Tuesday, February 02, 2010

While You Were Sleeping

The Stephen Harper Torys were gutting the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, formerly the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada. Gwen Landolt of REAL Women is well-pleased, and so presumably is Tory MP Brad Trost, who has been trying to eliminate Canada's funding to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The CFSH is the Canadian member of the IPPF.

Shit! That Brad Trost guy is everywhere.

Update: Interesting timing with this.

25 comments:

Ted Betts said...

BCL, lifting up the rocks and reading what's underneath so you don't have to.

A picture is emerging. I've wondered all along how Harper has been able to abandon pretty much every single Reform principle and campaign promise and yet still keep his social conservatives at bay, quiet and muzzled, both inside and outside caucus.

And this is how. Behind the curtain, below the radar, at organizations like the CFSH, Rights and Democracy, KAIROS, funding cuts to arts agencies + vetting requirements. You look at who is put in charge of these like at Rights and Democracy and see the evangelical world having its say placing its imprint on policy away from the public eye.

Ti-Guy said...

Do you have to link to that hate site The Interim as a source for this?

bigcitylib said...

It was that or Lifesite, TG. Pick your poison.

Ti-Guy said...

Why won't that fucking bint Gwen Landolt die already? Can't we cut one her senior's entitlements, like her daily blood transfusions from virgins?

Jerome Bastien said...

Just curious, why should planned parenthood receive taxpayer $?

Why should any NGO receive taxpayer $ for that matter?

Ted Betts said...

Because it can do a lot of the work that Canadians and the Candian government want, but can't do or can't do with ease. Our foreign policy, for example, would collapse in much of the world without NGOs.

For example, Canadians want to Canada to provide money to help out developing countries with food and health. We don't want to have Canadian civil servants permanently on the ground their but the NGOs have the expertise, have the people on the ground, are not unionized, can deal with locals in a way a foreign government cannot, and they are far more accountable and responsible than just handing the money over to a foreign government or non-Canadian NGO.

You would really want to de-fund the Red Cross and groups like it? Maybe you do. Harper has gutted the food security budget of CIDA and aid recipients are suffering as a direct result.

Ti-Guy said...

Just curious, why should planned parenthood receive taxpayer $?

Why should any NGO receive taxpayer $ for that matter?


Are you never worried about being dull and predictable? Even formulating your comment as a question isn't novel and never has been.

What should be the issue, is that these bozos are worried about the nickel and dimes going out to NGO's while billions are being wasted. Which is why Conservatives are always bankrupting us.

Why don't you worry about that instead of bothering everyone with your passive-aggression...which is kind of effeminate, by the way.

Ti-Guy said...

Shoot. Got in there after the over-earnest Ted Betts wasted his time answering a question that was not a request for information.

Jerome Bastien said...

What should be the issue, is that these bozos are worried about the nickel and dimes going out to NGO's while billions are being wasted.

I didnt say that I dont worry about wasted billions. I most definitely do. And I apologize if my comment was not original enough for you.


Why don't you worry about that instead of bothering everyone with your passive-aggression...which is kind of effeminate, by the way.


Im not here to get into a pissing match with you, nor am I trying to be passive-aggressive. Im genuinely curious as to why people think NGOs should get taxpayer $. Tedd Betts' answer is actually pretty good.

Jerome Bastien said...

You would really want to de-fund the Red Cross and groups like it? Maybe you do.

No I dont. From the Red Cross's website:
The Canadian Red Cross, as are all Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies, is formed in legislation, and as such, is not classified as a non-governmental organization (NGO).

And your point re: foreign policy is well taken, however Im not sure it applies equally to NGOs within Canada.

My concern is that funding NGOs is just a quick and easy way to actually avoid accountability and to give $ to friends. Also its a quick and easy way for govs to pretend they're doing something on a file, simply by funding an org that purports to support a cause - without the NGO having to account for how the $ is spent. I hope Im wrong on this point.

Its also a form of legislation by stealth. Governments can now act, through NGOs, simply by cutting a cheque. You guys are upset today because PP lost its funding, but if Harper was funding an obscure NGO and it came out that this NGO was promoting some bullshit socon agenda, you would be screaming bloody murder (and I would too).

The Red Cross is definitely a special case, and strictly speaking, it's not an NGO - it even has its own section in the Trademarks Act for protection of its emblem.

Ti-Guy said...

Im not here to get into a pissing match with you,

Well, what are you here for?

I don't believe for a second this is first time you've had reason to wonder why NGO's get public funding.

Why they're seeing their funding cut is the last gasp of the RepubliConservative campaign to defund the Left (or dissent, or alternative advocacy, generally), something that Thomas Frank wrote about in The Wrecking Crew.

Ti-Guy said...

For a naïf on the funding of NGO's, Jerome seems to be a quick study all of sudden, eh Ted?

Jerome Bastien said...

I don't believe for a second this is first time you've had reason to wonder why NGO's get public funding.

You're right. But now I have freshly outraged liberals who can perhaps shed light on their way of thinking.

campaign to defund the Left (or dissent, or alternative advocacy, generally),

I just cant conceive of a good reason why the left (or the right) needs to be funded by the gov.

Same with dissent and alternative advocacy. You know Im a free-speecher, and as such I totally support the left, dissent, alternative advocacy, whatever you want, to be free to spread their message all over the place. But they shouldnt have to suck at the public teat to do it.

How would you feel if all these pro-life groups received your tax dollars? They fund themselves by voluntary donations from people who believe in the cause. I dont see why other NGOs cant do the same.

Ted Betts said...

I know I can be Ti-Guy, but the audience for my response is not Jerome, who is clearly not interested in the answer.

My sincerest and most earnest apologies for being too straight laced and boring for you.

;-)

Ti-Guy said...

Well, I finally worked up enough nerve to read the link at the Interim. That dried up old crone Landolt is crowing about the end of the abuse of taxpayer funds (in the amount of about 2 million a year) after the Conservatives spent over 100 million dollars just last year propagandising to Canadians about their economic plan. And how many millions were spent on ten-percenters again?

Time to cut a certain old bag's CPP and send her off to the soylent green factory already.

double nickel said...

"How would you feel if all these pro-life groups received your tax dollars? They fund themselves by voluntary donations from people who believe in the cause."

Oh please.

Ti-Guy said...

My sincerest and most earnest apologies for being too straight laced and boring for you.

That's not it at all. It just doesn't work. And I'm worried that younger Liberals are getting the impression that patient and earnest expositions of fact (over and over again) is all that it takes to combat the right wing menace.

We all know that just isn't true. I wish it were, but it's not.

R. G. Harvie said...

"How would you feel if all these pro-life groups received your tax dollars? They fund themselves by voluntary donations from people who believe in the cause."

Nice complete non-response, double-nickle.

We are "for" funding the things we agree with.. but when examples are given regarding things we either DON'T agree with, or just think are too stupid or beneath us, we'll just, well, ignore the question.

Answer the question put to you DN.

Are you prepared to agree to support government funding for pro-choice?

Paul S said...

The government is selectively defunding certain NGO's, and that's a good thing. The lazy CFSH should be able to drum up a lot more then a million dollars from Canadians.

And KAIROS? Let'em hold a bottle drive.

The Red Cross . . . sure, fund away. They perform a discernible good very efficiently and aren't leeching barnacles like other groups are. They consistenly perform effective fundraising too.

Ti-Guy said...

Wingnuts...*yawn*

Can you tedious freaks take your mutual masturbation elsewhere?

Thenk yew.

Ted Betts said...

"Wingnuts...*yawn*

Can you tedious freaks take your mutual masturbation elsewhere?

Thenk yew."


As a reader, I certainly prefer reading your stuff to mine, TiGuy!

My audience is never the wingnuts. I just think that there are a lot of readers out there who actually don't know the counter argument and haven't been given enough of a counter-argument to the conservative monster spin machines and so they buy it, at least a little bit of it and then a little bit of it and then a little bit more. So, if there's ever anyone out there who thinks a snark is avoiding an answer instead of a demonstration of contempt for idiocy, I try to give them something.

Unless I'm in a snarky mood. Which has happened.

double nickel said...

"Are you prepared to agree to support government funding for pro-choice?"

Women who are "pro choice" are not being oppressed by, discriminated against or legislated against by anyone. Yours is a straw man argument that doesn't deserve a lengthier response. Thanks for playing though.

Ti-Guy said...

who actually don't know the counter argument and haven't been given enough of a counter-argument to the conservative monster spin machines

Since when do "Conservatives" ever advance arguments? They make assertions (to put it charitably) and in doing so, usually put their adversaries on the defensive, causing them to engage in lengthy, time-consuming expositions to refute them.

Better to set the example of what everyone else (not just Liberals) should be doing when confronting them: Look for the baseless assertion (it's almost always there) and then ask for substantiation or ask them how they know something. Over and over and over again, like a broken record.

The pedagogy should be handled by references to credible sources.

RuralSandi said...

Stupidity. To the right wing everything is about abortion, pro or against.

Planned parenthood involves other things - advice, help, etc. Help if a woman wishes to adopt out her child, or birth control advice

Black and white with them - no grey areas at all. What a dull world for them.

Dante said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.