Gender rarely factors into the equation of determining whether or not one will run. When somebody considers running for public office they think of the demands that it will place on their life, the time it will take away from family, and a slew of other things. Yet I know come election time they will be at the campaign office on the phone, organizing and dedicating countless hours towards defeating our Conservative Member of Parliament. However, they have made the personal choice (one that I respect) to not run. In my riding, I know of many women that are more then qualified to run and clean Nicholson’s clock. It is a huge, difficult decision to run for public office, one that has many consequences and demands once made. Why do women need this pledge to be declared equal to men? Are we incapable of becoming more politically involved and running for office without the party giving us special treatment? I am mortified to think that before this that we were unable to. I acknowledge that women are underrepresented when it comes to sitting parliamentarians at both the provincial and federal levels but when Dion states that he is willing to do whatever it takes to get 103 women as candidates for this party in the next election I can not help but feel slightly offended. However, I am left wondering what this ‘pledge’ really means. Everyone seems to be celebrating this promise declaring that women finally are getting the equality in politics that has long been due to us. Stephane Dion has announced his pledge to field 103 female candidates in the next federal election. So does that mean that he should have stepped down after he was tossed out of the Conservative Caucus and run as a Independent? Needless to say Garth's situation is a bit different to those of Scott, Belinda and Wajid. If he floor crossed to the Liberals, then he floor crossed as a Independent which his constituents didn't elect him as either. I come to this conclusion not because I don't want to risk his constituents re-electing a Conservative MP, or that I am in any way pro-floor crossing (quiet frankly, I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or another). So by this rationale I would suggest that because unlike Scott Brison, Belinda Stronach, and Wajid Khan (who all went from one political party to another with no time in between) Garth Turner does not owe it to anyone to step down and run in a by-election. He did not leave the Conservative caucus in an attempt to screw them over or because of some type of carrot dangled by the Liberal party. Apparently after some time as an independent Garth has decided to join the Liberal Caucus. He chose to sit as an independent initially and in his press conference vowed to be very critical of the whole party process, not just the Conservatives, but all political parties. To remind people he was tossed out of the Conservative Caucus, a decision he didn't make.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |