Women on the edge

Back in Montreal. Dunno for how long.

Until I can return to regular blogging, please follow the fantastic posts put up by my sister Fringers on our Proud to be a Member of that Left Wing Fringe Group called Women Facebook page.

Don't let the Harper government get away with this latest outrage.

OTTAWA -- Missing and murdered women in Canada will be remembered Sunday in memorial marches across the country.

But the occasion may become a memorial for a government-funded research project that put a spotlight on the hundreds of aboriginal women who have gone missing or been murdered in this country.
Federal funding for the Sisters in Spirit initiative of the Native Women's Association of Canada runs out March 31, and the federal government will not give the group any indication whether it will extend its mandate.

"We haven't heard anything," said Sisters in Spirit director Kate Rexe. "The government is silent on the issue."

With a grant of $5 million, Sisters in Spirit spent the last five years compiling a database of more than 520 women who have disappeared or been killed over the last 40 years. The group prepared tool kits for families and police to use when a woman goes missing and developed policies and programs to help stop the cycle of violence.

Rexe said the Sisters group is prepared to begin implementing policies and community programs aimed at three specific areas -- the justice system, child welfare and poverty. But that's been on hold for months because Ottawa won't say if it plans to keep funding the work.

"It's unbelievably frustrating," Rexe said. "We have all the knowledge, the momentum. We can actually start to implement change, but we don't even know if we can keep planning."

A year ago, Status of Women Minister Helena Guergis said she was working on extending the project. "I want you to know, I've already engaged in the process of what Sisters in Spirit Two would look like," Guergis said at the Status of Women committee meeting Feb. 12, 2009.

But a spokeswoman for Guergis would not say Friday whether funding for Sisters in Spirit is forthcoming, and said in an email Ottawa has asked NWAC to share its database with police

More here.

There's an action plan on the Fringers page.

Don't just hold the fort. Take (back) the hill.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: This letter was sent to the Star's Public Editor Kathy English, about the image accompanying this post. I reprint it here, unedited:

Good afternoon,

 The following link came to my attention today, which takes an article published in Saturday’s Winnipeg Free Press regarding the fate of funding related to the research, education and policy initiative of the Native Women’s Association of Canada called Sisters In Spirit, and attaches an extremely offensive photo of two topless Aboriginal women.

 http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2010/02/women-on-the-edge.html

This photo is not only offensive, it is a colonizer’s portrait of Aboriginal women which is sexualized and arguably trying to create the image of the “savage” woman, denying dignity and respect for the true place of Aboriginal women, who are historically the givers of life, central to communities as nurturers, caregivers, educators and leaders. To connect this photo to a story about Native women’s leadership on the issue of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls is disrespectful and only goes to further devalue the lives of Aboriginal women and stigmatize their place in Canadian society.

 The response from one of my staff I think says it best:

 “Honestly though, I would like to see a newspaper article that talks about missing and murdered Aboriginal women with a photo of happy (or just normal) young, Aboriginal girls accompanying it. THESE are the women we’re talking about who are at risk of violence!!! And this photo proves a point we’re making in the research paper that Aboriginal women have been dehumanized through colonization. And Canada thinks it’s progressed?”

 I’m looking forward to the day when the media begin to treat Aboriginal women in the same way we do the stories of Tori Stafford and Jessica Lloyd – innocent victims of violence who are honoured for their lives, and not marginalized, dehumanized, or sensationalized for social stigmas or the circumstances surrounding their death. Sadly, this day will be a long time coming when supposedly “progressive” media outlets like The Toronto Star are posting photos of Canada’s shameful history as an image of Aboriginal women today. 

I ask you to please take this image down immediately.

Thank you,

Kate

 Kate Rexe, B.A. (Hons), M.A.

Director, Sisters in Spirit

Native Women's Association of Canada

You know, I actually don't disagree. Which is why I chose the image. Perhaps i should have been clearer about my intentions. It is precisely because Aboriginal women have been treated as disposable objects, ever since European men set foot in the Americas, that we have arrived at this place in modern history where our government not only does not care, but actively turns its back on the problem of missing and murdered Aboriginal women.

The photo, however, is not unlike other photos I have run with other blogposts about women being violated both here and abroad. Whether I am talking about the murder of Jasmine Fiore, whose highly-sexualized photos filled the media, or the acid attacks on Afghan girls, or the rapes of women in the Congo, none of the pictures are pretty.

And aren't all of these women colonized, not quite in the same way of course. But colonized none the less.

Girls Discovered

Facebook friend and sister Fringer Elizabeth Pickett found this must-bookmark website, which tracks the well-being of adolescent girls around the world through interactive maps.

The welfare of adolescent girls is crucial in determining economic and social outcomes for countries today, and in the future. For girls to become healthy mothers, productive citizens and economic contributors, their unique needs must be seen and understood.

Yet today, adolescent girls are undercounted and so underserved. Counting them is the first step to increasing their visibility.

Girls Discovered takes that first step. As a comprehensive source of maps and data on the status of adolescent girls worldwide, Girls Discovered helps donors, policy makers and implementing agencies target their investments.

It ain't news anymore that there is a close connection between what happens to girls and what happens to nations.

For example, keeping a girl in school until her body is mature enough for maternity not only results in better outcomes for mother and child, it reduces the strain for scarce resources such as food and water.

What's more, an educated girl is better equipped to support herself and her family -- and maybe, as I have already demonstrated, feed a village.

More info here.

Coming up short

The welfare of women continues to dominate the political agenda through the suspension of Parliament.

And so, a few items of note.

Over at Rabble.ca, Murray Dobbin nicely sums up how the Harper government has run "roughshod'' over women.

Nothing new there as regular Broadsides readers know. If I had the time, I would add in a lot more starting with the threats to our reproductive choices and the pending elimination of the long-gun registry.

By coincidence, Regina Mom today documented the dollar value of some of the cuts to programs that helped women achieve equal rights and economic parity.

Finally, NDP leader Jack Layton took advantage of the current political climate to issue a news release challenging party leaders to put Canadian women and children first.

Mr. Layton invited Mr. Harper, as well as Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, to cooperate in 2010 to improve the lives of Canadian women and children. He outlined a series of concrete New Democrat proposals that, if embraced by the other parties, would mean real progress for women and children. Those proposals include:

• Employment Insurance rules that deny eligibility to six in ten women;
• adopting key recommendations of the 2004 Pay Equity Task Force;
• increasing support for women’s groups working to prevent violence;
• launching an inquiry into 520 missing or murdered Aboriginal women;
• launching a federal initiative to ensure every child has daily access to healthy food;
• boosting the Guaranteed Income Supplement to end poverty among seniors (overwhelmingly women).

It's stunning to me that, in this country, in this century, kids and seniors go hungry.

Who was it who said that, if you want to know the true measure of a man, watch how he treats old people, children and animals?

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Layton had an op-ed in today's National Post.

Canada is among the wealthiest nations in the world, yet 70% of Inuit preschool-age children live in homes where there is not always enough food. There are many mothers in Canada who live in unsafe places, who are going without food, electricity or heat because of persistent, deep poverty. These deprivations have a devastating effect on Canada's very youngest, evidenced by the fact that infant mortality rates in low-income neighbourhoods are almost double those in richer ones.

Mr. Harper acknowledges that the solutions to maternal and child health problems are "not intrinsically expensive." This holds true for Canadian women and children as well: Providing safe drinking water on reserves, addressing the affordable housing crisis, and funding organizations that support women and children are all relatively inexpensive compared to the health and social costs of poverty in Canada, which are estimated at more than $20-billion per year.

<SNIP>

To put the full consequences of (Harper's) indifference into perspective, imagine a city the size of Winnipeg full of children: That is the number of our kids who live in poverty in Canada today.

As a country, we have the ability to take decisive action to end this cycle of marginalization, and Mr. Harper has shown that he knows that investing in women and children will get the job done in the developing world. It will be pure hypocrisy if he refuses to make similar investments here at home.

Fertile ground

It's solid info like this (reg. req'd.) that reinforces my long-held contention -- now generally accepted wisdom by everybody but the Harper government -- that investing in women is just plain good business.

Those folks at McKinsey are not exactly lefties. Indeed, corporations hire their people at mind-boggling rates just to take advantage of their expertise.

Which is why, when they say something about economic growth, it's worth paying attention.

Here's the gist of their latest intel:

Few companies make social investments specifically aimed at empowering women in developing economies, but we believe that supporting this goal is good business and good practice for all companies. In the course of our work, we’ve uncovered a startlingly wide range of ways in which private-sector companies can offer sizable economic benefits not only to women and their societies but also to the companies themselves. The benefits to businesses come from enlarging their markets, improving the quality or size of their current and potential workforce (for instance, by attracting talent globally), and maintaining or improving their reputations.

Women in developing economies are hampered by many of the same concerns that face women in other countries, but they also deal with a number of additional barriers to economic security. In some cases, these problems are straightforward—girls getting less food and education than boys, for example. In others, they are as complicated as the difficulty women in many countries have in keeping control over money they may earn (because of regulations or long-standing cultural traditions that prevent them from having secure access to bank accounts), owning property, or acquiring loans.

Women’s unfulfilled potential significantly hinders economic growth. One recent study, for example, estimates that lower education and employment rates for women and girls are responsible for as much as a 1.6 percentage point difference in annual GDP growth between South Asia and East Asia. On the other hand, educated, income-earning women are especially powerful catalysts for development because they tend to invest more of their money in their families’ health, education, and well-being than men do.

Now pay extra special attention to this bit:

Nevertheless, only 19 percent of the respondents to a recent McKinsey Quarterly survey said that their companies had invested in economic-development activities specifically aimed at women in developing markets. Yet 83 percent said that economic growth there was at least somewhat important to their companies’ success over the next ten years.

Now, let me ask you, how freaking stupid is that? What do these companies expect? To expand their markets in countries where women have no money to spend on their products? 

Why yes. That's exactly right.

That despite:

Companies whose social investments do focus on women in developing economies, the survey and our other research show, benefit not only women and their societies but also themselves. Among survey respondents, 34 percent say that such investments have already improved profits, and a further 38 percent expect them to do so.

It's stuff like this that made me roll my eyes when I was getting my MBA.

Women overboard

Didn't want you to miss this by friend and colleague Olivia Ward in yesterday's Star.

It's about how women may be thrown under the bus if NATO types, ie. the US, decide to get out of Afghanistan by reinstating the Taliban.

Yeah, I know that's not how it's being phrased in polite circles. But let's not mince words here, okay? Because that's what they would really do. After all, didn't we install our man in Afghanistan Hamid Kharzai? Of course we did.

That said, the latest word from HellHolistan is that the Taliban isn't going to deal.

But that doesn't make the plain fact of how quickly NATO was prepared to give up women.

GENEVA (Reuters) - Any future peace deal between the Afghan government and the Taliban should include a clear commitment to respecting women's rights, a United Nations women's rights body said on Friday.

It also voiced regret at what it called the exclusion of Afghan women from the high decision-making level of the London conference on Afghanistan last week.

Anyway, to Olivia's piece:

Even now, young girls who dare to go to school have acid thrown in their faces, suicide bombers kill indiscriminately, beheadings and amputations await those who resist their resurgent rule and women activists receive dreaded "night letters" that mark them for death.

So it's not surprising that the rising chorus of Western voices in favour of reintegrating mid- and lower-level Taliban fighters into Afghan society – and whispers of reconciliation with top militants – have sent a shudder through liberal Afghans who long for peace, but have grave doubts about the return of a relentlessly repressive enemy.

"If you bring them back, it will push us back," says Homa Sabri, who heads the Afghan division of the United Nations women's fund UNICEF. "We will lose the gains of the past eight years."

With the Western leaders who supported the 2001 invasion now groping for the exit, thinking the unthinkable is creeping onto the agenda. War cannot rage forever, and, at the end of the day, peace is made with enemies.

<SNIP>

GIRLS, BARRED from school under the Taliban, now account for more than one-third of the 6.2 million children enrolled and female literacy rates have risen from single digits to about 13 per cent.

In employment, women have made gains in the civil service, and 75 per cent of the Women's Affairs Ministry is female. Women are no longer officially barred from the workplace, and numerous micro projects have allowed them to start small businesses.

In health care, soaring infant mortality has declined modestly and the percentage of women getting pre-natal care risen to more than 32 per cent.The government also set up a human rights commission where women can complain if they suffer violence or other abuses.

Women have joined numerous community groups across the country for social and economic support, as well as political action. The constitution reserves 25 per cent of seats in the lower house and 17 per cent of the upper house of parliament for women.

But today's Afghanistan is not a golden age for women. The Taliban's primitive interpretations of religious law, and the tribal culture from which they sprang, cast a dark shadow over their lives, and the ideals of the constitution are sparsely enforced outside of Kabul.

A recent law has undermined Shia women's rights, a warning to others that political expediency can trump their promised equality, and an unsettling hint for the future. Under international pressure, Karzai allowed the law to be amended. But doubts remain about how far the West would be prepared to support women's rights once its troops have departed.

Even now, the Western military presence has done little to improve the lot of women, and some argue that it has worsened it by exposing them to bombs and bullets.

In addition, a Human Rights Watch report found that, more than eight years after the fall of the Taliban, women and girls are still targeted for violence and discrimination, and have little access to either justice or education.

At least half of Afghan women experience violence, it found. More than half of marriages are of girls under 16 and up to 80 per cent take place without the bride's consent.

Hundreds of girls' schools have been destroyed by the resurgent Taliban, and hundreds of schoolgirls wounded or killed. Only 11 per cent of secondary school-aged girls are still attending school. A mere 4 per cent make it to Grade 10.

Meanwhile, women in public life suffer threats, intimidation and assassination attempts — or death. Women who want to work outside the home face threats and discrimination. There are numerous reports of despairing women attempting suicide by setting themselves on fire.

"The situation for Afghan women and girls is dire and could deteriorate," warns Reid. "It's critical to make sure that (their) rights don't just get lip service while being pushed to the bottom of the list by the government and donors."

When the fog of war clears in Afghanistan, women and progressive thinkers hope that they will have a place to stand. But they know much depends on what the peacetime landscape will look like, and what tradeoffs are made to arrive there.

Yeah. Trade-offs.

Bargaining chippies.

Women have always been a commodity.

Report card

Why, Stephen Lewis said this exact same stuff to me just the other day. 

Still, I think it bears repeating:

Despite being a major part of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's speech to the World Economic Forum last week, the government's plan to champion action on maternal and child health is still a work in progress, CIDA Minister Bev Oda said Monday.

No kidding. She might consider starting right here at home. As former Minister of State for the Status of Women, she did nothing either.

Meanwhile, former UN special envoy for HIV/AIDS Stephen Lewis has described Mr. Harper's speech as "a piece of crass, political opportunism" amid accusations the government is late to the issue, and sees women as mothers and little else.

Last Thursday, Mr. Harper outlined his goals and priorities for Canada's presidency of the G8 in a speech to state and business leaders in Davos, Switzerland. He noted that in developing countries, more than 500,000 women die each year in pregnancy and 9 million children die before the age of five.

"As president of the G8, Canada will champion a major initiative to improve the health of women and children in the world's most vulnerable regions," he said. "It is therefore time to mobilize our friends and partners to do something for those who can do little for themselves, to replace grand good intentions with substantive acts of human good will."

Reducing the number of children who die before the age of five is the fourth Millennium Development Goal, while doing the same for mothers during pregnancy or childbirth is the fifth goal. They are the two MDGs that are furthest from being achieved by 2015.

Ms. Oda said the government has had its eye on these targets for some time, and argued that they fit neatly into CIDA's priority focus on children and youth, though nutrition for infants and mothers also relates to food security.

Ah. Might this explain its total withdrawal from anything to do with Palestinian human rights?

Ms. Oda said the plan now is to hold more consultations with an expanded list of stakeholders, particularly obstetricians and pediatricians in Canada who have worked internationally, as well as multilateral organizations, developing countries and G8 partners "to see what they had been supporting in the past and how and where they might chose to support the general initiative." She also plans to review projects currently supported by CIDA "to find out which ones are most effective, which ones are really making a difference."

So Harper takes all the international credit while Oda has all the 'splaining to do now and later, when nothing happens?

"You don't just throw in the phrase 'maternal and child health,'" Mr. Lewis said. "You actually spend some time setting out what you intend to do and putting a dollar figure beside it. And because there was none that, it's not that I can't take it seriously, it's just that it has to be taken cynically."

He also noted that other countries have been extremely active on the issue over the past three years, and his perception is the Conservative government "stumbled on it and finds it politically advantageous to pursue it at the G8."

"My objection is that you make an announcement without any dollar sign," he said, "without any appreciable planning, without any sense for how long Canada's commitment lasts, and what research and work has gone into laying the groundwork for it. And you pretend that somehow you're leading the world.

Can somebody please look yo the meaning of empty promise?

Equally troubling to Mr. Lewis is that the stated focus avoids many of the root causes of maternal and child deaths, particularly gender equality—which is actually another Millennium Development Goal.

"To deal with maternal health is also easy for Canada because it avoids all of the issues with which women are engaged beyond being mothers," he said.

"I don't think you'll ever overcome maternal mortality and you'll have a great deal of difficulty with child health until equality or something approaching equality is achieved. And women don't lead lives simply as child bearers. They lead whole lives where discrimination and hardship are felt in a whole world of other ways."

As if the Con men care.

According to sources, CIDA's efforts over the past decade to improve gender equality were reviewed a few years ago and an internal evaluation was released internally in April 2008. However, while the agency has been developing a plan to improve those activities, nothing has emerged.

No. Really?

Ms. Oda said the gender equality plan has not has been delivered to her office yet, but that Canada has been recognized for its leadership on work on "gender issues," which remain a cross-cutting theme for CIDA's work.

That's a pretty good punchline in and of itself.

But I just have to ask: Why hasn't Canada reported, as it was supposed to have done last November, to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) which asked to hear how we are improving our sorry record on women's poverty and violence to aboriginal women?

Even though it's winter, I can still hear those crickets chirping.

Illustration: William Blake, Europe Supported By Africa and America, 1796. Engraving.

Stand-up Guy

Now this is more like it:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to back aid for abortions abroad if he’s serious about  making maternal health a “top priority” for Canada, says Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

Iggy comes out swinging, with the obvious.

Good for him.

UNICEF estimates that some 70,000 women a year die from botched illegal abortions. Who knows how many of the 500,000 women who die of pregnancy-related complications every year -- that's one a minute -- would be living if they had access to therapeutic abortions?

“We don’t want to have women dying because of botched procedures. We don’t want to have women dying in misery,” Ignatieff told reporters today after meetings on Parliament Hill on issues of international development. “We’ve had a pro-choice consensus in this area for a couple of generations and we want to hold it.”

So do most Canadians.

Of course, if Harper gets his majority, it's game over for women's reproductive freedoms.

The Prime Minister announced in the Star and at Davos, Switzerland, last week that the health of mothers and children would be the focus of Canada’s attention during this summer’s G-8 meetings in this country. 

Harper has not specifically said what this aid would include, but support for abortion would be a tough sell for him within his own Conservative caucus, where there are pockets of considerable sentiment against abortion.

''Pockets?''

My friend and colleague Susan Delacourt understates the fact that the overwhelming majority of the caucus is decidedly anti-choice.

The Liberal leader said he has no reason to believe that the Conservatives would withhold foreign aid from projects that assist women in getting abortions, but he pointed out that this was a problem in the United States during the time of former president George W. Bush.

Yes. It was called ''The Gag Rule'' -- one of the first things Bush signed when he entered the Oval Office -- and it caused the defunding of any NGO, health clinic or hospital that counseled women to get abortions for whatever reason.

“In the United States, during the Bush regime, there were substantial limitations on what international agencies could support in terms of women’s health,” Ignatieff said. “We don’t want us to go that way. We want to make sure that women have access to all the contraceptive methods available to control their fertility.”

And so do most most right -- as in the Do The Right Thing -- thinking Canadians.

That said, quite a few Liberal caucus members are also anti-choice.

Unfortunately, unless Ignatieff gets enough votes, it may well be the right-whinging Canadians who get their way.

Interesting, no, how women's issues are suddenly so big?

You know, I am beginning to think that Harper may have made a politically fatal error when he cynically prorogued Parliament last month. Not only has he dropped in the polls, not only has he galvanized many Canadians into paying attention to politics, not only has he set up a situation where media and the opposition can constantly be on the attack without his flacks jumping in to change the channel, not only is he mute on issues such as Rights & Democracy and UNRWA, he is helping Canadians to better understand what he and his team represent.

A backward-thinking bunch if ever there was one.

COUP DE GRACE NOTE: Today, BQ MP Nicole Demers reminded me of this Con job, which shows just how much the Harperites care about borned children

OTTAWA – Federal money earmarked to fight the tragedy of fetal alcohol disorders has been quietly chopped back year after year, says a new report.

"Each year the initiative has received only a portion of the dollars allocated," says an internal evaluation. "It is unclear why this cutback has become the norm."

The Public Health Agency of Canada has been budgeting $3.3 million each year for its fetal alcohol spectrum disorder initiative, but consistently spends only about two-thirds of the cash, says the report.

The evaluation, completed last year, was obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

The disorder, the result of alcohol consumption during pregnancy, causes a broad range of physical, mental and behavioural disabilities.

It's believed to affect 300,000 Canadians, costing about $24,000 annually in social services and health care for each afflicted child, many of whom suffer severe learning disabilities.

Oh, and I posted this last year, but it's worth reposting. It reinforces my argument that women muist be more than walking wombs if the world is to become a better place.

Breeding grounds

“Missing” A message about maternal mortality from Big Yellow Taxi on Vimeo.

Many right-whingers think I bash Prime Minister Stephen Harper for sport.

Wrong. I bash Harper because just about everything he does, at least when it comes to women, is wrong.

Just look how Canadian women have fared throughout his reign rule government. According to the World Economic Forum, which publishes an annual Global Gender Gap Index, Canada slipped from 14th place to 25th.

So guess where Harper was last week, banging the drum for his new cause -- women? (This is a spoof video. Pity.)

That's why I wrote Friday's column, which is still generating hits and emails. I've added some links.

Tuesday, on the Star's op-ed page, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that he would "mobilize" world leaders to save the lives of women and children around the world.

"As president of the G8 in 2010," he wrote, "Canada will champion a major initiative to improve the health of women and children in the world's poorest regions."

He cited some horrifying statistics: "Each year, it is estimated that 500,000 women lose their lives during pregnancy or childbirth. Further, an astonishing 9 million children die before their fifth birthday."

Hmm. These are numbers I have repeatedly noted in this column and on my blog – often to the derision of Harper supporters.(In fact I already posted the UNICEF video you see above last March. But I am reposting it.)

Anyway, there's another statistic, one he conveniently left out. According to the same sources, some 70,000 women a year die from botched illegal abortions.

But let's not go there today.

Now, I am the last person on Earth not to applaud any concerted effort to help women. Feminists have long said that women's rights are human rights – an idea that is finally sinking in among Western leaders.

Improve the lot of women, improve the lives of all.

As U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton observed this month, "Well, you know the proverb, `Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime'? Well, if you teach a woman to fish, she'll feed the whole village."

But Harper didn't mention anything about women getting educations or achieving economic parity.

As internationally known human rights activist Stephen Lewis told me Wednesday night, "None of the spectrum of women's rights and issues is encompassed in this announcement.

It doesn't include sexual violence, child marriage, sexual trafficking, female genital mutilation, economic autonomy, political representation, land rights or inheritance rights.

It includes none of the panoply of women's issues which consign women to subordinate positions around the world."

Hardly surprising considering Harper's government record on everything from women's reproductive rights to equality.

And so he plans to help women only as baby-makers while ignoring all the other Millennium Goals to end Poverty by 2015 on the international agenda, including "environmental sustainability."

(Incidentally, many NGOs, including CIDA, report that it's women who suffer most from climate change. Whether they have to walk farther to find water, food or fuel for cooking, their burdens are increased.)

What's more, as Lewis emphasized, other nations have been on board what's known as the Clinton Global Initiative for more than two years. In 2007, Norway and the Netherlands committed $1.2 billion to this. Last year, another $5.3 billion was kicked in from other sources.

But, on Tuesday, International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda would not tell media how much Canada is actually committing.

"It takes a lot of chutzpah to pretend that somehow you're championing something that others have championed so vigorously before you," Lewis said.

It gets better – or worse, depending on your perspective.

On Wednesday, Liberal Status of Women critic Anita Neville told me, "Mr. Harper is not looking at these issues in Canada. Take a look at the aboriginal population. Look at maternal health care here. He's got a lot of work to do here. "

Indeed, this week, a massive new study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal reported that Inuit infants die at more than three times the rate of other Canadian babies.

Last week, the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health reported on Canada's sinking infant mortality record – we're now 24th in the world – while revealing Saskatchewan's shocking numbers of aboriginal infant deaths. (There's a PDF Download Pages from PaedsJan2010_Blues here.)

And yet, Saskatoon Conservative MP Brad Trost is campaigning to eliminate Canada's funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation – which is not only about contraception but also about maternal health care.

Concludes Lewis: "I think it's pretty cynical but, now that they're doing it, maybe they'll be forced into making some financial commitment."

Women are watching, and waiting.

Lots of Broadsides' pals also weighed in on the subject. Montreal Simon, Dammit Janet and StageLeft to name a few.

And here's my longtime friend Gerry Caplan in that other paper.

I said that maternal and child health could he helped significantly by inexpensive interventions, as has been shown in many countries. But if anyone is genuinely interested in the overall well-being of women and children, which ultimately will determine both their quality of life and their mortality, larger issues of development and women's rights must be pursued diligently. Birth control, abortion, sexual violence, child marriage, land and inheritance rights, political rights – all these issues related to women's subordination must be faced if their overall physical and mental health is to be improved. Is Mr. Harper ready to sign on to this program?

I'm sure the Prime Minster is well aware that his government cut off funding for Kairos, the church-backed Canadian NGO. I wonder if anyone has told him that Kairos worked in the Congo with a Congolese group that was planning to set up a legal clinic to protect women's rights. One of its intended projects was to support Congolese women who had been raped. Renewing the Kairos CIDA grant would go a long way to convincing Canadians that he is sincere in his concern for women's health.

(The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof wrote this about life for women in the Congo just the other day.)

Here are some other things that didn't make the final cut.

BQ MP Nicole Demers emailed me to say

It is with surprise that I learned of Stephen Harper's desire to help the women and children of the world. How can he be so callous when one million Canadian children don't have enough to eat? You have to wonder how does he want to help them? What does he hope to get from it, especially when he cut off help to some of the poorest countries? What about those women and children?

I heard from a reader who wanted to point out that, in spite of what I see as hypocrisy and opportunism on Harper's part, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada applauded his announcement. 

But guess who wasn't happy? The HarperCon Cheering Squad over at the anti-choice Lifesite News.

Pro-life leaders are calling on Canadians to contact the Prime Minister and International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda, and ask them to ensure that the government does not cave in to pressure to push abortion and population control as part of the initiative.

No, because, after all, handing out contraception, or helping women to get abortions when they already have more mouths than they can feed or care for, just wouldn't be fair to women, right? And how come all the anti-choice ''leaders'' quoted are, um, men?

Finally, this incredible piece.

Pro-life leaders are calling on Canadians to contact the Prime Minister and International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda, and ask them to ensure that the government does not cave in to pressure to push abortion and population control as part of the initiative.

<SNIP>

I asked Minister Oda whether the Harper government was leaning toward the aggressive family planning model or favoured the building of local health clinics. While Minister Oda said she was seeking the best advice and not leaning in any direction at this point, one of the experts around the table nodded her head in agreement as I asked my question. Jennifer Kitts from Action Canada for Population and Development approached me excitedly after the news conference to tell me that family planning is key to reducing maternal mortality and infant deaths.

Kitts says that 30% of maternal deaths can be avoided and infant mortality can be reduced by 20% with proper family planning. Now I quickly understood how family planning could reduce maternal death but when I asked her to explain how family planning could help children live past their 5th birthday, Ms. Kitts became nervous and asked me to turn off my recorder. I asked her the question again and she told me she would have to do the interview later.

I don't know why Kitts would be so skittish. It's easy to answer the question. A woman not exhausted by multiple childbirths -- not to mention inferior nutrition and bigger burdens than the menfolk -- can't adequately care for too many children. This is why 70,000 women a year die from botched illegal abortions. That is why so many women die in childbirth. This is why so many kids don't make it to age 5.

Your chances of survival aas a child in these hellholes aren't great if your mother is dead.

But, with these people, the fetus reigns supreme.

As for women, well, dead or alive, they're just a political means to an end ...

United Nations Millennium Campaign - Goal 5- Maternal Health - More amazing video clips are a click away

Wake-up call

As many of you know, last September I created a Facebook group called Proud to be a Member of that Left-Wing Group called Women.

It was in response to PM Stephen Harper's scary speech in Sault Ste. Marie, where he thought only the party faithful were in attendance. Thankfully, a non-con was there and made a video which exposed Harper -- again -- for the nasty angry piece of work he is.

(The video is by my friend Pale Cold of A Creative Revolution, one of the admins for the group.)

We are now 4,072 members strong. Not the size of that wildly successful Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament (CAPP) Facebook group, where there are now more than 221,000 members.

But we are growing.

And we are growing angrier.

That's because we can see how the HarperCons are dismantling support for women, sticking to the agenda drawn up by the far right R.E.A.L. Women which appears to be financed, at least in part, by the Northern Foundation. (For background, read Emily's long but informative post here. And here is another one. Then check this out.)

You want to know more about UNreal Women? Read this, one of their latest missives designed to make it harder and harder for women to maintain their rights, economic independence, political voices and reproductive choices.

These people -- just how many women are there in UNreal Women anyway? -- are so extreme that they believe Harper's little poppet Minister of State for the Status of Women is too liberal.

Where is the Conservative Minister responsible for the Status of Women in all this, since she must approve these questionable grants before they are finalized?  The current Minister, the Hon. Helena Guergis (Simcoe Grey) must either be lacking in common sense to believe the nonsense plied her by the bureaucrats in her department, or she is sympathetic to the duplicity being carried out by her department and is delighted to push these funds into feminist hands.  Either way, she is an ineffective, toothless representative of the Conservative government and should be removed.

Over the weekend, I received an email revealing that it just isn't enough for Harper and his band of Con Men to lie about abortion, campaign against reproductive rights for women around the world or use backdoor means to make abortion illegal here. Oh no. Now, the ''government'' -- in quotes since it's out keeping the country on ice -- has gone after the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, formerly the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada. Funding has been slashed by, wait for it, 99 per cent.

The federation, formerly the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada and still the Canadian member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, has charitable status, according to the Canada Revenue Agency. The CFSH says on its website that it “promote(s) sexual and reproductive health and rights in Canada and abroad.” It also admits being a “pro-choice organization.” Its member affiliates, which operate in all 10 provinces, provide sex information, contraception and abortion referrals; according to REAL Women of Canada, it is the leading abortion referral service in Canada.

According to the CFSH’s website, it is also involved in advocacy, “act(ing) as a national voice to protect and improve sexual and reproductive health and rights.” Although the CFSH does not list an amount it spends on lobbying, the old Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada admitted to spending up to 10 per cent of its annual budget on political advocacy, which is permitted under Canada Revenue Agency rules for charities.

According to the financial returns of the CFSH and the former PPFC, which are public information available at the Canada Revenue Agency website, the federation received $1,143,358 in federal government grants in 2005, while their total expenditures that year came to $2,360,903. In other words, Ottawa provided about half (48 per cent) of their operating budget.

In 2006, they received $1,285,674 in federal grants and spent $2,278,884. Government handouts accounted for more than half (56.4 per cent) of their expenditures in 2006. In 2006, the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada changed its name to the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health.

Beginning in 2007, grants from the federal government began to decrease as it received $743,745. Its expenditures fell to $1,655,249.

In 2008, grants totaled $482,498 while its expenditures dipped to $1,467,005, about a million dollars less than it spent just three years earlier.

In 2009, total grants were $9,381. The Canadian Federation for Sexual Health’s expenditures last year totalled $815,153. Federal grants accounted for just 1.1 per cent of its spending.

More from Dammit Janet!

Can it be a coincidence that its funding was cut throughout the Con years?

I think not.

Or that UNreal Women spokesperson Gwen Landolt is ''elated'' about it?

I think not.

How does all this jibe with the fact that most Canadians support a woman's right to choose?

Well, in the HarperCon Good Book, it doesn't.

Anyway, we left-wing fringed ladies are taking advantage of the CAPP momentum to get some action going. We're tired of women's issues always taking a back seat to those of men, often in the name of economic expediency.

Which is why our Elizabeth Pickett, the group's life force, wrote this today on Facebook. I quote it here in full for those who don't have accounts -- although I urge you to please join us. 

I feel as though we've been sitting on a lot of eggs over here at Proud Fringers since the group blossomed from the work of Antonia Zerbisias. We've grown the group to 4000 women and men, we've been the keepers of the links, the followers of issues affecting "left-wing fringe groups", we've written letters and even had them published, we've expressed our outrage and given our support and encouragement to each other and to other groups.

I think we've reached a critical point. Spurred on by the work we've all done and perhaps by the excitement created at CAPP, many more people are energized by the issues we've tried to bring to attention over here at Fringers. The issues are exploding all around us. More and more often I hear us saying, "We have to do something."

I couldn't agree more. I believe now is the time. As Judy Rebick said, Harper has given us an opening. Many of us know that what we are seeing now has been there all along - Harper's Conservative government doesn't just ignore women and children and minorities and the disabled and vulnerable children and poverty and gays and lesbians - his government is active in attempting to propogate oppression. Strong word that, but appropriate. The call outs on Harper have started to gain attention in the mainstream. Now is the time to organize and act: now or possibly never.

As a second wave feminist, I'm aware of some of the mistakes we made, the things we failed to see and the way those mistakes and failures weakened our movement from within so that it could be more easily attacked and fractured from without. There were lots of things but I'm going to choose two, or maybe two and a half: 1.) we were fractured from within by our difficulty in seeing and integrating lesbians, trans women, racialized women - African and Caribbean women, Aboriginal and Inuit women, disabled women, women who were not middle class and who often were the poorest of the poor; 2.) we were more easily attacked from without because we were disorganized by our inability to act for all women, to speak with something resembling one voice.

If we're going to make Fringers into a movement, even a small one, we have to reach out to those people who are not now among us. To young women and much older women and any woman without an effective political voice. And to the men who are willing to join us, support us and to act with us, not just for us. I believe we have to do this as part of planning for action. And I believe we have to begin planning and organizing. It's been exhilarating doing the research, adding the links, getting in touch with women and men across the country. We can keep doing that and we'll have some effect. But to have the kind of impact I believe many of us want, I think we have to have plans.

I'd like to begin to contact those young women like Ontario RebELLES and women who have come to Canada from other countries, the groups of women advocates for the disabled, against child poverty, working for women against male violence, Aboriginal women, advocates for women in prison and so forth. I don't think it's an overwhelming task.

I'd like to meet in person with whatever core group can take part and skyping with those women who can't be physically present. We need ideas, we need some wisdom, we need to know what works and what doesn't, what HAS worked and what hasn't and we need a plan. We've started out slowly and we've built something. It's time to take the next step.

Let's get it together.

Together.

Support Bros included.

P.S. I took the photo at Dundas Square during the anti-prorogation rally on Jan. 23.

P.P.S. I have to question the pathetic media coverage of the Toronto rally.

CFTO-CP24 gave it maybe 20 seconds top on its 6 p.m. local ''newscast.'' The now misnamed Citytv have it nothing -- because it has canceled its weekend supper-hour newscast. All reports seriously understated the attendance.

Police estimate that, at any event, 7,000 people fill the square. At the rally's peak, people had spilled into Yonge Street, necessitating its closure. So, it was 7,000 at minimum. Perhaps more. Add in rallies in Oakville, Mississauga and other 'burbs -- and it's a movement.

Long time coming a long way Baby!

Although, exactly 30 years ago, 186 countries signed on to The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), now 22 are reportedly balking. (I added the links.)

Algeria says it is prepared to apply the provisions of the treaty as long as they do not conflict with the provisions of the Algerian Family Code.

The government of Australia, on the other hand, says it does not accept the application of CEDAW in so far as it would require alteration of the country’s defence force policy - which excludes women from combat duties.

The UAE points out that it will not enforce one of the provisions of CEDAW because the provision violates the rules of inheritance established in accordance with the precepts of Shariah, the Islamic law (pdf).

Yasmeen Hassan, director of programmes at the New York-based Equality Now told IPS that lack of implementation of CEDAW is exacerbated by countries’ reservations to the treaty.

"Many countries, including most Muslim countries [with the exceptions of Afghanistan and Yemen], have significant and broad reservations to CEDAW that nullify their commitment to gender equality," she added.

However, even in these cases, "the positive is that they are obligated to report on the situation of women which gives us a platform to advocate and push for change," she explained.

Except that some countries -- come on down Canada! -- are not even reporting.

Mind you, some countries never even ratified the CEDAW in the first place. They include those women's rights utopias Sudan, Iran, Somalia and, drum roll please, the U.S.

Women's rights. Why bother?