DISCRIMINATION AGAINST REAL WOMEN
AT FEDERAL CONFERENCE

by Cecilia Forsyth

Saskatchewan Chapter President

As implied by its name, REAL Women of Canada is realistic in its belief that no single organization (itself included) or ideology can speak for all Canadian women. This belief was, in fact, instrumental in establishing REAL Women as a balance for the existing feminist women's groups which did not represent the concerns of women who support traditional family values. While we promote equality for all women, (a concept expressed in our name), and in our incorporation papers, our approach does not follow the narrow feminist path.

This should not be a problem in a free and democratic country. We should be able to promote a different perspective on achieving equality for women. However, this was not the case at a recent government "consultation on gender equality."

The Invitation

In early November, National REAL Women President, Jeannine Lebel, received a letter from Status of Women Canada inviting organizations to nominate women to attend a formal government "Consultation on Gender Equality" to be held December 8^th - 11^th, 1999 at the Chateau Cartier Hotel in Aylmer, Quebec. The letter stated that Status of Women was "instituting a nomination and selection process to ensure representation of a diversity of perspectives, interests and expertise." Nominees were required to submit a three-page application identifying their personal knowledge and experience on women's issues. Jeannine Lebel asked me to apply as a representative of REAL Women.

Much to our surprise, I received a telephone call at the end of November from Status of Women Canada inviting me to attend the government consultation. I was specifically asked, as I presume all participants were, if I would be able to attend the entire meeting from December 8^th - 11^th. Travel, accommodation and meals would be arranged and paid for by Status of Women Canada. All I had to do was say "yes," which I did.

Participants had to choose two of four workshops: economic issues, violence against women, health and the environment, and human rights. I selected economic issues and human rights.

The meeting agenda, which was received by fax on December 6^th, contained an information sheet advising participants of an informal "get-together scheduled for the afternoon of December 8^th and each evening."

The Welcome and Get-Together

The consultation meeting began December 8^th at an evening reception with a welcome by the Hon. Hedy Fry, Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. Her comments were brief as she had to quickly return to Parliament to serve a 12-hour night shift required by the Liberal Caucus due to the 24-hour voting marathon occurring in the House of Commons. At the reception, I met a couple of women, whom I thought might be possible allies, including the representative from the Catholic Women's League (CWL), but, I was wrong.

These women never spoke to me again. Later that evening, National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) president, Joan Grant-Cummings, announced the location for the evening's informal get-together.

The get-together began with Nancy Riche, NDP activist and Canadian Labour Congress leader, saying, "We are deeply concerned about the presence of R-E-A-L Women." (Feminists will not say "REAL Women," they, instead, spell out the word "R-E-A-L..") Riche said they had complained to Status of Women about our presence, but that Status said they would be in more trouble if they did not invite us. Although I did not know anyone in the room, someone obviously knew who I was, for one or two women shouted, "She's here, she's here."

(The Canadian Labour Congress, incidentally, launched in the middle of January, an awareness campaign of "gay and lesbian rights in the workplace." Unionized workers are undemocratically compelled to pay for this campaign through their compulsory union dues.)

Shelagh Day, lesbian lawyer and advisor on human rights to the National Association of Women and the Law, and chairperson of the so-called Equality Panel of the federal Court Challenges program (which funds mostly feminist and homosexual/lesbian groups), jumped to the microphone demanding that I leave the room, saying I was not welcome as "R-E-A-L Women was not an equality-seeking organization." At this point, I proceeded to another microphone to respond, saying that, "REAL Women of Canada does promote equality for women and that a diversity of viewpoints and approaches to equality exists among Canadian women." Day repeated her demand that I leave the room, as did other women. I argued that "the agenda from the Status of Women included information inviting participants to the "informal get-togethers in the evening." Nancy Riche then said that the room was rented by the Canadian Labour Congress, not Status of Women, and they wanted me to leave. Under these circumstances, I felt I had no alternative but to go.

The Sessions and Workshops

The plenary session the next morning opened with Nancy Riche again referring to "R-E-A-L Women" followed by cries of, "She's here, she's here." Again, participants were then asked to introduce themselves, so that everyone would know who I was. I proudly and calmly identified myself as a representative of REAL Women of Canada, for which I was soundly booed. The women seated at my table promptly left, except for one woman who later told me, while she did not agree with our organization, neither did she agree with the manner in which I was being treated.

The two workshop topics for that day were human rights and health. I remained in the same room for the human rights discussion. One young woman announced that she would not stay in the same room with the R-E-A-L woman. She promptly marched out of the room as did all but about six women. Interestingly, Nancy Riche, who strongly opposed REAL Women attending the meeting, defended my right to "freedom of speech" as did a lesbian woman. For a moment it seemed that the workshop leader, Carmen Paquette, a representative of Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, (EGALE), would continue the scheduled discussion. However, the workshop was quickly adjourned. So much for "freedom of speech."

As I proceeded down the hall to join the second group discussing "human rights," I was taken aside by Jackie Claxton, a Status of Women official, to discuss the dilemma caused by my presence at the meeting. I reminded Ms. Claxton that I had been invited by Status of Women. I said my purpose in attending the consultation was simply to represent the views of a certain constituency of Canadian women, and that I was not there to argue or debate other viewpoints. It was obvious that her intervention was timed to prevent me from entering the workshop session for as soon as it ended, our discussion also ended.

After lunch, Ms. Claxton again approached me. The feminists were threatening to boycott the consultation if I did not leave. Status of Women was not prepared to withdraw my invitation. But they did allow the feminists to have a private session after lunch by themselves to discuss the situation. Ms. Claxton asked me to wait outside the meeting room along with the government personnel. After an hour, the feminists reported they would return to the consultation agenda as long as my participation was restricted to the smaller human rights group for the afternoon workshop discussions. It was also clear that they had decided that no one would speak to or sit at the same table with me during the remainder of the meeting, for not a single woman did after that point, except for one meal when two Status of Women staff sat with me.

The Resolution

The lesbian caucus at the Conference (their own label) then passed a resolution demanding that REAL Women never be invited to a Status of Women Conference again.

Little did these women know, however, that I come from a line of strong and determined women. If my maternal grandmother had the courage to homestead in the territory of New Mexico as a young (then), unmarried woman, I could sit by myself for three days at the Chateau Cartier Hotel as a REAL Women representative. Even if I was prevented from speaking, my very presence gave a silent message to the other participants.

Later that day, REAL Women issued a press release reporting the intolerance and discrimination I was experiencing at this tax-funded government "Consultation on Gender Equality".

It said:

In spite of the harassment, I did manage to address two areas during the workshop discussion: the farm crisis in Saskatchewan, and the discrimination against single-income families in the tax system.

What Was Discussed

Four government ministers attended the Friday morning plenary, and one attended the Saturday session, but only the appointed spokespersons of the radical feminists were allowed to address them. The main feminist demand is for Ottawa to provide "core-funding for all equality-seeking women’s groups" (meaning feminist groups). They called for all federal government departments to be required to contribute funding to the Status of Women. The feminists denounced tax cuts, defence spending and Canada's position at the Seattle World Trade Organization meeting. They called for more government funding for child care, for lesbian women, for aboriginal women, for ethnic women, and for the March 2000 for Women in Montreal.

The annual budget of Status of Women is currently $17.1 million. Since 1973 the federal government has funded feminist groups, enabling them to establish a network across the country to serve as "agents for change" to further the pro-abortion, anti-family, radical feminist philosophy and goals. This fact was openly acknowledged at the consultation meeting by a woman from the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres. Speaking at a plenary session, she said that women's centres and transition houses for battered women were not service centres; they were insurrection centres set up by and for women to gain equality.

A letter from the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, the Hon. Hedy Fry, denies any responsibility for the intolerant atmosphere at the government consultation. She claims she acknowledged the diversity of opinion among Canadian women by including a REAL Women representative. She said she was not responsible for the happenings at the meeting. Ms. Fry may be partly correct on that point, for she was soundly jeered and attacked at the Friday plenary by the feminists for not immediately delivering on all of their demands.

What To Do

As much as I am reluctant to say it, Canadian women who support the traditional values of marriage and family, must try harder to have their voices heard, whether it be in the local community or at the national level. We also must continually correct and remind the media that feminist groups do not speak for all Canadian women.

Start today by writing the Liberal government to say that feminist organizations do not speak for you, and that all government funding of special interest women's groups must stop and that the Status of Women be disbanded. (See article "Status of Women Must be Abolished, p. 4.) Ms. Fry needs to know that other Canadian women support the pro-family views of REAL Women of Canada. Please write to the government officials listed at the end of the article "The Status of Women Must Be Disbanded."

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS