Archives for 2009

The protests in Iran have little to do with our regular beat here at PWPL. But I wanted to say something about Neda – the young woman who was allegedly shot to death on the street in Tehran and whose death was recorded and posted to YouTube and countless other video-sharing sites (you can see it here – warning: graphic and not suitable for children).

From what I can tell, she wasn’t a protester. She wasn’t doing anything especially brave; just going about her business. But she was killed anyway, perhaps just because she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. She probably didn’t mean to become a symbol of bravery and defiance, but she has anyway. RIP

Last week Andrea sent me this link to some ramblings on abortion and libertarianism. For density of question-begging and bad-faith arguing per paragraph, it’s quite a feat; not since I read the op-eds at the university newspaper have I seen quite so many packed into such a small space. Let’s dig in:

Implication #1: If the fetus is accorded individual rights, then the aborting woman and anyone who assists her are murderers and must be subject to whatever penalty society metes out for that crime, up to and including capital punishment. The punishment should be applied to past abortions as there is no statute of limitation on murder. If anti-abortionists shy away from this conclusion, then they do not really consider abortion to be murder. Note: it does not matter that the woman didn’t view the fetus as a child; if her state of mind exonerates her, then it follows that a racist should be exonerated for killing blacks. “

Wendy misses the point of “no statute of limitations.” What this means is that, for some crimes, no amount of time having passed since its commission will prevent the culprit from being charged and tried. This is not the same as making a law retroactive, which is the notion with which McElroy conflates “statute of limitations.” If, say, Global Warming Wingnuts someday succeed in making it a criminal offense not to recycle newspapers, there is no way in a constitutional democracy, as it is currently understood, to charge people with that crime if they did it before the act was made criminal. I am unaware of any example of anyone trying to do this – if one exists, I hope someone posts info about it in the comments.
The attempt to say that if we charge racially motivated lynchers with murder, we ought to advocate charging women who have abortions with murder, is an amusing attempt to make pro-lifers scamper around the issue of race. I decline to do so. For those determined to find a parallel, though, I suggest that, whenever in the past we have collectively designated one group of humans as having less worth than others, the results have been a blot on our species. Better to err on the side of caution, one would think, if we’ve learned anything from history at all.
I have yet to meet a pro-lifer who wants abortionists or aborting women treated as if they have committed first degree murder. In fact, the most common thing I have heard expressed about them is the sentiment that they are harming themselves, often accompanied by prayers that they rehabilitate themselves, not only to prevent aborting more babies but also for their own sake. As to the women who have abortions, pro-lifers, who know far more about the consequences of abortion for all involved than the average non-committed person, tend to express deep sympathy and grief for these women, and run many programs to help them heal from their abortions.
The reality, too, is that ending a life carries with it a number of different penalties depending on a number of factors. Murder for hire, as a cold-blooded and inhumane act, usually carries the most harsh penalties; deliberate murder in the heat of passion less so; questionable killing in self-defense less still; and causing a death through thoughtlessness or carelessness, while still sometimes incurring a criminal conviction, tends to carry a light sentence. Almost all abortions fit in to one of the latter three categories. If we were, as a society, to criminalize abortion, there is no reason at all to assume that we would or should hand out the same sentences as we did to Paul Bernardo. If a drunk driver kills someone, we emphasize community service, education so the event is less likely to be repeated, and often therapy to address the underlying immaturity and poor judgement that led to the episode. If, and I stress if, we were to criminalize abortion, it strikes me that education and therapy would be the most appropriate response.
And we still have 8 more points to refute! Don’t worry, though; they’re all variations on the same two tired ideas. More to come.

I’m having trouble finding the right words to comment on this:

One in four men in South Africa have admitted to rape and many confess to attacking more than one victim, according to a study that exposes the country’s endemic culture of sexual violence.

Three out of four rapists first attacked while still in their teens, the study found. One in 20 men said they had raped a woman or girl in the last year.

South Africa is notorious for having one of the highest levels of rape in the world. Only a fraction are reported, and only a fraction of those lead to a conviction.

_____________________

Rebecca adds: I’m not normally a huge fan of looking to celebs for wisdom or
political advice, but Charlize Theron’s pull-no-punches PSAs about rape in South Africa got the point across nicely.  When rape is considered a disgusting crime, and sex offenders are considered scum, your society may still have many faults, but at least it condemns rape.  When one man in four is a rapist, and this seems to be ok with the rest of them, you have a society-wide problem.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oZpuY97i_k]

I’ve never been big on quotas – I don’t actually care how many women run for office. But these people do. And they, well, blunder a bit, no?

Apparently “equal” now means 33%

For Immediate Release
June 18, 2009

Statement to the House of Commons on the Equal Voice Challenge

Mr. Speaker,

I rise in defence of a process of change and renewal that is as old as Parliament itself.

With the passage of time, this House has come increasingly to encompass the breadth of our country’s diversity-

-of language, gender, sexual orientation, race, creed, and culture.

But we must always desire to be more representative of the population.

And today, I stand before this House to act on part of that desire.

Today, on behalf of my party, I accept the Equal Voice Challenge.

The Liberal Party is committed to having more women in politics-

-in Parliament-

-and in government, after the next election.

Today, I pledge on behalf of my party, that in the next election, no fewer than one-third of our Liberal candidates will be women.

Thank you.

– 30 –

Contact:
Press Office
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
613-996-6740

________________________

Rebecca adds: So essentially, the position of the Liberal Party is that it isn’t up to the electorate to decide whom they want to represent them, but rather that we have to narrow the options available to the unwashed masses in a manner that conforms to elite opinion about the optimal composition of the House. The ramifications of this are quite extraordinary, and wholly incompatible with meaningful democracy.

_____________________

Andrea adds: I personally am looking for more animal representation. Like those talking dogs from the movie Up. Loved them, and would see the movie again, just for this. That’s my concern and my weighty contribution to this discussion. (I do not care whether the dogs are male or female.)