Friday, March 07, 2008

C-484: The Issue Of Liberal Culpability

Much hair-pulling today re the Liberal response to Bill C-484 (20 MPS supporting), which essentially allowed the legislation to pass second reading (and the first of 3 votes).

Here are some thoughts:

1) Despite some excellent blogging on the issue, I have found a grand total of two MSM articles on the topic written within the past couple of days: yesterdays G&M piece (which mistakenly referred to the "first reading" of the bill), and the Reuters piece linked above, which usefully details the great distance C-484 must travel yet before becoming law.

As for OpEd's, there's Zerbie's today, which I linked to in an earlier post. So you can't really blame the Libs for dodging an issue this low-profile. Or if you do blame them (and perhaps this is an unfortunate truth) only you and your mama care. With the public, the issue is drawing a flat-line. Don't expect to see the Libs take any hits on it outside of the blogging Nerdosphere until the blogging Nerdosphere can convince the MSM to deal with something other than Naftagate and Cadscam.

2) It really is a long way until this becomes law. It can be killed in committee, or transformed such that it serves no CPoC interest, or it can be killed in the Senate. If the point is that C-484 dies eventually, then how it happens should be immaterial.

In fact, that it might expire quietly in some back-room or in the sleepy confines of the Senate would be a plus. People say "whip the vote", but the Libs have a small rump of committed SoCons who, in the state the party is in at the moment, may not fear the whip and, if it is applied, may decide they don't want to be Liberals anymore. I'm not sure that them leaving serves anyone's purpose.

So there you have it. CC wanted a response from a Liblogger and there it is. Come get some, dog breath.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Surely there will be enough opposition parties in committee to change the wording of the bill so that it actually re-enforces access to abortion and takes the point of view of pregnant women rather than unborn "children".

What I would really like to see is an addition repealing s. 287 of the Criminal Code (the part which purports to outlaw abortion. Although it is constitutionally invalid, it has never been officially repealed and is included in every new version of the Criminal Code). That would effectively turn the tables on the anti-abortion crowd!

Scott Tribe said...

You are correct anonymous>. The NAY's outnumber the Yea's on this issue 6-5 in Committee, because Art Hangar, the Chairperson (and who votes Yea to this bill) can only vote to cast a tie-breaking vote.

So, there is ample opportunity to be amending/modifying this bill.. and we should be lobbying the NAY MP's on the Justice Committee to do so.

Ti-Guy said...

I'm sensing a Bread and Roses campaign to pile on Liberal bloggers again.

Anonymous said...

After all, if defeating it allows just one criminal who kills an unborn child to walk free, it's worth it.

Ti-Guy said...

After all, if defeating it allows just one criminal who kills an unborn child to walk free, it's worth it

Maybe that child would have grown up to be the next Hitler. In that case, it would be worth it.

ALW said...

Ti - sounds like you're from the Henry Morgentaler school of abortion, which essentially amounts to a pro-eugenices argument. Super.

Ti-Guy said...

Ah shut up, Aaron. Why don't you challenge the fatuous anonymii once in a while, instead of combing Liberal/Progressive blogs in search of a fight all the time and the opportunity to defame someone?

Off-topic...BCL: I guess you didn't catch The Agenda on TVO yesterday. It featured the "free speech thing." Keith Martin, Jonathan Kay and Charles McVety were on and once again, I was struck by how badly these inarticulate people argue their cases; the ignorance of existing law, the baseless assertions, the references to unnamed victims of human rights tribunal persecution, the unsourced data being referenced without context, the incoherent McVety complaining about Evangelicals being subject to hate speech because he was called a "media whore" in The Globe and Mail (which was just quoting Garth Turner anyway)...

Jonathan Kay disgraced himself by not challenging some of the irrational assertions that were made, but then, that's what he does.

All in all, very revealing. These people are lucky no one is thinking about criminalising dumb speech...

choice joyce said...

A couple countering points if I may - You say "With the public, the issue is drawing a flat-line." Well of course it is, they don't know about it because the MSM is not reporting it. Tell any bunch of reasonably progressive women about what happened on Wed, and they'll be horrified and enraged, like the woman who called me yesterday, incredulous that there hasn't been more media coverage of this. (And btw, women are 50% of the public.)

Second, you say "If the point is that C-484 dies eventually, then how it happens should be immaterial." I guess I'll accept any type of loss, but I'd much rather see a thorough evidence-based destruction of the bill by the Committee process, since any other exit for the bill means it'll keep coming back to haunt us in one form or another.

Re the second "anonymous" comment, this simply reflects a very common refusal to understand why we oppose the bill (almost always by anti-choice people). I have to say it's the height of stupidity and hateful ignorance to claim that we don't care about pregnant women being attacked - obviously everybody cares about that! (duh). The issue is, this law is not the right tool - it won't protect pregnant women, it compromises women's rights in general, and it threatens abortion rights - all for no reason, since there are other and better ways to address these attacks on pregnant women.

the regina mom said...

The bigger point here is what the Harper government and previous Liberal governments have done to women and women's organizations. The funding cuts have taken women's voices out of the MSM. Women's groups are struggling to keep their frontline social service organizations open, for pity's sake!

Now Harper has almost completely taken down a national women's voice and in so doing set up a situation where, if the Opposition fails to oppose (as has been the case on many pieces of legislation), and this legislation passes, women's groups will be hard-pressed to fight back through the courts. They have no resources!! Surely, we all know that women still earn less than 3/4 of what men do.

So, BCL, are you Liberals gonna pick someone to be Canadian women's Sugar Daddy so you can look good and bring attention to this when it does hit the media? Or are you going to continue the same attacks in which previous Liberal governments have participated?

Or are you going to stand up to this gawdawful agenda with an endgame that would have women playing out scenes from The Handmaid's Tale?

Holly Stick said...

On Monday, CBC's The Current had people who supported and opposed the bill:
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2008/200803/20080303.html

Caroline Egan was very good.

BreadnRoses doesn't need to start a campaign against the Liberals because many non-BnR liberals are plenty pissed off at the pusillanimous and stupid behaviour of the Liberals the past few weeks.

Ti-Guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ti-Guy said...

BreadnRoses doesn't need to start a campaign against the Liberals because many non-BnR liberals are plenty pissed off at the pusillanimous and stupid behaviour of the Liberals the past few weeks.

Tell that to The Globe, The Star, the CBC and that crèche of atavism, CanWest-Global.

Holly Stick said...

"I'm sensing a Bread and Roses campaign to pile on Liberal bloggers again."

"Tell that to The Globe, The Star, the CBC and that crèche of atavism, CanWest-Global."

How did you suddenly switch from it being about bloggers to being about the MSM? Try Canadian Cynic, Wingnuterer, Far and Wide, Turner Report, liberal catnip, in the House and Senate, etc.

Ti-Guy said...

How did you suddenly switch from it being about bloggers to being about the MSM?

I haven't switched from anything. This post is about this being a media issue.

No one reads blogs, you know. A lot of people actually think C-484 is about protecting pregnant women (and...gosh!...how can you be against that?), and until we see a more sophisticated discussion of the issue in the mainstream media, it's going to remain that way.

foottothefire said...

As I said yesterday, like fly's to shit, anti-abortionist keep on breeding, praying for the day that the Art Hangers and Epps conjure up misanthropic, twisted legislation or, failing a usurping of law, leadership towards a good old fashioned stake burning and a revival of pointy hat justice.

Mike said...

If it was so insignificant, why didn't Dion whip the vote and just defeat it once and for all. No one would have noticed. Right?

Charles Emerson said...

Lemme get this straight.

Some woman clearly wants to keep her baby, and excitedly prepares for the arrival of her new child,

and some raving lunatic decides to kill her unborn child,

And they want to make that ILLEGAL???????

The insanity of it all. It's time the Liberal party stand up for the rights of those who want to kill, wanted, unborn children.

What kind of society are we living in, if someone can't do that?

Reality Bites said...

Newsflash Charles: IT'S ALREASY ILLEGAL! It doesn't surprise me you're unaware of it, but it's actually illegal to assault women in this country, whether or not they're pregnant.

Ti-Guy said...

"Charles Emerson" knew that...he's just being a terrorist...terrorising Canadians by detonating a bomb of ignorance right in the middle of the public square where the villagers have gathered to talk.

Charles Emerson said...

My shoving you in the grocery line is "assault."

To the left, taking that wanted child's life is on the same plane.

Your true colors are shining through.

Reality Bites said...

An assault on a woman that causes a miscarriage is no more the same thing as a shove in the checkout line than any other brutal assault is the same as a shove in the checkout line. Given that you know that already, why are you such a lying sack of shit?

Can't you win your argument without lying, or are you just naturally a lying sack of shit? And if so, why aren't you in cabinet yet?

Charles Emerson said...

Actually,

a brutal assault intended to take a life, is attempted murder.

A brutal assault that takes a life is murder.

Shoving someone in the grocery line is neither.

Nor is taking that wanted life.

In fact if a gynecologist, in the course of an internal exam (common in pregnancies) decides to unilaterally take the child's life with the swipe of an instrument during that process (like say if they believe the mother, is "unfit" or if they're just psycho) it would likely not even be a simple assault.

In the latter scenario, the shove in the grocery line would be worse.

The positions on this new law are very revealing. It is no longer about choice, but the right to kill the unborn child.

Which is why the venom is spewing. Getting to the nitty gritty of this bill is causing you all to momentarily pause to realize the "right to choice" meme doesn't fit as an easy cover.

Very revealing indeed.

Anonymous said...

How 'progressive'

If someone doesn't agree with your opinion call them names. Calling someone a "sack of shit" really advances the merit of one's opinion.

Then there is that actual 'piece of shit'
ti-guy...there is an abortion that should have happened

Anonymous said...

Mr. Emerson, you'll be pleased to learn that pushing someone hard enough to harm the fetus OR a doctor performing an abortion without the woman's authorization are extremely serious matters which would draw harsh criminal penalties. Nor is it unusual for sentences to be higher when crimes are committed against women who are pregnant.

That is, you'll be pleased to learn that if you want to send a societal message about protecting pregnant women. If your goal is merely to prevent these same women from having abortions, your reaction may be somewhat differnt.

charles emerson said...

A woman is about to give birth. Her and her husband are excitedly preparing for their child's birth.

The baby is minutes from being born, and is in the birth canal but not out yet. The doctor could stick a scalpal into the baby's head and kill it,

the woman would be then pushing out a dead child,

and no criminal charges could be laid.

None.

The Dr. caused no harm whatsoever to the woman. It was the child that was killed. A child minutes from breathing her first baby breath.

That's legal in Canada today.

Now that's "progressive".

Anonymous said...

Nope. you're still describing a very nasty assault on the mother. It's bad stuff and would draw criminal attention, but it ain't murder.

In fact it's likely you are simply misquoting a commonly used socon hypothetical. Often anti-abortionists will describe a situation where a doctor delivers an abortion mere minutes before birth, in an attempt to create to drum up shock, horror, etc.. However, in that scenario the woman actually has to ask for the abortion, or of course there could be criminal charges.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the list; I'll personally send an email to each of those Liberal MPs and thank them for their support.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that every proposed additional new gun law, on top of the hundreds of ineffective ones already, is seen as 'reasonable' by the Left and doesn't lead to a slippery slope of confiscation, BUT anything that even remotely hints about protection for unborn children is suddenly a draconian measure meant to enslave women by the religious right?