On March 25, the government of Jean Charest announced Bill 94, an act that would prevent women wearing the niqab from accessing hospitals, daycares, schools, universities, and other public services, and would bar women in niqab from working in the public sector. In a press conference, premier Charest described the legislation as defending two principles: gender equality and secular public institutions.
We oppose this legislation and strongly believe that it will restrict rather than enhance the rights of women. As we stated in November 2007 in our public response to the Commission de consultation sur les pratiques d’accommodement reliées aux différences culturelles, while we agree that the government should be doing more to ensure gender equality, we argue that this is not achieved by creating a false opposition between secular values and religion, but rather by attending to gender-based violence, poverty, women’s health, and women’s access to education and work. In fact, Charest’s use of the terms “secular” and “gender equality” is misleading. It is obvious that the government’s concern is not with all religious practices, but very particularly with Muslim practices. Furthermore, regulating women’s public religious expression and denying them access to government services and public life is not a step in the direction of gender equality. Bill 94 chauvinistically casts Québec as having achieved gender equality while implying a view of Muslim communities as inherently oppressive to women.
As feminists, we are committed to supporting bodily and personal autonomy for all women, as well as all women’s capacity to understand and articulate their experiences of oppression on their own terms. And it is as feminists that we oppose state interventions that promise gender equality at the expense of women’s autonomy.
Signed: The Faculty and Students of the Simone de Beauvoir Institute, with the support of The School of Community and Public Affairs, Concordia University, April 7, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information, please see the Simone de Beauvoir Institute’s November 2007 feminist response to the Bouchard-Taylor commission.
Please circulate.
To endorse this statement, please e-mail: gada.mahrouse@concordia.ca
Media Contact: Gada Mahrouse, Simone de Beauvoir Institute, 514-848-2424 x 2378,gada.mahrouse@concordia.ca
Déclaration de l’Institut Simone de Beauvoir à propos du projet de loi 94
Le 25 mars dernier, le gouvernement de Jean Charest a présenté le projet de loi 94, lequel empêcherait les femmes portant le niqab d’avoir accès aux services publics offerts par de multiples institutions et établissements tels que les hôpitaux, les centres de la petite enfance, les écoles et les universités, et qui leur interdirait de travailler dans la fonction publique. Lors d’une conférence de presse, le premier ministre Charest a décrit ce projet de loi comme un exemple de défense des principes d’égalité entre les sexes et de laïcité au sein des institutions publiques.
Nous nous opposons à cette loi et nous croyons fermement qu’elle aura pour effet de limiter plutôt que de favoriser les droits des femmes. Comme nous l’avons exprimé en novembre 2007 dans notre réponse publique à la Commission de consultation sur les pratiques d’accommodement reliées aux différences culturelles, nous sommes d’avis que le gouvernement devrait intervenir davantage pour assurer l’égalité entre les sexes, mais nous suggérons que cela devrait se faire non pas en se centrant sur les valeurs laïques et la religion, mais en agissant sur les questions de violence, de pauvreté, de santé et d’accès à l’éducation et au travail pour les femmes. En fait, l’utilisation par le premier ministre Charest des termes «laïque» et «égalité entre les sexes» est source de confusion. Il est évident que la préoccupation du gouvernement n’est pas d’encadrer l’ensemble des pratiques religieuses, mais bien les pratiques musulmanes.
La régulation de l’expression religieuse des femmes en public et l’interdiction d’accès aux services gouvernementaux et à la vie publique ne peuvent être vus comme un pas vers l’égalité entre les sexes. Le projet de loi 94 est chauviniste et présente l’image trompeuse d’un Québec ayant atteint l’égalité entre les sexes tout en sous-entendant que les communautés musulmanes sont intrinsèquement oppressives pour les femmes.
En tant que féministes, nous sommes engagées à promouvoir et soutenir l’autonomie des femmes ainsi que leur capacité de comprendre et d’articuler leurs expériences d’oppression dans des termes qui leur sont propres. Et c’est en tant que féministes que nous disons NON aux interventions de l’État qui promettent l’égalité entre les sexes aux dépens de l’autonomie des femmes.
Signé: Les membres du personnel enseignant ainsi que les étudiantes et étudiants de l’Institut Simone de Beauvoir, avec le soutien de l’École des affaires publiques et communautaires, Université Concordia, le 7 avril 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prière de faire circuler.
Pour appuyer la déclaration, merci d’envoyer un courriel à: gada.mahrouse@concordia.ca
Relations publiques: Viviane Namaste, Institut Simone de Beauvoir 514 848-2424 poste 2371,
viviane@alcor.concordia.ca
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Ottawa RebELLEs at International Women's Day 2010
It's nice to know we're not the only ones that think feminist critical thought is still essential today!
We performed our bilingual manifesto at the Women's Event Network event, 'Still Searching for Bread and Roses'. This was our second time performing it in the Ottawa Capital Region. What fun!
We were especially inspired by the Raging Grannies and made a pact that we will reunite in 50 years to follow their wonderful lead!
*please excuse the late post. Now that I've learned the ins and outs of blogging (thanks Michelle!), I'll be posting every wednesday.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Upcoming May Day (venez m'aider! you come help me in French)
The saying May Day is used as a distress signal by many groups such as police forces, pilots, firefighters, etc...Help me, help me, help me to remember the rich history of this day and think upon the meaning of this phrase as a rally call for me to become humble enough to learn how to help others.
Sometimes we need a bit of a wake up call, sometimes we forget what is important and what needs to be celebrated in life. Is the entire point of a holiday (whether secular or not) only to eat and drink with folks we love? What about the people who fought so that we could enjoy these days of rest and laughter? What about the people still fighting this struggle and who are denied the freedom to celebrate with their loved ones?
If you are interested in feminism, the environment, labour movements, trade justice, the economy...you should check out this event at Jack Purcell Community Center (http://www.jpra.ca/detail.php?id_cat=1) to learn some important information but also to rekindle that sense of community spirit we so often seek but never seem to be able to find.
MAYDAY WEEKEND 2010
May 1st and 2nd
In Canada and the U.S., ‘Labour Day’ is celebrated in September as part of a cover-up of the real history of the labour movement: http://linchpin.ca/content/anarchism/history-May-Day
This year, we are celebrating the real labour day by holding a two-day gathering with opportunities to discuss labour activism and a whole lot more.
Saturday May 1, 12:30-6:00pm
Sunday May 2, 12:30-5:00pm
at Jack Purcell Community Centre
(near corner of Elgin and Gilmour)
Free / by donation. No registration required.
Themed around social justice, economic justice, environmental justice and healthy communities.
There will be discussions, workshops/skill-shares, cultural activities, information tables featuring local groups and organizations, snacks and refreshments, and a Saturday community dinner.
www.OrganizingForJustice.ca ~~ 613-656-5498 ~~ org4justice@gmail.com
****
SCHEDULE | TABLING | ACCESSIBILITY | VOLUNTEERS | PROMOTION | GET CONNECTED
****
SCHEDULE
Saturday May 1:
12:30pm – Opening
1:00pm
- Labour and Work-place Organizing (discussion)
- Community- and Guerrilla-Gardening (workshop)
2:30pm – Cultural Activity
3:00pm
- Collective Environmental Action (discussion)
- Indigenous Solidarity (workshop)
4:00pm
- Tentants’ Rights and Housing Alternatives (discussion)
- Spoken Word Poetry (workshop)
5:00pm – Spoken Word Performance
5:20pm – Community Dinner
Sunday May 2:
12:30pm – Opening
1:00pm
- Sex Activism (discussion)
- *TBC: Silk-screening (workshop)
2:00pm
- Transforming or Ignoring Municipal Politics? (discussion)
- *TBC: Organizing Protests & Legal Issues: Focus on G8/G20 (workshop)
3:00pm – Cultural Activity
3:30pm
- Building a Local Activist Community (discussion)
Note: *TBC on the Sunday means “To Be Confirmed”
TABLING
If your group or organization would like to table at the event (on Sat and/or Sun), please contact us ASAP. We have 15 tables each day and it is first come, first served: org4justice@gmail.com, 613-656-5498
****
ACCESSIBILITY
The venue is wheelchair accessible.
We are working on providing childcare and ASL translation; please contact us if you would require either of these: org4justice@gmail.com, 613-656-5498 … if anyone can help us arrange sign language translation, please contact us!
There is limited reserved parking for patrons of the community centre. You will need to ask at the front desk for a parking pass for these spots.
GET CONNECTED
We are bringing socialism to social media!
http://twitter.com/org4jus
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Organizing-For-Justice/112481105432506
Organizing For Justice is not only the gatherings we organize (this is our third edition!), but also about promoting various other local initiatives and events that are aligned with our values of social justice, economic justice, economic justice, and healthy communities. Join us on Twitter or Facebook to receive updates about various things going on in the local community.
http://www.OrganizingForJustice.ca ~~ 613-656-5498 ~~ org4justice@gmail.com
Sometimes we need a bit of a wake up call, sometimes we forget what is important and what needs to be celebrated in life. Is the entire point of a holiday (whether secular or not) only to eat and drink with folks we love? What about the people who fought so that we could enjoy these days of rest and laughter? What about the people still fighting this struggle and who are denied the freedom to celebrate with their loved ones?
If you are interested in feminism, the environment, labour movements, trade justice, the economy...you should check out this event at Jack Purcell Community Center (http://www.jpra.ca/detail.php?id_cat=1) to learn some important information but also to rekindle that sense of community spirit we so often seek but never seem to be able to find.
MAYDAY WEEKEND 2010
May 1st and 2nd
In Canada and the U.S., ‘Labour Day’ is celebrated in September as part of a cover-up of the real history of the labour movement: http://linchpin.ca/content/anarchism/history-May-Day
This year, we are celebrating the real labour day by holding a two-day gathering with opportunities to discuss labour activism and a whole lot more.
Saturday May 1, 12:30-6:00pm
Sunday May 2, 12:30-5:00pm
at Jack Purcell Community Centre
(near corner of Elgin and Gilmour)
Free / by donation. No registration required.
Themed around social justice, economic justice, environmental justice and healthy communities.
There will be discussions, workshops/skill-shares, cultural activities, information tables featuring local groups and organizations, snacks and refreshments, and a Saturday community dinner.
www.OrganizingForJustice.ca ~~ 613-656-5498 ~~ org4justice@gmail.com
****
SCHEDULE | TABLING | ACCESSIBILITY | VOLUNTEERS | PROMOTION | GET CONNECTED
****
SCHEDULE
Saturday May 1:
12:30pm – Opening
1:00pm
- Labour and Work-place Organizing (discussion)
- Community- and Guerrilla-Gardening (workshop)
2:30pm – Cultural Activity
3:00pm
- Collective Environmental Action (discussion)
- Indigenous Solidarity (workshop)
4:00pm
- Tentants’ Rights and Housing Alternatives (discussion)
- Spoken Word Poetry (workshop)
5:00pm – Spoken Word Performance
5:20pm – Community Dinner
Sunday May 2:
12:30pm – Opening
1:00pm
- Sex Activism (discussion)
- *TBC: Silk-screening (workshop)
2:00pm
- Transforming or Ignoring Municipal Politics? (discussion)
- *TBC: Organizing Protests & Legal Issues: Focus on G8/G20 (workshop)
3:00pm – Cultural Activity
3:30pm
- Building a Local Activist Community (discussion)
Note: *TBC on the Sunday means “To Be Confirmed”
TABLING
If your group or organization would like to table at the event (on Sat and/or Sun), please contact us ASAP. We have 15 tables each day and it is first come, first served: org4justice@gmail.com, 613-656-5498
****
ACCESSIBILITY
The venue is wheelchair accessible.
We are working on providing childcare and ASL translation; please contact us if you would require either of these: org4justice@gmail.com, 613-656-5498 … if anyone can help us arrange sign language translation, please contact us!
There is limited reserved parking for patrons of the community centre. You will need to ask at the front desk for a parking pass for these spots.
GET CONNECTED
We are bringing socialism to social media!
http://twitter.com/org4jus
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Organizing-For-Justice/112481105432506
Organizing For Justice is not only the gatherings we organize (this is our third edition!), but also about promoting various other local initiatives and events that are aligned with our values of social justice, economic justice, economic justice, and healthy communities. Join us on Twitter or Facebook to receive updates about various things going on in the local community.
http://www.OrganizingForJustice.ca ~~ 613-656-5498 ~~ org4justice@gmail.com
Monday, April 19, 2010
ARCC Calls for Law Banning Coerced Childbirth
A bill recently introduced by a Conservative MP to criminalize “coercing” a woman into abortion should be scuttled in favour of a bill prohibiting the much more common practice of coercing a woman into childbirth, says the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), a national pro-choice group.
“It’s wrong to pressure women into an abortion, but this does not occur on the grand scale often claimed by anti-choice propagandists. It mostly stems from situations of domestic abuse,” said Joyce Arthur, Coordinator of ARCC. Arthur pointed to a recent U.S. study[1] that examined reproductive control of women by abusive male partners. “Some were pressured to have an abortion, but women also reported that their partners prevented them from obtaining or using birth control, threatened them with pregnancy, or forced unprotected sex on them. If they became pregnant and wanted an abortion, some partners threatened or pressured them to carry to term.”
In 1989, Chantal Daigle of Quebec had to travel to the U.S. for an abortion after her boyfriend got an injunction preventing her from having an abortion. Canada’s Supreme Court subsequently ruled that male partners cannot force a woman to have a baby.
“It’s not just partners or family members who try to compel women and girls to have babies against their will,” said Arthur. “The entire anti-choice movement has been trying to force women into pregnancy and motherhood for decades, by working to outlaw or restrict abortion. Perhaps we need to protect women from this coercion by criminalizing anti-choice activism!”
A more realistic target would be to prohibit certain types of anti-choice activism. “Over 150 so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centres’ exist in Canada, and their main job is to prevent women from having abortions,” said Judy Burwell, another ARCC spokesperson. “Tactics used may include deception, misinformation, shaming and guilting, scare-mongering, shock tactics, invasion of privacy, and proselytizing.[2] Also, anti-choice protesters engage in so-called ‘sidewalk counselling’, which involves accosting women as they enter abortion clinics. Too often, protesters use aggressive and hateful language, such as telling women they are murderers and threatening them with hellfire if they get an abortion.”
“A law against coerced childbirth would be a great opportunity to put a stop to some of the most egregious violations of women’s integrity perpetrated by the anti-choice movement,” said Burwell.
______________________________
“It’s wrong to pressure women into an abortion, but this does not occur on the grand scale often claimed by anti-choice propagandists. It mostly stems from situations of domestic abuse,” said Joyce Arthur, Coordinator of ARCC. Arthur pointed to a recent U.S. study[1] that examined reproductive control of women by abusive male partners. “Some were pressured to have an abortion, but women also reported that their partners prevented them from obtaining or using birth control, threatened them with pregnancy, or forced unprotected sex on them. If they became pregnant and wanted an abortion, some partners threatened or pressured them to carry to term.”
In 1989, Chantal Daigle of Quebec had to travel to the U.S. for an abortion after her boyfriend got an injunction preventing her from having an abortion. Canada’s Supreme Court subsequently ruled that male partners cannot force a woman to have a baby.
“It’s not just partners or family members who try to compel women and girls to have babies against their will,” said Arthur. “The entire anti-choice movement has been trying to force women into pregnancy and motherhood for decades, by working to outlaw or restrict abortion. Perhaps we need to protect women from this coercion by criminalizing anti-choice activism!”
A more realistic target would be to prohibit certain types of anti-choice activism. “Over 150 so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centres’ exist in Canada, and their main job is to prevent women from having abortions,” said Judy Burwell, another ARCC spokesperson. “Tactics used may include deception, misinformation, shaming and guilting, scare-mongering, shock tactics, invasion of privacy, and proselytizing.[2] Also, anti-choice protesters engage in so-called ‘sidewalk counselling’, which involves accosting women as they enter abortion clinics. Too often, protesters use aggressive and hateful language, such as telling women they are murderers and threatening them with hellfire if they get an abortion.”
“A law against coerced childbirth would be a great opportunity to put a stop to some of the most egregious violations of women’s integrity perpetrated by the anti-choice movement,” said Burwell.
______________________________
[1] Ann Moore et al. Male Reproductive Control of Women Who Have Experienced Intimate Partner Violence in the United States. Pending publication in Social Science & Medicine. Available at:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/socscimed201002009.pdf
[2] To combat the deception of CPCs, two U.S. cities have recently passed laws requiring CPCs to post signs informing clients they don’t offer or refer for abortion or contraception: http://xrl.us/bhhgzq.
For evidence of CPC tactics, see: Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC: http://xrl.us/bhhgzu.
*******************
Background: Bill C510 would amend the Criminal Code to prohibit coercing a woman into an abortion via physical or financial threats, illegal acts, or through “argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity”. It was introduced on April 15 by anti-choice Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South), who chairs the secretive Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus.
Other reasons why Bill C510 is not needed or is suspect:
· The bill is mostly redundant because threats and illegal acts are already illegal under the Criminal Code.
· Counselors already screen for possible coercion in women seeking abortion. Abortion clinics do not perform abortions on women who are conflicted or being coerced.
· The bill patronizes women by implying they are frequently coerced into abortion, but the vast majority of women make their own decision to have an abortion and take responsibility for it.
· If the intent is really to protect women from abusive partners, we need better solutions than this bill. Women’s safety and security is best assured by helping them win equality and autonomy (e.g., with pay equity, affordable childcare, legal aid, and other programs).
· The law would have a chilling and intimidating effect on abortion providers because it would likely be used mostly against them. The anti-choice movement falsely believes that clinics coerce women into abortions, which may encourage frivolous charges under this bill, and harassment and violence against providers.
· Who decides when a line is crossed into illegal threats? How would proof of coercion be obtained in such circumstances?
· The bill is motivated by anti-choice sentiment, not by concern for women. Not only was it introduced by an anti-choice MP, it is strongly supported by anti-choice activists, and refers to a fetus as a “child.” This bill is an attempt to reintroduce the notion of fetal rights through
indirect means, by presenting abortion as a social harm to be criminalized.
· The bill’s rationale – the 2007 murder of a pregnant woman from Winnipeg – has been misrepresented. Bruinooge claims that Roxanne Fernando was murdered because she refused to have an abortion, but the murderer himself, his lawyer, and the Crown prosecutor all agree that this was not the motive.
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC-CDAC)
POB 2663, Station Main
Vancouver, BC, V6B 3W3
info@arcc-cdac.ca
http://www.guttmacher.org/
[2] To combat the deception of CPCs, two U.S. cities have recently passed laws requiring CPCs to post signs informing clients they don’t offer or refer for abortion or contraception: http://xrl.us/bhhgzq.
For evidence of CPC tactics, see: Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC: http://xrl.us/bhhgzu.
*******************
Background: Bill C510 would amend the Criminal Code to prohibit coercing a woman into an abortion via physical or financial threats, illegal acts, or through “argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity”. It was introduced on April 15 by anti-choice Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South), who chairs the secretive Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus.
Other reasons why Bill C510 is not needed or is suspect:
· The bill is mostly redundant because threats and illegal acts are already illegal under the Criminal Code.
· Counselors already screen for possible coercion in women seeking abortion. Abortion clinics do not perform abortions on women who are conflicted or being coerced.
· The bill patronizes women by implying they are frequently coerced into abortion, but the vast majority of women make their own decision to have an abortion and take responsibility for it.
· If the intent is really to protect women from abusive partners, we need better solutions than this bill. Women’s safety and security is best assured by helping them win equality and autonomy (e.g., with pay equity, affordable childcare, legal aid, and other programs).
· The law would have a chilling and intimidating effect on abortion providers because it would likely be used mostly against them. The anti-choice movement falsely believes that clinics coerce women into abortions, which may encourage frivolous charges under this bill, and harassment and violence against providers.
· Who decides when a line is crossed into illegal threats? How would proof of coercion be obtained in such circumstances?
· The bill is motivated by anti-choice sentiment, not by concern for women. Not only was it introduced by an anti-choice MP, it is strongly supported by anti-choice activists, and refers to a fetus as a “child.” This bill is an attempt to reintroduce the notion of fetal rights through
indirect means, by presenting abortion as a social harm to be criminalized.
· The bill’s rationale – the 2007 murder of a pregnant woman from Winnipeg – has been misrepresented. Bruinooge claims that Roxanne Fernando was murdered because she refused to have an abortion, but the murderer himself, his lawyer, and the Crown prosecutor all agree that this was not the motive.
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC-CDAC)
POB 2663, Station Main
Vancouver, BC, V6B 3W3
info@arcc-cdac.ca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)