![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tyresiasFirst a little nugget from an article on www.cbc.ca:
The Nova Scotia Citizens' Health Care Network invited all Halifax-area political candidates to its breakfast meeting on Thursday at St. Matthews Church in the city. [...]
Conservative campaign spokesman Rob Batherson said Conservative candidates are focusing their attention on getting to "actual voters rather than interest groups."
Health care advocates are now an interest group? So what exactly isn't an "interest group" then?
I would like you to consider the following: while Harper says that he won't pass legislation to criminilize abortion, he has instead suggested they become "out of pocket" procedures. 1. Provinces are in charge of health care coverage, how hypocritical of the man who insists provinces need greater autonomy. 2. Many women "choose" to have abortions when they realise they cannot afford a child. Making them fiscally pay for the abortion would render it greatly innaccessible and this is just as problematic IMO as criminilizing it.
This short article from www.cbc.ca "Harper would set back rights, Martin warns"
Liberal Leader Paul Martin accused Stephen Harper of having the most extreme right-wing agenda in the history of Canada and warned that a Tory government could set back the rights of Canadians, particularly women. He said the Conservative leader wants to limit the power of the courts and reopen debates over same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
"You add it all up and you see why Mr. Harper regards the courts with such suspicion because they stand between him and the most socially conservative agenda that has ever been this close to forming a government," Martin said. Martin was responding to Harper's remarks from Tuesday that a Tory majority wouldn't wield power unfettered because of the Liberal-dominated Senate, and a civil service and judiciary that have been put in place by the Liberals. He accused Harper of planning to stack the courts with socially conservative judges if he wins. He said this is of particular concern to women, given that there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. "Given his comments, would Stephen Harper restrict his search to candidates who share his political views? Who agree that judges have gone too far, that judges are too socially activist? What Mr. Harper has in mind for the courts is wrong.
"There's one place that the courts in this country would be in his way. And that's when they defend the Charter or Rights and that applies to same-sex marriage. It applies to a woman's right to choose."
While Harper has said he would have a free vote to reverse the recognition of same-sex marriage, he has insisted he will not introduce any legislation regarding abortions. Martin criticized Harper's comments about abortion that he made in a television interview on Wednesday. "Just yesterday, he said that his views on a woman's right to choose are too complex for Canadians." Martin jumped on Harpers' response when asked whether the Conservatives would pledge to never bring in legislation restricting abortion.
"And he said, 'Well, never is a long time.' I gotta comment. The fact is never means never."
The Nova Scotia Citizens' Health Care Network invited all Halifax-area political candidates to its breakfast meeting on Thursday at St. Matthews Church in the city. [...]
Conservative campaign spokesman Rob Batherson said Conservative candidates are focusing their attention on getting to "actual voters rather than interest groups."
Health care advocates are now an interest group? So what exactly isn't an "interest group" then?
I would like you to consider the following: while Harper says that he won't pass legislation to criminilize abortion, he has instead suggested they become "out of pocket" procedures. 1. Provinces are in charge of health care coverage, how hypocritical of the man who insists provinces need greater autonomy. 2. Many women "choose" to have abortions when they realise they cannot afford a child. Making them fiscally pay for the abortion would render it greatly innaccessible and this is just as problematic IMO as criminilizing it.
This short article from www.cbc.ca "Harper would set back rights, Martin warns"
Liberal Leader Paul Martin accused Stephen Harper of having the most extreme right-wing agenda in the history of Canada and warned that a Tory government could set back the rights of Canadians, particularly women. He said the Conservative leader wants to limit the power of the courts and reopen debates over same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
"You add it all up and you see why Mr. Harper regards the courts with such suspicion because they stand between him and the most socially conservative agenda that has ever been this close to forming a government," Martin said. Martin was responding to Harper's remarks from Tuesday that a Tory majority wouldn't wield power unfettered because of the Liberal-dominated Senate, and a civil service and judiciary that have been put in place by the Liberals. He accused Harper of planning to stack the courts with socially conservative judges if he wins. He said this is of particular concern to women, given that there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. "Given his comments, would Stephen Harper restrict his search to candidates who share his political views? Who agree that judges have gone too far, that judges are too socially activist? What Mr. Harper has in mind for the courts is wrong.
"There's one place that the courts in this country would be in his way. And that's when they defend the Charter or Rights and that applies to same-sex marriage. It applies to a woman's right to choose."
While Harper has said he would have a free vote to reverse the recognition of same-sex marriage, he has insisted he will not introduce any legislation regarding abortions. Martin criticized Harper's comments about abortion that he made in a television interview on Wednesday. "Just yesterday, he said that his views on a woman's right to choose are too complex for Canadians." Martin jumped on Harpers' response when asked whether the Conservatives would pledge to never bring in legislation restricting abortion.
"And he said, 'Well, never is a long time.' I gotta comment. The fact is never means never."
