Why isn't this being talked about? Anti choice Liberals.
The House voted against a proposal by Rod Bruinoodge that would have made coercing a women to have an abortion a crime. This was an out and out attempt by Bruinoodge to provide an underhanded impetus to the anti choice movement, and voice.
For me, as a consitutent in Winnipeg North, particularly noteworthy, was the vote of Kevin Lamoureux in favor of the motion, along with 10 other Liberals. I don't know if the whip was on, but I think it is very telling that Lamoureux voted as he did. I know that this kind of vote doesn't go over well with a sizable protion of the contituency, and was surprised by his vote. But what dismays me more is how little attention his vote is getting here in the local media.
I have started to read Manitoba Legislative Hansard to get in sight into this man and his views. From my limited reading, I have learned the man is hostile to the fact that unions overall support the NDP. He went so far in one debate (Harsard, Feb 2007), to say that he wasn't against oridnary union members, but with their "elitist" leadership. Of course this makes no sense given that the union members vote for the leadership of their organzations, and claiming to be against only the leaders really doesn't work; who do you think picked the leadership? And this is notwithstanding that this is "dog-whistle" rhetoric used by anti union advocates.
I was suspect of Lamoureux before the election, and don't trust him at all, seeing him really as a populist political opportunist, who is in it for himself first, and the Liberal party second. What really galls me the most though is that it is clear he thinks he knows better how to look after women in this kind of situation then they do themseles; his actions are partenalistic, mysoginistic, and insulting. I can tell you from personal experience with women who have and are important in my life regarding decions revolving around choice, that they don't need anyone's approval or "protection" when it comes to making decisions about their own bodies.
I for the life of me can't understand why this isn't proving more toxic for this guy in particular, and these Liberals in general. What is going on here?
I neglected to note above that I have tried twice to get a response from Mr. Lamoureux regarding his vote without success; I have called his constituency office twice. I intend to write to him via registered snail mail next.
Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg
I don't understand why no one has posted in response to this thread. Am I wrong about this as an issue, are most rabble users anti-choice? Or, is that people are just accustomed to the Libs being hypocrites? Or is it that no one cares about this, you know, this is a none issue? Or, is that you all think I have it wrong about the Libs, or, is it jus that I you guys think I am nuts?
I mean, this drives me crazy, how can you say you are pro women when you take anti women postions? Is it that people don't care, or that this just so old news that the Libs are being hypocrites that this just, yawn!
It's too horrifying to contemplate acramer.
Arthur, it is not just the Libs who are misogynists in fake gender friendly aprons, I would bet that most rabble users agree with the current law which is that continuing a pregnancy is a matter for a woman to decide with the help of a licensed medical doctor, and I don't think you are nuts, but it is Christmas for many of us women. It is not that we don't care. We are just busy in the kitchen getting dinner ready while we look after the many children they got us to 'choose' to have by promising us extended paid maternity leave, basic income supplement, funded daycare and homemaker pensions.
Well, first of all, Merry Christmas to one and all! I know that this is a busy time for everyone, and I would guess you are right that today there are moms, wives, sweethearts, sisters, aunts, cousins, etc. so busy. But I would guess there are a lot of men busy today such as myself, what, ok hun, I will be right there, I am just babbling right now...lol.
I really get so angry about this vote when I think about it. Bev Dejarlais was relieved of her Parlimentary critic duties when she voted against the NDP whip the last time this kind of thing came up in the House, but not a peep out of Ignatieff or the senior Lib leadership; these Libs, including Ruby Dhalla, and Kevin Lamoureux, both of whom identify themselves as "progressives" on their web site voted in favor of Bruinooge's motion, and nothing from the Libs on this. Why no calling out, or some kind of discipline, whent the New Dems showed where they stood? What I find even more curious is that both Dhalla and Lamoureux do not appear to have spoken in favor of this motion when given the change to do so in the House; there doesn't appear anything to the contrary that is observable in Hansard? Why is that? I think that is really curious. Its easy to take shots and do unreasonable things when you don't have to put your mouth where your actions are.
I can't help but see this in partisan eyes. It drives me crazy that the Libs talk about how progressive they are, then vote, and govern, from the right every time. I hate the word progressive by the way; I am convinced the Libs are using this to confuse voters, and try to pull votes from the New Dems by appearing more "leftist", then they really are. I resent that so much. I won't stop calling myself a Socialist, and a leftist. These are good words, and ones which have come from the mouths of better and wiser people then me, such as Woodsworth, Douglas, Broadbent, Judy WL, Davey Orlikow, Robert Russel, and of course today's leaders, Layton, Blakie, Davis, etc.
From my life experience, including my time in the service, the long discussions with my Mother, my Sisters departed and living, Cousins, Aunts, Shipmates (female and male), and fellow Officers (again female and male), and of course my dear and sweetest wife, my Darlene, I know women are perfectly capable of deciding things for themselves. They don't need anyone telling them what to think or do, and I object to people such as Dhalla and Lamoureux, through their votes in the House, clearly saying that in fact, women need to have these things decided for them. That is just plain neither moral, nor democratic.
Quote: Or, is that people are just accustomed to the Libs being hypocrites?
Hi Arthur. Of the choices you offered in post #2, I'd say this was the closest to being on the mark. I personally have very low expectations of the Liberals, so things like this are kinda under the radar for me. I also live in Oshawa which is represented by consevative MP Colin Carrie, so I already have enough to be depressed about.
Merry Christmas to you too, and a somewhat belated welcome to babble.
Hi Oldgoat!
I hear what you are saying; it must really be tough going from "Canada's most trusted politician", the great Ed Broadbent, to such a low calibre, know-nothing. We really need to figure out how to get working Oshawanians to come back into the fold. This actualy is something that the New Dems really need to figure out; we are behind the power curve on this right now.
Happy holidays to you and yours, and thanks again for taking the time on this special day to reply and let me know I am not alone on this; sometimes, I must admit, I am not sure.
Happy Holidays!
Arthur Camer, Winnipeg
Best wishes to you as well Arthur.
I also live in Winnipeg and had no idea that Kevin Lamoureux voted with the Conservatives on this Bill. It is disturbing for sure. I agree with Old Goat, the Liberals have lots of hypocrites.
There are a number of issues at play here.
1. There is only one political party in Parliament that has an unequivocal policy on this issue. While the Libservatives, the Conserverals and the Bloc all play both ends against the middle, the New Democratic Party is the only parliamentary party that is opposed to restricting a woman's choice. The Liberal Party of Canada, as such, has no policy at all regarding the legality or the morality of abortion, and has consistently had a significant cadre of anti-choice MPs. Frankly, only 11 anti-choice Liberal MPs is progress.
2. That said, it is very unusual for any party to sanction MPs for how they may vote on a Private Member's Bill. Indeed, up until Bev Desjarlais (who was sanctioned for voting against equal marriage, not a dissenting vote on the abortion issue), the ILP-CCF-NDP had never sanctioned any MP for how they had voted in the House. Some of us opposed the sanctions against Desjarlais on that basis - not that we agreed with her position, but that it violated the party's established practice over the previous 80 years.
3. This bill was not a straight up anti-choice bill. Notionally, I think most progressives and pro-choice folk would actually agree that no woman should be pressured or forced to have an abortion if she doesn't want one. The main problem, of course, is that this bill would ban pressure in only one direction, leaving antichoice activists free to indulge in their usual emotional terrorism. That said, though, I can see why some MPs might make a distinction between this bill and a purely antichoice bill.
Hi Malcom!
Happy Holidays! Well, as you always do, you make some good points. But for my part, this is still trying to be too cute by half. At best, what is going here is someone trying to play the ends against the middle.
Malcom, I hear what you are saying but I think it is very telling that neither of the Libs about whom I have posted made a comment recorded in Hansard. If these MPs were really voting in support of the intent of the bill, then they could have clarified this by commenting and it being recorded in Hansard. Given this, they didn't chose to do so. I think that is telling. I don't know what the political forces are that would keep them from doing so, but what matters to me is that they didn't.
I will admit, I have a "little more skin in the game", given one of these MPs "represents" my riding, and I am not willing to give any quarter. From my standpoint, I am just fed up with this Lib game of playing it cute like this. I think it shows cowardice, at best. I don't see why they should get any "slack" on this for their position. Regarding Desjarlais, Malcom, I don't have the association that you do with the party, and I will say how you outlined the issue with her, really gives me pause to think; I really admire your ability to look at things in such a rational way; maybe I am leading more with hear then bead. But, I think in the end, it was the right thing to do. There has to come a point where you say some things are right, and some things aren't. A person can take a stand, but this comes with a cost, and I think it right to call someone to account when they take actions that are contrary to where you party stands. Especially now, I think it is more improtant that we clarify where we stand as New Dems, given the way the Libs are manipulating language and public sentiment.; otherwise we may concede to the Libs a position that they don't hold, and public perception coloured by slick political manipulation.
I don't mean it personally at all if this sounds like this, and I am sure you know that. But, if you believe something is right, then you shouldn't compromise it looking for some kind of imagined "middle ground", which is an old trick the Libs have tried and used over and over again. Sooner or later, you have to put your foot down, and say enough. Again, I think these MPs are trying to "be too cute by half". It is insulting, disingenuous, and cowardly. State where you stand and then let people decide, otherwise get out of the way and let someone else do the job. This "being too cute by half" stuff is something which both of these MPs thus far, in my opinion, appear, given the lack of Hansard commentary, appear to be doing. I resent it; they have the forum to make their opinions known; that they appear to be so unwilling to do so is contemptable. They knew what Bruinooge was up to, I am certain of that. The fact their Lib colleagues didn't chose to follow in the same way themselves speaks volumes as far as I am concerned.
Cheers and Holiday Greetings Malcolm. Our families!
Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg.
The Desjarlais matter had a number of aspects to it, most significantly that the ILP-CCF-NDP had never sanctioned a sinlgle MP for a vote cast in the Commons is 80 years. I mean, the party leader chose to defy the decided policy of the party in 1939 and when he attempted to resign the leadership his resignation was refused. In 1970, the leader advised MPs to vote against the party's position a) if they really felt that the party's position was wrong or b) if they really believed that voting the party's position would be too costly electorally.
There was never any formal consultation within the party to undertake this radical change to the party's long established practice. I don't believe that decisions like that should be taken entirely within the Torontocentric echo chamber of the leader's office. (I also note that, after a couple of clangers, the leader's office subsequently became significantly less Torontocentric.)
I think the other problem with the Desjarlais case is that progressive opinion on the issue at hand - equal marriage - was an evolving thing. Desjarlais's personal position (which was to support "civil unions" but not "marriage") had been a forward looking, progressive and frankly courageous position a mere decade earlier. It's not as though Desjarlais was campaigning for the reinstatement of sodomy laws. While I am absolutely convinced that the party position was on the side of the angels, I believed then and I still believe that the leader's office erred in overturning 80 years of practice to punish an MP for a position which had been party policy just a few years previously.
When Desjarlais announced her intention to run in Churchill despite having lost the nomination, that was another matter entirely. She was in clear and unequivocal violation of the party constitution, and dozens of members have been expelled for less overt acts. (Of course, it took the NDP more than a decade to finally expell that odious Liberal Basil Hargrove, but that's another story.)
Back to the matter at hand, though, the reason that you hear little or nothing about antichoice Liberals is that they aren't news. They are a significant part of the Liberal tactic of being all things to all people. You're a progressive? The Libs will talk about Pearson, Paul Martin Sr. and wax on about whoever it is we're supposed to believe is a progressive Liberals this week. You're a reactionary? They wax on about Paul Martin Jr. (at least as finance minister), John Manley, Louis St. Laurent and the assorted business Liberals who run the party. You believe in choice? They have MPs who believe that too. You're against choice? They've got MPs for that as well. If you like public health care, meet Dr. Carolyn Bennett. If you lie privatization, meet Dr. Keith Martin.
"Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription" may refer to a single chapter of Liberal history, but it points to the essential nature of the Liberal Party. They believe whatever the person listening wants them to believe, except on economic questions, where they believe whatever Bay Street tells them to believe.
I'm not sure how you could historically prove a negative like that, Malcolm, but I'll take your word for it.
In June 1999, however, the leader applied exactly the same sanction to Svend Robinson as was to be done years later to Desjarlais - not for how he voted, but merely for reading a constituents' petition in the House, asking for references to "God" to be removed from the Preamble to the Charter. It was, of course, the Liberal government under Pearson which had inserted God where He had never been before - into the words of "O Canada" - and it was the Liberal government of Trudeau which wrote God into the Constitution. Svend was publicly criticized and disciplined by the then-leader for daring to disclose that some of his constituents did not favour this Liberal God-worship.
Apparently, Svend's action was worthy of more condemnation than Woodsworth's breaking ranks to vote against declaring war on Nazi Germany.
Ok, back to the hypocritical Liberals. But let's not forget that this deliberately confusing private members' bill, which didn't face as big a counter-campaign as the earlier and much less ambiguous Bill C-484 (making it a separate crime to harm a foetus when assaulting a pregnant woman), also managed to garner some Conservative "no" votes. Only the NDP and the Bloc stood firm.
Unionist and Malcolm, you've inserted a nettle and now I have an annoying rash.
If the Libs have no official party stance on protecting women's right to choose safe medical termination of pregnancy, then the anti-choice Libs are not being hypocritical, by definition. Jerks, for sure, from my point of view as a woman and mother of daughters, and maybe not upholding the criminal code, as evidenced by the lack of action taken against the aggressive aholes who harass women trying to exercise their legal right to enter approved and government funded medical clinics, but not hypocrites. So Arthur's frustration is really with Lamoureux alone. We can't expect Liberals to behave like NDPs. But we want them to, anyway. Well, they would if we had proportional representation instead of first past the post but that's another thread.
Hey, if it's any consolation, there must be some gnashing of teeth in the constituencies where Conservative members voted against Bruinoodge's bill, in pseudo-hypocrisy to the Conservatives who also don't have a party position on choice (it just looks that way).
But if Libs DON'T have an official party stance on putting God (the Christian one, I am guessing) in the platform, yet have managed to put God in anthem and the Constitution, isn't that the bigger hypocrisy? and offers a back door to eventually making abortion a crime against God? And it is the NDP who were most hypocritical of all, to the point of sanctioning a member for daring to put forth a constituent's plea for protecting the secular neutrality of the Constitution? The NDP have no party stance on whether members should endorse God, do they? And yet they acted like there was.
Anti-choice hypocrisy cuts a very wide swath. Why, it practically dismembers our pseudo-democracy.
You know, as I read what was written above, I realize just how shallow in some ways my commentary was. I know that most times, things are much more complicated then you realize and that there is much more to an issue then one would expect.
I think nutrimom really made a good point about being mad at Liberals because they don't act like New Dems. I have to admit that I didn't know the Libs didn't have an offical policy regarding choice; that is really cowardly. I guess my biggest problem is these Libs call themeselves "progressive", but you would never know it when the chips are down. I read Malcom's comments to my wife and she said that "well what do you expect, they are Liberals", and then when I read nutrimom's comments to her, she said, "that really gets to it doesn't it", and then said "Honey, why do you expect Liberals to act like New Dems?"
You know here in Winnipeg, all I heard during the campaign was "what a nice guy" Lamoureux was. Even after the election, I have been hearing this. And I always think to myself, "what is so nice about a guy who thinks he knows what is best for a woman?". I think nutrimom pobably pretty much nailed it then. I guess what drives me so crazy, and makes me so angry is that the Libs get people to believe things about them that make people think it is "safe" to vote Liberal, because, they are "like the NDP", and can form a government that will keep out the Tories. As malcom rightly pointed out, the Libs do whatever Bay Street tells them to do, which by the way is what I think makes them so dangerous, and what infuriates me so much about them.
When the election ended and the results became clear, all I could think was that ordinary working people in one of the most working class ridings in Canada no longer had a true voice for them. I think malcom's point that Libs will say whatever people want to hear is what makes me worry about having Lamoureux as a MP. The guy is slick, and can manipulate almost anything where he sees opportunity. So, this is what happens, he acts in a way that is clearly first of all "anti-women", and then really anti-decency, and will probably get away with it, knowing full well to himself what he did. But add to it these other Libs, especially Dhalla, who makes such a big deal out of supposedly understanding how "ordinary Canadians" feel and being a progressive, and I am telling you, it makes me just want to throw-up. I mean, my reference point is my time in the service, you stood where you did, and were upfront about it. You didn't think about it, and courage wasn't a commodity hard to come by. I look at the votes of these two members and really how it seems to have gone unnoticed under the radar, and all I can feel is contempt for them. They are cowardly, and act like bullies. Again, who do they think they are deciding that they know what is best?
Regarding Svend Robinson, man, do I feel stupid. I have to admit I don't recall that. My only defense was I was in the Navy at the time, and really kind of lost tracks of things, which is indeed ironic as I was serving on the West Coast, and you can bet, the story was getting play locally. I really don't know why I don't recall this. That was an awaful thing that happened to Svend, and I guess that is about all I can say. I regret this passed from my recall. I feel a little silly about that, to say the least.
So, I guess that is where things stand. Here in Winnipeg, we are stuck with a faux "progressive", really he is a corporatist and manipulative populist, and I still am so saddened that Chief didn't win. Side by side, and man-to-man, Lamoureux isn't fit to walk with Chief on anything. The fact Lamoureux can get away with this kind of nonsense, makes me even sadder about Chief. And it makes me feel contempt for the LPC even more.
Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg
On the first point - FWIW, I also think the sanction against Svend was entirely inappropriate and unprecedented - and arguably maks the first parliamentary example of the shift of power in the party towards the leader's office.
On the second - I hope I was clear that I did not support this bill. I was merely speculating about why an otherwise pro-choice person might have chosen to support the bill. I could theoretically see supporting legislation that addressed coercing women either way (either to have an abortion she doesn't want or not to have an abortion she wants).
Speaking specifically on the abortion issue, while only the NDP has a clear and specific policy, the Liberals and the Bloc and even the Conservatives are all de facto pro-choice as well. (Some would argue that the Conservatives might well be othewise, but I'm not convinced a) that Harper or any future leader would let anti-choice legislation get to that stage or b) that the socons could win a free vote on this even with a Conservative majority). Bills like this are a sideshow for the entertainment and assuaging of a certain demographic.
Malcolm wrote
"I could theoretically see supporting legislation that addressed coercing women either way (either to have an abortion she doesn't want or not to have an abortion she wants)."
Either way, it is almost always the inseminator who is doing the coercing. But the outcomes are very different for each choice. Legislation that provides safe, funded abortion and protects this choice has been shown to improve women's health and economic stability, and reduce crime and violence down the line. But legislation that punishes the coercer who rejects his partner's choice of continuing the pregnancy has no benefit to the mother or baby or society. Women going it alone, having babies their partners do not want and don't stick around to raise - AND WHO ARE ALSO ABANDONED BY GOVERNMENT THAT WON'T PROVIDE BASIC MINIMUM SUPPORT FOR RAISING HEALTHY KIDS- have poorer mental and physical health and are more likely to live below poverty line. In my experience as a labour coach for 20 years, some women (like some men) believe that a pregnancy will be the magic glue to bind the person to the relationship.
I have always believed that pro choice has to mean being pro children and their mothers too. That's the kind of legislation we really ought to have. Maybe Lamoureux should be pressed to go the extra mile on this and redeem himself.
And Arthur, no need to dis yourself so. It's just information you didn't have and is no reflection on you as a person.
If we had balanced anti-coersion legislation, perhaps it could also be used against the emotional terrorists who harrass women going into clinics. I'd agree that the coersion to terminate a pregnancy is most likely from the "inseminator" (good descriptor). Coersion to carry to term seems to be a broader effort.
I don't no if anti-coersion legislation a) is practically enforceable or b) actually necessary. I agree that ensuring safe access on the one hand, and appropriate social supports on the other are far more important in ensuring that women really do have choices.
I have heard (though I don't have stats) that abortion rates in the US consistently rise during Republican administrations and fall during Democratic administrations, supposeldy because the Democratic policies tend to reduce the number of women choosing abortion due to economic considerations while Republican administrations strip away social supports, thus making it more difficult economically for a woman who chooses to carry to term.
I don't know if this statistical pattern is true, but it makes sense.
Malcom, I think that the key is just understanding that punishing and focusing on coercion doesn't address the real issue of support for women in this situation, as nutrimom discussed. I think your feeling that coercion doesn't really help is very likely correct. And, that is the whole point of what was wrong about this legislation right from the start.
Again, what really gets me is how willing people were to vote in support of this motion knowing full well that there is more to dealing with this issue then arresting, punishing, and putting people in jail. Honestly, I think they knew that full well, and that is what really gets me the most. I think they knew that this issue is complicated but that they can't help but let their ideological view of things get in the way of seeing this clearly. I don't have a lot of patience for this you know. They are in postions to make decisions that can irreversibly affect people's lives. Not being able to get beyond ideology is not good enough.
Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg
Just wanted to mention that I agree with Malcolm's take on the situation. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant - of course we should and we are, as the campaign against 484 showed.
We should start a version of wikileaks to out them.
It would't make any difference. All you have to say is Haper majority government, and the voters will fall into line. What New Dems need to do is really figure out why these voters keep voting Lib in spite of finding out things like this. That is what is killing the New Dems and I am guessing things will likely never change.
Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg
Just saw latest poll in Free Press, Manitoba voter intentions. I am thinking this whole thread is just a waste of time. People don't care. All they care about is their pocket books.
Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg
You think Manitoba voter intentions are depressing, did you catch some of the letters of the day in yesterday's Free Press, Arthur? Two were complaining that the new Human Rights Museum should have a permanent exhibit on the 3 million "lives" lost to abortions since 1969. Ugh. How the editors could publish one of these letters is kind of disappointing but TWO of them is distressing.
That is depressing, but not surprising. As for the Free Press, well they have an agenda politically, though Mia Rabson, through her cheer leading for Kevin Lamoureux, seems to be bucking that a bit.
Happy Holidays Laine!
Just FYI for everyone here. The NDP sent out the following release with an hour or so of the vote on December 15, it went to all national media.
http://www.ndp.ca/press/reality-check-who-are-anti-choice-liberals
Hi:
Thanksfor that. I saw the NDP Press release. I didn't do any good; there wasn't much coverage of this. As I said, anti-choice Libs; no coverage.
Cheers!
Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg
Hi:
Thanksfor that. I saw the NDP Press release. I didn't do any good; there wasn't much coverage of this. As I said, anti-choice Libs; no coverage.
Cheers!
Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg
From the Winnipeg Free Press:
"Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North) was one of just four Liberal MPs who voted in favour of the motion. He said Wednesday he supports a woman's right to choose. However, he said that's not what this motion was about.
"I would never deny anyone the right to have an abortion, but I am entitled to a personal opinion, and if you read what was actually voted on, we were not voting on (a woman's right to choose)," he said.
Lamoureux initially said he did not believe his office had any communication from constituents about the motion, but he later said there were some calls and emails and that the people were evenly split on the issue." (27 Sep 2012).
Seriously, WHO does this guy think he is kidding? I can't stand this guy. What a creep!