporter.

If this offends/enrages/disgusts you, call them -- 306-773-0741 -- and ask them (nicely, of course) to take your name off their fucking list.

I guess we should all be on the lookout for this new stunt. And all government types should immediately discount any numbers offered by these lying liars.


* Negative option billing is not illegal in all cases. Check the link.

Judge to Fetus Fetishist: FFS!

One of the Jubillee Jailbirds, Linda Gibbons, was in the news last week.

Again.

But some good news to report. Judges are getting increasingly pissed off at these scofflaws.

After sentencing Gibbons to the max, without reduction for time served, the judge displayed her, um, annoyance.

The judge went on to administer a tongue-lashing to Gibbons at today's hearing.

"She has indicated no remorse to the court," [Madam Justice Feroza] Bhabha said angrily. "She believes in the rightness of her cause ... (but) abortions are legal. Miss Gibbons does not appreciate that it's a legal right."

The judge added a "strong message" needs to be sent to her and others that "there needs to be respect for the law" and she characterized Gibbons as "a martyr for her cause ... It's very likely that she will appear again before this court."
. . .

She said Gibbons's continual appearance before the courts meant she was not amenable to "rehabilitation" and her conduct "must be denounced," with general deterrence emphasized in order to "enhance respect for the law."

Commenters over at ProWomanProLie are wallowing in glurge. Lookit this from 'antigonon'.

It is arguable that Gibbons – along with Mary Wagner, also in jail in Toronto, & for the same reason – may doing the most valuable work on earth. By their willingness voluntarily to absorb a small measure of the injustice inflicted on the innocent, no child dies without this incomparable witness to their value. They are thus – humanly speaking – not utterly abandoned. Hard to see what else in the world stands against injustice as these two do.

That would be Mary Wagner, the other Jubilee Jailbird, who was something of a cause célèbre among fetus fetishists last year when another judge let fly.

Quote from LieShite. Note ellipses.

“You’re wrong and your God’s wrong,” [Judge S. Ford Clements] continued. “You have complete contempt … There is a right to (abortion) in this country … You don’t have a right to cause (abortion-seeking women) extra pain and grief the way you do.”

Fox News North and assorted other usual suspects went batshit Christian martyr-crazy and the judge got his wrists slapped for his little tirade.

But at least her attempt to get public funding to take her 'cause' to the Supreme Court was also slapped down.

They continue NOT to get it. Yes, you have the right to freedom of speech. What you do NOT have is the right to the audience of your choice.

[Sorry for all the LieShite links. They are the only ones to cover this crap.]

Something is missing from this picture...

There is currently a criminal trial unfolding in Ottawa that has captured the interest of many.

It is unusual because it involves girls under the age of 16 pressured, blackmailed and physically coerced into sex work by pimps who are also girls — barely older than their victims.

Two of the three adolescents standing trial for 74 charges including human trafficking, forcible confinement and procuring for prostitution, are 16 years old; the other is 17.

This is an account from a young woman who evaded cajoling then threats from a Facebook acquaintance, and alleged pimp.

The clients who are testifying have likely been promised a reduced sentence for having sex with minor children, or amnesty from prosecution.

Something doesn't quite sit right with me, though. This scheme to recruit and force girls into prostitution goes quite beyond the high school bullying, ostracism and cruelty that we know teenage girls are capable of doing.

This is way beyond _Mean Girls_ territory, this is a sophisticated, complex and well-executed business plan. 

Are there older individuals behind this profitable enterprise whose identities the young women have not disclosed?  As with Fagin's abuse of homeless children, criminal organizations have made it a practice to enlist and train juveniles to run their money-making illegal schemes. If the under-age kids are arrested, charged, prosecuted and found guilty, their sentencing is usually light.

This trial may be a delicately orchestrated attempt to flush out the adults behind this criminal business scheme.  If the prosecution succeeds, and the girls are found guilty of these charges, there may be some plea bargaining involved to encourage them to give up their patrons, the people who bankrolled them, helped them develop their enterprise, trained them in the fine art of physical brutality, and shared the profits without any of the risks.

If this is indeed the case, these adult participants are people well versed in the intricate aspects of criminal law and jurisprudence.  The girls may not reveal who they are; a combination of eventual rewards, emotional coercion and fear of physical reprisals may buy their silence.

Photo credit: from the above-mentioned, feminist film about female adolescent angst, including a propensity for dressing up in fetish drag.

UPDATE: The young woman who testified yesterday, providing details about one of the alleged pimp's campaign to recruit her through Facebook communications, may have done something the defense lawyer will exploit to his clients' advantage.

It's the 'telemed' part, not the 'abortion' part they object to

What do you do when you are a fetus fetishizing tea bagger but governor of a fairly progressive state? Or at least one that was the first in the US to offer medical abortions by teleconferencing?

When you're Iowa ReThuglican Governor Terry Branstad, this is what you do.

First, appoint all ten members of the Iowa Board of Medicine. Check.

Then, hold hearings into the 'safety' of the procedure. Check.

Make sure the former anti-choice legislator and chair of the board is an idiot. Check.

Dr. Greg Hoversten, the state board’s chairman, suggested that the system amounted to an experiment on Iowa women.

Have the board listen to the evidence -- all good -- then have them vote 8-2 to effectively ban the procedure on the basis of safety. Check.

Now let board members ignore a 2010 report written by a board investigator after several months of looking into safety concerns of the regime (presumably raised by fetus fetishists). Check.

The board’s chairman, Dr. Greg Hoversten, told the Register last week that he and his colleagues did not read the report before voting Friday to effectively ban use of the video system.

(I mean, who knows what that report might have said? That telemed abortion was JUST as evil and dangerous and life-threatening as fetus fetishists contend?)

Pay attention. The next part is key.

When two doctors request a copy of that damning report, refuse to release it. Check.

Oh, they had a good reason of course.

The board’s executive director, Mark Bowden, said in an email to The Des Moines Register on Wednesday that state law says such investigative reports are confidential. If the board files formal charges against a doctor, he said, the doctor would have a right to a copy. But since no charges were filed in 2011, he said, the report must be kept under wraps, even from the agency and doctors it concerns.

Got that? No charges were laid, so the report must be kept confidential.

Nah. That doesn't stink at all.

But it does demonstrate the essence of current conservatism: Remain wilfully ignorant, make decisions on pure ideology, then keep everyone else just as ignorant.

The doctors are considering a lawsuit to get the report.

Here's a long and thoughtful blogpost by Kelly Bourdet about telemed abortion in Iowa. Bourdet goes on to make the obvious point. Telemedicine is used in all kinds of situations, for all kinds of treatments. It's already used in the US military, for example.

But it is ONLY in this application of the new tech does anyone 'worry' about its safety or appropriateness or whatever.

Odd, eh wot?

Ottawa cops in hot water, again.

A video allegedly showing police brutality in the ByWard Market late Friday night has prompted a review into the incident by the Ottawa police, says police Chief Charles Bordeleau. The shaky video appears to show a man being forced to the ground by three police officers. While being held by officers, the video documents one officer punching the man in the upper body and head area as many as a dozen times. The one-minute video does not show how the altercation began, nor does it show police taking any suspects away. 

From here. 

I heard this report on Radio-Canada. The police chief "invites" witnesses to step forward to share what they observed.

Given what happened to these women who witnessed and reported police violence in their neighbourhood, I'd think that people might feel threatened by the legal bullying tactics that cops exert inside the courtroom in addition to their illicit, intimidating reprisals.

Also, a reminder: What every citizen NEEDS to know about photographing and filming police officers in Canada, from here. 

UPDATE: A female witness who was there that night "could not corroborate the police account of what happened at the scene..." She also said: "The cops showed up and made it so much worse". From here. 
  
I predict that cops will intimidate and frighten this witness into changing her recollection of what she observed.

UPDATED AGAIN: Ontario Ombudsman André Marin reprimands the Ottawa Police Service.

The same day Bordeleau initiated the complaint, he also sent an internal email to the force’s rank-and-file reminding them that “the job of a police officer is a difficult one and we all know that enhanced scrutiny is a fact in our role.”

Bordeleau also wrote that officers have the public’s confidence and his confidence and respect for the work they do.

Marin says morale-boosting comments by the chief or even officers identifying Fairbairn and saying he’s a great guy, are innocuous enough, but when officers start giving their personal assessment on the extent of the force used by Fairbairn in the altercation, they influence the investigation and the likelihood that witnesses, civilian or uniformed, who saw evidence to the contrary, will come forward.

“The pursuit of the truth becomes pointless.”

Marin called for officers to use the same rigorous and strict process they use when investigating the public and to not show favouritism and partiality at the outset, just days after the incident.

This is how police forces roll.  A reminder of how cops intimidate those who witness their violence, here.

Reverse SLAPP!

While Canadian fetus fetishists are desperately trying to replicate the admitted successes of their USian co-religionists, the truth is they're losing.

And the most recent loss is significant.

A couple of BC fake clinics Crisis Pregnancy Centres took Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Executive Director, Joyce Arthur, to court alleging defamation in a 2009 report she wrote for the Pro-Choice Action Network.

Titled 'Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia', the report documents the deceptions and manipulations regularly practiced by these outfits.

To make a long story short, the fake clinics were butthurt* and wanted a public forum to whine in. And maybe make a little cash.

The judge was having none of it and tossed the suit. (Read Joyce's account for details and links.)

(Delish sidelight: losing side must pay costs. We're hoping for a maybe-think-twice-next-time sort of amount.)

When the suit was brought, many observers thought it smelled suspiciously SLAPPy. A SLAPP case, or strategic lawsuit against public participation, is 'intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.'

That kinda backfired, didn't it?

Here's Joyce on why they failed.

The defamation lawsuit backfired on the Christian Advocacy Society because, in my view, the anti-choice movement doesn't always have a firm grasp on reality. They tend to be quite insular, and so become convinced their position is far more reasonable and defensible than it actually is.

(That's Joyce being polite. Not to put too fine a point on it, fetus fetishists are delusional.)

Of course, the fake clinics spun it as a partial victory, claiming that while they didn't get to sue, the court ruled that Joyce didn't actually say anything bad about them specifically.

They have until September 25 to file an appeal. Ya think?

Two main takeaways.

One, this is just the latest in a string of defeats for the forced pregnancy mob in Canada. They've been losing legislatively at every turn, as Joyce lists in her article and as regular DJ! readers know and revel in. They're losing the public opinion war, most recently with the Fetal Gore Pron Gang's failed summer offensive -- and we mean OFFENSIVE -- postcard campaign targetting insufficiently 'pro-life' MPs.

Most importantly, while they occasionally grab the media spotlight in creepy and off-putting ways, as when Dr Morgentaler died a few months ago, polls consistently show that a majority of Canadians want everyone to shut the fuck up about abortion.

Second takeaway: The public spanking and (we hope) MASSIVE kick in the pocketbook for costs may deter other members of the Butthurt Band.

Such as Alyssa Golob, whose knickers got twisted when yelled at by an exasperated pub owner.

Third takeaway (OK, I lied): Isn't it grand to live in Canada?

Congrats, Joyce. And thanks. You've done a service for all of us mouthy sane people who call these lying liars out for fun and profit.


*LATER: I've been informed that 'butthurt' is a homophobic slur used by gamers when they have 'raped' an opponent. Well, I couldn't find documentation on that. Which is good, because it's a great phrase for exactly what it sounds like.

Pro-choice violence: The evidence

Update on the 'pro-choice violence' anti-choice shit-disturbing at the Imperial Pub.

If this is their evidence, no wonder the cops weren't interested.



And isn't it interesting that there are two young black men in the chalking group? Were the fetus fetishists offering a 'choice' between race and gender on which they were planning their complaint?

I'm betting this isn't the first time the Imperial Pub has been targetted. Look how close the Pub (first map) is to Campaign Lie's office (second map).