Oh yi yi, who peed into this guy's cornflakes?
Now I know we are all entitled to our opinion, but when that includes personal attacks about people we don't agree with calling them "stupid" and "bushwackers", well that's a different matter entirely:
"Bushwhackers embarrass PM - Ignorant of the law, three Tory backbenchers revisit abortion issue".
And "ignorant of the law"? Ah, no. Too bad the writer, Marc Bonokoski, didn't take ten or twenty seconds, to read the letter in question.
Now I wouldn’t call Mr. Bonokoski stupid or a bushwacker, but maybe if he had bothered to read the letter, he'd see that he was, how shall I put this, not the sharpest needle in the haystack. The letter was about the possibility of born babies dying, and nothing being done to help them.
The original letter, and clarification press release of the letter, explains why they wrote to the RCMP in the first place:
"Our request to the RCMP was not about the deaths of preborn children, but rather the deaths of children who had already been BORN ALIVE and who are, therefore, recognized as "human beings" in Canadian law.Section 223 (2) of our Criminal Code makes it a crime to cause injury to a child before or during birth as a result of which the child dies AFTER being BORN ALIVE. The Criminal Code calls it homicide. That is not our opinion; that is the law today."
Mr. Bonokoski also thinks that the letter to the RCMP written by Messrs. Velacott, Benoit and Lizon was unconscionable. Why? Because Mr. Harper stated that the abortion debate was closed, don't you know? Well I hate to break it to Mr. Bonokoski, but the letter wasn't about abortion.
I thought newspaper professionals were supposed to read stuff they're writing about. Apparently some don't need to.
Second, exactly what was "unconscionable" about this letter? I don't think Mr. Bonokoski knows the meaning of that word, but here's a hint, it's when you don't listen to your conscience. The MPs raised an issue that in good conscience they wanted to be investigated, so it wasn't unconscionable, got it?
Lastly, Mr. Bonokoski said:
"Until I grow a uterus and am able to bear children, it is absolutely none of my business and certainly outside my emotional and psychological purview."
So here's a question for Mr. Bonokoski. If you lived in a country where female genital mutilation is legal, I suppose you'd be okay with that too? After all it's also "absolutely none of your business and certainly outside of your emotional and psychological purview", right?
Illogical reasoning aside, here's the question I'd really like Mr. Bonokoski to answer. Why is he standing up for Mr. Harper and his "I won't reopen the abortion debate" mantra? I always puzzle when I hear someone say this, especially a newspaper person whose raison d'etre is supposed to be free speech (I thought), something that this mantra categorically dismisses. So what is that all about anyway?
I wonder. Is this guy trying to get some kind of brownie points in his weird Mr. Harper adulation? Maybe he's wants to run for the Conservatives and become an MP.
Mr. Bonokoski says he sought the Canadian Alliance nomination in the federal riding of Nepean-Carleton in 2000. Does he not realize that the policy of the CA and the policy of the existing Conservative party is that individual MPs have the freedom to vote their conscience on these moral issues? So it's a good thing that voters rejected Bonokoski because he didn't even know CA policy, and it seems like he still doesn't.
Perhaps he harbours some bitterness over his loss in Nepean-Carleton due to his pro-abortion world view that compels him to lash out at anyone who might have the courage to stand up in defense of Canada's most vulnerable citizens? Could that be it?
Or maybe he wants to become Minister for the Department of Diputs Elpoep. Could be.