Tonight my old Topaz went out in a blaze of glory. It was a spectacular display of acrid, billowing smoke, multiple fire extinguishers, ear-splitting sirens, suspendered firemen, and a gaggle of curious onlookers.
Now, I'm in the market for a replacement. My only criteria are fuel efficiency and non-flammability. Suggestions?
I just received a notice that Kim Pate, the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (of which the Kamloops Elizabeth Fry Society is a member) will be giving a presentation in Kamloops next Friday on the so-called battered women's defence.
As I mentioned earlier, this legal concept owes its existence to a judgment by the late Bertha Wilson in the famous Lavallee case. The event notice indicates that Ms. Pate has been involved for 15 years with implementing Lavallee, and more generally in activist work on behalf of women who run afoul of the law.
CAEFS' mission statement:
CAEFS is an association of self-governing, community-based Elizabeth Fry
Societies that work with and for women and girls in the justice system,
particularly those who are, or may be, criminalized. Together, Elizabeth Fry
Societies develop and advocate the beliefs, principles and positions that guide
CAEFS. The association exists to ensure substantive equality in the delivery and
development of services and programs through public education, research,
legislative and administrative reform, regionally, nationally and
internationally.
Following in the (mincing) footsteps of several US cities, Victoria, BC will be home this Saturday to a march against sexual assault called "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes."
Starting in Centennial Square at 10:30 a.m., men of all ages (including some local luminaries...check out the event's blog or this article in the Times Colonist) will don high heels and walk for one mile to protest rape and to raise funds for the Victoria Women's Sexual Assault Centre.
Pictures of a similar event held recently in LA can be seen here. Someone give these guys a foot massage!
Given that it's part of the Asper Empire, I suppose we can't expect much of the Gazette, but this piece it published online yesterday, entitled "Making babies in Canada could save money", is particularly appalling.
Author Dianne Rinehart's premise is that our governments should invest in artificial reproductive technologies rather than immigration, because the latter costs $1.6 billion in "departmental and resettlement costs," and growth from immigration currently outnumbers domestic births by three to one.
The first thing that strikes me about the piece is the barely-contained fear that "real Canadians" will be outnumbered by immigrants. It rears its ugly head every time the author throws in a statistic about rising immigration numbers as a self-evidently bad thing. That concern is probably racist and certainly stupid: after all, everyone but our First Nations were immigrants to Canada at one time, and look how we treat the original inhabitants!
The economic argument, as well, is completely disingenuous, even if Rinehart had provided a cite for her dollar figure. Consider, if you will, the financial implications of waiting for Canadian babies to contribute to the domestic economy. The Canadian Council on Social Development estimated that in 2004 it cost families on average $166,000 to raise a Canadian infant from birth to age 18. I really can't see how it could possibly cost more than that to simply open the doors to foreign nationals, who are often already trained and very willing to go to work.
Furthermore, and with all due respect to struggling would-be parents, I have a real problem with invasive, espensive fertility treatments. For one thing, it seems foolish to go to such lengths to increase the population of a planet already bursting at the seams. We especially don't need more citizens of so-called first world countries who damage the environment disproportionately. Secondly, it bothers me that many people will stop at nothing to create of and for themselves a little genetic replicant. There are so many children that need someone to care for them, and I don't care if you pull a Brangelina and truck them in from far-flung locales, or head to your local Ministry of Children and Family Development office: there's just no need (unless you're a couple of geniuses trying to breed the next generation of cancer-curing scientists) to replicate biologically when it involves such ridiculous expense and limited success rates. My final complaint is that any R&D and other government funding that go towards developing newer and better fertility treatments are at the expense of more pressing medical concerns. As we all know, there are just not enough health care dollars to go around.
The kicker in the article at hand, and I'll quote the paragraph in full, is where Rinehart states the following (after explaining that artificial reproductive technology is a better use of health spending than palliative care or heart disease):
This is the most ass-backwards logic of all. It first requires us to accept, as I clearly haven't, that encouraging population growth via domestic birthrates is prima facie superior to encouraging immigration. Then, it suggests that because it costs less, government money is better spent on artificial insemination than on actually increasing child benefits to struggling families. What a brilliant idea! Forget helping the parents who are currently trying to raise their existing children with little to no assistance from the state....we should do biological backflips and get them to pop out some more!
Finally, if it's all about money - and not about families - consider what
else New Scientist reported: The findings "concluded ART could be as effective
at increasing birth rates as other proposed policies, such as raising the level
of child benefit" and - wait for it - "but would cost less."
Canada's first female Supreme Court justice, Bertha Wilson, passed away this Saturday.
Justice Wilson sat on the SCC between 1982 and 1991, and was a staunch Charter supporter and author of a number of woman-friendly judicial opinions, perhaps most notably in R. v. Morgantaler and R. v. Lavallee (which accepted battered woman syndrome as a defence to murder).
Although she apparently did not call herself a feminist, Justice Wilson was avidly pro-choice and upon retiring from the bench chaired the CBA's Task Force on Gender Equality.
Justice Wilson had also been the first woman appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. She was 83 at her death.
* Photograph: Michael Bedford, Supreme Court of Canada collection
I don't know Tom Williams, and I don't really care about his beard, but I think it's great that he's raising funds for the Victoria Women's Sexual Assault Centre.
VWSAC is a fantastic organization that helps hundreds of victims of assault every year. I volunteered there for the three years that I lived in Victoria and was very impressed with the quality of services they provide, all with limited funding and a small staff. In addition to individual and group counselling services, they also run a 24-hour crisis line and have volunteers with pagers who respond to emergency calls, meeting victims and accompanying them for post-assault hospital visits. There's also a great youth component run by Project Respect, promoting its acclaimed "Yes Means Yes" programme.
VWSAC always needs community support and I encourage you to help them in the great work they do. Click here to go to the GiveMeaning donation site.
The answer isn't, as you might expect, "uhh...because...people have no homes??"
According to Gay Pooler, general manager of the Kamloops Central Business Improvement Area, the problem is that it makes the streets just gosh-darn unattractive. In Monday's Kamloops Daily News, she told reporter Jason Hewlett that "we need to keep the streets pretty and safe." When he pointed out that "[m]ost homeless aren't dangerous," Pooler countered that "It's all about perception." Well, we wouldn't want the shoppers and business owners in our squeaky-clean downtown to have to face the fact that there are people in this city with nowhere to live (and forget about how safe that situation is for the people actually in it!).
She wants the RCMP to exercise "zero tolerance" when patrolling the downtown. Ron McColl, the manager of corporate programs and projects for the City of Kamloops, has described a new initiative where officers and outreach workers will interact with the expected influx of homeless people in order to find them housing and keep the streets "clean and safe." He didn't elaborate in the article, or in an interview yesterday on CBC Kelowna, about where these proposed homes will be found, but at least it shows some degree of awareness on the part of the City.
Not so for Pooler. In last week's Downtown Echo, she stated that the minimum wage should sit at $8.00/hour because "some people aren't worth more than $8," and anyone worth more than that is already being paid it. This week, in her "KCBIA Notes," she describes how she wants to see the local RCMP using the so-called Safe Streets Act, the Trespass Act, and municipal panhandling bylaws against "abnormal users" of the downtown, who should "not be comfortable on our streets."
This kind of anti-poor insensitivity and NIMBYism, apparently, is not just for barbers and councillors.
I was wasting time the other day reading archives of the Canadian blog Precedent: The New Rules of Law and Style and came across a post concerning a US lawyer who sued the website DontDateHimGirl.com which purports to be a resource for women and lists the names of alleged cheaters. No word yet on whether the noted Kamloops lawyer whose name appears on the site is aware of same, or intends to file suit.
I was just up at Chapters this afternoon, using up a giftcard (Ian McEwan, Douglas Coupland, Wayson Choy...I'm in heaven!), and in shopping for magazines found that the local store appears to no longer carry any of Ms., Bitch, BUST, or Herizons. Instead, in the "Lifestyle" section where these titles are usually found (and not with the Harpers and Walruses in the current events section for some reason), shopping magazines like LouLou and Lucky have sprung up to fill the void.
One more reason I guess to shop small/local. Hello, Bob's PX!
Courtesy of my darling brother at BCIT, a news release about a conference being held this weekend at SFU about women in the trades.
Although I'm a lazy slob who wouldn't touch physical labour with a ten-foot poleaxe (gonngggg), I think there is a glaring need for something to be done about the dearth of female tradespeople. I personally don't know a single woman working as a mechanic, electrician, bricklayer, or the like. I hear endless laments about how "kids these days" are all going to university and foresaking skilled labour, and how industries from forestry to plumbing are suffering when the old guys retire and nobody moves in to fill their spots. This is happening to an even greater extent in the trades than other fields. So isn't it kind of a no-brainer that industry look to a previously untapped labour source?
Although women have been gaining ground in the "professions," it is still very much the case that girls who don't follow highschool with post-secondary education will end up in the service industry, custodial jobs, or even child-rearing, rather than taking more remunerative work in the trades. In 2002, only 2% of registered apprentices in the top 15 trades were women. By 2004, women accounted for just 7% of employees in transportation, trades, and construction work. (See this StatsCan report from 2005.)
So, why are so few women choosing this type of work? The selection of workshops at the SFU conference offers some explanation. Fully half off them focus on either recognizing sexist mistreatment, avoiding sexist mistreatment, talking back to sexist mistreaters, or filing complaints of sexual harassment. Presumably this is still a major issue and a barrier to women entering the skilled trades. Now, I don't think the solution lies in educating tradeswomen about systemic discrimination. They're not the ones causing problems. But that's a long post for another day.
An article on www.apprenticetrades.ca cites the lack of female role models and "examples of ordinary women who have built a successful career working in a trade" as another reason that girls don't gravitate towards these jobs.
Finally, many women, and men too, also tend to think that female workers aren't strong enough for physical labour. In many instances, however, this is unwarranted discrimination. Take for example the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada case, British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, in which the complainant, a female firefighter working without trouble for three years, had been fired for failing to meet new physical standards put in place. Unanimously, the Court held that, excepting "undue hardship" to an employer, industry standards must accommodate differing abilities and must only be imposed in good faith and where necessary and logical. Where an imposed standard is not a "bona fide occupational requirement," it will not be a justifiable form of discrimination.
A recent Conservative press release ( "Women in Trades Get Another Boost From Canada's New Government") indicates that Harper may be doing something right for a change. Let's hope it sticks.
Today being the 25th anniversary of the creation of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I'll celebrate with a list of the great Charter cases that defined women's rights in this country*:
This week's Nature has a short article in its "Jobs" section called "The benefactor" in which author Maria Ocampo-Hafalla explains how despite all her high-level scientific training and education at a women's college, her mission in life is to become a "kept woman."
Ocampo-Hafalla has groomed herself for the role, directing her interests and activities to become the most attractive candidate. Now, she does her best to satisfy her benefactor in exchange for financial security and perks such as a personal allowance.
Her benefactor, of course, is the foundation that funds her post-doctoral fellowship (she's a research fellow at Cancer Research UK's London Research Institute). It's a clever take on traditional gender roles and an interesting commentary on women's participation in the business of science.
The Kamloops Daily News reports that a group of students at Brocklehurst Secondary are staging a protest against homophobia.
The Gay Lesbian Alliance at the school is holding a Day of Silence to raise awareness about the difficulties faced by GLBT students. Although not mentioned in the KDN article, this is apparently a continent-wide action taking place April 18 and kicking off Pride Week.
Silencing highschoolers alone takes Herculean effort, so good on them!
Stumbled across Frieda's Feminist Book Blog this afternoon and have found all kinds of good suggestions for my "to-read" list. Unfortunately it hasn't been updated lately, so hopefully more quality reviews are forthcoming.
From CBC news: a recent study has found that female Internet users outnumber male users in the US. Canada's most recent statistics are from 2005 and indicate an approximately even divide.
Hopefully the media and other generators of Internet content will take note.
Today Statistics Canada released a brief review of the Canadian economy in 2006 which contained some encouraging findings about women's participation in the labour force.
Unemployment among adult women was at record lows, falling for the sixth year in a row below rates of unemployment among adult men. Interestingly, the picture north of the 49th parallel is quite different than south of it:
Apparently, 2006 was the first year in which university-educated women in Canada exceeded the number of university-educated men. The report extrapolates from this statistic that there must therefore be an increased supply of skilled workers in Canada. I'm not entirely convinced that one can conclude from the figures that (more educated women) + (growth in female employment rates) = (greater number of women in professional and other skilled placements). Given what we know about women's earning power versus that of men, I think it's equally as likely that many more women, facing economic crisis, are taking on work that is part-time, underpaid, and in positions not necessarily reflective of their career training. Regardless, the increasing number of women employed in Canada is a promising trend.
Earlier this month StatsCan had reported that employment growth for women in the twelve months between March 2006 and 2007 was nearly double that of men. On its face, greater participation by women in the workforce would appear to be a positive development. However, I'm concerned with the overrepresentation of senior women in this statistical picture. As it turns out, "[w]omen aged 55 and over attained a record high employment rate of 25.8% in March. While the employment rate for women aged 25 to 54 has been increasing for several decades, the upward trend in the employment rate for older women began in 1997."
This seems to me to suggest that more women, upon reaching what would normally be retirement age, continue to work. Whether this is by choice or out of financial necessity is not, of course, represented by the sort of raw data StatsCan deals in. Poverty among elderly women is a particular problem in Canada, because of higher average female life expectancy and the fact that women often lack sufficient pensions or other financial support in their golden years.
Overall, the economic situation for women, at least as regards employment, appears to be improving, and I hope the trends seen in 2006 continue apace.
As you've probably heard, the Honourable Belinda Stronach announced today that she's stepping down from politics to re-enter the business world that she left only three short years ago.
Stronach became a poster child for liberal feminism (see this excellent Tyee article from a couple years ago) when her ex-colleagues in the Conservative party had a field day bringing out their favourite sexist slurs. But is she actually a feminist?
I think that anyone who has aligned themselves even briefly with the Conservative Party of Canada is on pretty shaky ground in that regard, but let's look at her track record, courtesy of the Hansards and a fantastic website called howdtheyvote.ca (started by a Kamloops kid, by the way):
A social plan costing in the range of $75,000.00 is under discussion at Kamloops City Council. (And it would appear that Councillor John DeCicco is as ignorant about poverty as he is on GLBT issues. Guess he feels a bit foolish complaining about those picky beggars now that even the Salvation Army and the New Life Mission are complaining about the quality of food found at the Food Bank!)
Homelessness in Kamloops clearly doesn't approach the levels found in larger (and warmer) cities in the province. However, the number of people on the city's streets grows each year, with a particular increase in the number of homeless women. The last year for which statistics on homelessness in Kamloops are available is 2005. At that point, the Kamloops Community Committee on Homelessness reported 168 homeless people in the City, in a count that took place in late November. Although the male-to-female ratio of the homeless in Kamloops is much greater than in some other BC cities (e.g. 22% in Kamloops versus 37% in Victoria), there is a worrying dearth of facilities and services directed at homeless women in particular.
This was a problem in 2003 according to service providers, and continued in the 2005 report to be a chief complaint among survey subjects (the homeless themselves). There are limited women-only shelters, particularly emergency shelters, and limited food provision services for women. It can be traumatizing for women, especially those who have suffered abuse, to use the soup kitchens which are populated mainly by homeless men. Now, with the in-fighting going on lately among the groups who provide food for the homeless and disadvantaged, it may become an even greater problem. The City, in devising its social plan and allocating funds, should look into remedying this.
(As an aside, I'd love to see this Toronto project replicated across Canadian municipalities. Maybe it would raise awareness among those barbers...I mean, City Councillors...I mean, citizens...who find it so easy to ignore the people in need who are standing right outside their shop windows.)
"'Normal' pregnancy weight may be too much"
Listen up, birth-giving machines! Make sure you're gaining weight, but not too much, and not too little, and apparently not even the "recommended" amount: the health of a future generation depends on it! Furthermore, the pre-pregnant amongst you had best control your chocolate cravings as well, because a middling middle makes you a less-than-ideal fetal receptacle.
Next week: "Watching TV while pregnant causes media-savvy toddlers" and "Expectant mothers advised to stop laughing: amniotic fluid jiggles with giggles."
This article I was reading yesterday on CBC's news site describes how eating (entirely inordinate amounts of) hormone-filled beef whilst pregnant may have an effect on a male fetus' sperm count.
Aside from my initial reaction of "well, good" (I'll leave the population rant for another day), I also got the feeling that this article and others like it have a very anti-female-autonomy agenda despite their apparent neutrality. So, when studies reveal that hormones and other crap in factory farm meat are crazy bad for you in ways you may not even realize, instead of condemning whomever deemed this poison fit to eat, the media spins it as an issue of pregnant women harming their fetuses.
Measures to control pregnant women and their bodies are rampant in Canadian health care policy and practices, and although they are often camouflaged as medical advice or routine prenatal care, there is a danger that women's ability to make personal choices about their health while pregnant may be usurped by the state in the form of criminal sanctions. Right now, the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission has an initiative called "With Child Without Alcohol," and last month the federal health minister introduced a National Healthy Pregnancy Campaign. Even before they become pregnant, women are encouraged to take supplements such as folic acid in order to render their wombs habitable for not-yet-conceived progeny.
This conception (no pun intended) of all fertile women as either pregnant or pre-pregnant (an actual term used by the US government, I shit you not) is really not such a far cry from the Japanese health minister who referred to his nation's women as "birth-giving machines." At this point, because a fetus is not defined by the Criminal Code as a living being with legal rights (and I remember studying and debating the SCC case of Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. G. (D.F.). which decided the issue while raising as many questions as it answered) there is no authority for the government to punish pregnant women for their health choices. However, the subtle inroads into personal autonomy that we see now are a worrisome trend, and it is often the case that social pressure and access to information and resources may be as influential, if not more, as the law of the land.
To paraphrase someone clever whose name I can't recall, any amount of highway driving may be hazardous to a fetus' health, but you don't see graphic and disturbing warning labels on steering wheels...
According to a story posted today in Kamloops This Week, a fifth charge has been approved against Steve Byron, the jackass who posted employment ads in the paper and then sexually assaulted the women who responded (um, allegedly). His arraignment hearing's on Friday so we'll see then what he pleads.
It's bad enough that women have to regularly deal with the threat of sexual violence, but it's all the more appalling when a predator targets disadvantaged women who might be looking desperately for a job. According to someone I know who'd spoken with one of the victims, she was a bit skeeved by the fact that the interview address turned out to be a private residence, but needed the work and thought it would be silly of her to just leave.
From what appears to be Byron's profile on social networking site Where Are You Now?, (amazing what Google can do, eh?) this fine gentleman considers himself to be a God-fearing Christian whose favourite book is the Bible. That's reassuring!
I cherish my weekend coffee and paper routine, so was annoyed (actually, further annoyed, since I'd just weathered Leah McLaren's typical self-congratulatory assfest) to see the cover of the "Books" section today devoted to the even more heinous Camille Paglia.
In an article entitled "Why can't a woman...", everyone's favourite anti-feminist (who counts among her fans the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher) presents a superficially benign discussion of women in power in the context of a series of book reviews. In a scant single page she flogs a number of her pet dead horses, including dismissing mainstream feminists (too domestic) and women's studies courses (male-bashing), confusing military might with political effectiveness, and wishing ever-so-hard that women would just go ahead and become men ("This is the new feministm. The path to power for women lies through male territory".)
Sure, "Books" is just a fluffy weekend supplement, but it makes no sense for what is supposed to be Canada's slightly more progressive national paper to provide a platform for an American reactionary to talk about issues for which she's universally considered ill-informed and unqualified (hint: if everyone from Naomi Wolf to Katha Pollitt thinks you're an asshole, things are looking bad). Paglia already has far more than enough of an audience with Salon, and besides: we've got our own libertarian crackpots...why borrow from the States?
Aw, man. I would've loved to attend this event last Friday put on by West Coast LEAF (Women's Legal Education and Action Fund). I've attended/volunteered at their annual Persons Day breakfasts but didn't realize there was an International Women's Day event as well.
From what I've read, this Dr. Weddington is a pretty incredible activist. Can you imagine being 26 years old and arguing in the Supreme Court? It would be fascinating to hear her thoughts on abortion rights so many years after Roe v. Wade. [Edited to add: I guess I could've found out easily enough]
Reading about some of the bad legislation coming out of the States (Mississippi, I'm looking at YOU) makes Canada appear infinitely more progressive in this area. There is still work to be done, though.
An interesting article on the topic recently ran in the Sun (and kudos to the paper for this in-depth, well-written article that shows none of the prevalent and irritating tendency in print media to interview fringe lunatics in a misguided attempt to present a "balanced" story), describing how although access to abortion has vastly improved in Vancouver and other urban centres in BC, women living in rural areas still face an uphill battle in receiving timely, effective service. Because there are no abortion clinics in most smaller cities and towns, women must attend at a hospital for this procedure. However, unlike at those designated clinics, a GP referral is required to receive an abortion at a hospital. So, if your family doctor is anti-choice, as I know at least a handful in Kamloops are, it would become pretty difficult to access treatment expediently.
I remember discussions in my health law class about what procedures doctors (particularly in remote areas where a patient's options are more limited) should be required by law to perform, and there is certainly no easy answer to that question. But women's health should not be compromised for geographical reasons.
I adore Heather Mallick's writing. She has a distinctive style that is a pleasure to read, with nearly unending twists and tangents. She faces controversial subjects head-on and isn't afraid of offending her readership or appearing internally inconsistent as she mines the intersection of privilege and conscience. This technique, I believe, serves to improve the quality of discourse because it doesn't rely on pat answers to hard questions. Her sense of humour is rather subtle and satirical which leads inevitably to misunderstandings manifested in the comments section of her "Viewpoints" column on cbc.ca.
I was disappointed when Mallick left the Globe, over a dispute with her editors about an article (reprinted here at rabble.ca) commenting on a piece of poor journalism published in the Guardian. It was in the Guardian's online content the other day that I came across a column by Zoe Williams, whose style of writing reminded me of Mallick's, and who similarly tackles tough topics in op-ed style with wit and occasional righteous ire.
None of which is newsworthy, but if I must lose hours in reading back posts by these columnists, so should you!
Perhaps the show ran out of worthwhile guests like Noam Chomsky and David Suzuki.
Maybe producers worried that the host's tattoos and piercings no longer sufficed to appeal to their "hip," "young" "viewer" demographic (yes, the scare quotes suggest that I believe the hour's target demo is neither hip, young, nor viewing the show).
Whatever its genesis, the segment featuring this notorious porn star was completely ground-unbreaking and envelope-unpushing. George opened with vitriolic letters from enraged neo-cons (isn't it funny how they always misappropriate feminist terminology when attemping to sound like legitimate dissent, when really their arguments boil down to: sexx
=drrty?) and claimed that the majority of mail received was overwhelmingly supportive. The rest of the piece was what you'd expect from a Maxim-reading, hetero fanboy. ZZzz.
I was about to launch into a diatribe against the "adult film" industry, but luckily Ron Jeremy saved me the effort: he says, "porn's not degrading to women...I work for women!" Well! Thank you SO much for clearing that up! I thought the only problem with the pornography industry is that there were no female bosses. Now I can pack up for the night and head to my (non-heart-shaped, non-satin-sheet-covered) bed.
A clip from The Hour's website
Incidentally, the programme opened with The New Pornographers' "Use It." I just learned a couple months ago that the band took its name from what televangelist Jimmy Swaggert dubbed popular music. A little less racy than on first impression.
Although nothing in the rules of the Bordeaux jail prohibited hijabs, a prison guard in Montreal was fired because she refused to cease wearing hers to work.
It's obvious that this raises questions about the legitimacy of such a decision in the face of Quebec's less than commendable reputation for tolerance of religious and other minorities (remember the poll in mid-January that revealed 59% of its population to be admittedly racist?). However, what also stands out is that the onus placed on these female guards to protect themselves sounds alot like the familiar refrain about avoiding the "risks" of rape. Women are told that their behaviours, their clothing, and their very existence put them at risk of attack. So, tie back that hair, hide those gams, and take off the headscarf because when you walk among criminals -- convicted or otherwise -- you're the one that's expected to change.
Story at Canada.com
On my way to lunch today, I had the dubious pleasure of hearing Bev Oda reading from a prepared statement on CBC Radio regarding "new" funding to the previously gutted Status of Women Canada.
In a voice dripping with insincerity and political motivation, one that seemed not to convince even the Honourable Minister herself, Oda reiterated her announcement from International Women's Day (March 7, 2007) that in recognition of the inequalities still faced by women in Canada, the Conservative government has decided to restore some of the funding it recently yanked from SWC.
Effective April 1, 2007, the government will contribute $15.3 million to the Women's Program branch of SWC. The government touts this as a 42% increase in that program's budget but really it just replaces the equivalent amount that was cut late last year when the Conservatives closed two thirds of SWC's offices.
Although a step in the right direction, this announcement is cold comfort to Canadian women. Furthermore, I highly doubt that any other recent victims of Conservatism (such as the Court Challenges Programme) will be resuscitated. I'll just have to enjoy the fact that at least this announcement probably annoyed the hell out of REAL Women of Canada. Sometimes, that's almost enough.
Status of Women Canada press release
