C-484... part 4 or 5?

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]

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.

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.

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

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 ?

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.

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 ]

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]

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.

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,

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]

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 ]

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]

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!

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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 ]

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?

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]

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.