Politicians listen to Joyce Arthur rather than reason

From Jeff Durham: Montreal stabbing of mom and baby highlights dangerous gap in Canadian law:

"...Most places in the world have some sort of “fetal homicide law” to fill in this gap.  They recognize the danger it poses to women and the importance of legislation to account for such crimes. 

Laws can be carefully written to consider abortion rights, and designed to only be implemented when such “non-consensual abortions” occur. 

But the advocacy group Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada have fought against any such proposal, arguing they are all attempts to weaken women’s right to an abortion. 

When asked by a reporter from the CBC, Joyce Arthur, president of the organization, said she has no problem with how the Criminal Code is applied to those who are charged in the killing of a baby if an attack on a pregnant woman leads to the baby’s death after it has emerged from the womb. 

“I think the law is fair in that sense,” she said. 

There was no comment in regard to the “sense” that isn’t fair. 

Isn’t it up to the Feds, not the ARCC? 

Political liability is something every elected official has to consider. When a pregnant woman is murdered the national news outlets look to Joyce Arthur and the ARCC for the final word. It is not hard to see her influence.  Canadian politicians are acutely aware of it. 

Any effort to address this legal gap is easily spun in the media into, as she puts it, “a backdoor attempt to smuggle in fetal personhood and make it a building block towards recriminalization of abortion.” 

Because of this, certain political groups have become inclined to avoid the subject all together, and in turn, this bizarre circumstance of law that rewards greater brutality in assaulting pregnant women is allowed to continue to be a uniquely Canadian reality..."

What a sorry bunch of cowardly politicians we have here in Canada. They can't think for themselves when it comes to the human fetus. And if they can think for themselves, they hide it pretty well. As soon as Joyce Arthur speaks out against anything to do with the rights of pre-born children--even wanted pre-born children--politicians cower like a dog in a thunderstorm. Sorry. I didn't mean to insult dogs.

Pierre Lemieux - a woman's right to be a mother

The only people who could "strongly dislike" this kind of legislation are people like Joyce Arthur and her pro-abortion friends. Unbelievable but true. Can you even imagine not supporting a bill that would protect an unborn child that a woman has chosen to give birth to? No I can't imagine it either.

Kudos to Pierre Lemieux for announcing this.

Introducing legislation that protects expectant moms and their unborn children will be a priority in a Lemieux government.  How do you feel about this position?

Government has the duty to protect our country’s most vulnerable - to protect those who cannot protect themselves. And yet for a mother who has chosen to bear her child, there is no law that recognizes that the life of her unborn baby was violently taken from her against her will if she is the victim of a violent assault. Under current Canadian law, if an expectant mother is assaulted and her child dies as a result, the charge is assault against the mother.  Her baby’s life was taken from her through a criminal act - and yet the loss of her baby’s life is not recognized under the law. It is a grave injustice that there is no legal recognition of the loss of an expectant mother’s unborn baby through a violent criminal act.  When a woman chooses to become a mother, no one should have the right to take that away from her. I will show actual leadership by addressing this injustice with a government bill. Private Members have done incredible work trying to advance this through the House, but simply allowing a Private Members Bill to proceed is no longer enough.   As leader and as future Prime Minister of Canada, inspired by previous bills introduced by Conservative MPs, I will introduce legislation that will criminalize the killing of unborn children against the will of expectant mothers. With this law, an offender will be charged not only with assault on the expectant mother, but also with the death of her unborn child.   Legislation such as this is supported by Canadians, including many of my fellow leadership candidates - even those with different views on when life begins. Introducing and passing this legislation will unite Conservatives and Canadians - and is necessary to protect the rights of expectant moms.  Let me know what you think by clicking the survey above. Sincerely,

Cassie and Molly Matters - Petition

The OFFICIAL online government petition is now active.

Mar 22, 2016 — The OFFICIAL online government petition is now active. It stays open for 120 days. Please sign and ask others to do the same. The change.org petition was for awareness, this one is to get the lawmakers to hear our voice. #MOLLYMATTERS #CASSIEMATTERShttps://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-183Read more

Cassie and Molly's Law

This morning MP Cathay Wagantall introduced a Private Member's Bill, Bill C-225 into Parliament. (See Molly Matters for more information on Molly and Cassie.)

More info here.

BILL C-225

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence)

FIRST READING, FEBRUARY 23, 2016

SUMMARY

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child while committing or attempting to commit an offence against a pregnant woman and to add pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing.

Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address:

http://www.parl.gc.ca

1st Session, 42nd Parliament

64-65 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016

HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA

BILL C-225

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence)

Preamble

Whereas Cassie Kaake was seven months pregnant and eagerly anticipating the birth of her daughter Molly when she was brutally murdered in Windsor, Ontario, in 2014;

Whereas no charges could be laid for Molly’s death because existing criminal law does not recognize the injury or death caused to a preborn child as a separate offence when a pregnant woman is the victim of a crime, even if the sole purpose of her attacker is to kill her child;

Whereas not being considered a human being under the Criminal Code does not mean that a preborn child does not deserve protection under the law;

Whereas a majority of Canadians support the adoption of legislation that would make it a separate offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child during the commission of an offence against the child’s mother;

Whereas Parliament wishes to address this gap in the law and allow for two charges to be laid in such circumstances;

And whereas Parliament wishes to more strongly denounce violence against pregnant women by explicitly including pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance in sentencing;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Short Title

Short title

1 This Act may be cited as the Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Cassie and Molly's Law).

R.‍S.‍, c. C-46

Criminal Code

2 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 238:

Definition of preborn child

238.‍1 (1) For the purposes of this section, preborn child means a child at any stage of development that has not yet become a human being within the meaning of section 223.

Offence — causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence

(2) Every person who, while committing or attempting to commit an offence under this Act against a female person that the person knows is pregnant, directly or indirectly causes the death of her preborn child

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(i) if the person means to cause injury or death to the preborn child or injury to the mother that the person knows is likely to cause the preborn child’s death, and is reckless as to whether death ensues or not, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 10 years,

(ii) if the person shows wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of the preborn child, to imprisonment for life, or

(iii) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

Reduced punishment

(3) An offence that would otherwise be punishable under subparagraph (2)‍(a)‍(i) may be punishable by imprisonment for life if the person who committed the offence did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation as described in section 232.

Offence — injuring a preborn child while committing an offence

(4) Every person who, while committing or attempting to commit an offence under this Act against a female person that the person knows is pregnant, directly or indirectly causes injury to her preborn child

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding10 years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

Separate offence

(5) An offence referred to in this section is not included in any offence committed against the mother of the preborn child.

3 Paragraph 718.‍2(a) of the Act is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (ii.‍1):

(ii.‍2) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person who they knew was pregnant,

4 Section 743.‍6 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.‍2):

Power of court to delay parole

(1.‍3) Despite section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, if an offender receives a sentence of imprisonment, including a sentence of imprisonment for life, on conviction for an offence under subsection 238.‍1(2), the court shall order that the portion of the sentence that must be served before the offender may be released on full parole is one half of the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less, unless the court is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence and the character and circumstances of the offender, that the expression of society’s denunciation of the offence and the objectives of specific and general deterrence would be adequately served by a period of parole ineligibility determined in accordance with that Act.

Anti-choice Choice Joyce

Jeff Durham responds to Joyce Arthur's comment on this blog entry I wrote: The anti-choice pro-abortions.

Durham's response to Arthur is well worth the read.

The anti-choice pro-abortions

Jeff Durham (of Molly Matters) wonders why Joyce Arthur et all don't like Bill C-484, Unborn Victms of Crime. (Jeff tragically lost his wife and unborn child in one go to murder.)

In fact Durham wonders if ARCC is really anti-choice:

How can any reasonable person who claims to advocate for the choice of a woman call a law that would make it so that the choice was only hers “anti-choice”? 

What is your true agenda? How can you put forth no effort to defend the choice of one woman when it is violated? Or the choice of all of the women who were murdered when they were carrying a child? 

How can you conscionably tell people that to protect what a woman has chosen would take away their right to make a choice? 

If it is not the choice of women that you defend, who’s choice exactly is it? 

Are you even conscious of your contradiction? 

Canada is waking up to your double talk. 

Molly was Cassie’s choice and Molly matters."

Calling the pro-abortions anti-choice makes complete sense. Because the only choice they ever advocate for is the choice to dismember, decapitate and disembowel pre-born babies. The pro-abortions almost never advocate for adoption or, for women to keep their baby heaven forbid.

I also got a good chuckle out of Fake Person's indignant tweets to Jeff Durham about his blog post which she clearly didn't like--she tweeted him at least five times with the very same link to some bill the pro-abortions would support. As if Durham was an imbecile and one tweet wasn't enough.

When Ken Epp first introduced his Unborn Victims of Crime Bill Joyce Arthur wrote a lot of nonsensical stuff on the bill. Ken Epp provided some excellent rebuttals to Arthur. It's funny how often pro-life people have to always spend time correcting Arthur. Well it's not really funny, but you know what I mean.

Protect the pre-born

My letter in today's National Post, in response to Jeff Durham's desire to bring back Bill C-484, Unborn Victims of Crime. 

Re: Make Violent Death Of Unborn Crime, July 10. 

Jeff Durham believes his pre-born child, Molly, the victim of a violent death, deserves to be treated the same way any other human being in the same circumstances: charge the killer. 

I agree. The last time the Unborn Victim of crime bill was introduced in Parliament, the radical pro-choice lobby did everything it could to scare MPs into believing such a bill would open the door to abortion restrictions. Their abortion blinders prevented them from grasping a pre-born child in these specific circumstances, is in as much need of protection as its mother. In this case, their “choice” argument falls especially flat since these children are wanted — their mothers and fathers have chosen to keep them. So why can’t we provide them protection? 

As Joyce Arthur, Canada’s most extreme “pro-choicer” let slip about her real motivation behind her opposition to Bill C-484 in the National Post in 2004: “If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.” 

Durham is calling his campaign “Molly Matters,” after his daughter. Molly does matter, and if we won’t protect her and future Mollys, who will? 

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa. 

(See http://www.mollymatters.org/
And here: http://www.molly-matters.ca)

Molly Matters - Let's resurrect Bill C-484

Casandra Kaake met a violent death when she was seven months pregnant. The child's father, Jeff Durham, believes that his child Molly, also a victim of the same violent act, deserves to be treated the same way any other human being: charge the killer.

This is so logical you have to ask yourself how anyone could oppose it? Unbelievably, there are such people. Joyce Arthur comes to mind.

Durham would like to resurrect the Unborn Victim of Crime bill first introduced by MP in 2007, and which was killed when the Conservatives called an election. (How convenient of Stephen Harper).

The last time the Unborn Victim of crime bill was brought forward, the radical pro-choice lobby did everything they could to scare members of Parliament that such a bill would open the door to abortion restrictions. Their ideology blinded them from the simple truth that a pre-born child in these circumstances, is in as much need of protection as her mother. In fact their "choice" argument fails miserably since these children are wanted--their mothers and fathers have chosen to keep them.

So why won't the pro-abortions support such a bill? Well Arthur let slip what her real motivation behind her opposition to Bill C-484 was.

“If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.”

Durham is calling his campaign "Molly Matters", after his daughter. Yes Molly matters. And so do all the future children killed in utero by means of violence.

Sign the petition here to bring back Bill C-484.

Conservative policy convention - But what does it mean?

This week I received an email from Minister Jason Kenney. It came with a link to an article in the Calgary Sun regarding the recent Conservative Party's policy convention in Calgary.

After reading the article, I replied to the Minister with this email.

Dear Minister Kenney,

 

I was guardedly happy to hear that the Conservative grass roots delegates have voted on two pro-life initiatives, condemning sex selection abortion and euthanasia.

This is welcome news. I have a couple of questions that I would really appreciate if you could answer for me.

What I would like to know now is, how will your government respond to these issues, in particular the condemning of sex-selection abortion? It is encouraging that the delegates condemn the practice, but condemning sex-selection abortion as a policy of the Conservative party is one thing, but action taken by Prime Minister Harper and the government, in Parliament, is another one entirely.

And how does this jibe with Mark Warawa's own motion on the same subject, a motion that was deemed non-votable because it was outside of federal jurisdiction (supposedly because it was under provincial jurisdiction)? That is, why is it legitimate for a federal party to condemn the practice, but outside of Parliament's jurisdiction to condemn the practice?

The Conservative base has spoken on sex-selection abortion. However, they also supported the Unborn Victims of Crime policy resolution at the 2008 Conservative policy convention. Yet, five years later, that support still has not translated into any kind of policy, bill, or motion. With all due respect, Mr. Kenney, if the Conservative base speaks in such a clear way on something as important as this, but that never actually translates into concrete action by the Conservative government, I don't see why I would get excited about it.

I must be very honest with you. I really need to see some changes in the value system of the leadership of the Conservative party before the next election. As it stands now, and if, the Conservative government continues to support the status quo on abortion (i.e. if it maintains its pro-abortion position) and/or Mr. Harper remains leader, I could not in good conscience vote Conservative. I would probably vote for the Christian Heritage party since I couldn't vote NDP or Liberal.

Mr. Kenney the lack of any real pro-life initiatives coming from the Conservatives is very troubling for me and for many other social conservatives in this fine country. I believe this really is becoming a conscience issue for many of us.

I sincerely hope that we will all see some real substantial changes in this regard before the next election.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond to the questions/concerns I have raised.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Aggravated Murder and Unborn Victims of Crime

This from the National Post today. Ariel Castor has been convicted of "aggravated murder" for forcing Michelle Knight to miscarry.

Remember MP Ken Epp's Bill C-484, Unborn Victims of Crime Act? Maybe we need to resurrect that bill. Any MPs out there willing to take this on? Looks like this would be a good time to do it.

A refresher course for pro-abortions

There are so many things wrong with what Joyce Arthur says in her article attacking Stephen Woodworth’s motion, but I’ll focus here on just a few points where she plays fast and loose with the facts.

1. Ms. Arthur says:

“The Supreme Court has already decided the issue.”

Wrong. The Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently left it up to Parliament to decide this issue. Did Arthur not read Ken Epp’s response to her in 2008 when she made similar misleading comments about Bill C-484 (Unborn Victims of Crime Act), or has she simply forgotten?

For your convenience, Ms. Arthur, I provide a link to Mr. Epp’s report, The truth about Bill C-484: A compassionate and constitutionally valid remedy to current injustice in Canadian criminal law.

On page 20 Mr. Epp says:

“The courts have said that the fetus is not a “person” in Canadian law, and this is because our existing law does not recognize the fetus as a person. So the Courts have simply acknowledged the law as it stands today. But the Supreme Court has also said on numerous occasions that Parliament has a legitimate interest in the protection of the fetus and that it is not up to the courts to decide how to provide this protection – in spite of the fetus not being a “person” according to existing law – it is up to the legislature, that is, Parliament, to decide. Contrary to Ms. Arthurs claim that C-484 “flies in the face of several Supreme Court of Canada rulings,” C-484, in fact, is reinforced by Supreme Court of Canada rulings, including the very three cases Ms. Arthur cites, namely, Dobson v. Dobson, Tremblay v. Daigle, and Winnipeg and Child Family Services v. D.F.G.”

Mr. Epp then goes on to describe in detail these three cases and how the SCC clearly stated how it is within Parliament’s jurisdiction to protect preborn children in law.

2. Ms. Arthur says:

“Giving personhood to fetuses invites criminal prosecution of pregnant women for negative outcomes”
and then goes on to condemn C-484 and says:
“At the time, the U.S.-based group National Advocates for Pregnant Women prepared a 15-page brief for ARCC-CDAC, documenting the hundreds of unjust cases of prosecutions of pregnant women in the U.S.”

She conveniently omitted to tell the reader that Ken Epp also refuted those NAPW claims in his other report called, Claims that US “fetal homicide / “unborn victims of violence” laws target pregnant women: A Smoke-screen to attempt to discredit Bill C-484.

3. Ms. Arthur says in point 6:

“abortions after 20 weeks are rare in Canada – virtually all are confined to cases of fetal abnormality where the fetus cannot survive after birth.”

I’ve already challenged Ms. Arthur to provide evidence of how many late-term abortions occur every year and the reason for each one in The great pro-abortion urban legend.

I’m still waiting for that evidence. You’d think that if she wanted people to believe her, she would provide some evidence to back up her claims.

All we do know, is that the number of late abortions is somewhere between 552 and 70,621 (that's 552 known late term abortions, plus 70,069 unknown gestational age abortions) and we have seen no published data on the reasons for these abortions.

4. Ms. Arthur says:

“Woodworth also continually uses the word ‘child’ to describe a fetus, which is just another ‘begging the question’ ploy to try and lead people to equate fetuses with children and therefore accept that they should have rights. ...Although ‘child’ is often used informally to refer to fetuses, this is a colloquial usage that has no legitimate place in modern law or medicine – including in Woodworth’s motion.”

Wrong again, Joyce. Let me repeat how Ken Epp already responded to you on this point on pages 16-17 of The truth about Bill C-484: A compassionate and constitutionally valid remedy to current injustice in Canadian criminal law:

“ The Criminal Code currently uses no term other than “child” to refer to the unborn child (Sections 223 (1) , 223 (2), 238 (1) and 238 (2)). The term “fetus” is never used in the Criminal Code.

....the existing section 238 refers to the “child that has not become a human being”; section 223 states that the “child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother”;

....Ms. Arthur is also incorrect in her understanding of section 223 (2). She says, “The meaning of child in subsection (2) is the same as that in the definition – a born-alive human being.” The exact wording of this section is: “223 (2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.” In section 223 (2), the term “child” is used to refer to both the unborn child and the born child.

..... Given that the term “child” is already used in the Criminal Code to refer to the fetus/unborn child/human offspring before birth, one is left to wonder why Ms. Arthur displays such an adverse, extreme, reaction to the use of this term in C-484. It is worth noting that what Ms. Arthur refers to as “anti-abortion activist” language was actually used by none other than staunch pro-choice advocate and former Cabinet Minister Barbara McDougall twenty years ago in the House of Commons:

'Society and religion, over the centuries, have had differing views on the mores of abortion, of killing an unborn child. Let us not be afraid of the vocabulary. [emphasis added] (Hon. Barbara McDougall, Hansard, P. 1 8080, July 27, 1988)'”.

As Joe Friday used to say on the TV series from the 1950's, Dragnet:

"All we want are the facts, ma'am".

The law of Unintended Consequences

I have created a new website to go along with my blog. I will use this site to post articles when needed, so I can easily refer to them when necessary.

The first article I would like to link to is Ken Epp's "The truth about Bill C-484: A compassionate and constitutionally valid remedy to current injustice in Canadian criminal law". It is a response to the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada which claimed that C-484 would "endanger abortion rights and women's rights by establishing fetal personhood". I have obtained permission from Mr. Epp to post his article here:
http://sites.google.com/site/runwithlifeblog/home/unborn-victims-of-crime

The fact that I have become a vocal advocate for the unborn started with the debate that ensued after Mr. Epp introduced "The Unborn Victims of Crime Act" (Bill C-484) in the fall of 2007.

There were very loud protests coming from those who claimed to be "pro-choice." It was obvious to anyone that actually read the bill that because it did not outlaw abortion, but rather the bill sought to: "amend the Criminal Code by making it an offence to injure, cause the death of or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother" it wasn't an anti-abortion bill at all. In fact, abortion was explicitly excluded from the bill "for greater certainty."

Because it did not tamper with a woman's so-called "right to choose" abortion whenever and wherever and for any reason or no reason at all, it was a pro-choice bill. I could only conclude that the vehement opposition to the bill was because those people opposing it weren't really pro-choice. They were, in fact, pro-abortion.

At the time I wrote a few letters to the newspapers (that were published) supporting the bill. As I followed the abortion debate that ensued since that time and up to the present, I am convinced many of these very loud vocal persons in the so-called "pro-choice" crowd are in fact pro-abortion. And so this year I started my pro-life blog.

I guess I should thank these pro-abortion people whose radical views are what egged me on in the first place.