Clark has BC behaving like a prostitute on Enbridge, only dickering over price
I wonder how many of you have come away from making a speech – perhaps the toast to the bride, being presented an award or perhaps just an after dinner speech and said to yourself, “damn … I should have said etc., etc.? I must admit that I’ve often felt that way and, even worse, I suppose, I’ve said to myself, what an idiot I was to say that!
In my recent blog on The Common Sense Canadian, I wrote about Premier Clark’s slow turnaround on the Enbridge pipeline case and in a moment I’ll tell you what I should have added.
The inadequacies of Clark’s leadership are exposed once more; she cannot bring herself to talk about the tanker traffic in the Inside Passage from Kitimat - or the close to 400 tankers a year through Vancouver harbour and the Salish Sea through the Straits of Juan de Fuca that would result from the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion. Clearly the tanker issue must be dealt with at the same time as Enbridge since, as the song says, “You can’t have one without the other.”
Clearly, Premier Clark just doesn’t have the courage to have a position on the issue as a whole.
It is not as if this was a complex issue. We know by Enbridge’s own admission that we will have spills from pipelines and common sense and statistics tell us that there will be tanker spills.
In the face of these certainties, Premier Clark is talking about insufficient financial benefits, on the assumption that money will compensate us for huge, ongoing tragedies over the 1,100 km of the pipeline and tanker spills – in short, our very soul is at stake and Clark is talking money.
Here comes the line I should have used…Premier Clark reminds me of the story where a man asks a lady if she will go to bed with him for $100,000 and she hems and haws, speaks of her needy children and, with apparent reluctance agrees.
The man then asks, “Will you then go to bed with me for $100?”
The lady is outraged and asks, “What do you think I am, a common prostitute?”
“We’ve already established that, ma’am,” says the man. “Now we’re dickering over the price.”
Thus the missing line: Premier Clark has declared British Columbia to be a common prostitute and is now ready to dicker.
Rafe Mair was a B.C. MLA 1975 to 1981, Minister of Environment from late 1978 through 1979. Since 1981 he has been a radio talk show host, and is recognized as one of B.C.'s pre-eminent journalists. This column originally appeared in the Common Sense Canadian. Reprinted with permission.

Comments
unacceptable at any price
Rafe is one of those old cranks whose sexist mindset got stuck sometime in the eighties. The premier is not prostituting the province by asking for a better deal for BC; I don't agree with what she is doing, but looking after BC's interests is her job. The real shocker is that she, (just like Adrian Dix), considers our environment like just another commodity; something you can buy and sell, put a price on. Both leaders have said the identical thing: "that the risks (of the Enbridge pipeline) exceed the rewards". For Clark the monetary rewards are too small, for Dix not enough permanent jobs are created. What both of them should be saying, of course, is that the risks are unacceptable at any price. But only the Green Party has that position.
http://www.bcndp.ca/enbridge/letter
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/gateway-pipeline-risks-exceed-rewards-bc-premier-says/article4435145/
The true sexism
Assuming the word "prostitute" denotes "female" is the true sexism going on here!
"prostitute" does not denote sex
ll of a sudden a whole bunch of people on the Right have turned into Feminists and are trying to crush what Rafe is saying, which is fact. Odd how the Right uses Feminism when it suits them and ignores it the rest of the time.
While I appreciate and share
While I appreciate and share concerns about labelling women in a derogatory manner, I believe Mair was trying merely to underscore the tragedy of what he feels is being done to BC by use of a similarly tragic prostitution metaphor with undertones of abuse. Clearly, though, Clark is the pimp in this metaphor and BC is the entity whose body is being exploited. She's the one who is dickering over what price BC's honour will bring.
We'd never have printed a piece that called any woman (or man) a whore.
DISGUSTING SEXIST RANT
I am thoroughly disgusted that this sexist rant is published. Whether you agree with Premier Clark or not is irrelevant. Fair criticism is fair criticism but insults based on gender is neither fair nor critical thinking. You can bet that if this had been someone like 'Rafe' (i.e. older white male - like me) making this decision there would have been much huffing and puffing but there would NOT have been an attempt to smear him as a 'prostitute'.
I have a daughter and a niece, either of whom would be excellent politicians. I can only hope they don't see this kind of rant as I expect it would discourage many fine young women from going into politics and contributing to our Province or Nation.
Shame on Rafe Mair and shame on the Telegraph for publishing this!
Double shame
On you, for assuming the word "prostitute" denotes women!
That is pure sexism right there!
I don't see it...
I agree that this old and far-too-well-worn analogy is heavily laced with sexism. I think there are much better analogies Mair could have used to make the point that BC is selling its health, safety, and ecological integrity for what, in the long run, will amount to a paltry sum.
But I don't see that Mair has singled out Clark's sex as his target, nor has he labeled her as a prostitute. In fact, his analogy labels Clark as a pimp.
The analogy—poor as it is—says, "BC is selling its body for money, and Clark's doing the dirty deal." The whole article could just as well be written about a male premier haggling over the price for BC's body, with no change in effect.
I agree, however, that the choice of analogy belies a latent sexism and distracts from the bigger and more important questions—namely, why the premier is even considering this hair-brained pipeline and tanker project in the first place.
If we must mine the tar sands, lets refine it right in Alberta and use it to propel us into the green energy age! Shipping it to China only serves the interests of a very small population of very rich Canadians. All the workers the pipeline will supposedly employ—for a short period of time—could be better employed in longer lasting and more stable green sector jobs... that is, if we had governments with the vision to forge a new path to wealth.
Pimp or Prostitute
I am not commenting on the criticism of the stance on the pipeline BC has taken. Lets have a reasoned discussion about that without the sexist prelude of this article.
I am fed up with this kind of attack on a prominent woman in our society. We have few enough women ready to stand for public office. Is this the message we want to send about the level of critical analysis when a woman in office takes a stand?
When Richard Branson offered to take her on a naked kite board ride he was rightly criticized for his sexism. I suppose you could argue that he could have made the offer to a man...
And really, Andrew, does it matter whether semantically he's calling her a pimp or a prostitute? It still raises gender issues to relate her to a sex worker. And the anecdote he relies on relates to a woman and Premier Clark is clearly the directing mind behind the position taken
Thoroughly agree Mitch
No need for the sexism.
Thanks - the Abuse Continues
Thanks. I felt I needed to take a stand.
I sent a copy of this directly to Rafe Mair. I got back this reponse:
>> Are you unable to understand plain unadorned English?
>>
>> Here is the headline as borne out by the article
>>
>> ... BC Behaving Like a Prostitute on Enbridge, Only Dickering Over Price.
>> BC
>> is the subject of the clause.
>>
>> Or, somehow, have you concluded that BC is Christy Clark and that any
>> reference to our province refers to her as well.
>>
>> Go to hell
>>
>> R
and I responded back to him:
I can understand english perfectly and I wondered if you would take this
pathetic shallow dodge as a way out. You are too cowardly to faceup to the
fact that you have sexist attitudes and are promoting hatred. I note that
you edit your own title in this email to omit the words: CLARK HAS BC
behaving like a prostitute.... You are the one who related the person of the
premier with the province - and prostitution. Why did you leave that out?
Caught red-handed?
The closing line of your email certainly confirms the measure of the man and
the level of your argument.
Mitch
From a woman and a feminist
Perhaps it's my Albertan upbringing, but I've often heard older, white, male politicians referred to as prostituting their cause, their constituents or their geographical coverage area, be it a town, a province, or a country. Frankly, I'm shocked that you have not.
I think it's regrettable that Mr. Mair would choose to tell you to go to hell, rather than simply agree to disagree - I think that's a poor approach to reader input, certainly, and it's not one I condone.
Having said that, as a somewhat vehement feminist myself, I don't think he was calling Clark a prostitute, and I think there's ample archive material accusing men of prostituting that which they were supposed to protect.
For that matter, I don't perceive "prostitute" to be a word reserved for women, particularly in this day and age - the market's very much open to both genders, today.
I think it's sexist ... and fundamentally inaccurate ... to equate the word 'prostitute' with women.
I believe Mair was looking to get a rise out of people (at which he succeeded) by stating his case in the most vehement possible terms, using a metaphor (and I submit that it WAS a metaphor) that would most certainly garner attention and upset. I've employed that tactic myself on occassion, though not in reference to this particular subject material.
I would suggest this is one of those times where agreeing to disagree is perhaps the best road to take - as a feminist, I'm more offended by the knee-jerk equation of prostitute= woman than I am by Mair's metaphor, and I don't see us reaching a common ground on this one.
I hope you continue reading The Telegraph and/or The Source, and choose to eschew Mair's columns, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I think The Telegraph was correct in publishing his opinion without making moral judgements around his word choices - his right to share his opinion in whatever terms he chooses is the most fundamental underpinning of a free press.
Regards,
Kyra Hoggan
Editor
The Castlegar Source
Neutral?
But since the anecdote Mair relies on to make his point is based on Churchill proving Lady Astor (a troublesome MP) to be a 'whore' I can't accept that the prostitute reference is gender neutral in this case when referring to a female premier taking a particular stance on behalf of the province.