Reality has no place in political perceptions
To hear Liberal Leader Stephane Dion tell it, women are not capable of seeking political office on their own merit without the imposition of "extraordinary measures," including barring men from pursuing Liberal nominations in some ridings.

So much for democracy taking its' course. But then, we are talking about Liberals.

You may recall - or may not - that during his successful leadership bid last December, Dion pledged that at least one-third of Liberal candidates in the next election would be women.

As a result, "green-light" committees were set up in each province to run the party's nomination process, with the power to set nomination power to set nomination meetings and approve or disapprove nomination papers from hopeful Liberal candidates.

Former Ontario cabinet minister Gerard Kennedy, a failed leadership candidate himself, now Dion's special adviser on election adviser on election readiness, says Liberals are "trying to find the techniques that are consistent with our democratic processes to the greatest extent possible."

Kennedy says they're encouraging as many women as possible to seek Liberal nominations, but with an election looming it isn't possible to launch an extended recruitment drive, so they may have to use more drastic measures "such as women-only contests" to meet Dion's self-imposed quota. Mind you, Kennedy's commitment to fielding women candidates didn't stop him from bumping a women candidate -and former MP - out of the riding he chose, Toronto's Parkdale-High Park.

Until the last election, that riding was held by Liberal MP Sam Bulte, a founding member of Women Entrepreneurs of Canada, and former parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for the status of women. By her own admission, Bulte was preparing to contest the riding again that she won in 1997, 2000 and 2004, but agreed to step aside for Kennedy.

Furthermore, Kennedy could have chosen any number of ridings, but if he wins in Parkdale-High Park - which he likely will - there will be one less woman in the House of Commons because it is currently held by the NDP's Peggy Nash. Previous Liberal leaders have used their powers to appoint women candidates by fiat - how else do you think we were stuck with Hedy Fry for heaven's sake - in their misguided zeal to push the hoary argument that women are particularly disadvantaged when it comes to seeking electoral office.

Not as many women as men are interested in seeking higher office. Maybe they're too smart for that. Who knows? But if they were interested the Liberals wouldn't have to be searching for them now would they? But hey, reality has no place when it comes to political perceptions.

Last year, 26 per cent of Liberal candidates were women. Currently, 21 of the 101 Liberal MPs are women. To meet his quota, Dion says he needs at least 80 women to run in ridings currently held by other parties, almost 40 per cent in those ridings.

Veteran left-leaning journalist Rosemary Speirs, founder of Equal Voice, a lobby group to encourage more female participation in politics - although Speirs has never taken her own advice and become a candidate - was quoted as applauding the dictum to reserve some ridings for women only.

"Right now it looks as if 80 per cent of the ridings are reserved for men," she said. "So I don't see that this is imposing a quota or tokenism or anything else ...."

She wouldn't. But those ridings are not reserved for men. We're long past the day when men were expected to be out working - or politicking - while the little lady stayed home to watch the kids. The vast majority of women are also out in the work force and just as capable - and as free - as men are to seek political nominations.

Those who favor Dion's undemocratic and dictatorial quota approach seem to believe that women aren't as capable as men in seeking nominations - an insult in its' own right - and we need more women because, well, they're just nicer people than men and all that partisan bickering we see with politics and politicians wouldn't exist if we had more women elected.

What nonsense. That assumes all women are homogeneous, that they all think alike and act alike based on their gender. If you think there isn't a difference between oh, Margaret Thatcher and Sheila Copps, just to pick two, then maybe you buy the argument.

In my four decades of covering politics, experience shows that neither men nor women have a monopoly on being either good or bad politicians. The argument is just simply specious, nomatter how "progressive" it sounds.

If more women want to get into politics - and there's little evidence to suggest they do - they should. But, as the old advertisement goes, they should do it the old fashioned way: they should earn it.

Democracy can be messy, it's true. But it beats dictatorial fiats from misguided men in high places who think their doing women a favor by being patronizing to them.

CORRECTION Last week's column incorrectly identified Ontario ombudsman André Marin. Our apologies.