Status of Women committee and the law of unintended consequences

John Ivison and Andrew Coyne in today's National post.

Even the Globe and Mail is standing up for Rachael Harder, and point out the ludicrous behaviour of Justin Trudeau and his feminists friends:

"Think of it this way: Were Rachael Harder, the Alberta MP in question, fired from a job in a private company, or from the public service, for the same reason, she would be the victim of a violation of her Charter rights."

They really don't have a clue do they. As someone pointed out to me, making an issue of this just shines a bright light on how dumb a move this was:

"It is highly ironic that by storming out of the committee meeting and making a federal case of it, that these women may have transformed Rachel Harder into a martyr of sorts for the prolife cause, talk about the law of unintended consequences. If the committee had debated the motion for her leadership, and quietly voted against it would anyone have even known about it? Look at all the media coverage during the last several days."

I agree. Trudeau's actions have back fired. How nice.

And then there's Joyce Arthur and her merry band of radical pro-abortion groups who also spoke out against Rachael Harder. Just shows their own intolerance and extreme position on everything related to abortion even when it isn't about abortion. They even have the nerve to mention the Charter. Do these people ever listen to themselves?

Liberals and NDPs acting out - Part 3

Another letter to the SOW committee.

"Dear Members of the Status of Women Committee, 

Rachael Harder, like all Canadians--and all Parliamentarians--has a right to be treated with respect. Walking out on her for holding views about abortion that are contrary to the views of a majority who sit on your Committee, is not only disrespectful to her as a person, but it is disrespectful to all women.  

It is disrespectful to all women because it sends the message that women are not allowed to think for themselves, that they must conform to the views of the majority and those who hold power, and if they do not, then they shouldn't bother getting involved in political life. "Group think" is not healthy for society. I would have hoped that by the 21st Century, we would have adopted the view that disagreements--especially in Parliament-- can be settled with respectful discussion and dialogue.  

As a woman, I would have especially hoped that women would be treating other women with the kind of respect they themselves have fought hard for. Is not the "Status of Women" Committee meant to represent all Canadian women? Is not Parliament meant to represent all Canadian women? 

Like Rachael Harder--and importantly, like the Supreme Court in the 1988 Morgentaler decision--I too believe that preborn human life should receive some protection. While I do not agree with everything the Supreme Court said in 1988, I do agree with the unanimous opinion expressed by the seven SCC justices that Parliament has an interest in the protection of fetal life. And I am very concerned that some Parliamentarians (including our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau) continue to misrepresent what the Supreme Court actually said in 1988. The Supreme Court did NOT recognize a constitutional right to abortion, as even pro-choice academics have acknowledged (see  http://www.morgentalerdecision.ca/notable-quotes/ ). And so it makes it all the more unfathomable why Members of your committee would display such disrespect and contempt for those who don't support an unrestricted "right to abortion." 

While some of you, or maybe even most of you, may believe that the "right to abortion" is fundamental to women's rights, it is nonetheless an opinion. It is not a fact. Some women, including myself, don't hold that opinion. And Parliament is a place where our elected representatives should be able to work collegially together and debate the diversity of views Canadians hold. And they should be able to do so as respectful adults, not as schoolyard children who pick up their toys and walk away because they don't get their own way. 

Can we not treat our elected MPs, and by extension, the Canadians they serve, with the dignity and respect we all would want for ourselves? 

Walking out of the Status of Women committee meeting to protest Rachael Harder's nomination as Chair was not becoming of a Parliamentarian in the year 2017. And it was not becoming of a woman. 

I sincerely hope that the Members of the Status of Women Committee who walked out will apologize not only to Rachael Harder but to all the Canadian women who were made to feel like second-class citizens by your actions." 

BM

Well it seems the bullies got their way. Today the SOW committee elected Conservative Karen Vecchio as chair. Vecchio didn't want to be chair. What a pathetic bunch of Liberals and one NDP.

I wonder if these women teach their children to be bullies also?

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."