C-484... part 4 or 5?

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
Accidental Altruist
C-484... part 4 or 5?

 

Accidental Altruist

I've been spending most of my time on the [url=http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10524705862]Oppose Bill C-484[/url] Facebook group.

But I have gone back and read most of the posts in the other threads. It was someone at Babble that tweaked my attention on the [b]"heat of passion"[/b] and [b]"sudden provocation"[/b] - thanks SO MUCH for that! I'd read the bill a couple times but I guess I was so focussed on the 'unborn' phrasing I overlooked

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

For those who still think the main or only objectionable thing about Bill C-484 is the language ("child" for "fetus"; "mother" for "woman", etc.) [url=http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=70581]here's a column that sets out several good reasons why the Bill should be opposed[/url] - and none of them have anything to do with its language.

For continuity: [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=001387]Link to previous thread.[/url]

[url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3127600&... of Bill C-484[/url]

Pride for Red D...

this is the section that bothers me the most :

quote:

(5) It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

That was inserted to avoid the following definition of human being in Criminal Code:

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

Since the definition excludes a fetus from being a human being, the drafters of Bill C-484 wanted to make it clear that it would not be nullified by section 223, above.

Accidental Altruist

[b]REMINDER[/b] of the protests this Saturday in
Ottawa, Fredricton & Toronto:

[b]*New Brunswick*[/b]

Saturday, May 3, 2008
12:00pm - 1:30pm
City Hall
Queen Street

[url=http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=9916029686]http://www.facebook.com...

[b]*Ottawa*[/b]

Saturday, May 3, 2008
12:00pm - 3:00pm
Human Rights Monument
Elgin Street at Lisgar Street

[url=http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=10262692450]http://www.facebook.co...

[b]*Toronto*[/b]

Saturday, May 3, 2008
12:00pm - 3:00pm
Nathan Phillips Square
Queen St. West at Bay.

[url=http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=15618201474&ref=nf]http://www.face...

[ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

lagatta

The links you posted are only accessible to people who log into Facebook, something I absolutely refuse to do. There are serious privacy and security issues, something activists can do without.

Have you any other links about the demos? I knew about the Ottawa one (can't go, because of the May Day demo for health care here in Montrйal) but was unaware of the other two.

Michael Hardner

Hey Lagatta - I think you can just get an account under an assumed name.

lagatta

Thanks, but I'm not remotely interested in anything to do with Facebook. Perhaps the demos are listed in some media?

Accidental Altruist

Hi Lagatta

Apologies, but all I know are the Facebook links. I'm an admin on the largest Oppose C-484 group, we've got 4000 members on it. My impression is that the protests were started by *regular Canadians*. Since they're not affiliated with any Orgs etc that have an independent web presence they worked with what they knew: Facebook.

I do have my own website but find it MUCH easier to just create an event on Facebook than make a whole new webpage. I'm pretty sucky at it, actually.

Maybe a good solution would be for me to transcribe all the pertinents from facebook and make Babble a hub? Any other ideas? I want this to ba as accessible as possible!

Pride for Red D...

you know I was thinking the other day that a comminity board to post such things prominenetly on the main page would be a good idea. This would be a good example.
There are also some feminist boards you could post this to, like bread and roses.
on a related topic, in this law, isn't it a contradiction that a fetuis is a human being unless you want to abort it ? Is this the main part of the law that could be used to make abortion illegal ?

lagatta

Yes definitely post it to bread and roses - there is a lively discussion there about C-484.

Also look up Choice Joyce. [url=http://choice-joyce.blogspot.com/]http://choice-joyce.blogspot.com/[/url]

Accidental Altruist

k... I posted a new topic on Feminism with protest info for Edmonton, Ottawa and Toronto.

Joyce is on my Facebook group. I posted info to her *comments* section. Dunno if she's noticed that or or not.... my comment has to get approved before it shows up.

I've browsed Birth Pangs but am unfamiliar with the BreadnRoses site... I sent an email to the webmaster.

I know alotta folks poo poo Facebook, but sheesh. I was an admin on the anti Bill C-10 group until a few weeks ago - we had 37,000 members! I like to go where the people [b]are[/b] - rather than try and entice 'em to come to me.

choice joyce

To Organizations: Please sign an open statement opposing Bill C-484, the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act".

Aux organisations: Veuillez signer avec nous une dйclaration collective d'opposition au projet de loi C-484, Loi sur les enfants non encore nйs victimes d’actes criminels

English: [url=http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/open-statement.html]http://www.arcc-cdac....
En franзais: [url=http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/fr/action/open-statement-francais.html]http://ww...

To sign, please send an email with your organization's name in both French and English to [email protected]
Pour la signer, veuillez adresser un courriel а [email protected], en prйcisant l'appellation officielle de votre organisation, en franзais et anglais s'il y a lieu.

(Note: Individuals should sign the online petition. / Nota: Les signataires а titre individuel sont plutфt invitй-es а signer la pйtition en ligne: [url=http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/oppose-bill-c-484.html]http://www.go... )

Thank you / Merci!

choice joyce

I'm very sorry I missed your comment, Accidental Altruist. Usually I get a notice when comments are posted but for some reason I didn't this time. It's published now, although too late.

Accidental Altruist

No worries Joyce - you're probably run ragged by now! Here's the info for tomorrow's counter-protest in Ottawa during the annual *March for Life*

♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀

Ottawa - Thursday May 8th

Join fellow pro-choicers at
the Human Rights Monument.

1:15pm to 2:15pm.

[b]STAND OUT of the crowd.
STAND UP for choice![/b]

[url=http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=16704863975]http://www.facebook.co...

♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀

Come to the Human Rights Monument
and be a positive, peaceful yet VISIBLE
presence as the annual "March for Life"
schlepps through downtown Ottawa.

We're not going to engage the march or
even approach the pro-lifers.

We just wanna be there to witness and
provide a beautiful counterpoint to
their point of view.

Bring signs, banners & lots of bright, vibrant colour:

Pour on the pink and purple!
Wear feather boas & flowers in your hair!
Dab glitter on your cheeks and don your fairy wings!

STAND OUT of the crowd!
STAND UP for choice

:-D

Bring friends, lovers, partners and
colleagues, children and neighbours.

Invite every pro-choice person you know.

Accidental Altruist

Isn't this *interesting*...??

Ken Epp's website has been down since
a pro-C484 Facebook group announced the following:

"ON-LINE POLL @ Ken Epp's Site:

Cast your vote today by going to Ken's site and voting in favour of C-484 on his poll. The anti-484 groups have been spamming it so cast your vote today! [url=http://www.kenepp.com"]http://www.kenepp.com"[/url]

At home I get a "forbidden" message - at the office it says "The website declined to show this webpage".

Theories anyone?

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

remind remind's picture

The message I get is that you must have login accessability, who ever heard of a sitting MP have a locked website?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Apparently, democracy is a brand that's owned by the Conservatives, like MP Epp, and if you don't purchase the right brand then you ain't getting any access to the MP's website.

I wonder if e mails are bounced as well? Phone calls?

That's government as their private fiefdom. And you thought Lord Black was insufferable.

Restore feudalism! Vote Conservative!

[ 21 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Accidental Altruist

And here I thought I was being paranoid! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

remind remind's picture

You can't even reach his web site from the MP government site, as you get the message "no forwarding link to this site here" or close to that. Though you can reach every other CPC MP through there.

But I back doored it in through the CPC web site and voted no to the poll question.

Try this link:

[url=http://kenepp.com/default.asp]http://kenepp.com/default.asp[/url]

Accidental Altruist

ah, it's fixed now!

Michelle

BILL C-484 ON TRIAL - A PEOPLE'S HEARING ON THE PROPOSED "FETAL HOMICIDE BILL"

DATE: Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 7-9 p.m.
PLACE: Ryerson University Student Centre, 55 Gould Street, Room SCC115
INFO: [email protected], 416-969-8463

Stop the attack on abortion rights. My Mind, My Body, My Choice.

Speakers:
Jessica Yee, Canadians for Choice
Shelley Gavigan, Osgoode Hall Law Professor
Rhonda Roffey, Women's Habitat
Ayesha Adami, Immigrant Women's Health Centre

Sponsored by the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics.

remind remind's picture

The Epp site is running now, open to all after only being open to those able to login, with those supporting the Bill at 88% approval. Fuckers!

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]The Epp site is running now, open to all after only being open to those able to login, with those supporting the Bill at 88% approval. Fuckers![/b]

He must have learned from the Mexican election scam of 1988:

1) The vote tallying computers crash with the opposition in the lead.

2) The computers come back to life and -- surprise surprise -- the government is in the lead by a wide margin,

Pride for Red D...

I just returned form a conference at UQAM about this bill (it was filmed and apparently will be on the FFQ website in a few weeks. Wouldn't it be cool to have that on rabble TV ! It's in French though.).It's extremely alarming- I never thought of abortion as something that could actually be really at risk.From what I've learned, this bill is a back door tactic that's been used in the USA with success- as well as terrible consequences. If a woman is pregnant and is an addict,the bill could get her arrested for harming her child ( it has happened in the US already)- and how does that encourage her to seek treatment ?
I also learned that there is an actual pro-life caucus in parliament,a member of whom brought forth this bill.
Legally in Canada, a fetus is not a human being until it is born so how can this bill call it a child ? If a fetus becomes a human being, that means abortion is murder.
FYI in Montreal there's to be a protest om June 1st.No one in this universe or any other universe,is going to tell me or any other woman whether I should be pregnant or not.

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]

remind remind's picture

Dr Barrette, President of the FMSQ, in a news report today confirmed what we all have been saying:

quote:

Cependant, il ajoute avoir aussi reзu confirmation de gens du Parti conservateur dans l'ouest canadien que l'objectif du projet de loi C-484 йtait bien d'йtablir une reconnaissance des droits du foetus dans le but d'interdire l'avortement.

Translated:

quote:

However, he [Dr Barrette, President of the FMSQ] adds that he received confirmation from people from the Conservative Party from Western Canada that the objective of Bill C-484 was clearly to recognize rights of the fetus with the goal to ban abortion.

h/t joyce at BnR

[url=http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080526/CPACTUALITES/80526158/1019/CP... FMSQ obtient confirmation que la Loi C-484 vise а interdire l'avortement[/url]

martin dufresne

It was reported tonight on Radio-Canada radio news that Stйphane Dion has officially committed to defeating C-484. I haven't located the original source, but here is something from the "Impolitical Blog":

quote:

About time:

Stephane Dion vowed Thursday that Liberals will block passage of a Tory bill that some fear might re-open the dormant abortion debate.

"I want to give my word to all the women of Canada that the Liberal Party of Canada is against to reopen woman's right to decide as a debate," the Liberal leader pledged.
...
Dion indicated that he shares the view that the bill would reopen the abortion debate and vowed: "We will not allow that to happen."


Interesting that women's rights are at the mercy of these men's whims.

ETA: Indeed, after reading the actual CanadianPress story [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007305]he..., it is clear thaT Dion is still NOT promising to whip a vote and still keeping the door open to arguing that C-484 is NOT REALLY about a "woman's right to decide".
But at least he has been put on notice that there will be hell to pay if he does.

[ 05 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

martin dufresne

Ken Epp held a press conference this morning in Ottawa, along with one or two French-speaking MPs and a few women to try and wind down opposition to C-484 in Quebec.
He reiterated of course that his bill was misunderstood (in Quebec) and that it could in no way compromise women's reproductive rights.
Then Pierre Maisonneuve, the hostm interviewed Bob Rae by phone (surprise! surprise!) about the current dynamics within the Liberal Party.
Rae twice justified with an apopeal to "tradition" not whipping Liberal votes against C-484, but joinded Dion in assuring Canadian women that enough Liberal votes would probably be on hand to defeat C-484 on 3rd reading. He spoke of "persuasion efforts" currently happening within the caucus, acknowledging that some Grits would support the bill regardless. How reassuring...
Comically enough, he then whiningly invited Conservative MPs to join Minister Josee Verner and vote against C-484 and ensure this result.
Trust the Liberals to trust unnamed Conservatives to ensure women's rights!

[ 10 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Ghislaine

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]That was inserted to avoid the following definition of human being in Criminal Code:

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

Since the definition excludes a fetus from being a human being, the drafters of Bill C-484 wanted to make it clear that it would not be nullified by section 223, above.[/b]


So technically under this definition, a woman could legally request an abortion when going into labour? What about C-sections? If a doctor told you you needed a c-section, could you say you wanted an abortion instead.

I realize that not many doctors would do this (access is the topic of many other threads), but I am wondering about the technical legality. I also realize that very few women would want this, as most women themselves refer to their fetus as baby or child long before it has exited the womb - whether naturally, via inducement or via c-section.

Does anyone know anymore regarding the legality of the examples above?

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Comically enough, [Rae] then whiningly invited Conservative MPs to join Minister Josee Verner and vote against C-484 and ensure this result.
Trust the Liberals to trust unnamed Conservatives to ensure women's rights![/b]

Yeah, it worked out [b]so well[/b] when then-Premier Rae trusted Liberals and Conservatives to save his bill extending same-sex benefits [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

martin dufresne

[url=http://www.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/pop.shtml#urlMedia%3Dhttp://www.r... of Bob Rae[/url] justifying Liberal ineptitude/complicity on C-484 (in French).
Strong Quebec feminist Louise Langevin, of Universitй Laval's Chaire d'йtudes fйministes Claire-Bonenfant, is also heard.

[ 10 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

remind remind's picture

Angus Reid has this as part of their Monday questions:

quote:

A private member’s bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to injure, cause the death of, or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing, or attempting to commit, an offence against the mother. The bill does not apply to consensual abortion or any act or omission by the mother of the child. Would you want your own Member of Parliament to vote in favour or against this bill in the House of Commons?

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, look at the way they weasel word it!

Anyhow for those of you who aer AR participants it might be waiting in your email!

martin dufresne

Montreal daily [url=http://www.ledevoir.com/2008/07/07/196758.html#]Le Devoir[/url] reported Monday that Quebec members of the Conservative Party intend to mount a pitched battle against a proposal coming from Western party members in support of giving legal status to fetuses. This proposal should be discussed at the CP convention this Fall in Winnipeg.

quote:

"...les militants du Quйbec combattront une proposition qui йmane de quelques circonscriptions de l'Ouest du pays et qui vise а donner un statut juridique au foetus."

This seems to indicate that the uproar over C-484 is something the Conservatives are getting an earful about from Quebec voters.

morningstar

does anyone know when the third reading of C484 is going to take place?
I'm assuming this fall.
Some politician was trying to convince me that it was part of an omnibuss bill.
I've never heard of a private members bill being included in an omnibus. It looks to me like a free standing bill and I understood that it went to committee on its own.
Please help an ignoramus!

Accidental Altruist

My understanding is that second reading is happening no earlier than mid-September.

The pro-lifers are being encouraged to write to their MPs weekly, I think we should do the same!

werestillhere

Thanks to pressure from their members the Libs have agreed to vote the bill down. I'm not sure how they will do this, but I assume there will be some finaggling and perhaps a whipped vote. This email is being sent in resopnse to objections to C-484:

-------

Dear Sir/Madame,

We would like to thank you for your recent letter regarding the Private Member’s Bill C-484 presented by Conservative member Ken Epp.

Members of Parliament have the right to put forward a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons. However, our concern with Mr. Epp’s bill, a concern shared by many lawyers, health professionals and women’s rights organizations, is that it would undermine a woman’s right to choose and could ultimately be a threat to a woman’s ability to access safe abortion services. We are committed to the Liberal Party of Canada, under Stйphane Dion's leadership, standing firm against the idea of reopening the debate surrounding a woman’s right to choose. Passage of this bill will reopen the debate and threaten the rights of women – we will not allow that to happen.

Mr. Epp’s bill has been sent to the Justice committee and would only become law after receiving a majority vote in favour on its third reading in the House of Commons. Mr. Dion intends to work to ensure the bill is defeated at that time.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views on this important issue.

Sincerely,

The Office of Honourable Stйphane Dion, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I received the same letter from Dion this morning. But I have a hard time believing that he will whip the vote. Among those voicing their objection of Morgentaler receiving the Order of Canada were:

Liberal MP Dan McTeague, Pickering-Scarborough East, Ontario and Liberal MP Paul Steckle, Huron-Bruce, Ontario.

There is no way Dion is going to manage to change their votes or those or other social conservative retrogrades in their ranks. The best that can happen is their being out of the house on the vote day. Will Dion make that happen? Who knows?

werestillhere

Some of the Libs that voted in favour are not as hardline as those two so I think they can be convinced to change their votes. Along with the NDP and Bloc they just need enough to outnumber the Conservatives (plus the Libs voting in favour), which, if all the Libs show up this time (including Dion who was absent) should be possible.

martin dufresne

Morningstar asked:

quote:

does anyone know when the third reading of C-484 is going to take place?
I'm assuming this fall.

I have heard the date of September 17 mentioned by activists at a recent Montreal meeting, the House reconvening on September 15.

I still can't accept that the Liberal Party of Canada does not consider this issue important enough to whip a vote on it and exclude any MP who insists on breaking ranks. I think people are right to expect that it should do so and encourage people to write in and tell Mr. Dion and their local MP so much. And of course, I am hoping that those Grits who will vote in favour of C-484 and other anti-choice private bills will be voted out of office. That outcome, in the end, trumps all reassurances from Mr. Dion's office.

[ 10 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

quote:


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Morningstar asked:
I have heard the date of September 17 mentioned by activists at a recent Montreal meeting, the House reconvening on September 15.

I still can't accept that the Liberal Party of Canada does not consider this issue important enough to whip a vote on it and exclude any MP who insists on breaking ranks. I think people are right to expect that it should do so and encourage people to write in and tell Mr. Dion and their local MP so much. And of course, I am hoping that those Grits who will vote in favour of C-484 and other anti-choice private bills will be voted out of office. That outcome, in the end, trumps all reassurances from Mr. Dion's office.

[ 10 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ][/b]


I'm hoping the same Martin. But I do really believe that Dion has to get those retrograde social conservative members to stay away or vote with them. For sure they are outliers but they could make this odious bill pass.

Unionist

Great news - the pressure got to them. No telling what they might do with a majority government, but this is cause for celebration. Congratulations to all who fought this atrocity:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080825.wnicholson08... abandon Bill C-484[/url]

Michelle

Fabulous news! [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

martin dufresne

There are already 311 comments, some of them quite telling:

quote:

wait until the majority, then we'll make it hard to get an abortion...

martin dufresne

Harper seems to have decided to coopt Grit MP Brent St.Denis' Private Bill [url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3499710&..., tabled in May. But since no legal wording has yet been presented by the Conservatives, it would be wise not to rejoice too soon. The final script may well create one more threat against abortion service providers or set a precedent for anti-abortion legislation or policy.

[ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

It's clear the Harperites didn't want this to become an election issue. Even though the Liberals voted for it, the NDP could have (and still should, but probably won't) made a stink about it.

ETA: And, barring an election, they didn't want to have committee hearings on the topic.

[ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

remind remind's picture

Gah, just read through all the comments, most of the anti-choicers literally have not a fucking clue about human equality rights and that being the reason we do not have abortion laws. It seems they somehow emotionally internalize the fact that had their mother been "pro-choice" they may not exist, as if there is retroactive abortions or something.

They really do not get it.

And I think Harper is playing politics with this as he does not want to go into an election with this hanging around.

wonder how many fetus fetishers this will piss off?

Unionist

Honestly, I think progressive forces everywhere should rejoice - claim credit for the voice of the people being heard - and prepare to fight the next inevitable battle. If we don't make people feel good about the little victories, we won't be able to mobilize them next time.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

If Harper is in election mode, what's he going to do about this:

quote:

Bill C-537, “protection of conscience in the health-care profession” (sounds like freedom), is sponsored by Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott. It would allow doctors and nurses to refuse to perform medical acts — including abortions — that are against their religion. Abortion refusal in public hospitals, here we come. But good news for religious Muslim and Orthodox Jewish health professionals.

In the meantime, congratulations to all the pro-choice activists and their supporters (including the CMA) for not letting go of this one.

Excerpt from an excellent review on all these abortion related private member's bills:

[url=http://www.lawtimesnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41... door abortion law[/url]

remind remind's picture

Bill c537 is just as bull shitty as c484, freedom of conscience they already have, they do not perform them if they do not want to, and hello the CMA just came down on whose side, so who actually has gotten Vellecourt to try to put this through??? Furthermore, they get paid by whom? That's right us tax payers in a secular system, so they can fuck right off with their religious freedom in the public service arena.

Moreover, if they slip this so called "freedom of conscience" in, in this area, next it will Justices of the Peace, etc who can get away with refusing to perform SSM's.

I hear what you are saying unionist, but in respect to women's rights be taken away, women will take action each and every time, our right to be human are threatened.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]
I hear what you are saying unionist, but in respect to women's rights be taken away, women will take action each and every time, our right to be human are threatened.[/b]

Agreed, and that's what I meant to say, if I didn't put it clearly.

Pages

Topic locked