28

Conservatives cut funding to women’s groups

At least 12 organizations will no longer receive money from Ottawa


 

At least 12 women’s groups have seen their federal funding dry up over the past two weeks according to an investigation by Le Devoir. Aside from their focus on women’s issues, the only thing that links all 12 is their unanimous opposition to Ottawa’s reluctance to fund abortions abroad, prompting some to suggest the cuts are politically motivated. “When 12 groups are denied over two weeks, it’s impossible not to think that it’s intentional, that there’s a pattern, that this is an attack against women’s groups and activist groups,” says Kim Bulger, the executive director of Match International, one of the groups that has seen its funding cut. A spokesman for Rona Ambrose, the minister responsible for the status of women, defended the cuts by saying funding for women’s programs is at “its highest levels ever.”

Le Devoir

Globe and Mail


 
Filed under:

Conservatives cut funding to women’s groups

  1. Not much of a surprise there.

  2. Because, as all right-thinking people know, once an organization receives a single government cheque, it must, in perpetuity receive sustainable funding. Or else Harper obviously hates [insert whiny interest group here].

    Was it really just a dozen "women's" groups? Or was that just what the reporter(s) went looking for?

    Hey, I hear the Home Renovation Tax Credit was allowed to expire. Why does Harper hate hard-working contractors? Etc. Etc. Etc. And, given the inevitable hand-wringing, add a bunch more Etcs…

    • That was my question too – have the Conservatives been cutting funding to a lot of small groups, some of which are women's groups, or have they singled out women's groups?

      Either way, it's very bad optics for them.

  3. It would be better if these groups got their money from the community rather than beg to the government. Then we would know if the public does in fact support them.

    • Probably no one would support them, as long as is not "directly" coming from their pockets they are ok with it!

    • Let's walk through how this works.

      There are lots of groups like this that deserve funding but I, as an individual taxpayer, can't fund all of them. I don't have the money. I would have to pick one or two. Each of my neighbours would have to do the same. It would take a lot of time and effort to do this, and we don't have that time. So the most efficient way to do this would be for my neighbours and I to pool our charitable dollars together and find a representative who can deal with this for us, so we can get on with our lives.

      Voila. That's what government does – or should do (among other things). The Conservatives seem to think that government is about wargaming the system so as to maximize their vote totals. It's not supposed to work that way.

      (Of course, some groups asking for funding probably don't deserve it, and taxpayer dollars are precious – it's our money! – and so should not be wasted. But my point is that there's a reason why things are the way they are.)

      • "Of course, some groups asking for funding probably don't deserve it, and taxpayer dollars are precious – it's our money! – and so should not be wasted."

        Exactly! I'm sure that all of these organizations sound really noble on papaer, but if the Gov't is not getting bang for our buck, then the money should be moved elsewhere (or not spent at all).

      • "The Conservatives seem to think that government is about wargaming the system so as to maximize their vote totals. It's not supposed to work that way. "

        Any proof of that statement?

  4. I am of the opinion it is time for the government to start supporting/recognizing Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse and Violence.

    These feminists groups funded by the government to support victims of sexual, physical and emotional abuse DO NOT offer support to men. I have experienced the wrath of numerous w omen's groups for even suggesting that men should be afforded the same courtesy and respect for their abuse.

    Can women be sexual offenders/abusers? Absolutely
    Can women be aggressive Assaultive, physical and emotional abusers ? Absolutely.

    I am a women and I am an advocate for more funding/programs to support men.

    • Uh, Doreen, men are sexually abused by other men. That's not to say women don't do the same, but it's a rarity. It is not rare for pedophiles to prey on small boys, however.

      • Uh, Vivian – to those of us abused or raped by women, it doesn't matter one whit whether Viva_Vivian thinks it is a rarity or not. It happens and it hurts. Further, given how often that sexual abuse of men by women is minimized, ignored or otherwise excused in general, the statistics are suspect from the start.

        Why the need to create a hierarchy of survivorhood based on the genitalia of the predator???????????

  5. At last! ,a govt. that is making efforts to stop money drains and having the taxpayers fund abortions. Being pregnant is not a health issue exept for the unwanted baby, having the parties responsible pay for their own abortion would see a dramatic drop in abortions just like stiff fines for speeding curtails bad driving habits. Way to go Harper,keep up the good work.

    • Well, given that most women who have abortions in this day and age can't afford them anyhow, that doesn't actually work. I say this because women in their teens and 20s, the group that has the most abortions, are not likely to have a stable career and are most likely to be working minimum wage, part-time jobs if working at all. Second, these women are also mostly single. I don't think raising a child alone is a good idea and neither do they. These attitudes towards women re:abortion always disturb me because the facts are not given any weight. Why would a single, low income teen or 20 something be forced to raise a child alone? Where are the men who demonize these women? Not taking care of their child's mothers, surely.
      http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml

      • You seem to miss one thing here: no one is forcing these "disadvantaged" women to get pregnant… Reliable birth control has been available for years, and if memory serves me correctly, it is covered under medicare. Not to mention the "morning after" pill.

        Women can either have an abortion, put the baby up for adoption, take it to a "drop off" centre, or keep it; they can make whatever choice they want. A heck of a lot more choice than the man who provided half the genetic material to create the baby gets…

        And to boot, whatvever choice she makes, many women's groups seem to feel it is their God-given right to have the taxpayer pick up the tab…

        • You know, it's always interesting in these debates when people feel like they need to educate their peers about the most germane, pedestrian facts. Birth control? Abortion? Adoption? Please.

          Also, no one is forcing these women to get pregnant? Allow me to treat you like you know nothing: rape, pedophilia, incest, peer pressure-instigated sex, etc. Given there are approximately 100,000 abortions in Canada in the last statistical year in a country of 30+ million, I don't think it's too much of a burden for the taxpayers. I say this as a taxpayer. More important would be the billion dollar overspending in welfare that goes on in this country, but I see how some people would rather point fingers at single would-be teen mothers than the thousands upon thousands raking in taxpayer-funded "unemployment" cheques. Just for example.

  6. MATCH International, one of the groups that had its $400,000 annual budget slashed this week is an international aid organization that assists women in Africa in conjunction with national (African domestic) aid groups. MATCH helps African women achieve financial independence by setting up micro-businesses using micro-loans, assists them with reproduction rights issues (i.e. female circumcision) and helps them gain access to their local legal systems by using legal aid. African women badly need outside assistance in many countries because, as girls, they often do not have access to education as they would if they were males.

    Obviously, all of these things must somehow be threatening to the Harper government in some way. I realize that we can't expect our government to cover all aspects of our lives or the lives of those overseas, but it seems to me that the Harper government consistently sends the message that assisting women is not their priority.

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

    • Thank you for this, because I was wondering what the nature of these "women's groups" actually was.

    • Why does the African government not help the women in their countries? Why do they need our money all the time? All we do is throw money at them. Make them responsible for their own problems. The riches coming from these countries, such as gold,platinum,diamond etc. prove they have an income. Maybe if we stopped the hand outs it would force them to take responsibilty for their problems and actions.

  7. MATCH International, one of the groups that had its $400,000 annual budget slashed this week is an international aid organization that assists women in Africa in conjunction with national (African domestic) aid groups. MATCH helps African women achieve financial independence by setting up micro-businesses using micro-loans, assists them with reproduction rights issues (i.e. female circumcision) and helps them gain access to their local legal systems by using legal aid. African women badly need outside assistance in many countries because, as girls, they often do not have access to education as they would if they were males.

    Obviously, all of these things must somehow be threatening to the Harper government in some way. I realize that we can't expect our government to cover all aspects of our lives or the lives of those overseas, but it seems to me that the Harper government consistently sends the message that assisting women is not their priority.

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

  8. Such groups survive only because they get money that was taken through coercion from Canadian taxpayers. Clearly the left that supports such groups won't voluntarily fund them.

    Why aren't mainstream media asking why the state is even involved in this theftl?

  9. One of the legacies of far too many years of Liberal governments are all these special interest groups who recieve govt funding. Not only do they recieve it ungraciously, they feel "entitled" to it. "Entitlement" is the legacy of Trudeau, Chretien & Martin.

    Every organization that recieves govt largesse should not expect that funding to continue forever. Especially if they treat the "gift horse" like a "rented mule".

  10. Hmmm. I find it rather a strange coincidence, that most of these comments seem to be from men, who are defending the Harper government.??? I too would like to hear more of the names of the groups that have had their funding stopped.
    Sloppy reporting, I'd say.

  11. I too would like to hear more from the groups. I think my main concern here is that each of these groups take a different stance than the ideologues in the conservative party on the issue of abortion. It is highly coincidental that they have their funding cut. It didn't appear from the reporting that other groups with other issues were involved with the funding cuts.
    How disappointing it is to read some of the comments. You would think that our society would have evolve to the state where helping others was something that we all supported. A "me first and only" attitude that many of the comments express is most disheartening and indicates that social enlightenment and advancement is a long way off. However , when bullying is an accepeted strategy employed by the government of the day, I shouldn't be surprised at the response of the electorate.

    • I think it is a problem that we have not been told much about exactly which groups have had their funding cut. From what I have been able to determine, most of the cuts are to organizations that either are focused on lobbying and political activism (not something the gov. should be funding in my view regardless of what the political cause is) or they are ineffectual in terms how how their money is spent. (e.g. Karios spending only 3.7% of its budget on actual charitable works — and the rest on political junkets.) I think that "helping others" is indeed something that we all support — it is just not clear whether these groups were helping others — or pretty much just helping themselves.

    • Our country did evolve past the me-first ideology. We are now paying the price, literally and figuratively, for the unharnessed, out of control, taxpayer-funded initiatives for every idealogue's fancy in the country. There are far too many programs in this country with far less people taking advantage of them. For example, the number of new immigrants who take advantage of free language lessons, TTC tokens for the month included, hovers around 5%. Yet the number of minorities polled who are not getting health care in part because of language issues is at 75%! Participation must be a factor in cost cutting, although this article doesn't provide that insight.

  12. Once you have small funded programs multiplied to how many of these groups, is equal to a sizable amount of money which adds up to our tax burden and debt. And with this economic climate and who knows what is coming with the Euro crisis, it is prudent for us to cut more public services than what was already on the table. Let each of us handle some responsibility for ourselves, this way we will treasure more what we have than take things for granted. Money does not fall from trees.

  13. It`s about time,cut funding off completely,they are just leftist offshoots of the Liberal Party,cut it off.Let them do some fundraising.

  14. If women had the money to spend responsibly, it would be great to have an individually funded solutions. But we don't expect individual business owners to fund international trade relations, or cancer patients to build their own hospitals. Most women fleeing abuse don't have money to fund their own support services. nor do young families looking for quality child care have money to fund the research to find out how to build a sustainable child care system. Women still face lots of problems, like precipitous drop in income after divorce, and poverty in their senior years due to lower lifetime earnings. Advocacy groups focus on these issues and do research, while supporting individuals who are facing these problems. Women and other special population groups still need support because equality does not yet exist. It is the job of govenrment to fill the gap, whether by providing the services itself, or by funding non-profits to do what the market cannot. the Harper government seems to be abdicating its responsibility.

Sign in to comment.