Stephen Lewis, a co-director of AIDS-Free World and one of the strongest advocates of the gender proposal, told IPS: “I have been following this story with much intensity over the last 48 hours, and I myself have spoken to several ambassadors (both from the South and the North), to impress upon them the fact that under no circumstances can this resolution be postponed”.
He said that it would be “a terrible slap in the face to the women of the world, a dreadful rejection of the views of the secretary-general, and a deep blow to the credibility of the United Nations.”
As things now stand, the consensus that had emerged is being sabotaged by a consortium of countries, belligerently disruptive and destructive, led by Cuba, Sudan, Iran and Egypt, he said.
The nation states of the U.N. overwhelmingly want to approve the creation of the women’s agency by resolution on Sep. 14, and begin the process of a global search for an under-secretary-general, “but this little group of malcontents is holding the world to ransom”.
“They’re using women as a bargaining chip in the effort to exact concessions on governance and finance, the other prongs of the System-Wide Coherence process. They care not one whit for the rights and needs of the women of the world,” Lewis charged.
Saturday March 8th aka International Women’s Day. How did the predominantly male parliament recognize this upcoming event? By voting, either through direct action or abstention, to allow the clock to be turned back on women’s reproductive rights.
Those who like to spin sentiment as truth say that those crazy radical feminists are on the war path against mommies again. Bullshit!
This about protecting the rights of all women. Especially those who chose to become pregnant. Feminists have studied, lobbied and fought for years for protections for women. Now this same government who so happily dismantled SWC is claiming to have women’s interests at heart? Bullshit!
The same laws that are being put forward here are being used to prosecute women in the United States of America. And other countries with similar breeding laws are also making criminals out of women. Women who’s pregnancies are not the stuff of Anne Geddes books. This is protecting women? Bullshit!
Mark Hasiuk in his rush to do a hatchet job on Joyce Arthur writes;
Sadly, for a relatively small number of pregnant women, life’s final scene ends with a violent act usually perpetrated by their closest male ally. Bill C-484 will recognize the sanctity of human life in its most innocent and vulnerable form, and further punish some of society’s most despicable offenders.
In their opposition to the bill, pro-choice activists seek to deny justice for abused women who weighed their options and chose life.
Perhaps Mr. Hasiuk should have become a butcher rather than a writer. Being a writer generally requires one research the facts. The fact is that Bill C-484 contains a provision that any lawyer worth his salt could use to get his client off. To wit;
(2) An offence that would otherwise be an offence under paragraph (1)(a) may be reduced to an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if the person who committed the offence did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation within the meaning of section 232.
Combined with the fact that courts already have provision to take violence against a pregnant women more seriously, combined with the fact that Canada does not (as yet!) have consecutive sentencing. Combined with this statement “(5) It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being.” and statements such as these from reproductive fascists, “If passed this bill . . . would be a key step in recriminalizing abortion.” To say that this bill is about protection not about criminalizing abortion is grade A, 100%, unadulterated BULLSHIT!
To the Liberal politicians who stood in the house today and voted for this, and for those like Dion who ducked the responsibility to defeat it, I say shame! Shame on you for marking International Women’s Day by resurrecting the concept of biology as destiny.
It is hard to choose priorities–too bad you chose Harper Government™ ones.
What springs to your mind when you hear this phrase?
Perhaps programs which allow people access to the essentials for living– homes, food access to health care.
Perhaps you think of the bike helmet you bought your child, or your resolve to never drive drunk or tired or otherwise occupied.
Maybe you think of the aid you send to a foster child, or women’s shelter or other hands on charity.
I wonder in your deliberations if you ever consider refusing to fund abortions for poor women.
There has been much ado amongst the “I’m alright jack” and the “woo hoo lets legislate the hoo hoo” over this;
A clause was added to the Hamilton County indigent care levy contract 10 years ago to block the money from being spent on abortions for poor people.
Recently, that change almost was reversed.
Oh dear the horror!! That women would have the choice not to bring more children they can’t afford into the world!
Of course lets not forget that as poor women they shouldn’t be having sex at all. Nope no way, no pleasure for you lady. And that “sweet precious wonderful protected life” in your womb, well don’t get too attached to having it thought of that way because as soon as it’s born it becomes “another goddamn miserable drain on society that my tax dollars have to go to support“.
Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati had sent word of the clause deletion to more than 1,000 people on its e-mail list. It has since sent a follow up e-mail on the reinstatement.
Executive Director Paula Westwood said she was pleased that the clause is back in.
“Our foremost goal is to make sure that life is protected,” she said. “It looks like the language will remain on this, and that is a good thing.”
One can only hope that Ms. Westwood will put as much effort into ensuring that the resulting children are fed and clothed and babysat while their mothers try to support them. Perhaps she can also direct them to counselling for the depression, anger and terror they feel at being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. No doubt that would not fall under Ms. Westwood’s umbrella of protecting “life”.