April 14, 2016

“The campaign to put a woman on Canadian currency makes me embarrassed to have a vagina”

Lauren SouthernRebel Commentator
 

Last month, Justin Trudeau announced that a woman would be featured on the next series of banknotes, to be issued in 2018. The press has, unsurprisingly, been ecstatic.

The Bank of Canada has actually put together a council of seven people for the momentous task of determining the woman who will grace our currency. They’ve gotten some real gems, including a women’s studies professor, an author who wrote 100 Canadian Heroines (and its riveting sequel, 100 More Canadian Heroines), and a “world championship hurdler”. Can you guess the qualification they have in common?

Everything I read about this story makes me embarrassed to have a vagina.

Margaret Conrad, a tenured professor sitting on the council of seven, stated she wants to see Muriel McQueen Fergusson on the note in part because “she was the first woman to sit on the city council here in Fredericton”. Is she really a key figure in history? Was she somehow the most accomplished mid-level municipal bureaucrat of all time? Or are we supposed to be impressed because she achieved something relatively unremarkable while having ovaries?

In an interview for the Globe and Mail, Victoria-based historian (and member of the council of seven) Merna Forster stated that “she has been writing letters to politicians and Bank of Canada governors for years saying that it is unacceptable not to have a single bill featuring a woman.” Forster has even started an online campaign asking for a woman to be enshrined on a banknote. According to the Globe, “she doesn’t know who she’d choose, but she’s hoping to see someone who represents Canada’s diversity”.

Last time I checked, Queen Elizabeth was on the $20 bill. Does Forster have some earthshaking news she’d like to share with the rest of us?

This has nothing to do with fighting any kind of discrimination, and everything to do with people simply wanting to feel better about themselves for the sake of being “progressive”. This kind of checkbox diversity serves no purpose but to make these diversity-police feel better about themselves.

I can imagine people making similar demands in the future to cater to groups that are even more “marginalized”. We’ll have to have transgender people, otherkins, and furries on every piece of legal tender issued by the Canadian government.

By all means, have a transgender otherkin furry plastered all over everything printed by the government, if they deserve it. But none quite come to mind at the moment.

I would respect the movement to have another woman on our currency if these gynocentric terrorists would drop the focus on gender and look exclusively at merit. If people came forward and said “we need to put a woman on a Canadian bill strictly because of the success and achievements she has made as a Canadian” that would be fine. I don’t know that any Canadian woman has achieved as much as someone like John A. Macdonald or William Lyon Mackenzie King, but they’d at least have an argument.

That’s what’s sad about this whole situation. Women are being given consideration because of accomplishments that wouldn’t be noteworthy if they had been men. Women shouldn’t become a coddled protected class just because they lack a Y chromosome. The whole idea of forcing a woman on the banknote is just as backwards and patronizing as the idea of making your cabinet 50% female.

They want a woman to be embedded in Canada’s currency for something that’s only an achievement because we consider a vagina a handicap. Being a woman isn’t a kind of retardation (despite what I’ll admit is mounting evidence to the contrary thanks to feminism).

Honestly, I’m going to throw up if I hear “diversity is our strength” one more time. What about success, achievement or creativity? Everyone in Canada seems obsessed with appearances above all else. This effort is just about being diverse for the sake of being diverse.

We have a perverse fixation on diversity. It needs to stop.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-05-17 10:34:43 -0400
I got it, just put a vagina on the 20$! I mean with all this liberal sex education BS, they could cover ALL women with one image! They could put a penis on another bill and a vibrator or finger on another and an anus on another. Am I missing something? I am sure Wynne will get back to me on that.
commented 2016-05-17 10:23:59 -0400
Judy you are big on facts regarding “woman are persons” but did you know that it is a lie that woman could not vote in Canada prior to WW 1. Did you also know that the MAJORITY OF MEN ALSO could NOT vote. This information is actually posted on the Elections Canada website but It seems the fembots out there conveniently skip it. My Great Grandmother voted in municipal elections BEFORE WW1 BECAUSE SHE WAS A PROPERTY OWNER. There are instances of women voting in Canada long before 1918. I might add in elections that EXCLUDED male voters. http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=his&document=chap2&lang=e
So history is not as cut and dry and the Feminist divisionists would like. There is also evidence that many women believed that most women were not knowledgeable enough to vote just like there was the opinion that most men were not educated enough to vote.

As for who is on our money. The Liberals are just pandering to the idiot class again simply to get votes. If you take the time to actually look at our F-kin money you will note that there already are women in abundance on the money. I am not talking about the queen. Look at the 5$ and 10$ Bill. In both images there are equal numbers of women and girls on them as there are males. Even the images of Canada’s veterans contains equal numbers of women than men even though men have done 99.5 per-cent of the fighting and dying!

I don’t think Lauren is anti-woman or anti-womens rights, she just wants a sane, justified, historic and balanced approached. For example all portrait images are of PRIME MINISTERS it has nothing to do with gender. I suppose you could stick Kim Campbell on a bill to appease the morons, but really?

Me thinks that this nonsense will never end. Me thinks that most lefties just sit there and continually contemplate what social idiocy they can come up with next. We were told the gay rights movement would end with marriage. Then out of nowhere they are adopting. Now its some ridiculous acronym and an equally ridiculous desire to make the plumbing industry rich by having a bathroom for every person that does not know what sex they really are. Where will that end? I honestly see an acceptance, in one form or another, of pedophilia in the not so distant future. I see people eventually being able to marry their hamster because they “love” it.

Sadly the world has become a hypocritical nuthouse of proportions never before seen and that nuthouse is growing everyday because the old communist handbook on how to take over the world is being utilized by the Liberal and Socialist Left political machine worldwide. They begin with your children. Brian Lilly continues to miss the point that Liberal desires to drop the voting age have to do with their control over our children in our learning institutions and through the mainstream and social media. One KGB agent who was involved with psych warfare in the Americas during the cold war called these Liberal Socialists “useful idiots” that could be molded by Soviet intelligence services to serve their purposes. These are the same “useful idiots” that are making world policy today. You think the cold war is over – THINK AGAIN. Cold war communist tactics are alive and well.

I sent a link to this KGB’s officers You-tube posts but rebel-media obviously did not see the vital importance of what this man had to say. His insight on how the communists infiltrated EVERY vestige of western society, namely its government and LEARNING institutions. Like Hitler, Mohammad, Stalin and his successors knew that the easiest way to take over anything is to start with the children. Control what they think and you have ALL the succeeding generations in your back pocket. This began in earnest in America in the 1960’s. Those communist dupes from the 60’s are NOW running everything. Their spawn, the likes of Trudeau and some who were there like Merkel and Mulcair will do their worst. I mean Michael Dewar said that communism is not an issue because it was simply an idea. The Ottawa Citizen and other papers printed that comment is if National Socialism was not just an idea! What a senseless stupid statement, but there it is in print no questions asked. So go back to the KGB psych war specialist and compare what he is saying to what is happening today. Go to the story on here by Faith talking about the EU and listen to the guy stating that it is a model of the Soviet system! Why do you think this is happening? Because most students in western Universities and Colleges have been taught this crap in droves since 1920 with it really taking off in the 60’s.

The entire protest industry in the west was basically started by communist agents. This, in particular, during the Vietnam war and civil rights movement. While there were legitimate concerns, it was more radical left groups that militarized the protests. They were being fed by people like this KGB agent. This is why some of the most vocal protests against the Vietnam war were socio-communist students groups run by the likes of Abby Hoffman. The western media and film industry after WW2 exploded into a gargle of leftist diarrhea. They in turn supported these student groups. They just honoured the retirement of Morley Safer. He said his biggest moment as a reporter was covering a US military burning and revenge mission of a village in Vietnam. Yet ole Morley and his cronies like Walter Cronkite NEVER filmed OR reported a single atrocity by the communists. Nor did they state that ununiformed, unidentified terrorists that fire on uniformed troops are NOT protected under any known convention. The amount of material you could publish on this could fill volumes but even today the media and publishers will have nothing to do with it. If you want to know a REAL conspiracy, that is it. They are masters are information selection and lies to suit their political and social agenda. Nothing has changed folks. The goal now may not be to spread open world-wide communism, but these leftist yabo’s are VERY successfully employing the tactics of Soviet era psych warfare to get what they want. All this talk of virtue signalling and the creating and establishment of previously non-existent terms like homophobia, islamophobia etc. etc. THAT is classic Soviet era psych warfare only the communist slogans and banners of bygone days are now incoherent labels and hashtags.

Anyway – leave the damn money alone.
commented 2016-05-02 15:19:26 -0400
Lauren, really enjoyed your article. The entire thing is just so silly. Guess this government thinks women need hand-holding, special initiatives, to make something of our lives. I thought we were equal.
commented 2016-04-24 13:36:59 -0400
Because it’s insert year is the dumbest explanation for anything.

“Hey, I just blew up Kentucky!”
“Why?”
“Because it’s 2016!”
“Oh, that makes sense.”
commented 2016-04-21 18:17:13 -0400
This comment I made earlier is the best one here ☺ Who better than the women who fought for women to finally be declared PERSONS, in Canada! No thanks to L. Southern…who is ashamed to be a female person it seems…who knew she was a conservative trans…?

There is no doubt who should be on the bill, if anyone wants a woman besides the Queen, actually, Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards who fought the courts for the right of women to be declared legal“persons” in Canada, for the first time on Oct.18, 1929 …they would be the ideal women for this.

Emily Murphy, a judge, whose decision was challenged by a lawyer who was losing his case declared the new magistrate’s (Emily’s) decision was not valid since Murphy was not a “person” under the law.

He was citing an 1876 ruling that " “Women are persons in matters of pains and penalties,” stated the obsolete law, “but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges,” “…the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision on Oct. 18, 1927. The judges unanimously “replied that the word ‘person’ did not include female persons…”…and we talk about white male privilege as if it never was! It was the Privy Council in England to which this case was finally referred, as it was the superior court for Canada at the time and it was then that women were declared to be persons in Canada, in 1929, when my mother was 19 years old.

http://www.thewhig.com/2013/10/15/canadian-women-became-persons-under-the-law-in-1929
commented 2016-04-21 18:15:30 -0400
Look at the way women’s football (soccer) has been rammed down the throats of consumers in the UK. I have no problem with it. I have no problem with female athletes being paid the same as their male counterparts either, if they generate the same revenue. Anyhoo, there’s so much more space in the stands and I like to stretch out.
commented 2016-04-18 10:59:29 -0400
Whoever ends up on the new $20 bill will likely be a politician who has done nothing for the country except feed at the trough.
How much will this exercise in stupidity cost the Canadian tax payer?
What’s wrong with the current twenty?
Is it not still being accepted as legal tender (even though under Liberals it is worth less than it was 20 years ago).
My father used to say “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
Sounds like good advise.
commented 2016-04-18 08:15:30 -0400
“I would like to see Jeanne Sauve on a bill.”
Me too, JAY KELLY. But let’s make it a $1.00 bill…and let’s issue it when our loonie has devalued to parity with a piece of toilet paper.
commented 2016-04-18 03:58:23 -0400
How nice, Lauren said retardation. Now it makes me think that a retarded person should be put on a dollar bill. How about Tracy Latimer? She can represent women, the disabled, and the murder victims. Now that I think about it, Tracy Latimer could be a serious contender, and I am not even being a smart ass on this one.
commented 2016-04-17 23:05:42 -0400
We have a great woman already on our currency, Her Majesty, Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. In fact, if you consider her appearance on every single one of our coins, then, in total, there are actually MORE women than men on our money. Do the math:

5 cent coin – the Queen
10 cent coin – the Queen
25 cent coin – the Queen
1 dollar coin – the Queen
2 dollar coin – the Queen
20 dollar bill – the Queen
Total: 6 denominations

5 dollar bill – Laurier
10 dollar bill – Macdonald
50 dollar bill – King
100 dollar bill – Borden
Total: 4 denominations

If we include the defunct penny, 50 cent piece, and thousand dollar bill, then the total number of denominations with a woman on them rises to 9! Talk about progressive!
commented 2016-04-16 17:27:26 -0400
I would like to see Jeanne Sauve on a bill.
commented 2016-04-15 23:16:42 -0400
Curtis,

The world actually loves Trudeau. Even Americans are saying that they wish Trudeau could be President.
commented 2016-04-15 21:40:05 -0400
Our leader is a joke and embarrassment to our country.
commented 2016-04-15 21:14:25 -0400
Lauren,

You should actually be embarrassed for your betrayal against women.
commented 2016-04-15 20:02:02 -0400
I find it very distasteful to put images and names of self serving politicians and royalty on our money, or anything for that matter. It is usually someone else who has done all the work that they take credit for. Then there are those, like Wynne and Trudeau, who are decimating this country beyond recovery, yet will have their position of power placed in the annals of history.

The placing of a Canadian female will be pushed down our throats by this arrogant government no matter what we do. So I would suggest to try and nominate someone that suits your ideals of who that should be.

How about an aboriginal like Charlotte Small, who helped map out our great nation or Saint Kateri Tekakwitha, the first Native to be canonized due to Various miracles and supernatural events which are attributed to her intercession.
Or Emily Stowe, who was the first female doctor to practice in Canada and an activist for women’s rights and suffrage. Stowe helped found the women’s suffrage movement in Canada and campaigned for the country’s first medical college for women.
Then there’s Leone N. Farrell, who pioneered a key laboratory technique that led to the creation of the Salk polio vaccine.
Or how about Harriet Brooks, Canada’s first female Nuclear Physicist. She even worked along side of Marie Curie in France. She was considered one of the leading women of her time in this field and second only to Marie Curie.
I’m just saying to think outside of the box and look at females who have contributed in ways that have not just benefited Canada and the World, but have enhanced our way of life.
commented 2016-04-15 18:48:04 -0400
I vote we skip women and go straight to transgender.
commented 2016-04-15 17:26:03 -0400
Oh, why not have your say? Here’s the site for public submissions: https://surveys.opinionsearch.com/wix/p16599881.aspx

In keeping with the serious spirit of things, If you’re not happy with my choice of Shaggy Maggie, there’s always Mitsou, Jo-Jo Savard, Lily St. Cyr, or….if you want to keep up with the Yanks and their make-believe Indian heroine, Sacagawea, how about our very own Daughter-of-the moon, Nokomis?
commented 2016-04-15 17:09:03 -0400
If they don’t pick that notoriously infamous Muslim with the forgettable name who became the first woman to be sworn in as a Canadian while wearing a tent, then whoever it is I’m sure no one west of Toronto will have ever heard of her.
commented 2016-04-15 15:42:10 -0400
I agree with everything this article says, except I believe this topic should be looked at with a deeper perspective. Yes, a woman should not be on the bill if she does not deserve it, but because women were oppressed… who really knows what women could have become, had they not been looked at as lesser, or a witch. For that reason, its not whos image is on the bill, its the fact that we have evolved to look at each other more equally, that is represented on the new bill. As mentioned earlier, Emily Murphy would be an ideal candidate for her work in this major philosophical change.
commented 2016-04-15 13:20:50 -0400
Drew W “I DEMAND THE LIBERAL PARTY HAVE JUSTIN STEP DOWN FOR A WOMAN TO BE THEIR LEADER!”

Well even you have to admit it might just be a great improvement…Let Rona Ambrose cross the floor and take the position…she would save Canada.
commented 2016-04-15 13:18:04 -0400
There is no doubt who should be on the bill, if anyone wants a woman besides the Queen…for all you millennials, perhaps it is time you learned a bit of history.

Actually, Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards who fought for the right of women to be declared legally “persons” in Canada, for the first time on Oct.18, 1929 would be the ideal women for this.

Emily Murphy, a judge, whose decision was challenged by a lawyer who was losing his case declared the new magistrate’s decision was not valid since Murphy was not a “person” under the law.

He was citing an 1876 ruling that " “Women are persons in matters of pains and penalties,” stated the obsolete law, “but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges,” “…the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision on Oct. 18, 1927. The judges unanimously “replied that the word ‘person’ did not include female persons…”…and we talk about white male privilege as if it never was! It was the Privy Council in England to which this case was finally referred, as it was the superior court for Canada at the time and it was then that women were declared to be persons in Canada, in 1929, when my mother was 19 years old.

http://www.thewhig.com/2013/10/15/canadian-women-became-persons-under-the-law-in-1929
commented 2016-04-15 13:01:04 -0400
My vote would be for the first Canadian Prime Minister, Kim Campbell. Other than the Queen, aren’t all the other bills decorated with Canadian Prime Ministers? I doubt Trudeau would go for Kim Campbell though as she was not a Liberal. Regardless, our new currency may become as infamous as the American Susan B. Anthony coin.
commented 2016-04-15 12:38:01 -0400
pm zoolander should be the first woman on a cdn bill
commented 2016-04-15 10:22:40 -0400
acuuna just about spit my coffee on the keyboard with the burka comment. LOL keep up the good work.
commented 2016-04-15 09:44:05 -0400
My vote goes to Maggie Trudeau. At a time when her stupid husband’s little man syndrome was putting a strain on our relationship with the US, she bravely went down to New York and calmed the troubled waters by initiating discussion on the Canadian fur market.
commented 2016-04-15 09:08:39 -0400
Regardless of who is the best woman to put on currency, by the time you put a bag over her, she can represent ALL ( and no) women. just sayin’
commented 2016-04-15 08:53:57 -0400
hey guys… if we all go muzzie, she will have to wear a burka and nobody will know who she is.
just sayin’
commented 2016-04-15 08:31:10 -0400
so…ah…he isn’t really going to do anything for Canadians other than raise taxes…right?
commented 2016-04-15 08:27:00 -0400
guess trudeau will be taking another holiday after coming up with the brilliant idea of replacing a woman with a woman on our money.