Unsatisfied with the notion that the Liberal Party would be accepting of views that differ from hers on the matter of abortion, Arthur argues that they should simply be barred from running for office under the party banner.
But as is so often the case with Arthur, her self-serving rhetoric hits key logical snags that just underscores the extent to which her pro-abortion ideology has overwhelmed any rational thinking on her point.
For one thing, she falsely equivocates anti-abortion thinking with racism. Contrary to whatever Arthur may think about the issue, abortion remains a live controversy in the minds of Canadians. Public opinion polls have repeatedly demonstrated that Canadians remain largely divided on the topic of abortion.
Meanwhile, Canadians are not divided on the issue of racism: Canadians overwhelmingly reject it.
Whether Arthur likes it or not, any topic regarding a live controversy is a legitimate matter of conscience -- a freedom that is guaranteed to Canadians by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Interestingly, no mention of abortion rights is mentioned in either the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet, in the mind of Arthur, abortion has somehow become a human right while freedom of conscience has not.
Arthur is also an outspoken opponent of the right to freedom of expression, having participated in pushes to run anti-abortion groups off of university campuses. She's a fervent advocate of special institutional privileges for pro-abortion groups.
Last but not least, Arthur does't seem to respect the democratic will of the Canadians who elect the 30 anti-abortion MPs of which she speaks. It's hardly a secret that these Liberal MPs oppose abortion, and their constituents know this.
In other words, the constituents of these MPs knowingly elect anti-abortion MPs. While Arthur may regard this act with hostility, others will remember that it's the right of these Canadians to hold their own opinions on abortion, and elect representatives who reflect that view. While abortion is not necessary a defining voting issue for all of these constituents, those for whom it is will simply vote for other candidates.
What will Joyce Arthur imagine the Liberal Party should do then? Surely the party cannot whip 30 MPs that it would not have.
Moreover, the power of the Liberal leader to apply the party whip to nearly half of his caucus should be considered to be less than decisive.
Of course all of these points would be considered the domain of what most Canadians would consider facts and logic. Yet, when dealing with Joyce Arthur and her cohorts in the pro-abortion movement, it becomes perfectly evident that they are continually entitled to their own facts, their own logic, and, moreover, their own sense of human rights -- one not supported by the Charter or by the Universal Declaration.
Never heard of Joyce Arthur, Bea Arthur - yes, so I googled this Joyce Arthur and...well...oh dear(shakes head)...
ReplyDeleteShe argues that anti-abortion groups should be de-funded because they're political in nature. Meanwhile she argues that pro-abortion groups should be funded because they represent the status quo, and therefore aren't political.
ReplyDeleteShe argues that the status quo isn't political. What a nut!
Can't take a fascist seriously. Like many who grew up with delusion of Marxism the need for only their views.
ReplyDeleteShe would be more comfortable with a dictatorship that her oligarchy have dominion.
Just like those environmentalists that demand we accept the science is settled.
No room for dissenting views in the public space, you are branded stupid or evil.