|
Monday, October 13, 2008
|
|
|
|
Temp:
|
6°C
|
|
Feels like:
|
6°C
|
|
Humidity:
|
93%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A ready-made excuse |
|
|
|
Written by -- associate news editor Rodney Venis
|
|
Wednesday, 02 July 2008 |
There's a distinctly musky backroom smell to the recent naming of Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada.
Oh, the stink's got nothing to do with Morgentaler, the abortion icon who's been rejected from the historical Who's Who list enough times that he's the Susan Lucci of the coveted national honour. For what it's worth, he deserves it; Heather Mallick outlined that case succinctly in a 2003 Globe and Mail article that's available on the web.
Besides, adding a man who braved decades of persecution and the threat of assassination for a fundamental female right would restore a little class to an award that's lost its lustre in recent years from the grubby fingers of recipients like Alan Eagleston, Brian Mulroney and Conrad Black.
Nevertheless, whether Morgentaler deserves the Order of Canada or not is a side issue. What's more worrying is the Jets and the Sharks are once again getting their dance shoes on for another rendition of the perennial West Side Story about a woman's right to choose.
The abortion debate is back. Yay.
Admittedly, it could be all quite innocent; it doesn't take much for an issue like abortion to go from dormant to volcanic.
As the Globe reported recently, Morgentaler is 84, he recently suffered a serious stroke and the Order of Canada can't be awarded posthumously. With the clock winding down, his supporters pulled the goalie, going public with their most recent nomination drive -- something that's not done -- and stirring up their Christian Right opponents with the declaration his exclusion from the Order was "blasphemy."
Still, it's hard to imagine a headline that elicits more of an OMG response than "BABY-KILLING DOC GETS CANADA'S TOP NOD." And, in a coincidence Lewis Carroll might have described as curiouser and curiouser, the blogosphere's recently been buzzing about four private member's bills currently before the House of Commons, all with an anti-abortion slant.
According to The Hill's Richard Cleroux, whose article appears in the Law Times, Bill C-484
would create a separate Criminal Code offence for hurting an "unborn child"; C-338 makes abortion illegal after 20 weeks of pregnancy; C-537 allows health-care professionals to refuse to perform medical acts that go against their religion; C-543 makes attacking a pregnant woman an 'aggravating' factor in the Criminal Code.
Cleroux argues that, when seen as a whole, they're a back -door effort to recriminalize abortion and undo Morgentaler's 1988 legal victory. If they succeed in their overarching aim to suggest the fetus has legal status as an "unborn child" -- a tactic that's worked in the U.S. to undermine Roe v. Wade -- anti-abortion forces would gain a large-calibre slug they could use to take a shot at going to the Supreme Court with a Charter challenge to ban the procedure.
What's most interesting is what Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion think of all this. Both are policy wonks, who have taken pains to avoid wading into the mucky waters of social conservatism and the bills are a backbench effort being spurred from both sides of the House. But the fact is each man is a charisma-deficient leader and they don't have much to fight about -- they reached a compromise on the war in Afghanistan and their environmental policies are two strings tied to the same lead balloon.
Abortion, however, is an issue both can use to energize their respective bases. Harper can use the convenient clamour to say he had no choice but to reopen the debate -- something he promised not to do last election -- while Dion finally has an excuse to bring the government down.
It's the stuff that elections are made of.
Which is fine. Except for the fact Canada is arguably facing more pressing questions -- about Afghanistan, the state of the economy, energy policy, climate change.
That's not to say a conversation about abortion wouldn't be healthy. But the distraction and polarization that debate brings means Canadians will have fewer answers to other issues if abortion is the excuse that sends them to the polls this fall.
-- associate news editor Rodney Venis
 |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 07 September 2008 )
|
|
|
Who's Online
We have 30 guests and 4 members online
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
