Canadian government policy based on the First Crusade

Dawg, Pogge and Balbulican have covered this nicely.

Suffice to let me add that Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and Charles McVety are a  national disgrace beyond sufficient description.

I expect MacKay is now feeling powerful enough to direct Canadian Forces Expeditionary Command to make plans for the retaking of Antioch. 

And to the inane little bigot (no, I'm not linking to it) who asked if the Department of National Defence would allow a "Christian Heritage Month" let me point out that as young ordinary seamen under training at HMCS Cornwallis we were compelled to attend Christian church parades every Sunday or be summarily charged under the National Defence Act for being absent from a place of duty. If a new entry service person did not declare a religion the government automatically made that person a Protestant Christian.

Preying on the fearful and naive

A local Tea Party billboard in Mason City, Iowa comparing Obama to Hitler and Lenin boasts the amusing slogan : "Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive."

Not everyone likes it however.

Shelby Blakely of the national Tea Party Patriots says :

"It's not going to help our cause. It's going to make people think that the tea party is full of a bunch of right-wing fringe people."

and that would be just so unfair.

Ha, ha, stupid Americans. Oh, wait ...

Dr. Laura advises . . . .

YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THIS GEM BEFORE, but what the hell, so to speak. Dr. Laura Schlesinger is a staunch conservative, with some crunchy comments about homosexuality and the Bible's take on it, according to Snopes.  Anyway, some clever individual came up with these theological questions. I wonder how Chas McVety feels about it . . . .

In her radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger said that she believes that homosexuality is an abomination (according to Leviticus 18:22) and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative: 


Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination .... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev.. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

G20.ca belongs to the Canadian government... right?

Wrong!!!

Go on over to Bene Diction Blogs On and get the real story.

Now tell me. How is it that Charles McVety knew to lock down the G20.ca URL when the rest of us didn't get the official word that Harper was planning a gazillion dollar photo-op in Canada before December 2009?

Hmmm???

Graphic courtesy of Alison. (Hope she doesn't mind that I stole it without asking).

Chuckles McVety want to give you a wedgie

Read this story on the rise of the religious right in Canada and don't get scared, get angry. Then get busy and stop this tiny minority from seizing control of the political agenda in Canada with the same kind of wedge tactics they have used in the United States.
The whole introduction of abortion into the national political agenda has been driven by the tiny religious right in Canada -- in poll after poll Canadians have been shown to favor the status quo on abortion and want to keep it legal, safe and broadly available.
The Reverend Doctor Chuckles McVety (whose credentials are as valid as my own) and his merry little gang of socially regressive theocrats will do their very best to try to push people's buttons and play to their fear, prejudices and worst, darkest sides to push their agenda of having their narrowminded view of morality dominate public policy.
To do this they will try to raise cultural wedge issues. How? Simple - they pick an issue where the state has endorsed a progressive position that may be slightly ahead of the social development curve and use an extreme example and negative stereotypes that might make some in the mushy middle ground on the issue uncomfortable and then claim that it is going to become the standard to scare that middle ground into picking a side.  The transformation of our society to a more open-minded, more progressive one is a slow journey and not everyone travels the road in the direction of progress at the same speed or travels the same distance, so if the religious right and other social regressives can pick off the stragglers and build their numbers, over time they gain enough political clout to throw up roadblock to everyone else's journey and drag more and more people back to the dark ages with them.
The strategy is to divide and conquer, the tactic is to use coded language, innuendo, suggestion and disinformation.
For example: Some people, especially older folks raised in a less open time, are still a bit leery of  open homosexuality - a mindset that is fading with each passing year as Canadians get less religious and the  laws granting equal rights become more broadly accepted and enforced. (Note:  I'm using broad generalizations here, so please, spare me the lecture about how you aren't a homophobe or how everyone is a homophobe or whatever - as far as I'm concerned, if you want to have sex with another consenting adult, do so - it is no one else's business. The public fight over equal rights for homosexuals is merely a convenient example to draw on, the same argument can be made on the fight over fair treatment of people accused of terrorism, women's rights, financial regulation - you name it). The religious right will condemn through various forums - speeches, complaints to government panels, press releases - the most excessive behaviour in the gay community and try to convince Mr. and Mrs. On-the-fence mushy-middle, "we don't know any gay people and we'd rather not talk about sex anyways" that all gays are perverts and degenerates diesel dyke bikers or the guy in the Gay Pride Parade in full make-up wearing nothing a feather boa and assless chaps (not, as the saying goes, that there is anything wrong with that - like I said, they use stereotypes) and claim that they are trying to force everyone to submit to accept gay sex. They will take this conclusion a step further and insist that by trying to inform people, especially young people, of issues of sexuality and sexual preference - for example telling kids that being attracted to someone of their own sex doesn't make them a bad person - is a form of seducing" "recruiting" those young people. Then they make an oh-so-very-brave declaration that just because the world is going to hell in handbasket doesn't mean that they will put up with  pedophiles molesting their children openly gay teachers our in our once proud schools. They will claim gay teachers and "activists" are "trying to cram the homosexual agenda down our throats" and the more extreme elements will make wild baseless claims and equate homosexuality with everything from disease and abuse to child-rape and cannibalism in an effort to drag the Overton window of what is acceptable in discourse back in their direction.
Then they drive the wedge by pushing a false choice that fits with their simplistic black-and-white view of the world: You are either in favor of child-rape and cannibalism or you are against homosexuality. A lot of it has to do with framing the question using loaded language about family or morality or even religiosity, but the goal is to force the subject to make an us-and-them distinction and side with the team conducting the campaign.
The strategy is a tough one to counter, especially if the side using it is willing to be blatantly dishonest in repeating the Big Lie until people start to believe it and has lots of money to spend on advertising, publishing books, magazines, newsletters, websites, building an infrastructure of institutions and networks of people who will back each other up and help mainstream the language and ideas of the extremists. (see Dave Neiwert's excellent The Eliminationists for more on this idea of mainstreaming extremist rhetoric).
Almost any social movement uses this strategy. It worked very well for the African-American civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement and even the abolitionists. For all I know, early man used it to convince other early men to use fire and tools and move out of the caves - "remember how we found the cave bear in that one cave and it ate Ugg? Unless we leave the cave, the bears will eat us all!"
peckerwoods, they managed to achieve a massive lasting change in society.
Before I am accused of the crime of high Broderism for saying "both sides do it" let me point out some key differences in how and why both sides do it. Both sides want to present their goals in the most favorable light, but one side is using this strategy to oppress people and the other is doing it to achieve equality of treatment, opportunity or status. The aim of the strategy is important and goals are not value-neutral or equally valid -- ending slavery is a good and noble goal, filling you own pockets or keeping your boot on the neck of others is not.
I am not saying the end justifies the means either, because there are important differences in the tactics used to pursue this strategy. Klan lynch mobs and violent rednecks existed, you could see them attacking the civil rights marchers on television. Condemning lynch mobs and complaining about the mistreatment of African Americans in the Jim Crow South was telling the truth. Complaining that abortion leads to breast cancer, teen promiscuity and moral degradation is a Big Lie. Complaining that allowing gay marriage somehow damages heterosexual marriages or undermines families is a Big Lie. Complaining that increasing taxes on the top 2% of income earners back up to where they were 20 years ago or enforcing the existing rules governing financial fraud is socialism/communism/fascism or whatever other idiotic idea the teabaggers are misspelling on their signs this week is a Big Lie.
These are important differences - they are the difference between good and evil.

(crossposted from the Woodshed)

Whack!!!

Christopher Bird of the Osgood Hall Law School at York University dismantles the spurious allegations of the Canada Family Action Coalition against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and leaves them in a smoking heap on the ground at The Court.

It seems McVety and company aren't just being dishonest about their "degrees". They are misrepresenting the law and attempting to twist the established conventions of the Order of Canada.

And you "senior" media types are being taken for a ride.

Go read.

You got that degree where?

You may recall that I joined a small chorus asking where Charles McVety picked up his doctorate and whether it is from an accredited institution. What that led to was even more questions about other Christian dominionists behaving as lobbyists and attempting to foist their agenda on the Canadian public.

Bene Diction has a highly informative post about diploma mills and their resultant damage all round, not the least of which is dilution of the status of degrees awarded from properly accredited and well-established institutions.

As you reach the bottom of that post you'll notice that, aside from the McVety question, there have also been questions about the individual who seems to accompany McVety as he gads through the halls of power, Brian Rushfeldt.

He is often referred to as Dr. although on the Canada Family Action Coalition website no title is conferred nor offered. Still, any attempt to communicate the question of degree/no degree is met with continued silence.

What is noticeable is that Rushfeldt's bio contains information that he was a Bible college dean. That put a few of us to looking deeper and it was discovered that Rushfeldt had been dean of Victory Bible College.

Of course it does. Create another question, that is.

What is Victory Bible College? Well this is Victory Bible College.

Scouring that site for information led to something interesting. As noted by Bill Kinnon in update 3 to this post, the current dean of Victory Bible Colleges International seems to have a small discrepancy of his own. From VBCI's website: (Bold mine)

VBCI Dean: Dr. George Madden, D.PC

Dr. George Madden and his wife Sandy have been actively involved in ministry for the last 24 years, ministering the gospel in over 25 nations. Dr. Madden operates strongly in an apostolic ministry that thrives on raising up and releasing leaders into their God-given destiny. Dr. Madden is a graduate of Rhema Bible Training Centre in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He holds a Bachelor of Theology from Canada Christian College, and a Master of Divinity from Victory Bible Colleges International, and a Doctorate Degree from the E.O.C.P.C.

What is E.O.C.P.C.? Well, this is EOCPC, and as you can see, they don't grant degrees. EOCPC has established itself as a regulatory board for Biblical-based counselling and psychotherapy. They're also a lobby group.

What is interesting however is that under the certificates they issue (not degrees) is this important note: (Bold mine)

The educational qualifications required to successfully apply these designations are offered by accredited secular and faith-based educational institutions located throughout Canada and the United States. Credits and qualifications submitted by applicants are subject to approval by the EOCPCA Membership Review Board. Recognition of credits and qualifications is at the sole discretion of the EOCPCA.

In short, if you already have a degree, you can apply for designation. Now the other shoe drops: (Bold mine again)

Credits issued by the following educational institutions are pre-approved and will be accepted without review.

Would you like the list of those educational institutions? Sure. It's not very long.
Victory Bible Colleges International in Canada (where all these deans come from); and,
California State Christian University in the US (where Charles McVety claims to have received his degree and which is thoroughly reviewed here.)

That's it. No other institution awards degrees which are accepted by this "certifying body" without review. None of the esteemed institutions on this list seem to meet the EOCPCA standard despite the fact that The Association of Theological Schools is the leading association providing degree granting accreditation to major theological graduate schools in the US and Canada.

What becomes even more interesting is the absence of certain institutions on the ATS list. No, no, don't guess. Let me name a few:

Victory Bible Colleges International; California State Christian University; Canada Christian College (Charles McVety, president).

Here's another bit of information to chew on. VBCI is a registered charity with Canada Revenue Agency as is Canada Christian College. Problem? You bet.

The leaders of these institutions are involved lobbyists and public figures attempting to shape government policy, not the least of which was Bill C-10 where they were attempting to restrict the ability of the Canadian entertainment film industry to use an established system of tax credits. This same cadre of individuals display the trappings of academic achievement which raise questions as to the quality of degrees and the institutions from which they were awarded.

All the while, these same individuals expect a level of tax exemption, under CRA charity designation, for their institutions and cry foul if anyone questions that status.

If the Evangelical Order of Certified Pastoral Counsellors of America (based in Burlington Ontario) is a lobby group, as stated on their website, they are nowhere to be found in the Canadian Public Registry of Lobbyists.

In at least one case there is a circular contradiction where the dean of a college advertises a degree from an organization that states individuals need a degree from the institution at which the dean holds a seat.

The whole thing is either a quagmire from which the answers to questions need to be placed on display or it is a blatant smokescreen to hide an ugly truth.

CBC, are you listening?

I was away and unfortunately missed this until this morning. It would seem "one of the most powerful leaders of the Christian Right in this country" *, Dr? Charles McVety may well have some explaining to do. Some of his so-called degrees, on surface examination, don't survive the litmus test.

Now, the heavy lifting on this has already been done by Yaya Canada, Bill Kinnon and toujoursdan, not to mention others, so I'm simply adding to the growing number of voices asking you folks with the TV cameras, microphones and investigative journalism tickets to crawl on over to Achievable Ends, read the whole thing and then present the question to Charles McVety.

Given that McVety is chummy with the current federal government and claims to have some influence in the Prime Minister's Office, it would be interesting to know if the brand of Christian moral bullshit that McVety is peddling is the work of a huckster.

Mind you, given the significant quantity of "Made In America" ideas floating around the Harper camps it may well be that the Harperites are quite accepting of pulpit-bashers possessing diplomas with perforated edges. It works south of the border.

* a line conferred on McVety by CBC's The Hour.

Evangelist leader bites McVety

The Christian evangelist community appears to be taking a dim view of Charles McVety's activities: (Emphasis mine)

John Stackhouse, religion professor at Regent College in Vancouver, is more direct: "My first reaction [upon hearing about the government's tax credit move] is if it came from Charles McVety, it's probably a bad idea. He is usually going public in a way that I wish he wouldn't."

Prof. Stackhouse said he shares many of Mr. McVety's commitments to fundamentalist Christianity. He listed a number of topics - hate speech, corporate advertising, pornography - that he doesn't believe should get government funds. However, in a free and pluralistic society, he said, the decision of what art is should be left to recognized artistic communities, not government staffers, even if that means offending one person or many people.

"The only alternative is either ideologically correct art, which is just propaganda," he said, "or banality."

By pushing for this kind of change, Prof. Stackhouse said, Mr. McVety gives credence to the theory that conservative Christians, if given absolute control, will turn Canada into a purely conservative Christian nation.

"Charles McVety is the nightmare that the Liberals want us to worry about," he said.

Especially when he's roaming the halls of the Centre Block.

Conservative Christian dominionists vs. faith

After Charles McVety blew his cover and started taking credit for the amendments to Bill C-10 the suggestion that the Conservatives were allowing Christian dominionists to write policy and were, in effect, forcing a particular religious belief on the country brought a wide range of people to action.

It is probably no surprize to readers that McVety represents a very small constituency and is viewed with great suspicion, not just by secularists, but by those who choose religious faith as a personal conviction.

One of the first blogs to call its readership to protest the offending elements of Bill C-10 was Bene Diction Blogs On. I don't find that astonishing in any way, but it does bring forth something worth underlining. In most religious faiths the overwhelming majority of adherents believe solidly in a person's right to worship, (or not), as they see fit.

As do I.

It would be easy to simply point at the activities of McVety and accuse Christians in general of being on a crusade to dominate government. Or that devout Christians as an identifiable homogeneous group are all social conservatives. That would be wrong. The real Christians I've met comprise a wide spread of political views. None of those I'm willing to listen to have any desire whatsoever to alter secular government.

The McVety's of this world, including Stockwell Day, form a sub-group of a sub-group. They are also non-denominational. Far from promoting the teachings of their prophets and saviours, this very small group is out to acquire power and dominate others. They want to define morality and then rigidly enforce it. PZ Myers, discussing the activities of McVety, makes the point.

We've been living with "conservative values" here in the US for a long time now, and they rarely seem to have anything to do with a social good, or with people actually setting exemplary moral standards for themselves. It's always about narrowing experiences, constraining others to a single permissible range of behaviors, and punishing others outside your domain of accepted social norms.

You know, it is possible to be a liberal, progressive sort of person who doesn't do any of the "bad" things that conservatives detest — who doesn't drink to excess, use addictive drugs, or gamble, who is faithful to a single spouse and doesn't spend time on pornography or prostitution. That people don't do those things is not the distinguishing characteristic of conservative vs. liberal at all. The real difference is that conservatives take sanctimonious pleasure in requiring everyone else to be just like their ideal, and seem to be less interested in measuring up to their own standards themselves than in demanding that others do so; liberals are people who put first priority on abiding by their own standards, and a second priority on allowing others to live their lives as they see fit.

I recommend reading that whole post and then looking around. (You'll learn amazing things about cephalopods, among other things.)

The thing that is most noticeable about what McVety and Day et al represent, and PZ makes the distinction, that the dominionists aren't promoting anything that has to do with Christian values. They are promoting authoritarian "conservative values". In short, they are in charge (because they presume to have special knowledge and abilities), their followers validate their assumed leadership and the masses are expected to conform (because they do not possess special knowledge and abilities). Those who resist are extricated, ostracized and, if the dominionists had their way, jailed.

As for any extremist group they are using a foundation which was formed for another purpose to expand their personal power. For most of this group, the religion they so adamantly demand is foremost in their lives is actually a convenient shelter for their own self-promotion and material gain. Proselytizing done in the name of their various factions expands their power-base.

Using Christianity as an example, the central figure in that faith would be turning over tables and tossing money around the marketplace if he saw what was being done in his name. I don't know how Jesus of Nazareth would view the wealthy, well-dressed televangelists, but I strongly suspect there would be, at the very least, harsh words.

While I subscribe to no religious belief there was a period of my youth where I was, in a fringe sort of way, exposed to the teachings of the Christian religion. It was truly just the basics but what I came away with was the feeling that above all else, Christianity was founded on the basis that it offered something and if you liked it, you were welcome. If you chose not to join in, that was fine too. No harm; no foul.

Regrettably, the first people smeared by the actions of McVety are those who congregate in faith and do not represent the dominionist, literal-Bible-interpreting ideal. That would be the solid majority.

Your government is being run by Christian Dominionists

Yeah. Thanks for taking the shroud off the agenda. Christian dominionist, Charles McVety, is taking full credit for a change in the Income Tax Act which allows the federal government to censor anything McVety finds doesn't meet his Christian zombie brigade agenda.

A well-known evangelical crusader is claiming credit for the federal government's move to deny tax credits to TV and film productions that contain graphic sex and violence or other offensive content.

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and "numerous" meetings with officials in the Prime Minister's Office.

This slimy piece of work is exactly what the Harper government is all about. In January 2006, just before election day, I wrote this about Harper and the coalition of Christian right-wing freaks that had gathered around him.

Harper gathers support, either through candidates or directly, from groups which will expect their social issues to receive priority on any Conservative government order paper. Vote Marriage Canada, The Promise Keepers, Focus On The Family Canada, R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, Canada Family Action Coalition and Campaign Life Coalition are some of the groups which support the Harper campaign by either promoting their candidate or openly supporting the Conservative Party of Canada platform. All of these groups are homophobic, most are anti-abortion and most pursue an extreme right-wing christian agenda. While some claim to be non-partisan, that suggestion is quickly dispatched with one look at their election literature. Many of these groups are Canadian branches of larger US bodies led by proselytizing christian extremists.

[...]

As much as Harper preaches "less government" he only means it in terms of taxation and delivery of programs. When it comes to social governance, a Conservative government would be in your face, in your bedroom and likely listening to your phone calls.

At the time several readers responded suggesting I was overstating the situation and being deliberately hyperbolic.

So, tell me which part of that prediction isn't now coming true?

After Harper's narrow minority victory in 2006, McVety was one of the first people invited to the Prime Minister's office. In September 2006, Marci McDonald wrote the cover story for The Walrus providing a glimpse of how ingrained the Christian dominionists had become in the Harper government. She too, was largely dismissed as exaggerating the problem even though we now knew what McVety was all about.

During the last election, as head of a handful of pro-family lobbies including the Defend Marriage Coalition, McVety emerged as a power to be reckoned with. He bought up the rights to unclaimed Liberal websites such as josephvolpe.com and stacked a handful of Conservative nomination contests in favour of evangelical candidates adamantly opposed to same-sex matrimony, a campaign he has vowed to repeat. As Harper navigates the tricky waters of minority rule—keeping the lid on any eruptions of rhetorical fervour from the rambunctious theo-cons in his caucus—it is noteworthy that he has continued to cultivate a man regarded as the lightning rod of the Christian right. Last spring, those around the prime minister drafted McVety to help sell the government’s contentious child-care policy, and on budget day he was the personal guest of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in the Commons’ vip gallery.

This latest move is intended to shut down Canadian film and television productions which don't pass the "Disney" test of McVety's living room. But worse, far worse, is the absolute fact that a rabid Christian dominionist has penetrated government and is now writing policy.

If you think McVety wasn't behind Bill C-484, think again. It's right on the front page of McVety's Family Action Coalition website.

McVety clearly has a strategy: Get the thin edge of various Christian dominionist wedges into government policy and when the time is right, drive them in as deep as possible. McVety wants a Christian evangelist theocracy and Harper is more than happy to lead it for him. Anything for power.

And while McVety is proudly taking credit for his attack on Canadian freedoms via the Income Tax Act, there is this whiny little line off his group's website:

(NOTE: Due to CFAC's political actions to support family, religious freedom and democracy, Revenue Canada will not allow us to issue charitable tax receipts.)

Take note of the attempt to portray themselves as "persecuted". If Harper ever gets a majority, you can expect that McVety's groups, hardly beacons of freedom and democracy, will find a way to further amend the Income Tax Act to make themselves tax-exempt.

This isn't just dangerous. This is very dangerous. Bill C-10 should never have gotten out of committee. It is up to the opposition, the majority in Parliament and on parliamentary committees, to be aware that Harper is serving the Christian dominionist agenda. It's time they get off their asses and stop the creep towards a theocracy.

No more playing hooky from committee meetings, no more missing votes. Read every line of every piece of proposed legislation and do the required research. Do otherwise and we'll be in the same condition as the train-wreck that rests against our southern border.

NAWL...going down...

This is the Victoria BC office of the Status of Women Action Group. As you can see, it is a 7x7 foot storage locker. While they do have the use of a donated voice mail, they no longer have any federal funding. No swag for SWAG.

H/T to F-email Fightback who blogged about this back in July.

One year ago the federal Conservative government announced it would no longer fund women's groups that do polling, advocacy, lobbying or general research. Perhaps the most drastic change to the mandate and operation of Status of Women Canada was also dropping the word "equality'' from the agency's goals.

So it wasn't much of a surprise this week to learn that NAWL, the National Association for Women and the Law, an advocacy group promoting equal rights, pay equity, legal access and education, is closing its doors due to those very changes to the criteria for funding. Like the two women in the storage locker in Victoria, they will continue their work, but as volunteers.

At the time of the budget cuts, Gwen Landolt of REAL Women, the traditional-values group which has spent the last 25 years fighting against equal rights for women, explained that groups (like SWAG) are no longer needed because "women are equal now".

I somehow doubt this line of reasoning would much impress the woman in the wheelchair working at the storage locker, given that a woman working full-time makes 73 cents as compared to the dollar made by a man in the same job. I also suspect this leaves little free time for advocacy but Gwen is unfazed : "If a group can't support itself and its lobbying activities across the country, then it just isn't a grassroots organization and shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer."

She is inordinately proud of the fact that REAL Women does not receive a single penny in federal funding and professes not to see why anyone else should, neglecting to mention that REAL Women has in fact applied for federal funding, but was delisted in 1999 for not having any actual programs that furthered the main objective of Status of Women Canada, which, as you will recall, used to consist of programs and advocacy for women. Gay bashing and anti-abortion propaganda evidently did not count as credits.

Gwen was interviewed on CBC's The Current yesterday.Anna Maria Tremonti asked her if she didn't think that pay equity, paid maternity leave, and a national daycare plan were things that Canadian women wanted. Landolt explained that women were different from men and that if women had wanted a national daycare plan, they wouldn't have voted for Harper.

I do hope, women of Canada, that you are taking notes. You will recall that in an effort to appear to have outgrown his nutty Reform roots, Harper campaigned on a promise not to attack funding for women. Nonetheless, Landolt, along with Charles McVety, met with Harper his very first day in office.

Landolt was also very exercised about Canada having been censured by the UN group CIDA for not having done enough to promote women's rights. CIDA attacked Harper, she explained, because of what the feminists told CIDA about him.

Do you really think that was what turned them off, Gwen? Or do you think it might have been that the office of your associate at REAL Women, Sharon Hayes, a Reform MP and also a board member of Focus on the Family, circulated a press release claiming that the Chinese perform ritual abortions in order to eat the fetuses? Just a guess here.

Josee Verner was also on The Current but mercifully the sound of her going round and round in circles blended so well with the sound of the washing machine that I only caught a couple of her cycles.

Roughly paraphrased :

JV : NAWL didn't get funding because they didn't apply for it.

AMT : What, given the new mandate, could they have applied for?

JV : Well they didn't apply. That's why they didn't get funding.

AMT, brightening up : So if they do apply now, could their funding be restored?

JV : Murmer, murmer. At just that point, Josee's spin cycle clicked in so I didn't hear a satisfactory answer. Gosh, she's so nice though, isn't she?

Really, it would be churlish to ask anything more from her.

Go listen to both of them, along with two NAWL advocates, here.

Also : Impolitical, and JJ, and Hope and Onions

Cross-posted at Creekside