tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post5003778211239388631..comments2024-03-28T00:54:34.206-04:00Comments on BigCityLib Strikes Back: Finally, (Relatively) Straight Talk On Bill C-484bigcitylibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-13143366740002952392008-04-01T14:09:00.000-04:002008-04-01T14:09:00.000-04:00Wow, usually radical feminists are a lot more subt...<I>Wow, usually radical feminists are a lot more subtle in expressing their hatred of their fellow citizens.</I><BR/><BR/>Too bad your mother hadn't been radical enough to think of aborting you before you grew up to be such a horrific adult.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you didn't miss the entire discussion referring to issues of suspicious or biased polling and an electorate that may not be as informed enough about the repercussions of this bill to have a sensible understanding of it.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of how you feel about abortion, those issues should be of real concern to you. Majority opinion is what got the Americans stuck in Iraq and majority opinion about a bill that privileges the rights insensate entities over the rights of real people is equally invalid as an arbiter for the common good.<BR/><BR/>But you hate everyone too much to realise that. Oh well..<I>tant pis</I>.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I seriously doubt it could withstand a constitutional challenge and it is worthwhile to see the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that's required to support it, or to distract the discussion about it.<BR/><BR/>Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Concerned about the care of pregnant women? <I>Help</I> pregnant women. Otherwise, fuck the hell off.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-39928765428239131562008-04-01T13:39:00.000-04:002008-04-01T13:39:00.000-04:00I would love to see a legal opinion on the validit...I would love to see a legal opinion on the validity of this ridiculous Bill. <BR/><BR/>On the one hand, it casts a broad net on the interpretation of crime against a person as has been pointed out already. That contradiction begs a Charter challenge. On the other hand, it narrows the criminal act against a pregnant woman to a select set of circumstances: the accused must know that the woman is pregnant, the accused must not have been provoked (?!?!?), the accused must not be a licensed abortionist fulfilling his duties (:-)). <BR/><BR/>So the proposed legislation will protect what % of women who are victims of violence? Not too many is my guess.<BR/><BR/>The whole exercise is bogus and meant to provide a wedge issue for Harper and his so-con supporters, while pretending to keep their promise to not re-open the abortion debate.Beijing Yorkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05579118045254845839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-7067110439258484642008-04-01T12:10:00.000-04:002008-04-01T12:10:00.000-04:00"the majority public support for this bill is a re..."the majority public support for this bill is a red herring"<BR/><BR/>Easily the funniest line I've read this year. It bears repeating:<BR/><BR/>"the majority public support for this bill is a red herring"<BR/><BR/>Wow, usually radical feminists are a lot more subtle in expressing their hatred of their fellow citizens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-77472180189415096782008-04-01T11:09:00.000-04:002008-04-01T11:09:00.000-04:00Funny, isn't it then, that those supporting this b...<I>Funny, isn't it then, that those supporting this bill were virtually unanimously opposed to Charter rights for gays and lesbians...</I><BR/><BR/>It should be a <I>crime against humanity</I> for the media and polling companies in this country to blatantly exploit the levels of dangerous ignorance that people have of their <I>own</I> rights and freedoms.<BR/><BR/>You wonder just how much CanWest could destroy the lives of Canadians if it wanted to. You really do wonder sometimes.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-9718268656162718792008-04-01T11:03:00.000-04:002008-04-01T11:03:00.000-04:00"Those who believe in and love freedom, those who ..."Those who believe in and love freedom, those who believe in and support expanding the Charter and its protections as far as possible, support C-484. "<BR/><BR/>Funny, isn't it then, that those supporting this bill were virtually unanimously opposed to Charter rights for gays and lesbians, not merely in the case of marriage, but even in employment, housing and pension rights.Reality Biteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10350104223630062677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-34540347709655241502008-04-01T10:57:00.001-04:002008-04-01T10:57:00.001-04:00Oh, by the way, Aaron, why is it that supporters o...Oh, by the way, Aaron, why is it that supporters of this bill say things like this (over at <I>The NatPo</I> link)<BR/><BR/>"Full protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for those persons who happen to be in their mother's womb is one of the last great battles left for the civil rights movement. Those who believe in and love freedom, those who believe in and support expanding the Charter and its protections as far as possible, support C-484. Those who know and understand science support C-484, for the science is clear - from the moment of conception, the fetus is really and truly human life. Is it not the place of the law to protect that life? Yes, if the law is just, if the law reflects a culture of life, a culture of reason, and a culture of freedom."<BR/><BR/>Since this is what you're accusing everyone who doesn't support this bill of thinking, why don't you challenge that? Too lazy? Or are you really just a grubby little propagandist?<BR/><BR/>God, the nightmare of conferring full human rights on something that has no discernible conscience is something that should frighten the hell out of everyone, and women most of all.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-66211893488686817382008-04-01T10:57:00.000-04:002008-04-01T10:57:00.000-04:00Although we are still talking National Post blog-s...<I>Although we are still talking National Post blog-space, not the body of the main newspaper...</I><BR/><BR/>You may have already caught this but it is in the body of the paper, at least in the Toronto edition (pg. A15).Jason Hickmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17648786726787793783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-84398180525782573702008-04-01T10:55:00.000-04:002008-04-01T10:55:00.000-04:00RB,I've criticized (and others have) AR online pol...RB,<BR/><BR/>I've criticized (and others have) AR online polls in the past. Another assumption I've made is that they've changed their methodology to make their results less wonky than they used to be. Not that I have any proof of that.bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-66234313087407947462008-04-01T10:54:00.000-04:002008-04-01T10:54:00.000-04:00In answer to "alw" here's a few points clarifying ...In answer to "alw" here's a few points clarifying why the exemptions in Bill C-484 for abortion and pregnant women are essentially meaningless:<BR/><BR/>Any type of fetal rights automatically conflicts with women's rights, which makes the exemptions contradictory. Because if a fetus has the right not to be murdered, then how can you logically allow the right to abortion, or allow women to engage in potentially harmful activities during pregnancy? It sets up a confusing conflict in the law, putting women in opposition to their fetuses, and this can invite arrests and prosecutions of pregnant women, as has happened in some U.S. states that have similar laws with similar exemptions. <BR/><BR/>The exemption is only for "lawful" terminations. This means that if any woman tries to self-abort illegally, anyone who helps her (e.g., a boyfriend) can be prosecuted under this law. If an abortion provider does anything wrong in relation to an abortion procedure, even something minor like an expired permit, the procedure might not be deemed "lawful" anymore and the provider could be prosecuted for murder. <BR/><BR/>A clause in the bill says it is not a defence under the law that the fetus is not a human being. This essentially negates the current definition in the Criminal Code that you don't become a person till you're born alive, and together with the language of "unborn child" in the bill, extends personhood to very early in pregnancy. <BR/><BR/>Finally, even though this particular law might not be used against abortion or pregnant women, any other law in Canada could now be interpreted to include fetuses as persons, using Bill C-484 as authority. This commonly happens in the U.S., where the fetal homicide law is cited as the authority for arresting women under child endangerment laws or laws prohibiting drug delivery to minors.choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-70856320253297964762008-04-01T10:52:00.000-04:002008-04-01T10:52:00.000-04:00Angus Reid polls these days are strictly internet-...Angus Reid polls these days are strictly internet-based from a recruited response base. They recruit by placing google text ads on blogs, etc., dealing with hot-button issues. I've seen several recently asking if people are in favour or opposed to same-sex marriage, or Harper/Dion's leadership, etc.<BR/><BR/>People recruited because they already have strong opinions on issues are by definition not a balanced sample. It's barely better than the "polls" on newspaper web sites.<BR/><BR/>The best you can say about any Angus Reid poll, on any subject is, "Uh, that's interesting."<BR/><BR/>In this case, as Joyce points out, it's a question asked on a (literally!) motherhood issue, where the public hasn't been informed about the issues. Obviously every sane person believes in protecting pregnant women as a general concept. Very few would believe in the specific action of protecting them by locking them up in solitary confinement until they give birth.Reality Biteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10350104223630062677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-75366505243453475962008-04-01T10:47:00.000-04:002008-04-01T10:47:00.000-04:00Please feel free! Thanks bigcitylib.Btw, another n...Please feel free! Thanks bigcitylib.<BR/><BR/>Btw, another new point that didn't make it in was this, in the paragraph about fetal personhood: "The bill tries to negate the Code's definition of 'human being' by saying it can't be used as a defence for a crime against an 'unborn child'."choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-39398293372770912152008-04-01T10:35:00.000-04:002008-04-01T10:35:00.000-04:00Joyce, Mind if I bump your comment into the main a...Joyce, Mind if I bump your comment into the main article itself?bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-49392118475005852302008-04-01T10:32:00.000-04:002008-04-01T10:32:00.000-04:00Skdadl,You may be right. I was assuming that an A...Skdadl,<BR/><BR/>You may be right. I was assuming that an Angus Reid Poll would be less suspect, and the fact that it did not seem to have been sponsored would be an argument in its favor.bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-78079485802137152642008-04-01T10:31:00.001-04:002008-04-01T10:31:00.001-04:00The National Post piece is by me, Joyce Arthur. Th...The National Post piece is by me, Joyce Arthur. They sent me a version yesterday to edit, but didn't bother waiting for my response, even though I sent an updated version later the same day. <BR/><BR/>Because of the newer Angus Reid poll that came out since I submitted the piece to the Post over THREE weeks ago, I had added the following sentence to the paragraph about the polls, which didn't make it in: <BR/><BR/>"Polling results on this issue are also misleading because the public is not generally aware of the risks the bill poses to women's rights." <BR/><BR/>The point being, this is a complex issue. The Angus Reid poll made no attempt to explain the problems with the bill, which are not going to be readily apparent to the average Joe and Jane. Everybody of course wants to protect pregnant women, but most will not realize what a Trojan Horse this bill is. Unfortunately, the majority public support for this bill is a red herring, at least for now.choice joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18218868792770666771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-50883301922462295432008-04-01T10:31:00.000-04:002008-04-01T10:31:00.000-04:00Quite right alw. Pay no attention to that man behi...Quite right alw. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain stamping Government Property on womens uteruses.April Reign (aka Debra)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06622445888762058695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-50966156528997520082008-04-01T10:30:00.000-04:002008-04-01T10:30:00.000-04:00So why have the bill Aaron? As a lawyer you must k...So why have the bill Aaron? As a lawyer you must know that it won't result in any more jail time and do nothing to prevent the crimes it claims to protect women against.<BR/><BR/>So why do we have this superfluous bill at all?Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06941875334878452635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-19908208202628994132008-04-01T10:29:00.000-04:002008-04-01T10:29:00.000-04:00BCL, the Angus Reid poll is just as suspect as the...BCL, the Angus Reid poll is just as suspect as the Environics poll. See fern hill's reading of it at <A HREF="http://www.breadnroses.ca/birthpangs/?p=431" REL="nofollow">Birth Pangs</A> two weeks ago. First task always with these surveys is to read the questions; second is to ask who paid? In the case of the AR poll, apparently no one. You believe that?skdadlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10395908653129465704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-54049830642048320652008-04-01T09:15:00.000-04:002008-04-01T09:15:00.000-04:00I still can’t believe how badly all you progressiv...I still can’t believe how badly all you progressives have been duped on this one. Bill C-484 doesn’t establish personhood for fetuses, it doesn’t make harming a fetus an independent, actionable crime, and anyone who claims that there’s any legal basis contained in C-484 for criminalizing or even regulating abortion which doesn’t already exist as a result of Morgentaler is simply out to lunch.<BR/><BR/>You people constantly insist the social conservatives are clueless, but for some reason you still worry when they get excited. Ridiculous.ALWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00875223933170574566noreply@blogger.com