[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Valmy]

There are many women who are anti-abortion - it does not mean they are anti-women.

Well there are plenty of women who are anti-women so that does not prove much.

[viper37]

I totally agree with BB.  This thing is way overblown.

[Drakken]

In that context there's been a minor story about the chairmanship of the chairmanship of the House Status of Women Committee.  Traditionally that position is held by the opposition.  So recently when Andrew Scheer appointed MP Rachel Harder to the position, but the Liberals were outraged.  The problem?  Rachel Harder is pro-life.  Not that she is going to use the position to try and ban abortion, or do much anything on the topic of abortion.  But her personal opinion on the topic apparently invalidated her.

So let's say on a case you are working as Prosecutor, a potential juror told you, "Mr. Prosecutor, I believe in jury nullification. My opinion is that a jury should tell you and this court to go to hell, with your evidence and the details of your case, if and when they believe the law or statute is totally unfair. But, SWEAR TO GOD, I will not use my position as a juror to promote or enforce jury nullification and will judge everything according to the rules of evidence if you put your trust in me", would you still recommend them on your jury? I wouldn't.

Yeah, it is an allegory but the main point stands. Some positions are polarized enough that they should raise eyebrows where you a trying to sit in a position to promote the exact opposite aim of that position. Being vocally pro-life is pretty much incompatible with women's gained right to control their own body and whether giving birth or not, as it is in Canada. You do not need to be a feminist to agree with that, it's plain common sense.

I can see why this would bring other members of the Committee to bar her from sitting, but she can go nonetheless sit on another one. What is worrying is that Scheer attempting this knowing full well the implications. This sends a clear message on how his government would defend the rights of women - or who would be chosen defend it under a Conservative government.

[Barrister]

In that context there's been a minor story about the chairmanship of the chairmanship of the House Status of Women Committee.  Traditionally that position is held by the opposition.  So recently when Andrew Scheer appointed MP Rachel Harder to the position, but the Liberals were outraged.  The problem?  Rachel Harder is pro-life.  Not that she is going to use the position to try and ban abortion, or do much anything on the topic of abortion.  But her personal opinion on the topic apparently invalidated her.

So let's say on a case you are working as Prosecutor, a potential juror told you, "Mr. Prosecutor, I believe in jury nullification. My opinion is that a jury should tell you and this court to go to hell, with your evidence and the details of your case, if and when they believe the law or statute is totally unfair. But, SWEAR TO GOD, I will not use my position as a juror to promote or enforce jury nullification and will judge everything according to the rules of evidence if you put your trust in me", would you recommend them on your jury? I wouldn't.

Yeah, it is an allegory but the main point stands. Some positions are polarized enough that they should raise eyebrows where you a trying to sit in a position to promote its exact opposite. Being vocally pro-life is pretty much incompatible with protecting women's gained right to control their own body and whether giving birth or not, as it is in Canada.

This bars her from sitting on that House committee, but she can go nonetheless sit on another one. That Scheer attempted that, knowing full well the implications, sends a clear message on how he perceives Statues on Women should be defended - or not defended by a Conservative government.

That's quite a tortured analogy.

First of all we don't get to question jurors.  I don't get to know their personal opinions on, well, much of anything.
Second, however, in picking a jury I get a number of pre-emptory challenges.  I can challenge a person from the jury for whatever reason I like. 

Yes, some issues are divisive.  Abortin is one of them.  But I don't think it's at all healthy for a democracy to just declare that certain positions (held by one in four Canadians) are just "beyond the pale".

[Drakken]

That's quite a tortured analogy.

First of all we don't get to question jurors.  I don't get to know their personal opinions on, well, much of anything.
Second, however, in picking a jury I get a number of pre-emptory challenges.  I can challenge a person from the jury for whatever reason I like.

It's not torturous. If you knew a particular juror had any partial opinions that are incompatible with your case or even the judicial system as a whole - you would challenge them, right? Liberals MPs did just that, they challenged her for vocal beliefs and decided they did not want her to Chair that committee, as they view her views as incompatible with the charge and the responsibility to defend fairly and impartially women's rights in Canada - which includes the right to abortion.

Yes, some issues are divisive.  Abortin is one of them.  But I don't think it's at all healthy for a democracy to just declare that certain positions (held by one in four Canadians) are just "beyond the pale".

A pro-lifer not chairing a Committee on the Statuses of Women. Cry me a river, Male Feminist MPs cannot chair the Committee on the Statuses of Women, either.

[Barrister]

It's not torturous. If you knew a particular juror had any partial opinions that are incompatible with your case or even the judicial system as a whole - you would challenge them, right? Liberals MPs did just that, they challenged her for vocal beliefs and decided they did not want her to Chair that committee, as they view her views as incompatible with the charge and the responsibility to defend fairly and impartially women's rights in Canada - which includes the right to abortion.

Liberals get to chose who they would like to chair committees when it is a Liberal Party chair.  Liberals do not get to choose who would chair from the Conservative Party.

[garbon]

There are many women who are anti-abortion - it does not mean they are anti-women.

Well there are plenty of women who are anti-women so that does not prove much.

Indeed.

[Jacob]

Your analogies are terrible.

Nah. That analogy is straight on point.

Being anti-abortion is in no way similar to being a fox.  There are many women who are anti-abortion - it does not mean they are anti-women.

Ensuring adequate access to abortion is part of the remit of the Status of Women Committee. Putting someone who is anti-abortion in a leadership position on that committee is a pretty clear indication that the Conservative party wishes to make limiting access to abortion an issue.

This has nothing to do with Scheer "planning to push regressive social conservative positions", and everything to do with the Liberals trying to paint the Conservatives as being anti-abortion.

Well if you'd stop putting anti-abortion people in charge of women's issues some of that suspicion would be allayed.

[Barrister]

Ensuring adequate access to abortion is part of the remit of the Status of Women Committee. Putting someone who is anti-abortion in a leadership position on that committee is a pretty clear indication that the Conservative party wishes to make limiting access to abortion an issue.

The Liberals are quite free to make that argument in the court of public opinion.

Well if you'd stop putting anti-abortion people in charge of women's issues some of that suspicion would be allayed.

And there it is.  You demand ideological purity.  Pro-lifers should not be allowed near the halls of power for fear they might... do something which might somehow affect abortion rights.

[viper37]

And there it is.  You demand ideological purity.  Pro-lifers should not be allowed near the halls of power for fear they might... do something which might somehow affect abortion rights.

Only rightwing pro-lifers.  Leftist pro-lifers are ok.

[PRC]

And there it is.  You demand ideological purity.  Pro-lifers should not be allowed near the halls of power for fear they might... do something which might somehow affect abortion rights.

Only rightwing pro-lifers.  Leftist pro-lifers are ok.

Not so, Trudeau said that no Liberal MPs are allowed to be pro-life back in 2014.

[Jacob]

The Liberals are quite free to make that argument in the court of public opinion.

Indeed, and to their credit it seems they are. If the Conservatives want to reopen abortion as a topic of debate, then the Liberals and NDP absolutely should respond.

And there it is.  You demand ideological purity.  Pro-lifers should not be allowed near the halls of power for fear they might... do something which might somehow affect abortion rights.

You can call it "ideological purity" all you want, but yeah just like racists shouldn't be put in charge of immigration policy, anti-abortionists shouldn't be put in charge of women's issues.

In any society there are limits to the positions that can acceptably be publicly held by decision makers. It seems like the Conservatives want to make anti-abortion views one such. We'll see if it pays off for you.

[Barrister]

I'm really offended that you would equate racism with being pro-life Jacob.

[PRC]

I don't know how pro-choicer's can't be for reasonable limits on abortion such as not allowing it after a viable birth would be possible, except when the health of the mother is compromised, or limiting it's use as birth control for sex-selective purposes... and I can't see how pro-lifers can't allow for it when the health of the mother is comprised or when the fetus shows terminal illness or other desperate health issues. 

[Barrister]

I don't know how pro-choicer's can't be for reasonable limits on abortion such as not allowing it after a viable birth would be possible, except when the health of the mother is compromised, or limiting it's use as birth control for sex-selective purposes... and I can't see how pro-lifers can't allow for it when the health of the mother is comprised or when the fetus shows terminal illness or other desperate health issues.

Abortion is a tough policy area because both sides do have a perfectly valid point.  A woman ought to be able to control her own body.  You can't really argue with that concept.  But a fetus is a human life, and ought to have rights all of their own.

So the maximalists can justify their positions.  If a woman should have the utmost control over their body, then that should include abortion at any time, for any reason.  If a fetus is a human life, then abortion is murder.  We don't kill fully grown people because they have "a terminal illness or other desperate health issues", so why would it be acceptable to abort an unborn child for that reason?

Personally, I'm unable to subscribe to either position entirely and I go with the "cut the baby in half" option - abortion in some circumstances but not others.  But I'm unable to criticize either side as being entirely wrong.