[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Josephus]

He hasn't been in the newspapers for a while.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Hmmm. I remember being told this would never happen.

What are the odds?

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Abortion+motion+debated+Canadian+Parliament/6518622/story.html

OTTAWA — If you thought the abortion debate was over in Canada — think again.

On Thursday, MPs will get a chance to debate pro-life backbench Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth's private member's motion calling on Parliament to examine whether a fetus is in fact a human being.

"The abortion debate has actually never been closed," Woodworth said Wednesday after a caucus meeting.

"My motion is designed specifically to look at the question of how we decide what is a human being and who we decide is a human being. That debate has been left hanging by almost every court that has adjudicated on the subject."

A vote on his motion is expected in June or September. If it passes, it will be up to a Commons committee to hear from experts on the definition of a human being.

While he's had a few "private" conversations with other MPs, including some Liberals, he could not gauge exactly how much support he might get.

Fellow Conservative Brad Trost emerged from the same caucus meeting, noting he's always been open about his pro-life views and that he'd vote for anything that supports them "in any way, shape or form."

While Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he would not reopen the ever-polarizing discussion, critics have argued that allowing it to proceed as a private member's issue is little more than a back-way into the debate for Tories.

"This is their backdoor way of signalling to their base that this is what they would actually like to do but they just can't do it," said NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, adding Harper has always had a rather firm grip on his caucus.

"If he didn't want it to be discussed, it wouldn't be there."

Mulcair said he doesn't need to whip the vote since his caucus is unanimous in terms of its opposition.

Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae said this vote would be open as are all private member's votes. He has no idea whether any caucus members will support the motion, but said his position and that of the Liberal party has always been clear: it's an issue of "moral conscience" and therefore it's up to a woman to choose.

On Wednesday, the pending debate drew a huge crowd of pro-choice supporters to Parliament Hill where a handful of anti-abortionists regularly picket.

Toting banners with slogans like "reproductive justice now" and "if you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child," the pro-choice group vowed to fight back against what they see as an attack on reproductive rights.

[email protected]

Twitter.com/tobicohen


With files from Mike De Souza



Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Abortion+motion+debated+Canadian+Parliament/6518622/story.html#ixzz1t70ODOJz

[crazy canuck]

Buddha, read up the thread a little bit.  This is a continuation of the private members bill we discuss a long time ago.  To recap this is the wingnut who couldnt get the support of the government to introduce legislation so now he has brought a private members bill.  The debate on the bill is mandatory under the Rules of Parliament.


The article shows shows the reporter hasnt done his homework to figure out what is actually happening - no big surprise there though.  It would make for a much more boring article if the reporter didnt includ a right wing conspiracy subtext.

[Malthus]

What CC said. Private members' bills from backbenchers are usually a sign the government could not give a shit about the issue. Rarely do they result in actual legislation, and my guess is that the percent chance of this bill resulting in a new abortion law approaches zero. 

[Barrister]

What CC said. Private members' bills from backbenchers are usually a sign the government could not give a shit about the issue. Rarely do they result in actual legislation, and my guess is that the percent chance of this bill resulting in a new abortion law approaches zero.

There is a private members bill brought by someone (either Liberal, PC, Reform or Conservative) almost every year for the last 25 years since the Morgentaler decision.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

What CC said. Private members' bills from backbenchers are usually a sign the government could not give a shit about the issue. Rarely do they result in actual legislation, and my guess is that the percent chance of this bill resulting in a new abortion law approaches zero.

There is a private members bill brought by someone (either Liberal, PC, Reform or Conservative) almost every year for the last 25 years since the Morgentaler decision.

[grumbler]well, what I said, OP was that I recall being told  "never" not that maybe a back bencher might bring it in. There's a difference.[/grumbler]

seriously? every year since Morgenthaler? an anti abortion private members bill every year? seems unlikely.

but I imagine you are more on top of that than me. That's sadder than one of the current Cons doing it. Much sadder.

I like the old "he's only a back bencher" straw man though. It's a gooder. Trotted out any time a current regime wants to test the waters on something. That is the actual function of back benchers, you know, to be the fringe types, try out things that the so called "base" wants, but are unpalatable to regular (sadly often non voting) public.

The timing of it to me though seems to be part of the whole "war on women" thing from the states. I really don't get the whole religion as governance thing I guess. Outdated by thousands of years as a handbook.... Now I remember why I stopped reading this thread for so long.

[Maximus]

I like the old "he's only a back bencher" straw man though. It's a gooder. Trotted out any time a current regime wants to test the waters on something. That is the actual function of back benchers, you know, to be the fringe types, try out things that the so called "base" wants, but are unpalatable to regular (sadly often non voting) public.

Suppose, for a minute, that the situation is as CC claims. What would be the obvious differences between that scenario and the one you claim?

To put it another way, is there a non-recursive argument for the claim that the government wants to take away women's rights?

[Josephus]

I'm pretty sure there hasn't been an abortion bill put forward by a backbencher every year since Morgentaler, but I could be wrong. This is certainly the first time it's being mentioned. We didn't debate this here last year or the year before or the year before that. I think last year there was a bill "Roxanne's Law" which almost turned into an aboriton debate, but that was mostly about forced or coerced abortions--which didn't pass.
I think the truth lies halfway between Buddha and BB/CC. Harper has his caucus on a pretty tight leash and a back bencher wouldn't bring it up without Harper's permission. This allows the abortion issues to come to the fore, appease the social conservatives (CC's definition of) and keep his promise that he himself won't introduce it. He knows it will never pass. And should it come to a vote you can bet he'll be absent that day, visiting China or something.

[crazy canuck]

Man, Josphus we dealt with that nonsense last time this came up. It is tired.

edit:  How does this help Harper at all?  He wants to be seen defeating a anti-abortion bill?  That makes no sense whatsoever.

More like he would wish this issue never saw the light of day for exactly the reasons Malthus has stated in the other thread.

[Malthus]

The problem is that you guys have Harper's personal leanings mixed up with his political motivations.

I have no doubt whatsoever that, personally, Harper's a social conservative. The notion that he's seeking power to stealthily enact his social conservative views strikes me as fundamentally wrong. Rather, he's seeking power, and in so doing he's willing to let his socially conservative views - and those of his party - go hang.

What motivates Harper is the pursuit of power. He's achieved it by playing the hard-assed manager. He would not wish to have it threatened by raising divisive issues that have the effect of driving away moderates, currently somewhat grugingly impressed with his managerial abilities (if pissed of by his parties' use of dirty tricks and other scandals). 

No-one loves Harper for his magnetic charisma (  ), and he'd never hold power if the only people who voted for him were hardcore social conservatives.

[Grey Fox]

I just want him to finish is damn book.

[Barrister]

What CC said. Private members' bills from backbenchers are usually a sign the government could not give a shit about the issue. Rarely do they result in actual legislation, and my guess is that the percent chance of this bill resulting in a new abortion law approaches zero.

There is a private members bill brought by someone (either Liberal, PC, Reform or Conservative) almost every year for the last 25 years since the Morgentaler decision.

[grumbler]well, what I said, OP was that I recall being told  "never" not that maybe a back bencher might bring it in. There's a difference.[/grumbler]

seriously? every year since Morgenthaler? an anti abortion private members bill every year? seems unlikely.

but I imagine you are more on top of that than me. That's sadder than one of the current Cons doing it. Much sadder.

I like the old "he's only a back bencher" straw man though. It's a gooder. Trotted out any time a current regime wants to test the waters on something. That is the actual function of back benchers, you know, to be the fringe types, try out things that the so called "base" wants, but are unpalatable to regular (sadly often non voting) public.

The timing of it to me though seems to be part of the whole "war on women" thing from the states. I really don't get the whole religion as governance thing I guess. Outdated by thousands of years as a handbook.... Now I remember why I stopped reading this thread for so long.

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations/anti-bills.html

My mistake - there have been 44 such motions since 1987.

It's something that is pretty much destined to be a contentious issue for all time though, as frankly both sides have a fairly compelling argument to make, and there's no real middle ground.

[crazy canuck]

My mistake - there have been 44 such motions since 1987.

[Josephus]

Of which one (1) was actually voted on. The rest didn't make it to that stage.

Also several of them weren't out and out pro-life bills. Many, like the Bill I mentioned earlier, were bills to outlaw coercion. (C-537, C-510) for instance.

C-291 was to penalize women for harming or killing their unborn child whilst committing another offence.

M-560 wanted to charge a third party with a seperate offence if they killed a pregnant woman.

M482 and M70 are merely "Woment's Right to Know" acts, and had nothing to do with banning the killing of fetuses.

M83 and several others were bills  to study whether abortions were "medically necessary".

Most of these were not exactly the same thing as this new bill which wants to define fetuses as human beings.
So while there were other such (your word) motions, I wouldn't say 44.

If there were, why would this one be creating such a hubub?
Just saying.
Also, I don't think that particualar website it especially neutral.

[Jacob]

I'm willing to accept the lawyers' (CC, Malthus, BB) interpretation of how the bill came to be read, but at the same time I also think it's worthwhile to raise as much as a stink about it as possible.

Even if it's not Harper throwing a bone to certain constituents or sending up some sort of trial balloon, everything in politics has signal value. And I think it's very worthwhile to signal that any hint of messing with women's right to choose is going to be not worthwhile. So yeah, the more of a fuss and the more of a stink raised about this, the better. If the issue is settled in Canadian politics, let's make sure it stays that way.