Ok, I understand that this:
...plus upcoming possible elections may mean a bit of a crunch for the Grits. But I really don't see how this:
During last year's leadership race, Dion promised that under his watch at least a third of the party's candidates in the next election would be women.
...is a viable solution. And I can't believe, after that went public, that they said this:
So-called green-light committees, set up to run the party's nomination process in each province, have been empowered to ensure the 33 per cent target is met. Among other things, the committees can approve or reject nomination papers from would-be candidates.
Where necessary, the committees will be able to simply refuse to allow men to run for nominations in some ridings.
"We're trying to find the techniques that are consistent with our democratic processes to the greatest extent possible," said Gerard Kennedy, Dion's special adviser on election readiness.I'm sorry..."to the greatest extent possible"? Do they hear themselves when they talk, or do they just move their mouths? Now I'm having flashbacks to the women in politics conference I attended in high school, when we were told by several female MPs--without irony--that Parliamentary politics should be made nicer and more polite so that women would feel more comfortable there...
Which is not to say that I'm entirely against any type of affirmative action, but I have always firmly believed that you have to push up from the bottom, not cherry pick from the top. So, scholarships for female MPA/poli-sci students makes sense, programs to familiarize and recruit female candidates makes sense, widening criteria to include practical experience and diverse experiences makes sense. This? This does not make sense.