Oppose Bill C484

102 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sun, 2008-02-17 08:41

remind

Excellent letter Michelle, just excellent. And it would be an excellent letter for women here to utilize not just to send to the MP's but to email to, all the women in their contact list, and asking that they forward it too.

Just how serious of an action against women this is, is the fact that this Act in itself does criminalize abortions, there is no other way to view these words of Bloc MP Meili Faille, as recorded on Hansard:

quote:

The text of the bill provides that the pregnant woman herself can be charged with causing the death of the fetus inside her.

Moreover, you can realize ALL abortions across Canada will be halted, if this Bill passes, until the SCC determines if it breaks Charter Rights, because if the woman can be charged with causing harm to the fetus, so can a Dr.

I have been trying to find a copy of the Bill itself on line to read, but have been unable to. Does anyone out there know where such a copy would be?

Sun, 2008-02-17 09:08

#53

Slumberjack

The hidden agenda, bought to us under many disguises during the cons tenure, has never been so blatant until now.

Sun, 2008-02-17 17:52

#54

remind

quote:

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]And their only posted item? A link to Abbotsford Right to Life.
Bullshit it's not about abortion. It bloody well is.[/b]

It is being held in the Secondary school good to see my tax dollars at work supporting those who would take away my rights.

Hopefully some prochoicers in Vancouver area picket this meeting, and letters should be written to the school and school board protesting this.

Sun, 2008-02-17 17:56

#55

martin dufresne

Remind asked: "I have been trying to find a copy of the Bill itself on line to read, but have been unable to. Does anyone out there know where such a copy would be?"

[url=http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3127600&...

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Sun, 2008-02-17 19:00

#56

Michelle

[url=http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10353261862&ref=mf]This is what misogyny looks like. [/url] Many pro-life guys are smart enough to hide their misogyny behind mealy-mouthed platitudes about how much they care about women. Some of their colleagues aren't quite so swift. One guy in this discussion claims to be pro-choice - funny how he can't stop arguing the pro-life line, and just can't stop hurling abuse at women in the group. I feel sorry for whomever gets this prize as a husband or boyfriend - I'm sure it will be just charming to be called a cunt and a dumbfuck whenever he disagrees with her!

quote:

[name removed] wrote
at 7:47pm
Does this bill not seek to criminalize acts of violence that kill a fetus? In that case, the bill categorizes the killing as "unlawful"."
[b]You might think that, if you were an illiterate cunt. Read section 7(a) you fucking moron.[/b] The bill EXPLICITLY excludes "conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented."
"Criminalizing an act of violence against a fetus (as opposed to against the pregnant woman herself) OPENS THE DOOR for further fetal rights legislation, which WILL lead to anti choice political groups attempting to criminalize abortion."
They are already attempting to criminalize abortion--you think every MP is pro-choice? One good argument they have right now is that our definition of what constitutes a person is arbitrary. If you can come up with an argument that allows for a woman's right to choose while taking into account the rights of unborn people, then you can CLOSE THAT DOOR [b]dumbfuck.[/b]

[ 17 February 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Mon, 2008-02-18 06:38

#57

remind

Thanks for the link to the Facebook group Michelle< I joined and read a few of the wall comments. Quite the guy he is, and so 'nicely' condescending on top of it too.

Mon, 2008-02-18 15:50

#58

Accidental Altruist

Yes, thanks for posting that link. I've joined the group also.

Tue, 2008-02-19 06:27

#59

remind

Have heard back from several NDP MP's and so far they are all in disagreement with the Bill and are voting against it, so it seems to be that yes indeed the NDP see right through this Bill.

Here is is one comment received back, and am using this one as it is the shortest response:

quote:

Thank you very much for your e-mail in which you have insisted that I do not support Bill C-484, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence).
The issue of creating a "fetal homicide" law so that murder charges can be laid for the death of the fetus is complex. Creating such a law would
be an unconstitutional infringement on women's rights and would likely result in harm against pregnant women.
Homicide is a leading killer of pregnant women, and it is well-known that violence against women increases during pregnancy. The Government must address this by implementing better measures to protect women in general and pregnant women in particular, from domestic violence.
A "fetal homicide" law would completely sidestep the issue of domestic abuse and do nothing to protect pregnant women from violence before it
happens. It would also do nothing to protect women who are abused shortly after giving birth. Before we start talking about laws to protect fetuses, the government has an obligation to make sure that women's rights are protected first, by addressing the systemic problem of domestic violence.
In Canada, the judicial system routinely takes aggravating circumstances into account. In the case of an assault or murder of a pregnant woman,
even though a third party cannot be charged separately with harm to the fetus, prosecutors may recommend more serious charges (such as first
degree murder or aggravated assault); judges may impose harsher penalties, and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators.
It may be that the government should enact a new law that codifies such practices. Thirteen U.S. states have laws that simply apply stiffer
punishments for murdering a pregnant woman, but do not make the death of the fetus a separate crime.
Such a solution would avoid the controversy about giving rights to fetuses and would ensure that women do not lose their rights while they
are pregnant.
Again, thank you very much for writing on this important matter.

Tue, 2008-02-19 06:47

#60

Fidel

The NDP has provided ample number of opportunities for the two old line parties to prove they give a shit about children in this frozen Puerto Rico. Instead, Liberal and Conservative parties have consistently voted against child and people-friendly policies in general.

Tue, 2008-02-19 12:22

#61

remind

Just got a response back from 1 Liberal MP, after getting several lengthy ones, personally written by NDP MP's.

quote:

On behalf of Susan Kadis, I would like to acknowledge receipt and thank you for your e-mail correspondence.
Please be assured that your letter will be brought to Susan's attention.
Sincerely,
xxx
Executive Assistant

Fri, 2008-02-22 11:11

#62

remind

Interesting blog posting and responses to the posting.

quote:

If you wish to contact Stephane Dion to urge him to vote against this bill, you may do so very easily here. Note: the folks over there have it setup to send an automatic text message to Mr Dion which lists why they feel he and the Liberal Party needs to oppose this Bill, and then asks him at the end to whip the vote on this subject and force his MP’s to vote against. I don’t know how realistic it will be to expect that to happen, so use your judgement as to whether you wish to leave that line in there or not. You can manually add or subtract things from their message form, so I would also point out in this to Mr Dion that this Bill is probably unconstitutional and already in direct contradiction of the current Criminal Code, as stated above.

Response from someone working in the government and using a government computer, no less:

quote:

Once again, the pro-aborts are showing their true colors. They are so determined to cling to their license to kill their unwanted babies that they won’t let the wanted babies be safe either.

[url=http://scottdiatribe.gluemeat.com/2008/02/22/the-unborn-victims-of-crime... mind.. I just did a looksee of your IP. I would have thought you folks in the Dept. of Finance would be busy with, you know, financial matters… and not have time to read blogs[/url]

Fri, 2008-02-22 11:26

#63

martin dufresne

Response from J. Layton's office

quote:

Dear Martin,
Thank you for writing. We oppose this legislation because we view C-484 as simply a back-door approach to undermine women's rights. This issue comes up regularly and each time we have gone on record as opposing such a move.
Again, thanks for writing. All the best.
Sincerely,
Office of Jack Layton
NDP Leader

Still, it makes to sick to see Dion and Harper snug as two bugs in a rug over the war. If their anti-choice mmbers unite forcs, women's rights are toast. The Bloc MPs are no more trustable: if they see a way to court the rising climate of fear at the demise of "the Family", they will tap it.

Fri, 2008-02-22 11:53

#64

remind

According to the Blog that I linked to, The Bloc, are being whipped to vote against it too.

And you should see the additional letter I got back from Betty Hinton, after I wrote back to her and told her that she and the CPC were being deceitful! [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]

Tue, 2008-02-26 06:58

#65

remind

The Ottawa citizen has climbed on board the anti-woman parade and has a piece that slams Joyce. Perhaps some will want to write their minds to the Ottawa Citizen. And seriously the woman the CPC are using as a pawn may state that she doesn't want this Bill connected to abortion in anyway, but she fails to see that it is and how she is being used.

Moreover, the fact that she uses a word like retribution says it all, our laws are not created for retribution, nor should they ever be and she herself has rendered herself irrelevant by using such a thing!

quote:

The next day, the Canadian Press reported on what Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada had to say about this bill and about the intentions of the MP who introduced it. It appalls me that she is still trying to turn my cause into some sort of abortion issue. Positive or negative, I do not want to see Bill C-484 connected to abortion whatsoever.
...also find it an insult that Ms. Arthur suggests my opinion regarding this matter should be irrelevant, as I have a vested interest - my daughter and my grandson were shot to death!
This is what she says on the coalition's website: "While we deeply sympathize with them and understand their wish, it must be recognized that victims of violence are not those who should be making decisions about justice in a democratic society. Appropriate laws and penalties must be determined by impartial parties who do not allow emotion or personal bias to colour their decisions."
Just who are these "impartial parties" she is referring to?
On the one hand she speaks about democracy and on the other she implies that I not be part of the democratic process.
In my own daughter's case, there will be no retribution toward the man who murdered her to kill my grandson.

[url=http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=7f51beb2-... out[/url]

h/t BnR

Tue, 2008-02-26 07:52

#66

remind

Interestingly, after all the letters I have gotten from the NDP MP's regarding this, I just received a personal call from an NDP MP about it.

Was not much of a call, just reaffirming the NDP's stance on this. What was even more interesting was the person was just on their way into the HoC for the finance bill, and I really wanted them to stay on line with me for it. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

Tue, 2008-02-26 07:59

#67

martin dufresne

Thanks for this opportunity. Here is my own letter to the Citizen:

quote:

Mary Talbot does "not want to see Bill C-484 connected to abortion whatsoever". Yet, how does it sit with her that such a bill, by granting personhood to fetuses, would pave the way for any pregnant woman or health professional to be eventually charged with murder - most probably by politicians such as Mr. Epp who has been quite explicit about his anti-choice convictions? It is dangerously easy to cull a liminar caveat from a law once a legislature has decreed that personhood begins at conception and a misogynist party is given a majority in the House.
As for the ominous risk of offering murderers of women an easy way out (Diana's point above), this happened only a few weeks ago in Cleveland, OH, in the trial of Bobby Cutts, whose charge of aggravated murder against his partner Jessie Davis was reduced to murder after he was convicted for the fetus' killing. ("Cutts' intentions were critical to jury", Plain Dealer Reporter, Feb. 16). This kind of trading off women's rights against those of fetuses is unworthy of the Canada I want to live in.

Tue, 2008-02-26 08:15

#68

remind

Thanks Martin, though you have no idea what it feels like to be rendered into a subordinate position to something that might not ever be, and objectified to the level of an incubator, you have illuminated that is what is happening in the USA with Bills of this sort, and what will happen here if passed.

Of note, I also got an automated response from Stephane's office. Pfffft!

Wed, 2008-03-05 07:26

#69

remind

Further discussion on this Bill and voting is to occur today.

The first incremental step in taking women's rights away, if it passes.

And frankly it is not a pleasant feeling.

Wed, 2008-03-05 07:32

#70

Michelle

I didn't get any response from Silva. I just tried calling his office, and the line rang through in Toronto, and there was voicemail in the Ottawa office. So I guess I'll try again in a bit. I have no idea how he's going to vote on this!

Wed, 2008-03-05 07:43

#71

martin dufresne

Another good articulate response, posted to a discussion list from MP Jean Crowder, Nanaimo-Cowichan (NDP):

quote:

Thank you for your email concerning Bill C-484, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence). If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to send your opposition directly to the Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson (email: [email protected]) and a copy to the Prime Minister (email: [email protected]). They need to hear this message directly from as many Canadians as possible.
Five recent murder cases in Canada have involved a pregnant woman being murdered by a male partner or boyfriend. The victims and families of these horrific tragedies deserve our deepest sympathy, and they deserve justice. As a result, people have urged that the perpetrator be charged with two homicides - of both the woman and her fetus. However, the issue of creating a "fetal homicide" law so that murder charges can be laid for the death of the fetus is complex. Creating such a law would be an unconstitutional infringement on women's rights and would likely result in harms against pregnant women.
Homicide is a leading killer of pregnant women, and it is well-known that violence against women increases during pregnancy. What the Government needs to address is better measures to protect women in general and pregnant women in particular, from domestic violence. A "fetal homicide" law would completely sidestep the issue of domestic abuse and do nothing to protect pregnant women from violence before it happens. It would also do nothing to protect women who are abused shortly after giving birth. Before we start talking about laws to protect fetuses, the government has an obligation to make sure that women's rights are protected first, by addressing the systemic problem of domestic violence.
In Canada, women have guaranteed rights and equality under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Persons do not gain legal status and rights in our society until they have completely exited from the birth canal, alive (as per the Criminal Code). Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman and her fetus are considered "physically one" person under the law (Dobson vs. Dobson). If we give any legal rights to a fetus, we must automatically remove some rights from women, because it's impossible for two beings occupying the same body to enjoy full rights. If we try to "balance" rights, it means the rights of one or both parties must be compromised, resulting in a loss of rights. Legally speaking, it would be very difficult to justify compromising women's established rights in favour of the theoretical rights of fetuses.
In Canada, the judicial system routinely takes aggravating circumstances into account. In the case of an assault or murder of a pregnant woman, even though a third party cannot be charged separately with harm to the fetus, prosecutors may recommend more serious charges (such as first degree murder or aggravated assault); judges may impose harsher penalties, and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators.
It may be that the government should enact a new law that codifies such practices. Thirteen U.S. states have laws that simply apply stiffer punishments for murdering a pregnant woman, but do not make the death of the fetus a separate crime. Such a solution would avoid the controversy about giving rights to fetuses and would ensure that women do not lose their rights while they are pregnant.(...)

Wed, 2008-03-05 13:21

#72

remind

The vote on this will be in just under 12 mins

Wed, 2008-03-05 14:17

#73

martin dufresne

I am sure it'll be defeated, but it will be important to take down the names of the MPs suporting the Bill. If reelected, they will be the ones to slag women's reproductive rights in their caucusses and the ones the anti-choice camp will count on if and when Harper is given a majority government to push such laws as part of the gov't agenda.

Wed, 2008-03-05 14:46

#74

Michelle

How did it go?? Anyone hear yet??

I'm watching on CPAC now. They're all voting no! All right!

Silva voted no too. Excellent!

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Wed, 2008-03-05 14:52

#75

Michelle

Oh shit. I was wrong. I guess they didn't all vote against. It's carried.

Can you believe it?

Wed, 2008-03-05 14:53

#76

remind

unfucking real, just what can one say iother than Stoffer is an asshole, and it was sickening.

Wed, 2008-03-05 14:54

#77

Michelle

So I didn't read it wrong, did I? The bill actually passed?

Wed, 2008-03-05 14:54

#78

remind

yes it passed

Wed, 2008-03-05 14:56

#79

Michelle

Jesus fucking Christ.

Wed, 2008-03-05 14:57

#80

martin dufresne

ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!
So maybe the Liberals ARE the enemy too, a lot more than we have been acknowledging... [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]

Wed, 2008-03-05 14:59

#81

Michelle

remind, did Stoffer vote FOR the bill? Is that what you're saying? I started watching partway through.

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:01

#82

remind

yes stoffer voted for the Bill

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:03

#83

Michelle

Are you kidding me? Unbelievable!

Just out of curiosity, is he part of the NDP I Love Jesus Coalition?

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:07

#84

remind

I wish I was kidding, and ya know what, he actually called me about this.

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:09

#85

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by remind:
[b]yes stoffer voted for the Bill[/b]

So I guess Jack didn't whip the caucus on this unimportant bill? No cause for disciplining Stoffer the way he did with Siksay, eh?

Come to think of it - I never saw a single word about C-484 on the NDP website.

Did anyone?

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:09

#86

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]So maybe the Liberals ARE the enemy too, a lot more than we have been acknowledging... [/b]

Oh, the shock! the horror!

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:10

#87

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

my member called me about this too, but I never connected back with him

frig

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:10

#88

Unionist

What was the final vote?

How did the BQ vote?

Were there any other NDP dissenters besides Stoffer?

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:11

#89

Michelle

I shouldn't have made that snarky remark about the Faith and Justice Caucus. I think probably most of the people in it voted against the Bill, so that was unfair.

But still. GRRRRR. Was this not a whipped vote for the NDP? How could anyone vote in favour of a Bill with anti-choice terminology RIGHT IN THE TITLE? "Unborn victims"! That's what the anti-choicers call aborted fetuses!

It's just so unbelievable.

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:11

#90

remind

This isn't the final vote, it now proceeds to committee, though if it was lost it would not have proceeded further, and after committee it then goes for a 3rd reading, I believe, maybe Joyce will be on to flesh it out further.

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:13

#91

Michelle

Wow, clusterpost.

If this vote wasn't whipped and the crime vote was...I'm going to be a very unhappy camper.

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:14

#92

remind

All other NDP were present and accounted for voting nay, even Pat Martin and it seems all the Bloc voted nay.

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:16

#93

Michelle

unionist, you're right, it's exactly NOWHERE on the ndp.ca web site. I just used their search engine and entered "c-484". Nothing. Then I tried "unborn". Nothing.

But that's okay, NDP, it's JUST WOMEN'S BODIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, nothing important! It's no big deal that the bill you didn't think was important enough for a mention had the words "UNBORN VICTIMS" in it.

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:19

#94

martin dufresne

One small step for Parliament... one huge step toward Atwood's [i]The Handmaiden's Tale[/i] dystopia of women as vessels.

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:19

#95

Unionist

How many Liberals voted against this? Any?

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:24

#96

Michelle

Lots, I think. I noticed a whole bunch of them being skipped over during the NAY vote.

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:24

#97

remind

Dion was not present, though even Harper was present, ALL Liberal women present voted against it, I believe, but admittedly I was in shock for a moment when Stoffer voted for it and may have missed some who did who were in the back row.

Some back bench male Liberal MP's voted for it.

And a couple of CPC women abstained. Though all the men voted yes and the majority of women in the CPC.

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:40

#98

Michelle

I was just telling a friend that I'm thinking in expletives. Triple expletives. With expletive conjunctions linking triple expletives to triple expletives.

Wed, 2008-03-05 15:57

#99

remind

Ya michelle, I am too, it was absolutely sickening to sit there and watch men vote to turn women into nothing more than vessels.

Fucking fucking fucking Stoffer and the women of the CPC.

Wed, 2008-03-05 16:04

#100

Michelle

And the Liberals. Let's not forget the Liberals. I want names!

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Wed, 2008-03-05 16:06

#101

N.Beltov

ETA: The following is a response to a remark that's been edited. Whoops! I just wanted to recall the conduct of some of the Conservative MPs during another vote, on SSM, for a comparison...

Go back to the same sex vote (05? 06?) and you will discover that some of the Conservatives [i]were virtually speaking in tongues[/i] in their feverish opposition to allow others to love in their own way. It was, all in all, a remarkably disgusting display.

[ 05 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Pages

Topic locked