The accommodations for men are mentioned here:
http://www.child.alberta.ca/
There do not appear to be many details available.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Accommodations for Abused Men
From Cathy:
The accommodations for men are mentioned here:
http://www.child.alberta.ca/
There do not appear to be many details available.
The accommodations for men are mentioned here:
http://www.child.alberta.ca/
There do not appear to be many details available.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Updates on Sisters in Spirit
"Sisters in Spirit Smothered"
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3764
"Why Harper Silenced Sisters in Spirit"
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/3171-why-harper-silenced-sisters-in-spirit
"Sisters in Spirit Shut Down"
http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2010/11/sisters-in-spirit-shut-down.html
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3764
"Why Harper Silenced Sisters in Spirit"
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/3171-why-harper-silenced-sisters-in-spirit
"Sisters in Spirit Shut Down"
http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2010/11/sisters-in-spirit-shut-down.html
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Response to Beyonce's "Run the World"
Courtesy of Kim!
A friend of mine showed me this response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
to this video: http://www.youtube.com/user/
A friend of mine showed me this response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
to this video: http://www.youtube.com/user/
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
James Bond Supports International Women's Day
007 puts himself in women's shoes (and looks pretty good in that lipstick). h/t Bryan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkp4t5NYzVM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkp4t5NYzVM
CBC's Documentary "The F Word: Who Wants to be a Feminist"
Here's a link to the CBC documentary, The F Word: Who Wants to be a Feminist that aired March 3.
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2011/fword/
And here is a link to some commentary on the doc:
http://rabble.ca/news/2011/03/narrow-focus-made-f-word-documentary-inaccurate-unhelpful-and-defeatist
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2011/fword/
And here is a link to some commentary on the doc:
http://rabble.ca/news/2011/03/narrow-focus-made-f-word-documentary-inaccurate-unhelpful-and-defeatist
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Chipping Away at Gender Equality: Harper’s 5-year Round Up
http://www.feminisms.org/1542/chipping-away-at-gender-equality-harpers-5-year-round-up/
This month marks the 5 year anniversary of the ascent to power of Canada’s exceptionally charismatic (cough*cough) and calculating Conservative PM Stephen Harper. It’s surprising that Stephen Harper has lasted so long in a minority government, but for a minority PM, he sure has accomplished a lot- if by accomplishments, one is referring to the insidious erosion of women’s rights that has occurred in the last 5 years. Let’s take a look back at what Harper has done to increase gender inequality, shall we?
1) Scrap Universal Day-Care
One of the first moves made by the Harper government was to cancel a national child care program, which most Canadians supported. In its place was offered the Canada Child Tax Benefit, which provides parents the paltry sum of a taxable $100/month per child- you can’t pay a 12 year old to baby-sit more than a couple times for that amount, let alone access quality day-care
According to Sharon Gregson of the Coalition of Childcare Advocates of B.C, as reported by the Tyee
“Other countries are able to provide childcare for up to 100 percent of children between the age of three and six. Other countries, like Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Sweden, England and the United States invest more per capita in early childhood development services than Canada does.”
This move was supported, however, by right-wing group REAL Women- a truly terrifying conservative, anti-feminist, anti-choice, homophobic, judeo-christian group hell-bent on turning back the clock on women’s rights.
2) Drastically Cut Status of Women Canada
Next up, Harper dramatically cut the funding of what was Canada’s most important body for promoting gender equity, Status of Women Canada. Status of Women Canada provided advocacy, research and lobbying on behalf of women’s groups. The government closed 12 out of 16 regional offices of SWC and their operating budget was cut by 38%. Changes were imposed to the criteria for funding for the Status of Women Canada’s Women’s Program that essentially barred advocacy and lobbying groups from receiving funding. Many women-run NGOs no longer receive funding because they combine advocacy with other services — like women’s rape crisis centres advocating for an end to violence against women. The icing on the cake? The word equality was removed from the Status of Women Canada mandate.
With Status of Women gutted and many women’s advocacy groups silenced, who do you think the government takes its cues from when it wants ‘women’s opinions’? That’s right. REAL Women, who had this to say about the $5- million budget cut handed to SWC.
“This is a good start, and we hope that the Status of Women will eventually be eliminated entirely since it does not represent ‘women’, but only represents the ideology of feminists.” (emphasis theirs)
3) Cancel the Court Challenges Program
Up next on the docket- the court program that provided funding to women’s and minority groups to challenge court rulings that violated equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Sounds like a good program, doesn’t it? And it was- it changed the way sexual assault complaints were reported in the media, when in 1988 the Supreme Court ruled that publishing victim’s names discourages reporting of sexual assault and does not allow privacy for victims. And, in 1995, when a gay couple from BC challenged the definition of spouse in the Old Age Security Act, during which the the Supreme Court of Canada for the first time ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited, leading the way for future cases against discrimination.
There have been many, many other important cases brought forth with the court challenges program to further equality and human rights. It seems only fitting that a government that seeks to reduce women’s rights would want to stifle it.
4) Axe Women’s Right to Pay Equity
It’s well known that across the board, women do not earn as much money as men. Harper has taken steps to make sure it stays that way.
5) Leave Abortion out of Canada’s G8 Maternal Health funding
Let’s start with this fact:
“Complications due to unsafe abortion procedures account for an estimated 13% of maternal deaths worldwide, or 67,000 per year. Almost all abortion-related deaths occur in developing countries.” (WHO)
How can a government that in 2009 stated it would champion maternal and child health in developing countries now declare its funding will not be used for abortion? When it is clear women in developing countries will die as a result?
Lack of access to safe abortion services is a serious health concern, and excluding it from Canada’s G8 funding is shamefully ignorant of good public health policy and does not support the rights and equality of women. Moreover, it speaks to a government that is socially conservative in its roots, and given the opportunity, might remove women’s ability to choose abortion in Canada, too.
6) Appoint Fewer Women to Cabinet than Previous Governments
Despite being half the population (really!) women are still under-represented in government in Canada. Women in Harper’s cabinet come in at a woe-full 26% down from the only-slightly –better 30% seen with the previous liberal government. Canada lags behind a lot of the world in terms of women’s representation in government.
That’s right, Canada is a ranked a pathetic 51 out of 135 nations. Rwanda has the highest representation of women in government, by the way.
A lot of damage has been done in the past 5 years under Harper’s conservative government, and though he has tried to silence our voices, we are still here. Still making up half of the population. It’s pretty powerful to imagine how much impact women could have if we demanded to be heard.
Harper may try to pacify us when the next election comes around- pose with kittens, dress in sweaters, smile occasionally- but the record of the last 5-years is very clear. Women’s equality in Canada is going backwards. When it’s time to vote, let’s change this.
Tags: Feminism whaaa?, Gender, Politics
Chipping Away at Gender Equality: Harper’s 5-year Round Up
This month marks the 5 year anniversary of the ascent to power of Canada’s exceptionally charismatic (cough*cough) and calculating Conservative PM Stephen Harper. It’s surprising that Stephen Harper has lasted so long in a minority government, but for a minority PM, he sure has accomplished a lot- if by accomplishments, one is referring to the insidious erosion of women’s rights that has occurred in the last 5 years. Let’s take a look back at what Harper has done to increase gender inequality, shall we?1) Scrap Universal Day-Care
One of the first moves made by the Harper government was to cancel a national child care program, which most Canadians supported. In its place was offered the Canada Child Tax Benefit, which provides parents the paltry sum of a taxable $100/month per child- you can’t pay a 12 year old to baby-sit more than a couple times for that amount, let alone access quality day-care
According to Sharon Gregson of the Coalition of Childcare Advocates of B.C, as reported by the Tyee
“Other countries are able to provide childcare for up to 100 percent of children between the age of three and six. Other countries, like Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Sweden, England and the United States invest more per capita in early childhood development services than Canada does.”
This move was supported, however, by right-wing group REAL Women- a truly terrifying conservative, anti-feminist, anti-choice, homophobic, judeo-christian group hell-bent on turning back the clock on women’s rights.
2) Drastically Cut Status of Women Canada
Next up, Harper dramatically cut the funding of what was Canada’s most important body for promoting gender equity, Status of Women Canada. Status of Women Canada provided advocacy, research and lobbying on behalf of women’s groups. The government closed 12 out of 16 regional offices of SWC and their operating budget was cut by 38%. Changes were imposed to the criteria for funding for the Status of Women Canada’s Women’s Program that essentially barred advocacy and lobbying groups from receiving funding. Many women-run NGOs no longer receive funding because they combine advocacy with other services — like women’s rape crisis centres advocating for an end to violence against women. The icing on the cake? The word equality was removed from the Status of Women Canada mandate.
With Status of Women gutted and many women’s advocacy groups silenced, who do you think the government takes its cues from when it wants ‘women’s opinions’? That’s right. REAL Women, who had this to say about the $5- million budget cut handed to SWC.
“This is a good start, and we hope that the Status of Women will eventually be eliminated entirely since it does not represent ‘women’, but only represents the ideology of feminists.” (emphasis theirs)
3) Cancel the Court Challenges Program
Up next on the docket- the court program that provided funding to women’s and minority groups to challenge court rulings that violated equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Sounds like a good program, doesn’t it? And it was- it changed the way sexual assault complaints were reported in the media, when in 1988 the Supreme Court ruled that publishing victim’s names discourages reporting of sexual assault and does not allow privacy for victims. And, in 1995, when a gay couple from BC challenged the definition of spouse in the Old Age Security Act, during which the the Supreme Court of Canada for the first time ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited, leading the way for future cases against discrimination.
There have been many, many other important cases brought forth with the court challenges program to further equality and human rights. It seems only fitting that a government that seeks to reduce women’s rights would want to stifle it.
4) Axe Women’s Right to Pay Equity
It’s well known that across the board, women do not earn as much money as men. Harper has taken steps to make sure it stays that way.
5) Leave Abortion out of Canada’s G8 Maternal Health funding
Let’s start with this fact:
“Complications due to unsafe abortion procedures account for an estimated 13% of maternal deaths worldwide, or 67,000 per year. Almost all abortion-related deaths occur in developing countries.” (WHO)
How can a government that in 2009 stated it would champion maternal and child health in developing countries now declare its funding will not be used for abortion? When it is clear women in developing countries will die as a result?
Lack of access to safe abortion services is a serious health concern, and excluding it from Canada’s G8 funding is shamefully ignorant of good public health policy and does not support the rights and equality of women. Moreover, it speaks to a government that is socially conservative in its roots, and given the opportunity, might remove women’s ability to choose abortion in Canada, too.
6) Appoint Fewer Women to Cabinet than Previous Governments
Despite being half the population (really!) women are still under-represented in government in Canada. Women in Harper’s cabinet come in at a woe-full 26% down from the only-slightly –better 30% seen with the previous liberal government. Canada lags behind a lot of the world in terms of women’s representation in government.
That’s right, Canada is a ranked a pathetic 51 out of 135 nations. Rwanda has the highest representation of women in government, by the way.
A lot of damage has been done in the past 5 years under Harper’s conservative government, and though he has tried to silence our voices, we are still here. Still making up half of the population. It’s pretty powerful to imagine how much impact women could have if we demanded to be heard.
Harper may try to pacify us when the next election comes around- pose with kittens, dress in sweaters, smile occasionally- but the record of the last 5-years is very clear. Women’s equality in Canada is going backwards. When it’s time to vote, let’s change this.
Tags: Feminism whaaa?, Gender, Politics
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Sexual fluidity: What happens when she leaves him for her?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/sexual-fluidity-what-happens-when-she-leaves-him-for-her/article1869268/
Sexual fluidity: What happens when she leaves him for her?
ZOSIA BIELSKI
From Friday's Globe and Mail
PublishedLast updated
75 comments
Candace Walsh was heterosexual until the age of 18, bisexual until she turned 24, back to heterosexual for a decade after that, and a lesbian since she left her husband about four years ago.
Ms. Walsh writes about the experience, described as “sexual fluidity,” in Dear John, I Love Jane: Women Write About Leaving Men for Women, a collection of essays by women who, as psychology professor Lisa Diamond writes in the foreword, “report sudden and surprising adult experiences of same-sex desire – sometimes after 10, 20, or 30 years of heterosexuality – which turn their worlds upside down.”
Ms. Walsh writes about the experience, described as “sexual fluidity,” in Dear John, I Love Jane: Women Write About Leaving Men for Women, a collection of essays by women who, as psychology professor Lisa Diamond writes in the foreword, “report sudden and surprising adult experiences of same-sex desire – sometimes after 10, 20, or 30 years of heterosexuality – which turn their worlds upside down.”
Friday, January 14, 2011
How Not to Deal With a Student Mother
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/14/california_davis_investigates_e_mail_about_student_who_gave_birth
How Not to Deal With a Student Mother
January 14, 2011
The chancellor of the University of California at Davis is pledging an investigation and "swift and appropriate action" over an e-mail in which a class was polled on the grade that should be given to a student who had to miss some quizzes because she had given birth.
"I take very seriously any allegations that a student’s welfare, dignity or academic rights have in any way been compromised. And as a woman, who has experienced firsthand the challenges of melding academic and family life and has experienced discrimination, I am especially sensitive to this issue," said an e-mail message that Linda P.B. Katehi, chancellor at Davis, provided to Inside Higher Ed last night and that she planned to send to all the students who complained to her on Thursday.
"I take very seriously any allegations that a student’s welfare, dignity or academic rights have in any way been compromised. And as a woman, who has experienced firsthand the challenges of melding academic and family life and has experienced discrimination, I am especially sensitive to this issue," said an e-mail message that Linda P.B. Katehi, chancellor at Davis, provided to Inside Higher Ed last night and that she planned to send to all the students who complained to her on Thursday.
Katehi stressed that UC Davis and its veterinary school (at which 85 percent of students are female) in fact has ways of helping students who become mothers. "During a student’s pregnancy, the school customarily works with her to help catch up after being away for childbirth or to arrange for an extended leave after which she can resume her academic program. And for mothers of infants, the school provides a lactation room so that students can continue breastfeeding their babies," Katehi said.
The professor who is alleged to have handled the class in this way is Edward C. Feldman, chair of the veterinary college's medicine and epidemiology department. Reached by phone on Thursday and told that his handling of the situation had been of concern to many students, Feldman said, "I don't care what people say. It is between me, my students and my school."
Asked if he wanted to explain why he would use a student poll to grade a student who had just given birth, he said, "No comment."
Davis officials confirmed the authenticity of an e-mail that was first quoted on the blog "On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess," by a female scientist at a major research university who blogs, as "Isis," about issues in academic science, particularly for women.
The e-mail was sent by the presidents of the third-year class to its members and reads as follows (in italics):
Dear Colleagues,
One of our classmates recently gave birth and will be out of class for an unknown period of time. This means she will undoubtedly miss one, or more, or all quizzes in VMD 444. Dr. Feldman is not sure how to handle this and has requested the class give input and vote. He has provided us with 6 options on which to vote and is open to any other ideas you may have. Most likely a CERE poll will be up next week and a voting will close no later than Wednesday. If you have other suggestions please email them to Dan or I ASAP. We will alert you to the opening of voting. Below are listed the options that Dr. Feldman has suggested. Please reserve comment on these options and provide us your opinion on them by voting when the time comes. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.
a) automatic A final grade
b) automatic B final grade
c) automatic C final grade
d) graded the same as everyone else: best 6 quiz scores out of a possible 7 quiz scores (each quiz only given only once in class with no repeats)
e) just take a % of quiz scores (for example: your classmate takes 4 quizzes, averages 9/10 points = 90% = A)
f) give that student a single final exam at the end of the quarter (however this option is only available to this one student, all others are graded on the best 6 quiz scores and the % that results)
Please let us know if you have other thoughts on how to handle this situation and please keep your eye out for the upcoming vote.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Your Presidents
The presidents of the class did not respond to e-mail messages from Inside Higher Ed seeking their comment. Isis blogged that after the e-mail was forwarded to her, she contacted Feldman, who she said responded with an e-mail saying: "I have no comment on the e-mail you received which was to be sent only to members of the UC Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, current 3rd year class."
The readers of Isis's blog have raised a variety of criticisms of the e-mail sent to students, ranging from fairness issues, to the rights of new mothers to have reasonable methods offered for them to complete coursework, to potential privacy violations.
Isis wrote: "My heart breaks for this woman to have been shamed in front of her peers this way. To have been presented as a problem that must be voted on and dealt with. I can't imagine what she must have felt like to know that her peers were given the option to assign her an 'A' or a 'C,' depending on what they thought she deserved. How are her peers in any position to determine her performance in a course in which they have no expertise?"
The professor who is alleged to have handled the class in this way is Edward C. Feldman, chair of the veterinary college's medicine and epidemiology department. Reached by phone on Thursday and told that his handling of the situation had been of concern to many students, Feldman said, "I don't care what people say. It is between me, my students and my school."
Asked if he wanted to explain why he would use a student poll to grade a student who had just given birth, he said, "No comment."
Davis officials confirmed the authenticity of an e-mail that was first quoted on the blog "On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess," by a female scientist at a major research university who blogs, as "Isis," about issues in academic science, particularly for women.
The e-mail was sent by the presidents of the third-year class to its members and reads as follows (in italics):
Dear Colleagues,
One of our classmates recently gave birth and will be out of class for an unknown period of time. This means she will undoubtedly miss one, or more, or all quizzes in VMD 444. Dr. Feldman is not sure how to handle this and has requested the class give input and vote. He has provided us with 6 options on which to vote and is open to any other ideas you may have. Most likely a CERE poll will be up next week and a voting will close no later than Wednesday. If you have other suggestions please email them to Dan or I ASAP. We will alert you to the opening of voting. Below are listed the options that Dr. Feldman has suggested. Please reserve comment on these options and provide us your opinion on them by voting when the time comes. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.
a) automatic A final grade
b) automatic B final grade
c) automatic C final grade
d) graded the same as everyone else: best 6 quiz scores out of a possible 7 quiz scores (each quiz only given only once in class with no repeats)
e) just take a % of quiz scores (for example: your classmate takes 4 quizzes, averages 9/10 points = 90% = A)
f) give that student a single final exam at the end of the quarter (however this option is only available to this one student, all others are graded on the best 6 quiz scores and the % that results)
Please let us know if you have other thoughts on how to handle this situation and please keep your eye out for the upcoming vote.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Your Presidents
The presidents of the class did not respond to e-mail messages from Inside Higher Ed seeking their comment. Isis blogged that after the e-mail was forwarded to her, she contacted Feldman, who she said responded with an e-mail saying: "I have no comment on the e-mail you received which was to be sent only to members of the UC Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, current 3rd year class."
The readers of Isis's blog have raised a variety of criticisms of the e-mail sent to students, ranging from fairness issues, to the rights of new mothers to have reasonable methods offered for them to complete coursework, to potential privacy violations.
Isis wrote: "My heart breaks for this woman to have been shamed in front of her peers this way. To have been presented as a problem that must be voted on and dealt with. I can't imagine what she must have felt like to know that her peers were given the option to assign her an 'A' or a 'C,' depending on what they thought she deserved. How are her peers in any position to determine her performance in a course in which they have no expertise?"
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Why Harper Silenced Sisters in Spirit
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/3171-why-harper-silenced-sisters-in-spirit
Ottawa has recently demonstrated a pattern of de-funding organizations and programs that collect valuable data for social justice work in Canada. Sisters in Spirit is only the latest group in what is quickly becoming a laundry list of information-collecting agencies that are losing government support. In 2010 alone, the Conservative government refused to release documents concerning allegations over the torture of Afghan detainees, scrapped the mandatory long-form census, and attempted to eliminate the long-gun registry. Each of these actions involves limiting and denying the public access to information on issues of significant social concern.
A variety of possible motives exist behind Harper’s repeated decisions to limit or eliminate data collection and information availability. For starters, it’s difficult to identify problems and substantiate critiques without information. Facts, statistics, patterns, and trends are all compiled from databases like the one operated by Sisters in Spirit. If agencies stop conducting surveys and gathering information, problems will become difficult to pinpoint – let alone to prove.
Furthermore, restricting independent research and access to statistics removes the background information necessary for analyzing data. With no historical or social context to be drawn upon, an issue becomes susceptible to propaganda. The public must then rely on anecdotal evidence, short-term thinking, and hyperbole.
Harper’s decision to cut funding can easily be interpreted as a punishment. Cutting or restricting funding based on the information gathered by a group suggests that there are serious consequences for criticizing or questioning the government. Social justice organizations, as well as Aboriginal and women’s groups, have already experienced the silencing effect of de-funding data collection.
When groups that compile data are restricted or eliminated, the public loses access to valuable information. The current administration seems to think that they can simply erase the problems revealed in the data collected by organizations like Sisters in Spirit by eliminating the information itself and any criticisms that might result.
It’s easy for the Conservatives to frame the termination of funding for Sisters in Spirit as a minor budgeting decision. When measured in relation to the government’s previous efforts to silence information, however, the funding cuts expose two major issues that the Conservatives would prefer remain unaddressed: the grievances of women and of Aboriginals. Despite Harper’s attempts, though, history shows us that no matter what those in power do, women and Aboriginals refuse to go away.
- First Posted: Nov 29 2010 07:19 AM
- Updated: 2 days ago
By eliminating the funding for data collection, the government hopes to muffle criticism.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems to believe that if we stop gathering the information, the problem will go away. The federal government announced on Wednesday, Nov. 3 that Sisters in Spirit – an advocacy group for Canada’s missing and murdered Aboriginal women – will no longer receive funding unless they comply with a series of particular measures. Under the new agreement, the organization must promise to quit working on their internationally acclaimed database, stop using government funds for research and policy, and change their name to Evidence and Action.Ottawa has recently demonstrated a pattern of de-funding organizations and programs that collect valuable data for social justice work in Canada. Sisters in Spirit is only the latest group in what is quickly becoming a laundry list of information-collecting agencies that are losing government support. In 2010 alone, the Conservative government refused to release documents concerning allegations over the torture of Afghan detainees, scrapped the mandatory long-form census, and attempted to eliminate the long-gun registry. Each of these actions involves limiting and denying the public access to information on issues of significant social concern.
A variety of possible motives exist behind Harper’s repeated decisions to limit or eliminate data collection and information availability. For starters, it’s difficult to identify problems and substantiate critiques without information. Facts, statistics, patterns, and trends are all compiled from databases like the one operated by Sisters in Spirit. If agencies stop conducting surveys and gathering information, problems will become difficult to pinpoint – let alone to prove.
Furthermore, restricting independent research and access to statistics removes the background information necessary for analyzing data. With no historical or social context to be drawn upon, an issue becomes susceptible to propaganda. The public must then rely on anecdotal evidence, short-term thinking, and hyperbole.
Harper’s decision to cut funding can easily be interpreted as a punishment. Cutting or restricting funding based on the information gathered by a group suggests that there are serious consequences for criticizing or questioning the government. Social justice organizations, as well as Aboriginal and women’s groups, have already experienced the silencing effect of de-funding data collection.
When groups that compile data are restricted or eliminated, the public loses access to valuable information. The current administration seems to think that they can simply erase the problems revealed in the data collected by organizations like Sisters in Spirit by eliminating the information itself and any criticisms that might result.
It’s easy for the Conservatives to frame the termination of funding for Sisters in Spirit as a minor budgeting decision. When measured in relation to the government’s previous efforts to silence information, however, the funding cuts expose two major issues that the Conservatives would prefer remain unaddressed: the grievances of women and of Aboriginals. Despite Harper’s attempts, though, history shows us that no matter what those in power do, women and Aboriginals refuse to go away.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
SURVEY: 64% OF ABORTION CLINICS IN CANADA EXPERIENCE PROTESTERS
For immediate release - November 16, 2010
From: Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, info@arcc-cdac.ca
SURVEY: 64% OF ABORTION CLINICS IN CANADA EXPERIENCE PROTESTERS
But most clinics have no bubble zone protection
NATIONAL – A new survey by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC)
reveals that 64% of abortion clinics in Canada clinics currently experience
protest activity, while a further 15% have had protesters in the past. But
73% of clinics have no legal protection from picketing.
The survey, conducted by a UBC law student on behalf of ARCC, interviewed
staff at all 33 abortion clinics in Canada by phone. In addition to asking
about protest activity and history, the survey asked clinics about the
effect of protesters on patients and staff, measures taken to protect
patients and staff, and the effectiveness of those measures.
- Twenty-six (79%) abortion clinics in Canada have been picketed by
protesters, with twenty-one (64%) currently experiencing some degree of
protest activity, and five (15%) having had protest activity in the past.
Seven clinics (21%) have never had protesters.
- Sixteen clinics (53%) reported that patients and/or staff are negatively
affected by the presence of protesters, such as feeling upset, frightened,
or bullied.
- Twenty-one clinics (64%) have tried to reduce the impact of protester
activity by obtaining private injunctions, recruiting volunteer escorts for
the patients and staff, using security guards, calling in local law
enforcement, training staff on how to respond to protestors, and other
measures.
- Seven clinics (21%) have obtained private court injunctions to protect
staff and patients from protesters. Two clinics (6%) are protected by BC’s
provincial law, the Access to Abortion Services Act (which creates
protest-free “bubble zones” around clinics, hospitals, and the offices and
homes of providers). Twenty-four clinics (73%) in Canada have no legal
protection.
- All clinics with injunctions or bubble zones reported heavy and/or
aggressive protest activity prior to obtaining their injunction or bubble
zone.
“The court injunctions and BC’s law have been quite successful – they have
significantly reduced protest activity at every clinic that uses them,
sometimes completely eliminating it,” said Joyce Arthur, Coordinator for
ARCC, and co-author of the study. “Women have a right to access necessary
health services privately without being bullied, and providers need
protection from anti-choice harassment and violence. We hope that the survey
data will be helpful for other provinces that may want to pass bubble zone
legislation, or for clinics thinking about getting a court injunction.”
Other highlights:
- Every clinic in Canada participated – a total of 33. There are 11
standalone clinics, 12 clinics located in a multi-tenant office or medical
building, and 9 clinics associated with a hospital.
- Seventeen clinics (52%) reported that the measures they took to protect
providers and staff from protesters were effective or mostly effective. Four
clinics (12%) said measures were not effective or only sometimes effective.
- Although protest activity has been relatively low and sporadic at most
clinics since the mid-1990’s, it is on the rise again with the anti-choice
“40 Days for Life” campaign that stages ongoing “vigils” outside abortion
clinics once or twice a year.
- Nineteen clinics (58%) said that bubble zone legislation similar to BC’s
would be desirable for their clinic.
The full report is available at
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations/ARCC-survey-protest-activity.pdf
(English only).
From: Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, info@arcc-cdac.ca
SURVEY: 64% OF ABORTION CLINICS IN CANADA EXPERIENCE PROTESTERS
But most clinics have no bubble zone protection
NATIONAL – A new survey by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC)
reveals that 64% of abortion clinics in Canada clinics currently experience
protest activity, while a further 15% have had protesters in the past. But
73% of clinics have no legal protection from picketing.
The survey, conducted by a UBC law student on behalf of ARCC, interviewed
staff at all 33 abortion clinics in Canada by phone. In addition to asking
about protest activity and history, the survey asked clinics about the
effect of protesters on patients and staff, measures taken to protect
patients and staff, and the effectiveness of those measures.
- Twenty-six (79%) abortion clinics in Canada have been picketed by
protesters, with twenty-one (64%) currently experiencing some degree of
protest activity, and five (15%) having had protest activity in the past.
Seven clinics (21%) have never had protesters.
- Sixteen clinics (53%) reported that patients and/or staff are negatively
affected by the presence of protesters, such as feeling upset, frightened,
or bullied.
- Twenty-one clinics (64%) have tried to reduce the impact of protester
activity by obtaining private injunctions, recruiting volunteer escorts for
the patients and staff, using security guards, calling in local law
enforcement, training staff on how to respond to protestors, and other
measures.
- Seven clinics (21%) have obtained private court injunctions to protect
staff and patients from protesters. Two clinics (6%) are protected by BC’s
provincial law, the Access to Abortion Services Act (which creates
protest-free “bubble zones” around clinics, hospitals, and the offices and
homes of providers). Twenty-four clinics (73%) in Canada have no legal
protection.
- All clinics with injunctions or bubble zones reported heavy and/or
aggressive protest activity prior to obtaining their injunction or bubble
zone.
“The court injunctions and BC’s law have been quite successful – they have
significantly reduced protest activity at every clinic that uses them,
sometimes completely eliminating it,” said Joyce Arthur, Coordinator for
ARCC, and co-author of the study. “Women have a right to access necessary
health services privately without being bullied, and providers need
protection from anti-choice harassment and violence. We hope that the survey
data will be helpful for other provinces that may want to pass bubble zone
legislation, or for clinics thinking about getting a court injunction.”
Other highlights:
- Every clinic in Canada participated – a total of 33. There are 11
standalone clinics, 12 clinics located in a multi-tenant office or medical
building, and 9 clinics associated with a hospital.
- Seventeen clinics (52%) reported that the measures they took to protect
providers and staff from protesters were effective or mostly effective. Four
clinics (12%) said measures were not effective or only sometimes effective.
- Although protest activity has been relatively low and sporadic at most
clinics since the mid-1990’s, it is on the rise again with the anti-choice
“40 Days for Life” campaign that stages ongoing “vigils” outside abortion
clinics once or twice a year.
- Nineteen clinics (58%) said that bubble zone legislation similar to BC’s
would be desirable for their clinic.
The full report is available at
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations/ARCC-survey-protest-activity.pdf
(English only).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
