Who's hard-line on abortion?

Stephen Maher:

"As a young man, Harper became a Conservative because he was angered by the way Trudeau changed Canada, but as a practical politician has steered his party away from hard-line positions on bilingualism, multiculturalism and abortion, defining the limits of politically acceptable Canadian conservatism."

Stephen Maher says that Stephen Harper has steered his party away from a hard-line position on abortion? Are we talking about the same Stephen Harper?

Did Maher not hear the Government's hard-line pro-abortion position articulated by Gordon O'Connor in his scathing speech against Motion 312? Does Maher not know we have one of the most pro-abortion countries in the world? Does Maher not realize that Harper will do whatever is in his power to try to silence Conservative MPs who dare to speak out on the plight of children in the womb who are slaughtered at a rate of 100,000 per year in Canada (at taxpayers' expense, I might add, no questions asked)? Does Maher not remember when Mark Warawa's motion to simply condemn one aspect of abortion which 92% of the population also condemns--discrimination against baby girls through sex-selection--was deemed non-votable?

Preventing abortion debate allows the status quo of 100,000 deaths of innocent children per year to continue unabated; the pro-life position is marginalized; the pro-abortions are more emboldened; abortion becomes more normalized. And it becomes harder and harder to turn the tide. I don't know how much more hard-line on abortion one can get. This is more hard-line than any Conservative PM I can recall in Canada's history. No, Stephen Maher is wrong. Harper has steered his party way, way over to the hard-line pro-abortion side.

Remember Stephen Harper's hidden agenda? What do you think this is? His agenda remained so hidden, for so long, that he can even fool the media. How hidden can you get? 

And Stephen Harper was smart. He did it all incrementally. Harper was never clear about his position initially, and he made some subtle comments about not dealing with the issue. But as the years went on, he became more against it and more direct about it, saying his government wouldn't restrict it, then saying he would do everything in his power to prevent a bill coming to a vote, then O'Connor's speech was the ultimate abortion manifesto, and then actually ensuring M-408 didn't come to a vote. But in the end Stephen Harper created a hard-line abortion policy.

It's ironic that so much of what Harper wants to do is being prevented by the courts, as Maher says, and yet the Supreme Court has said on several occasions that Parliament can do something about protecting preborn children. Yet Harper refuses to do that.

So the courts will allow it. Social conservatives want it. The public would support some reasonable measure. And yet here we are, one of the most anti-preborn child countries in the world.

Not hard-line my foot.

Command and control by the Great Helmsman

John Ivison's article in today's National Post is a must read. Ivison discusses the current implosion going on within the Conservative Caucus.

I've cut and pasted some of his comments.  

"...Senior figures in the Conservative movement are warning that unless Stephen Harper moves his House Leader, Peter Van Loan, and the Government Whip, Gordon O’Connor, more MPs will follow the unlikely rebel, Brent Rathgeber, out of the caucus door.

The changes must be accompanied by reforms to the way the Prime Minister’s Office treats backbenchers, according to one former Cabinet minister. And the Prime Minister needs to draw into his inner circle people who are prepared to tell him things he may not want to hear.

...This is not a battle over ideology or policy. Rather, according to both current and former members of caucus, the backbench is a cauldron of seething resentment because of sheer, bloody mismanagement – “a growing, dictatorial ‘PMO knows best’ attitude.”

...But they [Private Member's Bills] have an importance beyond their success rate because they help push the public agenda – they sometimes find their way into subsequent government legislation; they can encourage government departments to adjust their behaviour; and, they offer the oxygen of publicity for interest groups.

As such they are guarded jealously by MPs. It is considered “unparliamentary” for the House, far less the MP’s own party to amend legislation without the approval of the sponsoring MP.

Members can be told before caucus that their party doesn’t support the proposed legislation and, if they persist, that the leadership will urge its backbenchers to vote against it. But a number of Conservative MPs say they are mortified at the unprecedented step of malleable Conservatives in the Ethics Committee amending Mr. Rathgeber’s bill against his wishes.

The finger of blame has been pointed squarely at Peter Van Loan, described by one Conservative as “the most reviled member of caucus.”. The finger of blame has been pointed squarely at Mr. O’Connor, a former brigadier-general used to his orders being obeyed without question, and Mr. Van Loan, described by one Conservative as “the most reviled member of caucus.” But they are merely the enablers of a command and control structure where the word is written by the Great Helmsman and interpreted by the cadre of youthful Blue Guards in his office.

For Conservatives who joined a party founded on “the supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions,” recent developments have proven shocking.

...The caucus is not feeling the love from the Prime Minister, who now seems to believe a good number of his MPs are on his enemies list because they won’t give him their unconditional support in all circumstances.

...Mr. Harper doesn’t like being pushed into anything but such a course of action would send the message that if the party is going to go over the cliff, he intends to be in the driving seat, Thelma and Louise-style.

Democracy is not a sport

Well well well. Mr. Harper is facing some opposition to his Captain Universe and Supreme commander Persona (CUSP).

Some of his MPs are speaking out that their democratic rights are being thwarted. Mr. Mark Warawa, Mr. Leon Benoit and Mr. Rod Bruinooge aren't happy Commandees. No siree.

And lo and behold we even have Green Party leader Elizabeth May, lone Commander of a party of one, speaking out for, you guessed it, that pesky D word: DEMOCRACY.

Read what Government whip Mr. Gordon O'Connor, had to say about Mr. Warawa's complaint regarding Motion 408, and Ms. May's excellent reply:
"...However, Government whip Gordon O’Connor urged the Speaker to reject Warawa’s complaint, arguing that it’s up to each party to determine which of their MPs will be given a chance to speak.

“Put simply, this is a team activity and your role is referee,” he told Scheer.

“It is not your job as referee to tell the coach or manager which player to play at any given time. That is a question for each team to decide.”

But Green party Leader Elizabeth May said that analogy “cuts to the core of what is wrong with parliamentary democracy,” suggesting MPs “are here as teams, as brands or colours and we are all to take instructions from our team boss.”

“We are not here as teams,” May said. “The principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy is that we are here as representatives of our constituencies and our constituents.”

Noting that political parties are not even mentioned in the Constitution, May added: “They are not an essential part of our democracy. They have grown to be seen as the most interesting thing going on and we have grown to see politics as some sort of sport.

“However, democracy is not a sport.”

Go Lizzie go. You tell Mr. Whipper Snipper.

Interesting turn of events here. I wonder what the future may hold.

I've heard a lot of grumbling from the wee teeny tiny comandees (that's you and me, and we don't even get a CAP on the C because we don't usually count for too much if anything at all). And these little ittty bitty comandees are telling me that they won't vote for Mr. Harper next election time (neither will I as I've said before).

So...maybe we need to start a "Don't vote for Harper" next time we hit the ballot boxes with our puny little X's. Or maybe an "Anything BUT Harper" campaign.

Who knows. Maybe the Green Queen herself might give the CUSP a run for his democracy. Just saying.

Government Whip yields big stick

May 4, 2012

Asking for a study whether the unborn becomes a human being only at “complete birth” generates hostile response in Canadian Parliament

By Patricia Maloney

 

Conservative Member of Canadian Parliament Stephen Woodworth

In Canada there are no legal restrictions on abortion. None. Abortion is legal at any time throughout the nine months, for any reason, or for no reason.

So when on Thursday April 26, Conservative Member of Parliament Stephen Woodworth brought forward a motion in the House of Commons to simply ask for a committee to discuss when an unborn child becomes a human being, it really seemed like a legitimate request to ask our Parliament.

Simply put, Woodworth’s motion 312, was to ask “that a special committee of the House to be appointed and directed to review section 223(1) of our Criminal Code which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth…”

In other words, let’s talk about when an unborn child becomes a human being. This motion is not about enacting a law to prohibit abortion in any way. This motion is about a study; to discuss; to research; to debate. To, you know, participate in the democratic process.

Naturally we expected opposition from our two opposition parties, and we weren’t disappointed.

But it was the vociferous objections that came from Woodworth’s own party when Government Whip, Gordon O’Connor said:

“The decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision…in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount and take precedence over that of the state…I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code…There is no law that says that a woman must have an abortion. No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one…Whether one accepts it or not, abortion is and always will be part of society. There will always be dire situations in which some women may have to choose the option of abortion. No matter how many laws some people may want government to institute against abortion, abortion cannot be eliminated. It is part of the human condition.”

(In Canada the Whip is the MP responsible for ensuring party discipline among members of the Government caucus. In other words, the Whip carries a very big stick.)

No need to read between the lines here. Our Prime Minister has said many times he will never reopen the abortion debate. But for the Government Whip to come out with statements like this, implies that the government is going much further than simply remaining silent on the subject of abortion. This sounds like a pro-choice position to me.

You know, this is actually sort of funny, in a warped kind of way. This tells us that the Conservatives in Canada are really no different than our other parties on abortion policy.

So what happens next? Well, one more hour of debate in June, and then a vote later in the year to see if the study will take place.

Will any of our brave pro-life MPs be willing to vote for the Motion with the courage of their convictions? Or will they allow themselves to be whipped into shape? We’ll just have to wait and see.

Patricia Maloney is a Canadian pro-life blogger.