M408 is NOT a Free Speech Hill to Die On

As regular readers here know, we don't give a flying fuck about whether Warawa's Wank is voteable or not. As long as it's got the CONtard knickers in knots, it's all good with us.

But for interested parties, there was this today on Twitter.

WARNING: My next series of tweets will deal w/ Mark Warawa's motion & his so-called qstn of priv. & why journos & pundits are overreacting.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

That would be Thomas Hall who describes himself as 'retired House of Commons procedural clerk, Constitution nerd, and word nut dans les deux langues officielles'.

He made good on his threat with a series of tweets.

Warawa's motion on sex-selective abortion will get 1 hour of debate in HoC. So he does get to speak on it despite what some have said.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Having private mbrs' motions voted on at all is releatively new, so there was no *right* for MPs to move motions & force vote in HoC.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Journos like A. Coyne who said that Warawa's motion was clearly in order to be votable are wrong. W/ respect to Lib of Parl analyst who...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

...advised Subcmtee of MPs who decide on votability, the analyst gave wrong advice. Motion violated criterion no. 1. Subcmtee had equal ...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

...representation from each party & worked by consensus. No way PMO cld have made Subcmtee decide motion non-votable.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

PMO *may* have influenced full cmtee on Procedure to reject Warawa's appeal of Subcmtee decision since majority on cmtee are Conservatives.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

More likely is that majority on cmtee just didn't want to deal w/ abortion in any shape or form--policy for all 3 parties!

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Now regardg Warawa's qstn of privilege, complaint, that he didn't get to make statement in HoC during Mbrs' Statemts. I think parties ...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

...shldn't try to control what their mbrs say during that period, but ppl overreacted to O'Connor, CPC whip, comparing HoC to hockey game.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Frankly, not being allowed 2 speak during Mbrs' Statemts trivial compared to other control of party mbrs. No MP has right to make statmt.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

@emmmacfarlane No MP has right to make a statemt b/c there's no not enough time allowed for it. Never has been. So selection has to be made.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Then Emmett MacFarlane got into it to disagree with Hall.

@emmmacfarlane W/ respect, you're confusing Private Mbrs Business w/ Govt Business. Under latter, HoC can express opinion on all kinds...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Hall provided a link to the records of the subcommittee meeting. Scroll down.

@emmmacfarlane See parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati…

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

In short, in the opinion of the retired House of Commons procedural clerk, the subcommittee was correct and Warawa and Coyne and MacFarlane are all just wanking.

Others are weighing in too. As deBeauxOs blogged earlier today, some are taking issue with the newly minted free-speech spin.

And here's another.

Warawa's Wank is about abortion. It is sexist and racist.

It is about targetting pregnant women from 'certain' communities and vilifying them for allowing themselves to be 'coerced' into abortion.

it is NOT about free speech.

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:

#CPC MPs complaining about party discipline ran under a leader they thot was lying 2 Cdns or are hypocrites. In either case, shame on them

— Norman Spector (@nspector4) March 26, 2013

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


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

Manifestos! Lots of Manifestos!

The decision to deem Warawa's Wank non-voteable is producing some foot-stomping, manifesto-issuing fun.

Fetus fetishists are turning against PMSHithead BIG TIME.

First, it was the Fetal Gore Tour Gang with its 'Against Stephen Harper: A Pro-Life Manifesto'. About what you'd expect but with a handy list of Harper's evil anti-life deeds.

Then SUZYALLCAPSLOCK got into it with her own screed. Same title, note.

http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2013/03/against-stephen-harper-pro-life.html

Against Stephen Harper: A Pro-Life Manifesto

The problem is that there are a lot of pro-lifers in the Conservative party who support their leader, for whatever reason.

They figure: well, we won't get fetal rights, we might as well get a balanced budget (another illusion) and other conservative policies.

Here's my advice: If your MP carries the ball on pro-life issues, vote for him. [sic]

Otherwise, stop voting Conservative.

Yes, I realize we could get an NDP government.

But you have to understand: sometimes it needs to get worse before it can get better.

If you don't punish your politicians, they won't listen.

If they don't listen to you, you're screwed.

We have to punish those conservative politicians who think they can take our vote then not give us ANYTHING in return.

When we stop volunteering for Conservative campaigns, when we stop giving, when we stop voting, they will pay attention.

Master Chess Player PMSH seems to have stepped in it this time.

And everyone can play.

If M408 is found to be voteable, opponents can squeal 'HIDDEN AGENDA!' If non-voteable, everybody can squeal 'DEMOCRACY SCREWED!'

And now, so-conned citizens -- the whopping 5-6% of Canadians who want to ban abortion altogether -- are maybe finally getting the message: PMSHithead doesn't give a rat's ass about your issues.

Democracy at Risk!!!!!

The decision to deem Warawa's Wank non-voteable is becoming even more fun.

The parliamentary expert had no problem with either the jurisdiction or possible repetitiveness of M408, aka the Gotcha Motion That Proves Pro-Choicers to Be Enthusiastic Murderers of Pre-Born Women. Those were the flimsy excuses the committee cited: that abortion/health is a provincial matter and the subject had been voted on recently (Woodworth's Wank).

Natch, Warawa shrieked about democracy, independence of MPs, yadayada.

(When any fool with more than one functioning neuron could see the Iron Fist of PMSHithead clamping down on any whiff of the dreaded abortion debate.)

Today, it seems Warawa is getting some support.

Here is where Mr. Warawa might get the support of those who otherwise oppose his views on abortion. Regardless of how one feels about his motion, regardless of how uncomfortable it might make the leadership of Mr. Warawa’s party, every MP and everyone who is represented by an MP should be concerned if Mr. Warawa is being prevented from putting a motion before the House simply because some people oppose its sentiment or would rather it not be brought forward. Never mind the very fraught matter of abortion, this now threatens to become a question about the nature of parliamentary democracy and the independence of MPs.

This is delicious. If M408 is found to be voteable, opponents can squeal 'HIDDEN AGENDA!' If non-voteable, everybody can squeal 'DEMOCRACY SCREWED!'

In short, PMSHithead is between a rock and a hard place.

Good spot for him, isn't it?

For interested watchers -- popcorn!



By the way, this is the committee that will hear Warawa's appeal.


Image source.

Dark Deeds! Pulled Strings! Conspiracy!

Aaaand the temper tantrums and dark allegations on the demise of Warawa's Wank begin.

The question was brought up unexpectedly at the Sub-Committee on Private Members’ Business on the day the government is set to release its budget for 2013, meaning newsrooms across the country are locked up.

The sub-committee vote, believed to be at the instigation of the Prime Minister’s Office, was unanimous.

Oo. 'Unexpectedly'! And during the budget lock-up!

Fun, isn't it, when fetus fetishists -- themselves masters of sneaky, back-door tactics -- get a little payback.

Also. They're lying. I asked Kady O'Malley whether it was unexpected.

@fernhilldammit Well, I can't speak to the 'ominous'-ness of it all, bu the meeting was skedded two weeks ago.

— kady o'malley (@kady) March 21, 2013

Indeed, she posted an alert this morning in her Orders of the Day and, in fact, covered it with the ensuring report here.

And here's Warawa himself alleging that democracy itself is in serious peril and vowing -- vowing I tell you! -- to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.

Well, no. But it may get very interesting.

From Kady's report:

In any case, Warawa has the right to appeal the decision of the subcommittee -- which, I'm told, he will all but certainly do -- by making the case for reconsideration before the full procedure and house affairs committee within five days of the subcommittee report being tabled thither.

If he fails to persuade the committee to overturn the ruling, Warawa can put the question to the House of Commons as a whole -- provided, that is, that he has the support of at least five MPs -- by filing a motion with the speaker, who will then proceed to call for a vote, which is conducted via secret ballot over the next two days.

Secret ballot! Wot fun!

Warawa Wankless!

It was unanimous.

As predicted in countless private members' business-related posts passim and, most recently, in today's OotD, Conservative MP Mark Warawa's non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion has been deemed non-votable by unanimous vote of the subcommittee charged with overseeing private members`business.

Why?

Ostensibly, because it's provincial jurisdiction and the House already voted on abortion. @just_a_josh @kady what was the rationale given?

— kady o'malley (@kady) March 21, 2013

Warawa can appeal.

Oh look.

Members of PMB Sub-Committee broke rules today deeming #M408 unvoteable. Were they forced and by who? An appeal process has begun.

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) March 21, 2013

Stay tuned. We all love a good conspiracy theory, don't we?

UPDATE: Tantrums have begun.

Misogynists United

What would unite Russia, the Vatican, Iran and other conservative Muslim states in common cause?

Those uppity women.

An "unholy alliance" of Iran, Russia, the Vatican and others is threatening to derail a U.N. declaration urging an end to violence against women and girls by objecting to language on sexual, reproductive and gay rights, some U.N. diplomats said Wednesday.

Delegates to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women are racing to reach a consensus deal on a final document by Friday and some diplomats say the future of the commission - a global policy-making body created in 1946 for the advancement of women - is at risk if they fail to broker a compromise.

"There's this sort of unholy alliance ... coming together to oppose language on sexual health, reproductive rights and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights," one senior U.N. diplomat said. "It's tough going, but progress is being made."

So, of course, Canada's own staunch defender of preborn women, Mark Warawa, would be totally down with the draft declaration, yes?

A draft declaration urges member states to take a number of measures, including the elimination of any impunity in violence against women, by prosecuting and punishing perpetrators; allowing women and girls to have control over their sexuality and access to health care; doing away with harmful practices such as female genital mutilation; providing services to victims of violence such as emergency contraception and safe abortion where permitted by law.

From now on, we should ask all backers of Warawa's Wank if they also support the UN's efforts to actually protect women.

Today in Harpocrit Land

It's Pink Shirt Day today.

I booted up the Twitter machine, checked the hashtag for Warawa's Wank and nearly blew camomile tea out my nose.

Today is Anti-bullying day. Bullying in all forms is wrong. Standing up for victims helps! #M408

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) February 27, 2013

I wasn't the only one struck by this hypocritical drivel.

@mpmarkwarawa Right. Remind me again which party voted against the NDP anti-bullying motion? #hypocrisy #CPC #M408 #cdnpoIi

— Claudine Jacques (@ClaudineJacques) February 27, 2013

Well, we all know the answer to Claudine's question, don't we?

Votes from a handful of Conservative backbenchers weren’t enough to push through an NDP proposal to strike an all-party committee to study and craft a national anti-bullying strategy.

The motion from NDP backbencher Dany Morin was defeated Wednesday night in the Commons by a vote of 149 to 134. About half a dozen Conservative backbenchers voted in favour of the motion, but the support was not enough to have it passed.

I looked and found the five Cons who voted for it: Smith, Allen, Brown, Tilson, and Bezan.

Mark Warawa, champion of bullied fetuses, not among them.

I know. You're shocked.

UPDATE: Courtesy of Radical Centrist, here is the division. Note Warawa among the NAYS, not conveeeniently absent.

Condemn, Then Defund

In this tweet, the agenda behind Warawa's Wank, aka Motion 408, a private member's bill to keep the abortion issue on the bubble, is revealed.

Australian bill to defund gender-based #abortion. Good idea for #Canadian MP/MPPs! smh.com.au/opinion/politi… #M408 #prolife # #cdnpoli #onpoli

— Jack Fonseca (@JackFonsec) February 26, 2013

Condemn, then defund.

The Australian legislator sounds about as dim as our own Fetus Lobby®.

THE Democratic Labor Party senator John Madigan will introduce on Wednesday a private members' bill seeking to remove Medicare funding for abortions ''procured on the basis of gender selection''.

Senator Madigan, who could hold a balance of power vote in the Senate after the September election, said he would ''seek support from other politicians who are on the record as being pro-life''.

He said he had ''seen data that abortion on the basis of gender selection is happening overseas and that means it is likely to be happening here'' although he conceded it was ''difficult to get Australian data'' on the issue.

Doesn't know if it is happening, but it's 'likely'. So let's be prepared and defund it now.

How, exactly, abortions could be defunded for one reason and not for others is of course not spelled out.

That revealing tweet is from Jack Fonseca, who describes himself as 'Pro-life activist, Project Manager at Campaign Life Coalition, political observer'.

And yes, it is Campaign Life Coalition behind the Defund Abortion Rally, now scheduled for maximum Catholic school kid participation on Tuesday, March 19.

Count on it. If the meaningless motion passes, bleating about 'Canadians want us to ACT on this' will commence.

Anti-Choice Tag Team

Thar's gold in them thar uteri.

Keeping the abortion debate alive is very lucrative for a number of anti-choice entrepreneurs. Churches and 'right to life' groups are only the most obvious.

There are the born-again anti-choicers like Abby Johnson, who once were blind but now they see.

There are the 'Conceived in Rape' mongers, like Rebecca Kiessling.

And now, a new-to-me brand of huckster -- the faux women's rights defenders.

Via Kady O'Malley, we learn that sex-selective abortion promoter opponent Mark Warawa had a bunfest planned for Thursday, aka The Day Senator Brawler Brazeau Blew up the Internet.

Meanwhile, outside the Chamber, Conservative MP Mark Warawa will kick off his campaign to build support for his bid to condemn sex-selective terminations -- which, it's worth noting, is due to be added to the private members' priority list in early March -- by arranging a press conference for Reggie Littlejohn, who is, according to the advisory, a "leading expert" on China's One Child Policy.

According to the notice, Littlejohn will 'call on Canadian leaders to condemn ... gendercide," which is, of course, precisely what the Warawa motion would do.

Tonda MacCharles tweeted a bit about it, so it did occur, but it got no other coverage.

Reggie Littlejohn hath an organization called Women's Rights Without Frontiers, which claims to be a coalition dedicated to SHRIEEKING about forced abortion in China.

Under 'Team', Littlejohn herself is listed along with a board of directors, including couple of organizations like this one, concerned with 'Serving persecuted Christians worldwide'.

OK then, forced abortion and persecuted Christians go together well, I guess.

But is Littlejohn anti-choice? You betcha. She was recently awarded the 'National Pro-Life Recognition Award at the National Prayer Service preceding the Annual March for Life'.

From her acceptance speech:

My question is, where is the pro-choice movement on this?  Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, no one supports forced abortion because it is not a choice.  Why isn’t the pro-choice movement condemning forced abortion in China? Why aren’t they standing against forced sterilization? Why aren’t they crying out against the selective abortion of baby girls? Right now, as I am speaking to you, women are being dragged out of their homes, strapped down to tables, and forcibly aborted and sterilized. I challenge these organizations to take a stand.

Woo. That glurge oughta open some wallets, eh?

Wait. There's more.

Also on Thursday, I ran across a press release announcing that someone named Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute would address some Kansas (where else?) legislators on sex-selective abortion.

PRI describes itself as: 'an international non-profit which works to end coercive population control, and fight the myth of overpopulation which fuels it.'

Mosher seems to do quite nicely out of the venture.

The President of PRI, Steven W. Mosher, received in 2005 the equivalent of ~13% of the entire expenses budget for the organization and roughly equivalent to the entire administrative expenses budget for 2005.

And he's 'controversial'.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Mosher successfully lobbied the George W. Bush administration to withhold $34 to $40 million per year for seven years from the U.N. Population Fund, the largest international donor to family planning programs.

So, Mosher works to withhold contraception while Littlejohn squeals about the results. Works good.

I'm betting the next time Warawa organizes a bunfest on M408, Mosher will be the guest.

M408: Totally Bogus

In previous blogposts here on private member's bill M408, the condemnation of sex selection, aka The Latest Backdoor Attempt to Legislate on Abortion, we've noted that it is sheer, cynical posturing coming from a member of the CONtempt Party.

The CONs have nothing but contempt for women. For starters, just look at the list of women's organizations whose funding has been cut or ended by them.

Today, I decided to have a look at Mark Warawa's history on matters relating to his new hobby, 'protecting girls'.

I mean, there are tons of fetus fetishizing Cons, why pick him as the front man for this little ploy?

At Campaign Lie, he gets a Double Plus Good rating.

At Rate Parliament, he's got two comments presumably from constituents, neither complimentary.

At Open Parliament, we learn that his favourite word is 'environment', which makes sense. He's chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Searching Open Parliament for his recorded actions and statements, we find 306 pages going back to the beginning of his MP life in 2004. The record consists of petitions (back in the day, lots of them on 'traditional marriage', now on sex selection) and acres of time-keeping at environment committee.

A search of those 306 pages with the keyword 'women' turns up a measly two pages.

Most of those references are in the stock phrase, 'men and women', or its more enlightened variant, 'women and men'.

Only two pertained to women specifically.

Here he is on REAL Women on September 28, 2006.

Mr. Speaker, hearing the comments like meanspirited, if the Liberals were in government they would raise the GST back up because they voted against that. They voted against providing parents the choice in child care. They want to take back that $100 a month for children. That would be meanspirited.

I have a question that relates to the comments that have been made about REAL Women. REAL Women is going to be coming to the committee. I am looking for some wisdom from the member who just spoke. I have been on committees for many years. My understanding is that when a delegation is coming to a committee that the committee is open-minded and the committee is prepared to listen to delegates that come and dialogue in order to learn.

However, when we have the chairperson of a committee publicly ridiculing a delegation that is about to come, like REAL Women, I have real concerns that democracy may be under attack. We hear rhetoric now and heckling. Is that a good approach for a delegation coming? I would like to hear an answer.

And here's a snippet from his glurgey support for Woodworth's Wank on September 21, 2012.

We need to protect women's rights but we also must protect everyone's rights, the rights of women, children, adults and all human rights.

Awww, isn't that sweet? 'We need to protect women's rights. BUT'.

BUT. Maybe he was one of the renegade seven Cons who supported the truly 'pro-life' private member's bill that sought to provide cheaper life-saving drugs for poor countries. After all, our pal Maurice Vellacott voted in favour of it.

Nope.

This is precisely how bankrupt the CONtempt Party is on gender-related issues.

This guy is the best they could come up with to front M408.

This is how totally bogus M408 is.

Just Like Thanksgiving. . .

. . . Canadians can celebrate two Blogging for Choice Days.

On January 22, the US Supreme Court landmark judgement Roe v. Wade is 40 years old.

Much weakened recently -- 2012 was second only to 2011 in the number of new state restrictions on abortion -- but it's still in effect.

Here are some nifty infographics to decorate your blog-post.

Then, on January 28, we celebrate 25 years of lawlessness in Canada.

But all is not rosy here either. We've still got major access issues and the perennial wanking of fetus fetishists. The current one, Warawa's Wank is slated to have some debate in March.

Mark your calendars and shine your party shoes.

The best part? No frigging turkey.

In Canada, Pro-Choice Is Winning

If you've been wondering about fetus fetishists crowing about winning and pro-choice losing lately, this TIME magazine cover story is what it's about.

Amanda Marcotte responds.

There's much to like about Kate Pickert's Time cover story (hidden behind a paywall) on abortion rights 40 years after Roe v. Wade. Unlike the majority of big media stories on this issue, this one actually portrays abortion patients accurately, particularly pointing out how most of them are grown adults with children at home and notes the wide range of feminist activism—from fighting for women's economic rights to promoting contraception access—that actually results in lower abortion rates. Pickert even mentions the phrase "reproductive justice," a framework that takes a more holistic approach to improving people's reproductive lives and one that appeals strongly to younger activists, especially activists of color.

Too bad, then, that Pickert portrays the increasing restrictions on abortion access as the result of the failings of the pro-choice movement, a narrative which inevitably leads to blaming pro-choicers for being "hard line," "tone deaf," and lacking "nuance."

She tries to pass the whole deal off as 'business as usual'.

Two-steps-forward-one-step-back is the ugly reality of progressive politics.

That's often true, but not necessarily.

In Canada, we did it differently.

Merkin feminists won the right to abortion on January 22, 1973 with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

Immediately legislatures around the country started enacted restrictions.

In response to Roe v. Wade, most states enacted or attempted to enact laws limiting or regulating abortion. . . Congress in 1976 passed the Hyde Amendment, barring federal funding of abortions (except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman) for poor women through the Medicaid program. The Supreme Court struck down several state restrictions on abortions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, but upheld restrictions on funding, including the Hyde Amendment, in the case of Harris v. McRae (1980).

Merkin feminists have been fighting -- and largely losing -- rearguard skirmishes ever since.

Canadians watched in horror as the huge victory got nibbled to death by ducks.

We were like the younger sister. We got to watch Big Sis make terrible mistakes. And like the smart younger sister, we learned. We vowed to ourselves the political equivalent of 'blue eyeshadow is NEVER a good idea'.

It took 15 more years in Canada, until January 28, 1988, to achieve our victory, R. v. Morgentaler.

But because we watched and learned, we were ready for the ducks. Every time -- every fucking time -- the fetus fetishists show signs of screwing around with our rights, we act.

Recently, with Ken Epp's Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill, we were a little slow off the mark.

So when Woodworth's Wank, aka Motion 312 surfaced, we were ready.

And we are ready for its sequel, Warawa's Wank, aka Motion 408.

As a matter of fact, the more the so-called debate heats up here in Canada, the more support we gain.

So, bring it, fetus fetishists.

We watched Big Sis fuck up.

We won't.

ADDED: Joyce Arthur's excellent Rabble piece on The Benefits of Decriminalizing Abortion.

M408: Sheer Cynical Posturing

At Rabble today, Joyce Arthur has a terrific article on the newest fetus fetishist gambit, Motion 408, to condemn sex selective abortion.

She makes a bunch of excellent points, including this unintentional revelation of what they really think of those murderous sluts poor coerced women.

Warawa wants Parliament to "condemn this worst form of discrimination against females," which he calls "gender violence -- gendercide."

But women are the ones having sex-selection abortions, which means Warawa is accusing women of violence and gendercide -- and courtesy of MP Stella Ambler -- "atrocities." Ending discrimination against women does not start with making nasty accusations against them. Yes, sex selection can be a sexist act, but it's nonsensical to protect women from discrimination by restricting their rights. In India, laws against sex-selection abortion cause women to resort to unsafe and illegal abortion to avoid having a girl, and some may even face abuse and violence from their families if they bear a girl.

Arthur included this dandy link to facts on gender preference in the US.

Highlights:
• In adoption, parents request girls far more often than boys.

• There is no evidence that females are aborted at a higher rate. In fact, the birth ratio of girls has increased since the legalization of abortion.

• Parents using currently available sex selection techniques prefer girls by quite a margin.

I doubt Canadians and Americans are much different in this regard, but I went looking for Canadian studies or polls.

A study published in January this year asked a slightly different question in skewed way. Researchers wanted to find out if men preferred boys and women girls. The dodgy part is that answers had to be 'male' or 'female'. No option for 'doesn't matter' was offered.

Surprise! Men wanted boys, women wanted girls.

The question is why do men and women have these preferences? The researchers hypothesize that men favour boys for much the same reason that women favour girls—because human beings often project their own dreams on their children and those dreams often come with stereotypical ideas of what it means to be male or female.

 
The piece ends with:


Moreover, the study suggests that affluent democratic societies encourage women to favour daughters more than those societies where opportunities for women are circumscribed by discrimination and inequality.  Seen in that light, women preferring daughters over sons is a sign of progress.

Makes total sense, eh? When girls have the same opportunities as boys, there's little downside to letting nature take its course.

Another recent study on sex-selection in Canada in 'certain' communities indicates that *if* it is happening, it is on a very small scale.

The calculations show the total number of “missing” girls is 245, which equals about 35 births per year, or less than one per cent of the total births to Indian-born women.

Dr. [Prabhat Jha, chair in disease control at the University of Toronto and director of the Centre for Global Health Research at St. Michael’s Hospital] said in an e-mail if sex-selective abortion is at play, it is a very small problem and other “important but subtle biases,” such as migration of Indian women about to give birth to a son, could help explain the trend.

Note that the study was conducted with data only from Indian-born women living in Canada.

A reasonable conclusion would be that as newcomers to Canada come to believe that their daughters have (most of) the benefits that sons do, the preference will die out.

In the meantime, other Canadians' desire for girls will balance things out.

Sex selection is not a societal issue in Canada. It is a problem in 'certain' communities that are well aware of it and are working to eliminate it.

Kindly put, Warawa's motion is a solution in search of a problem. More realistically, it's another attack on women's rights masquerading cynically as a concern for gender discrimination.

BONUS: If you can tolerate nearly 8 minutes of StunNews, have a look at the spin we're up against.

Shameless Douchebaggery

I have no words for the crassness of this.

M408: Thankfully shot Pakistan school girl in stable condition. Discrimination against girls must stop. nation.co.ke/News/world/Sho…

— Mark Warawa (@MPmarkwarawa) October 14, 2012

This would be fetus fetishist Mark Warawa making a smarmy reference to his motion (M408) to condemn sex-selective abortion.

The only regard CONs hold for women and girls -- especially those furren women -- is their worth as political pawns when there's an invasion or a mean-spirited foreign policy to try to justify.

Or a bunch of uteruses to police.

*PTUI*

We Are the 94 Per Cent

I'm going to type this very sloooowly for the hard of thinking.

Chris Selley, in commenting on the soundly defeated anti-abortion gambit that was Woodworth's Wank, puts the number of Canadians who want to outlaw abortion in the 3-5% range.

I'll be more generous to the fetus fetishists and go with a poll published July 4 this year.

Six percent believe that abortion 'should not be permitted under any circumstances'.

Which leaves 94% believing that abortion should be permitted under any or some circumstances.

Are we clear now?

Canada is pro-choice. Any attempt to outlaw or restrict abortion is DOOMED.

ADDED: For comparison, the percentage of USians who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances hovers around the mid-teen level in this 36-year tracking poll.