Initially published in the Alliston Herald on November 7, 2008
Our society has made great progress on issues of gender equality from the days of my childhood. In consequence, the future for my seven-year-old daughter is much brighter than it was for women of my generation.
There nevertheless remains room for improvement in the elimination of paternalistic thought and attitudes that regard the role of a woman as subservient to a male. It is an attitude illustrated by a memory from my youth when a neighbour commented that he would never vote for newly elected Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark because he could not "control" his spouse, Maureen McTeer, and ensure that she took his last name.
In my column of October 17, 2008 I referred to remarks made by perennial Green Party candidate Peter Ellis at the Collingwood all-candidates debate. I wrote that, in the course of his opening statement, Ellis referred to the pending marriage of Helena Guergis and posed a rhetorical question as to where she would ultimately reside. I was critical of the comments and the arguably sexist innuendo that a woman would "follow" the man.
The day following the debate the Wasaga Sun reported that: "Ellis told Simcoe.com he was just wishing her (Guergis) the best but said that one could ask the question, where is she going to live."
Ellis evidently took offence to my remarks and circulated letters to editors throughout Simcoe-Grey questioning why I would "invent" a story about what he said.
Ellis claims that at the Collingwood debate he told the audience about Guergis' upcoming marriage and congratulated her. I do question the absurdity of Ellis using scarce time in his opening statement to raise the issue. If he wished to congratulate Guergis could he not have done so in private? Was he hoping to score points with his genteel manner and knowledge of etiquette?
From the cynical perspective, a more likely explanation is that the remarks were a misguided effort to score political points with the innuendo that Guergis would not reside in Simcoe-Grey after the wedding.
Remarkably, in his letter Ellis also pronounced, "At no time did I pose a rhetorical question as to where Guergis would ultimately reside."
Although Ellis denies asking a rhetorical question, the quote he gave to the Sun certainly appears to expose his motive in raising the issue.
Oddly enough, Ellis' letter perhaps unwittingly reinforces my initial criticism. He writes, "I wish them [Guergis and Jaffer] the best and I am sure they will enjoy western Canada." He adds "...why did Guergis not tell the public that she was going to marry a person from Edmonton...".
Once again, these remarks seem to reflect a paternalistic attitude and/or assumption that Guergis will "follow" the man and move to Alberta.
In reality, there is not a scintilla of evidence that Guergis intends to move to Alberta. Although I have been critical of Guergis and her performance as a Member of Parliament, I do not believe that she would abandon her constituents in this manner. If she were to do so the residents of Simcoe-Grey would certainly have a right to object. Not before.
The issue of Guergis' marriage and any archaic assumptions and/or innuendo that go with them are best left in the dinosaur age.
Unfortunately, Ellis' letter suggests that he still doesn't "get it." His remarks were a disservice to his candidacy and the local Green Party effort.
Significantly, some Green Party insiders felt the tactic detracted from their message and objected to it being an issue. Ellis apparently ignored such counsel and continued merrily along. My advice for the Green party: It's time for a new candidate.
