From time to time in this current political mess, someone will toss the phrase “women’s rights” into the mix. Apparently, in saying that government employees can’t go to Human Rights Tribunals over pay equity disputes, the Harper government is against women’s rights. I think that’s what it is about, anyway. Hard to tell. Why? Because those people bandying about the phrase don’t have a sweet clue either. They never explain, and I’ve not heard a reporter ask for or offer clarification. Fortunately, however, they don’t need a sweet clue. Because paying lip service to “women’s rights” is all they want to do.
Look, one thing I won’t do on this blog is pretend to represent all women. So let me say this for myself. I’d really love the government to stop funding “women’s rights.” I want Status of Women Canada to lose every tax dollar it gets. I’d love it if the “women’s caucus” stopped defending things like “gender-based analysis.” I will never even bother reading The Pink Book.
I don’t represent all women. So I find it fascinating when others speak up for–wait for it–me. Why–Ed Broadbent did so just the other morning on a local Ottawa CBC show. The Conservatives are against “women’s rights”, says he. But just what might those rights be? The right to unionized jobs? The right to be defended by him? So kind of him–I’ll invite him to tea and we can chat about a coalition of women’s defence. I’m sure he, maybe with Duceppe and Dion can swing it.
“Women’s rights” indeed. Are you buying it?by