Monday, 17 May 2010

The More Canadians Think about It. . . (part 2)

A poll released yesterday and another today.
Canadians want the federal government to spend aid money on safe abortions in developing countries despite the prime minister's refusal to do so, an exclusive QMI Agency poll has found.

This sample is bigger than yesterday's but the results are similar. Slightly more people in this poll support spending foreign aid on access to abortion (61% v. 58%) and slightly more oppose such spending (34% v. 30%).

But will Harper and his TheoCons listen to the people?

Yeah. I know.

Nonetheless, Canada is a pro-choice country.

6 comments:

Niles said...

Choice is a Good Thing tm. a votre sante, Cardinal Oullette. http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/05/15/20100515phoenix-catholic-nun-abortion.html

JJ said...

I've never been in doubt that Canada is a pro-choice country, that's obvious. I was, however, doubtful that the average Canadian is even interested enough in this issue to comprehend all the implications of it.

Apparently, I was wrong.

That said, I still wonder what Harper's game is in all this. He could have crafted an initiative that included abortion as per Canada's usual policy, anti-choicers would have sighed and that would have been it. Instead, he's managed to re-open the abortion debate (somewhat), which could blow up in his face big time. Why would he do that?

Maybe he's getting bad advice from someone.

fern hill said...

I wonder too, JJ. But maybe he is listening to the TheoCons. We all know how revved they get over smacking women.

deBeauxOs said...

He and his theocrat bullies wrongly assumed that having nibbled away at women's rights for the last 5 years, they could now do whatever they wanted: pull a stupid PR ploy with the first calculated announcement about the maternal health initiative and roll with it.

The 'left wing fringe group' threw a few hefty wrenches into that transparent tactic.

The PMO has been scrambling since then to take control of that petard.

Niles said...

I still think they thought they'd managed to announce a Bushian policy offshore 'under the wire' and were shocked when they were called on it publically for clearly being what it was. Remember, at first it was no abortion *AND* no *contraception* programs.

I mean, a geek like me noticed the dogwhistling. The amazement was Ignatieff actually got air time calling them on it *and* he was immediate and clear about what was going on. This, when the foxes had already dragged so many chickens out of the henhouse in the dead of several nights without an answering shot.

Then, the press play stayed on the the takeback on the contraception ban *and* the Con turkey flock gabbling full volume "It's not being opened!" every time someone said Abortion. Which was lots, thanks to their own backbenchers and regressive Liberals and SoCons. (try hammering something around a turkey flock, you'll get the analogy real fast)

The real difference here seems to be the general mainstream media actually kept a public window open on this, where it has not on so many other things. Being a geek that spends time online, I forget that lots and lots of people don't.

If stuff doesn't make the radio and tv supper news with some repetition, most people still don't know these underhanded exclusionary actions exist.

I'm speaking as someone who survived a corporate diversity session on 'generations' the last week and found myself surrounded by a vast majority of well-intended people regurgitate socon framed talking points of the right 'leaning' kind...

...including the mind-boggling experience of watching a 20something woman use scare quotes gestures as she said 'feminism' and followed it up with how political correctness had been taken to too great an extreme in her gen-y generation. This doesn't even include the assumptions of my own alleged age peers, which sadly, are Harper's age peers and comfort group.(Calgary)

What's more telling is I attempted to challenge a lot of things coming out of oblivious people (class, age, sexism, history -- they're more careful about race at work) without standing on a table and derailing the session (my resulting headache was another matter).

To my surprise, I had a couple of people come quietly to me away from the venue and thank me for speaking contrast to the majority certainty. They didn't feel they could, as they had feelings, but not articulated information, and they were surprised to find out they weren't the only ones in that 'space'.(I'm paraphrasing obviously).

I guess my point (what there is of it) just continues on what I've mentioned before. The conservative versions of things have been getting 'free' mass exposure into uncritical ears while opponents of those views have been self-directed to educate without the same,'lazy' access.

Once 'free' exposure happens for more progressive angles, attitudes start swinging towards that reality bias and others feel empowered to speak out.

Even as an old geek, I'm being reminded by unexpected situations that biding quiet and hoping for spontaneous enlightenment and reweard for good behaviour on the part of the 'majority' doesn't accomplish that.

Anonymous said...

I guess Canadians are having that debate the anti-choice media/politicians/activists have been claiming we never had, (forgetting the years between 1960 and 1992, because they uh, lost.) If they lose this time around, are we done you think?

Post a Comment

Post a Comment