Harper warns backbenchers

[fellowtraveller]

What's more, 'unlikely' isn't even close to good enough protection when it comes to challenges to that most basic of rights.

First, abortion is not a basic right. The actual basic rights are found in the Charter, abortion is not mentioned.

Second, there is essentially no abortion law in Canada, so if Harper were to change anything he would almost certainly have to introduce federal legislation, and it would have to somehow address funding as well as law since in reality the provinces provide and fund abortions, not the feds.

Third, introducing any such law would be political suicide, andf Harper is much too clever to pound a stake into his own forehead.

I take him at his often repeated word: that he will not address this issue at all.

Whe he was first elected as PM, he was obliged by his party to reopen, however briefly, the same sex marriage issue. He dealt with it swiftly and with finality. He won't even bother to go that far with this one, it is done.

All you have presented are your fears and fantasies. Funny they never emerged when Chretien and Martin, both staunch Christians, did much like Harper- no action at all on abortion. When the govt presents a bill that defines when life begins, when govt delists abortion as a medical procedure, I'll listen. Until then, those that support choice including myself will be happy to have Canada in the enviable position of having no target at all for the pro lifers to target, it must be very frustrating for them.

Harper said he was going to be moderate with no drastic changes. It's in his, and the CPC's interest to do so. Lure people a little more to the right.

This is him doing exactly that.

You and Molly should get together and sing this little ditty in harmony.

You're both wrong, Harper has obviously moved his party to the center, in the knowledge that it is far far easier and demonstrably more profitable votewise to do that rather than try to move any of the electorate in any direction. If it somehow not obviopus to you, slowly count from one to 165 and it may becone clearer.

[Machjo]

Honestly, it looks like the current CPC has just gone back to the old Progressive conservative party days, or almost anyway, with little trace of the old Reform party left, with so many Red Tories from Ontario now holding the balance of power. Honestly, even if there were an open vote on abortion, it would likely not pass. But just as a matter of principle, let MPs represent their constituencies, not their leaders'.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Honestly, it looks like the current CPC has just gone back to the old Progressive conservative party days, or almost anyway, with little trace of the old Reform party left, with so many Red Tories from Ontario now holding the balance of power. Honestly, even if there were an open vote on abortion, it would likely not pass. But just as a matter of principle, let MPs represent their constituencies, not their leaders'.

There remains nothing left of the old Reform Party. The concepts and policies so carefully designed are no more. No too far into the future Canadians will begin to control their representatives, only then can citizens initiate an agenda of public benefit. Until then, partisan benefit is all we will see, four long years of it.

[Saipan]

Only NDPs and Liberals want to debate the long dead issue.

Just for political reasons.

[cybercoma]

First, abortion is not a basic right. The actual basic rights are found in the Charter, abortion is not mentioned.

You're playing at semantics here. Abortion is not a basic right; however, no law can be created that interferes with a woman's choice to have an abortion. The decision made by the Supreme Court in 1988 states, "The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state" (Morgentaler et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 at 37). So yeah. Abortion is not a right, but liberty is and the courts have decided that the laws inhibiting access to abortions interfered with women's liberty.

[sharkman]

The reason a posted this story because there are voters out there that vote for their local guy not realizing that that person, won`t be able to do anything about any thing they bring forward if the leader of the party is totally against it. So when the next election comes around they may think twice before voting for that person. This goes to all parties and all leaders.

You just figured this out since the Tories got a majority? Wow, it's been like that for 100+ years Topaz. You seem seriously put out by the election results and you are going to have to deal with the reality and get on with life. Making multiple anti-Harper threads only shows you to be a bitter small minded grinch.

[RNG]

You just figured this out since the Tories got a majority? Wow, it's been like that for 100+ years Topaz. You seem seriously put out by the election results and you are going to have to deal with the reality and get on with life. Making multiple anti-Harper threads only shows you to be a bitter small minded grinch.

Grinch was really kind.

[jbg]

Harper has warned backbenchers not to bring forward pet projects in private members bills or motion that would stir up or disrupt Harper's plan for the next four years. One hot topic would be the abortion, which could cause debates within the party, pro and con. I guess what Harper is saying party line rules over what your constituents want from their MP??? http://www.hilltimes.com/dailyupdate/view/conservative_backbenchers_warned_not_to_dredge_up_controversial_bills_or_issues_in_majority_government_06-02-2011

Topaz, I doubt that you're suddenly an anti-abortion activist. I suppose you want the CPC to degenerate into this kind of mess (link to thread).

[DrGreenthumb]

Remember those Dipper MPs who dared support abolishing the long-gun registry?

Yes, and they were given the right of a free vote to do so. Ashton was re-elected, Malloway was not, what exactly is your point?

[fellowtraveller]

You're playing at semantics here. Abortion is not a basic right; however, no law can be created that interferes with a woman's choice to have an abortion. The decision made by the Supreme Court in 1988 states, "The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state" (Morgentaler et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 at 37). So yeah. Abortion is not a right, but liberty is and the courts have decided that the laws inhibiting access to abortions interfered with women's liberty.

Semantics? Not at all. Abortion is not mentioned in the Charter because compared to the other rights it is essentially trivial. And a lucky thing for prochoicers it is not mentioned.....or you can be utterly certain it would be subject to Charter challenges over and over ad nauseum.

And what laws are those you speak of?

There is no real law in Canada on abortion, only some local/provincial regulation on how they are provided, not if they are provided as part of medical care......

And that is the genius of the Canadian situation, much to the frustration of prolifers. They have no legal access, no legal challenges, not real way to keep their issue in the courts where they may find a sympathetic ear.

It is because abortion is not considered a legal issue, it is considered a medical issue thus privy only to whatever choices are made by doctor and patient. It is not an important distinction, it is a critical disctinction.

So no, if you support choice the last thing you want to see is abortion or fetal rights anywhere near the Charter.

[fellowtraveller]

Yes, and they were given the right of a free vote to do so

Bullshit. The NDP is without a doubt the most whipped party in Parliament. You follow polcy or else. Ask Bev Desjarlais, who voted her conscience on same sex marriage and was ousted for it.

[DrGreenthumb]

Bullshit. The NDP is without a doubt the most whipped party in Parliament. You follow polcy or else. Ask Bev Desjarlais, who voted her conscience on same sex marriage and was ousted for it.

How many times are you going to repeat this lie? I am positive I have corrected you several times already on this issue. Desjarlais was never "ousted" from the NDP. She lost her parliamentary critic status as she should have for voting against party policy. People vote for the party's policy as much as they do for the representative. Desjarlais herself said she voted the way she did because of her religious convictions, not because she believed her constituents wanted her to vote against same sex marriage. The people in her riding did not vote for Bev Desjarlais religious viewpoints, they voted for an NDP representative. Desjarlais lost a nomination vote in the next election to Niki Ashton, tried to run as an independant and came in third after the Liberal and NDP members who supported SSM. Stop trying to bullshit people with the same old lies. The only party that got LESS votes from the people of Churchill after Desjarlais' vote against SSM was the Conservative party.

The people of Churchill "ousted" Bigoted Bev, not the NDP.

[fellowtraveller]

How many times are you going to repeat this lie? I am positive I have corrected you several times already on this issue. Desjarlais was never "ousted" from the NDP.

Of course she was. She was warned not to vote her conscience and reaped the whirlwind when she did.

Your entire post is just self serving nonsense. She served her constituency well and faithfully, and her riding association was told to terminate her by Layton, and they did. There was absolutely no other reason to get rid of her other than her actions with the SSM vote.

Obviously.

Every NDP except her voted the party line. The Liberal cabinet were ordered to vote their party line, the rest were free. The Tories had a free vote.

That's what happened, and it doesn't matter at all if you like it or not.

In any case, Parliament got it right that time.

[DrGreenthumb]

Of course she was. She was warned not to vote her conscience and reaped the whirlwind when she did.

Your entire post is just self serving nonsense. She served her constituency well and faithfully, and her riding association was told to terminate her by Layton, and they did. There was absolutely no other reason to get rid of her other than her actions with the SSM vote.

Obviously.

Every NDP except her voted the party line. The Liberal cabinet were ordered to vote their party line, the rest were free. The Tories had a free vote.

That's what happened, and it doesn't matter at all if you like it or not.

In any case, Parliament got it right that time.

Its called a nomination. In our party the people in the riding, not the party leader, get to pick their candidate. Even though the Conservatives don't allow them(nomination meetings) in ridings where they have an incumbant, the other parties do. The NDP members in the riding of Churchill VOTED desjarlais out. you know that little idea where the people get to pick their representative? Again I'll remind you that desjarlais who lost the nomination to Niki ran as an independent and came in third just before the other party that voted against SSM, the Conservatives. The Liberals Tina Keeper, and NDP Niki Ashton who both supported SSM came in first and second in the next election. Bev Desjarlais can admit that it was her unpopular stance with voters on SSM that cost her the MP job, so why do you refuse to?

Edited June 7, 2011 by DrGreenthumb

[cybercoma]

And what laws are those you speak of?

I'm ignoring the rest of your post because it's moot. It goes without saying that there is no "right to abortion" in the Charter.

The law that was challenged was Section 251 (now 287) of the Criminal Code, which required women to have abortions done in a certified hospital with prior approval by a therapeutic abortion board. Morgentaler was charged because he was providing abortions in clinics. Without getting too far into all the details, anyone who cares can look them up themselves, the Supreme Court of Canada found that this section of the criminal code violated Section 7 of the Charter and Section 1 could not apply. Section 251 of the Criminal Code required a woman to carry a fetus, according to one of the justices, against the woman's own "aspirations and priorities" and put her and the fetus in harms way by forcing the woman to carry the fetus longer. Ultimately, the court's response was that it's a moral decision to be made through the conscience of the mother and not that of the state. Any attempts by the State to take that decision from the mother is a direct violation of the mother's fundamental right of liberty. Dissent came in the form of two justices who were apprehensive about "reading rights into the Charter that are not there" and believed that the problem was outside of legislation because access was an administrative problem. Nevertheless, this dissent, in my opinion, does not address the issue of taking a fundamentally moral decision away from women and putting it into the hands of an abortion panel, if they even have access to one. Section 251 was unconstitutional because it gave the State the power to tell a woman that she must carry a child to term, even if it is against her own personal priorities and aspirations. A woman that does not want a child, does not want to give birth and does not want to be pregnant had her liberty violated by the State being the sole decision-maker over her body and an ultimately choice of personal morality.

So, the precedent has been set by the court that the State cannot decide for the mother because this infringes on her liberty. If a woman wants to have an abortion, it's for her to decide with whatever moral guidance she sees fit. This is why I said there can be no law that takes the decision-making out of the mothers' hands.

Edited June 7, 2011 by cybercoma

[Molly]

Semantics? Not at all. Abortion is not mentioned in the Charter because compared to the other rights it is essentially trivial.

Trivial? I'd say it pretty much underlies all others. If your physical person is deemed public domain it doesn't much matter what else might be considered a right.

[fellowtraveller]

Its called a nomination.

Right, keep believing that Desjarlais left her seat willingly......and that Jacques Layton had no influence......

I noticed that Pat Martin was just demoted in the shadow cabinet. Another of your coincidences?

[bush_cheney2004]

Trivial? I'd say it pretty much underlies all others. If your physical person is deemed public domain it doesn't much matter what else might be considered a right.

That's fine if one wishes to perform their own abortion. Public health protection is mandated down to the physical person as well. There really is no such thing as explicit abortion rights.

[fellowtraveller]

If your physical person is deemed public domain it doesn't much matter what else might be considered a right.

Your physical person can be deemed public domain, the state frequently orders you to do or not do things: sell a kidney, be paid as a surrogate mother, kill yourself, refuse a medical procedure.

[Oleg Bach]

That's fine if one wishes to perform their own abortion. Public health protection is mandated down to the physical person as well. There really is no such thing as explicit abortion rights.

Assumed consent for organ "harvesting" - really bothers me - as does the supposed explicit rights to abortion...or as they call it "reproductive rights" - it's a reversal of the meaning of terms. The only persons that are encouraged to abort are potential or deployed female labour. For instance...when my mother was in Britain she told me a story - that once her employer figured out that she wanted to have a child - The said employer was against it "who will clean my house and work in the factory?" This is the basis for so called abortion rights - it is the right of the slave owner to make sure that his worker is not put out of commission through the baring of a child...The deep core of pro-abortion is in the fact that dupes propose it and the BOSS pushes his or her agenda through the dupes.