Like Catchfire, I was really disappointed by what I heard. What should we do about it, if anything?

(See this thread for background.)

[ 30 November 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

It seems to me that May's comments are a bit like some of the things Michael Ignatieff has said. She feels morally ambivalent about abortion, but recognizes that public opinion and legal precedent are strong enough in support of full access to abortion that she has to accept that as the way things are for now.

Similarly, Ignatieff spoke out in favour of the Iraq war. But once he started his leadership run, he said something to the effect that if he'd been PM, he might well have done the same thing as Chretien, because that was what the public wanted, and politicians have to consider more factors than academics, who can state a moral position without having to balance competing interests.

So I guess my question (and it's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one) is, what should voters take out of such statements and such qualifications of them? Do we just say, "Okay, so now we know what that person really thinks, that's all I need to know," and move on? Or does it indicate political maturity, the ability to formulate policy without necessarily imposing your own personal views?

Because in Ignatieff's case, it was enough for me to know that he thought the Iraq invasion was the right moral decision in the first place. It spoke volumes to me about his judgement, given that there was so much contradictory evidence even at the time.

In May's case, I'm not so sure. Other politicians, like Paul Martin and John Kerry, have expressed their concerns about abortion while saying that they wouldn't make those concerns part of public policy.

With Ignatieff, there was also a certain amount of contempt in his reversal -- "well, obviously I still think I was right, but I can see I haven't convinced any of you, so never mind." I don't quite hear that in May's comments.

[ 30 November 2006: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

There's been a point raised on the previous thread about the difference between not liking something and not tolerating it, and not liking something but accepting it. I think that can apply to abortion. I took Elizabeth May's views to be the latter, so I just let it pass. Kind of like religion - I couldn't really care less what someone's religion is as long as they can support freedom of religion.

quote:

---

She feels morally ambivalent about abortion, but recognizes that public opinion and legal precedent are strong enough in support of full access to abortion that she has to accept that as the way things are for now.

---

I don't think this is true. At least it's not what she said. She said she supports access to abortion because otherwise women and their babies will die at the hands of "butchers."

quote:

---

whether May said "I cannot imagine the circumstances that would have ever reduced me to" regarding abortion or whether she said "I cannot imagine the circumstances that would have ever induced me to"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargamel:
Can we come to a consensus on this point? When I hear it I definitely hear "induced" not "reduced." I'm sure writer honestly can't tell, but maybe I have better quality sound on from my computer or something? Can we get another honest opinion, maybe from someone who does not support what Elizabeth May has to say, and just settle this one point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gargamel:

Can we come to a consensus on this point? When I hear it I definitely hear "induced" not "reduced." I'm sure writer honestly can't tell, but maybe I have better quality sound on from my computer or something? Can we get another honest opinion, maybe from someone who does not support what Elizabeth May has to say, and just settle this one point?

---

I think you quoted me from a different thread, and I honestly can't tell which she's saying, because there can be a case made that she said either. If the clip was something I could slow down, then it would be clearer.

quote:

---

It seems to me that May's comments are a bit like some of the things Michael Ignatieff has said. She feels morally ambivalent about abortion, but recognizes that public opinion and legal precedent are strong enough in support of full access to abortion that she has to accept that as the way things are for now.

Similarly, Ignatieff spoke out in favour of the Iraq war. But once he started his leadership run, he said something to the effect that if he'd been PM, he might well have done the same thing as Chretien, because that was what the public wanted, and politicians have to consider more factors than academics, who can state a moral position without having to balance competing interests.

---

The problem as I see it though, is that both have the ultimate objective of becoming Prime Minister, in mind. Therefore, while it's alright and expected to change ones opinion, when new information comes to light. It's disturbing that neither would take a strong stand on either issue. We know that Ignatieff was for the Iraq War, but he's trying to muddy his position, and preempt any possible critiques of his position, because he can claim to take both positions. Which is what I see as wrong with May's position. In the interview it seems like she's trying to play to both sides, and get as much credit as possible. She's a politician, so its to be expected. But her appeal is that she presented herself as 'more genuine' than most, and I find that her attempt to play to both sides of the issue to be somewhat inline with the traditional politicians that she, and her Party, are constantly criticizing.

quote:

---

So I guess my question (and it's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one) is, what should voters take out of such statements and such qualifications of them? Do we just say, "Okay, so now we know what that person really thinks, that's all I need to know," and move on? Or does it indicate political maturity, the ability to formulate policy without necessarily imposing your own personal views?

---

I don't know about the first one. I wouldn't advocate that other politicians hound her, because her position is so nuanced, that direct attack against her would likely look petty. Not to mention that, except for anti-choice activists, the rest of society has largely left this issue behind. Which is why I find it so strange that she had difficulty with this answer. Again another reason why other politicians probably shouldn't attack her is because I doubt they'll come across as honest when they make the critique because its such a touch subject. So I think they'll likely look self-serving when they're doing so. Not to mention the fact that she could say "but I did say I'm pro-choice." On the other hand, we as individual citizens, shouldn't be held to the same standards. I think we're entitled to clarification, to say the least.

...Take that as you will.

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

You want to have angel-dancing-on-heads-of-pins discussions about whether or not May is technically pro-choice, go do it somewhere else. That's not what this thread is for, nor is it what this forum is for. If you're pro-choice on a legal level but make disparaging remarks about those women who exercise their choice, then that's something feminists will have a problem with.

As for men in the feminism forum, yes, that's allowed. Are they allowed to take over entire threads? No, a moderator will step in if we see that happening, as I am doing now. Are they allowed to come here and tell feminists what they should think on feminist issues like abortion, or how they should react to female politicians who show disdain for women who access abortions? Nope. Are they allowed to come here and post from a pro-feminist point of view and support feminist principles and the feminists who post here? Yes, absolutely!

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I had somewhat of a different reaction to some earlier posters, because the reference to "frivolous" abortions didn't bother me in the same way. That is to say, I have no trouble accepting that some women may make the choice to have an abortion lightly. Frankly, I don't care, because I still don't think that justifies any state intervention even to try and deter those women.

It also doesn't really bother me when people talk about the sanctity of life, because I don't think the foetus' moral personhood really matters. What does matter (to me) is recognizing that so long as the foetus is inside the woman it's ultimately her decision what to do with it. That's why I also don't put any stock in arguments about post-abortion regrets (although I am very skeptical of how widespread they are), because I think that proves nothing except that some whomen who make choices about their pregnancy MAY have second thoughts. So what, really? It simply boggles my mind that we would even consider interfering with every woman's choice (even if it's just by means of requiring 24 delay) just because some of them later regret it.

However, I understand that both of those phrases raise alarm bells for people. As a feminist, I don't care what May's personal convictions are about abortion (although of course I would relate to her better if her convictions were closer to my own). I do care what she might try to do about them in the arena of public policy. I remember that former Chief Justice of Canada Antonio Lamer said that he was morally opposed to abortion but he struck down the law in Morgentaler anyway, because it didn't accord with basic principles of fairness and that - not the moral considerations - was what he was supposed to be concerned with. You can make a choice that is consistent with feminist principles even if you hold some views that could potentially conflict with feminist principles.

The two things that bother me the most:

(a) the seeming "boast" that she has talked a number of women out of having an abortion. That REALLY bothers me, because I can't see that kind of conversation as anything other than manipulative. There's a presumptuousness operating there that leaves a bad taste;

(b) the claim "I could never be "induced/reduced" to having an abortion. I can accept that she said "induced" and she simply meant that because of her moral convictions, having an abortion under any circumstances (ie., even rape) would simply be intolerable. I still think it was a poor choice of words and very much connotes a position of moral superiority.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pookie:
I think VK is right that more people agree with May's conflicted position on abortion than disagree with it...

---

I don't!

quote:

---

So, that's my take on May - not impressed, but not quite ready - just yet - to write her off altogether.

---

quote:

---

"Abortions are legal because they must be to avoid women dying. But nobody in their right mind is for abortions."

---

I am for abortions; unapologetically so. Is she calling me - and many other feminists - crazy?

quote:

---

Because one of the things that is wrong about polarization is the language becomes a barrier to understanding.

---

Live what you preach, I always say.

Edited to add: I have changed "reduced" to "induced" on the transcript I am starting to send around to feminist organizers, women's groups, etc. If anyone wants a copy of the revised transcript, please let me know.

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Because one of the things that is wrong about polarization is the language becomes a barrier to understanding.

---

quote:

---

It is a completely different thing when May expresses this opinion with language that undermines its neutrality: "butcher," "queasy," "right mind," "frvilous," etc. She claims to transcend the political language while using the same vocabulary as the anti-choice side. And this is where she is most dangerous, because she insiduously inserts anti-choice vocabulary into a possition that presumes to be pro-choice. It is not acceptable, and to me, much more of a betrayal than women who advocate for anti-abortion legislation.

---

Exactly.

Also, it's paternalistic to suggest woman who chose to have an abortion are either "reduced" or "induced" to do so. Neither word speaks to competent women making responsible choices for themselves. She doesn't win any points with either word in any context.

I don't!

So, remind, you think that most people are either completely anti-choice or completely pro-abortion on demand? I fall in the latter camp myself. But I don't think most people do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
it's paternalistic to suggest woman who chose to have an abortion are either "reduced" or "induced" to do so. Neither word speaks to competent women making responsible choices for themselves. She doesn't win any points with either word in any context.

---

Correct, and using frivolous, forever will slant her words just as induce/reduce will.

I really wasn't trying to take over this thread, just make the two points I did at the top.

Also sorry for my tone towards you later on in the previous thread. We disagree on this issue. I am a feminist and I believe Elizabeth May is a feminist as well. If you accept that her viewpoint is honest and not politically motivated, given her background and religious beliefs it is entirely consistent for a feminist to have that view.

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
"I hate this sort of quasi pro-choice apologist bullshit. Fuck that."

Audra gets to the nub of it.

---

Exactly!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Hi, all you men. Welcome to the feminism forum.

---

thank you michelle. i am glad this was moved to this forum from the last one, as i think limiting the scope of this discussion in this case is warranted.

as a hetero man, who occasionally has the opportunity to enjoy consensual sex with women, there is no debate. by having sex, both parties are acknowleging the risk that pregnancy may result, regarless of whether contraception is used, as it may fail. If my partner becomes pregnant, i would hope to have an intelligent and meaningful discussion about it, but ultimately, it is not me who gets to decide. i didn't even have to "accept" this idea. seems pretty self-evident to me. the woman in the situation decides. period. she should not be restricted or coerced, and shouldn't have to answer to anyone but herself. if my advice/opinion/help is requested or accepted, great. but ultimately it is not my decicion, and i would and will do my best to make whatever decision was made a positive one. period.

so...when May says she feels "queasy", fine, good for her, but keep it to yourself. When she says she's "against abortion" that is pretty unequivocal, regardless of the hairsplitting or dissembling she does after. when she says "frivolous", "in thier right mind" and "induce/reduce" that is very offensive rhetoric that is used by anti-abortionists and she knows that, so i can only guess she is pandering to her religious audience to curry favour with them. common ploy, but in this case unnacceptable for a politician claiming to be progressive. and when she says she has "talked women out of" having abortions, this does not imply friendly couselling and support. she should shut the hell up. finally, she claims to support abortion access but then limits the circumstances, invokes the old "thereaputic abortion" model that is widely derided by pro-choice folks, and then polarises her examples by using "butchers".

Combined with her desire to have Green fiscal policy vetted and approved by right-wing thinktanks as i linked to in the previous thread, and these incredibly offensive comments regarding abortion, i can only conclude that Elizabeth May is not progressive at all, is actually a coming-out-of-the-closet conservative, socially and fiscally, and is without a doubt a shameless populist who will pander to whatever her audience wants to hear to get votes.

Thank you Elizabeth for clearing things up for us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
...these incredibly offensive comments regarding abortion, i can only conclude that Elizabeth May is not progressive at all...
Thank you Elizabeth for clearing things up for us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
With respect, I highly doubt that's why she lost.

---

No? I believe most voters, except perhaps those who voted for Harper, (and not just against the Liberals) are smart enough to relaize when a politician is speaking out of both sides of their mouth!

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

No? I believe most voters, except perhaps those who voted for Harper, (and not just against the Liberals) are smart enough to relaize when a politician is speaking out of both sides of their mouth!

Plus, the fact that she appealed to right wing think tanks, I believe would not go down too well with leftist green voters!

---

Most voters didn't hear that comment, remind.

But all that means is that she has been harbouring these anti-choice views (and others? DAH brings upa good point that if she allows health-care professionals to refuse to perform abortions because of religious reasons, it's a very small step to extending that to government officials who are against SSM,) under the radar while impersonating a progressive.

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

Most voters didn't hear that comment, remind.

---

It has nothing to do with hearing speeches, and everything to do with preception, or unconscious awareness, of politician scumminess by the voters.

Imagine now they have heard of the speech, those whose bigotdar was not up, they now know!

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]

Why not make a comment on topic, or at least close to it, instead of the posters, who are speaking of May and NOT the Green Party. Your inability to see the difference makes me think you are a right wing troll.

quote:

---

Originally posted by snowboarderelle:
There sure is a lot of vindictiveness among some supporters of the NDP. I've only ever voted NDP but this makes me wonder if it's not time to jump out of the nastiness and support the Liberals or Greens. I noticed the same thing the last election at a riding meeting in which as much time was spent blasting the Greens as promoting the NDP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by snowboarderelle:
There sure is a lot of vindictiveness among some supporters of the NDP. I've only ever voted NDP but this makes me wonder if it's not time to jump out of the nastiness and support the Liberals or Greens. I noticed the same thing the last election at a riding meeting in which as much time was spent blasting the Greens as promoting the NDP.

---

i do believe that this discussion was moved to the feminist forum specifically to avoid being dragged down this path and so May's views could be discussed in and of themselves without tags clouding the issue at hand. snowborderelle, there has been nothing so far in this thread indicating one way or the other whether someone posting is NDP or Green (aside from maybe being familiar with the poster).

quote:

---

I've only ever voted NDP but this makes me wonder if it's not time to jump out of the nastiness and support the Liberals or Greens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
There is no vindictiveness, but there is definitely anger, surprise and indignation that someone professing progressive credentials, appears, by her own words, to be anything but. If you do agree with the new Green Party leader on this issue, the NDP will shed no tears to lose your vote, that's for sure.

---

quote:

---

There sure is a lot of vindictiveness among some supporters of the NDP

---

Please. This is not about partisanship. Take your lah-lah-let's-be-nice crap elsewhere. If May wants to hold forth on why women's right to choose is icky, she can face what women have to say about it.

She's the leader of a fucking party. What she says has real implications.

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ForestGreen:
Call it the mushy middle, call it what you will, but I think May's views reflect those of a lot of Canadians. Maybe people find the issue a moral dilemma.

---

Then people, should take their misplaced morality out it! It is none of their business, to pontificate on.

Quantify a lot?

quote:

---

And she was talking to a group of nuns, when she said she respected their concerns. Context counts for something, doesn't it?

---

Not one bit, I do not know of any feminists who would trash talk other women, over something that is fundamental to us, to a bunch of nuns. Nor anyone else, you see it is not a frivilous thing from any perspective

quote:

---

[qbI don't agree with every choice of word that May used, but I understand the overall message she was trying to convey.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
(even May has not explicitly stated in any way that she is in favour of restricting abortions).

---

I believe by her words to the nuns she did.

quote:

---

And she certainly was not elected leader because she qualifies her pro-choice position in such a way.

---

Well she just did, so now what will the memebrship do?

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

... the party position is still one that is in favour of theripudic abortions. The majority of party members are certainly not in favour of restricting abortions in any way ...

---

And I'm saying a lot of feminists fought long and hard to get away from this shit. You, your party and your leader have NO RIGHT to tell me and other women when we can decide not to carry a pregnancy to term. And the very use of the very precise expression "therapeutic abortion" indicates you are certainly in favour of restricting abortions in very significant ways.

Are you saying Greens here didn't know that, and added the word "therapeutic" for no better reason than that it would make the party sound more official, somehow?

Therapeutic abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability in order to preserve maternal health. In its broadest definition, therapeutic abortion can be performed to (1) save the life of the mother, (2) preserve the health of the mother, (3) terminate a pregnancy that would result in the birth of a child with defects incompatible with life or associated with significant morbidity, (4) terminate a nonviable pregnancy, or (5) selectively reduce a multifetal pregnancy.

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

Some intelligent conversation is also going on here:
Bread'nRoses

quote:

---

Originally posted by ForestGreen:
And she was talking to a group of nuns, when she said she respected their concerns. Context counts for something, doesn't it?

---

No. The real measure of a politician is that they have the courage to tell a potentially hostile audience exactly what they don't want to hear.

Remind, where EXACTLY in the transcript did she state that she was in favour of restricting abortions?

I don't know what the membership will do... I doubt there will be a huge upswell of internal opposition to her leadership. With respect, I wouldn't be part of it.

Look, google "Green Party of Canada Abortion". Check the links. There is nothing that states that the Green Party is opposed to any sort of abortion.

I give this 72 hours before it gets to Layton.

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
I give this 72 hours before it gets to Layton.

---

I can assure you that his office is already aware of the comments. And why shouldn't he respond? Would it be "an attack" for him to point out where he and his party differ with May and the Greens on the issue?

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

I can assure you that his office is already aware of the comments. And why shouldn't he respond? Would it be "an attack" for him to point out where he and his party differ with May and the Greens on the issue.

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

---

No.

I just think there is a very good chance that May's personal view (and certainly the party view) will be misrepresented and well.... I'm just going to say I think there is a way that the NDP can come out on top of the issue and a way that they will allow the Greens to. If the NDP directly challenges May she will respond and that may help to clairify her views.

OK. Writer, now I see what your saying. The party is not in favour of restricting abortions to theraputic abortions, if May is... well, then I have a problem.

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

… There's been a moral dimension to this debate that's quite complex, and I think deserves respect. So I respect people who say, "I'm against abortion because there is a right to life, and the fetus is sacred."

I respect that, because I think all life is sacred. So, where do I come to thinking we should be able to have - and must have - access to therapeutic abortions in Canada?

It's the other side of a moral dilemma: If we make them illegal, women will die. We know this. It happened for hundreds and hundreds of years, that women would seek out whatever butcher they could find to cause an abortion to happen, and they would die horrible deaths, and the baby would die too.

So I see it as a moral dilemma, and I don't see it as a clear-cut black-and-white.

And I think one of the things I would like to bring to Canadian politics is to show enough respect to the other view, that we could actually have a dialogue about it. Because one of the things that is wrong about polarization is the language becomes a barrier to understanding.

So if one group of people say, "A woman has a right to choose", I get queasy, because I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose. What I don't want is a desperate woman to die in an illegal abortion. But I also don't think it's right to say - Well, you see, you end up having this conflict.

What I'd like to do in politics - and I've talked about this in some other settings besides here today, because this is the first time it's come up in London North Centre - what I'd like to do in politics is to be able to create the space to say, "Abortions are legal because they must be to avoid women dying. But nobody in their right mind is for abortions."

I've talked women out of having abortions. I would never have an abortion myself, not in a million years. I cannot imagine the circumstances that would ever induce me to.

So can't we then have a different kind of conversation? What kind of programs and strategies do we need to have to reduce the number of legal abortions that take place? Instead of having this rather polarized and, you know, really, futile debate that only fuels divisions and makes both sides feel as they're, you know, in some form of battle …

---

"What kind of programs and strategies do we need to have to reduce the number of legal abortions that take place?"

Here's a strategy: Sell the idea that supporting therapeutic abortions is the same thing as access to abortions in general. Get elected to a Parliament with a strong anti-choice contingent. Then reduce the number of legal abortions by changing the law to confine legal abortions to only those deemed to be therapeutic abortions!

Here's what I interpret her remarks to say.

May is opposed to non-theriputic abortions. She doesn't believe that women can terminate (what she percieves to be) life. She believes that nobody in thier right mind in favour of women having abortions, or that women having abortions is a good thing. She would never have an abortion.

The last sentence is the one I think you may have misinterpreted. You can reduce the number of abortions, without restricting abortions, by strengthening womens programs, alleviating poverty, fighting for womens equality, sex education, and so on.

So writer. Here's what I'm going to do for you (and myself, because I want this cleared up too). I'm going to ask 2 pointed questions to May via E-mail.

1) Are you in favour of restricting abortions to theraputic abortions through legislation?

2) How do you propose to reduce abortions? By restricting access or through other programs?

And then I'll come back and make my own thread, starting with her answer. At best, I'm satisfied and you all believe that May is a ditherer. At worst, May is not progressive.

1. Are there any abortions you would like to see restricted?
2. How would you reduce abortions?

Does everybody here agree with that?

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

The party is not in favour of restricting abortions to theraputic abortions, if May is... well, then I have a problem.

---

An earlier part of the audio has May saying:

quote:

---

First of all, the party position is that we must maintain access to therapeutic abortions for women in Canada

---

WCG, are you now maintaining that May misrepresented the position of your party in order to pander to the Sisters?

Wow. Do you have a problem with that?

And yes, please do write to her. But be clear: you are not doing so for me. I am doing my own thing, thanks.

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

I have the former but not the latter.

---

Really? Your post in this thread didn't seem that way. It was a pathetic accusation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pookie:
I think VK is right that more people agree with May's conflicted position on abortion than disagree with it.

---

I wasn't really saying that though. I was referring to whether or not it would be a good idea for other politicians to attack her, or for concerned citizens including feminist groups that she would attempt to obtain support from, to be the leaders in questioning her motives. Judging by the nature of the topic, it would seem that the latter is more logical.

[ 01 December 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
Talking every talk, walking no walks

---

Writer sums up May's words nicely with this:

quote:

---

What May is trying to do here is make a duality between those good women who are “reduced” to having an abortion by circumstances financial or otherwise tragic and those bad women who frivolously abuse their rights. This anti-choice rhetoric tries to legitimate that prohibition of abortion kills women, by saying that as long as we engineer a situation where only the bad women will need abortions, it will be OK. Well, it isn’t, Lizzie. Real feminists fight for all women, not just the “good” ones

---

However, I am taking writer's "the good ones' as being tongue in cheek, as there is no judgement IMO to whom is "good" or "bad". There is just choice.

quote:

---

One DOES want more abortions. In an immediate appraisal, there are not enough abortions. People want abortions and they cannot get them and if they could get them, there would be more - therefore, more abortions is a desirable short-term goal. To increase access to abortions without increasing the rate of abortions would require a magical time machine.

I disagree that squeamishness around the term is appropriate. No-one would shy away from claiming to favour any of a zillion surgical procedures that are even less pleasant and convenient for all parties involved. No-one says "I'm not pro-bypass, but I want to make sure that patients have the OPTION of getting a bypass if that's what they want." No, you say "Fucking bypasses are the best thing that ever happened to ailing tickers and thank the high heavens for them!" whether you think you'd enjoy one or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:I don't feel like participating in this discussion here, for lots of reasons, but my boyfriend posted something about this whole issue that I really like, so I'm sharing it:

---

Nice of you to share that you "don't feel like for lots of reasons" but really did ya need to say that?

quote:

---

Really good discussion, actually, in My LJ.

---

First, the text you are responding to (above) is not my own. So thank you for the kind words, but credit should go to the actual author, who I am fairly convinced is being cheeky.

Second, why so nasty to Audra? I think feminists who are pro-choice need to focus here: Elizabeth May has made a public statement that we should be getting out, in as many locations as possible.

May said she'd like a discussion. Let the discussion begin! And let her understand the implications of her stance, as it has been clearly expressed.

Bread 'n' Roses pointed me to some blog commentary I've linked to in this thread, and I'm glad that forum exists. EnMassers are talking about this, and I'm getting a lot from the discussion.

Vansterdam Kid has blogged it. Heck, even the SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES and FDers are talking about it. I'm learning from every source.

My journey with AIDS
Langley Politics
Anchor Link

All. Good.

We need as many voices as possible to reassert our rights, or argue for denying them in clear terms. We need to know what we are fighting for.

[ 03 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pookie:
VK - I've looked for the quote where I got that impression but I can't find it. So I'll just say sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
remind, two things:

First, the text you are responding to (above) is not my own. So thank you for the kind words, but credit should go to the actual author, who I am fairly convinced is being cheeky.

---

quote:

---

Second, why so nasty to Audra? I think feminists who are pro-choice need to focus here: Elizabeth May has made a public statement that we should be getting out, in as many locations as possible. ]

---

I was not being nasty, I was stating how I felt regarding her words and my opinion of what the discussion was doing at her journal. Audra's starting sentence left a bad impression on the words and links she provided thereafter. It took the focus away from the topic at hand and into her personal world, and was unnecessary to any part of the topic or discussion. It was and still stands as a commentary on something other than the topic at hand.

quote:

---

May said she'd like a discussion. Let the discussion begin! And let her understand the implications of her stance, as it has been clearly expressed.

---

I agree completely!

quote:

---

Bread 'n' Roses pointed me to some blog commentary I've linked to in this thread, and I'm glad that forum exists. EnMassers are talking about this, and I'm getting a lot from the discussion. ]

---

Yes, I too having been following this topic under discussion on other forums, and thank you for providing the couple of links to places where I wasn't.

quote:

---

All. Good.

We need as many voices as possible to reassert our rights, or argue for denying them in clear terms. We need to know what we are fighting for.

---

I agree it's all good, however, I, like many others I am sure, am tired of tolerating men stepping into the choice discussion as if they have the answers to it all!

And I agree, we need as many voices as possible to reassert the right of choice, but I am angered that we are forced to do so because of a small number of very vocal and violent individuals. And by having to tolerate some men thinking they have all the wisdom in the world about it, be they pro-choice or anti-abortionist, as well.

[ 03 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

"Writer sums up May's words nicely with this"

---

followed by a quote from Kuri's blog. It is Kuri who sums up May's words nicely. I take no credit!

And yes, this discussion can anger, frustrate (and be scary). Moreso when the attack comes from a political leader who has gained popularity by being seen as progressive.

[ 03 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
It is Kuri who sums up May's words nicely. I take no credit!

And yes, this discussion can anger, frustrate (and be scary). Moreso when the attack comes from a political leader who has gained popularity by being seen as progressive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

I agree it's all good, however, I, like many others I am sure, am tired of tolerating men stepping into the choice discussion as if they have the answers to it all!

And I agree, we need as many voices as possible to reassert the right of choice, but I am angered that we are forced to do so because of a small number of very vocal and violent individuals. And by having to tolerate some men thinking they have all the wisdom in the world about it, be they pro-choice or anti-abortionist, as well.

[ 03 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]

---

remind, while i'm respectful (and thankful) that this discussion has moved to the feminist forum where it can be discussed properly without political lables clouding the debate, i make no claims to have "all" the wisdom in the world about it, i think this issue is relevant and vitally important to women and men alike.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
...i make no claims to have "all" the wisdom in the world about it, i think this issue is relevant and vitally important to women and men alike.

---

Point taken, and I should not have made such a blanket statement regarding all men, and narrowed it. And I agree that it is vitally importamnt to both genders. However, I was being a bit "reactive" and "pointed" here, to several things said and occuring here and elsewhere.

quote:

---

for a party leader of any political stripe to take the position May has, particularly in light of the rightward drift of the Greens in general, is worrisome, regardless of your gender.

---

You're correct it is!

quote:

---

and i don't see why input is assumed to be less valid just because of being a man..

---

It is less valid, IMO only, because men can never understand it from a personal viewpoint and bodily function. Which you do go on to address. The understanding of it being a "rights" issue can have valid input by men, I concur.

quote:

---

I think for this issue to really have legs and get the light shone on it that is required, really does need our progressive women to take that to the public to have credibitlity.

---

quote:

---

---

Pro-life groups on campus and within the community has organized an impressive campaign to defeat this motion, including sending numerous death-threats to council members and they will be flying in folks from as far away from Mariland.

This issue is crucial and opens the door, as we can all imagine, to a great deal of threats to not only women's rights, but the other anti-discrimination policies.

The council members have openly stated their desires to support a motion solidfying women's rights, but they have almost exclusively heard from pro-life organizaitons. WE NEED TO SHOW OUR VOICE!!!

The meeting and vote on the matter is tomorrow, Tuesday, December 5, 2006, at 6:30 pm in Porter Hall at Carleton University. This is a giant step for CUSA, but they shouldn't have to beg to know that women's rights is a priority in Ottawa.

Please make it out and get as many people as you can.

quote:

---

---

The Ottawa Citizen is framing it as a freedom of speech question.

Anyone on the inside there following what is going on?

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoff-h:
I wanted to step back into this forum one last time (with some intrepidation) to clear up some things that I said way back early on in the discussion, when the thread was still about LNC. (I've had trouble getting into this account - the password stopped working for some strange reason).

---

You never posted in this thread under that name perhaps it was another thread that has a lot about this topic in it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Sometimes people get off on the wrong foot and become a really interesting and fun babbler when given the chance.

---

It could happen to anyone!

quote:

---

sandpiper: 1. Are there any abortions you would like to see restricted?
2. How would you reduce abortions?

---

quote:

---

West Coast Greeny: That's fair enough. I'll fire those two questions, and include the context of Dan Baril's audio tape. Not the context of this discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
quote:
"I think for this issue to really have legs and get the light shone on it that is required, really does need our progressive women to take that to the public to have credibitlity."

------------------------------------------------------

Not sure what you mean by this?

---

hi remind, sorry to get back to this so slowly, and thanks for getting my drift in the previous points. The term "this story has legs" is a media/political phrase often used when something happens or someone says something that is going to take off into a big story. In this context, what i meant is connected to my earilier point about women's health and reproductive issues in general: men should listen, learn, support, defend, and perhaps offer help or advice if requested, but ulitmately this is a woman's issue and a woman's decision alone to decide the proper path to take. so, i think this story "has legs" but it would be more effective if it was, as i said, our progressive women out there who bring it to light. I could bark about it from the rooftops, but i am a man, and in this particular case, this would make more of an impact coming from women. that is purely my opinion, but i think it is correct.

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
West Coast Greeny, it's been a week. Have you heard back from May yet? Is she willing to put something down in writing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:

West Coast Greeny, it's been a week. Have you heard back from May yet? Is she willing to put something down in writing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Obviously they are hoping it will just go away...

---

Honestly yes.

Actually, yes and no. I'm really done with the issue on this board. I'd rather it wasn't raised again because it's something I can't definitively answer to. During an honest discussion on the green party not pertaining to abortions, I would rather not hear: "Elizabeth May is an anti-choice _______ !!!!111!!!1!!" and have the discussion derailed.

I wouldn't mind the issue being raised next election, because, if she is truly pro-choice and the NDP decides to press her on it, the NDP will be rightly fried. If she is in favour of restricting abortions in some fashion...

... well, then we know if she is in favour of restricting abortions in some fashion.

[ 08 December 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

Choice is central to a progressive political position for women. We deserve the right to control our own bodies, and not have some kind of bullshit guilt-trip be sold to us as "pro-choice".

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

Honestly yes.

Actually, yes and no. I'm really done with the issue on this board. I'd rather it wasn't raised again because it's something I can't definitively answer to. During an honest discussion on the green party not pertaining to abortions, I would rather not hear: "Elizabeth May is an anti-choice _______ !!!!111!!!1!!" and have the discussion derailed.

I wouldn't mind the issue being raised next election, because, if she is truly pro-choice and the NDP decides to press her on it, the NDP will be rightly fried. If she is in favour of restricting abortions in some fashion...

... well, then we know if she is in favour of restricting abortions in some fashion.

[ 08 December 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Honestly yes.

---

Well now, isn't that special! At tghis point, I doubt your progressiveness as an indiviual, because let me tell you as a progressive, I would NOT want myself attached to anything that isn't. And the fact the May has not responded, either to you, or the Canadian public, is telling.

quote:

---

Actually, yes and no. I'm really done with the issue on this board. I'd rather it wasn't raised again because it's something I can't definitively answer to.

---

As above, even only more so! Your attitude says much and none of it good!

quote:

---

During an honest discussion on the green party not pertaining to abortions, I would rather not hear: "Elizabeth May is an anti-choice _______ !!!!111!!!1!!" and have the discussion derailed.]

---

How dare you say this is not an honest discussion, what a slimey dispicable attitude! If you think women's right are so trivial to us that we would play partisan with it, you need to give your non-progessive head a shake!

quote:

---

I wouldn't mind the issue being raised next election, because, if she is truly pro-choice and the NDP decides to press her on it, the NDP will be rightly fried. If she is in favour of restricting abortions in some fashion...well, then we know if she is in favour of restricting abortions in some fashion.

---

Obviously, you have no committment to honesty, integrity, or progressive ideology. It seems you well know what May's stance is on this, and it is for restricyting a woman's right to choose, or you would not have been dodging this issue or be so abrasive about our wanting clarification.

You can bet the NDP will be raising it and there is no way May can get around her words, the time has passed for her and the Green Party to make a comment on her position. The NDP will not be "frying" on anything over this either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
Many of us don't see it as "derailing" a discussion, if that discussion is about the Green Party and its leader being left and/or progressive.

---

Right. I was talking about discussions outside of that.

quote:

---

May and the Greens will be hearing from sexual health and feminist organizations and individuals long before the NDP says a thing. For Green members to claim this is some kind of partisan pose being struck is plain old insulting. It will do you and your party serious damage.

---

Your right here too. I often forget that not everything in Canada has to do with political parties (I am a political junkie, and quite frankly, partisan). I'm sorry about that remark. I really am.

quote:

---

well, WCG, this is an unfortunate position to take. i said earlier that i was glad this had moved to the feminist forum for the same "derailing" reason, though in reverse, as i meant that now we could discuss the issue at hand without political partisanship "derailing" the discussion of whether the new leader of a supposedly progressive political party is anti-choice. so at this point nothing is resolved.

---

I know, I would have much rather I heard back from her so that I could put the issue completely to rest in my own mind. Now we're all kind of stuck waiting and speculating.

Whoa remind!

First of all, I never said in what you quoted that THIS was not an honest discussion. I think this is a perfectly honest non-partisan discussion. I was talking about the issue potentially being raised in a different discussion on the green party. For example, often some posters will say something negative about the Green Party that has nothing to do with what we're actually talking about.

And it not that I know that Elizabeth May is in favour of restricting abortions, it's that I don't know that she is opposed to restricting abortions. That is what riles me at this point. We're all just waiting. And I'm going to wait for further developments on this issue before I act on it. The reason I'm not really coming back here so much is that I really have nothing left to say. I could go on and on about my own beliefs about May ("she not that kind of person"), but beliefs have little bearing on a debate about facts.

Also, I do believe, and know, she's not "appeasing the so-cons". She in fact condemns such a thing. She really doesn't play for any particular vote. She says what she believes and then tells people why she believes what she does.

[ 08 December 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Obviously they are hoping it will just go away,wrongly of course, however, I see WCG is around so maybe he will answer us?

---

I'm still around too.

'They' are not hoping 'it' will just go away.

I spoke on the phone with May after our federal council teleconference meeting last week, and I made a point of mentioning that her statement was of great interest to many people, and some may be misunderstanding her. She said that if I find myself in a conversation on this matter that I may share the fact that she is 100% pro-choice. Period. She supports a womans right to choose. Period.

One might not like the way she framed her reply, and one has a right to not like the way she framed her reply, but please understand that she has never said that she is not pro-choice.

Unfortunately (and fortunately) May has many dozens of emails and phone calls a day, and the GPC's resources aren't as abundant as the other big parties. She doesn't have a lot of help to get through her emails. WCG, I expect she will answer your email when she can. I suggest trying to grab her attention by using an all caps subject line header like 'PRO-CHOICE OR NOT?!?' and that will get her attention faster than 'hi from wcg'.

If anybody here is not satisfied with this reply then I think you might find resolution of your question by emailing May yourselves. I hope she can field your emails in a timely fashion.

Being told that what I heard from her own mouth is somehow a misunderstanding is, again, insulting my intelligence.

Being told that I should believe that she told you to tell others that her position is not the one she's been recorded as having is not an adequate response for the leader of a political party.

It is less than high-school-level social skills.

[ 10 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

This would be a win win, everyone covered who wants to know in one shot and free air time and publicity.

Pretty simple, I am surprised no one suggested it at tele conference. Or do the Greens/May not want it to get too too public as she may disway those socons she is apparently trying to attract?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cameron W:
She said that if I find myself in a conversation on this matter that I may share the fact that she is 100% pro-choice. Period. She supports a womans right to choose. Period.

---

I'm disappointed that you think what I posted above is 'nonsense'.

As I said, if you really want further clarification, I suggest contacting her yourself. That's the best way to find out exactly what she thinks & why she thinks what she thinks.

As Robert Frost said, “We dance in a circle and suppose, while the secret sits in the middle and knows.”

The only thing is that it's not a secret what she thinks; I've had a conversation with her about this subject. She's been recorded stating her views on the subject. Strangely, few here seem to have actually contacted her for clarification, but in this forum on the various threads on this subject there's no shortage of assumptions, guesses, judgmental statements & misrepresentation.

quote:

---

few here seem to have actually contacted her for clarification

---

And why would I bother? West Coast Greeny is a party member, and hasn't heard back in more than a week. I'll take her words as they are, because I find them to be very clear.

You are the one insisting there is a misunderstanding / need for clarification. I don't agree. And I am doing all I can to supply activists, organizers, journalists and politicians with a transcript of what she said.

Live with it. Elizabeth May and your party are going to have to.

Listen: I am 100% not racist. Period. I just think that Canada would be better off without so many immigrants.

quote:

---

Her position is simple. She believes that "all life is sacred" but that if Canada criminalize abortions "women would seek out whatever butcher they could find...and they would die horrible deaths." She goes on to say "I've talked women out of having abortions. I would never have an abortion myself." Her approach would be to "have a different kind of conversation? What kind of programs and strategies do we need to reduce the number of legal abortions take place?"

I think this the approach the anti-abortion folks should take. I think criminalization of abortion is a poor strategy. It is unlikely to happen, it comes with serious baggage, and 'm not sure how effective it would be.

TheHeresy.com

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TCD:
No video but some commentary by Akin is here.

Evidently, she didn't know she was being recorded.

---

Disgusting.

[ 11 December 2006: Message edited by: Kevin_Laddle ]