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 Anonymous||reply 74||12/14/2012|
Crazy fundie teabaggers up there too huh?
|by Anonymous||reply 1||03/15/2012|
Didn't Canadians used to gloat about how superior and more tolerant they were than the US?
|by Anonymous||reply 2||03/15/2012|
For christssakes Canada, even Mississippi voted that down.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||03/15/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 4||03/15/2012|
Believe R4, but same-sex marriage might be next on the agenda.
Only a matter of time
|by Anonymous||reply 5||03/15/2012|
Oh puh-leez. The sky is falling. Must be a full moon, or they're having a sale on tinhats.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||03/15/2012|
I suspect OP is a bit mixed up, or trying to start some Canada hate.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||03/15/2012|
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 Canadaâs 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 Anonymous||reply 9||03/15/2012|
You're retarded, R8
OTTAWA â A controversial proposal from a Conservative backbencher to legally define fetuses as human beings â and reopen the abortion debate â 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 Anonymous||reply 10||03/15/2012|
R10 see R9
So who is the moron now as a debate will take place on this issue in April.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||03/15/2012|
"...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 Anonymous||reply 12||03/15/2012|
[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 Anonymous||reply 13||03/15/2012|
They gave the wingnut one whole hour for debate. BFD.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||03/15/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 16||03/15/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 17||03/16/2012|
You queens can spin this any way you want, but once the door is opened, it will get kicked open.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||03/16/2012|
Does this come from the new Canadian Foreign Ministry of Jesus?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||03/16/2012|
This lone `Canada is turning Nazi troll`is getting very very tiresome.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||03/17/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 21||03/17/2012|
R21 = Harper Government Spokesperson
|by Anonymous||reply 22||03/17/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 23||03/17/2012|
Eagerly awaiting the swing back R21, because Canada is becoming a SCARY PLACE today.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||03/17/2012|
Canada can't swing back now that Dominion Voting Systems is counting the votes.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||03/17/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 26||03/18/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 27||03/18/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 28||03/18/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 29||03/18/2012|
>>>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 Anonymous||reply 30||03/18/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 31||03/18/2012|
[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 Anonymous||reply 32||03/18/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 33||03/18/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 34||03/18/2012|
[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 Anonymous||reply 35||03/19/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 36||03/19/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 37||03/19/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 38||03/19/2012|
[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 Anonymous||reply 39||03/21/2012|
[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 Anonymous||reply 40||03/21/2012|
f&f the freeper at r41. gtfo you assholes are part of what's destroying datalounge.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||03/21/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 43||03/22/2012|
The abortion debate is starting today!
|by Anonymous||reply 45||04/26/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 46||04/26/2012|
[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 Anonymous||reply 47||04/26/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 48||04/26/2012|
"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 Anonymous||reply 49||04/26/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 50||04/26/2012|
I guess my old roomie won't be making any more cross border runs for pot.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||04/26/2012|
Stephen Harper is GW Bush on steroids.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||12/02/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 55||12/07/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 56||12/07/2012|
Canada is more right wing today than the USA and Europe. That is what the Canadian voters, voted for.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||12/08/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 58||12/08/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 59||12/08/2012|
I like Stephen Harper, he's a good guy.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||12/08/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 61||12/08/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 62||12/08/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 63||12/09/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 64||12/09/2012|
I'll bring you three more hours of news... LATER
|by Anonymous||reply 65||12/09/2012|
Ian Hanomansing is a bit of a sell out to the 1 percent. You should pick a less "Corporate" example.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||12/11/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 67||12/11/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 68||12/11/2012|
I'll bring you three more hours of live news.... LATER!
|by Anonymous||reply 69||12/11/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 70||12/11/2012|
It doesn't matter how Harper goes down, as long as he goes down.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||12/12/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 72||12/12/2012|
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 Anonymous||reply 73||12/12/2012|
All the guys coming out in Pro Sports are American.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||12/14/2012|