Strange new respect

Green Party leader Elizabeth May is quickest off the mark on the no-women angle of today's cabinet shuffle. She issued a release moments ago, condemning how "Harper missed the opportunity to promote some of the very few strong women in his caucus when he shuffled his cabinet."

"Women Members of Parliament are scarce in the Conservative Party, but Diane Ablonczy and Josée Verner are two who display competence without the attack - dog qualities of so many of others in Mr. Harper’s Conservative caucus," May's statement says. "But the Prime Minister has instead chosen to continue relegating women to minor portfolios and the backbenches. It is no wonder that Mr. Harper’s Conservatives are so unpopular with Canadian women."

May also speaks in defence of Rona Ambrose - remember her?

“While I condemned the disastrous climate policies of Ms. Ambrose when she served as Environment Minister, it was always clear the fault lay with the Prime Minister and not Ms. Ambrose. The appalling performance of current Minister John Baird confirms that a change of minister changed nothing for the environment. Surely it is time to give her a decent portfolio.”

Comments

[Eoin kenny]

who and Josee Verner? Not that it really matters. Harper has about as much use for women in cabinet as he does for men -- precious little. He's the decider, after all.

[Robert Gerard]

No women, eh? And on Kim Campbell Day and everything.

[Robert Gerard]

Diane Ablonczy will never make it to cabinet for the simple reason Harper knows she's smarter and more pragmatic than he is and -- like most good Reformers -- he fears smart, pragmatic women. Better to surround himself with a lot of old white guys who think like he does or better yet who don't think at all. They're easier to control and muzzle than some uppity woman who might want to think for herself and who might one day decide to blow the whistle on the Emperor's haberdashery.

[Templeton Jones]

I think it's great that Susan is providing us readers with an opportunity to make comments. On the issue of the cabinet shuffle, I must wonder if it really means anything, when Mr. Harper has such tight control of his cabinet? I'm not being critical of Mr. Harper; just wondering about the significance of a cabinet shuffle.

[Gabby in QC]

"May also speaks in defence of Rona Ambrose - remember her?"
Oh, sure, NOW Elizabeth May waxes nostalgic about Ms. Ambrose's tenure. Did May defend her when Ms. Ambrose became the target of many anti-Conservative barbs, from MPs and environmentalists alike?
NDPer Nathan Cullen delighted in describing her plan as "dead in the water" at every opportunity, Denis Coderre referred to Ms. Ambrose as nothing more than a flower pot, and the day she was introducing her Clean Air Act, the alarm bells went off in the Parliament building, likely set off by an opposition "prankster."

Nor is Minister Verner getting any better treatment from her opponents, like Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, among others. Duceppe referred to Mme Verner as a "damn idiot" during one QP.
Oh yes, all the parties except the Conservatives are respectful of women, right?

And for Robert Gerard, who wrote: "Better to surround himself with a lot of old white guys who think like he does or better yet who don't think at all. They're easier to control and muzzle ..."
Perhaps Mr. Gerard should read this account of an MP's life, written by former MP Barry Campbell (Lib.)
http://walrusmagazine.com/print/2008.03-politics-canada-election-barry-campbell/ (H/T David Akin’s blog)

"... Nominated candidates may receive money from the party (which has to be paid back). You will receive pamphlets you must buy, and a candidates’ handbook to help you prepare. The Liberal handbook was chock full of policy Q&As, which, they hoped, you would memorize and parrot back to constituents. ...

I would soon learn other lessons: to say what I didn’t believe; to not say what I believed; to apologize without actually doing so (“I am sorry if anyone was offended by what I said” is a conditional apology). ..."

You see, Mr. Gerard? ALL politicians have to learn to toe the party line.
The thing is, when any other party does it, it's called cabinet/caucus solidarity.
If the Conservatives do it, it's called muzzling.

[female humanist]

When will women stop demanding that 'representation' mean 'resemble'? If media and activists continue to push in this direction (toward candidate-quotas and proportional 'representation' by listed unelected candidates) we will destroy the fundamental meaning of representation -- that each elected lawmaker represent not only all genders/races etcetera but all citizens of his/her riding regardless of party affiliation.
Have women not proven they can be as corrupt, incompetent, warlike as the next guy?
Are women not mature enough or intelligent enough to win office based on their competence
as legislators rather than as reps of their sex?