tweeting an abortion????

It's been a while since I've talked about abortions... so in honour of the month of strange...

Angie Jackson on tweeting her abortion:

I’m live tweeting my abortion on Twitter — not for some publicity stunt or for attention or to justify this to myself, I am at peace with my decision. I’m doing this to demystify abortion. I’m doing this so that other women know, ‘Hey, it’s not nearly as terrifying as I had myself worked up thinking it was.’ It’s just not that bad. This is nothing compared to childbirth, compared to labor, or, for me and my risks, late stage pregnancy.

I find the idea of tweeting an abortion alternately intriguing and mundanely boring. There's nothing all that exciting about an abortion. I mean... we don't live tweet other medical procedures, do we? I get the idea of demystifying, but wonder if the publicity appeal of it doesn't sensationalize the issue to the point of making her objective redundant? I mean... did her live tweets really make it any easier for another woman who is contemplating this decision to make the call for herself?

Speaking of which... the Harper government isn't adding contraception and abortion funding into the its maternal health initiative. I have to admit that I'm experiencing mixed thougths on this issue. I mean... does contraception/abortion really improve maternal health? In some ways you can argue for both sides and I think that both cases can be understood as being equally valid. But on the other hand, for lower income moms who need access to cheap, effective contraception, not funding contraception and abortions may be ghettoizing these women into an enforced cycle of poverty and motherhood (not that motherhood is a bad thing... just that maybe some women would choose to not become mothers again if they had the ability to do so). I know you can make several counter-arguments... please spare me the debate... I already said I have mixed emotions on the issue, I'm just trying to figure out which points I think outweigh the others. There's something about Harper's governments decision that smacks of Bushian anti-funding of non-abstinence education funding and/or an elitist system of access to services that marginalizes lower socio-economic groups.

my country, my country… what is wrong with you?

Offense 1:
So the Olympic furor has finally died down… yet Harper continues to ride the post Olympiad wave by announcing that he’s going to double the $11 million dollar budget to a whopping $22 million. This, in a time when arts, education, and health care are all being cut.

Ok, so you don’t care about the arts. Fine. But health and education… those are fundamentals issues for the nation and yet instead of investing there, the Conservative government has decided to give that money over to athletes because corporate sponsors might fail to fill in the funding gap.

No offense to any athletes out there…. but your mad skills do not justify such a decision. Yay for you and the Olympics. Kudos to all that you’ve accomplished. But if I had to choose between health or sports… I think my choice is obvious.

Offense 2:
Quebec and the niqab. (link to Mtl Gazette article) I have a lot to say on this issue but suffice to say that I don’t agree with the ruling that expels a college student from a French Second Language course because she refused to remove her niqab during class.

Sure, teaching a student with a niqab is difficult. But to argue that one needs to see a student’s mouth in order to teach language properly is BS. The student is aware of the limitations, the teacher can visually demonstrate the skill, and the student can practice at home or in private with the teacher or accept the limitations/consequences of not benefitting from this ADDITIONAL level of instruction. The key being that it is an additional level of instruction.

Besides, why can’t a student do an oral presentation in niqab? If anything, as long as her voice was clear, the niqab might actually allow students to listen to what the content is instead of being distracted by more visual stimulation related to facial expression. In fact, one could argue that the niqab might actually allow for a student to benefit because listeners read more into tone and inflection than facial cues.

Trust me, I’m not doing justice to my thoughts on this matter… I am planning a big long post on the issue after I sort through my opinions and the counter-arguments.

But suffice to say, for a country that only feels patriotic during events like the Olympics, I have to admit that the wake of the Vancouver 2010 hoopla has left me cold. I am vehemently opposed to our current political party and the various events that are unfolding around me at the moment.

proroguing parliament and armchair activism

 

If you’re like me and didn’t know what proroguing meant until recently:

prorogue: to discontinue the meetings of (a legislative body) without dissolving it

Lately I haven’t been writing about politics. I’ve been more focused on crafting and the holidays than reading the news and commenting on it. But recent events brought to us by the Harper government have this blogger up in arms, once again. (‘Cause nothing gets my blood raging like the Harper government!)

Ostensibly called in order to able to celebrate the Olympics, Harper has successfully called for the 2nd prorogation of parliament in the span of a year. I may not have been all that aware of politics in the past, but I would venture a guess that this is a rare, if unheard of, event in our political history. And that we’re calling them for the Olympics? Seriously? Every other country keeps parliament running, why should we be any different? Especially given that Harper has a track record of not even attending the major public events that he’s expected to be present for (or waits until the last minute to show up, not that that is anything new in Cdn politics!).

Here’s the thing, everyone knows that he’s proroguing parliament to avoid political accountability. See the Globe and Mail, x2, Elizabeth May, The National Post counterargument, and a more neutral, yet still sceptical CBC.

So for us Canadians that think that this is a BS political manoeuvre, what can we do? The web is awash with Armchair Activism, aka Cyberactivism but does it really work? From Facebook groups (see this article) to websites telling us to write letters to local media and post flyers around town, little real progress actually seems to be made.

Gone are the days when rallies and petitions seemed to make a difference. Our currently state of cyberactivism is belied by our political apathy. Clicking buttons and sending emails only works if we’re committed to fighting for the cause until the end. Sending off an email to parliament may or may not have effect:

[…] the effectiveness of email when it comes to influencing abusive governments is still open to question [18]. Firstly, the response of authorities to electronic messages is varied and the impact is not as predictable as in the case of conventional mail and faxes, although they cost less to send. Whereas letters must be sorted, documented and filed in most government offices, it is easy to simply read the subject line of an email and then delete it, or to shut down the accounts if there are floods of incoming appeals. […]

Indeed, the generation of identical notifications to the authorities for each person that “signed” the online petition was one of the key drawbacks of the Stoptorture.org website. Amnesty has always believed that the more diverse a letter-writing campaign is, the better its chances for getting the attention and respect of government officials. This applies to online as well as offline activism, so the organisation has now moved from the use of the auto-generated messages to one where activists are encouraged to send emails with distinct subject lines, by customising pre-existing text on their websites.

See here for further information.

The question that I’m trying to get at is whether or not it’s really worthwhile to join that Facebook group or sign that petition. I tend to sign up for online petitions via Avaaz.org, but is it effective? Certainly, as McLeans Magazine notes, those members are enough to garner media attention. But do they accomplish anything? Pardon me if I remain a bit cynical. For all that I want to be able to bring about change through the Internet, I have to admit that clicking and joining has little merit if it’s not done on a personal level, with a certain amount a commitment to a cause. Because although numbers count, this is a place where the individual voice matters more than the masses.

One person can make a difference. But only if they work conscientiously towards a cause. Armchair activism is unlikely to get you any where, even if your group is thousands strong.

As John Moore, from the National Post notes:

This emphatic anti-prorogation Facebook group shares intellectual and cyberspace with “Feed the Olsen Twins” and “Save Bandit the Pitbull!” (who in theory could be fed to the Olsens if efforts to save him fail). Almost all of the activist groups are put to shame by the membership of a dancing lobster fan club which boasts 141,000 enthusiasts. True, all of these pages jostle for attention amongst many earnest and worthy causes. But few things say “I care” with the empty ferocity of a Facebook page. 

girl's weekend: thalis, spas, and politics

When the boy goes out, the girl comes out to play...

I had such a lovely weekend. It was full of girl time and relaxation and was exactly what I needed as the wedding day approaches. Friday night Indian food and beer with a friend from grad school (thank you Heather for loving Indian food as much as I do and always being game for veggie thalis!). And Saturday was brunch and the spa with my old boss, Jen. We went to spa Finlandais and enjoyed the hot baths and I splurged on a facial. It was really nice. Rounded off the weekend with big conversations with Virginia, a friend from undergrad and Karen, whom I've known since college, while I baked cookies and apple crisp. Yup, it was a nice, relaxing weekend, sans Paul. And then Paul came home and we cuddled on the couch and watched a movie together...

I couldn't have asked for a nicer, calmer weekend.

Ironically last night I had my first wedding dream. In it, we forgot the wedding speeches and I mysteriously had a 4 year old daughter with sandy blonde pigtails and blue-green eyes. I didn't tell Paul about the kid part of the dream! I figure that if the worst wedding dream I have is forgetting the speeches, that's totally fine.

In other news, it looks like Canada is gearing up for yet ANOTHER election. While part of me rues the fact that millions of dollars are going to be wasted on an election when we're in a recession, another part of me hopes that this is finally the election that ousts Harper from the government. And even though the election hasn't been called, the fact that there are ads for Ignatieff already out pretty much assures me that it's on its way. Normally I vote according to my conscience and support the party that I believe the most in (really, I live in a Bloc stronghold so voting strategically is a mute point), but now I'm wondering about that option. Do I want to vote for Ignatieff? Anything has got to be better than Harper? Let the numbers speak? Will it make any difference? Or should I vote with my party allegiance and support a party financially even if it has no chance of getting into parliament? I really think that there is something seriously flawed with our electoral system if, even before I vote, I know that my vote is null and void. Sure I can vote to support a party locally but right now I don't care about local governance (the provincial election covers that for me) and I want my vote to be tallied in the total numbers for the figurehead of the nation. I know that the American system has it's own share of flaws but I would really like to see Canadian politics tally the votes by individuals for the political leader vs the local representation. Because then the election might have a bit more relevance for the individual voter in political strongholds.

A girl can dream, can't she?

Hilary Clinton loses her cool?

You may have already seen this video but I just had to share it:



Apparently there has been a great deal of hoopla over the idea that she didn't handle the situation very well. I don't know that I agree. Yes, her body language is exasperated, but can you blame her? Seriously? I know she's an ambassador and should maintain diplomatic neutrality but the fact that the man asking the question is bypassing her completely as an individual capable of having worthwhile opinions as the secretary of state (for crying out loud)is utterly ridiculous.

Some people have argued that the translation is off, but regardless of whether or not the wording isn't exact: why is he asking her about her husband?

I know that segments of African culture can be very misogynistic (as can our own), but the nature of the question only serves to reinforce the stereotype. She's in the Congo to discuss helping curb the violence and to propose a rather interesting plan to aide rape victims, and he's asking her about Bill Clinton's opinion. Hello, the point of her trip is completely missed and erased by such an assinine question. I don't blame her for being put out and reacting in a way to put the speaker in his place. She could have been much more outraged, I know I would have!