,
25 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
1/25 After careful reading & consideration of Jennifer Ditchburn’s (JD) article, here are my personal thoughts. By firstly demeaning the appt. ( of women to cabinet as a “laudable gesture”, her bias is evident from the start to the end of this article & just reinforces old tropes
2/As a career woman working in a male dominated profession for over 35 years, I believe JD has done a disservice to many women who were trail blazers & to those who have followed in their footsteps & changed the workplace. I personally reject JD’s petty & subjective commentary.
3/JD’s insinuations that gender insulates powerful women from being responsible, accountable & beyond reproach is truly objectionable. Though, I am sure editors thought this undermining of our faith in good government & this government’s commitments to ensuring equality & ...
4/...a non-discriminatory work environment, would create outrage & generate clicks, it does the very thing JD is criticizing others of doing: undermining women in the workplace & sowing division. “Politicsplaining” based on rumours, innuendo, conjecture....
5/...& biased propositions do not make for reasonable conversations about real issues faced by all workers in all workplaces facing pressures of all kinds. Parliamentary govt, based on tradition, is a hierarchical & process-oriented environment that is driven by the political...
6/...philosophy of the party in power. The PM has the prerogative to select, shuffle or remove any MP from cabinet, caucus or committee. The cabinet is tasked to fulfill the govt’s mandate that is driven by the party’s platform & the PM’s leadership style.
7/ As such, MPs’ personal agendas are irrelevant. The only message that is sent when a cabinet minister is appointed, shuffled to another portfolio or removed from cabinet is that the PM has a mandate to fill & the PM has decided, based on a number of factors, to formulate...
8/..a cabinet to meet the constantly changing demands facing a govt over a 4-year term. While the media may seek reasons to build its own narratives to sell print or generate clicks, the govt is not obligated to provide them with reasons.I find JD’s comment regarding no obvious..
9/... reasons for JWR’s shuffle to Veterans Affairs to be disingenuous given there is ample reporting of opinions from those outside of cabinet on her ministerial performance. Those who do not follow politics may be persuaded by JD’s argument that not all cabinet ministers have..
10/.. their judgments & decisions questioned. The fact is that by lifting cabinet confidentiality & client-solicitor privilege, many Canadians heard about the sausage-making for the first time. There is good reason not to waive these privileges because politics is a messy ...
11/... business of balancing competing interests. It is this very debate that we elect politicians to undertake in order to arrive at the best decision to reflect the public interest of Canadians. The alternative would be to have bureaucrats decide policy & legal frameworks.
12/ In doing background before writing this piece, did JD approach Ralph Goodale or Marc Garneau to determine if they had been challenged, asked to reconsider their positions, provide rationales for their decisions in their many years of service?
13/ By inferring that there is an old boy’s network at play, the proposition that JWR was a victim is bolstered, as is done when the genders of those that JWR named in her testimony are specified.
14/ Little attention is paid to the fact that JWR was a rookie politician/minister with 3.5 years of service. Political communications, persuasion & consensus building are critical skills that are honed with years of practice within the political arena.
15/ Time in government & refining political skills & imperatives should never be underestimated in terms of being re-elected.
16/ Did JD research every cabinet assignment, shuffle & removal over the past 20 years from cabinet to make her claim? Maybe, JD didn’t remember because there were no obvious reasons to the media, but I grant you the PMs and most likely the cabinet members were aware of ...
17/...the reasons & due to cabinet confidentiality it was not disclosed. Furthermore, many of the criticisms that JD claimed are levelled against women were probably equally levelled against men who fell out of govt favour.
18/ I agree with JD’s proposition that “her story of the workplace is so darn relatable”. That is because all persons, no matter their gender, race, ethnicity or religion, know what it is like to undermined, condescended to, overlooked & ignored in the workplace no matter...
19/...how much they’ve achieved. Workplace politics is not limited to any one person or organization. I would suggest that only those in the media & opposing politicians have been playing up the “power optics at play in male-dominated Ottawa” in their self-interests.
20/ My hope is that Canadians know that this story is not about gender or race, except for those who benefit from that perception.
21/ I do know from personal experience, whether a corporate lawyer of a multinational corp is a male or female, they are never shrinking violets. The Corporate lawyers’ perceptions of government lawyers are not always flattering, which only lends credence to the suggestion...
22/...that an external lawyer (not gender specified) with experience in deferred prosecution cases was a very practical & wise suggestion given the fact that the legislation was new & most likely there were no public prosecutors with corporate experience gained in other...
23/... jurisdictions where DPAs are common practice. Furthermore, corps, govts & NGOs frequently request outside counsel to support their internal legal depts. Perception is everything in politics & journalism. Please remind Cdns when the media has interviewed the mother or
24/...father of a male cabinet minister to get their opinions on how their son was being treated by the PM? So the comments made in the article may support the proposition that this govt is anti-feminist to demote a cabinet minister, question her testimony or her personal motives
25/However, I do not believe there is any age, gender, level of experience or position that a person holds that wields great power that is not subject to being challenged where they must defend their judgement & decisions, in particular when it comes to the law & politics. END!
