And he won't back down
With an election call seemingly only days away and spurious opposition to Bill C-484 -- the Unborn Victirms of Crime bill -- stubbornly refusing to abate, the Conservative government is moving to try to disperse what it seems to fear is a coming storm.
"We've heard criticism from across the country, including representatives from the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill, as it is presently drafted, could be interpreted as instilling fetal rights," announced Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. "Our government will not reopen the debate on abortion."
Bill C-484 would, indeed, introduce fetal rights. However, because of the fact that the bill contains an explicit clause forbidding its use in cases of abortion or against any act (of commission or omission) of the mother, those rights would not supercede a preggnant woman's right to choose an abortion. The fetal reights recognized by Bill C-484 would begin and end with an unborn child's right to be protected from crime.
Naturally, the fundamentally intellectually-dishonest pro-abortion lobby refuses to acknowledge this.
Nicholson has promised new legislation that would require judges to consider a woman's pregnancy during the course of sentencing. Right now judges can, and often do, but law still cannot recognize the tendency of many offenders -- such as Jared Baker and Gary Bourgeois -- to target unborn children intentionally.
Fortunately, however, Bill C-484 is not a government bill. Rather, it's Elk Island MP Ken Epp's private member's bill. He isn't obligated to withdraw it, and it's the last thing he plans to do.
"I definitely will not be withdrawing my bill," Epp announced. "They're quite different. I don't intend to let up."
If Nicholson is looking for an easy way out, he isn't going to find it. His government will either have to stay the course with Bill C-484 and endure the (actually very necessary) debate over abortion, or defeat its own member's bill, as it did with Leon Benoit's Bill C-291.
Ken Epp is well within his rights to stand his ground will Bill C-484 and not allow the government to introduce a watered-down bill protecting the unborn. This bill has passed two readings already -- in a parliament devoid of ideologically-grounded party discipline, this bill very much could pass.
Yet the Conservative government seems to be intent on ducking the abortion/fetal rights debate in the name of winning an election it isn't supposed to be calling in the first place.
Fortunately, Ken Epp isn't backing down. Nor are the other supporters of Bill C-484.
Showing posts with label Ken Epp. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ken Epp. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Nothing to Say About a Lot
Dear Ken Epp,
Aw, hell. I'm just going to go ahead and call you Ken.
By now you may or may not have read the letter Lulu, the perpetually-crazed matriarch of the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink, wrote to you about Bill C-484.
And I'm imagining that if that is the case then right about now, you and I must be thinking approximately the same thing.
How someone could build their entire objection to the Bill in question on a refusal to listen and somehow actually be proud of that really is almost inconceivable to the rational mind.
But, then again, these aren't rational minds we're dealing with, are we?
After all, the "Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's false claims about Bill C-484". Is a fairly stolid rebuttal of the misinformation the pro-abortion lobby is using to promote their extreme agenda in regards to the Unborn Victims of Crime Act.
And their response to it is precisely what? "Lalalalalalala... I can't hear yooooouuuu". If one couldn't rest assured they were dealing with grown adults as opposed to pre-schoolers, one would wonder.
After all, it's remarkable how so fundamental fact as the fact that Bill C-484 contains an extremely explicit clause stipulating that the Bill may not be applied to abortion, or any other act (of commission or omission) by the mother is entirely ignored by these people.
Yet they somehow manage to produce such fallacious bombshells as "You can commission and release all the official documentation in the world, Ken, but it will never change the fact that C-484 is a back door attempt to recriminalize abortion in Canada."
Apparently, despite the fact that the legislation expressly forbids the use of the bill as such, Bill C-484 is "a back door attempt to recriminalze abortion". And nothing changes that. Apparently, not even the facts.
How can one deal with such people, Ken? Eventually, one has to realize that you cannot deal honestly with people incapable of honesty, and cannot deal logically with people incapable of logic.
Unfortunately, however, your political opposition is willing to do so.
Presumably, mr Dion has read the legislation in question, and understands fully that the legislation explicitly stiupulates that it may not be used in cases where abortion is involved. Yet, he wants to take it as a golden opportunity to rally Canada's pro-abortion lobby to his side, and emulating Paul Martin's failed 2006 election gambit in the process.
Meanwhile, he's overlooking an important fact:
Numerous members of his caucus voted in favour of Bill C-484.
Will he ask Raymond Bonin to publicly discuss his views on abortion? How about Derek Lee? Paul Steckle? How about the star of the Liberal attempts to smear Brian Mulroney, Paul Szabo? Or any of the other Liberal MPs who voted in favour of BIll C-484?
I'm not holding my breath on that one, Ken. Somehow, I doubt you're holding yours, either.
Once again, Ken, these are facts. Just as the "fact" that Bill C-484 is a backdoor attack on abortion "rights". Despite the fact that the bill itself forbids its usage as such.
It's an incredible age we're living in, I think -- an age where rhetoric formulated in express willful ignorance of facts has somehow become fact, and the facts themselves apparently something else.
All the same, Ken, we really can't let the bastards get us down. We have to remember what is at stake.
See, Ken, people like Lulu and her cohorts have long ago convinced themselves they're entitled to ideological dominance on the topic of abortion -- so much so to the extent that they honestly believe that no one who disagrees with them should be allowed to voice their opinion on the matter.
That's what the opposition to Bill C-484 is about. It isn't about abortion -- it's about trying to prevent anyone who doesn't agree with the extreme agenda of the pro-abortion lobby doesn't even dream of attempting to even discuss the matter, let alone ever try to act according to their convictions -- in this case, that those who murder unborn children in the course of murdering or assaulting their mothers should be punished for it.
A wondrous age, indeed, Ken.
But not all is lost. After all, polls have consistently indiciated that the majority of Canadians favour protection for unborn life. So long as that remains a fact -- an actual, honest-to-god fact, rather than rhetoric cavorting as fact -- an end-run around the extremists and around the politicians who are so eager to pander to them will remain possible.
Which is precisely what you have to do, Ken. But your work is cut out for you.
It will be hard work, but stay the course Ken.
Yours in solidarity,
-Patrick Ross
Aw, hell. I'm just going to go ahead and call you Ken.
By now you may or may not have read the letter Lulu, the perpetually-crazed matriarch of the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink, wrote to you about Bill C-484.
And I'm imagining that if that is the case then right about now, you and I must be thinking approximately the same thing.
How someone could build their entire objection to the Bill in question on a refusal to listen and somehow actually be proud of that really is almost inconceivable to the rational mind.
But, then again, these aren't rational minds we're dealing with, are we?
After all, the "Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's false claims about Bill C-484". Is a fairly stolid rebuttal of the misinformation the pro-abortion lobby is using to promote their extreme agenda in regards to the Unborn Victims of Crime Act.
And their response to it is precisely what? "Lalalalalalala... I can't hear yooooouuuu". If one couldn't rest assured they were dealing with grown adults as opposed to pre-schoolers, one would wonder.
After all, it's remarkable how so fundamental fact as the fact that Bill C-484 contains an extremely explicit clause stipulating that the Bill may not be applied to abortion, or any other act (of commission or omission) by the mother is entirely ignored by these people.
Yet they somehow manage to produce such fallacious bombshells as "You can commission and release all the official documentation in the world, Ken, but it will never change the fact that C-484 is a back door attempt to recriminalize abortion in Canada."
Apparently, despite the fact that the legislation expressly forbids the use of the bill as such, Bill C-484 is "a back door attempt to recriminalze abortion". And nothing changes that. Apparently, not even the facts.
How can one deal with such people, Ken? Eventually, one has to realize that you cannot deal honestly with people incapable of honesty, and cannot deal logically with people incapable of logic.
Unfortunately, however, your political opposition is willing to do so.
Presumably, mr Dion has read the legislation in question, and understands fully that the legislation explicitly stiupulates that it may not be used in cases where abortion is involved. Yet, he wants to take it as a golden opportunity to rally Canada's pro-abortion lobby to his side, and emulating Paul Martin's failed 2006 election gambit in the process.
Meanwhile, he's overlooking an important fact:
Numerous members of his caucus voted in favour of Bill C-484.
Will he ask Raymond Bonin to publicly discuss his views on abortion? How about Derek Lee? Paul Steckle? How about the star of the Liberal attempts to smear Brian Mulroney, Paul Szabo? Or any of the other Liberal MPs who voted in favour of BIll C-484?
I'm not holding my breath on that one, Ken. Somehow, I doubt you're holding yours, either.
Once again, Ken, these are facts. Just as the "fact" that Bill C-484 is a backdoor attack on abortion "rights". Despite the fact that the bill itself forbids its usage as such.
It's an incredible age we're living in, I think -- an age where rhetoric formulated in express willful ignorance of facts has somehow become fact, and the facts themselves apparently something else.
All the same, Ken, we really can't let the bastards get us down. We have to remember what is at stake.
See, Ken, people like Lulu and her cohorts have long ago convinced themselves they're entitled to ideological dominance on the topic of abortion -- so much so to the extent that they honestly believe that no one who disagrees with them should be allowed to voice their opinion on the matter.
That's what the opposition to Bill C-484 is about. It isn't about abortion -- it's about trying to prevent anyone who doesn't agree with the extreme agenda of the pro-abortion lobby doesn't even dream of attempting to even discuss the matter, let alone ever try to act according to their convictions -- in this case, that those who murder unborn children in the course of murdering or assaulting their mothers should be punished for it.
A wondrous age, indeed, Ken.
But not all is lost. After all, polls have consistently indiciated that the majority of Canadians favour protection for unborn life. So long as that remains a fact -- an actual, honest-to-god fact, rather than rhetoric cavorting as fact -- an end-run around the extremists and around the politicians who are so eager to pander to them will remain possible.
Which is precisely what you have to do, Ken. But your work is cut out for you.
It will be hard work, but stay the course Ken.
Yours in solidarity,
-Patrick Ross
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Joyce Arthur and the Yellow Brick Road
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada head longs for the good ol' days in Oz
Over the past several months, one has heard the litany of complaints over Edmonton-Sherwood Park MP Ken Epp's private members' bill, Bill C-484 -- the Unborn Victims of Crime bill.
According to Canada's pro-abortion lobby, the bill is an outrage -- nothing but a back-door "attack" on women's abortion rights.
Unfortunately for Joyce Arthur and the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, many opponents of the bill have reached this conclusion by intentional misreadings of the bill in question -- often refusing to acknowledge the existence of entire passages of the bill that don't fit the narrative they're so desperate to push.
Like many demagogues, Arthur has often pushed this particular narrative by promoting it in the places where it will receive the least possible scrutiny. What all too often emerges is a portrait of the pro-abortion lobby's fantasy version of the legislation, instead of the real deal.
"It’s very sneaky," says Arthur. "[Epp] is trying to rewrite the Criminal Code definition and allow a fetus to be treated as a person."
Which, of course, would be just awful -- that is, if you're a member of the pro-abortion lobby (more on this shortly).
When one examines the entirety of Arthur's complaints -- regarding both the bill and the government -- what quickly emerges is a portrait of an ideologically-constructed fantasy world in which Arthur, and those who share her opinions, are entitle to force their views on other people, often to the detriment of those she was supposed to be trying to help in the first place.
One particular point Arthur is stewing over deals with recent changes to Status of Women Canada -- transforming the organization from one that engages in lobbying, advocacy and research to one that provides funding to actual services for women in their community.
Arthur insists that the move was a blow to women's equality, and was intended as such -- despite the fact that the moves were largely managerial in nature. For example, the closing of a number of regional offices -- rendered less necessary by the access granted through the organization's website -- freed up $5 million for community-level services and support for women.
Arthur's objection to this really demonstrates a purely ideological view of how women's equality can be achieved, and what that represents.
To individuals like Joyce Arthur, women's equality demands that women be treated as equal in all respects, even in situations where they may not be. Certainly, women should be considered equal in all formal aspects -- and according to the letter of the law, they are.
But there's a difference between legal equality and practical equality. The test case for this always seems to be a hiring process wherein a man and a woman are competing for the same job. The principle of formal equality insists that, the two being equal in practical respects -- skills, capabilities and experience applicable to the job, the man should not be hired over the woman by simple virtue of being a man (nor should the woman be hired over the man by simple virtue of being a woman; this should go without saying, but all too often, is left unsaid).
However, if the man's skills, capabilities and experience exceeds the woman's, it should absolutely not be considered discriminatory to hire the man over the woman.
What ultimately emerges is a rather simple fact: legal equality is not necessarily practical equality.
The funding changes to the Status of Women that Joyce Arthur opposes, meanwhile, provide for many such things as job and skills training for women, to make them more competitive in the job market. If one favours practical equality between men and women, this is something they should certainly support.
If one favours legal equality over practical equality -- or believes that a woman's qualifications shouldn't have to match or exceed that of a man's in order to be hired over him -- than one would certainly oppose the changes. But it could be considered quite ironic that a group so preoccupied with equality would want to advance such a comparatively hollow definition of the concept.
They also seem to have a fairy-tale imagination for what such equality would mean for women -- that it would represent some sort of magical panacea for women, protecting them from all forms of violence so effectively that no further legislation would ever be necessary to help protect them.
"Ensuring women’s equality will go a long way to making them more safe," Arthur insists. "If the woman is safe, however we do that—through social supports or whatever—then the fetus is going to be safe too."
But Arthur reserves her finest vintage of rhetoric for espousing the threat that recognizing any fetal rights would allegedly pose to women's rights (actually a threat to Arthur's ideologically-driven world view).
"The bill basically gives fetuses a form of personhood," says Arthur. "It’s giving them a separate status apart from the mother, and the moment you do that, whatever else you say about that, you are setting a very dangerous precedent."
Dangerous for the pro-abortion lobby, perhaps. The distinct challenge posed by the concept that unborn children should have rights has been detailed elsewhere, but reiteration is necessary.
The recognition of the scientific fact that an unborn child -- or fetus, as preferred by the pro-abortion lobby -- very much is human life represents a devastating threat to the pro-abortion lobby's characterization as "nothing more than a clump of cells".
If one recognizes an unborn child as human life -- as more and more people are -- it becomes increasingly apparent that Canadian law needs to put measures in place to help protect it.
Furthermore, the implications of the pro-abortion lobby's attempts to dehumanize unborn children become more and more apparent, as the organization's own rhetoric begins to undermine it. The house of cards built on the fundamental principle that that unborn children are not human quickly collapses.
Of course, there are, as Arthur herself notes, portions of the criminal code that explicitly define an unborn child as "not a person". This is established both by Section 223 (1) of the Canadian Criminal Code, wherein it reads:
Unfortunately, Arthur does have some allies in her ideologically-driven quest to deny unborn children what is indisputably already theirs by virtue of simple biology.
"In my almost 40 years in the women’s movement," said former NDP leader Alexa McDonough. "I have never had a single woman, a single advocate, a single representative of a single organization or an individual family member come to me and say this is a law they would like to see implemented."
Of course, it's unlikely that McDonough would tolerate her staff allowing any woman who did favour such a move through the front door. The hostile treatment by left-wing women's groups of organizations such as REAL women, or of individuals such as Mary Talbot -- the mother of the slain Olivia Talbot and grandmother of Lane Talbot Jr, and supports Bill C-484 -- is evidence enough of that.
The more one examines Joyce Arthur, the more sorry one feels for what the so-called "women's movement" has become. All too often, an extremely exclusive club of like-minded individuals. As some individuals have noted, membership in the so-called "women's movement" has all too often become more about what politics one believes in than what gender they belong to.
But that's another story for another time.
The women's movement has foresworn its time-honoured legacy of resisting social injustice. The same lack of personhood that was once vehemently rejected as it regarded women is now equally vehemently embraced as it regards unborn children.
And all the while, Joyce Arthur clicks her ruby slippers together telling herself "there's no place like home, there's no place like home". Sadly, not even the Wizard of Oz can give individuals like Arthur the courage to face legitimate challenges to her ideology, the intelligence to recognize they need to do so -- in cooperation with of all the people who favour legalized abortion (this author included) -- or heart enough to care.
Better to live in an Oz-like fantasy world.
Over the past several months, one has heard the litany of complaints over Edmonton-Sherwood Park MP Ken Epp's private members' bill, Bill C-484 -- the Unborn Victims of Crime bill.
According to Canada's pro-abortion lobby, the bill is an outrage -- nothing but a back-door "attack" on women's abortion rights.
Unfortunately for Joyce Arthur and the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, many opponents of the bill have reached this conclusion by intentional misreadings of the bill in question -- often refusing to acknowledge the existence of entire passages of the bill that don't fit the narrative they're so desperate to push.
Like many demagogues, Arthur has often pushed this particular narrative by promoting it in the places where it will receive the least possible scrutiny. What all too often emerges is a portrait of the pro-abortion lobby's fantasy version of the legislation, instead of the real deal.
"It’s very sneaky," says Arthur. "[Epp] is trying to rewrite the Criminal Code definition and allow a fetus to be treated as a person."
Which, of course, would be just awful -- that is, if you're a member of the pro-abortion lobby (more on this shortly).
When one examines the entirety of Arthur's complaints -- regarding both the bill and the government -- what quickly emerges is a portrait of an ideologically-constructed fantasy world in which Arthur, and those who share her opinions, are entitle to force their views on other people, often to the detriment of those she was supposed to be trying to help in the first place.
One particular point Arthur is stewing over deals with recent changes to Status of Women Canada -- transforming the organization from one that engages in lobbying, advocacy and research to one that provides funding to actual services for women in their community.
Arthur insists that the move was a blow to women's equality, and was intended as such -- despite the fact that the moves were largely managerial in nature. For example, the closing of a number of regional offices -- rendered less necessary by the access granted through the organization's website -- freed up $5 million for community-level services and support for women.
Arthur's objection to this really demonstrates a purely ideological view of how women's equality can be achieved, and what that represents.
To individuals like Joyce Arthur, women's equality demands that women be treated as equal in all respects, even in situations where they may not be. Certainly, women should be considered equal in all formal aspects -- and according to the letter of the law, they are.
But there's a difference between legal equality and practical equality. The test case for this always seems to be a hiring process wherein a man and a woman are competing for the same job. The principle of formal equality insists that, the two being equal in practical respects -- skills, capabilities and experience applicable to the job, the man should not be hired over the woman by simple virtue of being a man (nor should the woman be hired over the man by simple virtue of being a woman; this should go without saying, but all too often, is left unsaid).
However, if the man's skills, capabilities and experience exceeds the woman's, it should absolutely not be considered discriminatory to hire the man over the woman.
What ultimately emerges is a rather simple fact: legal equality is not necessarily practical equality.
The funding changes to the Status of Women that Joyce Arthur opposes, meanwhile, provide for many such things as job and skills training for women, to make them more competitive in the job market. If one favours practical equality between men and women, this is something they should certainly support.
If one favours legal equality over practical equality -- or believes that a woman's qualifications shouldn't have to match or exceed that of a man's in order to be hired over him -- than one would certainly oppose the changes. But it could be considered quite ironic that a group so preoccupied with equality would want to advance such a comparatively hollow definition of the concept.
They also seem to have a fairy-tale imagination for what such equality would mean for women -- that it would represent some sort of magical panacea for women, protecting them from all forms of violence so effectively that no further legislation would ever be necessary to help protect them.
"Ensuring women’s equality will go a long way to making them more safe," Arthur insists. "If the woman is safe, however we do that—through social supports or whatever—then the fetus is going to be safe too."
But Arthur reserves her finest vintage of rhetoric for espousing the threat that recognizing any fetal rights would allegedly pose to women's rights (actually a threat to Arthur's ideologically-driven world view).
"The bill basically gives fetuses a form of personhood," says Arthur. "It’s giving them a separate status apart from the mother, and the moment you do that, whatever else you say about that, you are setting a very dangerous precedent."
Dangerous for the pro-abortion lobby, perhaps. The distinct challenge posed by the concept that unborn children should have rights has been detailed elsewhere, but reiteration is necessary.
The recognition of the scientific fact that an unborn child -- or fetus, as preferred by the pro-abortion lobby -- very much is human life represents a devastating threat to the pro-abortion lobby's characterization as "nothing more than a clump of cells".
If one recognizes an unborn child as human life -- as more and more people are -- it becomes increasingly apparent that Canadian law needs to put measures in place to help protect it.
Furthermore, the implications of the pro-abortion lobby's attempts to dehumanize unborn children become more and more apparent, as the organization's own rhetoric begins to undermine it. The house of cards built on the fundamental principle that that unborn children are not human quickly collapses.
Of course, there are, as Arthur herself notes, portions of the criminal code that explicitly define an unborn child as "not a person". This is established both by Section 223 (1) of the Canadian Criminal Code, wherein it reads:
"When child becomes human beingThen again, Canadian law once failed to recognize women and ethnic minorities as people, too. The explicit and counter-scientific establishment of unborn children as not human beings is no less an injustice, but unfortunately for the pro-abortion lobby, it's an injustice they're interested in perpetuating, not resisting.
223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed."
Unfortunately, Arthur does have some allies in her ideologically-driven quest to deny unborn children what is indisputably already theirs by virtue of simple biology.
"In my almost 40 years in the women’s movement," said former NDP leader Alexa McDonough. "I have never had a single woman, a single advocate, a single representative of a single organization or an individual family member come to me and say this is a law they would like to see implemented."
Of course, it's unlikely that McDonough would tolerate her staff allowing any woman who did favour such a move through the front door. The hostile treatment by left-wing women's groups of organizations such as REAL women, or of individuals such as Mary Talbot -- the mother of the slain Olivia Talbot and grandmother of Lane Talbot Jr, and supports Bill C-484 -- is evidence enough of that.
The more one examines Joyce Arthur, the more sorry one feels for what the so-called "women's movement" has become. All too often, an extremely exclusive club of like-minded individuals. As some individuals have noted, membership in the so-called "women's movement" has all too often become more about what politics one believes in than what gender they belong to.
But that's another story for another time.
The women's movement has foresworn its time-honoured legacy of resisting social injustice. The same lack of personhood that was once vehemently rejected as it regarded women is now equally vehemently embraced as it regards unborn children.
And all the while, Joyce Arthur clicks her ruby slippers together telling herself "there's no place like home, there's no place like home". Sadly, not even the Wizard of Oz can give individuals like Arthur the courage to face legitimate challenges to her ideology, the intelligence to recognize they need to do so -- in cooperation with of all the people who favour legalized abortion (this author included) -- or heart enough to care.
Better to live in an Oz-like fantasy world.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Like It or Not, Unborn Victims Of Crime Are Victims
Mary Talbot offers even more reason to support Bill C-484
If one were to believe the pro-abortion lobby, Bill C-484 is simply a "back-door" attempt to re-criminalize abortion.
They've gone to protracted lengths to try and argue this, including arguing that, because an unborn child (or fetus, as they prefer) is not legally a person, it cannot be considered a victim. Yet, they seem to ignore the fact that, in the course of a crime, a fetus an be targeted quite deliberately.
Take, for example, the case of Olivia Talbot, an Edmonton-area woman who was murdered by a friend of hers who not only murdered her, but also deliberately targeted Lane Talbot Jr, her already-named-yet-unborn child, "to get the baby," as he testified at his trial.
Yet, despite the fact that one of the intended targets of the murder was the unborn child, the pro-abortion lobby wants to insist that it can't possibly be the victim.
Mary Talbot, Olivia's mother and Lane's grandmother, knows differently -- and she wants to help the criminal justice system recognize that victimizations of the unborn should be addressed. "[Ken Epp] is an MP who is doing something to fight criminal violence, to help protect women and babies, to change the law so that no other grandmother in the future has to go through the grief and insult of being told that the murder of her grandson - that the murder of my darling Olivia's beloved baby, Lane Jr. -- doesn't even register a blip in our criminal justice system."
Mary Talbot isn't alone, either. Consider the case of Gary Bourgeois, a 46-year-old man who slipped his girlfriend a toxic drug through her vagina.
She miscarried her child.
Bourgeois admitted in court that the woman was never his target. His crime was directed at his girlfriend's unborn child. "Many men face an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, and the message must be clear that they can't take into their hands the destiny of their girlfriends or their babies," said prosecutor Anne Gauvin.
While Gauvin argued that the sentence fit the crime -- many would disagree -- the Bourgeois case, in particular, was a case in which the offender may have known he was going to go to jail, but knew that he wouldn't go to jail for murder.
If it had, he may have considered his premeditated act.
Bourgeois murdered his unborn child. But he was merely charged with aggravated assault and administering a toxic substance and sentenced to a grand total of one year in prison.
The punishment does not fit the crime. While the law may not permit this charge to be laid, the crime was murder.
The pro-abortion lobby argues that the proper way to address situations like this would be to toughen penalties for domestic assault. But if individuals like Bourgeois had to worry about facing charges related to crimes against two victims, the deterrent would be that much stronger.
What, after all, would make a stronger deterrent: a few extra years in jail for crimes against a single victim? Or (providing that consecutive sentencing is instituted) 26 years for crimes against two victims?
This isn't rocket surgery.
Preventing an assault against an unborn child would, by definition, also deter crimes from being perpetrated against the mother.
So for the pro-abortion lobby to argue that Bill C-484 provides no protection to women is nothing more or less than a pure logical fallacy. This is another one of their arguments, and yet another one that they can't support with any evidence.
"It’s bad enough that people would attack a woman, or anybody, but a pregnant woman? They’re so vulnerable," Mary Talbot said. "If it’s known out there that this is even worse, then maybe people will stop and think before they do such stupid, insane things."
So long as it prevents the murder of even a single unborn child, Bill C-484 will have been a success.
As for the pro-abortion lobby? Let them keep forgetting who the victims of these crimes are. 72% of Canadians know better.
If one were to believe the pro-abortion lobby, Bill C-484 is simply a "back-door" attempt to re-criminalize abortion.
They've gone to protracted lengths to try and argue this, including arguing that, because an unborn child (or fetus, as they prefer) is not legally a person, it cannot be considered a victim. Yet, they seem to ignore the fact that, in the course of a crime, a fetus an be targeted quite deliberately.
Take, for example, the case of Olivia Talbot, an Edmonton-area woman who was murdered by a friend of hers who not only murdered her, but also deliberately targeted Lane Talbot Jr, her already-named-yet-unborn child, "to get the baby," as he testified at his trial.
Yet, despite the fact that one of the intended targets of the murder was the unborn child, the pro-abortion lobby wants to insist that it can't possibly be the victim.
Mary Talbot, Olivia's mother and Lane's grandmother, knows differently -- and she wants to help the criminal justice system recognize that victimizations of the unborn should be addressed. "[Ken Epp] is an MP who is doing something to fight criminal violence, to help protect women and babies, to change the law so that no other grandmother in the future has to go through the grief and insult of being told that the murder of her grandson - that the murder of my darling Olivia's beloved baby, Lane Jr. -- doesn't even register a blip in our criminal justice system."Mary Talbot isn't alone, either. Consider the case of Gary Bourgeois, a 46-year-old man who slipped his girlfriend a toxic drug through her vagina.
She miscarried her child.
Bourgeois admitted in court that the woman was never his target. His crime was directed at his girlfriend's unborn child. "Many men face an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, and the message must be clear that they can't take into their hands the destiny of their girlfriends or their babies," said prosecutor Anne Gauvin.
While Gauvin argued that the sentence fit the crime -- many would disagree -- the Bourgeois case, in particular, was a case in which the offender may have known he was going to go to jail, but knew that he wouldn't go to jail for murder.
If it had, he may have considered his premeditated act.
Bourgeois murdered his unborn child. But he was merely charged with aggravated assault and administering a toxic substance and sentenced to a grand total of one year in prison.
The punishment does not fit the crime. While the law may not permit this charge to be laid, the crime was murder.
The pro-abortion lobby argues that the proper way to address situations like this would be to toughen penalties for domestic assault. But if individuals like Bourgeois had to worry about facing charges related to crimes against two victims, the deterrent would be that much stronger.
What, after all, would make a stronger deterrent: a few extra years in jail for crimes against a single victim? Or (providing that consecutive sentencing is instituted) 26 years for crimes against two victims?
This isn't rocket surgery.
Preventing an assault against an unborn child would, by definition, also deter crimes from being perpetrated against the mother.
So for the pro-abortion lobby to argue that Bill C-484 provides no protection to women is nothing more or less than a pure logical fallacy. This is another one of their arguments, and yet another one that they can't support with any evidence.
"It’s bad enough that people would attack a woman, or anybody, but a pregnant woman? They’re so vulnerable," Mary Talbot said. "If it’s known out there that this is even worse, then maybe people will stop and think before they do such stupid, insane things."
So long as it prevents the murder of even a single unborn child, Bill C-484 will have been a success.
As for the pro-abortion lobby? Let them keep forgetting who the victims of these crimes are. 72% of Canadians know better.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
I Just Love it When He Gets All Dishonest Like That...
Sniff...
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.
Of course, quoting the entire passage could be a good deal more enlightening; like so:
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.
Sigh.
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.
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.
Sigh.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)