Canadian breaking news and politics and hats and general sexiness

[EnderD_503]

Just now this morning, protestors from Occupy TO have marched to Brookfield Investments, in protest of the evacuation of Occupy Wall Street in New York from Zuccotti Park. Two protestors were arrested, one a Native Canadian was tackled by a police officer (so far no one seems to know the charges), while the other was allegedly arrested trying to pick up the First Nations unity flag the previously arrested protestor dropped.

Police are now giving Occupy TO camp eviction notice.

[EnderD_503]

Awesome support for Occupy Toronto faced with eviction! Mohawk elders sent word after the eviction notice that they support Occupy TO remaining on St. James' Park land, and apparently more people will becoming down to the city to support. The Cathedral, who owns 25% of the land, reaffirmed that they support the movement. The Ontario Federation of Labour called for its member to go down to the park in support of the movement tonight. City council has moved to block Ford's eviction notice since he did not consult city council on the eviction notice. 12 city councilors so far have signed a letter to Rob Ford telling him to postpone eviction to the next city council meeting at the end of the month, at the very earliest, so that councilors can discuss the issue.

The eviction notice says people need to be out of the park between 12:01am and 5:01am, Occupy TO asks that all supporters who aren't camping at the park be down at 11pm to peacefully resist eviction if necessary.

Hopefully Ford will soon realise that he's making a huge mistake.

[EnderD_503]

Well, Occupy TO was safe tonight Earlier this afternoon a judge ruled that Ford couldn't evict protestors tonight, and that no action could be taken until the conclusion of court proceedings Friday afternoon. So tonight's call to defend the park turned more into a celebratory gathering, lol. I think at least all this did show that a lot more people are supporting this than Ford thinks.

Also heard something about how the close proximity of NYC and Toronto evictions were actually planned that way by cooperation between the mayors. Considering Ford didn't manage to evict Occupy TO and NYC occupiers are back in the park (or so I hear?), I guess their attempt to dislodge occupiers in a single stroke didn't quite work out. But the fact that this kind coordinated attack between mayors across North America is happening is a bit disturbing, and a bit too blatantly "the people vs. local government."

[Cin]

He cracks me up.

[Soon]

B.C. court upholds anti-polygamy law as constitutional

[Greyson]

Honestly, I have mixed feelings and thoughts about this non-binding ruling. I do understand how this judge was concerned about the well being of women and children. I am somewhat familiar with the American "Bountiful" sect of the LDS. Most of the information I know of Bountiful is via the American and Canadian media.

Just last week I was watching a Lisa Ling piece done for her show on the OWN channel about the women members of the American Bountiful LDS sect. Apparently these women are content with their way of life and believe their way is also healthy and good for their children. I found it very ironic that a Lesbian with advocacy experience and skills is now working with these women to state their case in the media and courts.

I know there are judges, senators, members of congress, zealots and others who believe that Queer parents and families are unfit and will harm the well being of children. If "the majority" had their way we would be stripped of any legal recognition and/or protection. This could be a slippery slope. I am undecided on this one. Thanks for posting the link.

[EnderD_503]

While I disagree with anti-polygamy laws in principle, I agree with this ruling as far as it relates to religious sects and the trend in relationship dynamics of those pushing for polygamous marriage. If polygamous marriage were legalised in Canada, very likely over 90% of those entering into such marriages would be heterosexual men marrying numerous heterosexual women and more than likely would involve those from fundamentalist Christian and Muslim sects.

The fact that such marriages would overwhelmingly involve one man marrying several women, really is what worries me. Although theoretically one woman could marry multiple men, one man multiple men or one woman multiple women and so on, that likely wouldn't be the case. I think that such a law would only largely be used to continue the oppression of women, and the propagation of the idea of women as either sexual play things or as baby making machines, or both (in the case of these sects). As such, I do think that such a law would be a danger to Canadian women, until society reaches such a point at which we no longer see polygamous marriage as one heterosexual man with multiple wives.

Whether those women feel "happy" in those relationships or not, isn't the issue for me. I do believe that Canadian law has the duty to promote women's rights and to protect Canadian women at large from practices which restrict or harm their rights. A woman can claim to be "happy" in these marriages, but it means very little. Very often people in oppressive situations do not speak up, especially when religion comes into play. Instead of supporting antiquated religious beliefs, Canada should be promoting education that informs women of their equal footing with men, of their ability to exist as an entity separate from men, to ultimately detach "being a woman" from relating with men. Still, too many Canadian women define themselves in relation to men/boyfriends/husbands/fathers. Religious freedom should only be allowed to go so far, but should not extend to threaten the rights of women or any other marginalized group.