Jun 19 2009
Ah, yes, the old one-third equality thing
I’ve never been big on quotas – I don’t actually care how many women run for office. But these people do. And they, well, blunder a bit, no?
Apparently “equal” now means 33%
For Immediate Release
June 18, 2009Statement to the House of Commons on the Equal Voice Challenge
Mr. Speaker,
I rise in defence of a process of change and renewal that is as old as Parliament itself.
With the passage of time, this House has come increasingly to encompass the breadth of our country’s diversity-
-of language, gender, sexual orientation, race, creed, and culture.
But we must always desire to be more representative of the population.
And today, I stand before this House to act on part of that desire.
Today, on behalf of my party, I accept the Equal Voice Challenge.
The Liberal Party is committed to having more women in politics-
-in Parliament-
-and in government, after the next election.
Today, I pledge on behalf of my party, that in the next election, no fewer than one-third of our Liberal candidates will be women.
Thank you.
- 30 -
Contact:
Press Office
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
613-996-6740
________________________
Rebecca adds: So essentially, the position of the Liberal Party is that it isn’t up to the electorate to decide whom they want to represent them, but rather that we have to narrow the options available to the unwashed masses in a manner that conforms to elite opinion about the optimal composition of the House. The ramifications of this are quite extraordinary, and wholly incompatible with meaningful democracy.
_____________________
Andrea adds: I personally am looking for more animal representation. Like those talking dogs from the movie Up. Loved them, and would see the movie again, just for this. That’s my concern and my weighty contribution to this discussion. (I do not care whether the dogs are male or female.)
Related posts:
- Some politicians are of course pro-life With MPs and Ministers tripping all over themselves to “out”...
- Old stereotypes die hard Meant to mention this. After the march on Thursday I...
- Hey, that’s a start Good news from Pakistan: PAKISTAN has moved towards outlawing domestic...
- Voicing my voice I have a voice. And I use it. And I...
- A new kind of hidden agenda The beauty of Canadian abortion politics (bet you never thought...
Why not 34%? Why, should she settle for rounding down if women deserve one third representation?
To be fair, she said no fewer. Still, the number seems arbitrary, and if their only criteria for equality is that the distribution matches the demograph (ie. 51%), why are they cool with a minimum of 33%?
They want to be truly representative…. 50% of people are below average intelligence. Let’s at least try to equalize the number of smart and stupid people who are running our country (read that whatever way you wish).
What a bunch of crap! We need the best, most qualified candidates period. Woman, man or labrador retriever who cares as long as they are the most qualified and get the votes.
33 percent? That’ll bring us to Afghanistan levels, won’t it?
What would we do without the Natural Governing Party™?
What I’d be most annoyed about if I was an elected woman would be wondering if it was my gender that got me votes, the job. As opposed to substance. And now they’ve put it in writing it’s clearly highly motivated by balancing the gender ratio, we’ll never feel like we legitimately got the position due to capability again. I don’t feel like women’s rights were respected at all in them lowering the bar. Reverse sexism should be just as intolerable. I don’t need allowances to be made for my sake (or in the more general sense, women don’t need an easier path just because they’re women…) how pompous.
Just one more reason, besides the many I have collected over the past 50 years, NOT to vote Liberal. Never have. Never voted NDP either.
Which does NOT mean I never will…… Just hope I don’t get Alzheimers and forget all those reasons!