Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Canada Turning More Right Wing Every Day! Wants to define fetuses as human beings, life starting at conception.

Last week it was a MANDATORY nine months in jail for passing a joint. It is now considering trafficking drugs under the criminal code.

Now Canada is looking into redefining a fetuses as a human being, life starting at conception.

Pretty soon abortion may be illegal.

Just you wait, same-sex marriage will be next!

by Anonymousreply 7412/14/2012

Crazy fundie teabaggers up there too huh?

by Anonymousreply 103/15/2012

Didn't Canadians used to gloat about how superior and more tolerant they were than the US?

by Anonymousreply 203/15/2012

For christssakes Canada, even Mississippi voted that down.

by Anonymousreply 303/15/2012

I find it hard to believe that Canada of all places would make same-sex marriage mandatory just to curb abortion, birth-control and drug use.

by Anonymousreply 403/15/2012

Believe R4, but same-sex marriage might be next on the agenda.

Only a matter of time

by Anonymousreply 503/15/2012

Oh puh-leez. The sky is falling. Must be a full moon, or they're having a sale on tinhats.

by Anonymousreply 603/15/2012

Link, please.

I suspect OP is a bit mixed up, or trying to start some Canada hate.

by Anonymousreply 703/15/2012

R7 House of Commons to hold abortion-related debate in April

Clear enough for you?

by Anonymousreply 803/15/2012

MP Stephen Woodworth is the Conservative backbencher from Kitchener who won approval for an hour of debate before a committee of MPs on the issue of Canada’s 400-year-old law defining human beings.

His motion puts the question in straightforward terms. He asks that a special committee be set up to prepare answers to four questions:

(i) What medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

(ii) Is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

(iii) What are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

(iv) What are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

Clear enough R7

by Anonymousreply 903/15/2012

You're retarded, R8

OTTAWA — A controversial proposal from a Conservative backbencher to legally define fetuses as human beings — and reopen the abortion debate — will have its day in the House of Commons.

Tory MP Stephen Woodworth wants Parliament to create a committee of politicians whose task it will be to review a law that stops short of defining unborn children as "human beings."

A committee of MPs has agreed to give Woodworth at least one hour of debate sometime in April. He will receive a second hour of debate sometime either in late spring or early fall.

If parliamentarians agree to Woodworth's request, a special committee would review Section 223 of the Criminal Code, which says a child becomes "a human being . . . when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother."

That section of the Criminal Code says a homicide on a child happens when someone "causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being."

The review, he argues, is needed because the law is based on a 400-year-old definition of human being.

"If a child five minutes before birth can be defined as not a human being, then the question is who's next?" he argued.

Woodworth said his proposal will be wrapped up in the emotions that surround the abortion debate, but he doesn't intend to back down even though his own party has said the government has no interest in reopening the abortion debate.

"The prime minister and justice minister have to speak for themselves. I don't take any issue with any statement that the government won't reopen this debate," he said.

"I'm acting as a private member."

Since 1988, Canada has had no legal restrictions on abortion.

by Anonymousreply 1003/15/2012

R10 see R9

So who is the moron now as a debate will take place on this issue in April.

by Anonymousreply 1103/15/2012

"...his own party has said the government has no interest in reopening the abortion debate."

It's a wingnut backbencher who got permission to debate this non-issue, as is his right. It doesn't mean he's presented a motion or that it will go anywhere.

God, you people are stupid.

by Anonymousreply 1203/15/2012

[quote] "...his own party has said the government has no interest in reopening the abortion debate

If that is the case then why is this going to be debated in parliament?

There will be a debate in April, which contradicts his earlier statement. The door is now open.

by Anonymousreply 1303/15/2012

They gave the wingnut one whole hour for debate. BFD.

by Anonymousreply 1403/15/2012

But the door is open

by Anonymousreply 1503/15/2012

I don't like Harper but he's said the abortion debate is closed & has stuck to that - this dude will have his moment to rant but it's not changing anything.

by Anonymousreply 1603/15/2012

Well, no, they're not becoming more right wing.. considering the election in Canada was a fraud, Harper never should have been elected in the first place. That and only 39.5 % of canadians voted for the cons.. the majority did not. So I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the country is turning right wing.

by Anonymousreply 1703/16/2012

You queens can spin this any way you want, but once the door is opened, it will get kicked open.

by Anonymousreply 1803/16/2012

Does this come from the new Canadian Foreign Ministry of Jesus?

by Anonymousreply 1903/16/2012

This lone `Canada is turning Nazi troll`is getting very very tiresome.

by Anonymousreply 2003/16/2012

Oh for fucks sake.

The Federal government can't fuck with women's reproductive rights or with gay rights at this point, it would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They can pay lip service to the idea to rile up their base, but they're bullshitting.

Those laws can no longer be overturned. This 'Canada is devolving into a right wing hell' troll is getting tiresome.

Canada is going to swing back to Liberal leadership within the next couple of years.

The majority of the country is left-wing. I think some Americans are confusing their Constitutional Republic with our Parliamentary Democracy. Canada has many political parties, 5 major ones to be exact. 3 of those parties (The NDP, The Liberal Party, The Green Party) and a good chunk of the other are left-leaning in idealogy (The Bloq Quebecois is mostly concerned with Quebec Sovereignty and the party is a mix of ideologies) and the right-wing factions in Canada count 1 major party (The Conservative Party), as their own.

Most Canadians are Liberal, even if the government doesn't represent that, and we most definitely are not turning into a right-wing nightmare. Anyone who believes that is mentally deficient.

by Anonymousreply 2103/16/2012

R21 = Harper Government Spokesperson

by Anonymousreply 2203/17/2012

The Conservative government has be quietly cutting funding to LGBT programs for the last 3 years. They are slowly creeping in homophobic policy. I guarantee you that this so called private members bill against abortion, was agreed on and supported by the PM, unofficially of course.

All the nasty stuff Stephen Harper is doing he is doing "unofficially". That is why he is so scary. At least Mitt Romney says he is going to do it openly.

by Anonymousreply 2303/17/2012

Eagerly awaiting the swing back R21, because Canada is becoming a SCARY PLACE today.

by Anonymousreply 2403/17/2012

Canada can't swing back now that Dominion Voting Systems is counting the votes.

by Anonymousreply 2503/17/2012

Canada can't swing back now that BellMedia (CTV) has become the biggest promoter of the right wing Conservatives. Even CBC is producing right wing, anti-gay programming (Little Mosque on the Prairie, Battle of the Blades)

by Anonymousreply 2603/18/2012

If laws are passed saying fetuses are people, then people should be ale to bring lawsuits against fetuses.

If I am crossing the street and a pregnant woman runs me over, my family should be able to sue the woman and all future earnings of her unborn child.

by Anonymousreply 2703/18/2012

The CBC show Little Mosque on the Prairie, did a show against Gays in 2008. A complaint was filed with the CRTC and they said the show was just being pro-Islamic not anti-gay. The show continued for 6 years.

This is typical Canada today, under the Reform/Conservative party.

by Anonymousreply 2803/18/2012

It's a PRIVATE MEMBER'S bill. They almost never get passed and usually die when Parliament adjourns.

Stevie is glad to have this bill tabled, it throws a bone to his socially conservative base. He will also be glad when it dies on the table because he does not really want the subsequent court challenges and the outrage it will provoke. He depends on the socially progressive/fiscal conservatives to get elected.

The bill won't pass and no one expects it to.

by Anonymousreply 2903/18/2012

>>>Pretty soon abortion may be illegal

Pretty soon birth control will be illegal. That's how crazy these people are. They truly believe birth control is a sin

by Anonymousreply 3003/18/2012

That is irrelevant. Even a private members bill empowers the anti-gay/anti-abortion people. It is about starting it all up again, bringing abortion and gay marriage back into public discussion, not about 1 single private bill being passed to veto it immediately.

Imagine if Harper allowed a private members bill to eliminate womens right to vote. Even going there is dangerous.

by Anonymousreply 3103/18/2012

[quote]Imagine if Harper allowed a private members bill to eliminate womens right to vote

Prime ministers don't ALLOW private member's bills. They have no say in the matter. ANy private member can ask that he be given time to table a bill. They are chosen at random. The PM has no say in the matter,

In other news, the evil Harper Government denounced St Petersburg, Russia's new law banning 'homosexual propaganda' as 'counter to core Canadian values of freedom of speech, human rights and the rule of law" and the government has sent Russia an official protest.

by Anonymousreply 3203/18/2012

Well, all you gay men impregnating women in Canada should be forewarned. Take a condom.

WTF?? Why should I give a shit about what fish in foreign countries are putting up with? My outrage meter is on tilt and I don't have room to give a shit about issues they won't defend for themselves. They are hardly powerless.

by Anonymousreply 3303/18/2012

The PM has a say in private members bills from his own MPs.

He can fire the MP and force the MP to introduce the bill as an independent. Harper is not doing that. So, Harper is silently (and unofficially) approving this anti-abortion bill.

Politicians are sneaky, particularly the Evangelical Christian ones, like PM, Stephen Harper.

by Anonymousreply 3403/18/2012

[quote]He can fire the MP and force the MP to introduce the bill as an independent. Harper is not doing that.

No. Party rules clearly forbid that. All MPs are allowed to introduce private members bills on behalf of their constituents without party interference. Liberals Roseanne Skokes and Tom Wappel both introduced anti-gay bills to the house. The party leader isn't allowed to interfere.

by Anonymousreply 3503/19/2012

MPs can be fired from the party at anytime. Opposing the PM in Parliament is a most common reason. Chretien choose not to fire Wappel for strategic reasons - when he allowed an open vote on the issue. In the end, Chretien forced the MPs to vote in favour of equality, those who refused, had to not vote at all to survive. But this Conservative MP is not opposing the PM, that is the whole point. The PM has been quite vocal on his anti-abortion position.

However the political win against poster like you on DL, is the fact you defend the Conservative Party at all. The Party which voted, overwhelmingly, in June of 2011, that Gay Canadians DO NOT deserve full equality.

(that was only a few months ago, in case you forgot)

by Anonymousreply 3603/19/2012

Well unless Harper rewrites the Charter, nothing will change.

The Charter and its interpretation by the courts pretty much guarantees gay rights, abortion rights, porn rights and even paves the way for legalization of drugs and prostitution.

by Anonymousreply 3703/19/2012

If I was a member of the Canadian Conservative party, I would pass laws to increase the legal protections of heterosexual marriage that were disguised as child protection clauses. I would declare all Gay community pubic events taxable and not eligible for government funding and I would generate laws allowing religions to discriminate in employment, education and association. In other words, promote heterosexuals to a higher level - aka restoring the privilege of heterosexual marriage without invoking the charter. It is not that hard. (Biological proof from both parents, who must be currently married, required to get the child tax breaks etc.)

For abortion, I would make the paper work so lengthy and complicated and the financial punishment for not doing the paperwork properly, so extreme, legal abortions would collapse.

By thinking like you R35, we can predict how this will happen. The only way of stopping it, is a Liberal/NDP merger and massive majority in 2015.

by Anonymousreply 3803/19/2012

[quote]I would declare all Gay community pubic events taxable and not eligible for government funding

Unconstitutional. Wouldn't pass

[quote]I would generate laws allowing religions to discriminate in employment, education and association

Religions are already exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

[quote]restoring the privilege of heterosexual marriage without invoking the charter. It is not that hard.

[quote]For abortion, I would make the paper work so lengthy and complicated and the financial punishment for not doing the paperwork properly, so extreme, legal abortions would collapse.

Courts would easily strike that down. Besides, issues like 'paperwork' for a medical procedure fall under provincial jurisdiction.

The charter has already been invoked. You can't discriminate based on Marital status.

by Anonymousreply 3903/21/2012

[quote]MPs can be fired from the party at anytime. Opposing the PM in Parliament is a most common reason.

True, but no MP has ever been fired or even disciplined for a private member's bill. It is considered a near sacred-perogative.

by Anonymousreply 4003/21/2012

Good for Canada. They are waking up to the immorality of infanticide.

by Anonymousreply 4103/21/2012

f&f the freeper at r41. gtfo you assholes are part of what's destroying datalounge.

by Anonymousreply 4203/21/2012

Just curious R41. How many babies have you adopted?

BTW, infanticide has always existed and always will whether you like it or not. Why don't you concentrate on helping the already born?

by Anonymousreply 4303/22/2012

Many aging churches face declining attendance, but for congregations being infused with new Canadians, there’s a promise of resurrection and renewal that fits well with the message of Easter.

At Mary Help of Christians, most of the 500 or so parishioners hail from Hong Kong or Taiwan, says Alan Ching, a 52-year-old physiotherapist who chairs the parish pastoral council.

Cantonese is the main language in two of three weekly masses at the old Knights of Columbus building. The early Sunday morning mass is in English.

Approaching its 25th anniversary in May, the number of families at the church is holding steady.

“I can’t say that we’re growing. People come and go,” says Ching.

“In a way, yes, we have new parishioners, we have baptisms, new members, but on the other hand, we have people going away for various reasons.”

According to University of Lethbridge sociologist Reginald Bibby, congregations such as Mary Help of Christians might represent the future of Christianity in Edmonton.

The world’s fastest-growing religion, Christianity is making vast strides in Asia, Africa and Latin America. In the next 24 hours, there will be 37,000 more Catholics and 30,000 Pentecostals, Bibby says.

There will be just 1,200 more atheists.

Immigrants from the Southern Hemisphere are already altering Canada’s religious landscape, bypassing the shrinking mainline Protestant churches while infusing Catholic and Pentecostal congregations with devout newcomers.

In Alberta’s Catholic churches, foreign-born worshippers are nearly twice as likely as native-born Catholics — 64 per cent to 39 per cent — to attend mass at least once a month.

Well-spoken, friendly Filipino and African priests helm congregations.

And the number of foreign-born Christians in Canada is likely to grow in the coming decades.

For example, about eight per cent of the people in China now attend religious services, but by 2050 the number of Christians alone in China could rise to 220 million people, or 15 per cent of the population.

“When you look at this global data, it’s obvious that a lot of these people are arriving as Catholics,” Bibby says.

“With the growth of Christianity in China, you would expect those kinds of parishes are going to grow all the more because of immigration.”

More than half of the parishioners at Mary Help of Christians were already Catholic when they arrived, Ching says.

He was a twenty-something “sheet of white paper” when he came in 1986. Having no religious past, Ching began attending four years later, curious at first, but increasingly comfortable with an accepting congregation and approachable clergy.

This Sunday, his 11-year-old daughter will celebrate her confirmation. It’s a special end to Lent, the traditional 40-day period of fasting and sacrifice leading up to Easter.

Many Christians forego chocolate or wine. This year, Ching endeavoured to spend less time daydreaming about material things.

“I tried to pray more, because I’m usually very lazy,” Ching admits. “I think it’s making a difference.”

Good Friday services were uncharacteristically quiet at the Ethiopian Evangelical Church, a small, slightly dilapidated Pentecostal church in Edmonton, where a few dozen members gathered in the early evening to contemplate the meaning of the cross, sing a few hymns, pray and also wash each other’s feet.

Twenty-two years ago, Terefe Sereke began meeting with four or five friends in his apartment.

They incorporated as a church in 1994, and now have more than 300 active members, with plans to move from their current location to a bigger building.

Sereke’s life is testimony to the growing worldwide influence of Pentecostalism. The broad, intensely experiential conservative Protestant movement began in late 19th-century England and America and has grown to more than half a billion followers.

Pentecostals were virtually non-existent when Sereke was born in Addis Ababa 47 years ago.

He grew up in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, among the world’s most ancient branches of Christianity, which still counts half of the country as adh

by Anonymousreply 4404/15/2012

The abortion debate is starting today!

by Anonymousreply 4504/26/2012

I believe life begins at conception. I still believe the woman has the ultimate right to decide if this life will mature into a human being. I don't believe any woman would kill her fetus arbitrarily. Those who do have to live with their decision. This is not a matter for public debate.

by Anonymousreply 4604/26/2012

[quote]The abortion debate is starting today!

No. The debate is on whether Parliament should establish a committee to look into defining when life begins (currently the law doesn't say when life begins).

by Anonymousreply 4704/26/2012

R44=what a crock of shit. China is mainly atheist, their atheist reproduction is not included in your figure, and the growth of religion there is unlikely to be anything like the numbers you quote from some dizzy breathless priest.

R46, most pregnancies end in miscarriage naturally. Your view that life begins in conception has no scientific or moral basis.

Shame on Canada for trying to pull some born again shit. SHAME!

by Anonymousreply 4804/26/2012

"Canada is going to swing back to Liberal leadership within the next couple of years."

Dumbass R21, you've been telling us this for several years and you are always wrong.

by Anonymousreply 4904/26/2012

I told the Canadians that this conservative government was different, that it would try to fix the game to hold itself in power. They pooh-poohed me. And here we are years later and they are still in power, more entrenched than ever and following essentially a Republican playbook. Shame on you for not listening to me. Again. You'd think you would have learned your lesson back in olden times, but no......

by Anonymousreply 5004/26/2012

I guess my old roomie won't be making any more cross border runs for pot.

by Anonymousreply 5104/26/2012

Abortion is a heinous immoral act, so I hope they define the unborn as human life and outlaw infanticide. Go Canada!

by Anonymousreply 5204/28/2012

Stephen Harper is GW Bush on steroids.

by Anonymousreply 5312/02/2012

The GOP is moving north!

by Anonymousreply 5412/07/2012

Some people have this misconception that Ultra Right Conservatives and their ambitions and aspirations to power are peculiar to the USA, but this is a worldwide movement. It has to be stopped and people have to fight it where ever they find it. "The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance."

by Anonymousreply 5512/07/2012

Bingo, r55.

Canada has had a false sense of security for a long time now. They have to go back and look at their and the world's history. America is going left, they're going Right, like much of the Western world. Enough looking down their noses at the US.

by Anonymousreply 5612/07/2012

Canada is more right wing today than the USA and Europe. That is what the Canadian voters, voted for.

by Anonymousreply 5712/08/2012

R57 is it? 31 out of 50 governors in the US are Republican. The Congress is controlled by the Republicans. The most right wing part of Canada, Alberta, is absolutely nothing like an Alabama or a Texas.

Look at what's happening in Michigan, trying to fight unions not to mention Wisconsin.

As far as I checked gay marriage still exists in Canada whereas not all 50 states(only a comparative handful) have gay marriage in the US.

by Anonymousreply 5812/08/2012

Republicans in the USA are not at the national level. Obama is and he supports full equality. Harper DOES NOT!

Legal equality exists in Canada (also in certain US states), but the US federal government is not voting every year to reverse equality. The Canadian Conservative party is. At the Conservative Party convention, in June of 2012, they voted again, that equality was only for heterosexual relationships. Harper has already cut millions in federal funding from LGBT legal groups. It is starting.

by Anonymousreply 5912/08/2012

I like Stephen Harper, he's a good guy.

by Anonymousreply 6012/08/2012

When Quebec goes back to the polls, here is hoping they vote for the Liberals not the BLOQ.

Canada's Gay communities, legal equality is at risk and is in the hands of Quebec.

by Anonymousreply 6112/08/2012

R59 you cannot extrapolate the ravings of a few nutty backbenchers into sweeping political change.

Whatever Mr. Obama's personal feelings, gay marriage remains illegal through most of the US. Regardless of Mr. Harper's personal feelings, gays and lesbians have been getting married across Canada since 2003. Harper is a pragmatist above all things and will not take on a losing battle. At last poll, 73% of Canadian support same sex marriage.

by Anonymousreply 6212/08/2012

No, Harper just back doors discrimination against the Gay community, knowing that as Canada population ages and Canada get saturated with new immigrants, the tables will turn and he will have the popular opinion to reverse it.

PM Harper redefines sleazy back door politics.

by Anonymousreply 6312/09/2012

R63 your theory is that people in their 50's and 60's who currently support gay marriage will cease to support it in their 70's & 80's? That's just not true. What you see in the US is a core group of Republicans who hold the same bigoted opinions that they did in 1960. There are a few people like that in Canada but they're a small minority. Approval ratings for gay marriage has risen with every poll - it was 51% support in 2003 and it's risen 20% since then. That will not change and it has not been affected by immigration patterns.

I agree with you that Harper is a dick but he's given up on trying to implement a socially conservative agenda because it's a game loser - look how the much touted Wildrose party tanked the Alberta election as soon as a couple of candidates started to spout off bigotry.

Where Harper is damaging the country is in attacking Statistics Canada and dismantling the gun registry, as token gestures to the unhappy social conservatives.

by Anonymousreply 6412/09/2012

I'll bring you three more hours of news... LATER

by Anonymousreply 6512/09/2012

Ian Hanomansing is a bit of a sell out to the 1 percent. You should pick a less "Corporate" example.

by Anonymousreply 6612/11/2012

PM Harpers Social Conservative agenda is on full forward, he just moved it underground where it can not be seen. #BUSTED @ R64. Back to Christian camp now.

by Anonymousreply 6712/11/2012

R67 and if a few homophobes are conferencing under a rock - WHO CARES? It changes nothing in Canadian law.

Turn your concern to Uganda where you can now be killed for being gay thanks to the donations of fundamentalist Christians in the US.

And returning to Harper: hopefully he gets nailed in the Robocalls trial. Would love if that is the issue that takes him down.

by Anonymousreply 6812/11/2012

I'll bring you three more hours of live news.... LATER!

by Anonymousreply 6912/11/2012

Many, many doctors believe fetuses are life. Why then, do they perform heart and other surgeries on babies in the womb if they are not human beings?

by Anonymousreply 7012/11/2012

It doesn't matter how Harper goes down, as long as he goes down.

by Anonymousreply 7112/12/2012

R59 DOMA still exists right? Obama only came out this year and finally gave a case for gay marriage. We don't have gay marriage on a national level OR civil unions for that matter. The Repubs control Congress and control most of the governorships. The ground is gaining here for gay marriage in the US on a state level whereas in Canada gay marriage is already national!

The right wingers in Canada are nothing like the rubes we have in The South and The West in America.

by Anonymousreply 7212/12/2012

Doesn't surprise me, knowing the shockingly low number of out gay men there. They may be tolerant in words but not in reality.

by Anonymousreply 7312/12/2012

All the guys coming out in Pro Sports are American.

by Anonymousreply 7412/14/2012
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!