While I like the Liberal radio ads ... the gender discriminatory one needs to go

Just as I decided I was going to recharge my blogger batteries for a few days while in the mountains, I caught one of the new Liberal radio ads in the car.

This ad went sort of like this ..."Many single parent families live in poverty and eighty percent of single parent families are led by women. While Stephen Harper does nothing, what more would Stephane Dion do about this?..." or something like that.

I appreciate the Leader's office trying to put distance between Stephen Harper's performance on social policy compared to Stephane Dion's vision. I also appreciate these ads seek to court the women's vote.

What I don't appreciate is the fact that the Liberal party's strategists are choosing to continue to use stereotypes about matters of the family inappropriately, much like they did during Mr. Chrétien’s and Mr. Martin's terms as prime minister.

Once and for all, all issues are people issues. When gender is used as a distinguishing feature, there is an increasing possibility that any issue might violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when considered carefully. Why touch it?

For example, rightly or wrongly (and in spite of the Charter), gender is still single most important factor used by judges to determine which parent can have custody of their children and which parent cannot, barring extraordinary circumstances. This is also in spite of tragedies involving children that show that some parents to be unfit, in spite of their gender.

This failure to consider that gender discrimination against men in Canadian family courts (not indifference or belligerence by parents of the male variety) is why 80% of single parent families are led by mothers.

Perhaps those trying to differentiate Dion and the new Liberal party from Harper's Conservatives should come up with a new angle on matters of the family that does not habitually violate the Charter of Right's and Freedoms pending interpretive spin that makes "the best interests of children congruent with the preferences of the mother". This is a poorly considered genderalisation that may give credence to gender biased judicial decisions on the surface, but also dangerously makes gender preferences by judges trump basic human rights. And, I dare to say, much to my chagrin, that many judges who most blatantly allow gender to dictate who can be with their children and who cannot are Liberal appointees.

Perhaps those responsible could refrain from putting out the same old garbage with respect to family policy that continues to haunt the legacies of M. Chrétien and Mr. Martin. This is at least the case in the eyes of Liberals who believe in fairness and equality, many of whom happen to be Liberal children of divorce, men, women, second families and children of second families.

I am certain M. Dion is not aware of how this ad could offend many Liberals, especially since he made a point of committing to putting all Liberal policy through "gender sensitive" filter as a part of his policy to increase female representation in the House of Commons. This also must apply to policies that may negatively affect men.

Bad policy is bad policy, and the Party is fortunate to have navigated through its poor record on the issue so far. Those positioning this should be more careful not to bring back this tainted baggage.