Tuesday, 26 March 2013

MPs' Rights? Yeah, Right

This is adorable. (bold mine)
Backbench MPs are turning up the pressure in frustration over the Prime Minister's Office stifling debate in the House of Commons.
MPs who oppose abortion and want to see legislated limits for it are pushing back against caucus discipline, particularly in light of an all-party committee shutting down debate last week on a non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion.

But they aren't the only ones upset with heavy-handed tactics on the part of the Conservative leadership. That frustration boiled over Tuesday in the House of Commons, leading several MPs to raise public complaints about a party that has so far maintained strict control over what its members can say.

"There has been predominantly informal discussion about what is, or what is not, our rights, and MPs have to decide what's wrong and what's right, and what our rights are," said one Conservative MP, who requested anonymity.
A bunch of white male fetus-fetishizing MPs, plus Elizabeth 'Nuance R Us' May, whinging about their rights as MPs under the most micro-controlling Prime Sinister ever.

And the issue? Right. Recriminalizing abortion. Stripping rights away from half the population.

Norm Spector pointed out:




Me, I'm going with lying, hypocritical scumbags.


ADDED: Aaron Wherry with what was said and what it means. 'Here's the rot.'

6 comments:

choice joyce said...

Yes, it's all about the abortion issue for Warawa and Benoit, who are also opportunistic and more interested in wielding their power to promote their personal ideologies than in working for their constituents. I also found this: http://xrl.us/boq5mo, see footnote 122. Leon Benoit had an antichoice bill deemed non-votable in 2006 (a forerunner to Bill C484), on the basis that it was unconstitutional because it did not exempt abortion. (Incidentally, 3 of the other 7 bills/motions deemed non-votable from 2003-08 were about preserving traditional marriage.)

Wherry and May are not talking about that votability process, but about limiting MP's rights to speak in the House before question period. If Harper and the Whip are going so far as to prohibit even a mere mention in the House before QP about abortion or abortion-related motions/bills by their caucus members (or on any other issue the Cons don't like), that does seem questionable. On the other hand, this dust-up has potential to divide the right even more! :-)

fern hill said...

You're getting the hang of this Divide the Right project, Joyce. ;-)

Here's the link to info on voteability.

Sixth Estate said...

If they're upset with their rights being violated, they could always leave the Conservative caucus and then feel free to say whatever they liked in Parliament, on any subject.

Oh, right. That would put a dent in their career prospects.

Can't have it both ways, losers.

fern hill said...

This guy says he's heard more than once that they may be considering crossing the floor to sit as Christian Heritage Party members.

As if. That would be principled.

kirbycairo said...

They don't mind sitting in a caucus that stifles debate at ever level, that buys elections and thwarts democracy - but suddenly they complain when they are victim of a Harper cabal. The irony reminds me of the hypocrisy of Helena Guergis.

Remember when Harper and is pals came to Ottawa talking about free votes in the House, never accepting pensions, never trading with China, and being accountable? Wow, it has certainly been a long fall into a dark abyss.

fern hill said...

Indeed, kirbycairo. And the old Reformers are getting feisty.

Even the Freaks are pissed.

Post a Comment