Skip to content
Archive of posts filed under the Social Issues category.
« Older Entries

Creepy is as creepy does, Sir!

Posted by Joanne on 6 June 2010, 8:10 am

Brian Lilley picks up on Gilles Duceppe’s and Pat Martin’s public distaste for Opus Dei (Gilles Duceppe and Pat Martin: Still bigots, still creepy), and points out an important item that I missed in my analysis of Pat Martin’s appearance on Evan Solomon’s Power and Politics:

… Still I have to give Martin credit for meeting Father Dolan on CBC’s Power and Politics show, but that for Martin, this is where he proved himself a fool. As he went on about how scary it was for Opus Dei to be allowed to speak on Parliament Hill and expressed his worry that this group might somehow impose its religious views on public policy, Martin stuck his foot in it.

“My whole political background is based on the Social Gospel,” says Martin. “Which means putting in place on earth the things that our faith aspires to. And perhaps that forms the foundation of most of our legislation too, is the Ten Commandments or whatever.”

Then right after saying that his own politics is shaped by faith, by the Social Gospel, which is a left-wing interpretation of Christianity, Martin says he’s worried about a right-wing group breaching the separation of church and state.

“When you do cross the line, from, to church and state,” says Martin, “I think that democracy suffers and there’s forces in play shaping social policy with undue influence, that’s what’s creepy about it to me.”

So there you have it, Pat Martin likes the Gospel if it has a left-wing slant, in fact it is the basis of his own politics, but if you have another view on Christianity, say one that opposes abortion, then you are an extremist and a creepy fundamentalist.

Yes, the Gospel according to Pat is just fine for shaping Canadian legislation, but keep those ‘creepy’ Opus Dei Catholics far away from Parliament Hill!

How’s that foot tasting Pat?

Filed under Arrogance, Bloc, Free vs hate speech, Hypocrisy, Social Issues, Too many Fools on the Hill, Voter cynicism, Your tax-dollars, democracy, religion.
50 Comments

What do we do about polygamy in Canada?

Posted by Joanne on 24 September 2009, 8:59 am

Last March I asked the question, Should we decriminalize polygamy? That was around the time that the case against Winston Blackmore and James Oler was ramping up. Yesterday we learned that the charges were thrown out due to perceived political interference. Now everyone is asking what’s next? Daphne Bramham, who is probably the most knowledgeable journalist on the topic, lends this view in her Vancouver Sun report -  Polygamy case in limbo after political interference:

…What makes this all so difficult for de Jong is that the very reason Oppal sought outside legal counsel is that four senior Crown counsel, including Robert Gillan, the assistant deputy attorney-general, believed that there was no substantial likelihood of conviction because the law is unconstitutional. Some of them were also involved in a 1992 decision not to pursue charges against Blackmore and against Oler’s father, despite the RCMP’s recommendation. It’s unlikely their positions have changed. But with this decision, de Jong can’t seek any further outside advice…

As I interpret Bramham’s column, the options as follows: 1. File an appeal. 2. Take it to Supreme Court. 3. Start a new RCMP investigation. 4. Do nothing. As I’ve written before, this isn’t just about Bountiful. Perhaps if it was then option #4 might not look so bad. This goes to the very essence of what we are as a country – Religious & cultural rights  supposedly protected by our sacred Charter vs. what many perceive to be an abuse of women and children. If the law is unconstitutional, let’s get rid of it and figure out something else. But this is not a situation we can continue to ignore. If we do so, we condone it.

*   *   *   *

Related: Why polygamy should be illegal – The Iceman

*   *   *   *

Friday Update:

Back to the drawing board in Bountiful – National Post

STOP! Polygamy in Canada – (Petition)

Women Speak Out Against Polygamy – Holy Post:

...FLDS groups aren’t the only ones who practice polygamy. Other fringe sects and some fundamentalist Muslims also engage in polygamous marriage. But according to Farzana Hassan, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress, polygamous marriage is an “oppressive institution.”

“It’s all about dominance, control and power structures,” she says, noting that “extremely young” Muslim women have been imported to Canada for the purpose of becoming polygamous wives. “I’m not even sure that their consent counts in such cases,” Hassan said.

“Freedom of religion has to be seen within the larger human rights issue. And if human rights are being trumped by a religious practice, then that’s not acceptable.”

Spencer agrees. A self-described born-again Christian today, living in a monogamous marriage, she says she found real freedom only through coming to a new understanding of and relationship with God, and it’s her faith that motivates her today.

“It is abuse for parents to marry [their girls off as] child brides, and for them to have babies so soon. I think it’s an absolute crime when a woman has a dozen or more children, so five-year olds have to change diapers and work, work, work. It is child slavery,” Spencer said.

“I want to be that voice for every woman who through fear, remains silent.”


Hunter has a great post up on the above article – Women speak out.

Filed under Crime, Law & Justice, Polygamy, Social Issues.
27 Comments

Protecting the rights and lives of Canadian Muslim women

Posted by Joanne on 25 July 2009, 8:46 am

Tarek Fatah’s front page column in the National Post is a must-read for anyone following the Kingston canal murders – To Cure Honour Killings ‘Cancer’.

To try to find one section to highlight as particularly important would be difficult because the whole piece is a crucial and insightful analysis of the misogynistic attitude of some Muslims who seem to believe that women are merely chattels of their menfolk – without any rights.

Of course a  culture clash is bound to erupt  in our North American society where women are deemed to be equals of men.

A few days ago I asked, How are we going to stop this?

Tarek Fatah believes he has the answer – It must start with the religious heads of the community:

…Not until Muslim clerics and imams seriously abandon their notion about women being the possession of men will we begin to address the cancer of honour killings…

But how will they be convinced to do that?

Yesterday on Newstalk 570′s Jeff Allan show, Fatah was interviewed on this subject and he mentioned something to the effect that Imams in Canada need to stand up and say that women are not the ’source of sin’ and that consensual sex is not grounds for execution.

We can’t change the whole world, but we need to be trying to protect these Canadian Muslim women and children right here in our own communities.  If it has to start with the religious leaders, then perhaps they need to be educated on what it means to be a Canadian.

Perhaps we also need to be a bit more vigilant when it comes to screening the attitudes of potential immigrants. If they refuse to open their minds to Canadian values, then we have a problem.

*   *   *   *

Related: An article in yesterday’s National Post included a list of suspected ‘Honour killings’ in Canada.

The victims include:

AQSA PARVEZ

Aqsa Parvez, a 16-year-old girl, was found strangled in her family’s Mississauga home in December 2007, a killing that drew significant international attention. Her 57-year-old father, Muhammad Parvez, and his 26-year-old son, Waqas, are charged with first-degree murder in the case, which has yet to go to trial. Friends said Aqsa had been at odds with her family over her refusal to wear the hijab, the Islamic headscarf worn by some Muslim women. She had also been spending time away home, staying with another family who described her as a “typical” teenager who yearned for acceptance. She was reportedly trying to repair her strained relationship with her family in the days leading to her death.

AMANDEEP ATWAL

Amandeep Atwal, 17, died of multiple stab wounds in 2003 at the hands of her father, Rajinder Singh Atwal, who was convicted of second-degree murder in the case. He had brought his teenage daughter to hospital in Langley, B. C., claiming she had inflicted the wounds on herself, but court heard that Mr. Atwal disapproved of the 17-year-old’s love affair with a classmate, who was a year older. Her boyfriend, Todd McIsaac, said the two carried on their romance in secret over a two-year period after meeting in science class. Friends, his family and some of their teachers were reportedly turned into co-conspirators to keep the relationship secret from Ms. Atwal’s parents, as she was forbidden to date.

KHATERA SADIQI

Khatera Sadiqi, 20, and her fiance, Feroz Mangal, 23, were gunned down in the early hours of Sept. 19, 2006, in a car parked outside an Ottawa shopping plaza. Her 23-year-old brother, Hasibullah Sadiqi, was found guilty on two counts of first-degree murder, with the judge in the case saying a “twisted sense of values” led him to murder the pair. The trio had been out for dinner and a movie with friends, and conversation eventually turned to their father, from whom Ms. Sadiqi was estranged. Hasibullah told the court he had wanted his sister to respect that their father was “there for us” during their youth and became angry when Mr. Mangal did not back him up. The Crown argued it was an honour killing sparked by anger over the couple’s engagement.

AMANDEEP KAUR DHILLON

Amandeep Kaur Dhillon, 22, was fatally stabbed in the neck in the basement of a Mississauga grocery store on New Year’s Day, 2009. Her father-in-law, 47-year-old Kamikar Singh Dhillon, was also found at the scene of the crime with stab wounds later determined to have been self-inflicted. He was initially treated as a victim, but was later charged with first-degree murder in the crime. Media reports suggested that Ms. Dhillon, who had a young son living in India, was in an arranged marriage, with her family paying a dowry of more than $100,000.

SHEMINA HIRJI

Shemina Hirji, a 40-year-old school principal, died in her Burnaby, B. C., townhouse in the summer of 2007, less than a week after she married 34-year-old Paul Cheema. Mr. Cheema, who was widely suspected in her murder, was found dead of an apparent suicide about a week later. Ms. Hirji was of the Muslim faith while Mr. Cheema was Sikh, and the pair had reportedly been quarrelling over wedding bills. He told police intruders had invaded his home, attacked him and killed his wife, but his injuries were found to be minor. It was later revealed that Mr. Cheema had been jailed in Winnipeg in 1995 after twice threatening to harm another former girlfriend, with whom he was arranged to be married.

JASWINDER KAUER SIDHU

Jaswinder Kauer Sidhu, 25, was found with her throat slit in June 2000 after moving to India to live with her new husband, a poor rickshaw driver of whom her family disapproved. The B. C.-born woman’s husband, Sukwinder Singh, was brutally beaten and left for dead just a day earlier. Ms. Sidhu had reportedly told her friends in British Columbia that she feared her family because she had married Mr. Singh despite their objections. Police in Punjab charged nine people with conspiracy to kill Ms. Sidhu; among those charged was her mother, Malkiat Kaur, and her uncle, Surit Singh Badesha, both of Maple Ridge, B. C. Seven others who were charged in India were sentenced to life in prison.

I am grateful to the National Post for compiling and publishing this list. These were Canadian women. We let them down.

*   *   *   *

Sunday Update: Imported evil of honour killing – Calgary Herald:

...This is not just a matter for the justice system but one for community leaders and the clergy. The latter two groups have a key role to play in heading off the potentially lethal intercultural and inter-generational disputes which sometimes lead to the murder of children from these cultures by their parents. They also have the authority and the linguistic capabilities to approach and educate recent arrivals about life in Canada, and to make them aware that in this country, women and girls are autonomous individuals, free to live their lives as they please.

This last bit is especially important. Immigrants are welcome but must realize they are expected to internalize Canadian values and leave behind repugnant archaisms such as this utterly skewed understanding of what constitutes male honour, and the obligation of feminine submissiveness…

Yeah well, not according to P.E.T.

*   *   *   *

Tuesday Update: Deaths renew honour killing debate – Mindelle Jacobs, Sun

Filed under Crime, Honour killings, Law & Justice, Multiculturalism, Political correctness, Social Issues.
72 Comments

East of Eden on polygamy

Posted by Joanne on 25 March 2009, 4:51 pm

Blue Like You seems to have morphed into a virtual gathering place of like-minded travellers, so it’s fun to learn a bit more about the views of our regulars.

This evening it’s a real treat for me to refer you to a post by ‘East of Eden’ – Where are the great defenders?

As you will read in his blog, E of E is outraged not only by the victimization of women and children who are trapped in polygamous situations, but also by the conspicuous absence of outcry by those on the left:

To hear the feminists and the left-wing contingent tell it, Stephen Harper hates women (and just about everybody else) and only the feminists and left-wing contingent can protect people from the evil Stephen Harper. It goes without saying that all this hatred attributed to our Prime Minister is, at best, unfounded balderdash and, at worst, slander subject to litigation.

So, I have to ask: where are these great protectors of the helpless victims? Where are they? They’re probably too busy trying to shore up funding for the Status of Women which, as far as I can see, does absolutely nothing for women…but that’s a whole other story.

However, in Canada, we do have a group of women who are seriously subjugated and in serious need of support and liberation. I am talking about women who, not of their free will, belong to the cult known as FLDS. FLDS is a cult which broke off from the Mormon Church – it is a cult which purports to be following God’s will but is, in fact, nothing but a cult run by a few evil males who control a large number of people for their own nefarious purposes. It’s funny how the evil in the world boils down to two things: money and sex. In the case of the FLDS, it boils down to those two things, in my opinion…

This actually ties in quite nicely with an article in today’s National Post showing that according to documents obtained by Canwest, the Harper Government has been watching the Bountiful situation for some time and is prepared to “defend the constitutionality of Canada’s criminal ban against polygamy” with what almost sounds like a PR campaign geared to appeal to the  ‘Canadian values’ of equality of the sexes and the rule of law.

I’m sure East of Eden would applaud the Government on this one, as would most Canadians.  A ramping-up of public opinion against polygamy probably couldn’t hurt.

However, Tom Flanagan who recently had a column published in the Globe, says that this appeal to Canadian values may not be enough:

…University of Calgary professor Tom Flanagan, a former campaign manager for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said it’s important for the government to launch a “strong defence” of the law now, in case public opinion becomes more lenient toward polygamy as the Bountiful case proceeds. But he said the government will have to do better than making a vague appeal to “Canadian values.”

“To me, it’s not the most profound argument to make,” said Flanagan, who recently argued in an editorial that the Bountiful case could lead to the legalization of plural marriages…

Well in any case, I think East of Eden is on the right track with his challenge to the feminists and the left-wingers to start speaking out and give these women and children support.

However, even if the law against polygamy is actually upheld,  will it mean anything if  some provinces continue to turn a blind eye?

*   *   *   *

Update: East of Eden has another one up! My Body, My Choice – Uh, Wrong

Thursday Update: Great podcast available at the National Post’s Full Comment – Should Canada’s ban on polygamy stand?

Filed under Bountiful, Canadian Government, Ontario government, Polygamy, Social Issues.
31 Comments

Are you happy with the ‘status quo’?

Posted by Joanne on 29 December 2008, 3:06 pm

If there’s one thing that drives me crazy, it’s when I’m told that such-and-such is ‘what Canadians want’. I immediately begin to question the source because their argument is obviously faulty unless it is backed up with scientific, unbiased facts.

Today we learn via Joyce Arthur who is co-coordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, that apparently Winnipeg MP Rod Bruinooge and several of his Conservative colleagues are the only people in Canada who want to have another look at our lack of laws regarding abortion:

“It’s something that the Conservative Party is out of touch with, because Canadians don’t want to go back to the abortion debate,” Ms. Arthur said. “People are happy with the status quo. It’s working well.”

Is she saying that anyone who wants to discuss this issue is not a Canadian? Or not a ‘person’, much the same way she views the non-persons in every pregnant woman’s womb in Canada?

Or is she saying that only Conservative party members are wanting to discuss this? Or some Conservative MPs? Where is the data to support that statement?

What part of multi-party Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus does she not understand?

We do know for a fact that there are several Pro-Life advocates in the Liberal caucus, so Arthur’s argument contains a glaring flaw.  There have been  dissenters in the NDP and  Bloc caucus too, but they have been severely punished to the point of expulsion. So much for free speech.

I do applaud Rod Bruinooge for his courage in bringing this matter forward. Stephen Harper has said he doesn’t want to reopen the abortion debate, so it is up to a multi-party group of backbenchers to take up the torch.

Bruinooge uses facts to formulate his argument:

In Canada in 2008, our citizens have no legal value while in the wombs of their mothers. We are completely alone in the world in this regard.

Most Canadians would agree that you should not be able to remove your kidney and sell it on eBay to the highest bidder. Although it’s your body and your kidney, this would not only be a poor bioethical choice, but it is in fact illegal under our laws.

Most Canadians would also agree that an unborn child in the ninth month of gestation, moments away from delivery, should not be eligible for an elective abortion. However, regardless of the fact that this would be an extremely poor bioethical choice, it is in fact legal. As such, Canada has far greater protections for human kidneys than we do for human fetuses…

So there is a logical inconsistency in the present state of affairs which I would dearly love someone to discuss here.

If we could just let go of some of our previously-held beliefs and emotions long enough to really study this issue, I think the results could help appease both sides.  The usual canard  about late-term abortions is that it is so rare as to be not worth legislating. And yet there are other forms of life-ending but thankfully rare actions too, such as a parent killing his or her own child. We don’t turn a blind eye to these occurrences simply because they don’t happen very often.

But the big issue here is whether or not Canadians agree with Joyce Arthur statement that they don’t want to go back to the abortion debate. Her implication is that all Canadians feel this way.

Do you?

Let her know – jharthur@shaw.ca (H/T Alberta Girl)

*   *   *   *

Update: Somebody else doesn’t appreciate being told what to think:

What’s hysterical is that this article does not challenge Joyce Arthur’s statement that “people are happy with the status quo.” I, for one, am not happy with the status quo. I strongly resent it when I and my like-minded peers are denounced as right-wing extremists simply because we hold that life can logically only be defined as beginning at conception, and that it must be safeguarded from that point on. I want Canada to have this dialogue, and am glad that there are members of our national Parliament who represent my point of view.

December 29, 2008 at 7:52 AM

More food for thought regarding other social issues such as surrogacy at ProWomanProLife – Those pesky ethical issues.

“Harper stiff-arms talk of reopening abortion debate” – Ottawa Citizen.

And the only way this debate will be allowed to continue is if THE PEOPLE DEMAND IT!!!

*   *   *   *

From the Star comments:

Canada Has No Abortion Law

Why are we content to live with no law regarding abortion? Abortion supporters like to say Canada doesn’t want to consider its bio-ethical position, that Canadians are content to have no law and no debate on this issue. That is patently untrue. I am a left-leaning, NDP supporting, social advocate, and I am very concerned that Canada has not worked through this issue legally. The debate must be reopened so that Canada can work through this issue that HAS NOT been dealt with. Canadians on all sides of the political spectrum have a great deal to lose if we opt for no discussion and no law. I say “bring the debate on!”

Submitted by theosaurus at 11:22 AM Monday, December 29 2008

*   *   *   *

Tuesday Update: Certain people are telling us to Keep it Quiet.

Well I now agree with Raphael that “It’s not the Time…”

Great discussions in any case. So take that, Joyce Arthur!!

Filed under Abortion, Adoption is an option, Social Issues.
88 Comments

Does Morgentaler deserve the Order of Canada?

Posted by Joanne on 2 July 2008, 9:14 am

Obviously I am not pleased that Henry Morgentaler has been awarded the Order of Canada. It is an award that is supposed to unify Canadians and generate some kind of pride among the population. The recipient’s actions should be an example of good citizenship. It is not usually bestowed on a person who has taken an active role in ending human life.

However, let’s examine the strict criteria for being nominated for the Order of Canada.

Raphael has suggested that Morgentaler deserves the award "precisely because he is controversial, not in spite of it. His lasting contribution to changing the way we look at abortion in Canada has defined the spirit of that debate ever since. "

Well, if controversy is the criteria, then I can think of lots of people who deserve the award.

The official website explains the criteria as follows:

The Order of Canada is the centrepiece of Canada’s honours system and recognizes a lifetime of outstanding achievement, dedication to the community and service to the nation. The Order recognizes people in all sectors of Canadian society. Their contributions are varied, yet they have all enriched the lives of others and made a difference to this country.

A lifetime of outstanding achievement? – Notorious achievement perhaps.

Dedication to the community? – Well perhaps the pro-choice community.

A service to the nation? – In pragmatic terms, I suppose it could be considered a service that we don’t have millions of unwanted children. And perhaps the lives of many women have been saved and enriched because of Morgentaler. However, what about the lives of the females and males in Canada who were never given the opportunity to draw their first breath?

Judy Rebick says "millions of women owe their lives to the 85-year-old Morgentaler "because he put his life on the line, his freedom, his liberty and his health to defend women’s right to choice."

Millions owe their deaths to him too.

As the Order of Canada motto states, DESIDERANTES MELIOREM PATRIAM (They desire a better country.)

Well, the unborn deserve a better country. They deserve some kind of abortion law.

And that is not Morgentaler’s fault. It is yours and mine.

We’re the ones who vote in the weak-kneed politicians who are afraid to even discuss the subject.

* * * *

Update: Or maybe it’s really just all about diversity… and Lord knows we love diversity in this country:

An independent council of up to 12 Canadians who reflect the "diversity and excellence in Canadian society" advise the governor-general on who should receive the Order of Canada, sifting through at least 700 nominations for the honour each year…

I wonder how many unborn Canadians won’t be getting the Order of Canada because of Henry Morgentaler?

What great advances in medicine and technology have we lost?

How many nameless faces of "Canadian diversity and excellence" have never been given a chance to let their light shine?

Afternoon Update: A symbol of moral decay – Ian Hunter (Post)

Honouring a remorseless extremist – Barbara Kay (Post)

Besmirching the Order – Post editorial.

Abortion activist says he deserves appointment to Order of Canada – Canwest.

Morgentaler ‘proud’ to be finally recognized – CTV .

The leftist leanings of the Order of Canada are detailed here – Order carries history of rebukes (Post)

Thursday Update: Panel divided on crusader’s nomination, vote suggests – Globe.

Crusader???

And the Sun’s Connie Woodchuck won’t read your emails and doesn’t care what you think:

…I’m just sorry not all Canadian women have access to abortion even now. For those without much money, who live in isolated areas or near a church-run hospital, it’s as far away as ever.

(And skip the raging anti-abortion e-mails. I won’t read them. Been there; done that. Don’t care what you think any more.)

I wonder if her editor would read the emails.

And here’s a lovely quote from Morgentaler himself:

…He said opposition to abortion on religious grounds does not trouble him, "as long as they are not allowed to influence other people, by force or by any other means."

‘Or by any other means’? What the flick does that mean? Are we still allowed to talk about this?

Filed under Abortion, Adoption is an option, Social Issues.
78 Comments

Polygamy continues to go unchallenged in Toronto

Posted by Joanne on 5 June 2008, 9:35 am

Do we have a Canadian law against polygamy or not? And if evidence surfaces that the law is being broken, is it not incumbent on the police to investigate ?

I suppose that if you live in a province that has a two-tiered justice system, and prefers to busy itself with little bans on law-abiding citizens’ rights rather than concentrating on more important issues like the flagrant abuse of women in certain ethnic communities, then you can’t expect anything else.

A letter in today’s Post responds to John Turley-Ewarts’ June 2 editorial (Sharia by Stealth) with a suggestion:

It is regrettable that neither the Ontario Provincial Police nor the Ontario government appears to have the backbone to enforce their own polygamy laws. However I do not believe the situation is hopeless for these ladies.

I cannot believe that any woman would want to continue in a relationship with a man who has behaved in the manner described in this article. Therefore the logical course of action would be for these women to sue for divorce. That would bring the issue into the provincial courts, where they could claim the maximum possible for alimony, child support, division of family assets, etc.

I am sure the prospect of the possible financial consequences of their polygamous tendencies would have a salutary effect on any Muslim men contemplating this course of action and put an end to the practice.

Michael Edwards, Bloomfield, Ont.

Yes, well, all good in theory. However, the reality is that this type of divorce would be highly emotional and very expensive. Yes, perhaps the duplicitous husband could end up paying the bills, but there are no guarantees. Meanwhile, the woman and her children have to undergo a grueling divorce process.

And what about the emotional abuse inflicted on the poor woman when a powerful religious figure warns her:

“You will have to stand beside [your husband] in these difficult times,” Hindy told her. “You should stop causing problems to him. You will not get anything by divorce except destroying your life.”

Where is the feminist outrage, ladies?

Here’s a novel idea. How about we actually enforce the law so that this type of abuse does not continue? If an actual consequence is seen to be likely, perhaps it would discourage such men from even entertaining the idea in the first place.

Either that, or let’s strike down the law.

* * * *

Update: Gee, I wonder what’s next ?

This one’s from a few days ago – Tory MPP pushes for Ontario polygamy probe.

Barbara Kay also had a few words to say, as did Macleans’ Chris Selley

Saturday Update : This story makes Europe News – Harems and Hypocrites.

Originally published in Front Page Magazine. BTW, this is a MUST-READ!!!

Filed under Law & Justice, Multiculturalism, Ontario, Polygamy, Social Issues, Two-tiered justice.
13 Comments
« Older Entries