Bill C-484 - the continuing saga

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]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] [/b]

---

Okay, what was the embarassing situation he spoke of then? That the minority was not allowed to rule?

What issue are you speaking of boomboom, that Comartin feels, like Hanger, should not be before the committee, the Cadman affair or this topic? It seems I am having a terrible time comprehending things today, as my plugged sinus cavity appears to be interfering in my brain processes.

Comartin was on 'Politics' saying the same thing - a) that he agrees with Art Hangar that the Cadman matter should not be before the Justice Committee; but, b) that Hangar is behaving badly in not recognising the democratic will of the committee and that he should step down; Hangar refuses to step down, so Comartin will support the Liberal's motion to remove Hangar as Chair.

Is that clear enough? If not, maybe it'll be on The National tonight.

There is a call to action by the ARCC-CDAC occuring, as posted by Joyce at BnR, and shamelessly quoted in full here .

quote:

---

Hi everyone, There's been a steady stream of anti-choice op-eds and articles published in the media lately, regarding Bill C-484, which passed Second Reading in Parliament on March 5. This bill would create a separate offence for killing a fetus when a pregnant woman is attacked. It endangers abortion rights by creating fetal personhood, and would also interfere with the autonomy of all pregnant woman.

We'd like your help in countering the anti-choice misinformation around this bill. We'd also like to show support to the writers opposing the bill.

Could you please take a moment to write a letter or letters to the editor? Below are links to recently published pieces as well as how to send your letters. If you need the full text of an article, let us know (some papers require that you purchase online articles.)

Letters should be brief, forceful, and meaningful in expression - pithy.
Providing your unique or provocative perspective will increase the chance of publication.

The receipt and publication of many, many letters would certainly send a clear message of opposition to this bill to both the media and the public. Please also cc your letter to your MP.

For further information on the bill, visit our website at [url=http://www.arcc-cdac.ca]http://www.arcc-cdac.ca[/url]

From the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada [email protected]

---

grrrrrr, can't get the direct links to the articles to work, so please go to BnR or arcc-cdac to get them, if you are interested.

[url=http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22143&start=40]http://w...

[ 13 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

Wow. You all seem to forget that you too were a fetus at one time in your mother's womb. Had you been an unborn victim of crime, the penalties to the person that caused your death would be less than theft or cruelty to animals. I don't know any of you but seems to me that your life is worth more justice than that.

A mother that chooses her child, born or unborn should know that BOTH of them are protected by the laws of our country.

Abortion is a separate issue and it is unfortunate that some people are so determined to protect that so-called "right" that they lose sight of protecting the RIGHTS of an unborn child.

We all know that abortion is ending the life of an unborn child, whether it makes you feel better to call it a fetus or not. (If you truly think a fetus is not life then re-examine yourself.) Our laws permit abortion and that is not the spirit of bill C-484. Changing the abortion laws would be a separate bill...one in which your views & opinions on abortion would be more appropriately aired.

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Pro Choice ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pro Choice:
[b]Wow. You all seem to forget that you too were a fetus at one time in your mother's womb.[/b]

---

No, I do not think we forgot fuck all, actually.

quote:

---

[b] Had you been an unborn victim of crime, [/b]

---

There is no unborn victims of crime, the woman is the victim of the crime.

quote:

---

[b]the penalties to the person that caused your death would be less than theft or cruelty to animals. [/b]

---

My death could not have be caused, for I was not yet alive, I only had the potential to be, at some point, alive, or not. Moreover, as I was not alive, I could not have an opinion as to any causes for me not being born, and becoming a person, and even then if I was born, there was only the potential of my advancing to an age where I would even know what an opinion was, let alone consider anything about a mythical death that could've been, but wasn't.

Having said that, we have alreeady covered in these threads how inadequate the bill is to do what it says it is trying to do. It is a back door wedge to try and criminalize abortion and nothing more.

Immature emotional posturing about the poor fetus feelings and opinions that it needs to have porotection is BS. Please do feel free to read and to actually think about what is said in these threads, and considert who has the right to primary rights, it is the person who is actually alive.

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[QB]I see by your profile that you are a snowboarding athlete.

---

Interesting you mention that aspect of my post as a basis of judgement...it happens to be a hobby, not a full-time profession. Whatever the case, I'll stop discussion here as we have a fundamental difference in understanding of the definition of "life" and who should be aloud to take it.

This bill could lead to criminalizing smoking while pregnant!!!!! Could you imagine...jails full of pregnant women that are discharged after giving birth!?!?! THAT is in the mind of those that are led by fear.

I feel sorry for those of you that choose death and fear.

Remind...immaturity is also the blatant denial to face truth.

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Pro Choice ]

My condolences to you and the voices you try and silence.

Dear Prochoice:

What exactly is the point of this law?

What purpose is served to legally create an unborn entity when a pregnant woman is killed? If it's to punish the offender, then how is the purpose served when jail sentences are served concurrently?

It simply means two trials, conducted at the same time, and two sentences, served at the same time. It does nothing to satisfy the craving for revenge by extending the time served.

Therefore, I can only presume that the purpose is to create this legal entity for other reasons. I wonder what they would be?

[ 16 March 2008: Message edited by: Loretta ]

There is a discussion going about this over at the UByssey, in response to an article about there.

There was an interesting point made there regarding the Bill, that was overlooked by me, in several readings of it as a matter of fact.

This point is:

quote:

---

This bill also includes offensive language about “provocation” of an assault by the victim, which it takes to be a mitigating circumstance

---

[url=http://www.ubyssey.ca/?p=2836]http://www.ubyssey.ca/?p=2836[/url]

And I cannot believe I overlooked it as being; "I guess that means if the woman who is pregnant starts the fight". Of course it doesn't, it actually protects those who are the primary abusers of women who are pregnant, the sperm donar.

Nothwithstanding of course, is that it is in fact stating that women deserve the beatings they get, because they have committed an act of "provocatoin".

So we have a Bill that:

1. protects those who are the actual abusers of women while pregnant. Rendering it useless.

2. does nothing to extend the sentence of someone who has committed an act of violence against the woman. Illuminates that it is a null Bill in this regard

3. If a stranger does not know the woman is pregnant and committs an act of violence against the woman, and harms the fetus, the person cannot be charged with harming the fetus. Nor in the case of accidental harm to the woman and hence the fetus.

So, just who is left standing that this Bill would address? The .00018%* of acts of violence against a pregnant women, that are conducted by a stranger?

As for the guy over there who is telling feminists to shut up about it before

quote:

---

they draw even more attention to their depraved ideology and the real implications of arguing against C-484.

---

He would love to have feminist shut up about it, that is why they have tried to keep a lid on it, so WOMEN do not know about and stop it.

Say nothing of him calling pro-choice a "depraved ideology", while his misogynist and truely depraved ideology would have women as nothing more than a vagina and a uterus.

* Made up figure but is mostly likely close

h/t skadl @ BnR

Quebec's Federation of MDs denounced Stephane Dion and the Liberals Tuesday for having supported C-484 in sufficient numbers for it to pass 2nd reading. President Gaйtan Barrette specifically took on "Mr. Clarity" (his words) for not having whipped the Grits into opposition to Ken Epp's back-dooor attempt to recriminalize abortion in Canada.
In flustered response, Dion claimed that the Liberals who voted for C-484 only did so to send it to a Parliamentary committee (I kid you not).
He claimed personal opposition to the Bill, but asserted that it was against Parliamentary tradition to whip a vote on any private bill.

quote:

---

[url=http://tinyurl.com/6mzoqx]Bill is backdoor effort to stop abortion: Quebec MDs[/url]
Unborn Victims of Crime Act seen as wedge to make termination of pregnancy a crime
Aaron derfel
The Gazette
Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Staking out a rare political position on federal matters, the Quebec Federation of Medical Specialists today denounced Bill C-484, the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act," as a backdoor attempt to recriminalize abortion.
Gaйtan Barrette, president of the 8,000-member federation, criticized Liberal Party leader Stйphane Dion for not having voted against the private member's bill at its second reading on March 5.
"We were astounded to learn that the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada did not find it advisable to take an official stand on this matter and allowed party members a free vote," Barrette told reporters.
"Some Liberal Party members therefore voted in favour of the bill, while others, including Mr. Dion, were absent."
Barrette described Bill C-484, tabled by Alberta Conservative MP Ken Epp, as "clearly a manoeuvre to go in the direction of recriminalizing abortion."
The bill, according to its wording, would 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 also proposes a minimum prison term of 10 years.
Barrette expressed concern that were the bill to become law, anti-abortion groups would quickly take advantage of it to take a case to the Supreme Court to make abortion illegal again.(...)

---

[ 15 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Please folks, don't settle for lack of confidence that the worst will happen. Write your MP, spread the info, challenge Grits wherever they raise their sniveling heads, join a protest such as this one in Ottawa in 2 weeks:

[b]

quote:

---

Oppose Bill C-484
Subject: Bill C-484 - Protest
The Ottawa protest will now be held *at the Human Rights Monument on Elgin street on May 3rd,
starting at noon.*

We encourage all opponents of this Bill to come out and send a strong message that Bill C-484 is misguided and dangerous for womyn's reproductive rights.

---

[/b]

[ 16 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Proposed Bill C-484 - LEAF Backgrounder and Position Statement

Overview

On December 13th 2007, Conservative MP, Ken Epp tabled Bill [url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3127600&..., "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offense)". The Bill is usually cited by its short title, The Unborn Victims of Crime Act.

Bill C-484 would allow charges to be laid in the death of an "unborn child" if the mother is a victim of violent crime. It therefore grants de facto legal personhood to fetuses. Fetal personhood conflicts with the Canadian Criminal Code and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which have consistently refused to grant personhood status to unborn fetuses.

Update
On March 5, Bill C-484 passed Second Reading in the House of Commons. Four Conservative MPs voted against the Bill, while 27 Liberal MPs and one of the 19 elected New Democratic MPs voted for it. Ten Liberals, including Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, were absent from the vote. The Bill passed by a vote of 147-132.

Bill C-484 now moves to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Given the voting record of that committee's members, there is a roughly even split of members who voted for and voted against the Bill in the House.

LEAF's Position Statement

LEAF opposes Bill C-484 because it is little more than an attempt to grant legal person status to unborn fetuses, while failing to provide any substantial measures to address violence against women, including pregnant women. The implications of this Bill are significant for women's equality and could affect women's access to abortion.

LEAF is concerned about the pervasiveness of male violence against women and children in Canadian society. Pregnant women can be particularly vulnerable to acts of physical and emotional violence. Bill C-484 does not achieve the aim of taking seriously violence against women and does not add any meaningful legal remedies to those already present in the criminal law to address violence against pregnant women. When a pregnant woman is abused or killed, loss of the fetus is harm to the pregnant woman herself. This harm can be considered an aggravating feature in sentencing.

Equality advocates have identified systemic causes of violence against women and proffered a wide range of meaningful solutions to those causes, such as adequate financial security for women and children trying to leave abusive situations, more stable funding and education opportunities for women with children, and better training for police, lawyers and judges and better funding for transition houses and women's groups serving the needs of abused women. If this or any other Canadian government was serious about addressing violence against women, including pregnant women, it would look to the wealth of recommendations made over the years by a range of community-based organizations with expertise in assisting women and children victims of violence.
(LEAF)

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/16/bill-abortion.html]CBC story about Quebec Federation of Specialist Doctors' stand[/url]

[ 18 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Somebody needs to brush up on their math.[/b]

---

What was wrong with that math????

By the way, thanks martin for that story. It's great to see the medical specialists taking this outspoken stand.

Thanks Martin for your message about the SOGC. Our coalition of pro-choice groups is hoping the SOGC will come out with a statement opposing the bill very soon. Letters to them are welcome -- however, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has been completely silent on Bill C-484, and also has been hostile to abortion rights (e.g., they have a policy allowing doctors to withhold referrals and information on abortion unless the patient voluntarily asks for it). To my knowledge, the CMA has not been approached on the issue of Bill C-484. It would be great if they were pressured to take a stand against it. Please contact:

Dr. Brian Day, President
Canadian Medical Association
1867 Alta Vista Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1G 3Y6
Email (contact form): [url=http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/150/la_id/1.htm]http://www.cma.ca/inde...
Toll free: 1-888-855-2555

Also please contact your provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons to ask them to oppose Bill C-484: [url=http://www.cpso.on.ca/Links/links.htm]http://www.cpso.on.ca/Links/links....

For background info on Bill C-484, see ARCC's dedicated "Oppose Bill C-484" page: [url=http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/c484.htm]http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/c484.htm[/url]
En Francais, "Rejeter le projet C-484" : [url=http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/fr/c484.html]http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/fr/c484.htm...
On there is a sample letter for MPs you could adapt for sending to medical organizations.

Thanks so much!

I am a pregnant woman living in the Jane Finch area. There are men in my neigbourhood who wouldn't think twice about assaulting a pregnant woman. I've already lost one baby, and don't want to lose another. I would feel much safer bill C 484 was passed, and soon.

Dawn French

Not at all. Michelle's suggestion focusses on the the harm to the only [b]person[/b] being assaulted. It is [b]her[/b] miscarriage that would add to a harm assessment, not any rights and legal status given to her child or fetus - using her assault as an excuse. Claiming not to see that distinction in her post and calling it a matter of "terminology" seems rather disingenuous.

[ 21 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Not at all. Michelle's suggestion focuses on the the harm to the only person being assaulted. It is [b]her[/b] miscarriage that would add to a harm assessment, not any rights and legal status given to her child or fetus - using her assault as an excuse. Claiming not to see that distinction and calling it a matter of "terminology" seems rather disingenuous.

[ 21 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ][/b]

---

I think it is incredibly dangerous to attach any criminal penalties to anything called "abortion", period. The current bill makes the woman's "consent" the threshold for penalizing abortion providers. If I was one, I would be quite nervous about the idea that my patient's consent could be challenged at some future point - even by her - and render me potentially liable for a form of culpable homicide.

Death or injury to a fetus that occurs in the course of an assault on its mother should be counted as as aggravating factor in sentencing, and nothing else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
[b]

Are you a woman?[/b]

---

Yup. A pretty fucking pissed off woman, actually.

[ 21 April 2008: Message edited by: pookie ]

ok...i got it.

[ 21 April 2008: Message edited by: pookie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pookie:
[b]I think it is incredibly dangerous to attach any criminal penalties to anything called "abortion", period. The current bill makes the woman's "consent" the threshold for penalizing abortion providers. If I was one, I would be quite nervous about the idea that my patient's consent could be challenged at some future point - even by her - and render me potentially liable for a form of culpable homicide.

Death or injury to a fetus that occurs in the course of an assault on its mother should be counted as as aggravating factor in sentencing, and nothing else.[/b]

---

A very sensible position, indeed.

I imagine pregnant women are pretty fond of their kidneys as well, since they seem to use them a lot during pregnancy.