Dion’s plan: Tory media and self-interested Liberals show their stripes

A self-interested backlash?

As someone who has written about gender discrimination against men frequently, I was surprised by the uproar in the media and on the blogs today about Stephane Dion’s plan to field more women candidates in the next federal election. After all, M. Dion announced in July that as leader he would run 33% women candidates in the next election. He also expressed a willingness to use the power of appointment if necessary to ensure that women can run in winnable ridings.

What is the big deal now? Much of it was driven by conservative elements in Canadian media. However, there has also been criticism by some Liberals. Are complaints about gender discrimination against men on the issue of political nominations about self-interest by ambitious male Liberals? Is this backlash because some men feel they have been left out this time in spite of merit, or that their “time has passed” now that quotas have been set?

Much of the time I am out there alone on the issue of gender equitability (on certain issues pertaining to the family). I have frequently argued that men are not treated fairly by family courts. When I released to the blogging community on New Year's Day a new report showing gender discrimination against men on the part of all 22 Ontario Court of Appeal judges, where were these people who were today taking issue with Dion? Is this proof that many some people are apathetic to blatantly unfair practices that they do not foresee ever affecting them?

Is it right what Dion is doing?

About Dion’s approach, I agree with the objective of gender equitability for both men and women. The House of Commons should be no different. Stephane is focussing on reaching his 33% objective for now preferably by nomination (but also by appointment where necessary). How much progress has been made in the percentage of women sitting in the House in the 25 years that have passed since the adoption of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Should the pursuit of parity in Parliament be sought more aggressively in order to elicit results more quickly? Are we behind schedule?

You’ve come a long way baby, or have you?

Proponents like me who are seeking change to Canada’s child custody and access system would argue that reverse-discrimination against men exists in the way custody is awarded. I am also the first to admit that on issues affecting women (other than family policy) such as pay equity and top job opportunities in politics or elsewhere, women are still not at par with men.

I am aware though that that progress for women has been made over the last 100 years. When my 95 year old grandmother was born, women still could not vote and were not even considered "persons". Even if there has been much progress, the lack of parity in Parliament is telling. I am not surprised there are still gender problems. Along with a lack of parity comes the question as to whether our political leaders have an obligation to intervene when necessary to encourage a Parliament made up of members representing the demographics of Canada. All Liberal leadership Candidates brought forward a plan to help more women sit in the House next time. I was very impressed with Ken Dryden’s Action Plan for Women in Public Life.

Am I a hypocrite, or are you?

With all that being said, I am a hypocrite if I complain that there is gender discrimination in how child custody is awarded if I don't recognise that 20% of women in parliament is too low. This is simply "residue" that is left over from a time when patriarchal principles dominated who could work and be fairly paid and what roles parents played in their children's lives. Arguably this is also evidence that the State has not done enough to create appropriate conditions for true equitability on either front.

Part of the problem is that issues of the family have been allowed to remain discriminatory against men and second families because of who profits currently from the status quo. Ironically, predominantly male decision makers (lobbied largely by special interests and by the legal industry) use gender discrimination against men on issues of divorce and the family as a "token issue" that tends to offset the many areas where women still come up short. Who benefits most from this, it seems, "trade off" of mutually discriminatory practices affecting different elements of both genders in parallel and in different ways.

The best part of Dion’s plan

The best part of Dion’s plan is that it could solve two problems at once. It should serve to increase the number of women representing federal ridings in the House of Commons. The plan may also help to evaluate and set the agenda for changes to the Divorce Act that would alleviate aspects considered by some to be gender discriminatory against men.

After all, Dion as prime minister commits to subjecting “all government policies and programs moving forward undergo a thorough gender analysis to evaluate their impact on men and women in Canada”.

This proposed process should identify and remedy family policy in Canada that currently discriminates against men. This will be as much a victory for those who yearn for a fair and just society as will be gender parity in Parliament.