The CanaDoper Café (2012 edition of The great, ongoing Canadian current events and politics thread.)

[Lord_Feldon]

@Spoons

Here in Canada, female humans are equal in all ways to males. As such, abortions based on the ultrasound-discovered sex of the child should not be permitted.

Women who died giving birth to a child they were forced by others to carry against their expressed will aren’t equal.

[Spoons]

@Lord_Feldon

Women who died giving birth to a child they were forced by other to carry against their expressed will aren’t equal.

Thanks for making my point.

[Ibanez]

@Cat_Whisperer

That was my point - as the Minister for the Status of Women, I don’t get why she was voting the way she was. It doesn’t make sense to me for just the reasons you’ve stated - she’s supposed to be on the side of women, not against them.

Having a discussion on when life begins has nothing to do with being against the rights of women, and really that’s all this is. Only in Canada can a politician be in trouble for voting on a motion that asks the question “Can we tallk about it ?”

I don’t for a second believe that because of this some how this is a stepping stone for Conservatives to dictate to women what they can do to their bodies. But considering our government currently warn women who smoke while pregnant about the harm done to the baby ; the worst that I can see coming out of this are warnings that abortions can kill your baby.

They are Conservatives but they aren’t that stupid to try and turn back the clock on abortions.

[Spoons]

Hey, let’s play with a hypothetical.

Shazia, age about 25, is pregnant again. She has two fine daughters, ages 2 and 3, whom she dotes upon. Although the family lives in Canada, her husband is a strict Muslim (as is she), and demands that his wife wear a headscarf. This she does. Except not at work, where he can’t see. Canadian women (which Shazia wants to be) don’t wear headscarves.

But she is pregnant. An ultrasound reveals that she will bear yet another girl. Her husband demands that she have an abortion, as his (and her) culture require male offspring. Abort this baby and let’s try again for a boy. Shazia doesn’t want to have an abortion, but her husband insists. What happens?

Well, I’ll tell you. Shazia was my assistant for some years. One day, she came into work, and said, “I have to leave.” She had been beaten, obviously, and (IMHO) required hospitalization. But she wouldn’t go. “I have to leave; I’m leaving that SOB” she said, and she did. And she walked out. As her boss, I took care of the resignation paperwork.

She gave birth to a healthy young girl, in (I think) Saskatoon. After that, she bounced around. I received Christmas cards for years, all from a different place: Halifax, Montreal, Regina, Calgary, Vancouver. She was always on the move, trying to avoid her husband, who felt that he had some control over her. That was his culture: the husband owns the wife. But not legally in Canada.

Can anyone defend the husband’s position as to the demanded abortion? I sure can’t.

[Mona_Lisa_Simpson]

Actually, Spoons I was thinking about this thread and also about the Tremblay v Daiglecase in 1989. (The Dayglo Abortions are playing on Tuesday, and the first time I heard of them was during the whole Chantal Daigle case, at first I thought that it was a terribly opportunistic band name) I tried with limited recollections to explain that case to someone today, and while I failed on some of the details, I remembered most of it correctly.

IANAL but I have wondered if that case put to rest a lot of the right to life issues in Canada. Would you, or Muffin, or any others want to comment on what the impact of that ruling was, and how it impacts (if at all) the current discussions?

[Leaffan]

@Spoons

I don’t think that’s what Leaffan is getting at. I think what he’s saying (and Leaffan, you can correct me if I’m wrong), is that in some cultures, women will have no say in the matter.

Their husbands will. In some cultures, girl-children are unwanted, while boy-children are. It won’t be the woman’s choice; her husband will make it for her. Because in some cultures, the man makes all the decisions and the woman has no say.

I think that’s what Leaffan is getting at. He doesn’t want to see (and neither do I) a Canadian society where aborting a female fetus solely based on someone’s “culture,” especially where that culture favours male children, is fine.

There can be many reasons for an abortion–a sexual assault, a mistake, a broken condom during an evening of passion, and similar–but aborting a fetus simply because that fetus happens to be female, and “our culture” affords fewer rights to females, is (IMHO) abominable. Here in Canada, female humans are equal in all ways to males. As such, abortions based on the ultrasound-discovered sex of the child should not be permitted.

Have I described your position appropriately, Leaffan?

Thanks. You pretty much nailed it. I have nothing more to add.

[Lord_Feldon]

So if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em. Got it.

[Gorsnak]

I don’t see how restricting abortion rights helps with the misogyny. Surely the solution lies in convincing those cultures to adopt our ideals regarding gender equality - probably a generational task.

[Muffin]

Restricting abortion rights across the board in an attempt to deal with female fetus abortions would fail the Oakes test, particularly with regard to lack of proportionality.

First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair “as little as possible” the right or freedom in question: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, at p. 352. Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of “sufficient importance”.

[Leaffan]

@Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela

This is the government that cancelled the long form census over privacy complaints that didn’t exist. They have used the increase in unreported crime as a justification for building higher security prisons at greater expense to the taxpayer.

I ask again. Where are these new prisons?

[Muffin]

So far, not much once one considers that Kingston is closing. Certainly no major expansion on the scale that was feared. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/09/24/prison-inmates-population-growth.html

The local jails are packed, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the are provincial expansions, for being in an overcrowded shithole will not lead to any good. In this respect, the Feds who make the laws are dumping the expense on the provinces.

I sure hope there is no move toward privately run prisons and jails – that would be bat shit insane based on what goes on in our southern colony.

More to the point, though, is whether or not the increase in jail terms is an appropriate way of dealing with crime. That makes for a good discussion, for there are good points on all sides.

[RickJay]

@Grey

A bloody cabinet minister does not throw her weight behind a bill obviously targeted to taking control of women’s bodies away from them. If she was a simple member of Parliament - fine. It was a free vote and she can vote her conscience which apparently is “abortion should be restricted”. She is however the minister responsible for advancing the status of women and ensuring that rights hard won are not cast aside thanks to an open ended private members bill.

You’re right, the woman should just shut up and do what you tell her.

[Muffin]

If she believes that abortion based on sex should not be permitted, she should table or support a bill on it.

If she believes that abortion in general should be subject to some sort of restriction, she should table or support a bill on it.

If she believes that abortion in general should not be permitted, she should table or support a bill on it.

She did not do any of these things. Instead, she voted in favour of a bill that would open up Daigle, which is entirely irrelevant to her issue of females being disproportionately aborted. In other words, either she is not being straightforward in her reason for voting the way she did, or she does not understand how legislation works.

[Grey]

@RickJay

You’re right, the woman should just shut up and do what you tell her.

Well fuck you. Her position as an officer of the Canadian government in the capacity of cabinet minister who sets policy and direction of her ministry should either abstain or stand against the possibility of rolling back the reproductive rights of women.

[twickster]

@Grey

Well fuck you. Her position as an officer of the Canadian government in the capacity of cabinet minister who sets policy and direction of her ministry should either abstain or stand against the possibility of rolling back the reproductive rights of women.

“Fuck you” is out of line. Dial it back.

twickster, MPSIMS moderator

[Grey]

True, it’s much better form to have it implied that I’m a misogynist.

I apologize for my out of line reply.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@twickster

“Fuck you” is out of line. Dial it back.

twickster, MPSIMS moderator

What ? A US moderator intervention in this normally polite Canadian thread ? Lets stick to the high ground in here guys.

[Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela]

@Leaffan

I ask again. Where are these new prisons?

My goodness, you’re impatient, young Jedi.

The prisons are in limbo, as I’m certain you well know. However, here’s one of my favourite moments, Stockwell Dayannouncing the government’s plan to spend $9 Billion on prisons based on the government’s concern about unreported crime. The video is from August of 2010.

Now, if there has ever been an announcement from the conservatives saying that they’ve changed their minds and that they retract the assertion that unreported crime is on the increase, I would apologize. To the best of my knowledge, they haven’t.

[Leaffan]

@Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela

My goodness, you’re impatient, young Jedi.

The prisons are in limbo, as I’m certain you well know.

Thanks.

The thing is though, that this, and about a half dozen other “mis-truths” are constantly parroted as proof the Current Conservative government is not capable of governing Canada. I read the comments section at the Globe and Mail daily and am embarrassed by the lack of knowledge of seemingly politically astute Canadians. It is mind boggling.

New prisons.
Little Hitler.
No respect for democracy.
Hidden agenda.
Won’t answer public questions.
Anti-gay.
Anti-abortion.
Zionist.
In the pocket of “Big Oil.”
Global warming denier.

There is nothing to back any of this shit up, and frankly I’m growing tired of the same old “if you say it often enough it must be true” bullshit from the left.

Not directed at you specifically, Le Ministre. I’m pretty sure over a couple of beers we could reach a middle ground and remain friends! But it’s tiring.

[RickJay]

@Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela

The prisons are in limbo, as I’m certain you well know.

Unless it’s Limbo, Manitoba, then they have not in fact gone on a prison spending spree. There doesn’t even seem to be an actual plan to go on a prison spending spree.

If they start building private prisons, that’s what will REALLY concern me. New prions are actually overdue; many of our current facilities are old, overcrowded, and insufficient. But when you start introducing private prisons, that’s when things can get weird. The stories we’re seeing come out of the USA where local courts become funneling devices to pump fresh inmates into for-profit prisons are hair-raising.

Of course, there’s more to it than that. Three-strike laws, the war on drugs… I find it absolutely baffling how in many places in the U.S., felons can’t vote even after their sentence is over. (Well, maybe it’s not that baffling, but I won’t go there.)

But I understand Leaffan’s frustration. The Harper government is continually attacked for things it doesn’t actually do, or vague, nebulous and meaningless things like “all the power is centralized in the PMO,” like that wasn’t said of previous governments. Meanwhile, things for which they can legitimately be criticized slip under the radar because everyone’s going nuts over stuff that isn’t happening.