This is from the December 11th edition of Mike Duffy Live guest-hosted by Rosemary Thomson interviewing Belinda Stronach (amongt others).
Thomson: Now we've seen over the years that advocacy groups have pushed for things like pay equity, they were the ones pushing for the national daycare program - we say them all protesting in the last couple of days. Are these the people that say they're being silenced by this? Why couldn't they still speak out without government funding?Stronach: They are the ones being silenced, in fact I attended a rally yesterday where there were over five hundred women and those groups were represented there.
Ms.Stronach attended a rally where five hundred women were "silenced"! Apparently I have lost the ability to understand the english language. People "silenced" at a public rally on Parliament Hill. Amazing.
Comments (17)
“Thomson: Now we’ve seen over the years that advocacy groups have pushed for things like pay equity, they were the ones pushing for the national daycare program - we say them all protesting in the last couple of days. Are these the people that say they’re being silenced by this? Why couldn’t they still speak out without government funding? Stronach: They are the ones being silenced, in fact I attended a rally yesterday where there were over five hundred women and those groups were represented there”
Obviously Belinda forgot all the silence was because she was at a demonstration for the deaf and couldn’t figure out what all the hand signing was for.
Posted by Kitchener Conservative | December 12, 2006 3:21 PM
Posted on December 12, 2006 15:21
Well, if they’re truly “silenced” that means we shouldn’t be hearing from them anymore, right?
Posted by PhantomObserver | December 12, 2006 3:30 PM
Posted on December 12, 2006 15:30
So now you’re a literalist?
Posted by Robert McClelland | December 12, 2006 4:48 PM
Posted on December 12, 2006 16:48
I believe that words (should) have meaning.
Posted by Greg Staples | December 12, 2006 4:50 PM
Posted on December 12, 2006 16:50
A rally is silence. Selling thongs is empowering women. Freedom is slavery, etc.
McClelland can tell you the others.
Posted by Joan Tintor | December 12, 2006 5:10 PM
Posted on December 12, 2006 17:10
These are the same ones that cry that conservative womens groups silenced them.. Conservative women’s groups that receive no funding.
Posted by Fergy | December 12, 2006 5:53 PM
Posted on December 12, 2006 17:53
Aren’t any of you at least a little wary of the optics of this? Slapping around women’s groups is red meat to the base, but I suspect it will not broaden it any.
Posted by Greg | December 12, 2006 6:18 PM
Posted on December 12, 2006 18:18
Someone needs to start a Belinda Watch. I nominate you.
Posted by Adam | December 12, 2006 7:30 PM
Posted on December 12, 2006 19:30
Changing things so lobby groups have to raise their own money to lobby is hardly “slapping around” anyone. And that is probably not the best choice of words either, but I am sure you thought that was clever.
Posted by Greg Staples | December 12, 2006 8:19 PM
Posted on December 12, 2006 20:19
“Slapping around women’s groups is red meat to the base”
One of the gals from the Institute of Feminist and Vegan Studies was typing on Greg’s computer.
Posted by Anonymous | December 12, 2006 9:24 PM
Posted on December 12, 2006 21:24
Changing things so lobby groups have to raise their own money to lobby is hardly “slapping around” anyone.
Ok, can you tell me out of a multi-billion dollar budget, and a multi-billion dollar surplus, this group was targeted for budget cuts? Right, it has nothing to do with taking “feminists” and “vegans” down a peg. Naw, nothing like that.
Posted by Greg | December 13, 2006 6:42 AM
Posted on December 13, 2006 06:42
“it has nothing to do with taking “feminists” and “vegans” down a peg. Naw, nothing like that.”
What’s a feminist? I didn’t realize vegan funding had been cut. Is there a Status of the Malnourished Council that’s millions short of last year’s budget?
Posted by Alan | December 13, 2006 8:23 AM
Posted on December 13, 2006 08:23
It’s not about slapping women around - it is about changing the intellectual tone of public life. For over 30 years, these groups have been paid by the government to give out propaganda. Now, they won’t be getting as much money. Tell me, Sinister Greg, why should they get any? In my view, giving people taxpayers’ money to lobby for policy change is a worse form of spending than simply giving them money for their own personal benefit: it does harm by warping public debate, as well as wasting money.
Posted by MarkCh | December 13, 2006 10:02 AM
Posted on December 13, 2006 10:02
The question is not “why this group was targeted for budget cuts?” but why did this group (to the exclusion of others) get funding in the first place.
Posted by Anonymous | December 13, 2006 10:20 AM
Posted on December 13, 2006 10:20
From the same special, I remember Ms. Stronach making one comment that struck me:
“We want to ensure that women have real, substantive equality in Canada, not just equality under the law.”
I was under the impression that “equality under the law” was the only kind of equality the government should (or can) be in the business of providing.
Posted by Stephen J. | December 13, 2006 12:23 PM
Posted on December 13, 2006 12:23
I would scrap all funding to SOW. The $5 million cut was in the context of $2 billion over 2 years to other programs. There was also another $7 billion in cancelled Liberal programs. These protests are out of all proportion to that. Consequently, in the political sense, this cut has not been worth the savings.
Politically, it would have been better to scrap SOW and then give a $100 bonus to everyone with 2 X chromosomes. The Conservative government somehow, someway will have to do something similar to counteract the “anti-woman” perception. Politically, there will have to be some major pro-woman initiative put forward by this government that will cost significantly more than $5 million.
Maybe income-splitting is the answer : ) but I doubt it. Maybe having a 2025 target for Parliament to have 50% of MPs to be women.
Posted by PlaidShirt | December 13, 2006 3:33 PM
Posted on December 13, 2006 15:33
PlaidShirt, the Liberal pandering to women’s causes has nothing to do with actually helping women. It’s all about giving the appearance of helping them.
Your idea of distributing the annual budget is intriguing. Perhaps a similar proposal could be put forward for Indian Affairs.
Posted by Dr. Strangelove | December 13, 2006 3:57 PM
Posted on December 13, 2006 15:57