March 23, 2008
Bernie MacDonald, on A legal entity within a legal entity:
I wrote to my MP, Gordon O’Connor, asking that he support the recent proposed bill to protect unborn children from acts of violence. His disappointing response was as follows:
Dear Bernie MacDonald:
On behalf of Gordon O’Connor, thank you for contacting our office regarding Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act. We value your input, and have noted your support of this bill.Mr. O’Connor has expressed he will not be voting in favour of Bill C-484 for the following reasons.
First, he has advised that a court already has the power to take mitigating circumstances into consideration when imposing a sentence. He refers to Section 718.2 (a) of the Criminal Code which states that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, (ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner, (ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years, (iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, (iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or (v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;
Please note that the condition “without limiting the generality of the foregoing” allows for a court that imposes a sentence to take other conditions which are not listed here, such as pregnancy, into consideration.
Also in practice it would be very difficult to prove or disprove that the alleged criminal knew, or ought to have known the victim had been pregnant (if in the first term of pregnancy).
Mr. O’Connor agrees that we need to protect victims within the full extent of the law, however, he believes the current law adequately addresses this situation.
Once again thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
John Aris Constituency Manager for Hon. Gordon O’Connor, P.C., M.P.
That mealy-mouthed response gives me no comfort but may continue to comfort the perpetrators of the violent acts. I responded that I would think twice before supporting him in the next election. No response received.
________________________________
Loretta Westin, on Sex is a sacrament and not a commodity?:
Here is a link to “theology of the Body for Teens - Podcast”.
http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podcasts/5370
______________________________
Servant, on “My body, my choice” in Australia:
These trends might also have something to do with the $5000.00 given to every mother upon the birth of every child in the country. The Aussie’s have this demographic situation figured out.
________________________________
Val, on Angus Reid must harbour a secret so-con agenda:
I do think that they are stretching a little bit to call 53% more than half. I would say “Fully Half”.
I suppose it’s less sensational, but I’d rather appreciate less distraction from the 70 per cent support. Otherwise someone might miss the point - Canadians support this bill.
We support the ability to choose life… except when inconvenient. (Alright, maybe that last is also spurious interpretation.)
________________________________
Elizabeth, on Canada needs more babies:
I agree with Andrea, in that I think it has a lot to do with what we’re taught in school. I am 27 years old, in a committed relationship where we are sure we will get married in the next 1.5 years and hopefully expecting a family very soon after. We both want 3 children at a minimum and I wish I had started earlier. Two of my girlfriends of the same age already each have one child and are both expecting their second children and are both very thankful that they have already started having families.
I think it depends a lot on what is valued in our society at the moment. The importance of a career is drilled into our brains, as we don’t want to end up dependant on men. Our culture as a whole has also become a lot less child-friendly- in the media (during regular hours), public spaces, legislation, etc. As well, children are thought of as not enhancing our lives, but constraining them - an idea that is drilled into kids beginning at age 12.
Both of my above-mentioned friends were pregnant during their final years of university and they were looked down upon as having somehow “wasted” their education, as they were going to be stay-at-home moms initially. I think this is a real shame - when I hear someone is pregnant, I think of it as a huge joy no matter what stage in their life they are at. It is a miracle and every child should be welcomed and friends/community should offer to help the woman.
One thing you didn’t mention that is having an effect is the environmentalist notion that no children or only one child is the only way to be a good “environmentalist”. What a disgusting notion.
________________________________
Loretta Westin, on Canada needs more babies:
Here’s an idea. It will take a few generations to take effect, like it did for Canadians to stop having children :
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/retract-the-winnipeg-statement.html (a petition to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to retract the infamous ‘Winnipeg Statement’)
What would Canada be like today if only we had heeded the advice and warnings of the Pope? Sigh.
________________________________
Colm, on Carleton University abortion debate, this Wednesday:
Carrying Ms. Holloway’s argument to its end, we must accept that the York University student centre is accountable to its students, who are all so pro-choice that absolutely no discussion of abortion can be permitted. For Ms. Holloway and the students she apparently represents, it is an issue of unalienable rights. That’s fine, but does Ms. Holloway realize that she is in fact suppressing one essential right to protect another? She should remember human rights cannot interfere with other human rights, lest they become contradictory and ultimately meaningless.
Actually, after re-reading her letter, I think she does realize this, else why does she spend anytime obfuscating the pro-life position?
________________________________
Richard Knock, on It comes down to this:
Elizabeth. Yes, I suggest that you talk with her. Empathize compassionately with her. She’s in a very difficult position right now. It sounds like she is going to make a decision based on fear - fear that it will jeopardize her relationship with her father. If you want to save that baby’s life, stand by her until she can get to a place where she’s making decisions based on hope and dreams.
________________________________
Suzanne, on You’re looking for me?:
Is that a good idea? When I look at my paunch…ugh. I’m certainly not in the best shape of my life.
________________________________
Scott McClare, on Carleton University abortion debate, this Wednesday:
Tanya wrote: “Does anyone else think they may be nullifying this lesson just a tad by advocating for consequence-free sex?”
Well, at least she’s being consistent. I assume that up until the point of cancellation, the first debate was approved by whoever is in charge of allocating student centre space. Then, rather than take responsibility, Holloway decided to abort it…