Anti-choicers launch national campaign against Justin Trudeau

35 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2015-03-12 19:17

Debater

Toronto, March 12, 2015- Campaign Life Coalition Youth (CLCY) and the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) are launching the biggest pro-life campaign in the history of Canada against Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and what they call his “extremist position” on abortion. The #NO2Trudeau Campaign kicks off at the University of Victoria tomorrow, the first stop in a nation-wide speaking tourthat will cross nine provinces from coast to coast with the goal of activating grassroots activists to distribute one million pieces of literature in ridings across the country, mass phone calling, and election volunteering.

“For the first time in Canadian history, we have the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada forcing his entire caucus to hold his personal views on abortion” said Alissa Golob, Youth Coordinator for CLC and one of the campaign’s main organizers. “Not only that, but Justin Trudeau is ignoring and discriminating against the majority of Canadians who support abortion restrictions, by proclaiming they are not welcome to run for the Liberal Party of Canada.”

“We plan on revitalizing pro-lifers and begin the creation of a new pro-life consensus in Canada,” said Jonathon Van Maren, Communications Director for CCBR and the campaign’s co-organizer. “Around 100,000 pre-born human beings are decapitated, dismembered, and disembowelled each year in our country. We’ve found that when we expose the injustice of abortion as well as a politician’s stance on the issue, people change their position.”

CLC Youth and CCBR urge all pro-life Canadians to join the #No2Trudeau launch and join them in campaigning against Justin Trudeau in this year’s federal election.

http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Press_Room&id=151

Thu, 2015-03-12 20:12

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Tom Wappel is involved with these groups.

Thu, 2015-03-12 23:20

Pondering

Great news for Trudeau.

Thu, 2015-03-12 23:29

Sean in Ottawa

Trudeau has some challenges but this is not one of them. If anything this would help him.

Fri, 2015-03-13 01:18

Debater

Pondering wrote:

Great news for Trudeau.

I'm not sure if I would describe it quite like that. It's not necessarily good or bad news.

It makes him an ongoing target for the right-wing, but it does prove a point I've been trying to make - Justin Trudeau taking a strong position on this issue was a big deal. Some NDP partisans have tried to downplay it, but it shows that it struck a nerve with groups like this and that right-wingers are angry about it.

Fri, 2015-03-13 11:40

Pondering

Debater wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Great news for Trudeau.

I'm not sure if I would describe it quite like that. It's not necessarily good or bad news.

It makes him an ongoing target for the right-wing, but it does prove a point I've been trying to make - Justin Trudeau taking a strong position on this issue was a big deal. Some NDP partisans have tried to downplay it, but it shows that it struck a nerve with groups like this and that right-wingers are angry about it.

I don't think it was a big deal at all. The kind of people willing to vote for Trudeau would be close to 100% pro-choice or not care that much about it. Harper won't even touch it so it's a non-issue with voters. Trudeau's unshakeable pro-choice stance is an important identity stamp. Being attacked by anti-abortionists is a good thing because it highlights his support for women. It is positive free publicity. NDP strategists are probably frustrated by it and wish they would attack Mulcair and the NDP over their support. The unspoken message is that Trudeau's position is important and Mulcair's isn't.

Fri, 2015-03-13 12:06

Sean in Ottawa

I am in rare agreement with Pondering on this. Attacks by anti-abortionists not a big problem -- Trudeau already lost their support and there are more pro-choice Conservatives who may like his right of centre positions than there are anti-choice Liberals who will run from him.

Sun, 2015-03-15 20:30

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

NDP strategists are probably frustrated by it and wish they would attack Mulcair and the NDP over their support.

That's silly. It would never happen. Even pro-lifers know when they have no traction, and they have none with the NDP. The party's pro-choice stance is as old as it is unshakeable. No point in attacking and nothing to gain. Clearly they don't feel the same way about the Liberals.

Quote:

The unspoken message is that Trudeau's position is important and Mulcair's isn't.

As always, this makes no sense, seeing as it is the same position. Justin just came to it much, much later. The real difference is that there is no room for these people to influence the NDP, so they don't bother. Whereas they know that there is still a lot of pro-life sentiment within the Liberal party, so they try to exploit it. It's evidence of the weakness of the Libs' position, not the importance of it.

[/quote]

Sun, 2015-03-15 20:43

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

That's silly. It would never happen. Even pro-lifers know when they have no traction, and they have none with the NDP. The party's pro-choice stance is as old as it is unshakeable. No point in attacking and nothing to gain. Clearly they don't feel the same way about the Liberals.

......

As always, this makes no sense, seeing as it is the same position. Justin just came to it much, much later. The real difference is that there is no room for these people to influence the NDP, so they don't bother. Whereas they know that there is still a lot of pro-life sentiment within the Liberal party, so they try to exploit it. It's evidence of the weakness of the Libs' position, not the importance of it.

You could be right about their reasoning but either way I was right that the attack is beneficial to Trudeau.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/03/13/yes2trudeau-liberals-anti-aborti...

But on Friday, Liberals launched the hashtag "#Yes2Trudeau" on Twitter, with many supporters and candidates lauding his stance and promoting a petition on the Liberal website in support of a woman's right to choose.

The petition includes space for supporters to add their names, emails, and postal codes — all information that could prove valuable in building a voter database before the next election. The site also contains a donation button.

By Friday afternoon, the hashtag was trending in Canada.

Sun, 2015-03-15 20:50

#10

Jacob Two-Two

I didn't deny it. I think it's good for him too. Gives him progressive cred that he hasn't earned. Perception trumps reality once again.

Sun, 2015-03-15 21:15

#11

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I don't think it was a big deal at all. The kind of people willing to vote for Trudeau would be close to 100% pro-choice or not care that much about it.

If even the rank-and-file voters and supporters are that unanimous about it, then why did Trudeau feel any need to make that mandatory for MPs?

I'm sure that NDP members are close to 100% against slavery, but it's not like Mulcair is cracking the whip over it.

I hope this is a fair question.

Sun, 2015-03-15 21:44

#12

ajaykumar

Good its about time! Any word as to when the traditional marriage folks are launching their campaign?

Sun, 2015-03-15 21:58

#13

Mr. Magoo

They're keeping their powder dry.

But when you least expect it... EXPECT IT!

Also, and I'm just sayin', don't take women's suffrage for granted.

Sun, 2015-03-15 22:27

#14

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I don't think it was a big deal at all. The kind of people willing to vote for Trudeau would be close to 100% pro-choice or not care that much about it.

If even the rank-and-file voters and supporters are that unanimous about it, then why did Trudeau feel any need to make that mandatory for MPs?

I'm sure that NDP members are close to 100% against slavery, but it's not like Mulcair is cracking the whip over it.

I hope this is a fair question.

It is a fair question. At the last convention it was voted on so the party had already expressed their support for it. Trudeau decided to adopt this as the official position of the party. New leaders shape the party and this is a defining issue.

This is a position the NDP has held for a long time. They too must have had to make that decision at some point.

Sun, 2015-03-15 22:48

#15

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
It is a fair question. At the last convention it was voted on so the party had already expressed their support for it. Trudeau decided to adopt this as the official position of the party. New leaders shape the party and this is a defining issue.

Okay. There's no onus on you, or the Liberals, to explain someone else's thinking, but then why do you suppose this was a shot over the bow for the Libs, rather than the Libs and the NDP, who agree with them on this?

If neither the NDP nor the Libs are going to budge on this, why do you suppose this group aimed at only the Liberals?

Sun, 2015-03-15 23:04

#16

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It is a fair question. At the last convention it was voted on so the party had already expressed their support for it. Trudeau decided to adopt this as the official position of the party. New leaders shape the party and this is a defining issue.

Okay. There's no onus on you, or the Liberals, to explain someone else's thinking, but then why do you suppose this was a shot over the bow for the Libs, rather than the Libs and the NDP, who agree with them on this?

If neither the NDP nor the Libs are going to budge on this, why do you suppose this group aimed at only the Liberals?

The three major parties won't touch the topic, not even the Conservatives, so I can't imagine that they think they can sway the Liberals. All I can think of is they felt they would get the most press by going after Trudeau alone.

Sun, 2015-03-15 23:12

#17

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
All I can think of is they felt they would get the most press by going after Trudeau alone.

Do you mean here at babble, or everywhere?

That said, do you think that as the latest flag-bearers, the Libs might be seen as the weakest flag bearers?

Mon, 2015-03-16 01:35

#18

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
All I can think of is they felt they would get the most press by going after Trudeau alone.

Do you mean here at babble, or everywhere?

That said, do you think that as the latest flag-bearers, the Libs might be seen as the weakest flag bearers?

It's certainly possible but if so they are very unrealistic. Can you honestly imagine the Liberals or Trudeau backtracking on this? The policy announcement was deliberated. It is part of how he is framing himself and the party. This is great for him. It brings his position back in the news.

Mon, 2015-03-16 13:21

#19

Debater

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I didn't deny it. I think it's good for him too. Gives him progressive cred that he hasn't earned. Perception trumps reality once again.

Typical nonsense and bias from you.

You can't admit the risks and courage Justin Trudeau has shown so you engage in criticism and attacks.

Unlike the NDP which has a left-wing base and which doesn't have much to lose by being pro-choice, the Liberals have a larger base of centrist and moderate tory voters who the party can lose by taking this position.

Justin Trudeau even received attacks last year from the Archbishop of Toronto as well as from Stephen Harper & the Conservatives and several former centre-right Liberals.

So Trudeau has definitely earned progressive cred. Reality trumps your perception once again.

Mon, 2015-03-16 16:37

#20

quizzical

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
I don't think it was a big deal at all. The kind of people willing to vote for Trudeau would be close to 100% pro-choice or not care that much about it.

If even the rank-and-file voters and supporters are that unanimous about it, then why did Trudeau feel any need to make that mandatory for MPs?

I'm sure that NDP members are close to 100% against slavery, but it's not like Mulcair is cracking the whip over it.

I hope this is a fair question.

not a Trudeau fan, but this is an issue of human rights and i would hope he would crack the whip over any MP or candidate who was against human rights.

Mon, 2015-03-16 17:07

#21

Sean in Ottawa

I agree.

I don't object if Trudeau takes credit for being on the right side of this issue.

I would object if anyone wants to suggest this somehow makes him more progressive than others who have held this position for decades.

I do grant that it is more controversial for the Liberals to take a stand on this but that does not make the party more progressive. It just means that there are some Liberals unhappy with this position. I suspect that this is a declining number of people with declining influence. This is in part a reflection of change in the party and in the country -- certainly as much as it is any expression of courage. But I am not criticizing him for this position wich is the correct one. Nor do I criticize him for taking political credit since that is his job. My issues with Trudeau lie elsewhere.

Mon, 2015-03-16 17:17

#22

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
not a Trudeau fan, but this is an issue of human rights and i would hope he would crack the whip over any MP or candidate who was against human rights.

I wouldn't disagree, but you missed my point.

If Liberals are all in agreement with this, why would there be any need to introduce a requirement that they agree with it?

I'm not questioning whether this agreement, or even this requirement, is a good thing. I'm just wondering how "close to 100%" the agreement really is.

Mon, 2015-03-16 17:41

#23

quizzical

mr magoo i agree with your questioning of why would there need to be a requirement in the liberal party where the leader has to force their mps and candidates to stand behind human rights. to me it says many liberal believers are just as anti-human rights as the conservatives are.

didn't word it well the first time i guess.

Mon, 2015-03-16 20:43

#24

Jacob Two-Two

Debater wrote:

So Trudeau has definitely earned progressive cred. Reality trumps your perception once again.

Well, maybe you're right. Being the second last political party in Canada to unequivocally stand up for women's rights on an issue that was decided by the courts 27 years ago could be considered progressive, I suppose. If your definition was reeeally broad. So broad that the word would become meaningless.

I suppose it depends on your perspective. For real progressives, they want their stances to be pushing society forward. For the Liberal party, it has always been enough to be almost, but not quite, as bad as the Conservatives. That's as progressive as they get.

Mon, 2015-03-16 20:55

#25

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
not a Trudeau fan, but this is an issue of human rights and i would hope he would crack the whip over any MP or candidate who was against human rights.

I wouldn't disagree, but you missed my point.

If Liberals are all in agreement with this, why would there be any need to introduce a requirement that they agree with it?

I'm not questioning whether this agreement, or even this requirement, is a good thing. I'm just wondering how "close to 100%" the agreement really is.

They are not all in agreement. That is why it was necessary to make the party position official.

Mon, 2015-03-16 21:05

#26

Mr. Magoo

There are currently 36 Liberal MPs.

"close to" 100% of 36 would be approximately 35.5.

Who's the half?

Mon, 2015-03-16 21:33

#27

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

There are currently 36 Liberal MPs.

"close to" 100% of 36 would be approximately 35.5.

Who's the half?

You haven't quoted the sentence you are referring to but either way you seem to be nit-picking. Is there a point you are trying to make?

Mon, 2015-03-16 21:39

#28

Mr. Magoo

I thought I did in post #10.

Mon, 2015-03-16 22:12

#29

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I thought I did in post #10.

Then you need to reread it because I wasn't referring to the caucus I was referring to the voter pool available to Liberals.

Tue, 2015-03-17 00:56

#30

quizzical

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
not a Trudeau fan, but this is an issue of human rights and i would hope he would crack the whip over any MP or candidate who was against human rights.

I wouldn't disagree, but you missed my point.

If Liberals are all in agreement with this, why would there be any need to introduce a requirement that they agree with it?

I'm not questioning whether this agreement, or even this requirement, is a good thing. I'm just wondering how "close to 100%" the agreement really is.

They are not all in agreement. That is why it was necessary to make the party position official.

so.....you support a party where their mp's have to be forced to stand with human rights and the Charter?

Tue, 2015-03-17 01:07

#31

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Then you need to reread it because I wasn't referring to the caucus I was referring to the voter pool available to Liberals.

Then it's even more fascinating!

Close to 100% of voters are pro-choice, but the Liberal caucus needs to be TOLD that it's not up for debate? That's what you're saying??

Tue, 2015-03-17 17:37

#32

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Then you need to reread it because I wasn't referring to the caucus I was referring to the voter pool available to Liberals.

Then it's even more fascinating!

Close to 100% of voters are pro-choice, but the Liberal caucus needs to be TOLD that it's not up for debate? That's what you're saying??

This is not a surprise to me.

Anti choice activists are a small minority but their ability to sign up supporters to take nominations is disproportionate to their representation in the general public. Anti-choice activists mobilize and network (in and out of religious institutions).

I would guess that any poll of members in the House or candidates in an election would always come up with more anti-choice supporters than would be found in the general population.

It is not unreasonable for the Liberal party to proclaim that the door to using their party for this is closed. I don't criticize them for that. I have many criticisms of the Liberal party but find it difficult to understand why we would criticize them on this point. If the Liberals were not already doing this (blocking the ability for anti-choice activists to stack meetings and take nominations) I would call for them to do it.

Let's not be naive about how anti choice candidates get nominated out ofd a population and membership that is pro-choice.

Tue, 2015-03-17 19:25

#33

Mr. Magoo

If you're saying that anti-choicers punch above their weight then, fair enough. Zealots and radicals sadly usually do.

Tue, 2015-03-17 20:03

#34

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
not a Trudeau fan, but this is an issue of human rights and i would hope he would crack the whip over any MP or candidate who was against human rights.

I wouldn't disagree, but you missed my point.

If Liberals are all in agreement with this, why would there be any need to introduce a requirement that they agree with it?

I'm not questioning whether this agreement, or even this requirement, is a good thing. I'm just wondering how "close to 100%" the agreement really is.

They are not all in agreement. That is why it was necessary to make the party position official.

so.....you support a party where their mp's have to be forced to stand with human rights and the Charter?

Parties have existing MPs when a new leader takes over and decisions are taken at conventions that not all members agree with. From here on out all nominees know the score. If I'm looking for a party that represents my views or my values, there are none.

Tue, 2015-03-17 23:32

#35

Jacob Two-Two

So you might as well support a party that's as far away from your stated views as possible. That makes sense.