Liberals and NDPs acting out - Part 2

I received this comment further to this post on Rachael Harder and the pathetic behaviour of the Status of Women committee.

"We hear a lot of talk from the government about how diverse and inclusive Canada is, and that diversity is our strength. If that is true then why are prolifers barred from the Liberal party and kicked off university campuses? Since Canada is a large and diverse nation with people from many backgrounds and cultures it is reasonable to expect differences of opinions on many issues including abortion, shouldn't those views be reflected on the SWC committee? This incident makes a total mockery of the inclusiveness and diversity rhetoric being espoused. Aren't there feminists who disagree with abortion? If Harder is kicked off the committee then how can the feminist movement claim that they represent all women. 

Does the SWC represent the views of all Canadian women or it is a left wing clique as its critics have claimed? This is a valid argument, ever since the REAL Women controversy in the 1980's. Why is this POV being given a total monopoly and $110M in annual funding? If the SWC does not represent the views of all Canadian women, shouldn't other groups from across the spectrum be allowed to cash in on funding and representation as well.....this goes back to diversity of opinion. According to the ipolitics article, 27% of Canadians support the status quo and 5% are pro-lifers, if that is true then neither group should have a monopoly on opinion and a variety of views on abortion must be included, it also means that 73% of Canadians are critical of the current (undemocratic) status quo. Can we assume that there is debate and discussion on the SWC committee on issues besides abortion, due to the nature of our multiparty system. If that is the case then why is one view on abortion permitted? It is very arrogant to presume that women share the same views on abortion or any other subject for that matter."

Liberals and NDPs acting out

Date: Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:33 PM

Subject: Anti-democratic behaviour by some MPs

To: Pam.Damoff@parl.gc.ca, Sheila.Malcolmson@parl.gc.ca, Terry.Duguid@parl.gc.ca, Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca, Rachael.Harder@parl.gc.ca, Bernadette.Jordan@parl.gc.ca, Emmanuella.Lambropoulos@parl.gc.ca, Eva.Nassif@parl.gc.ca, Marc.Serre@parl.gc.ca, Martin.Shields@parl.gc.ca, Karen.Vecchio@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Mona.Fortier@parl.gc.ca, justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca

Dear members of the committee for the Status of Women,

Your decision to walk out of the meeting to elect the Chair and vow to not return until an alternate Chair was named tells me some interesting things.

First of all, this was rude and childish, not exactly an example of maturity. It was also the behaviour of a schoolyard bully.

Second, it is the behaviour of someone who doesn't adhere to our core principles of democracy. Every time we don't like the personal views of someone, do we react by walking out on them? What about having a conversation and exchanging ideas like adults?

Third, there are millions of pro-life women in this country. I am one of them and know many, many others. Who speaks for us when you are so willing to shut down a woman who shares our views? In the Liberal and NDP parties there are plenty of MPs who speak for the pro-choice people. We are also Canadian citizens yet we are not allowed to have any representation in Parliament who speak for us. Why is that?

Fourth, what kind of example does it set for young women who might aspire to politics? Why would they ever aspire to that calling, knowing they can be prevented from having views that are deemed unacceptable? Is this the example we want to share with our young women? I hope not.

Fifth, as a Canadian citizen who pays your salaries, I expect better from you. I expect you to represent all Canadian women, not only those who you agree with.

Sixth, remember the days when women were bullied by men? And now we are free to bully our own because we don't all share the same views? Is this what we've come to? We didn't learn much did we?

Finally, this behaviour is just down right embarrassing to me. It is embarrassing to me as a woman, as a Canadian citizen, as a tax payer, and as a lover of democracy.

I wonder. How would you feel if the same thing happened to you?

Thank you.

Sincerely

Patricia Maloney

Justin Trudeau's feminist approach is not Canada's

Remember that 650 million Canada will be spending for abortion in Africa? Well here's something that we've grown to expect of Justin Trudeau's government: it's the arrogance in the way he thinks he speaks for all Canadians. Which he doesn't.

I did an ATIP to Global Affairs Canada looking for information on this funding which, by the way, comes from Canadian taxpayers and not the government. In the backgrounder on this abortion funding, under "Key messages" that was sent out to stakeholders it says:

"Canada is a firm supporter of a feminist approach, which includes a commitment to gender equality, the empowerment of women and girls, and the protection of their human rights."

And this:

"Minister Bibeau's mandate letter has been clear from the beginning. As part of Canada's feminist approach, we are committed to supporting access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health service and information. that includes access to contraception, family planning, comprehensive education as well as women's right [to] choose safe abortion, where legal, and access to post-abortion care." Emphasis added.

This "feminist approach" really just means Justin Trudeau and Minister Bibeau's abortion approach. Canada is made up of people. 36,591,241 people to be exact. And according to a recent Ipsos poll:

"One in Four (24%) [Canadians] Want Some Limits on Abortion, While 12% Say It Should Not Be Permitted [and]...A further one in ten Canadians (11%) aren’t sure [where they stand on abortion]"

That's almost half the country who are most likely not a firm supporter of a feminist approach. When I think of "Canada" I don't think of Justin Trudeau and his partisan politicians. I think of Canada's people. Trudeau et al are not "Canada". They do not speak for me. And they don't speak for millions like me. To presume that they do, is the height of arrogance.

The ATIP also included a "tracking chart (donor commitments and media attention)." There were 28 outside sources listed. Of those sources there was only one pro-life  source identified: Life Site News. Talk about stacking the deck.

Did Trudeau and Bibeau bother to consult with pro-life organizations? I know--a foolish question.

I have some additional information to wade through and will report later if I find anything.

The freedom to hear what people have to say

Excellent article by Andrew Potter on free speech that tells us that the real importance of free speech is not so much the freedom to speak (though that is important), but the freedom to hear what others say:

"...We got here because the problem is with the way we framed the question, as a debate over the benefits of free speech and the consequences we are willing to tolerate. Instead, what we should be focused on is the right of people to hear what others have to say, and how this fits into a broader account of individual freedom.

What’s the difference? If you turn the free speech debate on its head and treat it as a right to hear what someone has to say, the constitutional rationale for it becomes a lot clearer: The right to hear or read something and judge its worth or merit for yourself is the basis for being treated as an equal, rational and autonomous agent. We shield things from children precisely because we don’t think their rational faculties are sufficiently well developed. They don’t know how to evaluate something by their own lights. That’s why a big part of parenting is bringing kids along the path to autonomy, teaching them to judge and think for themselves.

Hearing what people have to say and judging its merits for yourself is the mark of being an adult. And part of being an adult is having the right to make mistakes, to make bad judgments or decisions, and take responsibility for what follows. 

It just so happens that a society made up of autonomous individuals making independent rational judgments about what others have to say is the basic condition for the possibility of a liberal democracy. The fact that so many people, on the right and the left, are willing to have their right to hear limited by governments, universities or even social media mobs, is a further sign of the relentless infantilization of our culture — and goes a long way toward explaining the current crisis of liberalism."

This was the core issue with our charter challenge. Our pro-abortion government under Kathleen Wynne, didn't want pro-life people like myself to discuss anything related to abortion in Ontario. Like numbers of abortions, policies about abortion, etc.

They wanted to shut us down and changing the law seemed like a genius and simple way to do it. Their logic--though they would never admit to this--was that if we don't have the information then we can't talk about it. So they made up specious reasons about safety which were ultimately shot down by the facts and actual logic.

In the end their tactics were neither genius nor simple.