Debate Watcher No More

Earlier today, the media consortium decided to exclude Elizabeth May of the Green Party of Canada from the televised leaders' debates.

It was originally suggested that they did so at the truculent behest of three party leaders, those of the Bloc, Conservatives and NDP. However, The Canadian Press recently reported that Gilles Duceppe indicated his preference for May not to be included, not his refusal to attend if the decision went the other way.

Ergo, the blame for May's exclusion in the debates lies squarely on the manly shoulders of the cowardly duo Steven Harper and Jack Layton.

Should the decision to exclude May stand, let it be known that this political junkie and avid debate watcher will be turning her gaze toward another screen.

As it happens, the US Presidential debate between Obama and McCain will be occurring on the same evening as the Canadian English language debate.

Guess which debate I'll be watching?

Recommend this post

Exclusion of May sends Votes to Greens

The news that the media consortium has ruled against the inclusion of Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, in the televised debates has me so disgusted that I can feel my blood pressure rising.

That three of the parties didn't want May in the debates speaks volumes about their view of what 'democracy' means and the rights of voters. And since the Liberals had been open about their support for her inclusion, we know which parties they are.

The Conservatives have an excuse. No progressive expects Canada's neocons and Republicans in sheep's clothing to act honourably.

But the once-grassroots, once-principled, once pro-democracy and champion-of-voter-rights NDP hasn't a leg to stand on.

It was crass partisanship that was at play here, in all its ugliness.

If for no other reason - and there are plenty of good reasons - my vote will be staying Green this election. Had flirted with voting Liberal, but this decision and the partisanship behind the scenes has angered me to the boiling point.

It'll be Green all the way: with my vote, my volunteering and my writing.

Recommend this post

Safemeat Video Going Viral

And I'm helping it along.

The video tickles the funny bone. It also targets the Harper Government's legislation which changed food inspection from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to the food industry.



Go visit the Safemeat website for more audacity.

Recommend this post

Greens Challenging in Vancouver Centre

This interesting BC news comes as a pleasant surprise:

A short item in the B.C. section of Friday's esteemed Globe and Mail observed, “The Vancouver-Centre race is shaping up to be a showdown between [Conservative Lorne] Mayencourt, incumbent Liberal Hedy Fry and New Democrat Michael Byers.”

While it might seem an obvious prediction that the Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats, each with a well-known candidate, will be competitive in urban Vancouver, the Globe still somehow managed to get it wrong.

You see, the easily overlooked Green Party has a star candidate of its own in the riding: Adriane Carr. Carr is just about as high profile as Greens get. She is, of course, as seen on TV as the former leader of the provincial party, and is the current deputy to national leader Elizabeth May.

And get this — she's polling high.

According to Rob Hines, the Green Party's regional organizer for B.C. and the North, three recent polls have showed Carr to be in second behind the incumbent Fry.

Working the riding off-election always makes a difference. People get to know you and, if they like what they discover, they also learn to trust you.

Sounds like Carr could deliver one of the surprises of this election. Wouldn't that be fun!?

Recommend this post

CON Spam-a-Lot Redux

Ooooh, a spamming HarperCrit! Here, let me help you with that:

femaleCONvoter said...
In rural southwestern Ontario, I will be voting Conservative again. Canada deserves a leader that can be counted on to make the right decisions for this country. Harper has proven to Canadian voters that his government was the right choice last time and will be this time.

We must be doing something right over here to be so graced with your presence.

Of note, femaleCONvoter's pseudo blog has been ever-so-recently created and appears to have been designed purely for spamming sites like Challenging the Commonplace.

Fits right in with that other Connie Spam-a-Lot Campaign, now doesn't it?

Way to go, Stevie! Quality supporters - just what a campaign needs.

Recommend this post

Common Sense Revolution 2.0

According to Steven Harper, voters "will choose between direction or uncertainty, between common sense or risky experiments, between steadiness or recklessness."

Behold! the return of the Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution™.

It's Common Sense Revolution 2.0, specially designed for the whole country. It's not just for Ontario anymore!

Watch for it people. Find that video of Harper talking "common sense" in Ottawa this morning. Make it go viral.

And publish this new meme: Common Sense is BACK - this time for Canada.

Recommend this post

Coyne: Emerson retires because of nosebleed?!

Excellent post on Andrew Coyne's blog on the reasons David Emerson has given for retiring from politics - for now. Some excellent quotes straight from the horse's ass mouth.

Emerson: "I told Paul that if he stayed on as Leader that I would stay on [with the Liberals] and we’d have some fun in opposition.”

To which Coyne appropriately responds,

He would have spent his days, that is, loudly trashing the government he now defends, with as much venom as he did before he joined it. He doesn’t actually mean a word of any of it, you understand — these things he says to the voters — the enraged attacks, the pious defenses, the solemn promises and the heartfelt invocations. It’s all just “fun.”

Those Conservatives! They just can't keep their mouths shut, now can they?

Recommend this post

MacKay has Foot in Mouth Disease

Over on The Galloping Beaver, Alison has written a post which is so hugely important that it must spread throughout the Canadian blogosphere.

Here's the teaser:

Responding to an amazingly leading question as to whether he "thought the Taliban would target Canada's military in an attempt to influence the election outcome", Peter MacKay takes the bait.

Go visit Alison's place. Read the post in full, including the articles it links to.

The report from The Associated Press, for example, which was sent out yesterday, reinforces what progressives have been arguing all along, that Canada needs to GET OUT of Afghanistan.

Together with Alison's commentary and the links she provides, there's ample evidence that Canada's own neocons, the Harper crowd, have adopted the faulty logic used by the Bush administration and now continuing in use by the US Republican Party and John McCain. That is, "If we don't fight them over there, they'll fight us over here."

Of course the reverse is the case and is basic Psychology 101: They'll fight us over here if we fight them over there.

Wouldn't YOU fight back if foreigners invaded your country, your home and your privacy?

Peter MacKay's comments reveal further that the Harpercrits see potential FINANCIAL GAIN in Canada's continued military presence in Afghanistan. For example:

"[Canada's military presence in Afghanistan] does come at a huge sacrifice," Mr. MacKay said. "The human cost is enormous but the benefits that flow to our country, certainly to Afghanistan and to our allies, are huge."

Those benefits are OIL and the expansion of the military industrial complex.

Go visit The Galloping Beaver and read Alison's post in full.

Then spread the word.

Recommend this post

Podcasts - Stories of Poverty in the First Person

Speaking of all that money being thrown around to buy CONservative votes, how about listening to these podcasts for a cold splash of reality?

Have just finished and uploaded the latest episodes, 13 and 14, taken from chapters of the book Policies of Exclusion, Poverty and Health: Stories from the front, a project which was done wholly by and for women living over the poverty cliff.

Go visit. Listen, comment and rate!

UPDATE: Just received the following feedback from an educator in New York: "Am requiring my personal health students to listen to an assigned story from Crystal's podcasts and then to have them have a conversation together, sharing their experiences. Thank you so much for a great resource."

It's rare to get feedback, so this has made my day - and likely many others to follow.

Recommend this post

$8.8 Billion in Pre-Election Spending

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has been adding up the bill. It all rather leaves me speechless.

The Harper government's pre-election spending is out of this world. The group says the Conservatives have doled out a whopping $8.8 billion since June - including a $2,000 grant to commemorate a UFO sighting.

Hey Steve! Fiscal conservative, much?

UPDATE: This Canadian Press report fleshes out where some of the $8.8 billion - and counting - is going and the kind of questions and response it's getting.

Recommend this post

Electoral Reform Most Pressing Election Issue

Not the environment. Not poverty. Not the healthcare system. Not crime, gangs, or violence against women. Not abortion. Not the war in Afghanistan or the US invasion of Iraq and their imminent attack on Iran. Not the sabre rattling between the US and Russia.

No, none of these.

While no one would claim that these issues aren't important, no matter on which side a person stands, the fact of the matter is they won't get addressed by ANY party or politician. Not in any substantive, meaningful way.

Not unless something fundamental changes in our eroding democracy.

I say this as a woman and activist whose employment income is limited to below poverty levels by disability and who is passionate about peace, the environment, food and housing security, a woman's right to choose, and the development and sustainability of local economies.

The most pressing issue for the upcoming federal election and in next year's BC election and all future elections until it has been addressed is democratic and electoral reform.

Without the proportional representation of the voters' preference matched to the number of Members in Parliament and our provincial legislatures, democracy in Canada will continue to be a sham.

Without true democratic representation, issues of importance to voters, rather than issues of importance to those in power and their corporate backers, will continue to be ignored.

Recovering our democracy is the most pressing issue of our time.

Therefore, next time you nab a politician's attention - and make sure you do! -, ask this question:

Upon being elected, will you and your party take immediate steps to reform our electoral system?

For complete information about electoral reform visit FairVote Canada.

Recommend this post

ENOUGH with the US Election!

I'm mighty fed up with all the talk and chatter the past couple of weeks, particularly among Canadian bloggers but also on discussion forums, about the election going on in the USA. 

We CANADIANS have our own imminent election to talk about. And the lead-up to it is proving as interesting and volatile as the election is likely to be, including Steven Harper's plan to break his own election law by calling an election one year before his own fixed election date.

Fortunately, our media hasn't been so focused on the US elections that they've ignored what's going on at home. For example, there have been numerous editorials and commentary on this latest Harper move. Almost exclusively, these have been disapproving. 

In addition, there have been the accounts of voters frustrated by the Conservatives' use of taxpayer money to kick-start their flyer campaign.

And now come the pre-election spending announcements, one after another after another after another, which are reaching into the billions in payoffs, all with the intention of buying votes, particularly in Quebec.

Then there is the pledge to open an independent investigation into the listeriosis outbreak.

(Sure, you do the right thing Harper! Cut back on spending on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, then spend more than you've saved on an "independent investigation" to cover up - oops, uncover - the facts. You know the ones: the facts which suggest that cutting the number of CFIA inspectors and making product inspection the responsibility of industry, as your government has also suggested for the airline industry, is not the way to protect Canadians.)

This is just a start on all that's going on this side of the border.

I urge my fellow bloggers to turn their attention to the home front. We need your critique and commentary!

Recommend this post

Harper's Cadman Testimony: Contradicting himself?

This sure sounds like shady business to me:

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper has testified that he personally authorized an offer made to late MP Chuck Cadman in 2005 for help defeating the Liberal government. In sworn testimony filed Wednesday in Ontario Superior Court, Harper said it happened after he heard Cadman was willing to side with the Tories but couldn't because of financial distress and fear of losing an election.... It was Harper's first detailed account of his role in the so-called Cadman affair and, during four hours of testimony, he offered two different versions of when he first learned about Cadman's financial troubles.

Did Harper trip over his own tongue?

Also Harper states several times his belief that reporter and BC author Tom Zytarek doctored the tape of the conversation held on September 9, 2005 between Harper and himself. Perchance this may lead to another suit, one which Mr. Zytarek initiates.

Recommend this post

Bring on the Debates! - Greens have a MP

I'm thrilled that the Greens have cracked the one-MP mark.

The media consortium made it a requirement for participation in the televised debates that parties have at least one Member of Parliament.

The GPC now has one MP. Ergo, by the consortium's own arbitrary rules, the leader of the GPC should be allowed in the debates. That's what a large majority of Canadians have indicated they want, poll after poll. That's what they should get.

Would it have been better had the Greens' first MP been someone else? Yes. Would it have been better had that first MP been one that had run and been elected as a Green? Yes.

However, not one Green member of any government worldwide has been elected with a first-past-the-post electoral system, which heavily stacks the deck against grassroots parties trying to break through. The global Greens have elected people to office only through proportional representation systems.

Therefore, for Canada's Greens it has been a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. If they can't get the media exposure which is so vital in Canadian elections, that of participating in the televised debates, then they haven't a chance of winning even one MP in a general federal election.

The Greens' best chances have always been with by-elections. There are four in the works as I write, three to come up for vote September 8th, one September 22nd.

Alas, Stevie-baby has taken a tantrum, is reneging on his promise and own law regarding fixed election dates, and is about to call a general election in advance of the by-election polls.

Stevie doesn't want the Greens in the debates.¹ Neither does the NDP's Jack Layton.

Makes one wonder what these leaders are afraid of.

As to their reasons for excluding May, she addresses them in the interview linked above.

Bring on the debates!

¹ That link is to a CTV interview with May, aired earlier today. You'll have to suffer through the Cons' nauseating TV ad first, but the May interview is worth waiting for.

Recommend this post

Election Fever and Bully Tactics

Don't know how many of this blog's readers have been following the innuendo and bully-talk from Harper re an upcoming election call - this after having called FOUR by-elections whose campaigns are already underway.

The polling date for three of those by-elections is September 8th. The fourth is/was to be decided September 22nd, so the 28-day period of campaigning for that has just begun.

If the Writ is dropped early in September (speculation is between the 2nd and 10th), then taxpayer money spent by Elections Canada specifically for those by-elections will have been wasted and the various campaigns will have to find more $ to extend their campaigning over a longer period of time. (How do campaign financing laws come into play in such situations, I wonder?)

Since the Cons have been using, illegally, government money to jump-start their own campaign, they are likely in better position financially than the other parties. Among the Cons' alleged illegal activities have been the in-and-out financing scheme they used during the 2006 election and the junk flyers which have been arriving in your mail boxes over the past several weeks.

Again, regarding those four by-elections, can you imagine the uncertainty the threat of an imminent general election is having on the parties' volunteers? Not to mention, the uncertainty generated among voters? I mean, they're scheduled to vote September 8th and 22nd, which is now almost certain to change.

In the political blogosphere, the drama of 'will there be an election or won't there? And when?' has been playing out for weeks as the Harpercrits have refused to appear before Parliamentary committees (still occurring over the summer and including the committee investigating the in-and-out scheme) - even when issued summonses - and they've been seen to be running scared: too much would be revealed through the investigation of the various committees.

So Harper, having made into law fixed election dates per his promise to Conservative supporters (the first such election to take place October 2009), is about to call an election in advance anyway, one year early.

It's been a game of chicken for a long time, but it's typically been the case in minority situations that an Opposition non-confidence motion brings down the Government and thus forces an election. However, Stevie baby, being the bully and micro-manager that he is, can't stand another person playing with his toys. In this case, the toy is the Government of Canada.

Further evidence of an election in the air is yesterday's announcement by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson of his proposed Bill to stiffen penalties for violence against pregnant women. This Bill is purportedly designed to supplant the contentious private members' Bill C-484 ("Unborn Victims of Crime Act") introduced by Conservative MP Ken Epp.

Not surprisingly, Bill C-484 has drawn an outpouring of negative grassroots action and consequent publicity, including a strong 88% vote against it from the Canadian Medical Association.

A reading of Bill C-484 makes evident the intent of its proponents to recriminalize abortion. If this hadn't been clear before, then Epps' rejection of Nicholson's proposed law and his avowal to keep Bill C-484 alive are additional proof of his - and his Conservative supporters' - no longer hidden agenda.

So are we fooled by this Harper-via-Nicholson move, to "protect pregnant women" and scuttle Epp & Company's ambitions? Not unless we forget that the tabling of Nicholson's proposed Bill requires Parliament to be sitting and all signs point to Harper calling an election BEFORE Parliament resumes in the Fall.

One journalist covering this escalation of election fever is Paul Wells, the editor of Macleans. Another blog to watch is Kady O'Malley's Inside the Queensway. Kady - coincidentally, also with Macleans - has become my favourite Canadian journalist. Among her adventures has been liveblogging the meetings of the House of Commons committee investigating the Cons' 2006 election in-and-out scheme. Had it not been for Kady, I suspect that certain antics of the Cons to disrupt the committee and evidence coming out of the meetings would have gone largely unreported by the rest of the media.

NB: I may vote Liberal this time (the first time in decades) and have already offered my help with the local campaign but also for the Greens. Normally, I vote Green, but there's no way Canada can afford to have Harper continue holding the reins of power. So if it looks like the Liberal here stands a chance - very unlikely in this riding which swings between the NDP and the Cons (yea, weird) -, then I'll vote Liberal. If he doesn't, then my vote will remain Green.

ETA: Here's a great post, over at DTK, on the C-484 issue and the schism it reveals in the Conservative party.

ETA #2: Andrew Coyne, with whom I seldom agree, wrote a great piece for the August 20th Macleans issue. It succinctly and humorously lays out Harper's election kerfuffle.

Recommend this post

New FB Group Targets Cons' Spam-a-Lot Campaign

Hats off to Pale, over at A Creative Revolution for starting up a new Facebook group to counter the HarperCons' recent Spam-a-Lot Campaign.

Tired of receiving campaign-style junk mail in your mailbox? You know the ones, those black and white flyers paid for by your tax dollars. Then head on over to ACR, read what Pale's been up to, check out her snazzy new flyers - a refreshing antidote to the nausea-inducing Conservative rhetoric and lies junking up your mailbox - and sign up to the new FB group!

ETA: Just received another TWO of the Cons' junk flyers, each different, courtesy of my non-MP Ken Epp. (Voters for my electoral district chose NDPer Jean Crowder.) One of the flyers was the one attacking Vancouver's InSite.

Such a move doesn't go over so well in these here parts, Ken. British Columbians are rather proud of the fact that InSite has saved lives (PDF).

Recommend this post

Don't Travel To (or Out Of) US

Earlier this month, I wrote two posts concerning US security policy. One exposed the illogic of the US restricting military exports to Canada while at the same time wanting more Canadian military involvement in US ventures.

The other post discussed the latest powers given to US border agents in defence of "homeland security." I stated then that ever since 911, the Iraq invasion, the US PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security, FEMA, etc., I've had no desire to visit south of the border and that, in fact, Daphne and I turned down an all-expenses paid invitation to present at a poverty forum in the States and opportunities to expand WISE south of the border.

Most of us have read of USians who undergo unpleasant experiences at the border when attempting to return home from trips to certain countries or regions and of US returnees whose apparent misfortune is to have non-beige skin. We'll also have read of Canadians who have been stopped at the US border and turned back.

The following two accounts perhaps highlight best how bad things have become.

Emily Feder, writing for AlterNet.org (one of my favourite US news sites), reports of her own experience at the border two weeks ago. As she writes, "I was recently stopped by Homeland Security as I was returning from a trip to Syria. What I saw in the hours that followed shocked and disturbed me." I urge people to read the full article.

Then in this Canadian news article, we learn of two Canadian women who were denied entry.

The purpose of their visit? To help as unpaid volunteers in post-Katrina rebuilding.

I am hoping the first report, by Feder, gets the attention it deserves and that US regular media picks up the story.

USians need to be made aware of what's happening at their borders, since US security policy is creating problems it is designed to prevent. Not only does it create more, not less, enemies and encourages international disdain, but the increasing difficulty of even USians to return home without having their rights and/or person molested suggests the policy is effectively converting the Land of the Free to the Land of the Imprisoned.

Regarding the second report, this provides further evidence of volunteers and social activists being unwelcome in the good 'ole U S of A. Since Daphne and I work on poverty issues, I can easily envision the two of us - both grey haired and approaching 60 - being fingerprinted, iris-scanned, frisked and detained for hours at the border, and then turned away.

As for me, there's been another change in behaviour. I automatically trash all Calls for Papers for conferences and events which take place in the US. Since there are cross-border nonprofit organizations of which I am a member, this means I've become less active than I'd been previously. I wish this weren't so, but the increasing insularity of the US forces such changes.

I wonder if international organizations based in the US have noticed the international fall-off in participation?

NB: This month, Scientific American is beginning a series on security, technology and privacy.

Recommend this post

Staples Discriminates Against People Without Phones - P2

This is a follow-up to my previous post about Staples' online store initially refusing my order because I'd not provided a phone number.

The Staples representative had written that it was Visa policy which was guiding store policy. That in fact, Visa required customers to provide a phone number, one which must match the phone number purportedly listed on the Visa cardholder's account.

I wrote then, in an addendum to the original post, that I'd recalled reading somewhere that Visa did NOT require customers to provide a phone number. And now here's the proof that indeed they don't.

Address Verification Service (AVS) helps ensure that the person making the purchase with their Visa card is the same person who receives the Visa card’s monthly statement. By matching the billing address your Visa card issuer has on file against the billing address you provide during check-out, merchants and issuers work together to help ensure that lost or stolen Visa cards are not being used in card-not-present environments to purchase goods or services.

For cardholders, AVS means that unless the correct billing address is provided to the online, mail or telephone merchant during check-out, the transaction will not be completed which may stop a fraudulent purchase from being made.

That is a complete quote from Visa Canada's website. Nowhere is it mentioned that a phone number need be provided or verified against a phone number on file at Visa.

In other words, Staples is passing off their own policy as being that of Visa, in order to justify their requiring customers to include a phone number when submitting online orders.

While I understand that online merchants may want a means of contacting persons who place orders, in the event of delivery problems, a phone number shouldn't be the only (non)option provided.

Many low-income people have free web-based email accounts, to which they're able to gain access from public computers at libraries, local resource centres, and so on.

Therefore, in order to be more inclusive of people's diverse circumstances, online merchants should offer their customers a choice between providing a phone number and an email address.

Recommend this post

Newest Podcast: Episode 12 - Kaelyn

Episode 12 of 24. A reading from the book Policies of Exclusion, Poverty & Health: Stories from the front. Compiled, with Introduction and Reports by Chrystal Ocean. Copyright 2005.

Kaelyn is a recovering addict who, over the course of the telling of her story, was trying to get away from her ex-boyfriend, became homeless and was struggling with extreme fatigue which in turn was impeding her ability to retain employment. The connections among poor nutrition, tenancy legislation which favours owners, the focus by society and governments on the young and the old, and punitive welfare policies which both diminish attempts to be independent and effectively discourage clients from finding work and staying employed are all drawn together in this story.

There are many bits I could quote, but these four short sentences at the very end of Kaelyn's story resonate with me the most:

I’m very proud of my home when I have a home. I make it into a nice place to be. I need to make my home beautiful. I need a home to make beautiful.

After listening to this episode, PLEASE RATE and comment. (To do this, you must have the episode window open on the podcast site and scripting must be enabled. If you are reading this from the channel's homepage, click on the episode title to open the new window.) You'll see a comment form at the bottom of the page. To rate, pass your mouse over the stars and click the star representing your choice. Podcast channels with the highest ranking and number of ratings attract more listeners!

Regarding comments, I'd be delighted to participate in discussions on the stories, whether on the podcast site or as part of an academic course.

Recommend this post

Staples Discriminates Against People Without Phones

Anyone who has ordered anything online is familiar with the requirement to fill in all form fields which are marked by an asterisk (*). Usually, the asterisk is highlighted in red - as in * - just to make sure we don't miss it.

One of those fields is always for one's phone number, with full area code. Since this low-income person hasn't a phone, cell or landline, my ornery response has been to enter 123-456-7890.

Sometimes the auto response doesn't like the three digits I use for the area code. In such cases, I use 250, which is the area code for my location.

Now my workaround has been stymied by Staples, whose online store I just visited to order a $139 computer cart. Staples refuses to accept my order without a legitimate phone number, one which I assume must be mine.

Ergo, Staples is discriminating against their low-income customers who haven't a phone and other persons who may choose to be without a phone for other reasons.

Thing is, I've purchased from the Staples online store before and never had a problem. In fact, the desk I'm replacing the cart with, was purchased that way, as have many other items.

And I've regularly purchased from the store in town.

For large or heavy items, my preference is to scope out the goods in the store and order online, because then there isn't an additional charge for shipping. That is, if I made the long trek again into town - a challenge, given I've a disability -, and ordered the computer cart from the store, I would be charged extra to have them deliver it to my apt.

The price is the same, both instore and online, but the latter includes free shipping for orders of $50 or more. The store in town assumes everyone has wheels with which to drive away their purchases. Thus the issue of shipping is another point of discrimination.

So I'm miffed, which is why I'm posting this for all to see. Rather than get angry, I'm going to get even.

ETA: I hate the disempowerment this makes me feel and am sick of having always to think of workarounds for assumption-loaded policies. Am really feeling down right now. It's like being punched in the gut so hard that you can't catch your breath... Am so sick of the fight.

ETA2: To give Staples credit, their representative has just responded to my snarky response with a workaround. Doesn't change the fact, however, that a phone number is required for their and other online retailers' order forms. From my Staples contact, it sounds like they're dealing with Visa requirements. But who knows? And why would a TELEPHONE be a requirement for a credit card purchase anyway? And is this just an excuse for store policy?

ETA3: Just remembered reading years ago that Visa does NOT require card holders to give their phone number. Has that changed, or is it indeed the case that Staples (and other online retailers) are trying to use this purported requirement to support their own discriminatory policies?

Recommend this post