babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » C-484... part 4 or 5?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: C-484... part 4 or 5?
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 27 April 2008 07:29 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been spending most of my time on the Oppose Bill C-484 Facebook group.

But I have gone back and read most of the posts in the other threads. It was someone at Babble that tweaked my attention on the "heat of passion" and "sudden provocation" - thanks SO MUCH for that! I'd read the bill a couple times but I guess I was so focussed on the 'unborn' phrasing I overlooked


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 27 April 2008 09:44 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For those who still think the main or only objectionable thing about Bill C-484 is the language ("child" for "fetus"; "mother" for "woman", etc.) here's a column that sets out several good reasons why the Bill should be opposed - and none of them have anything to do with its language.

For continuity: Link to previous thread.

Text of Bill C-484


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 28 April 2008 08:58 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
this is the section that bothers me the most :
quote:
(5) It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being.

From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 28 April 2008 12:09 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That was inserted to avoid the following definition of human being in Criminal Code:

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.


Since the definition excludes a fetus from being a human being, the drafters of Bill C-484 wanted to make it clear that it would not be nullified by section 223, above.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 01 May 2008 07:26 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
REMINDER of the protests this Saturday in
Ottawa, Fredricton & Toronto:

*New Brunswick*

Saturday, May 3, 2008
12:00pm - 1:30pm
City Hall
Queen Street

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=9916029686

*Ottawa*

Saturday, May 3, 2008
12:00pm - 3:00pm
Human Rights Monument
Elgin Street at Lisgar Street

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=10262692450

*Toronto*

Saturday, May 3, 2008
12:00pm - 3:00pm
Nathan Phillips Square
Queen St. West at Bay.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=15618201474&ref=nf

[ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 01 May 2008 08:14 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The links you posted are only accessible to people who log into Facebook, something I absolutely refuse to do. There are serious privacy and security issues, something activists can do without.

Have you any other links about the demos? I knew about the Ottawa one (can't go, because of the May Day demo for health care here in Montréal) but was unaware of the other two.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595

posted 01 May 2008 08:27 AM      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey Lagatta - I think you can just get an account under an assumed name.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 01 May 2008 08:46 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks, but I'm not remotely interested in anything to do with Facebook. Perhaps the demos are listed in some media?
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 02 May 2008 08:23 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hi Lagatta

Apologies, but all I know are the Facebook links. I'm an admin on the largest Oppose C-484 group, we've got 4000 members on it. My impression is that the protests were started by *regular Canadians*. Since they're not affiliated with any Orgs etc that have an independent web presence they worked with what they knew: Facebook.

I do have my own website but find it MUCH easier to just create an event on Facebook than make a whole new webpage. I'm pretty sucky at it, actually.

Maybe a good solution would be for me to transcribe all the pertinents from facebook and make Babble a hub? Any other ideas? I want this to ba as accessible as possible!


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 02 May 2008 08:41 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
you know I was thinking the other day that a comminity board to post such things prominenetly on the main page would be a good idea. This would be a good example.
There are also some feminist boards you could post this to, like bread and roses.
on a related topic, in this law, isn't it a contradiction that a fetuis is a human being unless you want to abort it ? Is this the main part of the law that could be used to make abortion illegal ?

From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 02 May 2008 08:46 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes definitely post it to bread and roses - there is a lively discussion there about C-484.

Also look up Choice Joyce. http://choice-joyce.blogspot.com/


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 02 May 2008 05:59 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
k... I posted a new topic on Feminism with protest info for Edmonton, Ottawa and Toronto.

Joyce is on my Facebook group. I posted info to her *comments* section. Dunno if she's noticed that or or not.... my comment has to get approved before it shows up.

I've browsed Birth Pangs but am unfamiliar with the BreadnRoses site... I sent an email to the webmaster.

I know alotta folks poo poo Facebook, but sheesh. I was an admin on the anti Bill C-10 group until a few weeks ago - we had 37,000 members! I like to go where the people are - rather than try and entice 'em to come to me.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
choice joyce
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11819

posted 05 May 2008 03:54 PM      Profile for choice joyce   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To Organizations: Please sign an open statement opposing Bill C-484, the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act".

Aux organisations: Veuillez signer avec nous une déclaration collective d'opposition au projet de loi C-484, Loi sur les enfants non encore nés victimes d’actes criminels

English: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/open-statement.html
En français: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/fr/action/open-statement-francais.html

To sign, please send an email with your organization's name in both French and English to joyce@arcc-cdac.ca
Pour la signer, veuillez adresser un courriel à joyce@arcc-cdac.ca, en précisant l'appellation officielle de votre organisation, en français et anglais s'il y a lieu.

(Note: Individuals should sign the online petition. / Nota: Les signataires à titre individuel sont plutôt invité-es à signer la pétition en ligne: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/oppose-bill-c-484.html )

Thank you / Merci!


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
choice joyce
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11819

posted 06 May 2008 05:56 AM      Profile for choice joyce   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm very sorry I missed your comment, Accidental Altruist. Usually I get a notice when comments are posted but for some reason I didn't this time. It's published now, although too late.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 07 May 2008 12:32 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No worries Joyce - you're probably run ragged by now! Here's the info for tomorrow's counter-protest in Ottawa during the annual *March for Life*


♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀ ▄ ♀

Ottawa - Thursday May 8th

Join fellow pro-choicers at
the Human Rights Monument.

1:15pm to 2:15pm.

STAND OUT of the crowd.
STAND UP for choice!

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=16704863975


♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀ ▀ ♀

Come to the Human Rights Monument
and be a positive, peaceful yet VISIBLE
presence as the annual "March for Life"
schlepps through downtown Ottawa.

We're not going to engage the march or
even approach the pro-lifers.

We just wanna be there to witness and
provide a beautiful counterpoint to
their point of view.

Bring signs, banners & lots of bright, vibrant colour:

Pour on the pink and purple!
Wear feather boas & flowers in your hair!
Dab glitter on your cheeks and don your fairy wings!

STAND OUT of the crowd!
STAND UP for choice

:-D


Bring friends, lovers, partners and
colleagues, children and neighbours.

Invite every pro-choice person you know.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 21 May 2008 07:24 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't this *interesting*...??

Ken Epp's website has been down since
a pro-C484 Facebook group announced the following:

"ON-LINE POLL @ Ken Epp's Site:

Cast your vote today by going to Ken's site and voting in favour of C-484 on his poll. The anti-484 groups have been spamming it so cast your vote today! http://www.kenepp.com"

At home I get a "forbidden" message - at the office it says "The website declined to show this webpage".

Theories anyone?


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 21 May 2008 10:03 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The message I get is that you must have login accessability, who ever heard of a sitting MP have a locked website?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 21 May 2008 10:52 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Apparently, democracy is a brand that's owned by the Conservatives, like MP Epp, and if you don't purchase the right brand then you ain't getting any access to the MP's website.

I wonder if e mails are bounced as well? Phone calls?

That's government as their private fiefdom. And you thought Lord Black was insufferable.

Restore feudalism! Vote Conservative!

[ 21 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 21 May 2008 11:17 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And here I thought I was being paranoid!
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 21 May 2008 12:03 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You can't even reach his web site from the MP government site, as you get the message "no forwarding link to this site here" or close to that. Though you can reach every other CPC MP through there.

But I back doored it in through the CPC web site and voted no to the poll question.

Try this link:

http://kenepp.com/default.asp


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 21 May 2008 12:24 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ah, it's fixed now!
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 May 2008 01:40 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
BILL C-484 ON TRIAL - A PEOPLE'S HEARING ON THE PROPOSED "FETAL HOMICIDE BILL"

DATE: Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 7-9 p.m.
PLACE: Ryerson University Student Centre, 55 Gould Street, Room SCC115
INFO: ocac@sympatico.ca, 416-969-8463

Stop the attack on abortion rights. My Mind, My Body, My Choice.

Speakers:
Jessica Yee, Canadians for Choice
Shelley Gavigan, Osgoode Hall Law Professor
Rhonda Roffey, Women's Habitat
Ayesha Adami, Immigrant Women's Health Centre

Sponsored by the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 21 May 2008 03:49 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Epp site is running now, open to all after only being open to those able to login, with those supporting the Bill at 88% approval. Fuckers!
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 21 May 2008 09:13 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
The Epp site is running now, open to all after only being open to those able to login, with those supporting the Bill at 88% approval. Fuckers!

He must have learned from the Mexican election scam of 1988:

1) The vote tallying computers crash with the opposition in the lead.

2) The computers come back to life and -- surprise surprise -- the government is in the lead by a wide margin,


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 22 May 2008 08:17 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just returned form a conference at UQAM about this bill (it was filmed and apparently will be on the FFQ website in a few weeks. Wouldn't it be cool to have that on rabble TV ! It's in French though.).It's extremely alarming- I never thought of abortion as something that could actually be really at risk.From what I've learned, this bill is a back door tactic that's been used in the USA with success- as well as terrible consequences. If a woman is pregnant and is an addict,the bill could get her arrested for harming her child ( it has happened in the US already)- and how does that encourage her to seek treatment ?
I also learned that there is an actual pro-life caucus in parliament,a member of whom brought forth this bill.
Legally in Canada, a fetus is not a human being until it is born so how can this bill call it a child ? If a fetus becomes a human being, that means abortion is murder.
FYI in Montreal there's to be a protest om June 1st.No one in this universe or any other universe,is going to tell me or any other woman whether I should be pregnant or not.


[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 26 May 2008 12:34 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dr Barrette, President of the FMSQ, in a news report today confirmed what we all have been saying:

quote:
Cependant, il ajoute avoir aussi reçu confirmation de gens du Parti conservateur dans l'ouest canadien que l'objectif du projet de loi C-484 était bien d'établir une reconnaissance des droits du foetus dans le but d'interdire l'avortement.

Translated:

quote:
However, he [Dr Barrette, President of the FMSQ] adds that he received confirmation from people from the Conservative Party from Western Canada that the objective of Bill C-484 was clearly to recognize rights of the fetus with the goal to ban abortion.

h/t joyce at BnR

La FMSQ obtient confirmation que la Loi C-484 vise à interdire l'avortement


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 05 June 2008 06:20 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It was reported tonight on Radio-Canada radio news that Stéphane Dion has officially committed to defeating C-484. I haven't located the original source, but here is something from the "Impolitical Blog":
quote:

About time:

Stephane Dion vowed Thursday that Liberals will block passage of a Tory bill that some fear might re-open the dormant abortion debate.

"I want to give my word to all the women of Canada that the Liberal Party of Canada is against to reopen woman's right to decide as a debate," the Liberal leader pledged.
...
Dion indicated that he shares the view that the bill would reopen the abortion debate and vowed: "We will not allow that to happen."



Interesting that women's rights are at the mercy of these men's whims.

ETA: Indeed, after reading the actual CanadianPress story here, it is clear thaT Dion is still NOT promising to whip a vote and still keeping the door open to arguing that C-484 is NOT REALLY about a "woman's right to decide".
But at least he has been put on notice that there will be hell to pay if he does.

[ 05 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 10 June 2008 09:28 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ken Epp held a press conference this morning in Ottawa, along with one or two French-speaking MPs and a few women to try and wind down opposition to C-484 in Quebec.
He reiterated of course that his bill was misunderstood (in Quebec) and that it could in no way compromise women's reproductive rights.
Then Pierre Maisonneuve, the hostm interviewed Bob Rae by phone (surprise! surprise!) about the current dynamics within the Liberal Party.
Rae twice justified with an apopeal to "tradition" not whipping Liberal votes against C-484, but joinded Dion in assuring Canadian women that enough Liberal votes would probably be on hand to defeat C-484 on 3rd reading. He spoke of "persuasion efforts" currently happening within the caucus, acknowledging that some Grits would support the bill regardless. How reassuring...
Comically enough, he then whiningly invited Conservative MPs to join Minister Josee Verner and vote against C-484 and ensure this result.
Trust the Liberals to trust unnamed Conservatives to ensure women's rights!

[ 10 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 10 June 2008 09:48 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
That was inserted to avoid the following definition of human being in Criminal Code:

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.


Since the definition excludes a fetus from being a human being, the drafters of Bill C-484 wanted to make it clear that it would not be nullified by section 223, above.



So technically under this definition, a woman could legally request an abortion when going into labour? What about C-sections? If a doctor told you you needed a c-section, could you say you wanted an abortion instead.

I realize that not many doctors would do this (access is the topic of many other threads), but I am wondering about the technical legality. I also realize that very few women would want this, as most women themselves refer to their fetus as baby or child long before it has exited the womb - whether naturally, via inducement or via c-section.

Does anyone know anymore regarding the legality of the examples above?


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 10 June 2008 09:51 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Comically enough, [Rae] then whiningly invited Conservative MPs to join Minister Josee Verner and vote against C-484 and ensure this result.
Trust the Liberals to trust unnamed Conservatives to ensure women's rights!

Yeah, it worked out so well when then-Premier Rae trusted Liberals and Conservatives to save his bill extending same-sex benefits


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 10 June 2008 02:02 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Audio of Bob Rae justifying Liberal ineptitude/complicity on C-484 (in French).
Strong Quebec feminist Louise Langevin, of Université Laval's Chaire d'études féministes Claire-Bonenfant, is also heard.

[ 10 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 16 June 2008 01:54 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Angus Reid has this as part of their Monday questions:
quote:
A private member’s bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to injure, cause the death of, or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing, or attempting to commit, an offence against the mother. The bill does not apply to consensual abortion or any act or omission by the mother of the child. Would you want your own Member of Parliament to vote in favour or against this bill in the House of Commons?

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, look at the way they weasel word it!

Anyhow for those of you who aer AR participants it might be waiting in your email!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 07 July 2008 10:27 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Montreal daily Le Devoir reported Monday that Quebec members of the Conservative Party intend to mount a pitched battle against a proposal coming from Western party members in support of giving legal status to fetuses. This proposal should be discussed at the CP convention this Fall in Winnipeg.
quote:
"...les militants du Québec combattront une proposition qui émane de quelques circonscriptions de l'Ouest du pays et qui vise à donner un statut juridique au foetus."

This seems to indicate that the uproar over C-484 is something the Conservatives are getting an earful about from Quebec voters.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 08 July 2008 09:13 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
does anyone know when the third reading of C484 is going to take place?
I'm assuming this fall.
Some politician was trying to convince me that it was part of an omnibuss bill.
I've never heard of a private members bill being included in an omnibus. It looks to me like a free standing bill and I understood that it went to committee on its own.
Please help an ignoramus!

From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 08 July 2008 09:56 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My understanding is that second reading is happening no earlier than mid-September.

The pro-lifers are being encouraged to write to their MPs weekly, I think we should do the same!


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
werestillhere
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15160

posted 10 July 2008 07:45 PM      Profile for werestillhere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks to pressure from their members the Libs have agreed to vote the bill down. I'm not sure how they will do this, but I assume there will be some finaggling and perhaps a whipped vote. This email is being sent in resopnse to objections to C-484:

-------

Dear Sir/Madame,

We would like to thank you for your recent letter regarding the Private Member’s Bill C-484 presented by Conservative member Ken Epp.

Members of Parliament have the right to put forward a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons. However, our concern with Mr. Epp’s bill, a concern shared by many lawyers, health professionals and women’s rights organizations, is that it would undermine a woman’s right to choose and could ultimately be a threat to a woman’s ability to access safe abortion services. We are committed to the Liberal Party of Canada, under Stéphane Dion's leadership, standing firm against the idea of reopening the debate surrounding a woman’s right to choose. Passage of this bill will reopen the debate and threaten the rights of women – we will not allow that to happen.

Mr. Epp’s bill has been sent to the Justice committee and would only become law after receiving a majority vote in favour on its third reading in the House of Commons. Mr. Dion intends to work to ensure the bill is defeated at that time.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views on this important issue.

Sincerely,

The Office of Honourable Stéphane Dion, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada


From: Montreal | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668

posted 10 July 2008 07:55 PM      Profile for laine lowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I received the same letter from Dion this morning. But I have a hard time believing that he will whip the vote. Among those voicing their objection of Morgentaler receiving the Order of Canada were:

Liberal MP Dan McTeague, Pickering-Scarborough East, Ontario and Liberal MP Paul Steckle, Huron-Bruce, Ontario.

There is no way Dion is going to manage to change their votes or those or other social conservative retrogrades in their ranks. The best that can happen is their being out of the house on the vote day. Will Dion make that happen? Who knows?


From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
werestillhere
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15160

posted 10 July 2008 08:15 PM      Profile for werestillhere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some of the Libs that voted in favour are not as hardline as those two so I think they can be convinced to change their votes. Along with the NDP and Bloc they just need enough to outnumber the Conservatives (plus the Libs voting in favour), which, if all the Libs show up this time (including Dion who was absent) should be possible.
From: Montreal | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 10 July 2008 08:50 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Morningstar asked:
quote:
does anyone know when the third reading of C-484 is going to take place?
I'm assuming this fall.

I have heard the date of September 17 mentioned by activists at a recent Montreal meeting, the House reconvening on September 15.

I still can't accept that the Liberal Party of Canada does not consider this issue important enough to whip a vote on it and exclude any MP who insists on breaking ranks. I think people are right to expect that it should do so and encourage people to write in and tell Mr. Dion and their local MP so much. And of course, I am hoping that those Grits who will vote in favour of C-484 and other anti-choice private bills will be voted out of office. That outcome, in the end, trumps all reassurances from Mr. Dion's office.

[ 10 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668

posted 10 July 2008 09:04 PM      Profile for laine lowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Morningstar asked:
I have heard the date of September 17 mentioned by activists at a recent Montreal meeting, the House reconvening on September 15.

I still can't accept that the Liberal Party of Canada does not consider this issue important enough to whip a vote on it and exclude any MP who insists on breaking ranks. I think people are right to expect that it should do so and encourage people to write in and tell Mr. Dion and their local MP so much. And of course, I am hoping that those Grits who will vote in favour of C-484 and other anti-choice private bills will be voted out of office. That outcome, in the end, trumps all reassurances from Mr. Dion's office.

[ 10 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]



I'm hoping the same Martin. But I do really believe that Dion has to get those retrograde social conservative members to stay away or vote with them. For sure they are outliers but they could make this odious bill pass.


From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 August 2008 01:27 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Great news - the pressure got to them. No telling what they might do with a majority government, but this is cause for celebration. Congratulations to all who fought this atrocity:

Tories abandon Bill C-484


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 August 2008 01:29 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fabulous news!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 25 August 2008 01:44 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are already 311 comments, some of them quite telling:
quote:
wait until the majority, then we'll make it hard to get an abortion...

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 25 August 2008 02:13 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Harper seems to have decided to coopt Grit MP Brent St.Denis' Private Bill C-543, tabled in May. But since no legal wording has yet been presented by the Conservatives, it would be wise not to rejoice too soon. The final script may well create one more threat against abortion service providers or set a precedent for anti-abortion legislation or policy.

[ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 25 August 2008 02:26 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's clear the Harperites didn't want this to become an election issue. Even though the Liberals voted for it, the NDP could have (and still should, but probably won't) made a stink about it.

ETA: And, barring an election, they didn't want to have committee hearings on the topic.

[ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 25 August 2008 02:30 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gah, just read through all the comments, most of the anti-choicers literally have not a fucking clue about human equality rights and that being the reason we do not have abortion laws. It seems they somehow emotionally internalize the fact that had their mother been "pro-choice" they may not exist, as if there is retroactive abortions or something.

They really do not get it.

And I think Harper is playing politics with this as he does not want to go into an election with this hanging around.

wonder how many fetus fetishers this will piss off?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 August 2008 02:58 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Honestly, I think progressive forces everywhere should rejoice - claim credit for the voice of the people being heard - and prepare to fight the next inevitable battle. If we don't make people feel good about the little victories, we won't be able to mobilize them next time.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668

posted 25 August 2008 03:42 PM      Profile for laine lowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If Harper is in election mode, what's he going to do about this:

quote:
Bill C-537, “protection of conscience in the health-care profession” (sounds like freedom), is sponsored by Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott. It would allow doctors and nurses to refuse to perform medical acts — including abortions — that are against their religion. Abortion refusal in public hospitals, here we come. But good news for religious Muslim and Orthodox Jewish health professionals.

In the meantime, congratulations to all the pro-choice activists and their supporters (including the CMA) for not letting go of this one.

Excerpt from an excellent review on all these abortion related private member's bills:

Back door abortion law


From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 25 August 2008 03:57 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bill c537 is just as bull shitty as c484, freedom of conscience they already have, they do not perform them if they do not want to, and hello the CMA just came down on whose side, so who actually has gotten Vellecourt to try to put this through??? Furthermore, they get paid by whom? That's right us tax payers in a secular system, so they can fuck right off with their religious freedom in the public service arena.

Moreover, if they slip this so called "freedom of conscience" in, in this area, next it will Justices of the Peace, etc who can get away with refusing to perform SSM's.

I hear what you are saying unionist, but in respect to women's rights be taken away, women will take action each and every time, our right to be human are threatened.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 August 2008 03:59 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

I hear what you are saying unionist, but in respect to women's rights be taken away, women will take action each and every time, our right to be human are threatened.

Agreed, and that's what I meant to say, if I didn't put it clearly.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 25 August 2008 04:23 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So bill c-484 is effectively dead in the water ? Itr has been withdrawn ? YAY!
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 25 August 2008 04:41 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Le Devoir journalist Helene Buzzetti - who was on C-484 from the get-go like The Star's Antonia Zerbisias, thank you ladies! - made the point a few hours ago on Radio-Canada that Justice Minister Nicholson had refused to answer when asked if the Conservative gov't was "killing" C-484. As I wrote above, he didn't even have a wrtten version of this new bill he is touting. So C-484 is still on the parliamentary agenda: the Cons. have just distanciated themselves further from it. They may want to avoid alienating its supporters, or to protect its chances of resurfacing as a gov't bill after an election that would give them a few more seats, or a nn-election, that is more unqualified support from the Grits.

[ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 25 August 2008 05:18 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To me this suggests that letters and protests are still warranted then..act for the worst, hope for the best type thing.
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 27 August 2008 06:51 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Was reading some articles last evening on Epp's reaction to the CPC press conference stating they were discarding this Bill. The fact is he isn't, and that it is a private members Bill, and as such they cannot just ditch it, as a party. So it apparently is just smoke and mirrors and down BS that came out of the press conference to try and manage the public message about it...
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 27 August 2008 07:34 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by laine lowe:
Excerpt from an excellent review on all these abortion related private member's bills:

Back door abortion law


Thanks for bringing that article up, laine.

I tried to start a thread with it some time ago, but nobody bit.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 27 August 2008 08:04 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you mspector, for bringing this information up a 3rd time. I had completely missed laine's post and link, as well as your initial thread on it.

quote:
The Conservatives are bringing in anti-abortion legislation by the back door...His backbench Conservative MPs are doing the job for him, with a little help from some LiberalsIt’s a complicated plan, using four members’ private bills which would give a fetus the legal status of an “unborn child” — a major step towards going to the Supreme Court with a Charter challenge to ban abortion.

...The strategy starts with bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, sponsored by Conservative MP Ken Epp,

Bill C-338, sponsored by a Liberal MP Paul Steckle, criminalizes abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, unless the mother suffers from mental problems or the fetus has severe anomalies. This legislation bothers doctors. How to tell when 20 weeks (abortion legal) is not 21 weeks (abortion criminal).

Bill C-537, “protection of conscience in the health-care profession” (sounds like freedom), is sponsored by Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott. It would allow doctors and nurses to refuse to perform medical acts — including abortions — that are against their religion. Abortion refusal in public hospitals, here we come. But good news for religious Muslim and Orthodox Jewish health professionals.

Bill C-543 “abuse of pregnant women” would make attacking a pregnant women an “aggravating” factor.

MPs who support the legislation meet regularly for a prayer breakfast in a chapel built for religious worship inside the Parliament Buildings. Lately, to their surprise, they’ve been joined by Muslim and Jewish MPs, who happen to share their views on abortion.


*bolding mine


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 27 August 2008 08:20 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Status information on the other 3 Bills.

Bill C338: passed first reading Oct 2007

quote:
Pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, this bill was deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after twenty weeks of gestation)

Bill 543 - 1st reading May 14, 2008

quote:
C-543 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abuse of pregnant woman)
Brent St. Denis (Algoma--Manitoulin)

text of bill

And the Protection of Conscience Bill for Health care Professionls by Vellacourt.

Bill C537: 1st reading April 16th.

Link to status of Bill as it will not show text of the Bill

These Bills all passed first reading, and have been ordered in for 2nd reading this fall. Now I am going to go look at who seconded them.

[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 27 August 2008 08:41 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Indeed it's still on the table- I got an email from the FFQ last night saying that the September 28th protest is still on.
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 27 August 2008 08:53 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bill C537 - Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin), seconded by Mr. Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni), Bill C-537, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of conscience rights in the health care profession), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
April 16th Hansard


Bill C543:

quote:
Pursuant to Standing Orders 68(2) and 69(1), on motion of Mr. St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing), seconded by Mr. Valley (Kenora), Bill C-543, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abuse of pregnant woman), was introduced, read the first time, ordered to be printed and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.

may 14th hansard

Bill C338 - Liberal Paul Steckles' Bill limiting abortions to 20 weeks, now this is interesting as it says it was introduced Oct 16th 2007, however, I could not find anything about it being presented on Oct 16th in Hansard.

Oct 16 2007 Hansard

Oh, I did find this though:

quote:
Pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, all items of Private Members’ Business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the Order Paper at prorogation, on Friday, September 14, 2007, are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation and shall stand, if necessary, on the Order Paper or, as the case may be, referred to committee

So, if it was presented before, and it must have been, in the 38th Parliament session and got carried over, and deemed read in, one would have to look through everyday the House was sitting from February through June 2007. Perhaps sometime later today, I will browse through them to see when it was actually presented and who seconded it from the Liberal Party.

Here is the calendar link to that sessions if someone wants to look:

38th session Hansard Journal links

ETA: I went to Steckles' website to see if he had anything about when he presented it there. He didn't, though he had everything else he has ever done in parliament going back to 1998. I guess he did/does not want his consituents knowing what he was up to in that area.

Rural francesca, if you are about, have you heard of his promoting this Private Members Bill within the community?

[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 27 August 2008 09:14 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:Indeed it's still on the table- I got an email from the FFQ last night saying that the September 28th protest is still on.

I figured as much, I could not see Epp, nor indeed, the CPC and selected Liberals letting this go.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 09 September 2008 06:43 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So the election is on but I can't relax yet. Can folks here gimme reassurance that both C-484 and C-537 are REALLY dead?

I wanna give my Facebook action groups the *all clear*.

Thanks.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 09 September 2008 06:59 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
C-484 may have ended with the most recent session, but with the number of polls and pundit opinions pointing to a majority for the Harperites - and at least 21 Liberal MPs on record as opposing the right to abortion - there is no way an 'all clear' signal could be warranted.
The demo is still on in Montreal on Sept. 28.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668

posted 09 September 2008 07:17 PM      Profile for laine lowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with martin. If Harper gets a majority, all bets are off and chances are that the legislation will be introduced in a new omnibus bill to amend the criminal code to include Epp's former bill as well as other ugly stuff like prosecuting/sentencing youth as adults.
From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 September 2008 08:52 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I disagree with Martin, Harper is not in majority territory.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 09 September 2008 09:02 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I pray you are right. But add 21 Libs and 2 Ind to the number of Cons that will be elected and...

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 September 2008 09:33 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But martin the Liberals are "progressive" now don't ya know? There are plenty of threads here detailing why he is not in majority territory, what it would take to indicate that, where he stands to actually lose seats and he pissed off many in the CPC ranks today over the launch of the CPC's interactive website.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 09 September 2008 09:38 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Remind, I assure you that I very much want to whistle in the dark... I just can't read the damn partition!
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 September 2008 09:47 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Martin, I never whistle in the dark, primarily because I never learned to whistle, and I also carry my clip on book light wherever I go.

Bricker from Ipsos Reid has a very long expose about just why Harper is not in majority territory, it is in the polling thread #867 I believe, or its precedent one.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 09 September 2008 10:05 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is that the one where I read:
quote:
It doesn't mean they won't form a majority. It just means that to say they're flirting with one right now is not true," said Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Reid Public Affairs.
?

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 September 2008 10:25 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, Bricker said the notion that Harper is fliting with a majority right is not true. And it isn't.

They could indeed someday form a majority, if conditions went right for them that could be the case, only right now the conditoons do not appear to have changed since last election other than Harper has increased voting support in crystalized areas of ON where he already has the seats anyway.

There are also seats Harper is going to lose. And the Bloc is no where near melting down in PQ.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 10 September 2008 12:49 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
C-484 may have ended with the most recent session, but with the number of polls and pundit opinions pointing to a majority for the Harperites - and at least 21 Liberal MPs on record as opposing the right to abortion - there is no way an 'all clear' signal could be warranted.
The demo is still on in Montreal on Sept. 28.

ok. that's good (and freakin' scary) to know!
I shall advise my troops. Thanks


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 11 September 2008 08:47 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I read somewhere the other day (FFQ ?) that even if the bill is off for noew because of the election, there's nothing to stop it form coming back after the election under as different #.
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 11 September 2008 08:56 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
I read somewhere the other day (FFQ ?) that even if the bill is off for noew because of the election, there's nothing to stop it form coming back after the election under as different #.

That would be true of any bill in the world.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 11 September 2008 09:27 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
True. But there is more. The grim Harper only committed to not legislate on abortion in his FIRST mandate. In a second one, with a possible majority - and more than 20 anti-choice Liberal MPs in Parliament - nothing would stop him from recriminalizing abortion. Quebec's Cardinal Turcotte just held a press conference to hand back his Order of Canada medal (over Dr. Morgentaler's nomination) - with the unanimous support of Quebec bishops - challenging the population to make abortion an issue in this election. The Quebec mainstream media are eating it up today.
Separation of Church and State? Don't kid yourself. The Roman Catholic church and the Right in general are totally cynical about using religion to push back women's rights.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mick
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2753

posted 14 September 2008 07:17 AM      Profile for Mick        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry if I missed this but are there any demonstrations planned in Ontario for the 28th of September?

Or is the Montreal one a national mobilzation?


From: Parkdale! | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 29 September 2008 07:06 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Harper stated this morning (in French) that a new Harper government would put forward a bill to further criminalize assaults on pregnant women, but he commited to this bill not opening the way to constraints on women's reproductive rights, as C-484 was perceived to do.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 29 September 2008 01:00 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Uno Who at Montreal's demo... (note stains from 5 lb of overripe tomatoes and 2 cream pies)

http://picasaweb.google.fr/dufresne43/Pape#5251550326132734402

[ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 September 2008 01:09 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Link does not work
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 29 September 2008 01:47 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have you tried clicking on the little icon? I am sorry I am clueless about linking images from a website (here, Google Picasa) and Babble's How-To guide is a sad joke.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Harumph
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15117

posted 29 September 2008 09:43 PM      Profile for Harumph     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I read M. Spector's linked column but I'm still a little unclear.

Did the bill try to redefine when a fetus becomes "human" in order to facilitate charging people who kill/injure the fetus in the process of attacking a pregnant woman with stiffer charges?

Can someone be convicted of murder for killing a fetus (intentionally or not) in the process of attacking a pregnant woman? I know you can in some (maybe all) states, I remember reading a case a while ago.


From: West of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 29 September 2008 09:52 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Harumph:
Did the bill try to redefine when a fetus becomes "human" in order to facilitate charging people who kill/injure the fetus in the process of attacking a pregnant woman with stiffer charges?
No, it didn't. The harsher penalty would apply whether the death or injury was to a two-day-old or an eight-month-old fetus.
quote:
Can someone be convicted of murder for killing a fetus (intentionally or not) in the process of attacking a pregnant woman? I know you can in some (maybe all) states, I remember reading a case a while ago.
Not in Canada at present.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 29 September 2008 09:57 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I am sorry I am clueless about linking images from a website (here, Google Picasa) and Babble's How-To guide is a sad joke.
Martin, the only mistake you made was to put the URL of the web page in between the "IMG" tags. You should have used the URL of the photo itself, thus:

I'm running Windoze XP: I got the URL of the photo by right-clicking on the photo itself and then left-clicking on "Properties".


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 29 September 2008 10:37 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks (I still don't understand (URL of a photo?) but thanks.
Note the stains from 5 lbs of over-ripe tomatoes that the golden lacrosse racket merely sluiced and 2 maraschino cherry whipped cream pies (grand finale of the pontifical monologue).

[ 29 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca