Vancouver Rape Relief, you'll remember, was the rape crisis centre that lost its Government funding after a succesful campaign by transwoman Morgane Oger.

From Feminist Current:

It appears Oger intended to stage a coup, organizing trans activists  to attend the meeting and speak against VRRWS, in order to ensure a  one-sided “debate.” And the city was ready to let this happen, without  protest.

During the hearing, Oger (11:46:00) argued  that VRRWS should be disqualified from receiving public funds, accusing  the organization of “having a history of discrimination against  transgender women on the basis of their gender identity or gender  expression.” This statement is of course untrue. Rather, VRRWS has a  policy of offering services to those born female, and as well won the right to determine their own membership in 2007, meaning that it is  within their rights to maintain a women-only policy with regard to  collective members and shelter workers.

While Oger claimed VRRWS was breaking Canadian law in maintaining  these policies, Kerner pointed out, during her remarks to city council,  that this was untrue.

“Not only are we not in contradiction  with federal law, and not in contradiction with the provincial law, but,  in [2003], the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that we are not  violating the human rights code. There is a similar exception to the  federal Human Rights Act. Because we are an oppressed group who fight  for equality, we have the right to decide our membership and who we  serve. We are not in contradiction of any law and it is slander to say  differently.”

The notion that the organization would discriminate against any woman  is false. Kerner pointed out that many of the women VRRWS houses are  poor, Indigenous, and prostituted.

What Oger means, in accusing VRRWS of  “discrimination,” is that because VRRWS does not offer services to men,  nor do they allow males into their counselor training program, they  should be defunded.

Currently kept afloat through donations, the VRR is still at risk and the women under its protection are apparently now set to receive the kind of violent intimidation which they are trying to escape.

But perhaps they deserve it? Perhaps they're just being, to quote Mhairi Black, a bunch of "Jeremy Hunts" in not feeling comfortable in an enclosed space with male-bodied people after being raped, beaten and/or psychologically tortured in enclosed spaces by male-bodied people?

Because if that's the side of history Mhairi Black or Owen Jones or these oh-so- EVOLVED-but-also-coincidentally-American Guardian staff are on, then I would like to know so I can say yes, that is not the side of history that I am on. I am on the other side.

This is misogyny at its worst.  And if you don't see that by now, it's because you choose not to see it.


It's happened again.