[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Neil]

You're right that everything is a signal, and that's what makes this so difficult.  On the one hand, you want to make sure that women have reasonable access to abortion.  On the other hand, it's also important to avoid being counted with the rogue pages of the world.

[crazy canuck]

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.

I agree.  That is one of the reasons I refer to the MP bringing the motion as a nutbar.

What takes away from the stink though is silly partisan politics shown by the NDP on the issue.  Mulcair asked Harper why he was allowing his MP to do this.  Harper quite rightly pointed out what we have been saying here.  Harper also added that he thought it was unfortunate that the bill was being brought and that he would vote against it.

That should end it.  But later a rather shrill NDP member again asked why in this day and age are the "Conservatives" bringing this bill forward.

By that time the PM had left the chamber and another person gave her the  she deserved.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-harper-wont-support-tory-mps-rights-of-unborn-bill/article2415195/

[Jacob]

1. Good on Harper for voting against it. He gets a checkmark in the positive side of the ledger from me.
2. I do not fault the NDP for milking this for as much as they can...
3. ... though they can overplay that hand, so fair play to you for putting that light on it.
4. All in all, I've been pretty suspicious of Harper (a surprising revelation, I know), but I am not dissatisfied with his stewardship of the nation.

I guess that puts me in a pretty good position. It appears I can live with a Conservative government, if the Libs get their shit together I'm not to bothered, and I'm not frightened by an NDP government or some sort of Lib-NDP merger either.

[Josephus]

Harper hasn't voted against it yet. Let's not confuse things. He said he will. Harper's been known to say things (fixed elections) and then do something else.

[Jacob]

Harper hasn't voted against it yet. Let's not confuse things. He said he will. Harper's been known to say things (fixed elections) and then do something else.

again.

It'd be pretty silly to say he'll vote against it a few days before the vote, and then vote for it.

[HVC]

Harper hasn't voted against it yet. Let's not confuse things. He said he will. Harper's been known to say things (fixed elections) and then do something else.

the day he votes yes is the day he losses his mind. He may or may not be evil incarnate as some believe ( I'm not swayed either way yet ), but he's not stupid. Canada wouldn't stand for it. I doubt it would even pass muster in Alberta. Look at the wildly entolerant rose party.

[crazy canuck]

Harper hasn't voted against it yet. Let's not confuse things. He said he will. Harper's been known to say things (fixed elections) and then do something else.

You are a hardcore NDP ideologue arent you

[Oexmelin]

You'll see. YOU'LL SEE.

[HVC]

[Josephus]

Harper hasn't voted against it yet. Let's not confuse things. He said he will. Harper's been known to say things (fixed elections) and then do something else.

again.

It'd be pretty silly to say he'll vote against it a few days before the vote, and then vote for it.

I'm not sure when the vote will happen. I don't think it will be in a few days. And I never said he'll vote for it. For sure he won't. I said he may happen to be "out of town" that day.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-denounces-unfortunate-bid-to-reopen-abortion-debate/article2415433/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Politics&utm_content=2415433

Best news I've heard all day. I never said the guy was stupid, just evil. It's a "not yet" issue for mainstream Canadian politics... unless the culture as a whole gets somehow more Right & Christian. Which, I really don't see happening.

[Barrister]

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.

Well you can hardly accuse me of cherry-picking a link from a cite that is friendly to my position.

[Malthus]

I'll revise my previous post.

Before I read these news articles I said:

my guess is that the percent chance of this bill resulting in a new abortion law approaches zero. 

I now say that the percentage chance is zero.

To my mind, the opposition is damaging its credibility on this somewhat. When the PM says he'll vote against it and that it is "unfortunate", it is time to sit down ...

[Jacob]

Okay, so IF Harper has strong control over his caucus and is a clever political operator, THEN maybe he let this guy go ahead with the proposal so he could shut it down, so he could start to address and shut down the "Harper's unspoken agenda" meme and solidify the Conservatives in the political centre?

Or is that just not likely at all?

[Malthus]

Okay, so IF Harper has strong control over his caucus and is a clever political operator, THEN maybe he let this guy go ahead with the proposal so he could shut it down, so he could start to address and shut down the "Harper's unspoken agenda" meme and solidify the Conservatives in the political centre?

Or is that just not likely at all?

I think you are overthinking it.

Most likely, it is a backbencher who is really passionate about the issue, or wishes to play to his own constituents, doing this on his own dime.

Fact is that the electorate isn't knowlegeable enough about how parliament works to make doing this deliberately a good strategy - look how many in the media, the opposition and in this thread are taking it as a deliberate move or signal.

No, my take is that this is hurting Harper, not helping him, and he wishes that the backbenchers would STFU.