Sunday, 10 April 2016

Vengeance -- and More -- Drives "Unborn Victims" Law

I said I had no more to say about the new “unborn victims” law proposed as a private member’s bill by double-plus good fetus freak Cathay Wagantall.

But there have been developments. The bill (C225) has been deemed votable, which mean we will be subjected to a glurge-filled debate in Parliament on it.

Like Ken Epp’s ill-fated C484, this “unborn victims law" is intended to and will, if passed, impact Canadian women’s right to autonomy by giving rights and status to fetuses.

DAMMIT JANET! opposes C225 as does Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) (pdf).

This bill, like other attempts, was spurred by a horrible crime and is being pushed by, not to put too fine a point on it, vengeance-minded people.

Principally by the ex-partner of the murdered woman who now seems to have come completely unhinged.

In a 2500 word rant, he is now attacking Joyce Arthur of ARCC, claiming that she is “anti-choice.”

A sample:

You are NOT an advocate for a woman’s choice if you are only willing to protect one of her options. In fact, you have been a cancer to the rights of these women, and it has come at a cost to their physical protection at the very time they should have it most. Please for the sake of women – get right or step down.

LifeShite reported on his latest under the title
“‘Pro-choice’ dad rips top abortion activist: the only ‘choice’ she pushes is abortion.”

Jeff Durham is the man’s name and he lists the “unborn victims laws” that ARCC — and all pro-choice people — have opposed. His blogpost includes photos and names of pregnant women killed.

He is in effect blaming pro-choice, and Joyce Arthur in particular, for the deaths of these women.

I don’t know if Joyce is a litigious person, but in her shoes I sure as hell would be inclined to speak to a lawyer about this situation.

Oddly missing in all this is the accused, Matthew Brush. At his last court appearance in March, the judge decreed that he would be tried for first-degree murder and the next court date was set for April 8, but I can’t find any mention of it.

Media coverage of the crime has been extremely tight-lipped. Cassandra Kaake was determined to have died from blood loss caused by extreme trauma. Her body was discovered in the ruins of a deliberately set house-fire.

I have seen nothing about possible motive or the relationship (if any) between Kaake and Brush. Nothing.

There is clearly much more to this story. Is that “more” what’s driving Durham’s rage?

I guess we’ll find out.

Previous posts on C255 here and here.

UPDATE: Dig this.

After noting that Durham describes himself as "pro-choice," the piece goes on:
Wagantall says that Durham’s public support of the bill is part of the strategy to counter so-called pro-choice objections that unborn victims laws are pro-life laws in sheep’s clothing.
So, is Durham being manipulated by fetus freaks? Sure looks like it.

And they have the gall to call us out for noting that is *IS* an anti-abortion law in sheep's clothing.


Anonymous said...

I'm pro choice and I "do not" feel that this bill c-225 takes any rights away from me,other pro choice people or those who wish to have an abortion. I personally think that a bill such as this is long overdue in this country.Pregnant women are with out doubt more vulnerable and deserve to have their rights protected too. The fetus,baby,child is her right.One to many have been harmed or murdered while pregnant in this country. This shouldn't be.We,as pro choice people still have & retain our rights & are protected with law(s) and constitution with this bill: while at the same time protecting the rights of those who want to be pregnant and carry their children to term. Sounds like a well balanced no brainer to me.Who in their right minds wouldn't want that! In my opinion, both sides of the fence should protected & respected.Just because I'm pro choice does not mean I am superior & matter more than those who are not.Nor does it mean I am ignorant to the facts that pregnant women are being murdered in Canada and there is no justice for them and their rights to become mothers and have families. Why should our rights trump and be protected with law(s) and not theirs? Upon reading and re-reading this bill, I absolutely have no issues with it at all. As for the media being tight lipped on this case. A publication ban was put on by the law/courts.I suggest to those who don't understand what publication bans are, to google the reason's why before making any false assumptions or comments.There are numerous reasons as to why this is done.

fern hill said...

I suggest you read this. This bill is not significantly different from C484, which all pro-choice people understood was another back-door assault on abortion rights.

Somehow, I doubt your claim to being pro-choice.

Anonymous said...

Well I guess I'm just a special kind of pro-choice person Fern.A rebel if you will.But I know with out a doubt there are others out there that are just like me.Not all pro-choice people think exactly the same,nor do they all follow the so called "party line & rules". Not all base their thoughts and opinions on conjecture and what if's.I choose not to tow the pro-choice party line that you do.It is simple as that.I can still be pro-choice and support this bill C-225 at the same time.It's called having a conscience and having respect for women on both sides of the fence.

fern hill said...

You're special, all right. Logic-impaired, for starters.

Post a Comment