ARCC defends infanticide law
For decades, it has been a staple argument of the Canadian pro-abortion lobby when resisting any idea that the unborn may have rights: the idea that unborn children are not legally considered "human beings" until they have emerged alive from the birth canal.
Now, in the horrific case of Katrina Effert, the pro-abortion lobby seems to have dispensed even with that argument.
In 2005, Effert, then aged 19, gave birth to a baby boy in the bathroom of her parents' home. She promptly strangled the child with her underwear and threw it over a fence into her neighbour's yard.
The boy never had a name.
In a truly disturbing ruling, Justice Joanne Veil referred to Canada's lack of abortion laws, and decided that "while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childrbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support."
She issued a three-year suspended sentence for infanticide. Effert will not walk entirely free, but will not do any further jail time.
Many people are outraged at this decision, and justifiably so. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, however, have reacted to the increasing numbers of wary eyes being cast toward Canada's lack of abortion law by suggesting there are good reasons for infanticide to be considered a lesser crime than murder.
As is typical of the pro-abortion lobby, they're refusing to answer any questions about what those reasons might be.
In light of the ARCC's dedication to the law defining legal personhood in Canada -- they cite it in their talking points opposing the Unborn Victims of Crime Act -- one would suspect that the ARCC should admit that using Canada's abortion law status quo to justify this decision is deeply troubling.
Instead, they're pushing for more, and advancing an argument that recently-born children should be considered lesser persons, with lesser rights, than those not-so-recently born.
It isn't enough for them that the unborn have no rights. They now seem bound and determined to justify extending fewer rights to those who already meet the law's ill-conceived definition of legal human personhood.
The fact that the infanticide scenario only strengthens many of the arguments of the anti-abortion lobby seems entirely lost on the ARCC. Perhaps deliberately.
If the pro-abortion lobby refuses to accept adoption as an alternative to abortion, perhaps they would at least accept adoption as an alternative to murder? Frighteningly, apparently not.
There's little question that Katrina Effert was in a deeply disturbed state of mind following this childbirth, and that her actions clearly reflect that. In light of this, even if Effert doesn't belong in prison -- she likely doesn't -- she should have been remanded for the necessary psychiatric care, provided she hasn't received it already.
Using Canada's lack of an abortion law to justify treating her unnamed baby boy as less worthy of justice, however, is a decision that absolutely cannot be justified. That the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada would fail to recognize this simply reveals them for what they truly are: manical pro-abortion zealots.
Showing posts with label ARCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ARCC. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Friday, August 27, 2010
How the Canadian Left Waged Inception Against the Public
In Inception, Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an extractor. With the use of specialized equipment, he can slip into the mind of another individual and steal their secrets.
With a little more work, he can even plant ideas within the minds of his subjects.
The Canadian left has managed just such a feat within the minds of Canadians. But unlike Cobb, who uses a sleep-induction/mind-link machine, the "specialized equipment" of the Canadian left is the state itself.
The Canadian left long ago stumbled upon a subtle means on inception -- quietly installing their agenda as public policy, then allowing the Canadian public to justify it to themselves after the fact.
They accomplished this through a combination of expansion in the size of government and the subversion of civil society in order to meet specific ideological ends.
Barry Cooper refers to this as the "embedded state" - state organs dedicated to increasing the reach and influence of government throughout Canadian life.
Through a variety of QUANGOs -- quasi-autonomous non governmental organizations -- the Canadian left has embedded their own ideology within this embedded state.
They've used Canada's Secretary of State -- a rarely-scrutinized office empowered to disperse funding to civil society organizations -- to accomplish this end.
This began during the Prime Ministerial tenure of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. As Prime Minister, Trudeau directed the Secretary of State to fund and, if necessary, create NGOs.
This had two consequences. It eliminated the need for sivil society organizations to appeal to private citizens for financial support, and allowed the government to make choices that would ideologically benefit the governing party.
A key example is the public funding of pro-abortion organizations while denying funding to their anti-abortion opponents.
The result has been a status quo on abortion where Canada has no abortion law whatsoever. Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada national director Joyce Arthur suggests that groups that plan to change this should not only be denied public funding, but should also be denied the ability to raise funds as charitable organizations, while pro-abortion organizations should be allowed these privileges because their goals are "not political" because they reflect the view of "mainstream Canadians".
But according to a recent poll on the topic of abortion, that mainstream may be much smaller than Arthur believes.
A recent poll concluded that only 21% of Canadians are even aware that Canada has no abortion law.
According to that poll, sampled Canadians believed:
-41% of Canadians believed that abortions are only available within the first trimester.
-15% of Canadians believed that abortions are only available within the first trimester if a woman's life is at risk, if she was raped, or if her unborn child will be born with serious complications.
-10% of Canadians believed that abortions are only permissable if a woman's life is at risk, if she was raped, or if her unborn child will be born with serious complications.
Only 27% of those polled favoured the status quo.
Conversely, Arthur believes that abortion should be formally legalized within Canadian law, but that no restrictions should be placed upon it. She declares that restrictions on abortion would be "unnecessary, cruel, and discriminatory".
Clearly, 73% of Canadians disagree with her -- which would mean that, according to Arthur's bizarre definition of "mainstream" Canada, only 27% of Canadians are within that mainstream.
When polled, Canadians do voice their support for the status quo. The problem is that they don't know what that status quo is.
Arthur further insists that anti-abortion groups cannot justify charitable status based on their educational efforts. She declares them to be deceptive; propaganda. Yet, it seems that the "educational" efforts of groups like the ARCC are a good deal more deceptive.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women funded many pro-abortion groups who have helped foster this particular rhetorical environment.
It's no wonder that so many Canadians seem to think they share what are actually the ARCC's extremist views on abortion: groups nestled close to the core of Canada's embedded state have spent a long time convincing them that they do.
That the Canadian government has been providing funding to such organizations created an artificial sense of respectability for them -- and considering the iron-fistedly censorious nature of Arthur and the ARCC (they've been involved in efforts to ban anti-abortion groups from University campuses), any respectability afforded is purely artificial.
The Canadian left resorted to these tactics because they must not have known that they couldn't achieve their agenda without monopolizing support from the state.
After 40 years of this kind of subtle manipulation, it's no wonder that the left has managed to convince Canadians that they share their agenda -- even when they apparently aren't fully aware of what that agenda really is.
As Stephen Harper continues to tighten the screws on this kind of ideological self-indulgence, Canada's left will have to begin to find its own resources, and start forging its own reputation as opposed to piggy-backing their message on the back of the government.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Joyce Arthur Says the Anti-Abortion Movement is Drinking Champagne...
...Yet she's the one making a toast
Let it never be said that Joyce Arthur doesn't have a gift for arriving late to the party.
This evening in Vancouver, Arthur's Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada will join with numerous other pro-abortion groups in order to rally in the memory of the assassinated Dr George Tiller -- only a mere three weeks after he was killed, and 12 days after his funeral.
But the protest isn't merely about Dr Tiller's death. It's also about promoting the opening of more facilities that will offer late-term abortion in Canada.
“It’s a scandal that women are forced to travel to Kansas for these procedures,” Arthur says.
Arthur insists that the idea that late-term abortions are ever performed on healthy fetuses is a misconception. “People think there are women out there who are having late abortions so they can fit into their prom dresses,” she says.
One would expect -- one would certainly hope -- that there aren't any women making the decision regarding late-term abortion frivolously. But one would also wonder if individuals like Arthur would be in favour of placing legal restrictions on late-term abortion.
You know, just to make sure these women aren't just in it for the prom.
But, as anyone who has followed the abortion debate in Canada knows, this is apparently a non-starter. Joyce Arthur and her fellows in the pro-abortion movement would never accept any law in regards to abortion.
Oddly enough, not only do Arthur and her cohorts oppose setting any kind of legal limit on late-term abortions, but they also oppose legally protecting a doctor's right to refuse to perform abortions they deem unethical. They do this even as they propose measures that would make that protection necessary.
But there's a deeper issue underlying the Vancouver rally aside from just Arthur and her cohort's unwillingness to accept legislation that they insist would actually change nothing.
Arthur has joined a chorus of crazed voices -- including this tool -- who blame the entire anti-abortion movement for Dr Tiller's murder.
“We thought it was import to honour [Dr Tiller] here because it’s not just an American issue. We had shootings here in the 1990s. We see similar hateful rhetoric here," Arthur insists. “They might be condemning the murder in public, but privately they’re drinking champagne. There’s a lot of that sentiment around that he deserved what he got.”
Yet interestingly enough, though Arthur insists that it's the anti-abortion movement who are drinking champagne to Dr Tiller's death, it seems that Joyce Arthur is proposing a toast to his memory.
There's nothing wrong with that.
But one has to wonder if Arthur is also secretly proposing a toast to the rhetorical club the pro-abortion movement wants to transform his death into.
Let it never be said that Joyce Arthur doesn't have a gift for arriving late to the party.
This evening in Vancouver, Arthur's Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada will join with numerous other pro-abortion groups in order to rally in the memory of the assassinated Dr George Tiller -- only a mere three weeks after he was killed, and 12 days after his funeral.
But the protest isn't merely about Dr Tiller's death. It's also about promoting the opening of more facilities that will offer late-term abortion in Canada.
“It’s a scandal that women are forced to travel to Kansas for these procedures,” Arthur says.
Arthur insists that the idea that late-term abortions are ever performed on healthy fetuses is a misconception. “People think there are women out there who are having late abortions so they can fit into their prom dresses,” she says.
One would expect -- one would certainly hope -- that there aren't any women making the decision regarding late-term abortion frivolously. But one would also wonder if individuals like Arthur would be in favour of placing legal restrictions on late-term abortion.
You know, just to make sure these women aren't just in it for the prom.
But, as anyone who has followed the abortion debate in Canada knows, this is apparently a non-starter. Joyce Arthur and her fellows in the pro-abortion movement would never accept any law in regards to abortion.
Oddly enough, not only do Arthur and her cohorts oppose setting any kind of legal limit on late-term abortions, but they also oppose legally protecting a doctor's right to refuse to perform abortions they deem unethical. They do this even as they propose measures that would make that protection necessary.
But there's a deeper issue underlying the Vancouver rally aside from just Arthur and her cohort's unwillingness to accept legislation that they insist would actually change nothing.
Arthur has joined a chorus of crazed voices -- including this tool -- who blame the entire anti-abortion movement for Dr Tiller's murder.
“We thought it was import to honour [Dr Tiller] here because it’s not just an American issue. We had shootings here in the 1990s. We see similar hateful rhetoric here," Arthur insists. “They might be condemning the murder in public, but privately they’re drinking champagne. There’s a lot of that sentiment around that he deserved what he got.”
Yet interestingly enough, though Arthur insists that it's the anti-abortion movement who are drinking champagne to Dr Tiller's death, it seems that Joyce Arthur is proposing a toast to his memory.
There's nothing wrong with that.
But one has to wonder if Arthur is also secretly proposing a toast to the rhetorical club the pro-abortion movement wants to transform his death into.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Tell Us All About Democracy, Joyce
Opposition to abortion anti-democratic according to Joyce Aurthur
Joyce Aurthur, the national coordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has come out with an interesting response to the University of Calgary Students' Union's decision to strip the campus pro-life (better described as anti-abortion) group of its student group status:
Serves the anti-democratic bastards right.
"The pro-choice view is more legitimate because it’s democratic," Arthur announced. "[The anti-abortion] view is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-human rights."
Apparently, in Aurthur's mind, opposition to abortion isn't merely undemocratic. It's anti-democratic.
Unfortunately for Aurthur, nothing could be further from the truth.
To suggest that opposition to abortion is anti-human rights to overlook the nature of one of the key elements of the abortion debate: namely, whether or not the unborn child is human.
Some, such as Suzanne Fortin, believe that the unborn child is human and should be afforded human rights. Others, such as Rational Reasons' Mike, insist that it isn't.
So long as any debate over the extent to which an unborn child should be considered human and thus should enjoy the protection of some of human rights is ongoing there's nothing undemocratic about debating the concept of reproductive rights. Especially when the question regarding the extent to which that concept potentially preempts someone else's human rights is still very much in question.
It would, in fact, be undemocratic to suggest that no debate should take place on an issue that very much does deal with the termination of human life. What is very anti-democratic is the pro-abortion lobby's expressed desire to shut the abortion debate down altogether.
Consider this particular polemic, published in the University of Alberta Gateway, in which Bobbie Briggs suggests that the U of A Pro-Life (better described as anti-abortion) club should be shut down merely for existing:
To demand that any groups that would debate the topic should be summarily shut down is truly and distinctly anti-democratic.
Briggs' ill-conceived notion of how to foment a liberal atmosphere on a University campus isn't the only distinctly anti-democratic idea in play, either. Joyce Aurthur's own ARCC insists that it should be entitled to public funding while their opponents should not.
Their rational is, essentially, that anti-abortion groups seek to rally public support on a political issue, distort the issue, use propaganda and appeal to emotion.
Yet when debating Bill C-484, the ARCC and its supporters did all of these things. They insisted that the unborn victims of crime bill wasn't about crime, but about abortion -- even though the bill expressly prohibited it being applied to cases dealing with abortion. They ignored the fact that similar bills in the United States have failed to produce the criminalization of abortion that they insisted would occur. (Ironically, they distort the issue within their very own position paper when they insist that the pro-abortion cause is "not political".)
Joyce Aurthur insists that it's "ironic" that anti-abortion activists would complain about their freedoms of expression being curtailed.
What's really ironic that Aurthur would be so quick to denounce the anti-abortion lobby as anti-democratic when she and her ARCC are themselves knee-deep in undemocratic and anti-democratic practices.
But there's absolutely no question that the irony is entirely lost on them.
Joyce Aurthur, the national coordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has come out with an interesting response to the University of Calgary Students' Union's decision to strip the campus pro-life (better described as anti-abortion) group of its student group status:
Serves the anti-democratic bastards right.
"The pro-choice view is more legitimate because it’s democratic," Arthur announced. "[The anti-abortion] view is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-human rights."
Apparently, in Aurthur's mind, opposition to abortion isn't merely undemocratic. It's anti-democratic.
Unfortunately for Aurthur, nothing could be further from the truth.
To suggest that opposition to abortion is anti-human rights to overlook the nature of one of the key elements of the abortion debate: namely, whether or not the unborn child is human.
Some, such as Suzanne Fortin, believe that the unborn child is human and should be afforded human rights. Others, such as Rational Reasons' Mike, insist that it isn't.
So long as any debate over the extent to which an unborn child should be considered human and thus should enjoy the protection of some of human rights is ongoing there's nothing undemocratic about debating the concept of reproductive rights. Especially when the question regarding the extent to which that concept potentially preempts someone else's human rights is still very much in question.
It would, in fact, be undemocratic to suggest that no debate should take place on an issue that very much does deal with the termination of human life. What is very anti-democratic is the pro-abortion lobby's expressed desire to shut the abortion debate down altogether.
Consider this particular polemic, published in the University of Alberta Gateway, in which Bobbie Briggs suggests that the U of A Pro-Life (better described as anti-abortion) club should be shut down merely for existing:
"Open debate over this issue is shocking to me not due to the subject matter of abortion itself, but because it’s a total disregard of women’s rights.It's been said that dissent and debate are the languages of democracy.
For a liberal atmosphere such as a university to be so saturated with images and arguments that retract the woman’s right to reproductive freedom is unbelievable, especially when one considers that it’s now 2009. It’s hard to believe that the Students’ Union would allow any organization that embody and promote the refusal of homosexual or aboriginal rights, and it’s equally unacceptable for the SU to authorize a group which exists only to overtly deny women’s reproductive freedom."
To demand that any groups that would debate the topic should be summarily shut down is truly and distinctly anti-democratic.
Briggs' ill-conceived notion of how to foment a liberal atmosphere on a University campus isn't the only distinctly anti-democratic idea in play, either. Joyce Aurthur's own ARCC insists that it should be entitled to public funding while their opponents should not.
Their rational is, essentially, that anti-abortion groups seek to rally public support on a political issue, distort the issue, use propaganda and appeal to emotion.
Yet when debating Bill C-484, the ARCC and its supporters did all of these things. They insisted that the unborn victims of crime bill wasn't about crime, but about abortion -- even though the bill expressly prohibited it being applied to cases dealing with abortion. They ignored the fact that similar bills in the United States have failed to produce the criminalization of abortion that they insisted would occur. (Ironically, they distort the issue within their very own position paper when they insist that the pro-abortion cause is "not political".)
Joyce Aurthur insists that it's "ironic" that anti-abortion activists would complain about their freedoms of expression being curtailed.
What's really ironic that Aurthur would be so quick to denounce the anti-abortion lobby as anti-democratic when she and her ARCC are themselves knee-deep in undemocratic and anti-democratic practices.
But there's absolutely no question that the irony is entirely lost on them.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Joyce Arthur Speaks for Herself
Canadians have the right to debate abortion, no matter how terrified the pro-abortion lobby may be
Despite numerous efforts by the pro-abortion lobby -- and by politicians too afraid to stand up to them -- it seems there are still MPs on Parliament Hill who want to debate the issue of abortion.
And Joyce Aurthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada doesn't like it.
For her own part, Aurthur blames it on the Conservative party. Most of the Conservative party's MPs, she insists are "publicly anti-choice" (buy which she actually means anti-abortion).
"It's something that the Conservative party is out of touch with because Canadians don't want to go back to the abortion debate," Arthur insists. "People are happy with the status quo. It's working well."
But what she must mean by that is that she and her cohorts in the pro-abortion lobby are happy with the status quo and don't want to go back to the abortion debate. Some of them steadfastly insist that there is no debate.
But they and Aurthur are wrong. There are a great many Canadians who recognize the necessity of finally having this debate in Canada.
Rod Bruinooge, the Conservative MP for Winnipeg South, is much closer to the truth when he notes that this debate hasn't really ended. No matter what individuals such as Aurthur may prefer, this debate is ongoing. "I think the debate is ongoing," Bruinooge said. "We need to have a starting point of debating whether or not abortion should be legal right up until the moment of birth."
Bruinooge notes that there are members of each party on what he describes as an informal Parliamentary committee, although we won't identify any of them, insisting that each member should "present their personal philosophy on this issue."
Not that such an act wouldn't be politically perilous for these particular individuals. One may recall the outrage directed at NDP Peter Stoffer when he voted in favour of Bill C-484 -- the Fetal Homicide Bill -- being referred to committee for discussion.
Some of the most fervent believers in the pro-abortion lobby insisted that Stoffer should be cast out of the NDP caucus -- and this was just for voting in favour of the bill in questions -- which actually contained protections against the bill being applied to cases of abortion -- should be talked about.
The mini-controversy that emerged when Macleans Magazine columnist Andrew Coyne wrote a column advocating the reopening of the abortion debate.
Coyne never really advocated a particular stance on the issue -- he only noted that democratic debate is necessary to establish a legitimate consensus.
Yet the response to Coyne's column alluded to a significant fear of an actual debate. Robert Baglow, for example, ruled debate out of the question because to do so would be to "gamble on a woman's right to choose".
As Coyne himself noted, a debate on abortion would be emotional to the point of sheer savagery. It would give the most irrational denizens of each side -- the pro-abortion and anti-abortion lobbies -- an opportunity to seize the spotlight and draw attention to themselves.
And it's almost certain that many from each side simply will not tolerate a "third-way" abortion debate.
But Canadians have the right to debate abortion -- whether it's under rational pretenses or otherwise -- if they so choose. That's part and parcel of living in a democracy wherein our freedoms of speech and expression are legally protected.
To allow the pro-abortion lobby -- who are so content to slur their opponents with meaningless and nonsensical epithets such as "anti-choice" -- to curb sucha debate out of simple fear of losing would be unconscionable.
Rod Bruinooge's courage in raising the issue should be recognized and saluted, just as Joyce Aurthur's intellectual cowardice should be recognized and condemned.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
Nick Taylor-Vaisey - "Abortion: Why Not Open the Debate?"
Jesse Ferreras - "MP Wants to Put Abortion Back in Limelight
Justin Hoffer - "Abortion Debate Reopening"
Despite numerous efforts by the pro-abortion lobby -- and by politicians too afraid to stand up to them -- it seems there are still MPs on Parliament Hill who want to debate the issue of abortion.
And Joyce Aurthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada doesn't like it.
For her own part, Aurthur blames it on the Conservative party. Most of the Conservative party's MPs, she insists are "publicly anti-choice" (buy which she actually means anti-abortion).
"It's something that the Conservative party is out of touch with because Canadians don't want to go back to the abortion debate," Arthur insists. "People are happy with the status quo. It's working well."
But what she must mean by that is that she and her cohorts in the pro-abortion lobby are happy with the status quo and don't want to go back to the abortion debate. Some of them steadfastly insist that there is no debate.
But they and Aurthur are wrong. There are a great many Canadians who recognize the necessity of finally having this debate in Canada.
Rod Bruinooge, the Conservative MP for Winnipeg South, is much closer to the truth when he notes that this debate hasn't really ended. No matter what individuals such as Aurthur may prefer, this debate is ongoing. "I think the debate is ongoing," Bruinooge said. "We need to have a starting point of debating whether or not abortion should be legal right up until the moment of birth."
Bruinooge notes that there are members of each party on what he describes as an informal Parliamentary committee, although we won't identify any of them, insisting that each member should "present their personal philosophy on this issue."
Not that such an act wouldn't be politically perilous for these particular individuals. One may recall the outrage directed at NDP Peter Stoffer when he voted in favour of Bill C-484 -- the Fetal Homicide Bill -- being referred to committee for discussion.
Some of the most fervent believers in the pro-abortion lobby insisted that Stoffer should be cast out of the NDP caucus -- and this was just for voting in favour of the bill in questions -- which actually contained protections against the bill being applied to cases of abortion -- should be talked about.
The mini-controversy that emerged when Macleans Magazine columnist Andrew Coyne wrote a column advocating the reopening of the abortion debate.
Coyne never really advocated a particular stance on the issue -- he only noted that democratic debate is necessary to establish a legitimate consensus.
Yet the response to Coyne's column alluded to a significant fear of an actual debate. Robert Baglow, for example, ruled debate out of the question because to do so would be to "gamble on a woman's right to choose".
As Coyne himself noted, a debate on abortion would be emotional to the point of sheer savagery. It would give the most irrational denizens of each side -- the pro-abortion and anti-abortion lobbies -- an opportunity to seize the spotlight and draw attention to themselves.
And it's almost certain that many from each side simply will not tolerate a "third-way" abortion debate.
But Canadians have the right to debate abortion -- whether it's under rational pretenses or otherwise -- if they so choose. That's part and parcel of living in a democracy wherein our freedoms of speech and expression are legally protected.
To allow the pro-abortion lobby -- who are so content to slur their opponents with meaningless and nonsensical epithets such as "anti-choice" -- to curb sucha debate out of simple fear of losing would be unconscionable.
Rod Bruinooge's courage in raising the issue should be recognized and saluted, just as Joyce Aurthur's intellectual cowardice should be recognized and condemned.
Other bloggers writing on this topic:
Nick Taylor-Vaisey - "Abortion: Why Not Open the Debate?"
Jesse Ferreras - "MP Wants to Put Abortion Back in Limelight
Justin Hoffer - "Abortion Debate Reopening"
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)