quote:

---

Vote would have led to equal representation in Parliament

Party `missed great opportunity,' says women's caucus chair

JOAN BRYDEN
CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Paul Martin's campaign to brand the Liberals as the champions of equality took a direct hit yesterday as party faithful defeated a resolution to ensure 50 per cent female representation in Parliament and the party hierarchy.

The resolution, defeated by a vote of 452-347 at the Liberals' national convention, prompted bitter recriminations from some women delegates, who charged that the vote puts the lie to the party's claim to be inclusive and progressive.

"I'd be lying if I said I'm not disappointed," said Gatineau MP Françoise Boivin, chair of the Liberal women's caucus. "I am sad. I'll be frank with you. I think the Liberal party claims to be open ... and respectful of our differences, of who we are. You know, I think they missed a great opportunity (to prove it) and it's often on the back of women, sadly."

The resolution, proposed jointly by the party's women's commission and the women's caucus, sparked the only real fireworks of the convention so far.

Several delegates objected to setting quotas for female representation and referred repeatedly to women as a minority. That led to a furious outburst from New Brunswick delegate Bethany Thorne Dykstra.

"I will tell you I'm insulted, absolutely insulted, to be called a minority. We are in the majority as women ... We have a problem because we don't have something between our legs," Dykstra shouted to a mixture of gasps, jeers and applause.

Although women make up 52 per cent of the population, only 21 per cent of MPs are female, and only 24 per cent of Liberal MPs. The party has struggled in the past to meet promises that at least 25 per cent of candidates in elections are women.

Martin, who spoke at a reception to raise funds for women candidates shortly after the resolution's defeat, vowed that "as many (women) as we are capable of finding" will be slotted into party positions.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister denied the resolution's defeat is a setback for Martin's campaign to champion equality.

"The party has always embraced equality while historically eschewing quotas," the spokesman said. "The very prominence of this discussion shows you that ours is a healthy, vibrant political organization with the courage to debate women's issues openly..."

---

quote:

---

"The party has always embraced equality while historically eschewing quotas," the spokesman said. "The very prominence of this discussion shows you that ours is a healthy, vibrant political organization with the courage to debate women's issues openly..."

---

If I were a part of the Lib's women's caucus, I'd quit the party as a result. This is a serious diss. Encourage debate, discourage results.

Paul Martin saying "as many (women) as we are capable of finding" means something more along the lines of "as many women as we can find without really trying to make this equitable".

BAH!

..."Surprisingly, a good number of objections were levelled by female members of the party's youth wing, which usually prides itself on advancing equality rights as enshrined in the Charter of Rights. The youth wing is, for instance, leading the charge in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage, using the slogan, It's the Charter, Stupid.

However, one young female Grit took to the microphone to oppose equal representation for women, saying "I don't want to be filling a quota. It's okay to encourage women but to set a number is wrong."

The parliament in Wales is now composed, I believe, of more than 50 per cent women representatives. Many other nations -- including Rwanda, I believe -- are now doing better than we are on this score.

After all these years, though, I have only ever come up with one good explanation for what holds women in the most developed countries back, and that, you should forgive the term, is capitalism.

1. Liberal Party runs less women in 2004 than last election

2. Less Cabinet roles for women

3. Sheila Copps run out of her riding through dishonest tricks

4. Judy Sgro removed from Cabinet (which most Canadians agree with) but not replaced by competent Liberal Women

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amy:
If I were a part of the Lib's women's caucus, I'd quit the party as a result. This is a serious diss. Encourage debate, discourage results.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

And join which party?

---

I don't know. That wasn't really the point. I would take this as a clear message: women are not valued here (the Liberal party of Canada). If I were a member, and more specifically, a member of the women's caucus, at the time of this vote, I would probably come to the conclusion that the work I was doing would be better done elsewhere. Where that 'elsewhere' would be might be a hard decision, but it would be a decision I would have to make.

[ 05 March 2005: Message edited by: Amy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Amy, I didn't think that you were saying that, and I share your discomfort and puzzlement.

After all these years, though, I have only ever come up with one good explanation for what holds women in the most developed countries back, and that, you should forgive the term, is capitalism.

The rewards for selling out are so great. I think that that is the problem.

---

you know what really concerns me, is that women are harsh on women, (just as ethnic groups are particularly hard on people within their communities).

For example. A woman decides to go into politics. The woman has done well, say as a CEO of a company, or as an associate in a law firm. As a result she gets criticised for selling out. Its like women can't win.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
The parliament in Wales is now composed, I believe, of more than 50 per cent women representatives. Many other nations -- including Rwanda, I believe -- are now doing better than we are on this score.

What might be holding North Americans back?

---

What is holding Canada back? Fear of quotas.

Europe has been discussing this for decades, and taking action. The Germans Social Democrats set a quota of 40% women on lists. The Belgians made a law that the top three candidates on their regional lists must include one woman, and at the next election, the top two must include one woman. The Welsh Labour Party twinned adjoining ridings, nominating one man and one woman in each pair (They also have a few list seats under their MMP system, but it's actually the single seats that gave women 50%.) France now has a parity law for municipal councils which put women in 45% of council seats. The Portuguese Socialist Party just required one of every three candidates on their regional lists to be women. India has a law making 33% of municipal councillors women. Pakistan reserved 25% of seats in Parliament for women. Rwanda has a unique system of appointments by women's groups. I could go on.

But no, even women's groups in Canada are afraid to demand parity quotas. The Liberal women were the exception, and got told to be quiet.

(As for "North Americans," I don't know any, so I can't comment.)

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
For example. A woman decides to go into politics. The woman has done well, say as a CEO of a company, or as an associate in a law firm. As a result she gets criticised for selling out. Its like women can't win.

---

That's not what skdadl was saying at all. She wasn't talking about female CEOs. She was talking about women (in this case, the young woman mentioned at the convention who stood up and said she was against "quotas") who deny that it is necessary to implement policies to ensure equal representation of women.

The rewards for the few successful women who sell out to the male establishment in this manner and therefore make it harder for other women to attain what they have attained ARE much greater than the rewards for fighting for equality.

TH, my problem is that I am a socialist as well as a feminist. Careerists of either/any sex bother me. I can be quite, ah, not-nice to male ladder-climbers too.

It's not that I don't want people to have good lives or to feel the thrill of independence -- and independence is thrilling, especially so to women who have really had to bang heads against barred backroom doors and glass ceilings.

My problem is with what people do when they get there -- into the boardrooms, past the glass ceilings. I can see women working to get elected to our legislatures, or dedicating themselves to particular kinds of law or teaching, or to all kinds of other work, including domestic work, as important forces for change. A CEO? I dunno ...

We're all under pressure to survive, so that's what we take care of first. But to me, the other purpose of any kind of work should be to make a contribution, and I admire anyone in whom I can recognize that commitment.

thankyou, for communicating your perspectives

I have to say I don't want to mispreresent your positions, but it appears to me that you present a false dichotomy:

Women should remain disenfranchised, and unrepresented in parliament rather than working within a fallible system that favours males.

If women want equal representation in political systems, then it may be necessary to make deals with the devil. (but I digress this appears to be a false dichotomy too).

I don't think it necessariy follows that any group of people has to wait for the perfect political environment before they get involved and gain representation for their demograph. Women have been affecting change in political systems for centuries, and those women that have did not wait for some pristine political utopia to do so. Some women may "lose themselves", but I think overall, representation could come with gains for women even if individuals make some sacrifices.

quote:

---

(Sympatico) Senior V.P., Charlotte Burke -
"You may find this hard to believe, but the two people principally responsible for the campaign were women. I guess we may have to send some of our female employees to sensitivity training".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
I have to say I don't want to mispreresent your positions,

---

Then don't misrepresent them.

quote:

---

but it appears to me that you present a false dichotomy:

Women should remain disenfranchised, and unrepresented in parliament rather than working within a fallible system that favours males.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amy:

However, one young female Grit took to the microphone to oppose equal representation for women, saying "I don't want to be filling a quota. It's okay to encourage women but to set a number is wrong."

.

---

Speaking of misrepresentation, perhaps this woman's quote was misrepresented. I know many people from many backgrounds who are not thrilled about the idea of being selected to fill a position to meet a quota in any context. Perhaps she was attempting to express her view. I don't think it serves any great purpose to label this woman as the enemy, one who colludes with the patriarchy.

The idea of representaion of the population is a double edged sword I would say. How to accomadate accurate representation but to do it in a way that does not ignore merit, qualifications, or experience.

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

(edited for spelling)

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Amy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I know. I guess I was just making a rhetorical point that even the NDP doesn't have such a policy. Or, if they do, they certainly don't do much about it.

---

The NDP has an affirmative action policy with a goal of at least 50% of candidates being women. But the policy dictates a process for candidate search and gives support to candidates from underrepresented target groups. It does not determine the outcome of nomination meetings.

quote:

---

in a way that does not ignore merit, qualifications, or experience.

---

Good Lord.

Look at the current roster of MPs and MPPs/MLAs, and then tell me we couldn't do just as well if not better in a lottery.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
There are many examples of women seeking nominations and not winning. There are several examples of women competing for nominations against other women or against a candidate from another target group (which happened in my riding).

---

Or, what happened in my riding - two women who live in my riding running for the nomination against three men, one of whom was a middle-aged white man parachuted in once the riding looked even remotely winnable, and backed by Ed Broadbent with slick campaign material.

Perfectly nice guy, mind you, and I have it from one of the women candidates that he was the nicest opponent she had. And he didn't win. (One of the other men did.) But still. It was a lesson in what really counts. And it ain't gender parity.

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
After all these years, though, I have only ever come up with one good explanation for what holds women in the most developed countries back, and that, you should forgive the term, is capitalism.

The rewards for selling out are so great. I think that that is the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
even the NDP doesn't have such a policy [50 per cent female representation in Parliament and the party hierarchy.]

---

MPs, no, but the NDP does have a strict practice of 50% female representation in the party hierarchy. Scott, can you tell us how long the Ontario NDP has done this? It's quite a while, I recall. And the federal NDP came soon afterwards, I think.

That's one reason why I'm confident the NDP would put equal numbers of men and women on regional lists under MMP (or under STV in BC). I expect the party would put that in its constitution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
MPs, no, but the NDP does have a strict practice of 50% female representation in the party hierarchy. Scott, can you tell us how long the Ontario NDP has done this?

---

It's pretty simple, actually. As you can see from this list, there are equal numbers of women and men in the following positions:

• Vice-Presidents
• Youth reps
• Ethnic Liaison Committee reps
• Disability Caucus reps
• LGBT Committee reps
• Regional members-at-large
• General members-at-large
  

There is no requirement for gender parity among the following four positions, but there is now and has been in recent memory, for the following positions

• Leader
• President
• Provincial Secretary
• Treasurer
  

Not surprisingly, both Women's Committee reps are women, meaning that women form a majority of the ONDP executive.

quote:

---

After all these years, though, I have only ever come up with one good explanation for what holds women in the most developed countries back, and that, you should forgive the term, is capitalism.

The rewards for selling out are so great. I think that that is the problem.

---

-skdadl-

BTW, applies to visible minorities too.

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: lacabombi ]