Ruby slipper?

Here is today's treeware column on Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla's nanny woes, with some linky freshness and a few notes.

That said, I have not included all the possible links I might have here for legal reasons. Some people in the blogosphere are making some accusations I would not want to have to defend in a courtroom, should it come to that. If you're curious about some of the things I write, I leave you to professor Google.

The allegations of nanny mistreatment against Ruby Dhalla raise questions not only about the Liberal MP's cred but also about sexism and child care.

Anybody see the front of The Toronto Sun today?

True, sexism has worked in Dhalla's favour, at least in one respect: the online cons with their action avatars have gone relatively easy on her, probably because of her "I'd do her"-worthiness. You can bet that, had she been less photogenic, she'd be getting the full-on, Hillary-Clinton-is-a-hag hate treatment.

And, isn't it interesting how she's ''Ruby'' in so many headlines? Just like ''Hillary.'' Just like "Belinda.''

This is not to say that Dhalla should get a "get out of jail free'' card just because she is a woman. If the official investigation proves wrongdoing or negligence, well, then, so much for what once seemed like a brilliant political career trajectory.

But why is it that she is the only MP in Canada caught in a domestic staffing scandal, dubbed "SlaveGate" in some quarters of the right-wing blogosphere?

Consider: South of the border, a string of both men and women have been nailed over the years.

Here are some of the cases the Star library dug up:

2004: Bernard Kerik withdraws from the position of homeland security secretary after admitting a Mexican nanny he hired may have been illegal and that he had not paid her employment taxes.

1995: California governor Pete Wilson’s fledgling presidential campaign suffers a blow when he admits to having hired an illegal immigrant housekeeper and failing to pay her employment taxes.

1994: California Senate candidate Michael Huffington and wife Arianna acknowledge they employed an illegal immigrant for five years. Huffington eventually loses the Senate election to Dianne Feinstein.

1994: Texas Congressman Henry Bonilla is found by the Justice Dept to have employed an illegal immigrant for seven years.

Note that they are all men.

And now back to the column:

Most recently, Timothy Geithner, U.S. President Barack Obama's treasury secretary, was criticized for having a housekeeper whose immigration papers expired while in his employ.

At the same time, business consultant Nancy Killefer declined a senior cabinet position, ostensibly because she hadn't paid her nanny's unemployment premiums in a timely fashion – back in 2005.

(He's in. She's out. Hmm.)

That wealthy and powerful people sometimes take advantage of vulnerable workers, who struggle to support families back home until they can bring them to Canada, is completely reprehensible.

For example, how is it that, as live-ins, many are forced to pay room and board?

But it happens. From all appearances, it happens all the time. So has nary a single male Canadian MP ever mistreated his gardener, dogwalker, snow shoveller? Does every male pol pay his housecleaner decent wages, above the table? Does every nanny in every male legislator's household perform just the work she was hired to do?

Three years ago, Stephen Harper was sued for wrongful dismissal by his former chef at Stornoway. He alleged that he was forced to do everything from look after the children to clean the cat litter boxes for the then-Opposition leader.

(The case was quickly settled out of court, with the usual gag orders on the outcome.) True, he wasn't part of a special immigration program. But he was being paid by the taxpayers to cook, not to bury a dead cat, as his suit claimed.

Which brings us back to Dhalla and the three women who have complained of mistreatment. Dhalla, for her part, on Friday complained it is a political conspiracy against her.

One of the reasons there are so few women in Parliament – truly, we have just about the worst record in the developed world – is because of the lack of child care.

What's more, women are also usually burdened with looking after aging, ailing parents.

Just last month, White House communications director Ellen Moran was the first senior Obama adviser to step down, citing her marriage and two toddlers as the reason.

Now you'd think the Obamas, all things considered, would have onsite daycare. But no.

Indeed, Michelle Obama's mother Marian Robinson was roped in, initially reluctant to leave her lifelong Chicago home, to look after her granddaughters Malia and Sasha.

Not many parents are so fortunate to have such reliable back-up.

Admittedly, in Dhalla's Mississauga home, there are no children. There is just her, her brother Neil, and their mother Tavinder, who doesn't seem to be either particularly disabled or infirm.

At least not so much as to qualify for the Live-In Caregiver program.

Fears now among women who have emailed me are that, whatever happens to the nanny program, it will not make it easier for them.

First, because Canadians who want child care will have to jump through more bureaucratic hoops, with more possibilities for legal errors.

Second, because immigrant women hoping for better lives won't get the chance to earn them if Canadian parents play it safe by avoiding the live-in program.

Either way, it will be women – and children – who will pay the price.

I am leaving the comments section open because I would like to hear from parents and caregivers. Many emailed me today and gave me some interesting perspectives. I liked the line one former nanny sent: ''The lock up their jewels but give us their children.''

However, if what is happening on the Star's main website is any indication, the goderators will probably close the comments.

Comments

[Sebastian Stoker]

I agree Antonia. It is sexism. It is also racism, though some think this will not be noticed or considered because Dalla's "victims" are also people of color.Others are rubbing their hands and chuckling.

Isn't this a racist's dream? A successful and high-profile person of color - too ambitious for her own good (Dr.? - she is a mere Chiropractor!) - being brought down by other people of color, hired to be servants, but indignant about being referred to as such. "These people don't know their place," one can imagine a WASP patriarch saying over the evening paper, "but they screw each other over in the end."

Exploitation? Not just a white man's practice! Visible minorities? Not one united threatening hoard after all, but a collection of fragmented groups as hostile to each other as to the white establishment. And then there is the reassuring theme of this story: women and ethnics who get too uppity inevitably get put in their place.

The whole story is a rather sick surreal multicultural joke, one that has racist males smugly tut-tutting in public, and laughing uncontrollably in private.

[Paul]

Sebastian, if a white man had faced these allegations, you'd be all over men, talking about typical white male sexism and racism.

Now that a woman of colour is facing these allegations, you somehow use that as an even stronger pretext to attack white male sexism once again - based on your conjecture of what they must be thinking. It's called the fallacy of unfalsifiable hypothesis.

[Paul]

I would add, you have no material reason to think that there is any cadre of white male sexists chortling over this development. As for most of the rest of us, we believed before, as we do now, that folk are just folk. People of all sexes and ethnicities are capable of the full range of human behaviour, and it does no more benefit to deify certain groups than it does to demonize them. You, on the other hand, tend to do both. What seems more obvious to me is that this development makes YOU feel uncomfortable, because it complicates your ability to support the very specific narrative you have about what various ethnicities and genders are like.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Paul, I do not object to the exposure of Dalla's improprieties, nor do I assert that Dalla should not face the consequences typical for such improprieties because she is female, or a person of color. What I object to is the tone of the attacks, which rings with both sexism and racism. Sorry, but if one does not hear it, one must be deaf...or one of the privileged and oblivious.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Paul, anyone reading your comments who is Jewish, Muslim, a woman, openly gay, a person of color, disabled, poor, is wishing they could live in the uncomplicated, sanitized and happy world you occupy. I think your comments make it absolutely clear that you are not any one of the above.

[elise]

I am really confused about what is going on in this "nannygate" scandal.

For one, I cannot think of a reason for the nannies to lie and invent these tales. A political conspiracy - as Dhalla alleges - seems so grand, so enormous and so underhanded as to be out of the realm of possibility - even for Harper's conservatives. As well, can you imagine the fallout were a political conspiracy ever uncovered? And it would be uncovered - one hopes.

Regardless, Dhalla's career - once a bright light - seems terminal, which seems a shame should these allegations be untrue. And one hopes they are for her sake (for all politicians sake) and yet hopes they are not, for the sake of the nannies.

The question remains - why would Ruby Dhalla, a consumate politician and rising star - DO things like this? She would have to be a veritable sociopath. But why would the nannies lie? None of it makes sense.

The only thing that is abundantly clear is that the live-in caregiver programme needs to change, and fast. It needs more regulation - buereaucratic hoops be damned. One's residency canNOT be linked to a private employer. I work with nannies and live-in caregivers in support groups and the stories they tell would chill you to the bone.

[Paul]

Sebastian, your argument is not served by speculating about my station in life, though I've sadly come to recognize that this is too often the accepted standard of support for a point here. Nor does more emphasis or restatement make an argument more compelling.

The tone of the allegations is generally consistent with the tone used against any MP embroiled in such allegations. I've been listening on the CBC and reading about Dalla for a week now, and until Zerbisius posted her pic to comment on the sexism, I was not aware that she was an attractive woman, nor had I even given it a thought. We have a bland "wait and see" from Dalla's boss, a denial from Dalla, and outraged nanny accusers pointing the finger at her. Meanwhile, the media is going through her personal life with a fine-tooth comb - nothing unusual there either.

As for the other points raised to embarass Dalla - such the scandalous role in a Bollywood romance movie - surely this would only be embarassing within the extreme sexual conservatism of the Indian community. The scenes in question would be rated G by the general population here -- Disney fare. If you are going to pin that somewhere, why don't you eschew your usual white male go-to racist sexists, and instead stick it where it belongs?

[Paul]

Apologies, Antonia, for my hasty mispelling. I wish this forum had an edit feature, in addition to the preview.

[Paul]

"Paul, anyone reading your comments who is Jewish, Muslim, a woman, openly gay, a person of color, disabled, poor, is wishing they could live in the uncomplicated, sanitized and happy world you occupy. I think your comments make it absolutely clear that you are not any one of the above. "
------

And if I belonged to none of those groups, would that alone be enough to dismiss my ideas? Because that, on the face of it, is the essence of prejudice, Sebastian.

Once again, I invite you to comment on the topic, or my views, rather than speculating or characterizing me personally. My happy world is occupied along with my friends who are Jewish, Muslim, openly gay, of colour, disabled, and poor - and I myself happily admit to one or more of those categories, for all it is worth (which is nothing). Your insistence on characterizing the speaker, rather than addressing the argument, is not establishing you as the free-thinking monument of tolerance that you aspire to be.

And if you must go there, and if the goderators continue to allow it, quit with the unsupported accusations - prove it. Show how what I have said hurts Muslims, or women, or whatever else, and lets have at it.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Paul, I did not accuse you of hurting Muslims or anyone else. I was suggesting that your failure to acknowledge that people are sometimes made to suffer simply for who they are, is a sign that you yourself have not suffered from systemic discrimination. Your comments - indicative of solipsism - are what invite this observation.

I remember a comment from Antonia to you a while back: "...Paul, I was there, you were not..." Well, same here.

Your most recent comment smacks of pot-kettle.

[Paul]

Indicate please, any place where I have said that "people are not made to suffer, simply for who they are."

You have no idea, truly, Sebastian, what you are talking about when you speculate about who or what I am, or what I come from. Your constant attempt to dismiss arguments based on the supposed ethnicity or your conjecture of socioeconomic status smacks of the same rhetorical tactics used in McCarthyism. It's as if instead of trying to discuss the point, all you feel you need to do is search for clues that I might belong to some group that you feel is priveleged in some manner, and then the argument is over.

I may not agree with much that you say, but I can tell you are smarter than that and that you can do better.