babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Deconstructing Martha Stewart

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Deconstructing Martha Stewart
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 October 2005 10:51 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Martha is coming to the pumpkin festival in Windsor, N.S., this weekend after all.

quote:
The flurry of government activity on Ms. Stewart's behalf enraged the New Democrats, who cast it as another example of what ails the immigration system.

"When a relative from abroad tries to visit family in Canada, there are unbelievable delays and frustration," MP Libby Davies said in Question Period. "Yet when Martha Stewart gets out of jail and decides to race pumpkins in Canada, she gets her visa in record time."

Mr. Volpe countered by asking whether the NDP could "have something against" the Children's Wish Foundation, for which the pumpkin regatta is raising funds. Later, in the Commons foyer, he insisted that Ms. Stewart had received no special treatment. "It's taken about five days; normally it takes about five hours."


From today's Grope and Flail

First: who is telling the truth about these permits? Are there grounds for contrasting the treatment of American felons with the treatment of immigrant families? Or the treatment of celebrity and non-celebrity felons?

Second and third, I would say, come the issues of celebrity but also of the curious weightlessness of female celebrity, or even of female criminality, come to that.

Do Liberal cabinet ministers find it easier to cheer up and say cute things for the cameras (one of them a couple of days ago hinted that the visa would be coming, and added that that would be "a Good Thing" and grinned) when the felon involved is a woman, especially a woman who is pretty and who, however fearsomely accomplished a businessperson she is, is popularly associated with "domestic" accomplishments?

In other words, is Martha considered no threat because she is a woman? Or is it fair and reasonable to consider her no threat?

And lots of other questions besides, I'm sure. I am of many minds on this issue.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 07 October 2005 11:35 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
First: who is telling the truth about these permits? Are there grounds for contrasting the treatment of American felons with the treatment of immigrant families? Or the treatment of celebrity and non-celebrity felons?

I'm not going to get into whether it's right or wrong, but there are certainly clear differences.

A celebrity felon, convicted of a non-violent crime, and who will be spending their time here in the public eye, really poses no danger to Canada for the duration of their visit, nor is there a risk of them staying illegally and slipping under the radar.

On the other hand, a person coming to visit from an impoverished or unstable country, with friends and relatives here, may well intend to stay indefinitely and warrant heavier scrutiny if the goal of Immigration Canada is to prevent that.

I don't think Stewart's sex or fame for domestic skills are factors.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
maggie now
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10573

posted 07 October 2005 03:12 PM      Profile for maggie now        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I rather have Martha Stewart here then Bush who was never convicted of a crime but is never the less a criminal!
From: Canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca