Crack that whip:
“I too feel that my rights have been infringed on by members of the party because I am not allowed to speak on certain topics in SO31s. I have had SO31s removed, and I have been told that if I have one on a certain topic, I simply will not be given an SO31. I believe this is infringing on my right as an MP to freedom of speech and to represent my constituents freely,” said Mr. Benoit in the House March 26.
SO31 is Parliament Hill speak for members' statements. MP Mark Warawa, supported by a handful of other dissidents, wanted to talk about his motion condemning sex-selective abortions. Not banning sex selective abortions, or really touching upon other reasons for abortion, just a purely symbolic condemnation of a moral wrong. MPs do this sort of thing all the time. Usually it's on something harmless, like allowing pre-op transsexuals to use the ladies washroom.
The kind of stuff that matters to ordinary Canadians.
According to a somewhat recent survey 92% of Canadians oppose sex-selective abortions. You'd be hard pressed to find approval ratings that high in this country for anything else, including hockey and Timbits. Logically a democratically elected politician would want to jump on that issue. Then again politics isn't about logic, it's about optics and emotions. It isn't that the PM, the cabinet, the opposition or the MSM are terribly keen on sex selective abortion. I suspect that if anyone on the Ottawa cocktail circuit announced that they had aborted their baby because it was a girl, they'd probably be regarded as either crazy or monstrous.
Yet when the issue is brought up in Parliament the choir invisible of Canadian official opinion begins to quiver in outrage. Why? Because abortion is the closest thing modern Canada has to an absolute right. You do not have have an absolute right to your property, which the government may seize or regulate away its value. You may not speak your mind, as that might offend the fragile tulips that are Canada's assorted minorities, never mind that most of those minorities have thicker skins than often supposed. But you do have an unquestioned, one might even say inalienable right, to kill your unborn baby for any damn reason that pleases you. A stray dog has more rights than an eight month old fetus in Canada.
Should our good friends at Planned Parenthood down south get their way apparently born babies will be fair game too. I'm awaiting the day, not too far distant, when educated men and women declare, in perfect earnestness, that perhaps a mother should have the right to kill that crying toddler if he gets too annoying. That only sounds crazy now. Give it time.
Many moons ago it was said that some issues were motherhood issues. To oppose a certain cause or proposal was like opposing motherhood itself. That was before feminism made motherhood controversial. When the maternal instinct is being called into question we can say, with some confidence, that we live in a decadent world. This isn't really a religious thing. You don't have to be the rosary bead counting type to grasp that when a baby is breathing, crying and fully out of the womb it is a human being.
But then we'd have to use the A-word. And that would be controversial.
This is the stock response from the defenders of the abortion status-quo: We don't want to have the kind of social divisions you see in the United States! Why not? Isn't the whole point of a free society the right to disagree and even to disagree vehemently? A strong and energetic debate is proof of a healthy society, not a diseased one. A country where certain issues cannot be discussed, lest they upset the "social balance," is a country where freedom is at risk.
The question that must be demanded of every censor is this: What are you so afraid of? I suspect the answer for much of the Canadian Establishment is that their assumptions, for the first time in a long time, will be questioned. It's a scrutiny they know they can't survive. And Stephen Harper is aiding and abetting them all the way.
"when a baby is breathing, crying and fully out of the womb it is a human being."
Is it? My dog is no less human than an infant and I'm not granting rights to it. I don't know where to place the cutoff but it's not the prerogative of the pro-choice side to prove it's inside the mother. It's the anti-choicers prerogative to place it at birth. As ever, all anti-choice arguments boil down to emotional reactions and 'gut feeling'.
Posted by: Cytotoxic | Monday, April 08, 2013 at 11:34 AM
"It's not the prerogative of the pro-choice side to prove it's inside the mother."
If that statement is true, then there is no, and there was never a 'cutoff' in the mind of the pro-choice 'side'. Since labelling your opponents emotional bigots is an effective way to silence the required adult discussion about this, we'll never know.
Posted by: Mikeg81 | Tuesday, April 09, 2013 at 12:39 PM
"My dog is no less human than an infant"
What kind of idiocy is this? Of course a human infant is infinitely more human than a dog. Only a monster would think otherwise.
Posted by: The Great Waldo Pepper | Wednesday, April 10, 2013 at 06:42 PM
But the situation isn't one of 'free debate'. The situation is that those who debate, on both sides, want one conclusion and that conclusion to be made into law. That's why Harper doesn't want the subject debated in parliament because parliament exists to make conclusions from a debate and transform that conclusion into a law.
As for the comment about a 'dog being a human', that's biological and moral nonsense. Both are living beings but beyond that, there is no comparison.
And since when does a human have the ultimate authority to 'grant rights' to another human? We humans are born with 'natural rights' and I think that the statement of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' expresses those natural rights. No human has authority over natural rights.
Posted by: ETAB | Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 07:48 AM
ETAB
Parliament doesn't always have to function as a dictatorship of the majority party. The issue could be raised as a private member's bill with an accompanying free vote. If the poll is accurate, there is a clear majority across all party lines, that if translated into legislation could amend current law for example, to restrict, de-fund, or outlaw third trimester and sex-determined abortions.
When the eco-feminist media witches mount their brooms and circle the PM all he has to say is that he takes no position other than to free-up his party members to vote according to their consciences. He's not supposed to be their eunuch is he?
Posted by: John Chittick | Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 01:32 PM
“both sides, want one conclusion and that conclusion to be made into law”
That’s exactly why this is such a political third rail. Because we have the most extreme position on abortion in the world (we have no law at all) therefore any new law will infuriate both sides ...it will be too much new law for one side or not enough for the other.
Wente had good advice for PMSH
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/margaret-wente-advice-to-mr-harper-muzzle-those-mps/article10749814/
Posted by: nomdeblog | Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 02:53 PM