Martin Rayner apparently has a bone to pick with Joanne over at Joanne's Journey.
Quick! Someone alert the press!
This time, however, it has to do with a post wishing success to Ken Epp, who has reintroduced Leon Benoit's fetal homicide bill.
Of course, considering the fact that Bill C-484 is not only designed to not affect abortion laws, and explicitly excludes abortion from the act in question, it seems Marty can't even bring himself to quote the entire ammendment to the bill.
"Quick though… Just at first glance... even as a non-legal type, what’s quite immediately wrong with the proposed amendment to subsection 238.1(1) of The Criminal Code as conceived by the right honourable Ken Epp:Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth…"
Of course, quoting the entire passage could be a good deal more enlightening; like so:
"Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant..."
Emphasis in boldface mine. It's comforting to know that some things, like Martin Rayner's compulsive intellectual dishonesty, never change.
Update - Looks like someone's mad that I caught him misrepresenting the bill in question.
For the record, Marty: no. I never get tired of picking your idiocy apart. I just wish you'd make it a little more of a challenge.
Folks, feel free to join me in directing a hearty "fuck off, Randy" in the "esteemed" Mr Rayner's general direction.
Update 2 - In the words of Mr Rayner, my "contention that I was being "intellectually dishonest" because I only excerpted the first few lines of the proposed legislation is absurd. Everyone knows what it relates to and what the gist and ostensible purpose of it is. I only did it that way to focus in on the particular wording that I took exception to — specifically, those five words ("at any stage of development")."
Of course we know what the real purpose of the bill is, Marty. It's right there in the section that you omitted from your quotation.
On that note, there's really only two explanations for your omission of the most important portion of the clause in question: you either didn't think people would open the link you provided and read it, or just expected all your readers to be slavish enough enough to stop reading right where you clearly wanted them to (hmmm...).
Martin Rayner just isn't all that hard to figure out. In the words of Donnie Shulzhoffer, this isn't exactly rocket surgery.