Author
|
Topic: Bill C484 Who voted yay and what is going to be done
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 05 March 2008 05:34 PM
Okay, Stoffer is a supreme loser, even more so than those Liberal men who voted nay, as at least we know them for who they are. He also is a lying hyprocrit.Dion made a huge misstep, as even Ignatieff was there to vote NO. It was annoying that Blaikie was the Speaker and thus avoided the vote. Antonia is writing about it all for Friday's paper.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 05 March 2008 05:57 PM
Posted by michelle in other thread, but felt it should also be here, as that page will slip off of tat and all michelle stated is valid and needs to happen. quote: I want the names of every single MP who voted for the "Unborn Victims of Crime" Act. And I want to know whether the NDP whipped the vote and Stoffer just defied it, or whether they didn't bother. And if they did, I want to know what's going to happen to Stoffer for defying it. And if they didn't, I'd like to know just why the hell they whipped a vote in FAVOUR of a reactionary crime bill and didn't think legislation about WOMEN'S BODIES and CHOICE wasn't important enough to whip.And I want to know why there isn't a single frigging thing about Bill C-484 on the NDP website. And I want to know just what the hell is happening to Canada, that a bill with the repugnant anti-choice terminology, "Unborn Victims" in the title can pass SECOND READING. It's time for us to start screaming bloody murder, ladies. IWD is coming up. Let's make this an issue.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2
|
posted 05 March 2008 06:00 PM
A friend of mine just wrote the Party this awesome letter: quote: To Olivia Chow, my MP, Jack Layton, party leader, et. al.,I have felt excited for this party, hopeful for this party, embarrassed by this party, let down by this party. Through all these things, I have volunteered, donated, voted. But now I feel betrayed by this party. Allowing Bill C-484 to pass, your failure to whip this vote, not AT ONCE making clear statements about your dismay and opposition to the bill's passage both on your website and in the press, all of these actions--and inaction--have left me so angry and ideologically disenfranchised from the NDP that I don't know if I can ever, with a clear conscience, vote for a member of this party again. This party that my grandparents helped onto its feet, that my mother has rallied for throughout her life; that I, as an adult, have defended and cheered for and tried to help carry the torch of progressive, pluralist politics; this party has failed me. This party has failed every single woman in Canada. I'd suggest that, for your own integrity, you revise your slogan to remove the word "choice". Gilyan Merry ex-Member, Trinity Spadina
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 05 March 2008 06:06 PM
Thanks audra, that is exactly how I feel, and in fact it sounds like my parents and family, however, IMV the Liberal's behaviour in this regard is worse than that of the NDP's, Dion did not even show up.It seems like no one in Ottawa was taking this seriously until we started pushing, who knows how things would have gone had we not. Does anyone know how the seriously the gay community took this? Because you can bet your boots they are next in line to have their rights trampled and stolen.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 05 March 2008 06:15 PM
I'm going to be marching with Canadians For Choice in Toronto's rally and march for International Women's Day on March 8th (this Saturday).Speaking of which, if anyone wants to join us, here is the information. I would be thrilled and proud to march with any and all babble feminists! CANADIANS FOR CHOICE - JOIN US IN THE PARADE! PLACE: OISE, 252 Bloor Street, 11 a.m. INFO: [email protected] or 416-908-8826 Canadians for Choice Toronto Action Committee will be marching in the abovementioned IWD parade, and hosting a table at the information fair afterwards. This year marks the 20th anniversary of abortion legalization and we are proud to be marching not only in celebration of this momentous occasion, but in redefining and diversifying the movement today! We need your support in the march! If you are interested in marching with us, please contact Jessica Yee, Chair of the Toronto Action Committee (info above). Or feel free to find us at the march itself - we'll be carrying many visible signs and "PROUDLY PRO-CHOICE" buttons. [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 05 March 2008 07:26 PM
My letter to the NDP: quote: To Whom It May Concern:I was a member of the NDP a few years back, and despite not having renewed my membership a few years ago, I have continued to vote NDP in every election, federal and provincial. I've been voting exclusively NDP for years now. So you can imagine my shock when I found absolutely nothing on the NDP web site about Bill C-484. That shock turned to anger when I watched the vote and saw that Peter Stoffer voted FOR it, and that this vote didn't appear to be whipped. This is a bill with "Unborn Victims" in the title. This is blatant and classic anti-choice rhetoric. This is the phrase anti-choicers use to describe aborted fetuses. These are women's bodies and women's rights we're talking about here, and the NDP didn't think it was important enough to mention this bill even once on your web site? Didn't think it was important enough to whip the vote? How is it that you managed to whip your MPs into voting WITH the Conservatives on a regressive, reactionary crime bill (and disciplined the one principled member of your caucus who voted against it) but decided that this anti-choice bill was nothing important? I am appalled. And extremely angry. Please don't count on my vote any longer, unless I can count on the NDP to represent me on the issues most important to me and to all women who think fighting for our right to control our own bodies is important. Choice is a dealbreaker issue. It's time for the NDP to start acting like a progressive, left-wing party again. You can start by protecting my body and my rights from anti-choice zealots in the Conservative Party. Sincerely, etc.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 05 March 2008 08:09 PM
The %#@@! Liberals who voted for are:Raymond Bonin Telephone: (613) 995-9107 EMail: [email protected] John Cannis (613) 992-6823 EMail: [email protected] Hon. Raymond Chan (613) 995-2021 EMail: [email protected] Hon. Roy Cullen (613) 995-4702 EMail: [email protected] Sukh Dhaliwal (613) 992-0666 EMail: [email protected] Hon. Albina Guarnieri (613) 996-0420 EMail: [email protected] ^ * lone female Hon. Charles Hubbard (613) 992-5335 EMail: [email protected] Hon. Jim Karygiannis (613) 992-4501 EMail: [email protected] Derek Lee (613) 996-9681 EMail: [email protected] Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (613) 995-9325 EMail: [email protected] Hon. Gurbax Malhi (613) 992-9105 EMail: [email protected] Hon. John McKay (613) 992-1447 EMail: [email protected] Hon. Joe McGuire (613) 992-9223 EMail: [email protected] Hon. Dan McTeague (613) 995-8082 EMail: [email protected] Hon. Shawn Murphy (613) 996-4714 EMail: [email protected] Massimo Pacetti (613) 995-9414 EMail: [email protected] Francis Scarpaleggia (613) 995-8281 EMail: [email protected] Hon. Raymond Simard (613) 995-0579 EMail: [email protected] Lloyd St. Amand (613) 992-3118 EMail: [email protected] Paul Steckle 613) 992-8234 EMail: [email protected] Paul Szabo (613) 992-4848 EMail: [email protected] Hon. Robert Thibault (613) 995-5711 EMail: [email protected] Alan Tonks (613) 995-0777 EMail: [email protected] Roger Valley (613) 996-1161 EMail: [email protected] Tom Wappel (613) 995-0284 EMail: [email protected] Borys Wrzesnewskyj (613) 947-5000 EMail: [email protected] Paul Zed was abscent as was: Dion, Bryon Wilfert, Volpe, Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Hon. Mark Eyking, Ujjal Dosanjh (who was there for other votes), Denis Coderre, Brenda Chamberlain, Gerry Byrne. The CPC females voting nay were: Sylvie Boucher Josee Vernier and Hon. Lawrence Cannon, Gordon O'Connor, were the 2 males. The Independants voted nay. I never checked the Bloc but when watching it seemed all who were there voted nay. The rest of course were all CPC. *** thanks skdadl ETA to add Verner as another CPC who voted nay my apologies Josee Verner ETD: to take Gord Brown out as he is CPC and remove Simms from being called as abscent. It seems a double check was not good enough, needed a third gouing over, my apologies to Scott Simms. [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Summer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12491
|
posted 05 March 2008 08:11 PM
I'm too lazy to look up who is in which party. Did the Bloc whip the vote? The Cons? The optimist in me hopes that the Bill will be amended in committee to remove all references to unborn victims and will make knowingly assaulting a pregnant women an aggravating factor to be considered in sentencing - nothing more, nothing less. The realist in me thinks that this might actually pass. Fast forward to the first person charged with harming an "unborn victim". His lawyer will surely launch a charter challenge against the law.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13367
|
posted 06 March 2008 04:58 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: I'm going to be marching with Canadians For Choice in Toronto's rally and march for International Women's Day on March 8th (this Saturday).Speaking of which, if anyone wants to join us, here is the information. I would be thrilled and proud to march with any and all babble feminists!
Is this a women's-only march or are men allowed to join as well? If so, I'm interested. If not, I'll be there in spirit.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 06 March 2008 05:10 AM
The Canadians for Choice website also dropped the ball on Bill C484, as there is no mention of it anywhere.So it wasn't just the NDP asleep at the switch. Not so the Abortion Rights Coalition. [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 06 March 2008 05:54 AM
quote: Originally posted by Will S: Is this a women's-only march or are men allowed to join as well? If so, I'm interested. If not, I'll be there in spirit.
I don't think it's women only - it doesn't say so on the web site. M. Spector, I noticed that yesterday, that CFC doesn't have it on their web site. However, I think that comparing a tiny non-profit with extremely limited resources and THE FEDERAL NDP whose JOB it is to, you know, keep on top of what goes on in PARLIAMENT is just a little bit disingenuous, don't you? P.S. That hadn't occurred to me, Martin. Makes sense. [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 06 March 2008 05:58 AM
If anyone feels like writing those wonderful YEA-sayers and absentee cowards in the Opposition, feel free to cut and paste. (Edited to integrate corrections) Liberal YEA-sayers: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] NPD Nay-sayer: [email protected] Absentees: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] PLEASE WRITE THESE PEOPLE![ 08 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 06 March 2008 06:03 AM
According to Antonia Zerbisias over on BnR, Stephane Dion couldn't make it to the vote because he was busy playing host at his wife's International Women's Day party for female journalists last night. Having cocktails and hobnobbing with elite women from the press at a photo-op while NOT SHOWING UP to a vote on an anti-choice bill is not supporting women! The party is mentioned in this article. (h/t BnR) [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 06 March 2008 06:52 AM
The bill has been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsThe following are the voting members of the Committee. All voted in the House in favour of the bill on Second Reading, except those marked with an asterisk, who voted against. CHAIR Art Hanger (C) VICE-CHAIRS *Réal Ménard (BQ) *Brian Murphy (L) MEMBERS *Larry Bagnell (L) Blaine Calkins (C) *Joe Comartin (NDP) Rick Dykstra (C) *Carole Freeman (BQ) *Dominic LeBlanc (L) Derek Lee (L) Rob Moore (C) Daniel Petit (C) [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 06 March 2008 09:05 AM
The Globe and Mail had a small report on it, but they are out to lunch on it starting with their headline.They reported it as the first reading when it is the second reading and thereby goes to committee now. quote: Ottawa -- A private member's bill that would amend the Criminal Code to make harming a fetus a crime passed first reading yesterday.
more than 20 Liberals voted for it. There were close to 30 Liberal MPs who voted yay (27), and it would've been more accurate than saying "more than 20". And they also disregarded the 14, or so, who were abscent. Of note here, I did not put Stronach's name, nor Paul Martin's name, into the equation of those Liberals who were missing for the vote. [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125
|
posted 06 March 2008 09:10 AM
I am going to email these losers who voted for the "Unborn Victims of Crime" Act and let these idiots have it. Thanks for the email addresses. Unbelievable.Only 2 bloody years of a conservative minority government and we're already into fighting many cultural wars that Americans have been fighting for awhile now. [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]
From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
runesmith
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15017
|
posted 06 March 2008 11:13 AM
A few corrections: Gord Brown is a Conservative, not a Liberal. John Maloney (Lib) also voted 'yea'. Scott Simms (Lib) did show up and voted 'nay', so don't yell at him. The official vote is recorded here. Weirdly, all six Scarborough MPs (all Liberals) voted in favour of the bill. Is there some sort of crypto-conservative Scarborough voting bloc we don't know about?
From: Milton, Ontario | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227
|
posted 06 March 2008 01:51 PM
I feel very badly as I never really took notice of this nonsense. But for Babble, it may have passed me by. That seems is a problem for progressives and feminists.What a piece of nonsense. this is. Thank you for making this an issue and please allow me to ensure I will try to part of "the solution". This is is foolish and idiotic. Only those without appreciation of the implications would agree. Supporting everyone is also supporting the rights of women. Full stop.
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 06 March 2008 02:08 PM
quote: Originally posted by runesmith: Weirdly, all six Scarborough MPs (all Liberals) voted in favour of the bill. Is there some sort of crypto-conservative Scarborough voting bloc we don't know about?
I know, I saw that last night when going over the 2 lists, trying to figure what party caucus member voted yay or nay, and was getting angier with each Liberal Ontario MP. For a moment there I was yelling mentally "fuck that, we need to separate if Ontario MPs are so overwhelmingly vote to deny women's equality rights". However, I calmed down and realized we would be still stuck with a whack load of our own here in BC. Oh, forgot to say thank you for pointing out the correction needed regarding Scott Simms being there, not abscent and that Gord Brown is a CPC not Liberal. It matters not who voted nay in the Liberal caucus, it matters who voted yay. [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 06 March 2008 02:46 PM
Was over at BnR having a read and found this link: quote: THE CPC ANNOUNCE NEW TAX CREDIT - THE FETUS IS NOW A TAX DEDUCTABLE CREDIT
The Harper Government will now allow all pregnant mother to claim the unborn as a dependent on their taxes. In actual fact, wingnutter may have a point, if this Bill passes, a fetus will be declared a person and thus will have to be acknowledged as a dependant tax deduction prior to be born alive. [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 06 March 2008 02:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by mary123: A Suggestion:This is a very important thread and more people need to know and get angry about this. Doesn't this deserve to be in the National News or in the Canadian News section and give it more publicity as well?
Excuse me? Are you actually stating that because it is in the feminist forum that it is in a second class place and that things are put in the feminist forum because they are NOT worth putting elsewhere? [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125
|
posted 06 March 2008 03:11 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind:
Excuse me? Are you actually stating that because it is in the feminist forum that it is in a second class place and that things are put in the feminist forum because they are NOT worth putting elsewhere? [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
No you said that. When I only have a little time I quickly glance over at the popular National News and Canadian News sections of babble. I wasn't aware of the results of this whole "Bill C484 debacle" until I came to the feminism forum. I assume people are like me and that when pressed for time go to the more "popular" sections for lack of a better word. I believe this is a damn important issue and want ALL OF CANADA to be aware of it. I thought my suggestion would help publicize the issue more, tis all. I am assuming the News and Canadian news section are the most popular sections and most read sections of babble. I know, I know never assume!
From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125
|
posted 06 March 2008 03:15 PM
You're right, I don't use the TAT often but I will.Sorry. Carry on. [ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]
From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ottawaobserver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14981
|
posted 06 March 2008 04:51 PM
It's worth noting that 3 of the Yays had been elected as Liberals before they crossed the floor (Comuzzi, Emerson, and Khan).I must say I'm disgusted with the vote, but I don't get why so many posters think the NDP is the big villain here. All their members showed up and voted. They are an avowedly pro-choice party, have been for years even when it cost them big-time, and, like, less than 4% of their voting strength voted for this private member's bill (which, strictly speaking, are not *supposed* to be whipped votes). Meantime you have a party whose entire election campaign was based on "vote for us to stop Harper from doing all those awful things to women", and when the time comes, they're off at a cocktail party and their whip (a woman) forgot to count her votes. Instead of circling the wagons and shooting inside, it's probably more effective at this stage to go after the folks who didn't show up to vote, and ask them to make sure they're on hand to be counted for third reading. Just one person's opinion.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 06 March 2008 04:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by ottawaobserver: I must say I'm disgusted with the vote, but I don't get why so many posters think the NDP is the big villain here. All their members showed up and voted.
The NDP are not the villain. We expect much more from them than just showing up and voting, because they don't have enough votes to make a difference. We want to hear their voice, see their firm stand, feel their determination - we want leadership from them. If we don't exhort and encourage them to play that role, who will?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2
|
posted 06 March 2008 06:11 PM
quote: Originally posted by martin dufresne: If anyone feels like writing those wonderful YEA-sayers and absentee cowards in the Opposition, feel free to cut and paste. YEA-sayers: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Absentees: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Is this just the NON Tories who voted yay or were absent?
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 06 March 2008 07:45 PM
From the Star blog, here is how scumbucket Jake Epp, MP, a long-time anti-choice campaigner, denies to reporters his C-484 bill having ANYTHING to do with abortion: quote: For the record, the bill's sponsor, Conservative MP Ken Epp, says adamantly that this bill has nothing to do with abortion. Here's a snippet of his conversation with reporters yesterday.Epp: "Well I, I really believe that C-484 is very important because it addresses specifically the case where a mother has chosen to have a child. This has nothing to do with abortion, it is explicitly excluded. It has to do with where the mother has chosen to not have an abortion. And when a pregnant woman is expecting her baby, that is probably the thing that she wants to protect the most and she has currently in our law no legal protection whatsoever. So my bill very narrowly focuses on the woman who has chosen to have her child and where that choice has been unilaterally taken away from her... with somebody who had attacked her because that's the only way you can get to a, to an unborn child. But he takes away what she values at that stage in her life the very absolute most."
Aaaaaww...
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064
|
posted 07 March 2008 07:53 AM
Here is the breakdown of the vote:YEA - 147, NAY - 132, PAIRED - 4, NOT VOTING - 20 [NOT VOTING includes the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, as well as people who missed the vote.] By Gender Female: YEA - 12, NAY - 46, PAIRED - 2, NOT VOTING - 4 Male: YEA - 135, NAY - 86, PAIRED - 2, NOT VOTING - 16 By Party Conservatives: YEA - 118, NAY - 4, PAIRED - 2, NOT VOTING - 2 Liberals: YEA - 27, NAY - 54, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 13 BQ: YEA - 0, NAY - 47, PAIRED - 2, NOT VOTING - 0 NDP: YEA - 1, NAY - 25, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 4 Independents: YEA - 1, NAY - 2, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 1 By Province Alberta: YEA - 28, NAY - 0, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 0 BC: YEA - 20, NAY - 12, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 3 Manitoba: YEA - 7, NAY - 4, PAIRED - 2, NOT VOTING - 1 New Brunswick: YEA - 4, NAY - 5, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 1 Nfld and Lab: YEA - 3, NAY - 3, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 1 Nova Scotia: YEA - 4, NAY - 5, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 2 Ontario: YEA - 56, NAY - 41, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 7 PEI: YEA - 3, NAY - 1, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 0 Quebec: YEA - 10, NAY - 58, PAIRED - 2, NOT VOTING - 4 Saskatchewan: YEA - 12, NAY - 1, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 0 Territories: YEA - 0, NAY - 2, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 1 By Cabinet Cabinet: YEA - 25, NAY - 3, PAIRED - 0, NOT VOTING - 2
From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 07 March 2008 11:55 AM
quote: Antonia Zerbisias It should not be lost on anybody that the party with the fewest number of women MPs in the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of Bill C-484 on Wednesday. It passed 147-133, with one lone woman Opposition MP – Liberal member Albina Guarnieri – voting yea. Even the Bloc Québécois' Raymond Gravel, a Roman Catholic priest, rejected it. Epp and his supporters claim no such thing would happen if Bill C-484 is passed. That this is not aimed at eliminating women's right to control their own bodies. They say that the bill, as currently worded, protects abortion rights. But, experts say, those protections can easily be struck down by the courts.
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/310182
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 07 March 2008 12:02 PM
A response to Antonia says: quote: Your article shows how stupid you are. Women kill more of their own unborn children than men kill women. That is why we need legislation to protect unborn children from their mothers.
http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2008/03/on-wednesday-ev.html
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 07 March 2008 12:05 PM
Wannabe reassuring feedback from Status of Women critic Maria Minna, M.P. (Lib.): quote: Dear Mr. Dufresne,I would like to assure you that I share your concerns 100% in regard to Bill C-484 and I will do everything I can to ensure it does not make it through its third reading in Parliament. Although I am highly sceptical that this Bill will successfully make it through the Standing Committee on Justice, I can assure you that I will be persuading all of my colleagues to vote against this Bill in the future. Because the language of the Bill was misleading, not all Members fully understood the implications the Bill would have on women's rights. I have already spoken with two Members who had voted in favour of the Bill, and they have now agreed to vote against it at the next reading. In regard to why this Bill was not a whipped vote, Canada has a tradition of not making Private Member's Bill's (such as Ken Epps' Bill C-484) whipped votes because confidence in government is not an issue. It should also be noted that because this Bill was a free vote, senior members of the Conservative caucus were able to vote on their conscience against it. Again, I would like to reiterate that I am deeply concerned about the affects of this Bill on women's rights. If you provide me with your phone number, I would be happy to discuss this with your further. Sincerely, Hon. Maria Minna, M.P. Beaches-East York
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 07 March 2008 12:12 PM
NSFW link below, and there are many angry blogs out there like Dave's at TGB, and I would like to thank personally all the supportive men out there who take seriously women's equality rights.http://thewingnuterer.blogspot.com/2008/03/lets-play-game-three-out-of-four.html h/t's for this and the above 2 links to BnR
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 07 March 2008 12:20 PM
Well, I have to disagree, I believe they do, even recently there have been changes made to NDP actions resulting from feedback.For example, on one particular recent issue, I got a call and I spoke for over an hour with an NDP MP, and they extended the time frame to that not me. However, I am seriously fucking pissed at Stoffer, calling me while on the way into the house, and then standing an voting yea.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 07 March 2008 12:30 PM
Wow. Do you donate money to them or something? (Maybe that's what I've been doing wrong!)Also, I'm not a member of the NDP anymore, so that might have something to do with it too. I think the first time I wrote to them, my membership had just lapsed a few months before and I hadn't renewed yet. I think it was over Pat Martin calling NDP Muslims loony-left Jew-haters. I never heard back, nothing ever happened to sanction Martin for it, so I didn't bother renewing. And my decision not to renew has been confirmed on a somewhat regular basis ever since. (Courting homophobic "star candidates", letting Desjarlais get away with voting against marriage equality with only a little slap on the wrist, support for forcing Muslim women to unveil at voting booths, supporting mandatory minimum sentencing, supporting a regressive crime bill, supporting Canada pulling out from attending the Durban anti-racism conference...) So they really don't owe me anything, and I'm not surprised that they haven't bothered responding the two or three times I've written to them over the past few years. [ 07 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 07 March 2008 01:06 PM
My response to Liberal Status of Women critic Maria Minna, MP [email protected] Ms. Minna, Thank you for your response; I can hear your concern. But I must say that I am not as confident as you are that C-484 will be stopped in committee. Six of the 12 standing committee members, including arch-conservative Art Hanger, voted in favour of C-484 (list of names). I don't think there is anything *forbidding* parties to have a whipped vote on a private member's bill or for your leader to take a strong stand in favour of women's rights - something beyond passing out tiny pink canapés and burgers at Stornoway! (Stand on Bill C-484 casts pall on (otherwise elegant) party) If there is a tradition to avoid such whipped votes, it is clearly time to break it, especially if you are right in thinking that Liberal YEA-sayers are essentially unaware of the danger involved, rather than voting with their conscience on an issue where they hate women's rights. Until that fateful 3rd reading vote, the Liberals will be perceived - and I will see to that - as having dropped the ball in a major way, with 27 of your MPs voting with all but 4 of the Conservatives on this crucial issue. When so many Grits are voting more conservatively than Minister Verner, I think you have a problem, and the Liberal Party's edge in Canadian and Quebecois women's voting intentions is about to fizzle big time... Martin Dufresne [ 07 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 07 March 2008 01:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: Wow. Do you donate money to them or something? (Maybe that's what I've been doing wrong!)[qb]
Nope. quote: [qb]ot a member of the NDP anymore, so that might have something to do with it too.
Nope, not a member.However, I have worked for the NDP federally and provincially every election that I have been able to since coming of age. And I believe my parents were signatures to both the Regina and Winnipeg Manifestos.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090
|
posted 07 March 2008 04:25 PM
quote: I'm not surprised that they haven't bothered responding the two or three times I've written to them over the past few years.
Michelle, who do you write to? I'm wondering if the difference between you and those who do get a response is just the difference in how different MPs handle their jobs. Do you write to your MP? To the Leader's Office? To the Party office? I think the response rate would definitely be different, depending on where your letter goes. (I just remembered that you said you use "feedback" through the website. Yeah, I doubt that would be effective.)
From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 08 March 2008 08:38 AM
I do not have a NDP MP either, I just write to them all. quote: OTTAWA -- A federal justice bill making it a separate crime if a fetus dies when its mother is attacked scraped its way through the second stage of proceedings in Parliament Wednesday. But Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin is hoping MPs opposed to the bill will do whatever they can to ensure the bill never makes it out of committee, fearing this is going to rejuvenate the abortion debate in Canada. "I think the NDP, the Bloc and about half the Liberals will mobilize at committee stage to try and nip this in the bud,'' said Martin. The Unborn Victims of Crime Act passed second reading Wednesday evening by just seven votes as the controversial issue split support among the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP. Martin and other critics, including pro-choice groups, fear by giving the fetus a right through this legislation, it opens the door for pro-life groups to go back to court and argue against abortion.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/story/4138709p-4730088c.html
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 08 March 2008 09:50 AM
quote: Originally posted by remind: According to Antonia over at BnR, Stoffer is going to be talked to, and apparently he voted yea, because of his belief in Private Members Bills.
I didn't understand either part of your sentence. I clicked on your links and I didn't understand what Antonia said either. Did Stoffer do something wrong under NDP rules? If they don't whip the vote, what are they going to "speak to him" about????? And what is his "belief" in private members' bills? He votes yea to all of them? I don't get it.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 08 March 2008 11:46 AM
ok, I've calmed down enough to be reasonable---why was I shocked by this bill passing second reading?---clearly I am missing more about my society than I know---and considering that I spend alot of time and energy paying attention this can't bode well for most of us. I am struggling to understand just how we can be oozing down this path---I can't bear it. I want to thank everyone who posted names, links, contact info, etc. You are all wonderful and I put it to good use much of last night. All of the women in my group now have this info and we'll do what we can. I was hoping to talk to Dion this morning but bad weather interfered --- the Liberals must surely know what has to happen before a third reading. You NDPers can be proud of the good showing in the vote.
From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 08 March 2008 12:25 PM
One argument that can prove useful in writing, faxing or phoning Stéphane Dion and the Liberal MPs who supported C-484 - see above - and especially Derek Lee who ought to change his mind since he is sitting in the Justice standing committee in Committe - is to point how the anti-choice yahoos are crying victory. I imagine that some of the Grits will hesitate to be associated with this group and that they might be swayed by these expressions of glee that go a long way to deny C-484 sponsor Ken Epp's lies about his Bill not threatening reproductive freedom.Some of what the anti-abortionists are saying: We need C-484 really Bad! www.prolifeblogs.com Bill C-484 will be votable!!! Hurray! www.freedominion.ca - http://tinyurl.com/2527jk Pro-Life News Bytes http://tinyurl.com/2527jk "(. . .)The Texas Legislature passed the Prenatal Protection Act in 2003 (Senate Bill 319), with the strong support of TAL and other pro-life organizations in Texas and over the objections of abortion advocacy organizations including NARAL, Pro-Choice Texas, the ACLU, and the Texas Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates. The decision comes just weeks before the Canadian House of Commons is scheduled to proceed with the second hour of debate on similar legislation for Canada (Bill C-484 - the Unborn Victims of Crime Act). (. . .)" www.lifesitenews.com Les pro-vie crient victoire [ 08 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
laine lowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13668
|
posted 08 March 2008 09:33 PM
I have yet to hear any responses from my letters to my NDP MP, all party leaders and members of the Justice and Human Rights Committee. This Bill should have been scrapped before even reaching 2nd reading.The bottom line is that this Bill is about re-opening abortion and finding a way to put restrictions on women's rights to reproductive choice. If it had any validity as a protective measure that has nothing to do with abortion, why wasn't it tossed in to that huge omnibus criminal justice bill (Bill C-2)? The answer I believe is that Harper knows damn well that this is about abortion and did not want the stench of it attached to his administration, based on his *promise* not to visit abortion. What is really sad is the number of women's advocacy groups that would have been speaking against this if it weren't for their SWC funding being cut.
From: north of 50 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craigsw
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15026
|
posted 09 March 2008 10:00 AM
I am annoyed that this bill passed. It never should have made it past committe stage, and I certainly hope that it was simply an oversight that allowed it to. I'm not surprised to see my MP (Charles Hubbard, the pro gun, anti gay, anti...what to call it, freedom over one's own body, crusader. I've tried to talk to this man before (sort of know him) but he'll have nothing to do with me. Anyway, I'm annoyed at Stoffer but I'm more annoyed at the simple fact that this all happened out of the public eye. This will now move to the Senate, is that correct? If so, I would suggest that everyone attempt to contact a Senator (I'll contact Marilyn Trenholme-Counsel NB) to attempt to encourage them to kill this bill. Though the courts will protect the rights that exist, it would be nice for it to not have to come to that. This is a very minor setback, but every set back must be challenged. No vulnerability can be allowed.
From: Thailand | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 09 March 2008 10:07 AM
I'm a bit concerned that things are getting mushed, here. It has passed second reading. It is going to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.That committee has yet to schedule discussion on C-484. This bill has not passed third reading. It is not going to the Senate. Yet.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 09 March 2008 10:27 AM
I tend to agree. The committee members are split evenly pro- and anti-. I don't know how a clear amendment / recommendation comes from that. If the committee actually gets around to reviewing the bill. Still, I think it's important for people and organizations to be engaged as much as possible in this stage. The composition of this committee is visually stunning to me. More about that later. [ 09 March 2008: Message edited by: writer ]
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
B S Henry
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15027
|
posted 09 March 2008 12:41 PM
It seems to me that on the issue of Bill C484 and its strategic wording to evoke the sympathies of Canadians and MPs for the few full-term fetuses that are victims of crime a small amendment could be a counter move. Rather than bestowing legal rights on the fetus as this bill implies the issue of legal redress could be shifted back into the hands of the mother. So for example, by adding a line that states that, if the life of a fetus, which the mother has chosen to bring to full-term, is terminated due to criminal activity, then the mother has the right to seek legal recourse for her loss. It would seem that such an inclusion sidestep the issue of intrinsic fetal rights and yet allow MPs to avoid be labelled the depraved and indifferent secularists that the religious right like to assert.
From: Hamilton, ON | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|