Distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned! LOL Someone who doesn't know anything, is generally wrong on most (if not all things). LOL!
2024 Canadian Political Thread
- Thread starter licks2nite
- Start date
- Status
Except you forget to mention that there have been several members bills that have restrictions in them that have been free votes already under PeePee. And PeePee has said he will allow free votes on such bills in the future.
And which ones passed? What is your position, that no vote can ever be a free vote? Or that no member other than government caucus front bench MP's are allowed to present a motion/bill/whatever to parliament for a vote? It's clear as day that no LAW regarding abortion has passed since Morgentaler. What motion/bill/petition/whatever has passed that has created a law or regulation that has either banned or limited abortion? So as far as I can see, your issue is that free votes are somehow "no-go" territory, which is false as the HoC can have a free vote on motions/petitions/whatever. I mean, the gay marriage vote, that was a free vote - is it your opinion that that vote should never have been a free vote? You have no logical position on this and you are simply (again) trying to connect dots that are NOT there. Free votes happen, as demonstrated by gawd knows how many free votes have been held in Parliament. Moreover, you can't point to any vote that has passed that has limited or banned abortion. Saying nothing for the fact that all these conservative backbench motions are NOT bills - pass or fail, they do not create laws. And, pretty much all the time, they don't pass.
They havent passed because PeePee has never held a majority yet, or even a close minority. Now were talking about a situation where this is likely to happen, and the leader wants to leave those cracks open as an avenue. He'll whip all the stupid crap that gets voted on, but for some reason this one needs to be free.
Again, name a piece of legislation that has been passed, sponsored by a conservative that has limited or banned abortion? Which bill as you put it previously, "under Polievere" has passed that is actually a BILL, i.e. a PIECE OF LEGISLATION that has passed or been voted on that limits or bans abortion? Do you know the difference between a BILL (i.e. proposed legislation) and a simply motion? Again, the CPC is on the record, as was Harper, as was Scheer, as was O'Toole that a conservative government will not legislate on abortion. Key word, legislate, as is a piece of legislation. Scheer, O'Toole and Polievre have never been the PM. Harper has been - and he maintained that position, i.e. not to legislate on abortion. Harper had a majority. There was no legislation on abortion. There were times under Harper when back benchers present motion on things like "wanting to study when life begins", etc. And although I can't recall if those motions were free votes on not. But, you lefties were saying the exact same thing then, that somehow some motion is the equivalent to legislation - which it is NOT.
For fucks sakes: *BILL* C225 with a backdoor choice limiter was defeated under Ambrose in 2016. Ya Boy voted yea as did all but 3 Conservatives. But yeah, they've changed but wont commit to it (even though its non-binding if he says he wont allow it). Just trust you.
What is a "backdoor choice limiter"?
Here's the entire text of the proposed bill. Exactly where does the proposed bill limit abortion?
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-225/first-reading
238.1 (2) a i,ii,iii
238.1 (1) For the purposes of this section, preborn child means a child at any stage of development that has not yet become a human being within the meaning of section 223.
Offence — causing the death of a preborn child while committing an offence
(2) Every person who, while committing or attempting to commit an offence under this Act against a female person that the person knows is pregnant, directly or indirectly causes the death of her preborn child
- (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
- (i) if the person means to cause injury or death to the preborn child or injury to the mother that the person knows is likely to cause the preborn child’s death, and is reckless as to whether death ensues or not, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 10 years,
- (ii) if the person shows wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of the preborn child, to imprisonment for life, or
- (iii) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years; or
"...while committing an offence..." is the relevant phrase from what you highlighted. That means while committing a crime. Offence being a criminal code offence of which abortion is definitely NOT an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. You understand that right? Clearly you DO NOT. Bill C225 is something known as an amending act - an act (i.e. proposed legislation) to amend an existing piece of legislation, in this instance to amend the criminal code of Canada. It does NOT criminalize abortion. Because abortion is NOT an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada, nor did this bill make abortion a criminal offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. Wow! Your inability to understand all sorts of topics, literally has no limits! LOL
So tiresome.
Nobody is going to restrict or stop abortions in Canada.
Everybody knows this.
Stale lies from sad and desperate Liberal apologists.
It must suck to be so disconnected from reality.
As a further sign that the Trudeau dynasty is crumbling it appears that CTV has a very adept reporter who is not afraid to challenge those in power with tough questions....not that they answer them but its a start. Vassy Kapelos is trying to hold Chrystia Freeland's slippery feet and bobbling head (she appears to have some sort of really bad nervous twitch or possibly Parkinsons disease) to the fire,but its not easy.
You can see her pause after almost every question as she formulates in her head the evasion tactic she plans to use to avoid a direct and quantifiable answer. Canada is Chrystia's third loyalty with Ukraine and the WEF taking precedence. At least she isnt wearing her Ukrainian flag pin during this interview like she does in Parliament.
You can see her pause after almost every question as she formulates in her head the evasion tactic she plans to use to avoid a direct and quantifiable answer. Canada is Chrystia's third loyalty with Ukraine and the WEF taking precedence. At least she isnt wearing her Ukrainian flag pin during this interview like she does in Parliament.
Ah..but you omit that the Bill tries to provide rights to the fetus, which is why it was defeated after first reading. Was this a mistake by the conservative law team, they just dont know what they're doing when the craft laws and made booboo? And you trying to sell it as nothingburger marks you as a duplicitous bald faced liar. Your motivations are obviously to win at all costs, societal detriments be dammed.
Violence against mothers was already covered under existing legislation, so why this Bill exactly? Ill spell it out, has nothing to do with crime against women, everything to do with granting rights to fetuses. And then you get into that quagmire where the rights of the fetus can override the mothers and womans status under the charter depends on their potential pregnancy status.
I'm sure all tje like others, your long winded response will be some other version of just trust you.
Last edited:
Sorry, wont 'just trust you'and will continue to argue that the conservatives have undeclared adgendas relating to this topic given their voting histories.
Anyone in on the Loblaws Boycott? Im trying to figure out fiscal conservatives will land....on tje one hand 'Boycotts are useless, everyone sgould be able to gouge as much as they want' on the other 'Sticking it the Liberals Corporte allies!'
Now you are trying to shift your narrative - that what you really meant was the fact that it is recognizing a fetus. So no, when you try and move the goal posts after you have been proven wrong - that is actually you trying to (using your words) "win at all costs" as it relates to your erroneous claim that the bill was an attempt to ban or limit abortion. LOL
Again, you're now shifting the narrative/moving the goal posts. You presented the proposed bill as a ban or restriction on abortion. What did you call it? A "backdoor choice limiter"? Just another one of your desperate MO's - you're shown that you are incorrect, so instead of leaving it at that, you move the goal posts and shift your position to a different point all together.
Shifting goal posts? Youve completely ignored everything i said. It was a bill that assigns rights to the fetus. That is a shot at limiting abortion and you know it. As i stated the bill was not needed- the laws in question were already covered under the criminal codes ( could have just stiffened existing penalties) The only reason to introduce the bill was to assign right to the fetus. That is a shot at limiting abortion, and anything you say past it is you lying out all your orfices no matter what pile of shit words you try to bury it in. It was voted on near unaminously yea by the conservative party, including Pollieve, but stopped by the Liberals and the NDP members who voted nay. That was 8 years ago, not the distant past. Nothing has changed, they're still the same guys who want to impose their religeous beliefs on everyone.
The problem lies with your misbeliefs. Not everyone who votes for conservatives is a bible thumper. Look man, I’m an atheist/agnostic. LOL. I’ve stated before that I’m a centrist, yet for reasons unknown you went off on a tangent to discredit what I said and then made up your own assumptions about random bullshit. I’m very much pro-choice. Always have been. I don’t think this will ever go away in Canada, but new science is being discovered that a fetus starts to develop “feelings” at around 20-24 weeks. At some point maybe protecting the fetus is a viable option, without outright banning abortions? Let’s call it a grey area. I think the point of the matter is more towards not allowing or encouraging late-stage abortions when a life could have been viably formed, without of course, harming the mother (sorry, persons with vaginas).
All the while I still expect the same govt to want to balance a budget, do something about crime and immigration, and boost healthcare. Trudeau has failed on all accounts.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMMvHUFgK/ - regarding the 401 accident. This see you next Tuesday couldn’t even answer a single question as to why that guy, an immigrant, was out on bail 3 times before something tragic like this happened. It didn’t need to happen in the first place. And the cop who was held at knife point prior, didn’t want to shoot the guy because, well, woke stuff.
- Status
