Bill C-484 - the continuing saga

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michelle
Bill C-484 - the continuing saga

 

Michelle

I want to know just what the hell is happening to Canada, that a bill with the repugnant anti-choice terminology, "Unborn Victims" in the title can pass SECOND READING.

It's time for us to start screaming bloody murder, ladies. IWD is coming up. Let's make this an issue.

[ 09 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Michelle
Michelle

Okay, opening this up again since [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=001356]this one's[/url] full.

morningstar

Thanks to the timely and good info here about the yea saying Liberal MPs, our OWL women are organizing hard copy petitions, a letter writing campaign and phone campaign.

We are targetting all of the yea and abscent Liberal MPs, we are setting up a media/parliament watch team to try to nip some of this anti woman nonsense in the bud.

This has been a tipping point issue for Liberal women in our area---we clearly need to work harder and insure that women's issues get much higher profile both within the party and in ouir communities.
We will try to coordinate this action with the other women's groups in our area.
I still feel so hollowed out about this.

writer writer's picture

[url=http://section15.ca/]http://section15.ca/[/url]

private member’s bill passes second reading - so what’s next?

This includes all the contact info for the members of the standing committee. And more!

Info! Contacts! Background! Motivation! Positive vibes to crack the seemingly impenetrable democratic wall of procedural democracy thingy ma jig in action!

It's all there. Now go tell the folks who will be submitting a report with recommendations and possible amendments to the bill for third reading in the Commons (if this government is still standing by that point) what you think.

Whooo!

writer writer's picture

I would hate to dwell on the fact that there is one woman amongst the 12 MPs on that standing committee. I would really hate to make a big stink about that. Or to mention that all 12 seem to be very visibly minorities, in the global sense.

Justice and human rights! Yeah! Outside the room, please. We'll call you when we are ready to hear from you.

[ 11 March 2008: Message edited by: writer ]

morningstar

What a great site!---that picture of the committee is brilliant and very telling---I've printed it out to pass around. Useful info in a simple format---exactly what I need right now as I sink into a stunned ddepressed stupor.

It was a bit grim reading the nonsense in the Star blog link though---I'm really not understanding this male anger---When did women ever cause the meyhem and destruction to men, that they routinely have inflicted on women?
Just a quick glance at any period of HIstory and I'd be assuming that the women should be the angry ones.
And I'm still not understanding why any man should even think that he should have a say in the reproductive choice of women??
I can't believe that most of these guys want a passel of kids and an exhausted, non earning woman---what is going on?

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I have yet to hear any response to my letters to the JUST committee members.

It is an outrage that this blatant anti-abortion bill actually got passed at a second reading with a vote that included Liberals voting yea and one (Peter Stoffer) NDP yea and lots of Liberals absent. It's ridiculous that Epp's private member bill got so far. But more importantly, it is dangerous. The political landscape is shifting beneath our feet and in a dangerous direction.

[ 11 March 2008: Message edited by: laine lowe ]

Indiana Jones

Do people really think that this bill poses a threat to legalized abortion? The bill specifically metnions that this does not cover abortions.

I DO think both sides on the issue are using it to help advance their own viewpoins on teh abortion issue. Pro-lifers are trying to at least influence Canadians to think of the fetus as having some value and pro-choicers are obviously against assigning any value whatsoever to the fetus. Both are using this legislation to try to shape public opinion. But at the end of the day, that's not what the bill is about. And I really don't have too much of a problem with tougher criminal penalties for people who murder or assault pregnant women who choose to carry their pregnancy to term. Neither do 70% of Canadians, which is WAY higher than the percentage of Canadians who outrightly oppose abortion.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
[b] Pro-lifers are trying to at least influence Canadians to think of the fetus as having some value and pro-choicers are obviously against assigning any value whatsoever to the fetus. [/b]

Why don't you take your anti-choice views to some site more appropriate to that kind of poison?

Indiana Jones

How the hell is that anti-choice, unionist? My point was that despite the hopes and fears of both sides, this bill will ultimately have no effect on the legality of abortion in Canada.

Will S

quote:


Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
[b]Do people really think that this bill poses a threat to legalized abortion? The bill specifically metnions that this does not cover abortions.[/b]

In spite of such explicit statements, can it not set a dangerous precedent that a fetus is not a potential life, but a life with rights separate from the woman who's carrying it? The anti-choicers are probably never going to recriminalize abortion in one shot. But if they chip away at it they can severely restrict a woman's rights over her own body. This is a backdoor attempt at changing a larger body of judicial thinking.

pogge

quote:


Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
[b]But at the end of the day, that's not what the bill is about.[/b]

It doesn't matter what people think this bill is about and that applies to its author, even if you take his statement of intention at face value. What matters is what legal precedents might be established by its passage and what any lawyer with an agenda might be able to do with those precedents down the road. You don't even have to look to the body of the bill to begin to see a problem. Look at its proper title:

quote:

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)

Giving legal recognition to "an unborn child" creates a separate legal entity whose rights may be in conflict with the mother's. That's where the concern starts. We're not talking about anyone's subjective intentions; we're talking about the law and the power of precedent. See [i]Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company[/i] in the U.S. which, in 1886, established the precedent that corporations have the same rights as persons under American law. How much mischief has flowed from that little number?

Edited for spelling.

[ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]

Indiana Jones

quote:


Originally posted by Will S:
[b]

In spite of such explicit statements, can it not set a dangerous precedent that a fetus is not a potential life, but a life with rights separate from the woman who's carrying it? The anti-choicers are probably never going to recriminalize abortion in one shot. But if they chip away at it they can severely restrict a woman's rights over her own body. This is a backdoor attempt at changing a larger body of judicial thinking.[/b]


I think that IS a concern, Will S. But this bill explicitly does not do that. If anything, it upholds the legality of abortion by singling it out as not being affected by this law. I DO think it's an attempt to influence public opinion and maybe it will, maybe it won't. But I don't think that the fact that it has the potential to influence opinion on the abortion issue is a good enough reason to be so up in arms over what seems to be a pretty reasonable principle: tougher penalties for those who, in the commission of a murder or assault on a woman, cause her to miscarry.

My wife is pregnant right now. We have every intention of having a baby together and are looking forward to the birth (her especially!). If, G-d forbid, someone were to attack my wife and cause a miscarriage, you're damn right that I'd like to see the bastard punished far more harshly than if the assault only caused a bruise or something like that.

Indiana Jones

quote:


Originally posted by pogge:
[b]Look at its proper title:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)
[ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: pogge ][/b]


I think the msot pertinent part of the title is the phrase "while committing an offence."

The bill only applies in situations where a criminal offence is already occurring and where that offence has led to a miscarraige. So if someone beats their wife/girlfriend, for example, that is an offence and if in the course of that assault, they cause a miscarriage, THEN the bill applies. Performing an abortion is NOT a criminal offence so it would not, could not be applied here.

remind remind's picture

How nice, to see a male voice stating all of us [b]women[/b] are off base with this. Completely ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, and then sums it up with a nice emotional based reason why he would want the Bill. How about fuck right off IJ.

[ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

Unionist

I can't believe that this issue - which has been the subject of massive discussion and a growing movement in Canada - is being re-debated by a bunch of men just because some religious Zionist anti-choice wingnut waltzes into the feminism forum and throws a stink bomb.

Moderators advised.

Michelle

We've already dealt with this argument in past threads, as you know, Indiana Jones, so your question about whether or not we think this will apply to abortion is pretty disingenuous.

As we have stated many times before, there are ways of carrying harsh penalties against people who force pregnant women to miscarry against their will without giving the fetus legal status and calling a fetus a "child" in the legislation.

This is clearly anti-choice incrementalism. If you want to know why we think so, please do feel free to read the last three or four threads on the subject.

Indiana Jones

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]How nice, to see a male voice stating all of us [b]women[/b] are off base with this. Completely ignoring all the evidence to the contrary,
[ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ][/b]

Well, according to a poll I saw (I believe it was Environics), 70% of the Canadian public supports the bill. I haven't seen the cross-tabs based on gender, but you'd ahve to assume that that number includes a whole bunch of women. So are you saying all of THOSE women are off base?

As to 'evidence to the contrary', there has been no 'evidence'. There has been 'speculation to the contrary'. I'm not a lawyer, but if any lawyer on the board could explain in legal terms how this bill which is about violent crime and specifically upholds the legality of abortion will constitute the recriminalization of abortion, I'd be very interested to hear it. I jsut don't see the logical scenario of how that can happen.

Michelle

Unionist and remind are right. Indiana Jones, please just stay out of the feminism forum from now on. If you want to know why feminists are upset about Bill C-484, just read the threads. You'll find out why.

If you want to argue in favour of Bill C-484, find another forum to do it on. It's not welcome here. And you are no longer welcome in the feminism forum.

Thanks.

Indiana Jones

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]
As we have stated many times before, there are ways of carrying harsh penalties against people who force pregnant women to miscarry against their will without giving the fetus legal status and calling a fetus a "child" in the legislation.

This is clearly anti-choice incrementalism. If you want to know why we think so, please do feel free to read the last three or four threads on the subject.[/b]


Thanks for that, Michelle. I will go back and read them.

But, briefly as to your point about giving legal status to the fetus (if that's what it does)...it doesn't give it legal status as a "human being." It gives it the legal status that if it is harmed while committing a crime, that can be taken into consideration in criminal charges. If someone were to damage my house and be charged for it, that is not granting "legal status" to my house as anything other than property.

And yes, I think the use of the term 'child' in teh bill's title is rather sneaky way to influence opinion, but that's standard operating procedure for politicians. The Patriot Act isn't really about patriotism, the Leave No CHild Hehind Act leaves plenty of children behind, the Clean Air Act actually makes our air dirtier, etc. etc. etc.

montrealais

There's a reason why this is called the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" and not the "Pregnant Victims of Crime Act." It should tell you that they could possibly give two shits about pregnant women, or violence against women: they care about the Sacred Fetus and that's an end to it.

remind remind's picture

Privilege of your esteemed self towards yourself knows no bounds, IJ just sneak in and give another shot of BS after being asked to leave the feminist forum, and to stop, means nothing to you. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Michelle

To be fair, he probably cross-posted with my request. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and not tempt him back here to defend himself.

Unionist

I must say it was fascinating to have a pro-lifer who thinks he has a clever approach visit us, if ever so briefly.

Besides the giveaway title of Bill C-484, consider this:

A non-pregnant woman is assaulted, and the injuries are so grave she loses the ability to bear children.

Which section of 484 covers that?

Correct. None. Why not? Surely the protectors of womanhood would want to deter such crimes?

Because the authors of this bill don't give a damn about women, or childbearing, or pregnancy, or assaults. Their sole and only aim is to focus on the foetus as a way of re-opening a back door to banning abortion.

Let's never forget that the same governments which banned abortion in the past also had legislated forced sterilization in all kinds of instances. In Canada. It's the same people.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture
contrarianna

It may have already been linked somewhere, but here is a good statement posted March 10th on the NDP website. Irene Mathyssen's statement to the House:[url=http://www.ndp.ca/node/6261]NDP[/url]

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Here are some of the really good bits from Mathyssen's remarks:

quote:

I believe it is essential to this debate to discuss an area of concern that the Conservative government has failed to address, and that is, of course, violence against women. [b]Homicide is a leading killer of pregnant women and it is well known that violence against women increases during pregnancy.[/b]

What the government needs to address is better measures to protect women in general and pregnant women in particular from domestic violence. A foetal homicide law would completely sidestep the issue of domestic abuse and do nothing to protect pregnant women from violence before it happens. It would also do nothing to protect women who are abused shortly after giving birth.


And:

quote:

If the government is truly concerned about women and their children, it will abandon its recent budget and reverse its unacceptable policies, policies that have removed equality from the mandate of the women's program, canceled the court challenges program, closed 12 regional offices of Status of Women Canada, and ended research, lobbying and advocacy on behalf of women in a dismal budget document that failed to reintroduce a national housing strategy or affordable decent housing.

remind remind's picture

Thank you contrarianna, for providing the link.

Irene Mathyssen great statement you gave, thank you. It was about time the NDP had something about this on their website.

Unionist

Great statement. Why only on March 10? Because of the outcry by many supporters, petition signers, emails, phone calls, online posts in forums like these.

So:

1. Better late than never.
2. Congratulations to the NDP for listening.

remind remind's picture

Apparently some press in Germany have picked this up and covered it. The following link was posted by Joyce over at BnR.

[url=http://diestandard.at/?url=/?id=1204643440723]http://diestandard.at/?url...

montrealais

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Besides the giveaway title of Bill C-484, consider this:

A non-pregnant woman is assaulted, and the injuries are so grave she loses the ability to bear children.

Which section of 484 covers that?

Correct. None. Why not? Surely the protectors of womanhood would want to deter such crimes?[/b]


Hell, have the Protectors of Womanhood done thing one about violence against women at any point in their tenure? Of course not. They closed three quarters of the Status of Women offices and cancelled Court Challenges.

I agree with and I think we should widely use a line that Yvon Godin used at the Quebec breakthrough conference in Rimouski: the Conservatives don't deserve the vote of a single woman in Canada.

montrealais

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]Apparently some press in Germany have picked this up and covered it. The following link was posted by Joyce over at BnR.

[url=http://diestandard.at/?url=/?id=1204643440723]http://diestandard.at/?url...


Actually Austria, judging from the TLD abbreviation .at.

It's fun seeing Jack in German:

quote:

"Der Vorschlag ist der Beginn der Rekriminalisierung von Abtreibung und deshalb spricht sich die NDP dagegen aus", erklдrte Jack Layton, Chef der linksgerichteten Neuen Demokratischen Partei.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by montrealais:
[b]...I think we should widely use a line that Yvon Godin used at the Quebec breakthrough conference in Rimouski: the Conservatives don't deserve the vote of a single woman in Canada.[/b]

Nor do the Liberals at this point.

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
[b]Pro-lifers are trying to at least influence Canadians to think of the fetus as having some value and pro-choicers are obviously against assigning any value whatsoever to the fetus.[/b]

I'd turn that around. Pro-choicers are trying to influence Canadians to think that women have some value, while "pro-lifers" are obviously against assigning any value whatsoever to women.

Ghislaine

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b] Nor do the Liberals at this point.[/b]

Well, we can be sure that they will get
[url=http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=356]these women's[/url] votes.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
[b]Pro-choicers are trying to influence Canadians to think that women have some value, while "pro-lifers" are obviously against assigning any value whatsoever to women.[/b]

Going to reword that Scott, and thanks for pointing out that nonsensical post of Indiana Jones which I somehow missed.

[i]Pro-choicers are trying to influence Canadians to get them to understand that women have equal value, while "pro-lifers" are obviously against assigning any value whatsoever to women[/i]
--------------------------------------
Not directed at scott, just a segue to say:

It makes me very chagrined that some people try to depict pro-choice peoples as hard unfeeling people and/or yammer on about a fetus having societal value, and what could that fetus have been, or not been.

The bottom line is women, are equal, they are not just breeding vessels to churn out children "for society" anymore than men are just sperm to do the same thing. Outrageous over blown sentimentality ascribed to a fetuses value is not correct, or realistic, nor is it pertinent to anything in regards to being pro-choice. Nor is a person stating that they could have been aborted and so they are against it.

In fact, I liken this juvenile sentimentality to those type of people who get puppies and kittens because they are cute and cuddly, or for some other equally nonsensical reason, then when the puppy becomes a dog, and the kitten becomes a cat, they can't deal with them, or lose interest, and send them off to the SPCA. It denotes a lack of maturity in both emotional and rational thought, directing perceptions and in turn actions.

Women, who know the truth of pro-choice and equality, understand that a fetus could become a person, but so what if it could have, or would have? Someone else's potential life is not the issue/point, the issue/point is in fact what the woman needs/feels and/or believes and her unequivocal right to do so.

Why does a woman have to be imposed with the mandatory default position, according to some, to give, what could be, their actual life into the service of a potential other person? As that is what "fetuses" are, potential other people, they are not babies/children, and they are not possessions.

Some women want to bring a potential life/person to fruition, some women do not, some cannot. Value to society, and self, cannot be ascribed to women on this basis, just as it cannot, and is not, ascribed to men.

Ascribing value to a women based solely upon her ability to have "potential" other people, or not, is wrong, and it is dismissive of women's worth in ALL other areas of society, and it is desregarding the reality of NOW.

People talk about what the fetus could have been, such as they do in the link [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] that Ghislaine put forth. They dismiss this notion in the blog piece, which correctly needed doing, but they do it for the incorrect reason.

Those who say; "what if it would've been" fail to consider the "now" and see only some mythical, and perhaps unrealizable, potential value, at sometime in the equally mythological future. Moreover, there is pre-subscribing an added value that is only for the male gender.

As again, by default, babies, who will become women, must keep on being breeders to have any value to society under anti-choice dictates and perhaps with some who think a fetus has value beyond/above the carrying woman and what she wants for HER life.

The "now" potential is, in actual fact, residing in the woman, and that is what is being overlooked by anti-choicers of both genders, and by those who would ascribe to "only" women the position of breeder for future persons.

A woman who decided not to give her life in service to another, by giving birth, could go on to find a cure for cancer or AIDS, or become the next Madame Curry, or Elizabeth I, or something other that may not have been found/done had she decided to only give her life into the service of a "potential" other person. That is a real measurable societal loss, not some sentimental mythical potential future loss, that CANNOT be known in the NOW.

Beyond all of this is the absolute fact that equality means leaving the choice of what a woman wants to do with HER body, and HER life, up to her. And the NOW person's worth, outweighs any "potential" future person's mythical worth.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

morningstar

I also rarely see reference to the facts that by chosing to have babies, women make very real, uncompensated sacrifices physically and emotionally.
Pregnancy has a very real effect on the maternal immune system, the uterus and abdominal underpinnings pay a price for reproduction later in life(incontinence anyone?), not to mention saggy boobs and stetch marks.
All of my childless friends in their 50's look fabulous and feel great, the rest of us have paid for our pregnancies in our bodies and hearts.
Our childless friends also have more money and less worry.
I never hear these real disadvantages given any airing---perhaps the "sacredness" of bringing yet more little consumers into the world makes these things seem somehow shallow.
anyway---I'm so tired of the whole thing---I sometimes wonder if this contrivance to control women by attempting to force them to reproduce will ever stop.

Ghislaine

quote:


Originally posted by morningstar:
[b]I also rarely see reference to the facts that by chosing to have babies, women make very real, uncompensated sacrifices physically and emotionally.
Pregnancy has a very real effect on the maternal immune system, the uterus and abdominal underpinnings pay a price for reproduction later in life(incontinence anyone?), not to mention saggy boobs and stetch marks.
All of my childless friends in their 50's look fabulous and feel great, the rest of us have paid for our pregnancies in our bodies and hearts.
Our childless friends also have more money and less worry.
I never hear these real disadvantages given any airing---perhaps the "sacredness" of bringing yet more little consumers into the world makes these things seem somehow shallow.
anyway---I'm so tired of the whole thing---I sometimes wonder if this contrivance to control women by attempting to force them to reproduce will ever stop.[/b]

I am pro-choice, but personally don't agree with abortion morally and would never have one. However, as remind points out each of us as women has a right to our own body and the choice must legally be up to each individual woman. The Supreme Court upheld this on the basis that no one can be forced to use their body in the service of anyone else. I am very uncomfortable with people who abort babies due to their sex, disability, etc. - but again it is their right, disgusting as I may find such things.

Morningstar, I have to say that your points about stretchmarks etc. strike me as even more trivial than aborting due to not wanting a child with a disability. Childless women in their 50s may not have stretchmarks, but they also don't have grandchildren and don't have much hope of having many visitors the older they get.

If there was noone but childless women in their 50s around who looked great, they would be desperately trying to find somewhere to retire to where there was a next generation.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by morningstar:
[b]...I never hear these real disadvantages given any airing---perhaps the "sacredness" of bringing yet more little consumers into the world makes these things seem somehow shallow.
anyway---I'm so tired of the whole thing---I sometimes wonder if this contrivance to control women by attempting to force them to reproduce will ever stop.[/b]

Very good points, that I alluded to, but choose not to detail as, IMV, they are differet issues than the fundamental right to have self determination of one's body and to have one's value as a whole person in the NOW be understood.

Having said that, I was hoping someone, such as yourself, would extend the further and unspoken facets of how bearing a future person impacts a woman uniquely. And what are some other mythological, and/or sexist, beliefs that foster an anti-choice position.

The notion, that wanting to have a non-worn body and a different life-style is shallow, is in itself shallow and immature, say nothing of how incorrect it is.

Then when you bring the "sacredness" aspect into it, there is an even greater undeveloped thought process, and emotional immaturity.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]...I am very uncomfortable with people who abort babies due to their sex, disability, etc. - but again it is their right, disgusting as I may find such things. [/b]

Really you are speaking of something completely different than basic equality pro-choice understanding and positioning.

You are speaking of "selective breeding" which uses abortion as a tool.

quote:

[b]Morningstar, I have to say that your points about stretchmarks etc. strike me as even more trivial than aborting due to not wanting a child with a disability. [/b]

She was not just depicting stretchmarks, as the only physical toll women suffer from in the after effects of pregnancy. Moreover, given society today's focus on body image, it plays a bigger part than it ever did before, in a woman's emotional and mental well being.


quote:

[b]Childless women in their 50s may not have stretchmarks, but they also don't have grandchildren and don't have much hope of having many visitors the older they get. [/b]

Did you not think about what you were saying here, or do you really not have a developed capacity to see what exactly it is you are saying?

You have religated the having of children to be a selfish action based upon what your personal and future social needs may be. Or to having children as possessions/insurance, to combat any future care needs you may have. Or indeed a shallow action designed to further your gene pool into the future.

None of these are good reasons to have children, they are selfish and self centered, and indeed harmful to the child who will become a person. If this sentiment exists out there, no wonder children, and adults, suffer esteem issues when they have been raised to see themselves as only being "something" that is beneficial in the future to the parents.

quote:

[b]If there was noone but childless women in their 50s around who looked great, they would be desperately trying to find somewhere to retire to where there was a next generation.[/b]

This is a logical fallacy and nothing more.

martin dufresne

My letter to the Liberals who supported C-484, i.e. [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]c.ca,
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected],[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
with cc. to [email protected] and [email protected]

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Sirs and Ms. Guarnieri,

You voted on March 5 with most of the Conservative MPs to support a private bill that would give legal standing to fetuses in criminal proceedings.

If you are opposed to women's right to choose in matters of pregnancy outcomes, read no further, this bill does exactly what its anti-choice
sponsors intend for it.

But if you think that a pregnancy's issue is something to be decided by each woman and her doctor, if you have any respect for the population's majority opinion in this regard and for the 1988 Supreme Court decision that ruled
that fetuses had no such standing, PLEASE RECONSIDER the Liberal Party's Godawful division on this vote and your own misguided support for the notion of giving fetuses legal standing, an open door to recriminalizing abortion, as a number of anti-choice activists are already clamoring on their websites.***

If you don't and go on supporting Jake Epp's foot-in-the-door bill, you can be sure I will put all my energies into convincing everyone I know of the Liberal Party's utter irresponsibility in this matter and readiness to flush away women's entitlements.

There are much better ways to protect pregnant women and head off their assaulters than to make them any wman the guardian of an "unborn victim", open to clear and present dangers of disentitlement by the tribunals or the State.

PLEASE read up on the issue at [url=http://www.arcc-cdac.ca.]www.arcc-cdac.ca.[/url] This already happening in the U.S. and the Liberal Party will have a shameful legacy to live down if it helps the Conservatives install such a dangerous precedent in Canadian legislation.

Women and men such as I will make every effort across this land to make you understand how strongly we feel about this issue.

Pink canapйs and mini-burgers don't cut the mustard as expressions of LPC concern for women's rights!

Awaiting your response and explanations for this travesty of the political process.

Martin Dufresne

***URLs of anti-choice websites

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Another slightly different version went out to the Liberals and BQ members who were absent.

Feel free to cut and paste away to let them hear your own indignation.

remind remind's picture

I have not heard back from any Liberal MP's, who voted against or were missing, not even Dion's office, acknowledging a receipt of my letter taking them to task. Though, as I noted in another thread, I have heard back from 1 Liberal MP regarding the Afghanistan extension.

Also, I never wrote to any Liberal MP's, nor any NDP MP actually, other than those who responded back to my initial post requesting a nay vote, thanking them for voting nay. The only reason I thanked some of those who voted nay, was because they responded to me in the first place, and I was thanking them for their response, as well as noting they have the clear sight to realize votes on human rights is automatically a "no" vote when it comes to anything trying to erode them.

Scout

quote:


I am pro-choice, but personally don't agree with abortion morally and would never have one.

Can’t say I’m surprised at your comment but I am confused by it a bit if you’re pro-choice but are morally opposed to abortion your pro-choice how? I don’t think not wanting an abortion personally is a moral position in anyway, is not wanting a tattoo a moral position? Also if you’re morally opposed to something it means you think its immoral which I think is just judgemental and I feel like I am dealing with Elizabeth may all of a sudden.

Some people just don’t want children – what’s moral or immorally about it?

And for the record never is a very long time. Then again if I never had to have morality stuffed done my throat again it would be too soon.

quote:

Morningstar, I have to say that your points about stretchmarks etc. strike me as even more trivial than aborting due to not wanting a child with a disability. Childless women in their 50s may not have stretchmarks, but they also don't have grandchildren and don't have much hope of having many visitors the older they get.

This is a very callous view of another’s choices, and more than a bit judgemental. You do realize you can walk into any Retirement Home and find people with children that have no visitors either? And is having grandchildren like the Gold medal of life or something? The only way you can have a fulfilling meaningful life with others if you have grandchildren?

I work closely with several people who have children with disabilities, two of them had every test possible during the subsequent pregnancies. Having a child with a disability is rewarding, joyful, complicated, heartbreaking, financially challenging and can cause the non-disabled children in the family to feel alienated and these are people just dealing with disabilities that are primarily just mental delays with minor (currently) physical issues – but likely none of the children will ever live on their own and will never be able to care for their parents. So there is nothing trivial happening when people decide to have an abortion if faced with raising a child with a disability, how fucking cruel to suggests that it’s trivial. I am extremely angry over that comment. It’s an agony for people to be faced with that decision, even the possibility of making a decision either way.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: Scout ]

pogge

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]If you don't and go on supporting Jake Epp's foot-in-the-door bill ...[/b]

Who's Jake Epp?

Normally that would be a lame flame but in this case I think the details matter. If you're encouraging everyone to use your letter as a model, you should try and get this stuff right. [url=http://www.kenepp.com/]This[/url] is the guy who's sponsoring the bill.

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]

remind remind's picture

An article in the Chronicle Herald about Stoffer.

quote:

Mr. Layton said last week he would have a talk with Mr. Stoffer about his vote, as the NDP is strongly pro-choice. He said Monday that Mr. Stoffer has explained to him that he voted for the bill only for it to be studied. But if he voted for it on third reading, which would send it to the Senate for approval, Mr. Layton might have a problem.

"The NDP has been very, very clear as a pro-choice party, and there’s no question this law opens the door, despite the government’s rhetoric, to challenging a woman’s right to choose," Mr. Layton said Monday. "So that’s certainly an issue of fundamental principle to our party."

Mr. Stoffer said Monday he wanted the bill to go to committee [b]so that MPs could hear from experts[/b] about what its effect would actually be.

Mr. Stoffer often seems to push at the limits of party discipline within the NDP. In 2005, when the same-sex marriage bill came to a vote, NDP MP Bev Desjarlais voted against it, in defiance of her party. Mr. Layton stripped her of her responsibility as a critic and she lost the nomination battle in her riding. Mr. Stoffer said at the time he thought she should have been free to vote her conscience on the bill.


[url=http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1042959.html]http://www.thechron...

Experts? Who in the hell are experts on this in the HoC committee? What a load of crap from Stoffer, the only experts there are in this regard is the SCC, so are we supposed to accept a yea vote from him too, so that it can be kicked over to the actual experts if it is passed and becomes law and goes to a SCC challenge?

Voting conscience on human right actions that will deprive others of their human rights is actually stripping others of their freedom of conscience and action.

h/t BnR

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

kropotkin1951

And voting against the Neocon crime bill gets you disciplined.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]And voting against the Neocon crime bill gets you disciplined.[/b]

Uh, what is your point and why would you feel you have the right to make it in this thread?

remind remind's picture

Interesting twist to this, Art Hanger has disbanded the Justice and Human Rights committee so they are not going to be looking at anything for who knows how long, but for sure at least until after the Easter break.

quote:

Dear colleagues,

You may have received the updated notice of meeting, cancelling today’s Justice committee meeting.

As you know, until recently our committee has been successfully studying legislation and churning out public policy, despite partisan differences. That's what MPs are elected to do. I am disheartened by recent attempts to subvert these proceedings and turn our successful committee into a partisan inquisition, particularly on a motion that is clearly out of order under Standing Order 108(2). As chairman, it is my responsibility to do what is necessary to restore the committee’s integrity.

This committee embarrassed itself yesterday in front of a witness we ourselves had invited by consensus. This cannot go on.

I have presided over this committee in good faith, and have acted to uphold the rules and integrity of this parliamentary institution.

I hope this temporary adjournment will allow all sides to calm down during the Easter break and reconsider the greater interest of having a parliament that functions and follows its own rules. I look forward to reconvening a restored and functional Justice Committee when the House comes back.

Yours respectfully,

Art Hanger, MP
Chair, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights


[url=http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dis&eid=48&so=&ps=&sb=]Kady's blog[/url]

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

After QP, Joe Comartin said he will support the Liberals motion to remove Art Hanger as the Chair of the committee, because Art Hanger refuses to recognise that majority rules in a democracy. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Pages

Topic locked