[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

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!".

Which facts?

[Drakken]

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 allegedly said women should have the choice.
But that is not enough, apparently...

FYP. And it comes from a pro-lifer website, so you bet they would report her if she said that.

The Herald journalist alleged that Ms. Harder said in an all-candidates meeting that she believes every woman should have access to abortion.

A CLC Leader phoned Ms. Harder's Campaign Office to confirm the accuracy of the quote. On election day, October 19, 2015, her Campaign Manager returned the call, asking to have the "pro-life" rating restored. However, the Campaign Manager carefully avoided answering the CLC Leader's question, refusing to confirm or deny the accuracy of what Ms. Harder was alleged to have said. The CLC rep then asked the Campaign Manager to have Ms. Harder return the call directly, since she would certainly know what she did or did not say at the all-candidates meeting. The Campaign Manager replied that Ms. Harder was exceedingly busy and could not respond until after the October 19th election was over. Earlier in the conversation, the Campaign Manager had said that the Lethbridge Herald reporter misquoted Ms. Harder.

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/voting-records/view/id/11953

[Malthus]

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.

Really? How then are apparently bad people supposed to get represented?

The system only works if lawyers don't personally decide who is guilty and who is crass.

It is known as "professional ethics", and it has direct bearing on the subject at hand - access to abortion and other medical-ethical issues.

It is my opinion, for example, that physicians and other HCPs who refuse to provide access to abortion and the like (because they find it "morally crass" to use your phrase) are in breach of *their* "professional ethics", as it is not their place to decide for others the moral rightness or wrongness of such matters.

Picking and choosing when to apply professional ethics is a bad idea. Which is exactly why they exist.

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.

It is a commonplace that everyone shits on such matters as lawyers and professional ethics - water off a duck's back to me.

It is equally a commonplace that they only do so up until the point when they, personally, are in legal trouble and everyone assumes they are guilty as sin. Then their lawyer is a flipping hero for actually representing them, rather than, as you seem to prefer, blowing them off. 

Yes, members of House Committees are not all lawyers. I'm making an analogy here.

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.

Does this hold true for you even if what BB claims is true - that her actual 'pro life' tendencies have been vastly overblown?

[HVC]

@ BB: being anti-abortion is not being anti woman, no, but abortion rights are a strong part of women's rights.

[Valmy]

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.

I already stated this is not evidence that supports this fact. Every anti-woman movement in history has had shitloads of women supporting it.

Pro-life is usually cast as an extreme position, that you are absolutely against any abortion of any kind at any time, to my American ears. I don't get the impression that is what you mean by it. But that strikes me as a pretty hardline anti-woman agenda. The interests of the mother matter not at all and there will be no compromise.

But then I am not even aware of a term for 'wanting a reasonable balance of interests between the fetus and the mother' position

[Barrister]

But then I am not even aware of a term for 'wanting a reasonable balance of interests between the fetus and the mother' position

I tell people I subscribe to the Bill Clinton position on abortion - that it should be safe, legal and rare.

[Barrister]

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.

You know, we lawyers have quite a few rules around just this sort of thing.

First, each and every defence lawyer has to ask for themselves whether they even ask their client "so tell me what happened".  Because if your client admits to you that they did it, there are restrictions on what you can do in their defence.  Not to say you can't defend them - that's still your job! - but you can't suggest that someone else did the crime.

But what you can do is "hold the state to their burden".  The Crown still has to prove every element of every offence to a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  So you can argue that an element hasn't been proven, or you can argue it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now if you choose not to ask your client, well then you're free to suggest anything you want.  But if your client actually does have an active defence that could be put forward, well then you're missing out on that.

[Drakken]

Really? How then are apparently bad people supposed to get represented?

The system only works if lawyers don't personally decide who is guilty and who is crass.

It is known as "professional ethics", and it has direct bearing on the subject at hand - access to abortion and other medical-ethical issues.

It is my opinion, for example, that physicians and other HCPs who refuse to provide access to abortion and the like (because they find it "morally crass" to use your phrase) are in breach of *their* "professional ethics", as it is not their place to decide for others the moral rightness or wrongness of such matters.

Picking and choosing when to apply professional ethics is a bad idea. Which is exactly why they exist.

You are using sophistry to misrepresent my point, Malthus.

By "people you know is guilty", I meant presenting a defense totally in contradiction and in full knowledge of your client's guilt, like if you have as a client a husband accused of first-degree murder who tells you "I planned to kill my wife, I killed her. They got me but I am proud of it, she deserved to die. But I am sure you can secure me an acquittal, you are the best lawyer, and I'll play my part." and you would accept him as a client and present an innocence plea nonetheless in full knowledge. You'd get disbarred for that.

As for "morally crass", I mean for society and the system as a whole, like taking cases obviously going against the moral and legal framework of a society, like taking groups advocating the right to murder or to encourage other people to commit suicide.

[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.

You know, we lawyers have quite a few rules around just this sort of thing.

First, each and every defence lawyer has to ask for themselves whether they even ask their client "so tell me what happened".  Because if your client admits to you that they did it, there are restrictions on what you can do in their defence.  Not to say you can't defend them - that's still your job! - but you can't suggest that someone else did the crime.

But what you can do is "hold the state to their burden".  The Crown still has to prove every element of every offence to a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  So you can argue that an element hasn't been proven, or you can argue it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now if you choose not to ask your client, well then you're free to suggest anything you want.  But if your client actually does have an active defence that could be put forward, well then you're missing out on that.

Thanks for the lecture, professor. I already got that when I was preparing for college, in case I got accepted at the law school I sent my candidacy for.

Now, we can return to the business at hand, that Harder is a pro-lifer that should be chairing other committees BUT the Status of Women's? Because the rules and guidelines on defence counsels are totally irrelevant to the discussion. But thanks for the points of information.

[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.

You should be ashamed for falling so easily into leftist propaganda. 

Leftist like Jacob and Trudeau are simply trying to abuse of your naïveté and ignorance of the mechanics of our political system.  They are liars and thugs, simply, out to destroy democracy from the inside hoping to profit from it, and they will use every spin, every lie they can to do it.  they even want you to believe they are working for fiscal equity and redistribution to the poor while they put their own assets safe from their new laws.

A committee always give majority to the governing party.  Right now, it is 7 Liberals, 3 Conservatives, 1 NDP.  All committees are the same, except some particular circumstances.  One MP can sit in multiple committee or no committee at all.

The chair or vice-chair of the committee does not vote, unless there is a tie.  The chair of the committee can not push forward a motion.  The chair of the committee can not censor any debate.  She can not make criminal anything that is not criminal, that is up to the House of Commons.

Here is the role of the committee:
Under Standing Order 108(1), the House of Commons may refer certain matters to the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women for examination and report. This Order also authorizes the Committee to create subcommittees to focus on particular subjects. Under Standing Order 108(2), the Committee has the broad authority to study the policies, programs, expenditures (budgetary estimates) and legislation of departments and agencies, including Status of Women Canada, that conduct work related to the status of women.

Let's say she really is anti-abortion.  That is still up for debate, because the left never bothered to ask her directly her thoughts on the subject, she is already guilty.  That is the kind of justice we can expect when Jacob's friends take over the country.

So, let's assume she really is anti-abortion.  What can she do to stop abortions from happenning, from her position as chair? 
Push an anti-abortion motion forward?  Nope, not in her power. 
Censor pro-choice spokesperson testifying on something in front of the committee?  Nope, not in her power. 
Cut funding to provinces who perform abortion?  Nope, not in her power, health&education are provincial responsibilities and she does not have the power to restrict provincial transfers because one province allows abortion.

Standing Committee on the Status of Women for all your info.  Jacob did not read it.  Trudeau is counting that you and a majority of Canadians did not read it.  As always, the left is lying and deceiving the honest people of this country.  They will lie and spin 'til death to them part, it is the nature of the leftist to distort the truth in order to push for his agenda.  What Trudeau is trying is to convince Canadians that voting Conservatives at the next election is akin to criminilazing abortion or heavily restricting it.  Truth is, there is nothing that can be done without a majority in the House of Commons, and if the Cons were to try to re-open this issue with intent to force an anti-abortion vote, all Conservative MPs from Quebec would leave the caucus and many others from the Rest of Canada too, leaving only those from Alberta, and not all of them.

To believe Trudeau and Jacob is to believe the Conservative Party of Canada is completely filled to the brim with morons who would sacrifice the good of this country for the sake of ideological purity.  It's called projection.

What really happens though, is there are people like Scheer, deeply religious, who believe abortion is a sin and they believe they can convince a majority of Canadians they are right on this.  Not gonna happen right now.  It will happen, when Canada has a large proportion of 1st&2nd generation canadians who do not share our occidental values of freedom and tolerance.

[viper37]

@ BB: being anti-abortion is not being anti woman, no, but abortion rights are a strong part of women's rights.

Since 2005, how many times women rights, including abortion, where threatened by the Conservative government?
Since 1988, how many times women rights, including abortion, where threatened by the governments of this country?

This is not the US.  This is not Nazi Germany, despite Jacob's best effort to make us believe that.
Even the most hardcore seperatist would tell you Canada is not Nazi germany.
Only the left clings to these silly notions.

[Drakken]

So, let's assume she really is anti-abortion.  What can she do to stop abortions from happening, from her position as chair? 

Chair
Chairs of standing and special committees play a leadership role in planning and coordinating the committee's work and in conducting its investigations.

The Chair of a committee is responsible for recognizing members and witnesses who seek the floor to speak during a meeting and for ensuring that any rules established by the committee concerning the apportioning of speaking time be respected. Furthermore, the Chair is also responsible for maintaining order in the committee's proceedings. However, the Chair does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege; this can be done only by the House upon receiving a report from the committee pursuant to Standing Order 117.

As the presiding officer of the committee, the Chair does not move motions. Furthermore, the Chair does not vote, except in two situations: where there is an equality of votes, in which case the Chair has a casting vote; and when a committee is considering a private bill. (Note from Drakken: You mean like those private bills repeatedly submitted by Conservative MPs to control abortions?)

Committee reports are signed and usually presented to the House by the Chair, who must ensure that the text presented in the House is the one agreed to by the committee. During Question Period in the House, a committee Chair may respond to questions provided they deal with the proceedings or schedule of the committee and not with the substance of its work.

Standing Order 107 provides that the Chairs of standing committees (and House Joint Chairs of standing joint committees) form the Liaison Committee, which is responsible for the allocation of funds to standing committees.

Chairs of legislative committees have a role analogous to that of the Chair of Committees of the Whole. Unlike the Chairs of other committees, and, in conformity with the provisions of Standing Order 118(1), the Chair of a legislative committee is not considered a member of the committee for the purpose of quorum.

The Chair of a subcommittee has the same role as the Chair of the main committee. In practice, the Chair of the main committee serves as Chair of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure (the steering committee).

Yeah, no thanks. We'll pass Harder on this one.

[viper37]

Now, we can return to the business at hand, that Harder is a pro-lifer

I do not know that, Trudeau did not ask her, nor any Liberal.  Did you ask her?  What did she answer?

that should be chairing other committees BUT the Status of Women's?

The Loyal opposition to her majesty choses the chair of the committed and by tradition other parties agree.  I'm surprised a traditionalist monarchist like you approves of such anarchy.

Her personal feelings are irrelevant so long as she is competent on the job.
I do not know her. 
I believe Scheer and his advisors picked the best candidate they thought they had for the position. 
I believe Trudeau recognized her competency and did not want her anywhere where she would not only be good, but promote a vision of tolerance coming from the Conservative Party where rationality comes before religious beliefs.  That would destroy his vision of Canada.

Because the rules and guidelines on defence counsels are totally irrelevant to the discussion. But thanks for the points of information.

Someone asked Malthus and BB complemented.  Diversion of a thread are part of Languish's nature anyway.

[Grey Fox]

@ BB: being anti-abortion is not being anti woman, no, but abortion rights are a strong part of women's rights.

Since 2005, how many times women rights, including abortion, where threatened by the Conservative government?
Since 1988, how many times women rights, including abortion, where threatened by the governments of this country?

This is just evidence that Harper was a great PC leader.

[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.

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

When you vote for a purely anglo PM or premier i'll trust your convictions