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   » current events   » national news   » National Association of Women and the Law forced to close office

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: National Association of Women and the Law forced to close office
Draco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4885

posted 20 September 2007 08:25 AM      Profile for Draco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
September 20, 2007

OTTAWA – Effective today, the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) is being forced to close its office, lay off its staff, and cease major consultations and advocacy on women's legal issues as an outcome of the Harper government's devastating changes to the mandate of Status of Women Canada. This closure is a grave blow to the continuing struggle for women's equality.

“The Harper government is trying to silence women’s groups who speak out against its right-wing agenda,” according to lawyer and NAWL Board member Pamela Cross. “These are ideologically driven cuts that demonstrate a defective concept of women’s equality and democracy.”


Link


From: Wild Rose Country | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 20 September 2007 01:18 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is there any chance an opposition member can bring a bill to resolve this situation?

This is an essential organization fundamental to the democratic progress of our country.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
catherine-l
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14279

posted 20 September 2007 03:10 PM      Profile for catherine-l        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good question. Both the NDP and Liberals have issued press releases on this. Meanwhile, this site suggests writing a letter to Harper and provides sample letters. It also states that Harper had the words "women's equality" removed from the mandate of the Status of Women, which could have been predicted.

NUPGE

[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: catherine-l ]


From: ontario | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
M.Gregus
babble intern
Babbler # 13402

posted 20 September 2007 03:37 PM      Profile for M.Gregus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's appalling to see the ongoing effects of the cuts to Status of Women funding. The Conservatives' actions on this front are despicable.

This story was on The Current today, which featured interviews with Pamela Cross, Josée Verner, the Heritage minister, and of course REAL Women, who have been aggressively lobbying against Status of Women.

The interview with the REAL Women rep made my blood boil, though it had its strong moments with a skeptical Anna Maria Tremonti. There was one point when the REAL rep complained that NAWL is a "handful of women lawyers" who do not represent women but are pushing an agenda that most women don't identify with, and Anna Maria countered that with "Are you saying that women can’t identify with pay equity, maternity leave, parental leave?" That was awesome.


From: capital region | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 21 September 2007 06:48 AM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Of course it's always the Talibani-like Conservatives trying to define women's issues as not important.
Weren't the Talibani-like Conservatives themselves standing up for women's issues in Afghanistan recently and getting their photo ops there by pretending to fight for women's rights and issues.

The Conservatives are trying to out Taliban the real Taliban it seems like.


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
AfroHealer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11362

posted 21 September 2007 06:49 AM      Profile for AfroHealer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

The interview with the REAL Women rep made my blood boil, though it had its strong moments with a skeptical Anna Maria Tremonti. There was one point when the REAL rep complained that NAWL is a "handful of women lawyers" who do not represent women but are pushing an agenda that most women don't identify with, and Anna Maria countered that with "Are you saying that women can’t identify with pay equity, maternity leave, parental leave?" That was awesome.[/QB]


Me too .. I loved Anna Maria's counter!!!
That Real Women rep seemed to be stuck in a time warp. and did not seem to fundamentally understand what equity was, or that it was the govt's mandate to ensure everyone was treated equitably.


From: Atlantic Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 21 September 2007 07:04 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M.Gregus:
There was one point when the REAL rep complained that NAWL is a "handful of women lawyers" who do not represent women....

And the handful of women that make up REAL Women do represent what women want?


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 21 September 2007 09:51 AM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree that Anna Maria was great.

The REAL Woman was, of course, Gwen Landolt, who was almost inarticulate in her indignation and who pretty much implied that women choose to be unequal and that being paid less than men is part of the natural order. She called all the information around pay equity a well-known "feminist myth."


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 21 September 2007 11:05 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
NAWL is closing its office because the new funding guidelines implemented by the Harper government for the Women’s Program specifically exclude law reform, advocacy and research from its funding criteria.

I think it's worth pointing out that the Harper government still funds research and advocacy--just not for women's equality.

Last March, for example, the Department of National Defence disclosed a $500,000 grant to the Conference of Defence Associations, which calls itself "the oldest and most influential advocacy group in Canada’s defence community," and "expresses its ideas and opinions with a view to influencing government security and defence policy," according to its website.

Stephen Harper's government will fund your group if its research and advocacy call for continuing the war in Afghanistan, but not if they call for recognizing Canadian women as full and equal human beings.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Naci_Sey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12445

posted 21 September 2007 03:31 PM      Profile for Naci_Sey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That is a really good and important catch, SGM.
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Moveguy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14553

posted 21 September 2007 05:40 PM      Profile for Moveguy        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
NAWL is a racist organization. NAWL member Cynthia Devine, who is also a former national board member and the former editor of Jurisfemme, has publicly stated that the equality provisions of the Charter applies only to visible minorities and historically disadvantaged groups and not to white males.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 21 September 2007 06:12 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Moveguy's time here was short wasn't it?
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443

posted 21 September 2007 06:20 PM      Profile for 1234567     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
thanks, we need good bouncers like you.
From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 22 September 2007 09:08 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why do they have to close?

quote:
If women, feminist women, have fallen silent, it is not because a handful of worthy organizations fighting for their rights is now being denied federal funding. It is because of widespread complacency, a sense that the battles have been won, that women no longer need special advocacy. It is because feminist ideas -- if not the still-radioactive label -- have become mainstream. The prime minister may be exploiting that complacency, but he didn't, alone, create it.
Ottawa Citizen

So,if you are outraged rather than complacent,as soon as you are finished raging at Steve,send NAWL a hundred bucks.

The funding is only a lousy $300k. that is a mere 3,000 people donating a hundred each. While I understand Ms. Cross's point that most women are marginalised economically,there must be at least 3,000 progressives in Canada with a good income stream.

Why is it that as soon as government funding is cut,progressive organisations throw in the towel and quit? If NAWL is truly representative of women,they shouldn't have any problem raising at the least,$300k from both genders.

So,quitcherbellyachin and send money! Not only will you get that warm and fuzzy feeling of doing good but you also share in the frission of delight at shoving Steve's nose in his own creation.

$100 loonies each thats $101 in US monopoly money. Today! Quit whining and cough up.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alexandra Kitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14514

posted 22 September 2007 03:36 PM      Profile for Alexandra Kitty   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Forced to close?

There is only a single source of funding in the world? I'm sorry, but just as I get steamed when supposed capitalistic-minded corporations get government handouts, I feel the same way about groups like this. You can't put yourself at the mercy of a single benefactor. That's called dependence, and I have full confidence in women's abilities to raise money themselves. They should be setting a good example to young girls on how women don't have to depend on anyone else for their existence.

Otherwise, it's just a defeatist frame of mind. I am sure there are women out there who could have sailed that ship out of choppy waters through some other means.

[ 22 September 2007: Message edited by: Alexandra Kitty ]


From: Hamilton, Ontario Canada | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 September 2007 06:13 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You and jester bring up an interesting point.

I've heard some feminists say that things were actually better when they did their own grassroots collective organizing and funding of various feminist organizations, because then they couldn't have the rug pulled out from under them.

The other side of that argument, however, is that there is no reason why feminist organizations SHOULDN'T get government funding - it's our money too, and we should have a say in how it's spent, and get our share.

I waffle between the two points of view.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alexandra Kitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14514

posted 22 September 2007 06:25 PM      Profile for Alexandra Kitty   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
The other side of that argument, however, is that there is no reason why feminist organizations SHOULDN'T get government funding - it's our money too, and we should have a say in how it's spent, and get our share.

That same money could be used for funding a national day care program and having business grants and scholarships for women who are marginalized. That way, the benefit is what feminist groups have been fighting for all along -- and it helps more women get an equal footing. No one could really say that there wouldn't be economic benefits -- plus, when some of those women do break the cycle, they shouldn't forget their darker days and should help fund the very feminist organziations who didn't forget them.

But I also think when you have to struggle, you tend to fight that much harder for what you believe in. You get nasty and have something to prove, which always makes you go farther. I almost think government funding can really soften up and slow down many of these groups, too.

So Harper may, in fact, be getting the opposite of what he seems to be hoping for...

[ 22 September 2007: Message edited by: Alexandra Kitty ]


From: Hamilton, Ontario Canada | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 22 September 2007 07:41 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sure,sure everyone and their dog are entitled to government funding. I'm sure the National Association for Wakeboarding Professionals has a legitimate claim on the public purse and the fact of the matter is that appeasing ALL these special interests is a lesser dollar value than the vintage wine bill at Foreign Affairs but we are not debating the legitimacy of special interest claims.

This has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with politics. While cutting funding that they consider ideologically driven,the CPC also INCREASES funding to women's groups and arts. They can legitimately claim to be responsive to a women's agenda politically while simultaniously grinding down the will of NAWL.

The funding amount is a pittance but it has the exponential ability to sow defeatism in a group that always has to persevere against the tide.

I know a lot about perseverance. One thing I've learned is that no one else will pick up your cudgel and walk in your moccasins if you don't have the jam to do so yourself.

If you want government funding,fight for it.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 26 February 2008 10:54 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Stephen Harper's government will fund your group if its research and advocacy call for continuing the war in Afghanistan, but not if they call for recognizing Canadian women as full and equal human beings.

In QP today, Yasmin Ratansi asked the Conservative government about this contradiction, identified on rabble last year.

The Conservatives' only response was that they fund programs that help all women.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 26 February 2008 01:32 PM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Living off the government is an option, but it shouldn't be the first, especially for such a mainstream group. I used to work for such an NGO, and of course we were always backing off this or that because it might disturb our funders.

The idea that a women's group must fold for lack of what amounts to a year's salary for thousands of people is...well, revealing. Organisations can just get too old --


From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 26 February 2008 01:48 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The idea that a women's group must fold for lack of what amounts to a year's salary for thousands of people is...well, revealing.
Come again? Just what does this reveal? That ONGs should manage to live under 25K$ gov't funding per year or meet a timely death, regardless of how crucial their work (just check out NAWL's web site)? Tell me I read you wrong.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 February 2008 02:27 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think that's what boarsbreath was saying...I think s/he (sorry, didn't check before starting this post!) was responding to the choice of basing your budget on government funding or trying to raise money from the grassroots to fund it.

I still waffle between the two. But I've gotta tell you, having seen the nitty-gritty of trying to raise funding from individual donors and progressive organizations for progressive causes, I know what a grind it can be, and what a full-time job that is in itself. So it's hard to blame feminist organizations for fighting for a share of tax money instead.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 26 February 2008 02:44 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Absolutely. Especially when they are performing as vital a public service as NAWL is by poring through divorce legislation reform, constitutional challenge cases, pay equity issues, VAW, same-sex couple rights, etc. etc.
I recall that old feminist quip about "When the military has to hold a bake sale to buy a battleship..." Remember *they* got 22 billions of our mioney no questions asked last year.
I still can't make out the other part of Boarsbreath's post though, the one about a year's salary being somehow too much to expect from the gov't for an NGO.
BTW, I know NAWL and they *do* canvass their members all the time and look for many other ways to raise monies for a threadbare operating budget. So please check your facts before lobbing such discouraging words...
P.S.: "Old" is nothing to snigger at...

[ 26 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 27 February 2008 07:53 PM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I meant that if any "Non-Governmental" Organisation could be expected to manage without money from the government, it would be one whose cause was as general as this one and which represented lawyers. 300 donations of a thousand bucks and there's the funding. $1000 is a lot to expect from many people, but not from lawyers, I think.

I don't mean the common rant about government teats, because Michelle's right, scrounging for dollars donor by donor is a major distraction. And I agree with what I take to be Martin's point, that the generality of NAWL's cause is precisely why they deserve public money. (It's hard to see 'women's issues' as a special interest; half of my ancestors were female!)

And finally, I must, for internal coherence, agree that old ain't necessarily decrepit. NAWL's a lot less old than I am. But you know what I mean...voluntary organisations can lose their steam, get caught up in careers or personal issues, and generally fade. The problem with government funding is that it doesn't depend on the organisation actually furthering its cause.

So maybe NAWL got too effective, so got harperooned. But why wouldn't there be enough progressive lawyers who can spare a couple of hundred dollars? They probably deserve funding, but why do they, of all NGOs, need public money? (And perhaps gratuitously, I toss in my bit that really, given the wealth of their constituency, they should on principle try to be non-governmental.)


From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 27 February 2008 10:09 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You would be suprised, Boarsbreath, at the number of lawyers who are barely surviving, especially female ones who get the glass ceiling/sticky floor treatment from colleagues (not to mention domestic tasks). $1000 is not a trifle for them - two of my friends have gone bankrupt trying to run a law practice. Legal-aid subsidies don't begin to cover the cost of defending a client.
As for NGOs in general, please, ask around - government funding is critical unless you have a safe as milk issue and very rich friends in need of tax breaks. NOT the case for the women at NAWL who deserve every bit of support we can extend (letter to the editor, MP, gov't, donation, becoming a supporting member even). They have had an awesome influence in legislation these last 30 years and I shudder to think what the CPC will do to women's rights & entitlements if some tough-as-nails advocates aren't there to watch his every move.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 28 February 2008 02:20 PM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, eh? The famous Western treadmill? You'd know better than I -- I haven't lived in Canada for ten years, and I have precisely one lawyer friend actually in practice. (And my $40G or so is a fine income here in the Pacific.)

OK; point taken.


From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 28 February 2008 03:02 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The legal profession is very lucrative if you are a corporate lawyer. Not many of those donate to left wing causes.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  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