"Please pay no attention to the facts behind the curtain"
As the rescheduled debate regarding Bill C-484 (the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill) approaches, there seems to be a last-minute panic spreading through the pro-abortion lobby that are so determined to defeat the bill, as they seem to recognize that their talking points simply aren't up to snuff.
In the latest attempt to convince people to oppose the bill, the argument seems to be that the bill would somehow result in convicted offenders serving shorter sentences.
Unfortunately for the pro-abortion lobby, however, this particular assertion simply isn't true.
In the most bizarre example of the counter-factual nonsense being forwarded one particular blogger suggests that a recent suggestion by Conservative MP Tom Lukiwiski that consecutive sentencing be reinstituted alongside Bill C-484 as evidence that the bill isn't really about justice, and is merely an attempt to recriminalize abortion (despite the fact that the bill only applies to criminal offenses, and doesn't introduce any new crimes).
But do these people really understand the difference between consecutive sentencing and concurrent sentencing? Obviously not.
Even under concurrent sentencing, it turns out that this latest talking point from the pro-abortion lobby turns out to be flagrantly false. The Public Safety Canada website turns out to be very educational.
Under Bill C-484, the crown would retain the option of charging an offender separately for the crime committed against a pregnant woman and the harm done to her unborn child.
Under concurrent sentencing, convicted offenders serve both sentences at the same time. However, if sentenced for two offenses on which they were tried separately, the second sentence doesn't take effect until the date of the conviction.
The case study offers an example of an offender convicted for one offense, receiving a three-year sentence, then is convicted of another offense two years later, extending their sentence thusly:
As such in this particular case the offender would wind up serving a five-year sentence as opposed to merely a three-year sentence:
Note that this is a longer, not shorter, sentence.
In the case, specifically, of consecutive sentencing, the case turns out much differently:
The second sentence doesn't begin until after the first has expired, guaranteeing a much longer sentence regardless of how soon the offender was tried and convicted:
As such, not only is the most recent talking point from the pro-abortion lobby counter-factual, it's also a phantom of straw man arguments from days gone by, when it was suggested that instituting consecutive sentencing would increase support for capital punishment, when all the evidence suggests that consecutive sentencing decreases support for capital punishment.
But thus is the Orwellian logic of the Canadian pro-abortion lobby. Why would Bill C-484 result in shorter sentences for convicted offenders? Because the pro-abortion lobby says so, regardless of whether or not that's actually true.
Just as with the rather peculiar claim that the suggestion that Canada institute consecutive sentencing provisions in the criminal code is somehow proof that Bill C-484 is about abortion rather than justice, or with claims that pregnant women in the US have been charged under fetal homicide acts despite the fact that this has never happened. Why is it so? Because they say so.
It's rather characteristic of those who, in true Orwellian fashion, bank on the ignorance of the public.
Hopefully, the Canadian public will turn out to be a good deal less ignorant than the pro-abortion lobby is banking on.