Members of Parliament in the pro-life caucus, including several Conservatives, say politicians and Canadians are eager to see the issue debated and plan on continuing to place it on the public agenda.
Anti-abortion activism on Parliament Hill was running high in early May with the annual March for Life rally, which was attended by 21 Conservative MPs and over 10,000 demonstrators.
Since then, an anti-abortion group has begun distributing graphic postcards in Harper’s Calgary riding. In a news release, the group says they plan to hand out over 250,000 cards over the summer.
Meanwhile, Conservative MPs continue, almost on a daily basis, to table petitions signed by their constituents condemning abortion and calling for laws to protect the rights of the unborn.
Leon Benoit, an Alberta Tory MP, said the abortion discussion has never really ended within Parliament, and that it will continue in the coming months.
“It’s taking place within our caucus right now,” Benoit said. “I think you’ll see, in the months ahead . . . that there is progress being made.”
He could not say, however, whether or not this would lead to concrete legislative proposals.
The prime minister has long said that he will not reopen the abortion debate, and Benoit believes Harper is well within his rights to stick to that position.
However, the backbench Conservative said that “when it comes to individual MPs talking about the issue . . . it’s important that the leadership in our caucus understands that and allows it without any consequence.”
At the March for Life rally, Calgary Conservative MP Rob Anders told attendees they needed to make the pro-life presence felt at the constituency level in the next election.
He also said that anti-abortion members of Parliament had made “enemies.”
Anders declined further comment to Postmedia News.
Stephen Woodworth, the Kitchener, Ont. Conservative MP who asked Parliament last September to investigate when life begins, said that he plans to introduce a new motion that — while not necessarily intended to be about abortion — could re-open the debate.
In recent months, several MPs have called on Parliament to change the definition of a human being — which Tory MPs have said is over 400-years-old — and to condemn the practice of sex-selective abortion.
Woodworth said he is considering and hoping to introduce a further motion that would “declare that all Canadian laws should be interpreted in accordance with principles of universal human equality and human dignity.”
“I’ve taken it a step back from the question of children before birth,” he said.
Woodworth’s initiative would call for all Canadian laws to be interpreted in a way that recognizes the equality of all humans and acknowledges the rights of all people — something he says hasn’t historically existed for some groups in society.
But some experts believe changing Canadian laws in such a manner could extend rights to fetuses and lead to laws restricting abortion. In fact, critics say such a motion is obviously aimed at changing abortion policy.
“The only reason that you would need to pass a motion other than recognizing what is already recognized is to extend that to fetuses . . . it’s only about the abortion discussion,” said Paul Saurette, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa who is writing a book about the anti-abortion movement in Canada.
“There are no persons, there are no individuals who are not covered by the rights to life, liberty, security, anything else that’s in the Charter.”
Mark Warawa, MP for Langley, B.C., faced criticism for the same reason over his motion to condemn “gendercide,” — one part of which is the abortion of fetuses based upon gender. While he has not introduced a motion, he has said that there are MPs interested in the issue, and that they come from all parties.
However, Niki Ashton, the NDP status of women critic, said Canadians have told her party they simply don’t want parliamentarians to discuss abortion.
“Canadians accept that the issue of abortion was dealt with years ago,” she said. “We’ve even seen from the prime minister that he recognizes it’s important not to reopen the debate.
“It’s disconcerting that a number of his backbench (Tory) MPs spent an enormous amount of energy trying to do just that.”
The shift away from discussing abortion, and towards concepts of equality, dignity and gendercide, is merely a smokescreen to obscure the debate, Saurette said.
“The framing is smart, and the framing is designed to extend the appeal . . . to draw in people who are not necessarily already strong anti-abortion supporters to the position by using language that has more traditionally been more progressive,” he said.
While it might not be a winning strategy, the rhetoric has a strong effect on people, he said.
Coupled with the question of abortion is the issue of free speech in Parliament. Warawa’s motion on gendercide was shut down by the Conservative party, which prompted House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer to rule on backbench MPs and their right to speak. He said he would allow parliamentarians to speak, if they could catch his eye.
Benoit said this ruling was indeed helpful, but he wasn’t sure if it counted as a “game changer” in the abortion debate.
He said that abortion isn’t the main issue at this point, but rather what he sees as a general reluctance to take on issues in the House of Commons.
Benoit said it is up to all parties — including the Conservatives — to come to an agreement on the right of parliamentarians to discuss any issue.
“The NDP as a bloc has said we have no business bringing up the issue of abortion in the House of Commons, and they’re wrong,” he said.
“I think we can move toward free and open speech on any issue in the House of Commons, and that’s what we really need.”
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Tyler Dawson
No comments:
Post a Comment