BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

UN CONTINUES TO CORRUPT OUR LIVES

As it has frequently done in the past, Canada initiated a UN treaty, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). In 1982, Canada was also, as usual, one of the first countries to ratify this feminist treaty.

Under the treaty, Canada is obliged to report every five years to the Convention's treaty monitoring committee to determine whether Canada is in compliance with its provisions. These monitoring committees are supposed to objectively determine whether the reporting countries are properly implementing the provisions of the treaty into their domestic law.

Unfortunately, the UN monitoring committees on the six UN Human Rights treaties are usually anything but objective or neutral. In fact, the committees are usually biased in support and promotion of a radical feminist agenda world-wide. No monitoring committee is more blatant and aggressive in this aim as the committee monitoring CEDAW. For example, the latter committee has vigorously criticized reporting countries regarding their failure to provide women with abortion on demand, even though the treaty itself does not expressly provide for this. The committee just "read in" abortion rights into the treaty. The committee has objected to countries celebrating Mother's Day (alleged sexist stereotyping), and for failing to provide universal child care so as to "free" women from their "sexist" roles of mothering and homemaking. Other examples of this monitoring committee's views include directing China to legalize prostitution, Kygystan to legalize lesbianism, and Libya to reinterpret the Koran to conform to feminist principles!

Surprisingly, even "progressive" Canada has received its share of criticism from this CEDAW monitoring committee. After Canada reported to the committee in New York in January 2003, Canada was advised, according to the committee's report issued In March 2003, that Canada was not doing enough to ensure women's equality on many fronts, including parental leave, child care, and pay equity. The committee blamed budget cuts in Canada in 1995 for the government's so-called scaled-back social services for women and children.

The committee also advised Canada that it must redouble its efforts to provide more shelters for battered women, give women more political clout through special measures to change our electoral system by establishing proportional representation, and providing goals and timetables to increase women's role in the political arena. (The proportion of women in the House of Commons, which had been climbing, has stalled at 21%, during the last few elections.)

Standing up to encourage the UN committee's criticism of Canada was none other than Canada's most prominent lesbian, Shelagh Day, who accompanied the Canadian officials to New York in January when they submitted the official report. Ms. Day's purpose in being there was to paint a less "rosy" picture for the committee than the one offered by the Canadian officials. She provided the committee with details on Canada's failure to implement the feminists' agenda, and in this Ms. Day was obviously eminently successful.

Ms. Day, by the way, has served the radical feminist cause in Canada in many guises over the years - usually paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. She appeared before the CEDAW monitoring committee in her most recent incarnation as a representative of a newly-coined organization called the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Affairs. This organization consists of the same feminist faces who have been around for years. Funded by the federal Status of Women, feminists, amoeba-like, form and re-form their organizations to suit their purposes. For example, Ms. Day, one of the founders of the legal arm of the feminist movement, LEAF (Women's Legal Education Action Fund); was vice-president of NAC (National Action Committee on the Status of Women); represented the homosexual/lesbian organization, EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere); on the Canadian delegation at the UN Women's Conference in Beijing in 1995, where she also served as chairwoman of the lesbian caucus. She attended the 1991 Women's Symposium on the Law in Vancouver, funded by the then Minister of Justice, Kim Campbell, where Ms. Day put forward the resolution supported by that feminist gathering, that henceforth the Department of Justice and the federal Attorney General must promote and uphold the law from a feminist perspective only.

Ms. Day was also one of the founders of, and served as chairperson of, the so-called Equality Panel on the notorious federally-funded Court Challenges Program. One wonders what would happen to Ms. Day if she actually had to work for her living, instead of spending her time tirelessly promoting the feminist/lesbian cause - at the taxpayers' expense.

Effect of Monitoring Committee's Criticism of Canada

The criticism of Canada by the committee is, fortunately, not enforceable in law. However, the criticism serves as a useful tool for feminist groups to embarrass the government and pressure it into implementing the committee's recommendations.

That was the sole purpose of Ms. Day's presence at the committee hearing. Ms. Day was able to approach the committee with her own suggestions for Canada to improve its performance under the treaty, and the committee members were more than happy to comply with her wishes. It is a win-win opportunity for Canadian feminists to pressure the government to accept their agenda - all under the obliging auspices of the UN.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS