Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Today in the no-spin zone: Sheila Copps and the burqa-wearing oppressed

by Paul Wells on Monday, July 6, 2009 11:58am - 82 Comments

“How genteel we Canadian women are. Just like our burka-loving sisters in Afghanistan, we are expected to carry out our work quietly in the shadows, because that is our place in politics and in life. Heaven forbid we should be noticed, feted or written about.”

— from a column in which Sheila Copps defends a sister whose work was rudely fact-checked

Tags: burqas, david akin, Jane Taber, professional standards, Sheila Copps

More by Paul Wells

Mark

"How much print was devoted to attacking Taber's portrayal of the place of women in the Prime Minister's Office?"
Somewhere around zero.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

But it felt like a lot.

john g

It's a shamewhen penning this column that Sheila Copps couldn't spare a thought for Sarah Palin, who has had to put up with the most vile and disgusting attacks against her daughters, and even her infant special needs son, from the "tolerant, progressive" left.

Apparently in Sheila's eyes only women of Liberal persuasion are worth standing up for.

Mike T.

cut and paste, crazy muppet, cut and paste….
http://intensedebate.com/people/Silly_Walks Silly_Walks

Oh god! Won't somebody think of the children!
phil

Like Godwin's Law, we need a new adage for commentary on political blogs. How do we describe the inevitability that previously reasonable commentators finally reveal themselves to be completely batsh*t crazy partisans, who will say the most ridiculous things to slam the perceived "other" side, even if said comments have nothing to do with the thread at hand. Wow john g.

john g

It has everything to do with the thread at hand. Palin has been accused of faking the legitimacy of her own son, and of running on a policy of enforcing more retardation because she had the audacity to claim that "the world needs more Trigs, not fewer". She's been attacked for both parading her children and for not staying home with them. She's been chided for her "slutty" looks. She's been told that her "greatest pretense" is that she's a woman. How do any of you consider these types of attacks even remotely acceptable in civilized political discourse? What is wrong with you people???

What would any of you say if Mike Duffy, for example, were to have made similar comments about, say, Belinda Stronach? I'm pretty sure Sheila Copps would have a few things to say about that in the context of this column, and what women in today's political world have to put up with. I'm certain most of you would too.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Silly_Walks Silly_Walks

"running on a policy of enforcing more retardation"

That right there might be the best string of words in all of recorded history.
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

I'd probably note that Mike Duffy is fat. I'd probably do that anyway, no matter what he was commenting on. Your point is?

hosertohoosier

Can we not agree that there are legitimate criticisms of Palin, and not legitimate ones (as well as flourishes) – not to mention other female politicians (Belinda Stronach comes to mind).

Calling Palin "Caribou Barbie", bloggers obsessively insisting that she wasn't really pregnant with Trig (in ignorance of the data on the link between the age of mothers and the likelihood of down syndrome) without evidence, or Maureen Dowd's insistence that Palin's first duty was to her kids – these are examples of less than legitimate attacks.

Similarly, calling Belinda Stronach a whore (why didn't David Emerson get that treatment… I suppose in part because few would be willing to pay to sleep with him), or on the other end, using Hillary Clinton's failure to fit into a standard definition of femininity, is also an illegitimate attack. It has nothing to do with her ability to lead the country and imposes language that "genderizes" debate.

It is entirely legitimate to say that Palin is inexperienced, inarticulate, corrupt, flaky and unprepared for the presidency, on the other hand – so long as you use evidence to back up such claims.

This is something of an aside, but I think we have to stop thinking about women's issues, and start thinking about gender issues in general. Many men have been shafted in politics for their failure to fit into conventionally male gender stereotypes. Ed Muskie tanked after appearing to cry after losing a primary; Stephane Dion's "weak leadership" had its origin in his own "unmanly" appearance.

I think we are needlessly getting bogged down in the question of what kind of critiques of politicians are legitimate ones. It seems obvious to me that legitimate critiques are based on policy, on action, on evidence and on data. It doesn't make sense to attack people for things they can't control, which have no bearing on how they will lead. If one's concern is that somebody is a "weak" leader, focus on the actions that reinforce your belief that they are weak, not on broad characteristics that your prejudices associate with weakness.

john g

Can we not agree that there are legitimate criticisms of Palin, and not legitimate ones

That's what I've been trying to get to H2H. I would have thought that such a sentiment would be universally agreed on but I'm finding myself surprised, shocked, and disappointed at the number of people who seem perfectly OK with the types of nasty, vicious, mean-spirited personal attacks that have been lobbed at Palin and her family, for no other reason than that they don't like her. Jack Mitchell on another thread went so far as to say that the Palin children deserve everything that gets thrown at them "because they have a mother like that". I just can't fathom that level of deep-seated hatred that would cause an otherwise reasonable person to post such a thing.

Perhaps people think that she was so unqualified that the ends justify the means; that the media should be allowed or encouraged to say or do anything required to stop her, including target her special needs infant son. What the left wing media has been allowed to do here sets an extremely dangerous precedent…who is to say who the next candidate will be that will be attacked in such a way.

http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

John you keep saying (in other threads) that Trig Palin is the object of attacks. Please provide some links, we'd like to see these nasty vicious attacks towards a toddler. Criticizing any politician for using their kids as props (as even Obama has occasionally done) is not an attack on the children themselves.

Even Palin's harshest critics, like Andrew Sullivan, have said the one thing they respect and admire her for was her decision to carry a special needs child to term and care for him. So please either support your continual assertions or find a new talking point to spout.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Good point. Hilarious how the opposing arguments seem to be limited to "you're stupid" or variants thereof.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

You're right, stupidity is to be prized.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

John you keep saying (in other threads) that Trig Palin is the object of attacks. Please provide some links, we'd like to see these nasty vicious attacks toward a toddler. Criticizing any politician for using their kids as props (as even Obama has occasionally done) is not an attack on the children themselves.

Even Palin's harshest critics, like Andrew Sullivan, have said the one thing they respect and admire her for was her decision to carry a special needs child to term and care for him. So please either support your continual assertions or find a new talking point to spout.

john g

Derek, there was the article by Erik Sean Nelson in the Huffington Post about Palin being for more retardation. Someone posted the contents of it in Parisiella's thread. I can't link to it because it was pulled, with the same kind of half-assed apology Letterman offered. The one about Palin not being Trig's actual mother is well documented. There have been photoshops replacing distorted faces on Trig's body. One of the distorted faces was allegedly a child molester.

I can't post too many links or I'll end up in moderation, but the following summarizes the attacks on Trig rather nicely.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/07/04/i…
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"Even Palin's harshest critics, like Andrew Sullivan, have said the one thing they respect and admire her for was her decision to carry a special needs child to term and care for him."

wtf? Sullivan is the one leading the charge that claims Sarah Palin did not give birth to Trig but one of her daughters did and family is trying to cover it up. Or how about Erik Nelson's post a few days ago at HuffPo mocking Palin for saying that we can learn from people with Down syndrome and then went on to write that Palin is the first pol to want 'to increase the population of retarded people'.

Canuckistanian

"Palin is the first pol to want 'to increase the population of retarded people'

can you blame her…it would greatly help her 2012 aspirations ;-)

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Oh good grief – what a stupid statement. Unbelievable.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

[polldaddy 1762748 http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1762748/ polldaddy]

Dot

You go boy! [modified for political corectness]
Canuckistanian

hotter than tony valeri (aka the raven) ;-)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Nice, you're back in business.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It's good to be back.

Ms Manners

And what, exactly, is your point?
http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose janicemaerose

LMAO

http://intensedebate.com/people/Silly_Walks Silly_Walks

On a long enough time line, everyone shows their stripes.
http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

Sexism still occurs in traditionally male dominated enterprises – in politics, on Bay Street, you name it.

But I cannot stand accusations of sexism (or racisim or whatever) when none exists. Sheila Copps does not see that she is implicitly suggesting that Taber be held to a lower (not equal) standard.

Taber was just lazy — a trend I see frequently with her. Perhaps someone more learned than I can explain why she has gained such a prominent position in Canadian journalism.

Orson Bean

I agree with what you say re Jane Taber. Taber even seems to be getting worse, and more inane, with age. That piece that's in issue here is a clear example of lazy — and biased — journalism. Jane got busted, and rightly so, by a real journalist who actually took the time to do his homework.

And Copps' piece reminds me of why I don't miss seeing her in Parliament. Hyperbolic, histrionic twaddle, just like what used to come out of her mouth during Question Period.

Mulletaur

Or you could have the hyperpartisan bombast of Pipsqueak Pierre. Or the hyperpartisan, squeaky bombast of John Baird. Matter of taste, I guess.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Sheila Copps or Pierre Polievre…I'd prefer that both of them cut back on the hyperbole, way back.

Paul Wells

I was actually going to add a link to Anne Applebaum’s column on Palin today, which I took to be a very enjoyable dissection of Palin’s catastrophic Friday press conference. But if you accept Sheila Copps’s thesis that criticizing women can only be motivated by sexism (a very big ‘if’), then surely there is no possible fair criticism of any woman, including Sarah Palin.

In other words, I don’t see how you can read Sheila Copps’ column and then complain about John G’s comment. I don’t see the latter as any dumber than the former.

InkStainedWretch

"But if you accept Sheila Copps's thesis that criticizing women can only be motivated by sexism (a very big 'if')"

A very big if? See the link below for another example of such sterling logic, by Stephane Dion's biographer:

http://thestar.blogs.com/decoder/2009/06/lisa-rai…
john g

Thank you Paul (I think)

There is plenty of room to criticize Palin without crossing the line of attacking her looks, her parenting skills, or her family. I agree that her Friday press conference was an incoherent mess, and inexcusably so for a message that important. I don't think she would make a very good President, but I would have hoped we could all agree that there is no place for the kind of vicious, mean-spirited personal attacks that have been made against her family. It's disappointing to see that's not the case.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

john g

It is very simple to remember: all Dems/libs/progs are virtuous, righteous and noble while the rest of us are racist, sexist and have below average iq.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." CS Lewis

MJ Patchouli

I also agree with Jolyon's first sentence here…

Mulletaur

"I don't think she would make a very good President …"

Yeah, really. Nice understatement there.
MJ Patchouli

I'm a horrid feministish type woman, and I agree with this post.

phil

Then you're just not trying. Definitely dumb and dumber. Of course john g thinks you've defended him.
Lord Kitchener's Own

I tend to agree that Copps' argument is somewhat silly (and running to the defence of Jane Taber?!?!? Could one pick a worse woman of supposed power and influence to hold up? She seems a rather shallow and vacuous journalist to me, and I don't think that I think that because she's a woman).

However, in a limited defence of Copps, I'm not sure Copps's thesis was that "criticizing women can only be motivated by sexism". Frankly, I'm not even sure that she's saying that criticism of Taber's argument is based on Taber being a woman, so much as she's saying that Taber's argument was being criticized because people don't want to acknowledge the sexism that Taber claims exists.

Mulletaur

Yup
André

You know, most people go for the interpretations that's shorter to write… in limited defense of journalists.

Canuckistanian

"But if you accept Sheila Copps's thesis that criticizing women can only be motivated by sexism (a very big 'if'),"

i don't think that is a fair characterization of her thesis. nevertheless, her column was a bad one.
Lord Kitchener's Own

There are 10 replies to Mr. Wells' comment, but because it's near the bottom of the first page of comments, I can only see two of the ten replies (and when I click to the second page of comments I get the next original comment after Mr. Wells', rather than replies 3-10 to his comment above).

Just checking to see if I can find this reply after posting it!
Sea Otter

Has someone ever compiled a list of top ten disastrous news conferences/speeches? They don't necessarily have to be Canadian or American – in fact, it would be more fun to go international. Watching Palin officially self-immolate is certainly worth of consideration in the list.

As a British Columbian, I see a lot of similarities between Palin and Bill Vander Zalm. Both had a lot of charm and a lot of base political skill, and both burst onto the scene with so much promise. In both instances they showed a completely inability to grow into the job, and to listen to good advice. They also both became increasingly convinced that they were on some kind of mission from above, and as such became completely divorced from reality. It's kind of sad, really — the concept of Sarah Palin was terrific, and you can see why so many people were anxious to buy in, John McCain included.

Contrast what you saw from Palin last Friday with the smiling, confident figure you saw walking on to the stage at the GOP Convention early last September – it has been a breathtakingly ugly tumble.
http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose janicemaerose

Good point Paul.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

I don't think Jane Taber was a good example for Copps to use – her type of journalism is lacking substance and is more tabloid. I don't think it's fair to use Taber as a example for all female reporters and, I think the other female reporters could speak up for themselves – Conservative, Liberal or non-partisan.

http://intensedebate.com/people/BCVoiceOfReason BCVoiceOfReason

It stretches Copps's thin credibility of being anything other than an aging (toothless) Liberal attack dog. Copp's defending Taber, when Taber was as guilty as adscam, and almost as Liberal partisan, ruins any pretense of objectivity that Taber's role on CTV and G&M political gossip should require.

Copp's had her 15 minutes in the spot light as a key member of the relentless attack pack against Lyin' Brian Mulroney. It is sad when people can't move on and try to hang on to their Glory Days.

Mike T.

Where none exists or where a fact which purported to demonstrate its existence turned out to be incorrect?
Bill Simpson

"if more women were in high places, seeking consensus, we might not have come to the brink of another federal election this month"

I always like this thought, the notion that if only their were more sensible women to get stuff sorted out by consensus instead of all these silly squabbling boys, then all would be well!

Some fact-checking there might help as well: women politicians (Sheila Copps amongst them) have been as combative and fiercely partisan as any man..

Orson Bean

Re the "if only women ruled the world everything would be hunky-dory" theory, I'm always reminded of this:

"I'm not a person who thinks the world would be entirely different if it was run by women. If you think that, you've forgotten what high school was like." –MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, former U.S. Secretary of State, on women in leadership

http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose janicemaerose

Good quote by MA Orson. Even in her day teen girls were vicious.

http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose janicemaerose

Bill, women who have had to break the glass ceiling have often done it by acting like the men around them. In business and in politics where the highest positions are filled by males, women resort to the same antics to get ahead. Now, it could be that the women who are drawn to that field naturally have the tendency to be combative, or that the gentler motherly nature of striving for harmony in the house gets eroded when no one wants to play nice. There are several studies that indicate that women are generally more collaborative than men when resolving conflict in business or otherwise.

Mulletaur

"It isn't enough to merely mouth the platitudes of equality. Leaders should reflect diversity in their teams. That is why it is critical for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to move quickly toward gender parity in his own operation. Taber's controversial comments reflected real rumbling in Liberal ranks about the absence of women in senior positions."

By the numbers, I count 8 out of 32 Liberal opposition critics (25%) and 12 out of 35 Liberal national executive members (34%) as women. Of the 77 Liberal federal Members, 19 are women (24.7%) representing urban ridings except for 2 as far as I can tell. Sheila may be overly polemical, but I think she may have a point, at least concerning elected Members. I don't know if she is also also referring to Iggy's close advisors, OLO or LPC in all of this.
–dB

I for one am outraged. How dare David Akin call Jane Taber's column popular!
Maureen

Shelia is being her best partisan politician – and that is all. So for her to wrap herself up in some righteous view of the oppression of women in every and any field of endeavor is silly. She writes all the warm fuzzy words that project collaboration, cooperation etc. etc. and laments that only women can bring this to politics, particularly Liberal women. Women need to cowboy up, do the job and do it well and make sure that they are recognized for that – rather than whining about all the oppression they face in the workplace, in the community, in the home. I started working in the later 1960's and the oppression that women faced then is light years away from what happens in the workplace now – and frankly I'm more than a little miffed at younger women today who have a huge sense of entitlement for the little knowledge and skills that they have.
Canuckistanian

"if more women were in high places, seeking consensus, we might not have come to the brink of another federal election this month"

rank of countries with percentage of female parliamentarians:

#2 Sweden 48%
#48 Canada 21%

correlation is not causation, but…

"if only women ruled the world everything would be hunky-dory"

or, at least we would have better and less corrupt governance.

the World Bank:
Abstract
Numerous behavioral studies have found women to be more trust-worthy and
public-spirited than men. These results suggest that women should be
particularly effective in promoting honest government. Consistent with this
hypothesis, we find that the greater the representation of women in parliament,
the lower the level of corruption. We find this association in a large cross-
section of countries; the result is robust to a wide range of specifications.

Orson Bean

I note that you're subtly moving the goalposts there, in that the original quote being referred to had to do with women "seeking consensus", supposedly not being confrontational, not being partisan, etc. — despite the fact that, as has been noted, Shiela Copps was one of the most uber-partisan monsters ever to stalk Parliament Hill.

Now you seem to be asserting that women are more honest than men, or at least that their presence somehow reduces corruption. Well, as you say yourself, correlation is not causation. Indeed. When I look at the corruption index from Transparency International, what I see is a very high correlation between overall wealth (e.g., GDP per capita) and other classic development indicators on the one hand, and lack of corruption on the other:

http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/20…

I agree that it probably is the case that as a general rule, as societies become more wealthy and developed, opportunities for women open up and thus so does their participation rate in politics. But estrogen = honesty? Spare me.

Canuckistanian

"Now you seem to be asserting that women are more honest than men, or at least that their presence somehow reduces corruption."

actually, i was pointing out that numerous empirical studies have demonstrated an inverse relationship between women in gov't and levels of corruption (i.e. more women, less corruption).

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

I normally enjoy Copps' articles but this was not one of her better ones. There seems to be a dichotomy at the heart Copps' argument: women are capable and should be involved in politics while at the same time proposing affirmative action policies because women are incapable of succeeding on their own initiative.

As the Akin post shows, there are plenty of women in Harper's PMO. Why does Copps ignore successful women who are succeeding at politics in order to write a diatribe that plays down female success?

"Is it any wonder the issue of sexism in society gets absolutely no traction when journalists themselves refuse to even recognize the problem?"

The msm is lousy with women and if they are not writing about sexism maybe it's because they don't see it or it doesn't really exist to the extent that some females like to think it does.

Canuckistanian

"The msm is lousy with women and if they are not writing about sexism maybe it's because they don't see it"

perhaps b/c the majority are old white men? cataracts?

"or it doesn't really exist to the extent that some females…"

those crazy females imagining things again…like they're created equal or the loch ness monster ;-)
http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose janicemaerose

Unfortunately employment equity/affirmative action are necessary because the people doing the hiring often hire those most like themselves. After years/decades of these discriminatory practices, which often did not look at the merit of those who were different, the diversity of the ranks becomes weak. So, correcting the system requires deliberate, more careful analysis.

john g

It's also comical to watch Sheila defend her hero Barack Obama's elevating of women to Cabinet. Her choice of Hillary Clinton as a testament to Obama's pro-female credentials seems somewhat strange, given her increasing lack of influence in the Obama administration
john g

Damn. Posted the wrong link. Here is the one I meant to post:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/07/amb…
Ms Manners

Oh, Puh-leese!
Maureen

But James, Margaret and Diane (to name but a few successful women) are CONSERVATIVE women – they cannot be role models because they are CONSERVATIVE women and as we all know CONSERVATIVE women are oppressed and downtrodden by the mean, white CONSERVATIVE men and are not really women at all, but just men and they have no empathy for the everyday woman. Not.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PoliticalPundit PoliticalPundit

Many of these posts are very sexist! Some are truly offensive! They prove Copps' point!
Taber had her facts wrong but she is correct on the overall situation of women in Harper's entourage. Harper's attitude towards women speaks volumes. He selects a few feisty women, like Marjorie Lebreton, who do his bidding and quickly dumps all those who refuse to be lapdogs for his ideology and tactics.
I agree that women should not be so defensive or so quick in resorting to the charge of sexism. Yet, sexism in the workplace and in the community at large is very much alive and well and journalists should be aware of this fact.

BlackTuxedo.

Reads right to me: "Taber had her facts wrong but she is correct…" I agree – the facts don't matter.

Andrew

It's Kathleen Sebelius. And Hillary said 18 million cracks in the ceiling. And Sheila Copps knows as well as any other former cabmin that the most powerful people in the PMO are the ones who are seen least often in the papers and on the evening news.
john g

Testing if adding another comment fixes the missing comments…
john g

Testing if adding yet another comment hides them again…
James Halifax

I see the local Censor has deemed my comment inappropriate for public consumption. Since I used no profanity, or racial slurs….one can assume my comment was deleted simply because the Administrator disagreed with what I wrote.

Barbara Hall would be so proud.
john g

Jonathan, some comments seem to toggle between visible and not visbile every time someone makes a new post to this thread.