Archives for 2010

Don’t look at me like that – it’s not me saying it:

In a recent interview with the Hill Times, Dr. Carolyn Bennett, an otherwise pretty sensible MP, manages to offend a very dangerous constituency: stay-at-home mothers of young children.

I say dangerous, because as such a new mother (or technically, a work-part-time-from-home-into-the-night-while-my-nine-month-old-sleeps single mother) I can attest that the exhaustion involved can sometimes turn even the cheeriest parent into a crazed zombie.  Dr. Bennett risks life and limb if she campaigns near any mom-and-tot playgroups in the next federal election.  And in case she thinks people will forget her words, the family-friendly Tories will undoubtedly plaster them at every Rainbow Songs and Gymboree class in her riding of St. Paul’s.

Here is what Dr. Bennett said, while criticizing the record of the embattled Minister for the Status of Women, Helena “Air rage” Guergis:

“Women of Canada want to hear about early learning and child care; that is the key to their economic independence, to be able to get back to school, to get a real job, to be able to go to work.”

Ah yes. Because these little ones just raise themselves, right?

_____________________

Andrea adds: I disagree with the idea that Dr. Carolyn Bennett is “otherwise sensible.”

A splendid column about the Liberals’ stance on abortion.

The Conservatives haven’t gone near abortion in four years of power, and show no desire to. Their proposal to champion greater support for the health of women in children in low-income countries stayed well clear of the issue, for the very good reason that good health doesn’t require abortion in any way, shape or form. Beating at it with a stick, as the Liberals insist on doing, just distracts from the main goal, which is to improve the conditions of people who need it.

Canadians may have accepted that there’s little chance we’ll ever reach a national consensus on abortion, and that it’s better not to fight about it, but that’s not the same as active support. Let this issue out of the box and there’s no telling what damage it will do, and to whom. Establishing itself as a party determined to promote liberal abortion policies may please the Bob Rae faction of the Liberal establishment, but there’s no evidence Mr. Rae’s personal views command support from the majority of Canadians. As was shown yesterday, they can’t even carry the caucus.

So, the issue is settled, right?

Interesting to note that while people vote and debate and talk endlessly (or so it seems) about the need to include abortion in maternal health initiatives in the Third World, a relatively simple measure that would punish those who attack pregnant women more strongly right here at home stagnates.

It’s good that we have our priorities straight.

On whether or not “access to safe abortion” should be included in a maternal health plan.

The Opposition motion to include abortion in the government’s maternal health initiative failed. 144 against, 138 in favour.

These motions have no real impact, so far as I know, but they make a clear public statement. And this is one the Opposition felt, I’m quite sure, they would win.

Bottom line: Abortion activists just lost a battle. And that’s always VERY GOOD NEWS!

…because they don’t want to re-open the abortion debate.

An interesting turn of affairs. Unexpected. It takes courage to stand up and name it: For Bob Rae and the Opposition family planning includes abortion. For the Conservatives it does not.

Ah, yes. Of course they have to blame partisan attacks…

CHICAGO – The once mighty community activist group ACORN announced Monday it is folding amid falling revenues — six months after video footage emerged showing some of its workers giving tax tips to conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute.

“It’s really declining revenue in the face of a series of attacks from partisan operatives and right-wing activist that have taken away our ability to raise the resources we need,” ACORN spokesman Kevin Whelan said.

Wow, I’m grumpy this morning… tired of 12-year-olds on the Hill pushing for an agenda they won’t say out loud (see said G8 maternal health resolution that must not be like that nasty George W. Bush but does not include the word abortion).

Then there’s this article, whereby a lack of a spot at a government table is somehow being called censorship. No one is saying Action Canada can’t lobby, write press releases, hold a protest. No one is saying they shouldn’t exist, least of all me. I’m saying that any party and/or government should not support groups that are hostile to their vision. And in final assessment, the government should not choose an abortion-rights group to do a maternal health initiative. Government funding does not equal freedom of speech.

Let it be noted, once again, Action Canada for Population Development does not do work like World Vision does. They work to expand abortion rights. You will never have an Action Canada child pinned up on your wall, because they are too busy trying to decrease the surplus population of the earth. (That’s a quote from A Christmas Carol, if you must know, the 1951 version.)

World Vision says abortion is not part of maternal health. Who are you going to trust? Them or Bob Rae?

____________________
Véronique adds: Oh my. When I am in a good mood, this kind of stuff ruins it. Badly written, badly argued. Yet published. I mean, 12-year-olds on the Hill have been known to ruin my day on occasion but 12-year-olds I can deal with. When they behave like 4-year-olds, it’s tougher. What really turns my crank in the article, having listened to the interview on the Current, is that Andrea never suggested censorship. The comment was made by the following guest, who obviously didn’t dig the ProWomanProLife ideal. The writer whould do her homework before using big words like censorship.

Good grief:

Thousands of women demonstrated outside parliament Sunday to oppose legislation banning the marriage of girls under 17. The protesters held up banners proclaiming “don’t ban what Allah made permissible,” or “stop violating Islamic sharia law in the name of rights and freedoms.” Proposed amendments to the civil status law stalled in parliament last August after severe opposition to a government proposal that would ban girls under 17 and males under 18 from marrying. Child marriages are common, especially in rural areas, where girls as young as eight have been married off.

________________________

Véronique adds: Don’t move to Yemen. That being said, you’re safe Brigitte. Being already married. And just over 17.