Most of the time, the Canadian government's attitude towards women's rights is sexist and befuddled.
Contrast with the US, and "personhood amendments", and "mandatory invasive procedures", and "doctors cannot be sued for lying to you if they think you might have an abortion" and "not even if the mother's life is in danger" laws.
Thats basically the situation. I'm surprised about the comment for a number of reasons:
It looks extremely candid, which means it wasn't vetted by the PMs office. Which means he was off leash, which is just bizarre for this government (:P)
It's totally true, and not very flattering to the government (but even less flattering to the American government). Which is like, wow. No diplomatic language at all.
And, while he was off leash and saying rude things that he seems to honestly believe... he seems to have admitted there's a problem with this government and womens rights. Which leaves me kind of stunned he hasn't been witch-hunted out of the party yet.
I should perhaps have been clearer: The quote is by James Nicoll, perennial Hugo Award nominee and non-politician. He is speaking *about* the topic of the article, which is an attempt by his CPC(non-communist) MP to institute American-style war-on-women laws in Canada. The "revealing what he actually thinks" bit refers to said misogynistic and religiously vapid laws.
I don't think that's a quote from the MP, I think that's a quote from James_Nicoll summing up the situation.
The MP wants to redefine at what point a fetus becomes a human being. Hilariously, he argues that our current definition is based on "a 400-year-old law" which is outdated, then follows that up with an argument along the lines of "if a child five minutes from birth isn't a human being, then the question is, who's next?" which is a new low in terms of doublethink. I mean, if it's been this way for 400 years, then obviously we are not sliding down that particular slippery slope.
Somehow it is simultaneously archaic and outdated AND new-fangled liberal eugenics.
Well, it didn't USED to be a problem because we were all good Christians who loved Jesus. These days, though, are the End Times and worse than all previous Good Old Days, and thus we have to worry about all the things previous generations did not.
"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."
A real Conservative would point out that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' is the centra plank of conservative philosophy. IE. if it hasn't affected anyone outside the womb in 400 years, then "who's next" is at this stage a fairly silly question.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-14 05:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-14 05:18 pm (UTC)Contrast with the US, and "personhood amendments", and "mandatory invasive procedures", and "doctors cannot be sued for lying to you if they think you might have an abortion" and "not even if the mother's life is in danger" laws.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-14 08:22 pm (UTC)It looks extremely candid, which means it wasn't vetted by the PMs office. Which means he was off leash, which is just bizarre for this government (:P)
It's totally true, and not very flattering to the government (but even less flattering to the American government). Which is like, wow. No diplomatic language at all.
And, while he was off leash and saying rude things that he seems to honestly believe... he seems to have admitted there's a problem with this government and womens rights. Which leaves me kind of stunned he hasn't been witch-hunted out of the party yet.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-14 08:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-14 08:31 pm (UTC)The MP wants to redefine at what point a fetus becomes a human being. Hilariously, he argues that our current definition is based on "a 400-year-old law" which is outdated, then follows that up with an argument along the lines of "if a child five minutes from birth isn't a human being, then the question is, who's next?" which is a new low in terms of doublethink. I mean, if it's been this way for 400 years, then obviously we are not sliding down that particular slippery slope.
Somehow it is simultaneously archaic and outdated AND new-fangled liberal eugenics.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-14 08:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-14 08:56 pm (UTC)I can see the misunderstanding!
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-14 08:30 pm (UTC)I WAS surprised to see the LJ tag.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-15 10:31 pm (UTC)"If a child five minutes before birth can be defined as not a human being, then the question is who's next?" he argued."
A real Conservative would point out that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' is the centra plank of conservative philosophy. IE. if it hasn't affected anyone outside the womb in 400 years, then "who's next" is at this stage a fairly silly question.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-03-15 10:44 pm (UTC)In actual fact, "conservative" means "yells about offenses to rich people and invisible friends"