Why is it that Quèbec residents compromise the electorate for separation referendums but on issues of abortion men have equal say as women?

I thought the situation was that we basically had no law on abortion, just health act requirements.

And this is weak too, but in the universe of parallels you're trying to make, the equivalent of "abortion law" would be something like "rules of secession", or possibly, something like an enhanced Clarity Act.

A yes vote on separation is parallel to one woman deciding she wants an abortion. It's the choice which creates a demand which starts the debate.

quote:

---

Come to think of it, can anyone explain how that works? Who decides that abortion is a procedure that comes under health act equality provisions?

---

If I recall my legal reasoning class (which I may not so feel free to correct) R v. Morgentaler decided. The supreme court justices found that regulations on abortion at the time did not satisfy the equity requirement of the Canada Health Act. Something to do with access to fulfill all the criteria you needed to have the abortion.

I'm not actually familiar with "health act equality provisions" - can you clarify for me skdadl?

I think what I was trying to start discussion on was the idea of one group (majority) having democratic power over the lives of another (minority).

Another example I can think of is SSM. Why do those who are not interested in getting married to someone of the same sex have democratic power over the rights of those who do?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

I think what I was trying to start discussion on was the idea of one group (majority) having democratic power over the lives of another (minority).

Another example I can think of is SSM. Why do those who are not interested in getting married to someone of the same sex have democratic power over the rights of those who do?

I understand the concept of demoracy but maybe this part of it is problematic.

---

I see your problem, but it is on these two turfs, at least, that I would shift the argument to a defence of the role of the courts as the defenders of a basic democratic principle -- that is, democrats are supposed to believe that no one's rights should be subject to other people's votes.

Once you've got everyone paying lip service to that principle, though (and I'm not sure we really do yet), you then have further to convince a lot of people that women's autonomy, including the right to choose what happens to their bodies, and the right of gays and lesbians to marry are, in fact, rights. I think that's self-evident, but obviously lots of people don't, or are confused.

In some ways, I think that SSM is the easiest of the three issues raised here to defend. Of abortion and self-determination both, opponents will start arguing that we have two sets of rights in conflict.

Also, swirrly asks:

quote:

---

I'm not actually familiar with "health act equality provisions" - can you clarify for me skdadl?

---