4 out of 9 of Canada’s Supreme Court Justices have mandatory retirement dates within the next five years. Guess who appoints Supreme Court Justices? That’s right, the Governor-General in “consultation with” (read: direction by) the Prime Minister.

And who do you think Harper will stack the courts with, given the opportunity? Given his government’s record, I only shudder to imagine.

The Supreme Court wields an enormous amount of power. And to show what can happen with years of stacked appointments, we need only to glance at our illustrious neighbours to the south, the United States:

Think it couldn’t happen here? Think again:

Pro-life supporters successfully influenced an as-yet unannounced government decision to deny funding to Planned Parenthood, says a Conservative seeking re-election.

Brad Trost, incumbent for Saskatoon-Humboldt, addressed the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association’s annual convention Saturday and thanked its members for their help in killing federal funding for the group.

In a recording of the speech, obtained by the Liberals and provided to the Toronto Star and Le Devoir, Trost claims a number of parliamentary victories for the pro-life movement, including a decision to deny funding for the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

This is all part of a decision that was rendered by the Conservative government to exclude abortion funding from its maternal health plan for developing nations. Having denied access to abortion to women in other countries, now the government is setting its sights on our rights as Canadians.

And, lest you think that it’s only women’s reproductive rights that are under attack, rest assured that Stephen Harper doesn’t discriminate like that; he’s determined to attack all women’s rights.

But don’t worry, Stevie. You may hate women, but women hate you too:

Now here’s hoping that more Canadian women get jolted out of apathy and turn out and vote.

(Hat tips: Kirsten, Andrea, and the good people over at ShitHarperDid.com.)

This is nothing new for the UN, which has regularly seen topsy-turvy things like Libya being elected to the UN Human Rights Council. The moral authority of the UN has basically been at zero, since the one nation, one vote structure means that small states with human rights abuses get to dominate the conversation.

But this time, Iran – a country where women are executed for adultery – presuming to speak up for women’s rights was just a step too far for nations like Canada and the USA, who successfully blocked its bid for a seat on the board:

Led by the U.S., several countries helped gather opposition to Iran’s campaign. They were joined by human-rights groups, who pointed to the recent sentence of death by stoning for Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, an Iranian woman convicted of adultery.

Before anyone gets too excited, though, it should be noted that this is just one blip in the UN’s steady march to redefine human rights in a topsy-turvy, Orwellian fashion:

You might think the regime’s habit of murdering women for imaginary crimes would earn it universal condemnation – especially from places such as the United Nations. You would be wrong. In April, Iran was given a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, whose goal is “gender equality and the advancement of women.” No one explained how stoning women to death advances gender equality. This is a moral inversion so twisted that it defies satire. If you still harbour any illusion that the UN is truly interested in the rights of women, please abandon it now.

Iran’s ludicrous appointment was a consolation prize for its failure, despite fierce lobbying, to gain a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. That would not have been as bizarre as it sounds, given that its members include the rights-conscious nation of Saudi Arabia. The Human Rights Council is dominated by a bloc of Islamic and African states that refuse to condemn Iran for anything. Instead, the council spends most of its time denouncing Israel and the United States. “It’s tragic,” says Ms. Namazie, who fled Iran in 1980. “It’s like asking apartheid South Africa to sit on the commission for racial equality.”

The UN Human Rights Council has long been a joke. UN Women, the new agency, promises to be much of the same. Same shit, different day.

Stephane Dion is actively seeking female candidates to run for the federal Libs – he’s even stated that he’s willing to use a quota system to ensure “adequate representation”, and to kick out male candidates to make room for female ones.

Here in Quebec, criticism abounded after last week’s election reduced the number of female MNAs from 39 to 32.

Arguments like this have always annoyed me. As a woman, I believe that I ought to have every right and opportunity to do anything a man can do. And I also believe that, unlike in Saudi Arabia, here in Canada (and Quebec), that’s pretty much true.

Women in Saudi Arabia can’t drive, can’t vote, can’t walk out on the street unaccompanied by a male relative, have to hide behind veils and robes, can’t participate in society as free and equal members. Saudi Arabia’s problems run far deeper than simply ensuring adequate representation among elected officials. (For starters, the elections themselves are a sham… But that’s a whole different rant.)

In contrast, here, women are free, full and equal members of society. If barriers still exist – and I acknowledge that they do – they are no longer legal and we are working hard to deinstitutionalize them.

But politicians who rant about not having enough women candidates are not saying so because they truly believe that women are barred from politics or lack opportunities; they’re doing it for reasons that are – no pun intended – purely cosmetic.

And finally, a refreshing perspective on the subject from Brigitte Pellerin in the Ottawa Citizen:

According to something called the Inter-Parliamentary Union (ipu.org), Rwanda ranks first in the world with 48.8 per cent women representation in the national legislature, whereas Canada is 48th with 20.8 per cent. The United States, where we all know women are routinely persecuted by a political class bent on systemic gender inequality, is 68th with 16.3 per cent. So, is the theory that we’d be better off if we were governed more like Rwanda?

[ . . . ]

And if we’re legislating quotas for perspective, then we should also make the proportion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, etc. representatives match their share of the general population, assuming we even know it. And once we get there, shouldn’t we also worry about religious representation? What about race?

Oooh, dear.

To me equality means not caring whether my elected representative is male or female or black or gay or Methodist or whatever. And democracy means letting people elect whomever they think represents their views. I believe enforcing equal representation of women in politics would be wrong, undemocratic, and possibly even counterproductive. I suspect I am not alone.

Nope, not alone at all. I agree completely. And I encourage you to read the whole thing.

Equality by quota is counter-productive in the long run. It doesn’t eradicate barriers, it merely sets up new ones. Equality really ought to mean equality of opportunity, and that will only happen when we stop electing, hiring people based on their gender or skin colour or language or religion, and start judging them based on ideas, accomplishments, and – what’s that old-fashioned outdated thing again? – oh yeah, merit.

(But that just wouldn’t be, y’know, politically correct).

As a female hockey fan, I find this article downright insulting. You write as though women have suddenly just discovered that – hey, guess what? – our national pastime can be lots of fun to watch!

I’m not sure which is worse: The suggestion that female fans just like to ogle the hot players, or the implication that women are more into hockey these days because we’re “entering” the business arena and pursuing equality in other areas as well. Wake up, guys, this is 2007; we’ve “entered” the business arena a good long time ago, and the hockey arena as well.

Women make up nearly half of all fans attending NHL games. We follow the plays, read the papers, look at the statistics and the trades, debate the coaching strategies and line juggling, and appreciate a great comeback or an exciting goal just as much as any man does. One of my favourite girls’ night activities is going to a Habs’ game with a girlfriend, or getting together with a bunch of friends to watch a game on the big screen. We are devoted fans and have been for a long time. Reporting this as “news” suggests to me that you are completely out of touch with reality.

And that’s just women who watch the sport. You have completely failed to mention those who play it. The number of participants in women’s hockey has increased 400% in the past decade. Women play in leagues – both competitive and recreational – all over the country. I think if you asked Cassie Campbell, Danielle Goyette, Hayley Wickenheiser, or any of our gold-medal winning national team players, they might point out that not only do Canadian women play hockey, but they play it exceptionally well.

It’s attitudes like those expressed in this article that ensure that women’s hockey constantly gets the short shrift, both in terms of funding and in terms of publicity. Women like hockey, period – and we don’t need pink Habs’ t-shirts to be fans, either.

I politely suggest that you get your head checked. Into the boards. Hard.

Update: The Gazette published my letter on the subject.

“We must speak out now, because we’ve got nothing to lose,” said Dr. Wafa Sultan, one of four Middle Eastern women taking part in a panel discussion in Montreal yesterday to argue their position on the West’s response to Islam.

The four were keynote speakers at an Institute of Public Affairs of Montreal conference. They talked before the event about the place of women under the yoke of an increasingly fundamentalist Middle East.

[ . . . ]

Iranian-born Nazanin Afshin-Jam, a former Miss Canada, has been leading an international effort to publicize the plight of an 18-year-old Tehran rape victim sentenced to death under sharia law. Afshin-Jam recalled a peaceful rally held in Iran in which the protesting women were dispersed by extremist, heavily veiled women.

“They feel more powerful,” she said of the veiled women.

Sultan said many Muslim women are not freely choosing to wear the veil, but do so because it’s in their best interest.

Islam has other ways of enforcing a bias against women, Afshin-Jam said: “In Iran, 65 per cent of university students are women but the laws say women are not allowed to be judges.”

And under sharia law, it’s very difficult for a woman’s word to be taken seriously, she said.

In the West, “we cannot afford to lose our cherished freedoms to radicalism,” Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian, told the conference audience later in a Delta Hotel meeting room.

We often wonder where the voices are, speaking out against oppression and injustice. They exist; there are too few of them so far, they tend to get drowned out, and those who speak sadly – in this country where freedom of speech is cherished – often fear legitimately for their personal safety. But more and more, they exist. And we owe it to them to listen to what they have to say. Because the more people speak out, the more courageous the next people will feel… and the next… and the next.

Here’s Lynn on so-called “messianic Judaism”:

We Jews have been fighting this battle for nigh on two thousand years. Christians have been trying to explain to us where and how we went wrong since the dawn of Christianity. Whether it’s the threat of eternal damnation or death by the sword, the noose, the bullet or the gas chamber, whether it’s physical violence or gentle persuasion, we’ve been there and done that. We have all the tee shirts. Those of us with any historical education at all are way too familiar with these ploys to fall for them. Unfortunately, we live in an age when too many of us lack that education. Jews today are generally smarter about everything else and (except, perhaps, in Israel) stupider about Judaism than they’ve ever been. So we’re ripe for the picking. And, with a little help from their friends, the missionaries are eagerly anticipating the harvest.

Lisa eloquently sums up – as only she knows how – the overwhelming sentiment in Israel these days about disengagement:

The situation is heating up here; it’s not pleasant; it’s very complex; as usual, the people with the least power are paying the highest price; and I really wish this painful enterprise had been planned and executed in a more organized, sensitive fashion.

And closer to home, Debbye has some of the most reasonable commentary on the gay marriage issue I’ve seen so far from the right:

To reiterate: the one prospect I find insupportable is that of allowing gays to marry yet a future Conservative Party government suddenly declaring those marriages null and void. Try to put yourselves in the position of marrying, making plans for a future together and even making joint financial investments and then imagine being told your marriage is no longer legitimate.

Forget the circusy atmosphere we see on television and some of the wilder “activists” showcased by a sensationalist media and focus on the human face of this issue. Gay couples love one another – in probably the same variables of intensity and committment as straight couples – and I believe their love is entitled to respect.

The damage to the institution of marriage was done long before gays emerged from the closet. We can blame easier divorces, the pill, Roe vs. Wade, or the sexual revolution and even the “disposable society” but we simply cannot with any honesty blame gays much less instituting gay marriage.

Hmmmm, all women today. Well, I guess that’s fair, seeing as how the guys usually get all the linky love. Once I’m highlighting women bloggers, I should direct everyone to Meryl, Imshin and Allison while I’m at it, not for any particular post but more for all of them in general.

The sun’s come out and dried up all the rain. It’s gonna be a nice day.

Still, even a small step forward is very good news.

(Hat tip: Debbye).

A man who donated his sperm so that a lesbian couple could have a child has been given visitation rights by a Quebec judge.The Journal de Montréal reported this morning that Quebec Superior Court Justice Suzanne Courteau granted the man the right to visit the child, three times per week, even though he isn’t officially recognized as the father’s child.

And why should he be recognized as the father? Is he helping to raise the child? Support it? To be its father in any way whatsoever? Does he even meet the most liberal, loose definition of fatherhood imaginable? No, absolutely not.

Yesterday was father’s day. A day to appreciate our fathers and all they have done for us. This man has done nothing for this baby. Being a father is about a lot more than simply donating some sperm. The courts should recognize that, and leave the decisions like these up to the baby’s real parents.

Then the province of Ontario quietly approved its use. Under the 1991 Arbitration Act, sharia-based marriage, divorce and family tribunals run by the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice are expected to begin later this year. The move has so horrified many Muslim women that they’re vowing to stop the tribunals before they start.

“We’ve had a flood of e-mails from people, asking `How can we help?’” says Alia Hogben, president of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, whose 900 members come from a variety of Islamic sects.

They were outraged that Muslim women could be coerced into taking part in sharia tribunals or face family and community ostracism — or worse.

Why, they asked, should these women be treated differently from other Canadian women?

“When you come to Canada, you are a human being with full rights,” says Jonathan Schrieder, a Toronto civil litigation lawyer. Allowing sharia here — even a “Canadianized” version, as its proponents claim — “will subject Muslim women to a huge injustice.”

Indeed.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with religious arbitration being used voluntarily by members of a community, when it doesn’t contravene secular law. For example, Montreal – like many cities – has a Jewish beit din to decide matters of Jewish law, and members of the community can agree to subject themselves to its jurisdiction.

But what we’re talking about here isn’t voluntary arbitration: it’s an attempt to relegate Muslim women to second-class citizen status against their will. Even though the Ontario court ruling specifies that all parties must “voluntarily” submit themselves to the process, this is certain not to work because the very nature of Shari’a law makes the whole process open to unbelievable amount of abuse. No Canadian should stand for this.

Via LGF and Burnside, who are all over this one.

Give me a break! This is political-correctness gone way overboard.

What next? No more student or senior prices at the movies? No more youth tickets on trains?

*Sigh*.

Update: Whoops, that was Daniel who posted that opinion, not David. Apologies. By the way, read them both at Tainted Glass. (Plug, plug).

I headed down there over the weekend, and I managed to squeeze some city exploring in between the business I had to do. It’s been a number of years since my last visit, and I can’t get over how much the city has changed. Not just the conspicuous absence of a couple of towers. But also how much more patriotic everyone seems. And how clean the city is in general, compared to what I remember from my last time there. Still expensive though. That hasn’t changed.

At any rate, I missed a bunch of news over the weekend, and rather than play catch-up, I’ll post a few links:

Allison, Lynn, and Harry commemorate Yom HaZikaron. Barry has been all over the North Korean train crash story. David weighs in on the abortion debate. And Meryl tries to take back the F-word from the nutbags. (In case you’re wondering, the F-word in question is feminism.)

In other news, seems like the only Habs fan cheering these days is none other than Vinny Lecavalier. *Sigh*.

This year, The Link would like to dedicate the International Women’s Day Issue to the memory of Zahra Kazemi and Rachel Corrie. While various Link members and staff may or may not have disagreed with the politics these two women held dear, we all agree the violent deaths they suffered in their non-violent opposition to human rights abuses was tragic, and a travesty of justice.

This as part of the Concordia paper’s special Women’s issue, which was, as they put it, produced by throwing “all those who identify as men out of the office and allows the women a Women Only Space to complete production of the paper”.

Brig.-Gen. Gadi Shamni told reporters that the woman evaded metal detectors by claiming she had platinum insets in her legs.

Shamni said she was taken to a side office and then fell over, the Jerusalem Post reported. When soldiers rushed to her help, she blew herself up.

“Because she was a woman, a female soldier was sent for, to inspect her. The terrorist made use of the waiting period for the arrival of the woman soldier, made her way further into the complex, and exploded,” Shamni said.

You can imagine how the human rights groups would scream if, heaven forbid, a male soldier were to inspect women who set off metal detectors. How could they deny the terrorists these valuable loopholes to claim more innocent lives?

But even I was offended by George Jonas’s latest column in the Gazette last week (no link – I guess even the Gazette was embarrassed), in which he claimed that women should be flattered, not offended, to be groped by Arnold Schwarzenegger, because he’s a good-looking movie star.

Several letter-writers to the Gazette shared my sentiment:

There’s a difference between the kind of sexual advances Schwarzenegger has been accused of and a mere sexual invitation. Hollywood good looks are not a licence to behave inappropriately – and possibly criminally – without repercussions.

I couldn’t agree more. And I can’t believe that Jonas can still get away with publishing such crap. It’s 2003, not 1903, and he – and the paper’s editors – really ought to know better.

I’m not saying Arnold’s guilty. There was an icky feel to the smear campaign that conveniently materialized just days before the recall vote. And didn’t work, I might add. If there’s actual evidence against Arnold, then charge him. If not, he’s innocent unless proven guilty.

But to suggest that a movie star can’t be guilty of sexual harrassment because women would be flattered to be groped by him? That kind of dark ages mentality should have no place in print.

So even though tons has happened this week, I have no intention of recapping all of it – heck, I probably don’t even know about most of it. So please refrain from the irate comments about my failure to mention such-and-such, k? Thanks a bunch.

I did catch a few interesting headlines, this week, though, and made somewhat fuzzy mental notes to blog them later. Israel marked Rosh Hashanah with the senseless murders of two people, including a 7-month old baby, by Islamic Jihad terrorists. The Palestinians have assembled a new Arafat puppet cabinet that is sure to make zero progress towards eradication of terrorism. Nigerian Amina Lawal, who faced death by stoning on charges of adultery and became an international symbol of oppression of women, was cleared.

Bush and Blair came out singing No Regrets about the war on Iraq, (though I don’t think to the same tune as Tom Cochrane). Speaking of musical legends, singer Robert Palmer passed away of a heart attack.

Closer to home, a local private French high school put in its bid for a stupid discriminatory act of the week award by expelling a Muslim girl for wearing a hijab. The Alouettes clinched first place in the East. And the Hell’s Angels mega-trial ended with a bunch of guilty pleas.

Onto next week.

The mayor of a southern Spanish town has declared Thursdays “ladies’ night” and says he will fine any man found strolling about town in the evening, in an attempt to encourage them to stay at home and do the chores.

Ladies, I think we’ve found ourselves a new Utopia.

Yesterday as a three-day policy convention of his Parti Québécois to prepare for the coming election wound to a close, Landry was caught by a Radio-Canada camera saying he would rather meet with the chairman of Sun Life than with women’s groups. Landry’s words were captured as he reluctantly voted for a resolution calling for a law requiring that 50 per cent of candidates in an election be women.

“It’s for the women’s groups,” Jocelyne Gadbois, a member of the PQ executive, explained to Landry.

Landry turned to Gadbois and said, “I would rather meet the chairman of Sun Life.”

In 1978, shortly after the National Assembly adopted the PQ’s Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language, Sun Life moved its head office from Montreal to Toronto, saying it couldn’t work with the language law.

This barely a month after his “birdbrain” comment got him in trouble with poverty groups.

It seems to me that if the PQ wants to win this election, they need to muzzle Landry and lock him up.

By an 8-1 vote, the high court said in an opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist the judgment that the anti-abortion activists had violated the racketeering laws must be reversed.

The civil lawsuit against Operation Rescue, the Pro-Life Action League and three of the league’s leaders was brought by the National Organization for Women and others. At issue were tactics that included violent demonstrations to block access to clinics.

This is yet another miserable example of the courts engaging in social engineering. What does it say about the U.S. judicial system, whereby judges are appointed by the administration in power and make decisions in line with the party who appointed them?

If violence and intimidation are being used on a case-by-case basis, the perpetrators should be prosecuted for those crimes. But when these tactics are being used on an organized, planned basis across a country, then individual prosecutions are no longer sufficient. That was the intention of racketeering laws (usually used against organized crime organizations such as the Mafia) – to prevent wide-scale use of threats and intimidation to coerce people or businesses into closing or committing illegalities.

Apparently, women seeking abortions – or doctors performing the service – aren’t seen as deserving of these protections, according to the Supreme Court. Disgusting.