Jagmeet Singh Reinstates NDP MP David Christopherson Of Critic Role After Outcry

565 posts / 0 new
Last post
pookie

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It's the Constitution Act now, SJ101.

And it is a new piece of legislation because it was passed by our parliament, not the British one. The Acts weren't just renamed and amended.

 

 

Where on earth are you getting this from, Smith?

The 1982 Constitution was brought into force by the Canada Act 1982, which was legislated by the (Imperial) Parliament of the United Kingdom.  It was the last such act to have effect in Canada.

The BNA 1867 was continued as the CA1867. It wasn't changed in the slightest.  

 

SocialJustice101

Cody87 wrote:
But, I think the goal is not to change those values. The goal is the hurt the groups with the bad values.  In a similar vein, you've made reference to the important services these groups provide, especially in smaller communities. I suggest that the purpose of this attestation is not to help women or those small communities, but again, to hurt the bad people. After all, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

The CSJ program is a drop in the sea for those organizations.  It does not really hurt them.

I don't see how any remotely middle-of-the-road government could, in good conscience, continue funding those reprehensible anti-choice and anti-gay proparanga machines with taxpayer's dollars.   Defunding them is just basic common sense and absolutely had to be done by any modern government.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Of course it has backfired, because the Liberals have shown to be staggeringly ignorant of the shifting cultural climate and in particular the complicated nuance of the public support for pro-choice (about half of people who consider themselves pro-choice still support some degree of restrictions, and more women support restrictions or a full ban than men).

I'm glad we could get down to the real nub of it.  No more crap about what "mandate" or "respect" mean, and more crap about what "choice" means.

cco

Bingo. Time for the NDP to get ahead of that "shifting cultural climate" and bravely join the vanguard of those who want to ban abortion! We can even say we're "pro-choice, but..." and have the government fund third parties to do the dirty work for us.

For the context-challenged: Yes, the above is sarcasm.

SocialJustice101

Was that poster an NDPer though?   I'm getting a Con vibe.

6079_Smith_W

pookie wrote:

The BNA 1867 was continued as the CA1867. It wasn't changed in the slightest. 

Thanks for the clarification. Indeed it was the UK's Canada Act that repartiated the Constitution.

But there have been parts of the BNA Acts which have been amended or repealed through new Acts. That's why there is a series of them. My point is that Canada's Constitution is fundamentally a different entity. Unlike the BNA Acts pre 1982, it is no longer controlled by Westminster, but by our parliament and legislatures.

So sure, the body of the 1867 BNA Act is in there, but no the original document doesn't strictly apply any more because of the 15 or so BNA Acts that have been passed since and have changed its application, and all were renamed and some (including CA1867) amended in 1982. In fact, especially when you consider what we are talking about here, it really is only relevant as the full package - including and especially the Charter.

That's why I questioned the reference to the BNA Act.

 

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Only if you don't bother to read what is stated clearly in the articles.

In fact many of them are hurting for money, just as the articles point out.

You confused their ability to raise money with their privileged position in society. Yes, I did read the articles, and saw what you saw. That is, some religions are having a tough time attracting adherents. That has nothing at all to do with their privilege. It has everything to do with their inability to convince people that they are as beneficial to the world as they say they are.

6079_Smith_W

cco wrote:

Bingo. Time for the NDP to get ahead of that "shifting cultural climate" and bravely join the vanguard of those who want to ban abortion! We can even say we're "pro-choice, but..." and have the government fund third parties to do the dirty work for us.

Funny, because when I raised the spectre of the Cons doing just that when they get back in power SJ101 seemed to think it was fair game (back at 374 or so). We "get what we deserve", apparently.

I don't think it is something governments should be doing at all. And it is for that same reason I think the Liberals grossly overstepped and have done a lot of damage here. And the NDP, well they seem to be helping them.

SocialJustice101

Smith, you keep going in circles with the same flawed argument which people have addressed multiple times.   Harper did EXACTLY what you said Sheer might do, and that was BEFORE Trudeau's attestation.    It may not be a "fair game", but that's the political reality.   Nobody in their right mind should ever trust any such "gentelman's agreement" with the Conservatives.   Would progressive groups even want government money if they knew that bigots also have to be funded in exchange?  That just sounds like such a bizarre "deal", which neither the NDP nor the Liberals could ever support.  

The Liberals won a majority government on a strongly pro-choice platform.    It would have been absolutely hypocritical for them to continue funding anti-abortion groups.  Governments should focus on their electoral mandate, not on some silly (and non-existent)  "gentelman's agreements" with their worst political enemies.

6079_Smith_W

Actually I think you might be missing my point that those on both sides who see this as ideological war are each others' best friends. That goes for Trudeau playing the same game Harper did, and Chretien before him. And they are giving Scheer the excuse he needs to keep doing the same.

Attack politics might be reality, but that doesn't make it good. It doesn't resolve problems, and it certainly doesn't educate people. All it does is turn people who are allies on some issues into enemies. And it hurts people who should be receiving services, and undermines those who are trying to build common ground on issues - like poverty, immigrant issues, seniors issues, and Indigenous issues.

And I know people are going to keep repeating that this is about stopping funding for anti-abortion and anti-LGBT projects even though that is not the issue.

Thing is, we actually had a case here in SK not too long ago of a religious group attacking access to reproductive rights - the board of the Catholic hospital going into patient records to see who had had tubal ligations. What did the province do? They took the hospital away from the church. We actually have a fairly robust set of laws and regulations around this.

Which makes this penny ante grandstanding on the part of the Liberals all the more pointless. There was actually no reason for them to include that attestation if all they wanted to do was not fund anti-abortion projects. But they did it anyway, just because. And the anti-religious cranks are lapping it up. So maybe it wasn't so dumb, though the question is are they going to have more of them than the ones who are going to jump to the Conservatives, or just not vote, because of this.

And what issues are not going to get talked about at all, because it all gets reduced to people screaming at one another over nonsense like this?

SocialJustice101

You are using false equivalency.  Supporting human rights is not equivalent to opposing human rights. 

Keep in mind that changing the course of government does not necessarily erase all of the progress made by a previous government.  Conservatives kept cancelling the Court Challenges Program over and over again, and the Liberals kept reinstating it.   The program paid legal fees for major ground-breaking human rights cases, including the same-sex marriage Supreme Court Case.



You have a false cause-and-effect argument. Scheer does not need any excuses to be an authoritarian.  Conservatives are authoritarian by nature and will push their agenda on the population, REGARDLESS of actions by the Liberals. 

What's much more concerning than "attack politics" is government INaction, for fear of offending somebody.   The only way to advance human rights and other progressive causes is to do as much as you can while in power, and then win more elections than your opponents.   You are suggesting a do-nothing approach which would accomplish nothing and give the Cons a free ride.

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Of course it has backfired, because the Liberals have shown to be staggeringly ignorant of the shifting cultural climate and in particular the complicated nuance of the public support for pro-choice (about half of people who consider themselves pro-choice still support some degree of restrictions, and more women support restrictions or a full ban than men).

I'm glad we could get down to the real nub of it.  No more crap about what "mandate" or "respect" mean, and more crap about what "choice" means.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. I'm just saying it's a poor choice for a wedge issue because the majority of people have mixed feelings on the topic.

Cody87

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Cody87 wrote:
But, I think the goal is not to change those values. The goal is the hurt the groups with the bad values.  In a similar vein, you've made reference to the important services these groups provide, especially in smaller communities. I suggest that the purpose of this attestation is not to help women or those small communities, but again, to hurt the bad people. After all, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

The CSJ program is a drop in the sea for those organizations.  It does not really hurt them.

I don't see how any remotely middle-of-the-road government could, in good conscience, continue funding those reprehensible anti-choice and anti-gay proparanga machines with taxpayer's dollars.   Defunding them is just basic common sense and absolutely had to be done by any modern government.

That's fine. Defund them, I agree. Just don't give the option to keep their funding if they lie about their mandate. If you want to defund the group with the bad values, just do it, don't play petty power games while you do it.

After all, if the churches went along and ticked the box, nobody here or anywhere would really believe they were being honest, would they? Why should they get to keep their funding? They shouldn't.

Cody87

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Was that poster an NDPer though?   I'm getting a Con vibe.

If I lean anything, it's libertarian. Though I guess you probably can't tell the difference.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That's not what I'm saying and you know it. I'm just saying it's a poor choice for a wedge issue because the majority of people have mixed feelings on the topic.

If they really are the majority then I stand by what I said.  This is the real nub of it.

Quote:
Just don't give the option to keep their funding if they lie about their mandate. If you want to defund the group with the bad values, just do it, don't play petty power games while you do it.

Well, surely they shouldn't get the munnee if they lie, but aren't we now talking about groups that pleaded the Fifth Amendment?  The ones who didn't have the stones to check the box, and let Gord judge them?  The poor, hard done by idjuts who don't know what common words mean, including "a Dictionary"?  They're the "real victims", aren't they?  Too dumb to know what "mandate" means, but too virtuous to "respect" our sinful Charter?

SocialJustice101

Cody87 wrote:
That's fine. Defund them, I agree. Just don't give the option to keep their funding if they lie about their mandate. If you want to defund the group with the bad values, just do it, don't play petty power games while you do it.

After all, if the churches went along and ticked the box, nobody here or anywhere would really believe they were being honest, would they? Why should they get to keep their funding? They shouldn't.

As the government clarified in writing, personal values are not being accessed by the application, but the government has the right to determine what types of organizational *activities* they are funding.     That's basic common sense.

As for lying on the application, it's already a crime to do so.  Problem solved.   The application assesses organization's core services to the community, not their beliefs, as was explained by the ministry.

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/supplementary-information.html

6079_Smith_W

So there are numbers to put to how many were rejected:

Across the country, applications have increased slightly from 41,961 last year to 42,718 this year, but the number of rejected applications has dramatically increased, from 126 to 1,561.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/alice-wong-summer-job-gra...

That doesn't say how many may have lied and signed without wanting to, simply in order to get the project done.

 

 

SocialJustice101

So the approval rate is 96% for the program.   Sounds quite high.

6079_Smith_W

No. It means that about three percent may have felt strong enough to send it in unsigned. It doesn't say how many signed without wanting to, or how many didn't bother applying.

There were a number of boycotts, including the Catholic Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie, and the Diocese of London. 

And how many signed is not a measure of whether it was an fair tactic or not. There was a bit of duress involved, after all. I can see why some groups might sign rather than let people go without jobs and services.

And there are the many more who see this as the divisive move that it is.

 

 

SocialJustice101

What is this, kidergarten?   96.3% is a suprisingly high application approval rate.

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

It doesn't say how many signed without wanting to, or how many didn't bother applying.

There were a number of boycotts, including the Catholic Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie, and the Diocese of London. 

Signed without wanting to? You mean some organizations decided to change their focus towards more acceptable activities because of this? But that's a good thing, isn't it? 

In that the number of applications was up this year over last, I don't think we need worry to much about the number who 'didn't bother applying'. 

And the Catholics. Would that be the same as these Catholics?

Canadian Archbishop Refuses to Give Money to Anti-Catholic Charities

A Canadian bishop is withholding his archdiocese's donation to organizations that promote causes contrary to Catholic moral teaching.

Archbishop Richard Smith of Edmonton wrote in an April 4 letter that the diocese is withholding its donation to the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development of Peace (CCODP), also known as the D & P collection, asserting, "An estimated 40 partners appear to show evidence of conflict with Catholic moral and social teaching and, in particular, that they do not demonstrate full respect for the sanctity of human life."

...Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute explains to Church Militant, "Development and Peace is an active partner with the Communist, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual World Social Forum, so it's no surprise that its global partnerships would likewise be enemies of the Church."

...Smith asserts, "The funds will be withheld until such time as we receive clear assurance that funds received from present and future Together We Serve collections will be used only by agencies whose mission, values and practices cohere with the teachings of the Catholic Church,"

...Hichborn comments, "We applaud Bp. Smith for taking a bold stand against such compromise and urge Catholics around the world to pray for him as he will most assuredly be attacked for this," adding, "We hope his example will encourage other bishops to do the same thing until Development and Peace ends all of its relationships with the enemies of the Cross."

Or maybe it's some other Catholic church you had in mind...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
There were a number of boycotts, including the Catholic Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie, and the Diocese of London.

What are the chances they'd both be churches?

Quote:
There was a bit of duress involved, after all.

There was no duress.  There was free money.  But not getting free money is not duress.

Quote:
I can see why some groups might sign rather than let people go without jobs and services.

The money certainly went somewhere, so there's no reason to believe there would be fewer jobs -- only that they wouldn't involve teens laminating giant abortion posters or whatever.  Sorry if the jobs didn't worship Christ.  But I hope that any teens who needed a summer job were just as willing to paint a fence.

Pondering

Cody87 wrote:

After all, if the churches went along and ticked the box, nobody here or anywhere would really believe they were being honest, would they? Why should they get to keep their funding? They shouldn't.

As far as I know only evangelicals and catholics refused, and there was no need for them to lie. 

6079_Smith_W

Rev Pesky wrote:

Signed without wanting to? You mean some organizations decided to change their focus towards more acceptable activities because of this? But that's a good thing, isn't it?

Not if someone has to sign under duress. If you read the article I posted upthread about Elizabeth May she talked about convincing church groups to sign.

And this has nothing to do with changing activities. It's about people being forced to lie in order to get a project funded.

And yes, it is the same Catholic Church that has a Catholic peace group being denied funding by a right-wing Diocese.  I posted a similar article about what American bishops were doing. 

All that shows is that those on the right as well as the left are seeing a struggle bewteen bone headed idealogues and those interested in cooperation and putting aside differences.

No surprise to me; and frankly I see it as an argument against the Liberals taking the very similar action they did. It doesn't help anyone.

and @ SJ101

It isn't an approval rating at all. It was an attestation.

They didnt ask if the signators thought it was a fair thing to make them sign.

 

 

 

 

SocialJustice101

Application approval rate, i.e. number of approved applications out of the total number submitted.   96.3% of all applications were approved for funding by the Ministry.

6079_Smith_W

Oh. In other words it doesn't mean anything, except for the rejections increasing to over 10 times what they were the year before.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Oh. In other words it doesn't mean anything, except for the rejections increasing to over 10 times what they were the year before.

Correct. Only 3.7 recieved is reasonable. An increase in rejections can be interpreted as catching applications that should not be approved. 

I suspect next years "improved wording" still won't satisfy Churchs that do not believe in the equality of women and gay people and preach against the right of women to access abortions. 

6079_Smith_W

We'll see.

Because that isn't what they were asking for, or complaining about.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

We'll see.

Because that isn't what they were asking for, or complaining about.

Ummm, then what were they complaining about if it wasn't the wording of the attestation check-box?

6079_Smith_W

Jesus Christ, do we really need to explain that one again? What did the government say in their clarification about what they really meant to ask?

 

 

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Not if someone has to sign under duress.

Well, at least now we know what the trouble is. Your understanding of English seems a bit scant. "Duress' means force backed by the threat of violence and/or imprisonment.

There is no 'duress' in any sense of the word in this issue.

If the government were to come along and say to a Catholic church (as an example) that they had to change their stand on abortions or the leaders of the church would be thrown into prison, that would be 'duress'.

As noted above by Mr. Magoo, this situation is merely the government saying, 'we have some free money to give to organizations that meet certain criteria'. That is not duress. That isn't even 'pressing'.  That's just 'asking'.

6079_Smith_W

You have never heard of economic duress? Look it up. You have a project ready to go, people depending on it. In some cases projects that have received funding over several years. Some groups are in a position where they have little choice but to put their name to something they would normally not in good conscience. The government made it quite clear they would not accept unsigned attestation though they were aware of their mistake. It's not illegal in this case but it is duress all the same.

(edit)

Though I checked again, and it actally falls under the first general definition of the word. It is coercion and pressure to do something against one's better judgment. It doesn't just mean putting a gun to one's head. Elizabeth May said she had to convince organizations to sign, and voice their concerns in an attached letter. I am sure some only did because they had something serious to lose.

 

SocialJustice101

Smith, the courts would not view the attestation as a form of coercison nor economic duress, because the CSJ program is not an essential service.   It's a completely optional program designed to advance government priorities.

If someone was denied their Old Age Security or healthcare because of their anti-abortion activism, that would have been a different matter.

Futhermore, charities rely primarily on volunteers and donations.  False victimhood is at play here.  Churches will continue their work because they need to spread their message and increase their membership numbers.

And again, if your "logic" was applied consistently,  a Nazi organization could claim "economic duress" because the government refuses to give them free money.   And that would have been a bogus claim.

6079_Smith_W

This isn't a legal dispute. One of the groups tried that, but failed, but I have never claimed that it is. So I don't know why you keep trying to frame this as something that isn't coercive and unethical simply because it is within the law.

I am aware you think it is fine if governments like Stephen Harper's use government as partisan political tools. You and I strongly disagree there.

And no, not pressing churches to make false declarations does not mean that the government will have to fund Nazis and the KKK. That's just more made up nonsense like Magoo's job "laminating anti-abortion posters". The government has the power to evalate and approve or deny applications. Neither of those things are in question here.

SocialJustice101

Duress and coersion are serious accusations, often used to sue people and governments.   So I'm using the courts as an objective point of reference.    

The CSJ applicants are also required to attest that their application is true and complete. False declarations are illegal on a government application.  

SocialJustice101

Absolutely everything could be considered political and partisan, including poverty, environmentalism, and any government spending whatsoever.    Of course the Cons would like the Liberals to do nothing.   If a government does nothing, it's much more likely to be defeated in the next election.

Pondering

Churches certainly shouldn't make false declarations. They should hold to their principles. If fighting against the charter rights of gays or against reproductive freedom for women is part of their core mandate they should shout it far and wide not try to hide it to defraud the government. 

SocialJustice101

{wrong thread}

brookmere

6079_Smith_W wrote:
The government has the power to evalate and approve or deny applications. Neither of those things are in question here.

So you don't have any problem with the government setting its own criteria for approving applications. Just with the government asking applicants to say that they meet those criteria, it appears.

6079_Smith_W

That's exactly right. Though to hear the government's clarification, this wasn't even about them meeting the criteria, which concern actions. The whole problem was over the government's unclear language that made it into an intrusive question about values.

The approval process is based on numerous things. In one of the years we applied for and got it, we were aware we might not because we had received it for a number of years, so there is no guarantee.

 

Mobo2000

I am largely sympathetic to Smith's position, as I argued in the other thread, but I do appreciate the fuller discussion here and some of it on the other side has been persuasive (to me).

It seemed to me orginally that the government was, with the specific wording in the attestation around "values underlying the Charter",  in effect implying that access to abortion was a Charter right.   I didn't think it was, but I am not well informed on this.

So I would like to ask the babblers here with more expertise on legal matters, and abortion rights in Canada, to tell me if this description of the state of abortion right in Canada by Andrew Coyne is correct:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-liberals-effort-to-blackmai...

"So you can believe abortion should be outlawed, but if you want to receive government funds, you must affirm it is a right. Or, as the government later “clarified,” that whatever “activities” you conduct will respect that right....

"Amazingly, the primary effect of the government’s ham-handed attempt to banish abortion opponents to the margin of Canadian society has been to give them the most sympathetic hearing they have have had in years, even from a media that leans overwhelmingly in favour of abortion rights.

They have had the chance to make the point that, in fact, there is no constitutional right to an abortion, whether in the text of the Charter or in the jurisprudence arising from it. The 1988 Morgentaler ruling, in particular, was concerned only with the law that was on the books at the time, not whether any abortion law would be constitutional. Indeed, several of the justices, notably Bertha Wilson, offered suggestions as to what sort of law would pass constitutional muster."

On post 282, Hadju is quoted as saying:

"Canadians expect us to ensure that their children are getting quality job experiences that are fundamentally going to respect the Charter of Rights and other fundamental rights," she said. "This is a government that believes in gender equality...[and] reproductive choice is the foundation of gender equality."But Hajdu has no regrets about the government's decision, and doesn't believe it over-reached.

"Canadians expect us to ensure that their children are getting quality job experiences that are fundamentally going to respect the Charter of Rights and other fundamental rights," she said. "This is a government that believes in gender equality...[and] reproductive choice is the foundation of gender equality."

If access to abortion is a charter right, then why does she use the expression "other fundamental rights", and what are they?   Are they legally defined, enforceable, or something else?  

 

6079_Smith_W

Coyne is right. The Supreme court decision on  R v. Morgentaler was only based on security of the person - the pregnant woman. There isn't a real guarantee of abortion services, and nothing entrenching it as legal; all you have to do is look at Prince Edward Island, where services only became available last year after 35 years of women having to go to Nova Scotia.

That's why the anti-abortion lobby are trying to use legislative and policy wedges to underming that right. Like a lost fetus as an aggravating factor in crime, or preventing people learning sex of a fetus.

And it isn't even a breach of the charter to lobby against abortion (as the pro-church editorialist I posted upthread pointed out), but I think the government is on solid ground in not funding projects which would do that. 

Coyne is also right that the main result of this will be to give ammunition to the anti-abortion, anti-LGBT and right-wing religious lobby.

And the last question is a good one, because none of these rights are absolute, especially when you look at services to identifiable groups. It's just that no one is considering that because this is such a clearly partisan move, and it is clear who is being targetted.

 

Caissa

I do not want CSJ positions going to organizations whose "core mandate" is in opposition to a woman's right to choose.

Governments set criteria for all funding programmes.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

I do not want CSJ positions going to organizations whose "core mandate" is in opposition to a woman's right to choose.

Governments set criteria for all funding programmes.

Thanks for cutting through all the truckloads of thinly nuanced bullshit in this thread, Caissa.

 

6079_Smith_W

Except that the federal government has clarified that those organizations do qualify, and are in fact encouraged to apply. If trudeau is to be taken at his word, a Roman Catholic organization should qualify, despite this year's unfortunate gaffe.
Sorry but this is not a black and white world, much as some might see it that way.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Caissa wrote:

I do not want CSJ positions going to organizations whose "core mandate" is in opposition to a woman's right to choose.

Governments set criteria for all funding programmes.

Thanks for cutting through all the truckloads of thinly nuanced bullshit in this thread, Caissa.

Agreed. As to whether or not abortion is a charter right, obviously not, however equality for women is. Abortion is a medical procedure considered by a woman AND her doctor. I think it could be argued that to interfere in a medical decision between a woman and her doctor is counter to a woman's right to dominion over her body. 

6079_Smith_W

You know, if we are going to continue to pretend this is about respect for the charter maybe we should look at what the charter really allows when it comes to free speech that does not violate security of the person .

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-whatcott-case-drawing-a-line-betw...

Not to say the government should be funding anti abortion projects; they are quite right not to on political grounds. But this gratuitous religion bashing in the presumed name of the charter is both inaccurate and more than a bit hypocritical.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Except that the federal government has clarified that those organizations do qualify, and are in fact encouraged to apply. If trudeau is to be taken at his word, a Roman Catholic organization should qualify, despite this year's unfortunate gaffe. Sorry but this is not a black and white world, much as some might see it that way.

So Trudeau is wrong. I don't want them to qualify. I did when this all began, or at least I was okay with it, but I have changed my mind.  I will wait until I see the wording for next year to see what comes of it. 

Mobo2000

Cassia: Me either.   I think access to abortion and other reproductive services should be a right under Canadian law.   But that it is not currently is fact, right?   And I don't get why mentioning that fact is taken by you or Unionist to be nuanced bullshit, perhaps one of you could condescend to explain.

It is relevant to the Liberal's wording on the attestation, that implies that access to abortion = reproductive rights = charter right, because it seems to be asking applicants to agree with something that is not true in law.  

Pondering:   You could make that argument, but it's not been decided, right?   If you want to make that argument, you can, and the other side gets to argue in response.  If the Liberals wanted to make abortion a right under the charter, why don't they just do that explicitly, and let the public react however it wants to react?  

I think it's because they wanted to signal their support for the right to choose without doing much that would substantially improve it, because they are satisfied with the status quo.   Re-opening the debate involves some risk for them, politically, and some risk to the current level of access women have, perhaps.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
You know, if we are going to continue to pretend this is about respect for the charter maybe we should look at what the charter really allows when it comes to free speech that does not violate security of the person . http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-whatcott-case-drawing-a-line-betw... Not to say the government should be funding anti abortion projects; they are quite right not to on political grounds. But this gratuitous religion bashing in the presumed name of the charter is both inaccurate and more than a bit hypocritical.

How is any of this religion bashing?

P.S. No one is suggesting they are breaking the law or participating in hate speech. 

Pages