Oh Promise Me

So many things that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Republican presidential candidate John McCain have in common. But I won't write a 5,000 word post today. So let's just focus on one: abortion, and a woman's right to control her body.

As I write in today's treeware column:

Ah, female voters. Can't win with them. Can win without 'em.

Of course, not all women south of the border are white and/or angry. Many indeed are thrilled at the prospect of Barack Obama's winning the presidency.

Others, those who agree that women's reproductive rights should be curtailed and that First Ladies should be seen and not heard, are sure to vote for John McCain. Never mind how McCain dumped his devoted first wife for his much younger and very wealthy second, whom he would go on to publicly denounce with the c-word.

And no, we're not talking "Cindy."

Despite many differences between the U.S. and Canadian political pictures, there are some scary parallels, no thanks to how Stephen Harper's Conservative government marches in lockstep with the Bush administration on military spending, the environment and foreign policy.

And, with Conservative MP Ken Epp's sneaky Bill C-484 in the works, and the government's determination to see its so-called Unborn Victims of Crime Act passed, it's evident that the PMO's position on a woman's right to choose is not very different from the Oval Office's.

This would explain the naked pitch for women voters last week made by the federal Liberals.

Party leader Stéphane Dion declared that he would stop C-484 from passing – although it's a mystery how he can make the 28 caucus members who stood with the Conservatives when it sailed through second reading change their votes.

Dion's promise was made at a news conference announcing that, if elected, his government would establish a Commissioner of Gender Equality, who would act independently, much like the Auditor General, Chief Electoral Officer or Official Languages Commissioner, "to ensure that legislation and policies of the Government of Canada are examined with an equality lens" as well as "to audit federal government departments for gender-based analysis" and "examine existing programs and policies for their gender equality."

Yeah, well, I'll believe it when I see it. Because, Lord knows we need it. That's because government is already too much filtered through a male lens, mostly because the majority of politicians and top bureaucrats are of the XY-persuasion.

There's been a lot of misinterpretation of this, including from the usual ultra con and feminists=feminazis sources. They don't get it. Why not have an independent commissioner who can look at legislation and policy and go, ''Hmmm, this is great for men, but what does it do for women, and their children?''

That's what the announcement is about. But then, the Libs have been going on about this for more than a decade. My guess is, if they're ever elected, it ain't gonna happen.

One last thing: This is John McCain's stance on a woman's reproductive rights in words.

For those who prefer the movie version ...

Don't think it's too different from many Conservative MPs.

Oh, and another last thing, as some feminists are asking, why did Conservative cabinet minister Josée Vermer vote against C-484? Does she know something we don't?

Comments

[sooey]

She voted against it because it's a Pro-Life Bill.

That Liberal promise sounds more like a veiled threat to women voters - vote for us or we'll continue to side with the New Conservatives until you have no rights left at all.

The problem is, male politicians don't actually care about women's rights, they just want to be perceived as caring by women voters.