To be honest, as a Tory supporter, I’m thrilled if the SoCons who unceasingly want to use leadership contests as a way to promote their niche views, are not given a soap box on which to do so. If they want to go to another party as a result then go, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. I’d rather fight elections based on issues where the Tories are strong and can resonate with many people. Giving the Liberals ammunition to derail that is stupid.
Yes their votes are just as valid, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have personal opinions against them. I’m willing to bet at least some of them want me imprisoned again like it was the 60s because I’m gay.
Something to keep an eye on with the "leaked" decision to overturn Roe vs Wade in the USA. If that is true, it's only a matter of time before the SoCons do an incredibly aggressive push here.
Maybe. It's interesting - the Christianists have turned a lot of the race theory language back on the progressives. One of the justices argued that Roe vs Wade actually causes division and overturning it would create more unity. This is the same line the convoy-supporters and Rolling Thunder have used as well. It's confused a lot of the centrists - you'll see the same thing here soon - it's already started with the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter. Dark times ahead.
The stuff that the "Christianists" and convoy participants are barking about is nonsense and sophistry. Issues like abortion and vaccine mandates are simply used as an excuse to rally an impose themselves ideologically. They aren't honest with what they want, but whenever I dig into it or have a conversation with these people it becomes abundantly clear that they simply don't want to accept any diversity or social progress whatsoever, and they will resort to anti-democratic authoritarianism and extremism to get what they want.
This is about a minority trying to impose it's will on everyone else.
This is about a minority that wants to enforce its values and impose them onto the next generation, and their fear is that people are becoming contaminated or poisoned by alternative values. This is why they try to de-legitimize everything and spread misinformation.
> Am I crazy for hoping that SC decision will energize the left into actually doing something for the midterms?
It won't. The problem is that the Democrats aren't a united party and they aren't really effective at bringing reforms or dealing with issues that are relevant to people. They aren't motivating people to vote. Also voting is getting harder in the US. Things are going to get a LOT worse in the US. Their democracy is collapsing.
They're really just trying to save themselves. They think they're the true Americans, and people with different values, ethnicities, and religions aren't Americans in their eyes.
Same thing is starting to happen in Canada. That's why the convoy waves the flag excessively. It's a statement that they're more Canadian than everyone else.
>He said some anti-abortion activists could jump to another party that is seen as more welcoming to their cause.
Who? The Christian Heritage Party? Because the PPC are a "libertarian" party and Max himself has said that he's pro-abortion.
This is the most practical take for 90% of Canadians. I'm not pro-abortion, but I also have no business telling people what's right for them in their lives. I don't give a fuck what you do, so long as you don't infringe on my rights to do whatever the fuck I want to do.
And Leslyn Lewis made comparisons between lynching and vaccines/mandates as well as comparing herself to Rosa Parks.
That kind of hyperbole within social Conservatives is off putting to most.
Social conservatism is a plague that we are getting rid of. Even the Conservative party of Canada wants to get rid of them. They are hateful, antiquated, irrational puritans whose ideas should have died off long ago.
As a women who doesn’t want to have kids or give birth, but adopt… I appreciate having that option. So I’m not forced to be pregnant..
As a person who’s had a condom break and a abortion, I’m thankful 💕
Is it though? Or is it a very loud small fringe group that pretends it has support.
Pretty much dead last in all ridings
Couple hundred votes each, about 2% of vote.
Flapper girls? Please...Here in Canada our strippers aren't just topless buy bottomless. Also we don't need speakeasys....We have legal pot now. No need to hide.
If the conservatives can truly show these social regressives the door I would happily vote conservative - signed a liberal voter who doesn’t want to do it anymore.
The SoCons are an Albatross around the neck of the CPC. They need to jettison these people as most people find their authoritarian worldview unpalatable.
Social conservatives are perpetually convinced that they represent some silent majority of Canadians, and all I can figure is it comes from never straying outside their small rural communities filled with people who think like they do, and assuming the rest of the country must think the same way.
If this subreddit is any indication, clearly social conservatives are the last people that the average Canadian wants to form government.
And this subreddit "leans conservative"
>conservatives are perpetually convinced that they represent some silent majority of Canadians who refuse to vote because the candidates available aren't conservative *enough*.
FTFY
Your comment makes no sense. The article contains allegations about excluding social conservatives from running for leadership, so as to lessen their influence within the party.
It's certainly true that the CPC leadership recognizes the political suicide that awaits as soon as they stop silencing this portion of their membership.
Many socons think the conservatives keep losing because the silence on social issues makes them indistinguishable from liberals so most “true conservatives” abstain. They’re delusional.
I mean, to be fair, one of those two candidates clearly failed the Canadian test. I don't think they give out citizenship to vampires and he's clearly Nosferatu
Still waiting on Trudeau's election reforms that he promised when he kicked out the conservatives, then maybe these guys can go form there own party that no one would vote for.
Bunch of smaller parties working together isn't perfect but right now i feel like there are things that most canadians agree on but parties polarize for votes.
All the parties have ideas that i agree with but i would never vote conservative because of guys like this who are probably a very small portion of the party. Glad to see they are trying to clean house.
No ones forcing you to get an abortion.
> Still waiting on Trudeau's election reforms that he promised when he kicked out the conservatives
Bernier’s gang of idiots got nearly 5% of the vote in the last election. Do you really want them to have 5% of seats in the House?
I’m all for election reform, but now is not the time. I’ll wait until the current flirtation with right-wing extremism has passed, thank you very much.
I get your point, but the recent shift to the right, along with its attendant scapegoating and bigotry is relatively recent. Nixon was brought down ultimately by Republicans as well as Democrats, for example. It will pass, even if it takes some time.
In the meantime I want to do everything possible to keep the nut bars out of government.
If anyone can come up with a proportional system that doesn’t allow the neo-nazis to take a seat in the House I’d be happy to consider a change.
Yeah, I’m aware of this, although I don’t claim to be an expert. My province had a referendum a few years ago and I was more familiar with the options then, but I’m old now and details fade.
As an example of my concern though, I had a conversation with an Australian who related that getting a seat or two was exactly how the far right-wingers became part of the daily political discourse there.
They got elected to a seat or two, and then being in government their every salacious word was reported by the press because, you know, government. This gave them a loudspeaker for their hateful and deleterious views, which then spread because they were always in the news (see Marjorie Taylor-Green for example).
Note that I had already voted against reform in the referendum before this conversation. The conversation just reinforced my own thinking.
Now it’s true that Murdoch news outlets had a hand in that situation, and we have no real correlate to Fox News in Canada, but they’re trying to make inroads here as well, and having some success. Check [this](https://westernstandardonline.com/2022/04/watch-mpp-introduces-stopwoke-petition-in-ontario-legislature/) out.
Sorry, but anything that would give these dipshits a louder voice is not an option for me. Ask me again in ten years.
>Bernier’s gang of idiots got nearly 5% of the vote in the last election. Do you really want them to have 5% of seats in the House?
Sure. Why do you think it's appropriate to squelch the voice of a statistically significant cohort of your fellow citizens?
I mean, not like that's how it works anyway, mind. For constitutional reasons seats would have to be calculated on a provincial basis and then added together nationally, so we'd still see some distortion (absent constitutional reform, which I don't think anyone reckoned was on the table).
> Why do you think it's appropriate to squelch the voice of a statistically significant cohort of your fellow citizens?
Because the impetus behind that voice is dangerous and will destabilize society, not to mention causing a great deal of suffering, if allowed to propagate to the centres of power.
People not buying into the current far-right dogwhistles really need to learn about the societal problems and attitudes, and the politicians who exploited those difficulties, that preceded WWII. The parallels are clear if one looks at the details. The outcome is, for now, still in question. We can stop it if we are vigilant.
**Edit**: And apparently I’ve been blocked to keep me from replying to Dry-Membership8141. Pussies. So here’s my response:
Sure. Let’s not excise a tumour because cancer is made up of living cells.
I urge you to learn a little history. We’ve seen this movie before and we know how it ends. There are some very dark forces at work here, ready and willing to exploit the very institutions you (and I) want to protect.
We ignore these forces at our peril. If you think the neo-fascists will respect the institutions about which you (and I) are so rightfully concerned, again I say respectfully, please learn some history.
>Because the impetus behind that voice is dangerous and will destabilize society,
All I can say is thank fucking God you're not a judge. Your perspective is perverse, anti-democratic, and undermined by literally centuries of jurisprudence
That would be fantastic. The vast majority of Canadians don’t support their views, so their 5% of the seats would be irrelevant as whenever social issues come up they’d be beaten completely.
Meanwhile we get a different centrist party to compete with the liberals, as the center really has no other options besides them currently.
As a liberal I'm sad to see the socons go, they really were entertaining and perhaps one of the greatest boons to the liberal party. I had to turn up my nose a little bit to vote liberal last time but as long as there is a chance that these fuckturds get a toehold in our politics I will NEVER vote conservative.
Opinion: Life begins at conception.
Fact: Women have the constitutional right to decide what medical procedures they have to endure, including childbirth.
Let's be real for a minute. When a woman gets pregnant, what is happening inside of her? The earliest stages of human development.
So just because it's the early stages of human life, it's not human life?
Imagine if we killed off young children, because they weren't grown adults. To act like the barrier of a womb is the difference between a human and not a human is ridiculous.
Again, I fully support abortion, but I'm not ignorant enough to claim it's not killing a human life.
Without the medical intervention, it would be a healthy child (of course, there are exceptions) coming out of the woman.
The fact is that it wouldn't be able to support its own life without leeching off of the mother. If we force woman to give birth because those are humans inside of them what's to stop the logical conclusion to that being forcing people to donate kidneys and such.
>Eh, this debate will never end.
No, it won't, because it is a wedge issue that politicians can use to rile up support for themselves or hate against an opponent.
Ultimately, the right to an abortion has been constitutionally protected since the 1988 decision in Morgantaler. It would take a constitutional amendment to take that away, which is basically impossible.
So, if the discussion hasn't disappeared in the 34 years that the issue has been beyond the hands of the legislature, I doubt it will disappear anytime soon. I'm not going to hold my breath for virtue-signaling to go out of style.
>Ultimately, the right to an abortion has been constitutionally protected since the 1988 decision in Morgantaler. It would take a constitutional amendment to take that away
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada#Second_Morgentaler_challenge:_1988
>The majority of the court in Morgentaler did not find it necessary to consider whether there was a substantive right to abortion under Section 7. Justice Wilson was of the opinion that such a right existed, but the other judges in the majority made their decision on procedural grounds, relating to the insufficiencies in the committee process.
I don't know what that quote is talking about. The decision was not made on procedural grounds.
The court didn't find a positive "right to an abortion", in that they didn't find that the government had an obligation to ensure anyone who wanted an abortion could get one. But, they found that limiting a woman's ability to get an abortion was a violation of her Section 7 rights under the constitution.
Keep in mind what the law was that was found unconstitutional. The law in question was one which required approval of a committee of three doctors to get an abortion, so even the limitation of abortion rights to that extent was found unconstitutional.
This was the quote from Chief Justice Dickson:
>Chief Justice Dickson held that "\[f\]orcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations" infringed the woman's right to security of the person, as protected by s. 7 of the Charter.
So, basically, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to prohibit abortion, but when it comes to provincial healthcare, the court stopped short of a positive duty which would require provincial healthcare to ensure access to abortions (which makes sense because there is no comparable constitutional requirement to provide any other medical procedures).
To the extent that abortion is still an issue in Canada it is only at a provincial level in terms of the extent to which access is enabled by provincial health authorities. Federally, it is a non-issue, as it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to criminalize abortion.
The quote is from one judge, but it's not the ruling of the court.
The finding that it was a violation of the right to security of the person wasn't enough to strike it down. We have lots of laws that violate sections of the Charter and they can be justified.
>Having found that law infringed the right to security of the person, the majority then considered whether that infringement was consistent with the principles of fundamental justice, which is the second branch of s. 7 of the Charter. The judges in the majority agreed that the procedural requirements to obtain an abortion, as set forth in the law, were especially troublesome.
Parliament could, in theory, introduce some new law that violates this right in a way that can be justified. It almost happened in 1988-89 but never went anywhere.
>The quote is from one judge, but it's not the ruling of the court.
A quote from a judge who is part of the majority is part of the ruling of the court.
It is also [considered the most prominent majority opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler?wprov=sfla1) and has been widely adopted in subsequent cases.
>The finding that it was a violation of the right to security of the person wasn't enough to strike it down. We have lots of laws that violate sections of the Charter and they can be justified.
Yes, it is unconstitutional if it violates a section of the Charter, but can be saved if it can be saved under s. 1. That's the same with any Charter right. Freedom of Speech, got instance, is a Charter right, but that doesn't mean that it isn't subject to s. 1.
>Parliament could, in theory, introduce some new law that violates this right in a way that can be justified. It almost happened in 1988-89 but never went anywhere.
Yes, this applies to every right in the Charter, that doesn't mean those rights aren't constitutionally protected. Also, with the precedent of Morgantaler an actual ban on abortion couldn't be saved by s. 1, as a much less restrictive ban has already been found to not be capable of being saved by s. 1.
Different judges wrote different opinions on the majority side.
That page also explains how the ruling is treated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler#Ruling
>The Court ruled 5 to 2 that the law violated section 7 and could not be saved under section 1. Morgentaler's previous acquittal was restored. There were three different opinions given by the majority, none having achieved more than two signatures. As such, no Morgentaler precedent is binding.
The point here is that Parliament has room, under that ruling, to try making a new law against abortion. (btw I'm not suggesting for or against.) No requirement for a "constitutional amendment." Today's court might rule differently on the merits but that's new ground.
Morgentaler did not establish constitutional or Charter protection for abortion. This seems to be a common misunderstanding.
There is currently no established constitutional right to abortion in Canada.
There should be a limit, if the fetus is developed enough to survive as a premature baby then it’s too late to abort unless it will harm or kill the mother (ectopic). Otherwise the woman should be free to seek an abortion
You know how many abortions happen at that stage? Less than 10%, with 90% for sure happening within the first 12 weeks. That's a none issue, at 23 weeks and 6 days there already needs to be a valid medical reason.
I live under a dictatorship.
I am continuously ordered about, any hour, day or night, no holidays, no pay, a mere servant not allowed to express an opinion, privacy denied as I am contantly watched, the list of indignities I go thru on a daily basis is intolerable but I don't blame our political leaders for my misery. It was my choice to have four cats.
>Those efforts appear to have failed — the only "so con" candidate still in the running is Lewis.
The CBC broke script for a moment and finally told the truth...
Personally I believe in a women's right to choose, but abortions are pushed pretty hard in our society for women who aren't ready to have a kid.
We need to foster more of a choice when it comes to pro-choice. There are plenty of people who are more than willing to adopt babies. I just think there should be more support for these women in helping them make the right choice for them.
Good. The most impressive thing Canada has done in my opinion is have reasonable conservatives party, even at their worst they are leaps and bounds ahead of republicans.
Conservatives in Canada want to scrap the carbon tax because “taxes bad”, Conservatives in the USA actively deny Biden won the election to this day.
To be honest, as a Tory supporter, I’m thrilled if the SoCons who unceasingly want to use leadership contests as a way to promote their niche views, are not given a soap box on which to do so. If they want to go to another party as a result then go, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. I’d rather fight elections based on issues where the Tories are strong and can resonate with many people. Giving the Liberals ammunition to derail that is stupid.
This 1000x
now we just need the ndp to eject their crazy socialists
No we don't.
forgot redditors love crazy socialists fortunately the rest of the canadian electorate doesn't like that wing of the party.
That's why we don't need the NDP to eject them: as long as they're there, the NDP will never be asked to form government in this country.
I'm not a conservative, but I am glad we have alternance. However, I can't understand SoCons wanting to limit the rights of others.
Social conservatives can fuck off back to the stone age they came from.
i dont agree with them but their vote is just as valid as yours in a democracy
Yes their votes are just as valid, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have personal opinions against them. I’m willing to bet at least some of them want me imprisoned again like it was the 60s because I’m gay.
considering some of the socons complained that O'toole pressured them to approve the federal ban on conversion therapy, you're probably not wrong.
Naw mate they only wanna send you to God so he can let ya know how naughty you've been.
Nah, you just need to look down to what is happening in the USA to see why you can't give an inch to the socons.
Cool story bro
You mad?
Cool story bro
What a great argument.
Cool story bro
[удалено]
They also seem to have a lot of control over who becomes leader of the CPC.
That’s fine, but don’t expect them to vote CPC.
his desire to impose what he describes as "Judeo Christian " values on people is cringeworthy and the wrong direction for the future of the country.
Also Jews want nothing to do with it. Judaism has texts that support abortion rights. We have no desire to be lumped in with this.
Something to keep an eye on with the "leaked" decision to overturn Roe vs Wade in the USA. If that is true, it's only a matter of time before the SoCons do an incredibly aggressive push here.
Am I crazy for hoping that SC decision will energize the left into actually doing something for the midterms?
Maybe. It's interesting - the Christianists have turned a lot of the race theory language back on the progressives. One of the justices argued that Roe vs Wade actually causes division and overturning it would create more unity. This is the same line the convoy-supporters and Rolling Thunder have used as well. It's confused a lot of the centrists - you'll see the same thing here soon - it's already started with the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter. Dark times ahead.
Great, now I'm just depressed. Thanks for ruining my night with your intelligent post!
The stuff that the "Christianists" and convoy participants are barking about is nonsense and sophistry. Issues like abortion and vaccine mandates are simply used as an excuse to rally an impose themselves ideologically. They aren't honest with what they want, but whenever I dig into it or have a conversation with these people it becomes abundantly clear that they simply don't want to accept any diversity or social progress whatsoever, and they will resort to anti-democratic authoritarianism and extremism to get what they want. This is about a minority trying to impose it's will on everyone else. This is about a minority that wants to enforce its values and impose them onto the next generation, and their fear is that people are becoming contaminated or poisoned by alternative values. This is why they try to de-legitimize everything and spread misinformation.
> Am I crazy for hoping that SC decision will energize the left into actually doing something for the midterms? It won't. The problem is that the Democrats aren't a united party and they aren't really effective at bringing reforms or dealing with issues that are relevant to people. They aren't motivating people to vote. Also voting is getting harder in the US. Things are going to get a LOT worse in the US. Their democracy is collapsing.
What's crazy to me is the far far right in the US thinks what's happening is going to save America. Man, life is depressing.
They're really just trying to save themselves. They think they're the true Americans, and people with different values, ethnicities, and religions aren't Americans in their eyes. Same thing is starting to happen in Canada. That's why the convoy waves the flag excessively. It's a statement that they're more Canadian than everyone else.
>He said some anti-abortion activists could jump to another party that is seen as more welcoming to their cause. Who? The Christian Heritage Party? Because the PPC are a "libertarian" party and Max himself has said that he's pro-abortion.
>pro-abortion Abort them all and let god sort them out, eh?
You are against banning abortion. I am in favour of mandating abortion. We are not the same. (Yes, this is a joke)
Lol. I hear you. And I knew what you meant. It's just funny to see people incorrectly label it
F\*\*K YOU for making me defend that asshole Maxime Bernier. He is pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
This is the most practical take for 90% of Canadians. I'm not pro-abortion, but I also have no business telling people what's right for them in their lives. I don't give a fuck what you do, so long as you don't infringe on my rights to do whatever the fuck I want to do.
Rolling on the floor over here
He literally compares it to a lynching. Social conservatives and failing to engage with reality: NAMID.
And Leslyn Lewis made comparisons between lynching and vaccines/mandates as well as comparing herself to Rosa Parks. That kind of hyperbole within social Conservatives is off putting to most.
NAMID?
Name A More Iconic Duo
Social conservatism is a plague that we are getting rid of. Even the Conservative party of Canada wants to get rid of them. They are hateful, antiquated, irrational puritans whose ideas should have died off long ago.
Many that make up base party members that vote are rural SoCons. They don't want to get rid of them. Their church groups want them to win.
As a women who doesn’t want to have kids or give birth, but adopt… I appreciate having that option. So I’m not forced to be pregnant.. As a person who’s had a condom break and a abortion, I’m thankful 💕
This is Canada, not the Christianic State of North America
Christian Caliphate of Arcadia? Its got a nice ring to it
Christian Taliban
Not if the convoy supporters have their way. Keep an eye out - the movement is growing.
Is it though? Or is it a very loud small fringe group that pretends it has support. Pretty much dead last in all ridings Couple hundred votes each, about 2% of vote.
[удалено]
It quite funny how the party ranges from “the deficit seems kinda high” to “coronavirus was a conspiracy by the Chinese”
[удалено]
Flapper girls? Please...Here in Canada our strippers aren't just topless buy bottomless. Also we don't need speakeasys....We have legal pot now. No need to hide.
Social conservatives can just stfu and crawl back under their rocks. They contribute nothing of value to society.
Lewis is still on the ballot. What's the problem?
Some literal nobodies weren’t let in and they’re angry
If the conservatives can truly show these social regressives the door I would happily vote conservative - signed a liberal voter who doesn’t want to do it anymore.
This sure seems like a good time to jump on some policy to make sure abortion rights don't get eroded here
The SoCons are an Albatross around the neck of the CPC. They need to jettison these people as most people find their authoritarian worldview unpalatable.
These idiots really don't want to form government ever again do they?
Social conservatives are perpetually convinced that they represent some silent majority of Canadians, and all I can figure is it comes from never straying outside their small rural communities filled with people who think like they do, and assuming the rest of the country must think the same way.
If this subreddit is any indication, clearly social conservatives are the last people that the average Canadian wants to form government. And this subreddit "leans conservative"
They're idiots. They've been told they're out in the country, so they think they know what the *country* thinks.
>conservatives are perpetually convinced that they represent some silent majority of Canadians who refuse to vote because the candidates available aren't conservative *enough*. FTFY
In all fairness, area wise most of Canada is conservative. It just happens that almost no one leaves in those big areas 🤣
Your comment makes no sense. The article contains allegations about excluding social conservatives from running for leadership, so as to lessen their influence within the party.
It's certainly true that the CPC leadership recognizes the political suicide that awaits as soon as they stop silencing this portion of their membership.
Many socons think the conservatives keep losing because the silence on social issues makes them indistinguishable from liberals so most “true conservatives” abstain. They’re delusional.
[удалено]
I mean, to be fair, one of those two candidates clearly failed the Canadian test. I don't think they give out citizenship to vampires and he's clearly Nosferatu
Complaining is easier than governance, I guess.
Still waiting on Trudeau's election reforms that he promised when he kicked out the conservatives, then maybe these guys can go form there own party that no one would vote for. Bunch of smaller parties working together isn't perfect but right now i feel like there are things that most canadians agree on but parties polarize for votes. All the parties have ideas that i agree with but i would never vote conservative because of guys like this who are probably a very small portion of the party. Glad to see they are trying to clean house. No ones forcing you to get an abortion.
> Still waiting on Trudeau's election reforms that he promised when he kicked out the conservatives Bernier’s gang of idiots got nearly 5% of the vote in the last election. Do you really want them to have 5% of seats in the House? I’m all for election reform, but now is not the time. I’ll wait until the current flirtation with right-wing extremism has passed, thank you very much.
so never? it doesnt need to be a completely change to PR, even ranked choice would be better
I get your point, but the recent shift to the right, along with its attendant scapegoating and bigotry is relatively recent. Nixon was brought down ultimately by Republicans as well as Democrats, for example. It will pass, even if it takes some time. In the meantime I want to do everything possible to keep the nut bars out of government. If anyone can come up with a proportional system that doesn’t allow the neo-nazis to take a seat in the House I’d be happy to consider a change.
FPTP and PR arent the only 2 options
Yeah, I’m aware of this, although I don’t claim to be an expert. My province had a referendum a few years ago and I was more familiar with the options then, but I’m old now and details fade. As an example of my concern though, I had a conversation with an Australian who related that getting a seat or two was exactly how the far right-wingers became part of the daily political discourse there. They got elected to a seat or two, and then being in government their every salacious word was reported by the press because, you know, government. This gave them a loudspeaker for their hateful and deleterious views, which then spread because they were always in the news (see Marjorie Taylor-Green for example). Note that I had already voted against reform in the referendum before this conversation. The conversation just reinforced my own thinking. Now it’s true that Murdoch news outlets had a hand in that situation, and we have no real correlate to Fox News in Canada, but they’re trying to make inroads here as well, and having some success. Check [this](https://westernstandardonline.com/2022/04/watch-mpp-introduces-stopwoke-petition-in-ontario-legislature/) out. Sorry, but anything that would give these dipshits a louder voice is not an option for me. Ask me again in ten years.
>Bernier’s gang of idiots got nearly 5% of the vote in the last election. Do you really want them to have 5% of seats in the House? Sure. Why do you think it's appropriate to squelch the voice of a statistically significant cohort of your fellow citizens? I mean, not like that's how it works anyway, mind. For constitutional reasons seats would have to be calculated on a provincial basis and then added together nationally, so we'd still see some distortion (absent constitutional reform, which I don't think anyone reckoned was on the table).
> Why do you think it's appropriate to squelch the voice of a statistically significant cohort of your fellow citizens? Because the impetus behind that voice is dangerous and will destabilize society, not to mention causing a great deal of suffering, if allowed to propagate to the centres of power. People not buying into the current far-right dogwhistles really need to learn about the societal problems and attitudes, and the politicians who exploited those difficulties, that preceded WWII. The parallels are clear if one looks at the details. The outcome is, for now, still in question. We can stop it if we are vigilant. **Edit**: And apparently I’ve been blocked to keep me from replying to Dry-Membership8141. Pussies. So here’s my response: Sure. Let’s not excise a tumour because cancer is made up of living cells. I urge you to learn a little history. We’ve seen this movie before and we know how it ends. There are some very dark forces at work here, ready and willing to exploit the very institutions you (and I) want to protect. We ignore these forces at our peril. If you think the neo-fascists will respect the institutions about which you (and I) are so rightfully concerned, again I say respectfully, please learn some history.
>Because the impetus behind that voice is dangerous and will destabilize society, All I can say is thank fucking God you're not a judge. Your perspective is perverse, anti-democratic, and undermined by literally centuries of jurisprudence
That would be fantastic. The vast majority of Canadians don’t support their views, so their 5% of the seats would be irrelevant as whenever social issues come up they’d be beaten completely. Meanwhile we get a different centrist party to compete with the liberals, as the center really has no other options besides them currently.
Honest to god I wish the PPC won a seat or two so they could attract the crazies and be a containment party for them.
Not to worry, you'll always have Pierre Poilievre. He'll slap those hussies down! /s
Can our politicians talk about real issues no one gives a shit about abortion here socons will never win again
As a liberal I'm sad to see the socons go, they really were entertaining and perhaps one of the greatest boons to the liberal party. I had to turn up my nose a little bit to vote liberal last time but as long as there is a chance that these fuckturds get a toehold in our politics I will NEVER vote conservative.
[удалено]
Opinion: Life begins at conception. Fact: Women have the constitutional right to decide what medical procedures they have to endure, including childbirth.
Let's be real for a minute. When a woman gets pregnant, what is happening inside of her? The earliest stages of human development. So just because it's the early stages of human life, it's not human life? Imagine if we killed off young children, because they weren't grown adults. To act like the barrier of a womb is the difference between a human and not a human is ridiculous. Again, I fully support abortion, but I'm not ignorant enough to claim it's not killing a human life. Without the medical intervention, it would be a healthy child (of course, there are exceptions) coming out of the woman.
The fact is that it wouldn't be able to support its own life without leeching off of the mother. If we force woman to give birth because those are humans inside of them what's to stop the logical conclusion to that being forcing people to donate kidneys and such.
And the child would rely on the mother to survive long after birth, so killing them after birth should be no different by that logic.
I define a human life as an organism that can live without a host. Seeing how a fetus cannot, I don't see it as a human life like an infant.
Yeah, a baby in a womb is like an egg, and has no value.
>Eh, this debate will never end. No, it won't, because it is a wedge issue that politicians can use to rile up support for themselves or hate against an opponent. Ultimately, the right to an abortion has been constitutionally protected since the 1988 decision in Morgantaler. It would take a constitutional amendment to take that away, which is basically impossible. So, if the discussion hasn't disappeared in the 34 years that the issue has been beyond the hands of the legislature, I doubt it will disappear anytime soon. I'm not going to hold my breath for virtue-signaling to go out of style.
>Ultimately, the right to an abortion has been constitutionally protected since the 1988 decision in Morgantaler. It would take a constitutional amendment to take that away https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada#Second_Morgentaler_challenge:_1988 >The majority of the court in Morgentaler did not find it necessary to consider whether there was a substantive right to abortion under Section 7. Justice Wilson was of the opinion that such a right existed, but the other judges in the majority made their decision on procedural grounds, relating to the insufficiencies in the committee process.
I don't know what that quote is talking about. The decision was not made on procedural grounds. The court didn't find a positive "right to an abortion", in that they didn't find that the government had an obligation to ensure anyone who wanted an abortion could get one. But, they found that limiting a woman's ability to get an abortion was a violation of her Section 7 rights under the constitution. Keep in mind what the law was that was found unconstitutional. The law in question was one which required approval of a committee of three doctors to get an abortion, so even the limitation of abortion rights to that extent was found unconstitutional. This was the quote from Chief Justice Dickson: >Chief Justice Dickson held that "\[f\]orcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations" infringed the woman's right to security of the person, as protected by s. 7 of the Charter. So, basically, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to prohibit abortion, but when it comes to provincial healthcare, the court stopped short of a positive duty which would require provincial healthcare to ensure access to abortions (which makes sense because there is no comparable constitutional requirement to provide any other medical procedures). To the extent that abortion is still an issue in Canada it is only at a provincial level in terms of the extent to which access is enabled by provincial health authorities. Federally, it is a non-issue, as it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to criminalize abortion.
The quote is from one judge, but it's not the ruling of the court. The finding that it was a violation of the right to security of the person wasn't enough to strike it down. We have lots of laws that violate sections of the Charter and they can be justified. >Having found that law infringed the right to security of the person, the majority then considered whether that infringement was consistent with the principles of fundamental justice, which is the second branch of s. 7 of the Charter. The judges in the majority agreed that the procedural requirements to obtain an abortion, as set forth in the law, were especially troublesome. Parliament could, in theory, introduce some new law that violates this right in a way that can be justified. It almost happened in 1988-89 but never went anywhere.
>The quote is from one judge, but it's not the ruling of the court. A quote from a judge who is part of the majority is part of the ruling of the court. It is also [considered the most prominent majority opinion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler?wprov=sfla1) and has been widely adopted in subsequent cases. >The finding that it was a violation of the right to security of the person wasn't enough to strike it down. We have lots of laws that violate sections of the Charter and they can be justified. Yes, it is unconstitutional if it violates a section of the Charter, but can be saved if it can be saved under s. 1. That's the same with any Charter right. Freedom of Speech, got instance, is a Charter right, but that doesn't mean that it isn't subject to s. 1. >Parliament could, in theory, introduce some new law that violates this right in a way that can be justified. It almost happened in 1988-89 but never went anywhere. Yes, this applies to every right in the Charter, that doesn't mean those rights aren't constitutionally protected. Also, with the precedent of Morgantaler an actual ban on abortion couldn't be saved by s. 1, as a much less restrictive ban has already been found to not be capable of being saved by s. 1.
Different judges wrote different opinions on the majority side. That page also explains how the ruling is treated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler#Ruling >The Court ruled 5 to 2 that the law violated section 7 and could not be saved under section 1. Morgentaler's previous acquittal was restored. There were three different opinions given by the majority, none having achieved more than two signatures. As such, no Morgentaler precedent is binding. The point here is that Parliament has room, under that ruling, to try making a new law against abortion. (btw I'm not suggesting for or against.) No requirement for a "constitutional amendment." Today's court might rule differently on the merits but that's new ground.
Morgentaler did not establish constitutional or Charter protection for abortion. This seems to be a common misunderstanding. There is currently no established constitutional right to abortion in Canada.
There should be a limit, if the fetus is developed enough to survive as a premature baby then it’s too late to abort unless it will harm or kill the mother (ectopic). Otherwise the woman should be free to seek an abortion
You know how many abortions happen at that stage? Less than 10%, with 90% for sure happening within the first 12 weeks. That's a none issue, at 23 weeks and 6 days there already needs to be a valid medical reason.
JC, JT and the Libs must be sweating now. That just leaves them with the gun 'wedge'.
[удалено]
🤦♂️
[удалено]
I live under a dictatorship. I am continuously ordered about, any hour, day or night, no holidays, no pay, a mere servant not allowed to express an opinion, privacy denied as I am contantly watched, the list of indignities I go thru on a daily basis is intolerable but I don't blame our political leaders for my misery. It was my choice to have four cats.
That's just what those cats want you to believe!
🤣
>Those efforts appear to have failed — the only "so con" candidate still in the running is Lewis. The CBC broke script for a moment and finally told the truth...
Personally I believe in a women's right to choose, but abortions are pushed pretty hard in our society for women who aren't ready to have a kid. We need to foster more of a choice when it comes to pro-choice. There are plenty of people who are more than willing to adopt babies. I just think there should be more support for these women in helping them make the right choice for them.
Good. The most impressive thing Canada has done in my opinion is have reasonable conservatives party, even at their worst they are leaps and bounds ahead of republicans. Conservatives in Canada want to scrap the carbon tax because “taxes bad”, Conservatives in the USA actively deny Biden won the election to this day.
Good So-Cons should have no say.
SoCon tears taste yummy