[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

There are medical restriction to the procedure those are not the same thing has legal restrictions.

@BB With social conservative there is always an hidden agenda.

[HVC]

BB, would you be ok if the put someone who was anti-oil in the Alberta Minister of Energy or Associate minister within the Resource Development portfolio? The fact that you can't see this as a bad nomination (perhaps even purposefully provocative) is odd to me.

[Malthus]

BB, would you be ok if the put someone who was anti-oil in the Alberta Minister of Energy or Associate minister within the Resource Development portfolio? The fact that you can't see this as a bad nomination (perhaps even purposefully provocative) is odd to me.

What is "anti-oil" as an analogy here? Someone who has expressed concerns for the environment at one point? I'd imagine the Liberals appointing such a person; and why not?

[Grey Fox]

Let's say a loud vegan on a meat industry regulating committee?

[Malthus]

That just sets out the absurdity of the Jacob/GF/Liberal position though.  Nobody gets an abortion after 20-24 weeks or so absent exceptional circumstances.  Everybody seems perfectly fine with the status quo in Canada.  But if you suggest that maybe we should have a national law that just mirrors what is actually going on and you're a woman-hating bigot.

The absurdity is wanting to add the force of law to something that apparently already functions as desired. The only possible outcome of enshrining it in law is to make it harder in the cases where an exception to the status quo makes sense, and/ or to add momentum to further anti-abortion policies.

I dunno - a good argument can be made that the current situation (no law at all) is perfectly adequate, but having some sort of law makes sense, absent a slippery slope concern. The point is to achieve some sort of national consensus on medical and ethical matters, because frankly it is a legal absurdity that killing an infant one minute after birth is murder, while terminating a pregnancy one minute before birth is a medical decision. That it will rarely happen may well be true, but having absurd laws isn't good.

If the concern is that a law drafted by Conservatives would be a stalking-horse for creeping restrictions and disallow needed exceptions, that can be easily remedied - have the law drafted by Liberals, while they are in power. Leaving a vaccum of no law at all simply invites the Conservatives to write one should they return to power (though it is noteworthy that they didn't when they were actually in power - my suspicion is that no party wants to touch this, because actually rationalizing the law has all downsides - for them - and no upsides).   

[Malthus]

Let's say a loud vegan on a meat industry regulating committee?

Again, given that the remit of such a committee is likely to be technical matters dealing with the quality of the meat industry, can't see that as a problem. Is the concern that a vegan on such a committee will actually have the power to outlaw the human consumption of meat? Seems paranoid and unlikely.

[Grey Fox]

Let's say a loud vegan on a meat industry regulating committee?

Again, given that the remit of such a committee is likely to be technical matters dealing with the quality of the meat industry, can't see that as a problem. Is the concern that a vegan on such a committee will actually have the power to outlaw the human consumption of meat? Seems paranoid and unlikely.

No, it's a problem because, in my scenario here, the vegan is against all form of using animals for food & food related industry. It's paranoid, it's unlikely but it's the agenda.

It's a Cat on a all dog panel on "Are Cats our enemy?"

[Malthus]

Let's say a loud vegan on a meat industry regulating committee?

Again, given that the remit of such a committee is likely to be technical matters dealing with the quality of the meat industry, can't see that as a problem. Is the concern that a vegan on such a committee will actually have the power to outlaw the human consumption of meat? Seems paranoid and unlikely.

No, it's a problem because, in my scenario here, the vegan is against all form of using animals for food & food related industry. It's paranoid, it's unlikely but it's the agenda.

It's a Cat on a all dog panel on "Are Cats our enemy?"

This is where we differ. I see such a panel as not being a question of two sides being enemies, but of regulation of a topic (such as 'the standards for the sale of meat for human consumption').

I could personally hate the very sight of beets, but still adequately draft guidelines for the classification, grading, and marketing of beets. Lawyers do shit like that all the time.

Indeed, lawyers go further, and advocate for causes and people they may personally dislike, if that is what they are paid to do. A partner of mine is a specialist in the area of sovereign immunity (that is, the immunity of government from certain types - but not all types - of lawsuits). He's the most liberal guy around, but acts all the time for governments who are anything but. Not one of those governments have ever said "gee, looking at your CV and social media, I see you all the time advocate for causes like Amnesty International on your own dime. We suspect that a guy like you will sabotage our case."

[Grey Fox]

Indeed, lawyers go further, and advocate for causes and people they may personally dislike, if that is what they are paid to do. A partner of mine is a specialist in the area of sovereign immunity (that is, the immunity of government from certain types - but not all types - of lawsuits). He's the most liberal guy around, but acts all the time for governments who are anything but. Not one of those governments have ever said "gee, looking at your CV and social media, I see you all the time advocate for causes like Amnesty International on your own dime. We suspect that a guy like you will sabotage our case."

Oh, this is interesting, very interesting.  It might explain why you & BB are blind to the BS, you live with it every day.

[viper37]

Denmark social democrats vote to forbid burqa and niqab style clothing.
https://www.thelocal.dk/20171006/denmark-government-announces-support-for-burqa-ban

Just like Austria.
https://stepfeed.com/austria-just-banned-the-burqa-despite-the-fact-that-only-150-women-wear-it-4794

And many other countries.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/652842/Burka-Niqab-Islamic-Face-veil-Ban-UK-Fine-France-Belgium-Netherlands-Europe-Muslim-dress

Time for Canada to do it too.  Despite the leftist scumbags we have here calling everyone racists.  We must stop the radicalization of muslim youths and the undue pressure by some members of the community on women to weir the veil.

[Barrister]

I really have to object to all the analogies being put forward here.  Anti-oil activist regulating oil.  Vegan regulating meat.  Cat on a dog panel.

Being pro-life is not being anti women.  The fact that a great many number of women are in fact pro-life would seem to be evidence of that fact.

By the way, let's take it back to the first story.  It was about first term MP Rachel Harder.  She's not some strident life-long pro-life activist.  Here's her Campaign for Life Coalition 'endorsement' https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/view/level/mp/province/ab/id/11953/name/rachael-harder

It says "under review".  It appears what happened was she filled out a questionnaire that said she was pro-life.  That's it.  She doesn't go out protesting at abortion clinics.  She hasn't led pro-life rallies.  And what's more, she was actually quoted in one newspaper that every woman should have access to abortion (a quote her spokesperson talked around and wouldn't deny).

Look - the chairmanship of a Parliamentary committee doesn't get to regulate anything.  The fact that the Status of Woman Committee is chair by the opposition shows even more how powerless it is.  This was a cheap stunt by the Liberals of trying to burnish their progressive credentials by attacking a strawman target, while trampling Parliamentary norms to do so.

[Drakken]

Indeed, lawyers go further, and advocate for causes and people they may personally dislike, if that is what they are paid to do. A partner of mine is a specialist in the area of sovereign immunity (that is, the immunity of government from certain types - but not all types - of lawsuits). He's the most liberal guy around, but acts all the time for governments who are anything but. Not one of those governments have ever said "gee, looking at your CV and social media, I see you all the time advocate for causes like Amnesty International on your own dime. We suspect that a guy like you will sabotage our case."

Disliking is one thing, but going to the bar to defend people they know are guilty or causes they know are morally crass is another - and it would be liable for prosecution.

Now, whether lawyers can morally worm themselves around their personal moral quandaries to accept such causes for their own paycheck, at the expense of being able to look at themselves in the mirror in the morning, is not the question here. Not all MPs are lawyers and House Committees are not restricted by court regulations, so that point is moot.

The Liberal members of the House Committee have decided they did not want a pro-lifer to chair a committee on the Status of Women under their majority, a Committee which is all about protecting women's rights, not removing or curtailing them. They decided that accepting such a Trojan Horse (which it is) was going against their principles and voted her out.

Harder is free to go chair other Committees, there are other Committees that the Conservative opposition can nominate chairpeople for. The fact that Scheer chose her to chair that particular Committee - and that she accepted and was a willing participant - speaks volumes on their contempt for women's right to decide freely on their body as it is right now.

[viper37]

There are medical restriction

guidelines.  not restriction.

As I said, there is nothing preventing a debate on the need for a law on these matters.  If the medical community feels things are just fine as they are, then we leave it that way.

The real reason the left doesn't want to hear anything about it, is they fear they will be contradicted by facts.  Otherwise, they would welcome the debate, if only to shove it at the face of conservatives "see! we were right!  Na-na-na, hey! hey! goooood bye!".

[Malthus]

Denmark social democrats vote to forbid burqa and niqab style clothing.
https://www.thelocal.dk/20171006/denmark-government-announces-support-for-burqa-ban

Just like Austria.
https://stepfeed.com/austria-just-banned-the-burqa-despite-the-fact-that-only-150-women-wear-it-4794

And many other countries.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/652842/Burka-Niqab-Islamic-Face-veil-Ban-UK-Fine-France-Belgium-Netherlands-Europe-Muslim-dress

Time for Canada to do it too.  Despite the leftist scumbags we have here calling everyone racists.  We must stop the radicalization of muslim youths and the undue pressure by some members of the community on women to weir the veil.

I get constantly reminded on this site that I'm not a leftist, but I don't agree with regulating someone's choice of clothing. I prefer the freedom to choose something, even if it is something we all disagree with. 

[viper37]

BB, would you be ok if the put someone who was anti-oil in the Alberta Minister of Energy or Associate minister within the Resource Development portfolio? The fact that you can't see this as a bad nomination (perhaps even purposefully provocative) is odd to me.

She never said she was against abortion.  In fact, she expressly said women should have the choice.
But that is not enough, apparently...