Monday, 6 February 2012

The *Hidden Agenda* decloaks.

One wonders if Stephen Woodworth has been given explicit or implicit permission by the Contempt Party and Stevie's "strong stable mandate" to use an official government media room for his February 6 event.

More about those fetus fetishizing *Hidden Agenda* balloons that Con MPs have been testing out.

Grand merci to @goddamitkitty's tweet.

UPDATE: Kady O'Malley covered Woodworth's "happening" which was competing with the Harper government's ballyhoo for The Queen's Jubilee™©.


ck said...

One wonders if Stephen Woodworth has been given explicit or implicit permission by the Contempt Party and Stevie's "strong stable mandate" to use an official government media room for his February 6 event.

Of course he was! You know those Harpercon puppets don't even go to the bathroom without his highness's permission.

JJ said...

Oh man.
My next tweet to this guy will be something to the effect of

"Do the words "Shut your fucking mouth" mean anything to you?"

I am starting to think he has been given EXplicit permission to do this. Not that I'm paranoid, but I'll be watching carefully to see what else they're doing in the background behind this smoke screen.

fern hill said...

Cathie from Canada nails it. We cannot give a centimeter. Look what that got so-called progressives in the US. Unending Culture War.

The Fetus Lobby NEVER quits.

Niles said...

Historically in that outfit, how long do 'mavericks' run around outside the corral bellering if Boss Harper doesn't like what he's hearing?

If he's using official government/party space to air his views, the Conservatives explicitly own this and own him until they explicitly don't own this and shut him down.

They don't get to have it both ways, that Harper is the deciderer and simultaneously hewpwess to stop his theocrats from framing topics for him.

Meanwhile, which media outlets are giving this 'event' the most favourable publicity? Is Sun at the forefront?

Alison said...

Woodworth's motion tabled today :

"That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

that the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2);

that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and

that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,

(i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

(ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

(iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

(iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?"

He's proposing 6 out of 12 members from the Cons, plus a Con Chair - just like the other parliamentary committees.
Hey! Let's all play : Who's gotten tired of being a meatpuppet backbencher?

What a complete prat.

Alison said...

From his presser today :

"Don’t accept any law, including Section 223, that says some human beings are not human beings. It’s an important principle! No Member of Parliament should remain silent in the face of any law that says some human beings are not human beings."

deBeauxOs said...

There's a lot of weirdness around this. Today was also the launch of The Queen's Jubilee™© so Woodworth knew this and still held his "happening".

Stevie's Politburo has probably engineered a CONtempt Party's anti-choice media strategy to make it appear that Woodworth, Vellacott, Trost are "going rogue" on the fetus issue.

Niles said...

Teh proposal to be tabled appears loaded from the get-go.

It uses *child*, not foetus, 'before birth'.

It asks the committee to define if a preborn 'child' is a 'human being'. What does that mean? That the foetus is homo sapiens sapiens DNA? Or does 'human being' mean a legally defined individual under the same legal protections as an ex-utero 'infant'?

What binding power does the wording to bring a 'special' committee into being have? Let's presume this committee comes to life on the premise 'oh it will waste time but the conclusions will favour rational argument and the end point will be rejection of redefinition so what does yet another committee hurt while it plays to the socon base without actually accomplishing anything damaging'. If those presumptive terms and conditions are accepted as casually set out by Woodworth, isn't that already starting off from a biased foot?

Yes, I want to read the fine print when dealing with the 'devil'.

Beijing York said...

If it gets to the floor, I am sure the majority of CON MPs will be voting for it. Epps almost made it to the finish line with his stupid private member's bill and that was with a minority and some LPC support. This definitely needs close scrutiny.

JJ said...

That sounds about right

Alison said...

Stephen Woodworth's responses to the Campaign Life Coalition Questionnaire

Do you believe that life begins at conception (fertilization)? YES

If elected, will you strive to introduce and pass laws to protect unborn children from the time of conception (fertilization) onward? YES

If elected, would you support all legislative or policy proposals that would result in a meaningful increase of respect and protection for unborn human life? YES

Are there any circumstances under which you believe a woman should have access to abortion? (note: Medical treatments to save the life of a mother and which result in the UNINTENDED death of her unborn child, are NOT abortions. Eg. in case of tubal pregnancy or cervical cancer) NO

Alison said...

Oh, it would be binding on the House alright. If his motion should pass, PROC would be required to strike a subcommittee with Special and Standing committee powers, ie summon witnesses, make as many reports to Parliament as it likes, etc.
It would be like having a Standing Committee on Abortion

Fine print : House of Commons Procedure and Practice

Niles said...

He's using the same wording in his proposal as used in the Questionnaire.

'unborn human life' 'unborn child'.

also: frikkin straw arguments. 'life begins at conception' Is there anyone who disagrees with that misleading question? Except maybe for those nitpickers who point out sperm and egg are 'alive' already, as part of a living organism ?

The question really is 'do you believe that a sperm and egg conjoined into a zygote, even before beginning cellular fission into a blastocyst, are now an individual organism deserving of legal equivalence to a born living infant or the living woman gestating the zygote'.

also too: in a tubal pregnancy, how is it unintended that the foetus is terminated (the 'unborn child' deathed), since removing it is the solution to the mother's liferisk?

That's some fine waltzing goalposts of subjective definition there, in a 'don't worry, if we like you, whatever we say isn't abortion isn't' wiggle out of jail card. Not that Woodworth cares, because he's never going to be pregnant and he'd apparently rather stand on his martyr principles atop women's bodies.

Post a Comment