Government Pulls String on Tampon Tax

Canadian lawmakers respond to "No-Tax" Petition

Government Pulls String on Tampon Tax


Consider it an early Happy Canada Day gift from the federal government to you. From July 1st, Canadian women will no longer pay tax on tampons or any other sanitary product.

You could say it's the gift that keeps on giving — every single month, in fact.

The motion comes three months after a group called - for real - Canadian Menstruators started a petition that ultimately garnered more than 74,000 supporters. Voices were raised and heard, finally.

The Excise Tax Act has been amended since taxing menstrual products is essentially discriminatory and in no way are such products considered "luxury" items (the definition of a taxable product in this fine land of ours).

Australia is hoping to follow suit, with a petition of its own making the rounds. Hey, if it's good enough for the Canucks...

What's so crazy about this story is not that it's happening on what may eventually be known as Menstrual Hygiene Day; but the fact that the exemption is only happening now, well into the 21st Century.

At least that's one thing to be thankful for the next time you find yourself reaching for the Advil and chocolate. And sorry if you're looking for someone to PMS at, but Harper is now officially beyond reproach. 

So long and good riddance, tampon tax - well, the GST component, at least. You may still get nailed with PST depending on your province. Quebec, for instance, charges 9.975 per cent. 

Personally, I think menstrual products should be free AND delivered to your door in a cute parcel because it's bad enough having your period without adding insult to injury. Who's with me?


Singer Sarah Blackwood Removed From Flight for Crying Baby

A Famous SInger told to "Walk off the plane"

Singer Sarah Blackwood Removed From Flight for Crying Baby


United Airlines aren't exactly uniting people lately, are they? First they kicked off a teen with autism and her family. Now they managed to kick off a pregnant mom travelling with a toddler - a Canadian mom who also happens to front an award-winning band, Walk off the Earth.

Initial reports cited that Sarah Blackwood was told to disembark because her 23 month-old son Giorgio was crying and squirming. The attendant was overheard repeatedly telling Blackwood to keep her kid quiet ('cause of course it's that simple). 

But what really happened on that fateful flight?

As the saying goes, there are three sides of the story and the truth lies somewhere in between the 'he said, she said.'

For their part, United claims a safety concern was the reason Blackwood and her nanny were removed from the aircraft. Blackwood later recorded a conversation (listen below) with staff claiming she was told - and refused - to fasten the seatbelt around her infant.

For the record the FAA claims the safest option when travelling with a tot is a special travel seat. Yet United's own policy allows a parent to travel with a child under two securely on their lap (no mention of seatbelt; and in fact there is some suggestion that it is incredibly dangerous to belt an infant on your lap).

In any case, by the time the plane was moving and Blackwood was told to leave, Giorgio was asleep on his mom's lap. A further hour passed as the crew removed her family's luggage.

Someone, somewhere got it very wrong, and a lot of backtracking is now going on. Does United truly not know its own policy? Was the crying a contributing factor in the decision to kick Blackwood off the flight? 
The takeaway here: some airlines desperately need to up their game in terms of sensitivity training.

Travellers, do your homework before you travel, and choose your airline wisely. They are not created equal, and they are not all shit-shows. Some actually do give great customer service (hello WestJet).

We often go for the cheapest ticket or the most convenient times when booking, but what about the most child-friendly service? Time to rethink our priorities. 

How about a Feel Good Airline Story?


Lena Dunham, We Don't Need to See Your Undies

Is posing in your underwear a feminist statement?

Lena Dunham, We Don't Need to See Your Undies


You've got to hand it to Lena Dunham. The writer and star of the HBO series Girls truly doesn't give a rat's ass what people think of her. Even after being publicly "smeared" time and again, she just dusts off and does something new guaranteed to rub people the wrong way.

On this particular occasion, she just felt like showing off some pretty new lingerie on Instagram:

"I think I will wear it to dinner with some boots & a smile because we are all very lucky to be free." 

Take that, America! Dunham is obviously capable of more chutzpah than I'll ever possess, and most of the time I can only stand back and admire her antics. (Notice I said most times.) This time, well, I'm torn.

She can do what she pleases, obviously, and it is totally wonderful that we live in a "free" nation. Still, I'm not convinced that I need to see Dunham - or anyone else - in their undies on Instagram.

Nope, not even if that someone is a Vogue model or that guy who used to act in Harry Potter movies. Or maybe so I'll make an exception on this last point...

At the risk of sounding prudish, lingerie is an undergarment that by virtue of its name is worn *under* clothes and worn for your eyes and/or for those of someone special.

No one else needs to see your pretty things on social media, Lena, no matter how nice they make you look and feel. (Though I do agree, your green set is lovely.)

Love her or hate her, Dunham can keep her clothes on. Showing off your lingerie doesn't a feminist make.

Image Source: Instagram

RELATED: Is it Time to Retire the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show?