page 6

the other press

 

“April 4,1977

 

 

 

 

Men are the status quo, women the minority.

The status of women is at an impasse; in our male-oriented
society women are unable to determine their own needs and
find ways to fulfill them.

Women continue to bind themselves to their traditional
roles, despite their dissatisfaction. Is equality for women
merely a matter of granting them equal rights with men or are
there other issues to be considered? Perhaps the time has
come for us to try a different approach to the situation, to try to
determine the true nature es the problem, or if indeed a
problem exists at all.

The psychologically healthy person is one who is overtly
masculine or feminine appropriately. We continue to accept
these standards even though it is clear that they are often
inapplicable. We force ourselves into unnatural stances.
These standards are in themselves contradictory. Male and
temale roles exist in polarity, yet we also accept that women
are ‘‘immature’’ versions of men. Clearly to accept these
standards is fatuous.

Women are the largest minority group ever, and remain in
this position not from apathy but from aimlessness and
diversification of their ideals. The radical feminists who
provide the necessary momentum for the movement also
impede its progress. Many women feel feminist ideals are
unrealistic and undesirable, yet do not deny there is a cause.
Asa ee women know what they don’t want, but not what
they do. "

Through guilt women bind themselves more tightly into
their traditional roles. They are deluded into a collective
responsibility for the actions of each other. The use of this
technique is deplorable. Brigitte Bardot, for example, may
choose to act irresponsibly, but the fact that she does is no
more a result ot her being a woman than her being French. By
accepting criticism of this sort, atrived at through fallacious
reasoning, women accept the responsibility for their status.

~ That is not to’say that the TT, has been wrongly
placed, nor does it imply that there is a responsibility to fhe
accepted. Male and female stereotype roles were originally
constructed on complimentary lines through economic
necessity. This necessity no longer exists and the original roles
have become obsolete. By allowing these roles to become ends
in themselves and continuing to force ourselves to conform to
their structure, we condone their existence. Their failure to
meet our needs is evident in the rising divorce rate.

_ The incidence of death through stress-related diseases is
increasing, yet we still fail to recognize the implications.

 

Recognizing that the present cultural and social structure is}

out of synchronisation with our needs, makes possible a more
constructive approach to the problem, Only by determinin
the exact nature of the problem can viable solutions be found.

In subsequent weeks I hope to look at this situation from
various angles, in an effort to discover how it relates to
individuals of different age, sex, race and socio-economic
status and their ability or inability to fulfill their particular
needs. Comments welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

rac

 

 

by LARRY BLACK
for Canadian University
Press
Canadian immigration policy
has always been dictated by the
economy, right from the coun-
try’s original settlement, down

through the Railroad Era to

today.

Because just about everybody
knows it, the federal govern-
ment always looks a little ridi-
culous when it tries to justify the
‘flip-flop’’ that is immigration
law, in terms of higher planes of
moral and ethical righteous-
ness.

Gone are the days when
straight talkers like MacKenzie
King would lay the goods on the
line. ‘‘No one has the right to
immigrate to Canada,’’ the old
weirdo explained, ‘‘we just
grant certain people the privi-
lege.’ !

Door closed

While King’s diary lives on,
so too does his message, wea-
thering as it has the doldrums of
recession and the gales of
economic ‘‘upswing.”’

Canada, once the expansive
breadbasket of opportunity, has
shrivelled to a choked, clogged
lump of ‘“‘economic uncertain-
ty,” and the government con-
sequently has offered up a new

_immigration law, Bill C-24. The
ae

designed to help the author-
ities cut back on social welfare
costs while maintaining a ‘‘pro-
ductive’ reserve labor potent-
ial, comes after three years of
meticulous moral justification.

The first attempt at rational-
izing this complete break with
the 1967 ‘‘open door’’ policy on
immigration was the infamous
Green Paper of February 1975,
which drew flak both for being
racist and for suggesting that
immigrants should be relegated
to the meaner tasks of the
Canadian economy.

The second attempt, more
successful (probably because it
_was published with less brouha-
ha), was the Science Council of
Canada’s scholarly report relea-
sed last summer. The report,
carrying with it the more re-
spectable reputation of the “‘in-
dependent’’ council suggested
the new tack that the immigrat-
ion apologists had discovered--
drop the most offensive discri-
minatory bits, because what’s
really important is that we limit
the numbers of people entering
Canada.

This ‘‘new approach to
Canada’s global relationship”’
proposed that we could best
alleviate the world’s ‘‘populat-
ion problem”’ by exporting food,

other goods and technology,

rather than by permitting un-
controlled immigration.
New Bill

Canadians then seemed ready
to accept an alternative to the
last immigration law, which was
passed at a time when the
country was searching hard for a
workforce in an expanding eco-
nomy. So, on Nov. 24 of last
year, brand-new immigration
minister Bud Cullen unveiled
C-24.

C-24 aims to ‘‘foster the
development of a strong and
viable economy and prosperity
for all regions of Canada.’’
Included in its package are an
apparently liberal response to a
UN convention on political re-
fugees, a whole new section on
the time-honored ‘‘national se-
curity’’ and a redefinition of the
“‘visiting’’ laborer.

While the first two items
mentioned are interesting new
wrinkles in the game, the clas-
sification of worker immigrants
as “‘visitors’’ in the bill illustra-
tes the worst, but most impor-
tant, aspects of the bill. More so

_ than in the past, these people
will not have the right to work in

Canada unless they obtain a
work permit before entering the
country. They will not have the
right to remain in Canada once
their permit has expired nor to

apply for permanent residence ~

while they are working here.

Most importantly, they will
not have the right to benefit
from social welfare programs-
unemployment, health insuran-
ce, family allowance-although
they must contribute to these
programs.

The costs of immigration, in
terms of social welfare, have
been high in the past few years,
although the government has
sought to limit the number of
entries by extra-legal methods,
such as ministers’ decrees. The
slackening of the economy, with
consequent unemployment, us-
ually mean that it is the ‘‘new
Canadian’”’ with little job secur-
ity whose job is among the first
to go. Unemployment insurance
and welfare, as inadequate as
they are, still cost the nation a
bundle when out-of-work fig-
ures hover around 12 per cent.

 

by Kathy Neilsen

Interesting interview.

Interviewer: Hello, and welcome to interesting people. Our
interesting person this week is Richard, the actor. Richard,
how do you feel about theatre in Vancouver?

Richard: How would you like to sleep with an equity actor?
Interviewer: Well, V'll be back later with more of Richard’s
interview. So, because I’ve got all this space left, here’s my
very own Christmas Fantasy:

It all began one peaceful winter night in a 3-storey adobe
apartment house during the 20’s. In a sub-basement
walkdown lived a wise but gouty old man named Leon.

Everyday, Leon’s grandson would come to visit, and Leon
would tell him great pickle stories (sadly he had a lisp) and one
peaceful winter’s night Leon’s grandson, Mel, said ‘‘I’ve had
enough of pickle stories, I’m getting out of here.”’

““Nic,’’ said the old man, ‘‘don’t go, I'll tell you one you
haven’t heard before.”’

“Grandfather, my names not Nic! It’s Mel, Mel Steinberg.”’
““You’re just saying that because you're angry, Nicky.’’

ae ”
Jeese.

 

 

“You think just pernnee

know nothing? Your not to ol

went to the North Po

Mel spent &any months playing with paint and wood trying
to adapt the decoy duck principle for catching whales.

One day, word came that the stock market had crashed and
Leon (who had lost everything) had tried to kill himself by
jumping up onto the street from his apartment window.
for the wire that was to come the
next day with details of what had happened. Word didn’t
arrive for 6 months (you knew it was coming didn’t you) and

Mel was frantic waitin

when news came, it was bad.

Leon survived his leap but had died anyway.
Out of respect for the old man and because he was getting
little gamey from being up north with no one to talk to except

his sweet baboo, he changed his name to Nick.

The rest is history.

ou’ve gone to college, I don’t
ow to spank, Nick.’’
I’m 28 years old, grandfather,’’ and with that, Mel left.
He wanted to go as far from civilization as he could get, but
he was afraid of mac the subway at night in New York so he
ei ;

 

Canada, then, is moving in-
creasingly to the European
model in which migrant work-
ers, generally without their
families, are permitted condit-
ional entry. When the boom
falls out of the continental
economies, as it did during the
oil crisis, laborers are deported
en masse.

Canada’s new bill introduces
the concept of ‘‘conditional ac-
ceptance’’ of immigrants-they
must accept to live in isolated
areas, or be content with less
prestigious jobs which Canad-
ians refuse. ‘

Last summer prior to the
Olympics, the federal govern-
ment invoked extraordinary
legislation, in the form of the
Temporary Security Act (Bill
C-85) which was designed to
grant Games security forces the
power to prevent terrorism. At
the time, the bill was described
as a measure to grant powers
similar to those under the War
Measures Act, without stirring
up citizens in other parts of the
country, as happened in 1970.

C-85 was allowed to expire in
December, but its ‘‘temporary”’
nature is seemingly attached to
its name only. The new immi-
gration law, C-24 incorporates
the same measures and broad- |

ens the powers under it to |
include the threat of expulsion |

to all permanent residents (i.e.
landed immigrants).
Arrest Powers

The bill grants the right to

arrest without warrant to every
peace officer and immigration
officer in the country. Further-
more, the minister of immigrat-
ion and the solicitor-general can
‘deport any person, other than
a permanent resident or a
Canadian citizen, with no hear-
ing,’’ and without even requir-
ing either to offer an excuse.

Further, even permanent re-
sidents can now be deported
after an appeal, by the minister
filing a ‘‘security certificate.’’
Immunity from deportation,
formerly achieved after five
years’ residence, no longer will
exist.

The section on political refug-
ees is particularly misleading,
since it appears to entertain the
legal obligations Canada assu-
med as a signatory to a 1969
United Nations convention re-
lating to their status.

The bill, one Latin American
church group claims, ‘‘fails to
recognize the special circumst-
ances which make a refugee a.
refugee.’’ Under the bill, refu-
gees will have to satisfy the
same requirements as normal
immigration applicants.

Veiling a repressive security
measure, more plausibly direct-
ed at situations such as October
1970, under an immigration act
probably seems pretty crafty to
the solicitor-general. Citizens
who might oppose such impos-
itions as the War Measures Act,
certainly appear to be more
disposed toward an immigration
bill which apparently blames

outsiders for many of our social]

ills.

The logic of the new bill wears
a little thin. Canada simply
doesn’t want immigrants right
now.

 

 

 

aeney