JustinTrudeau says abortion rights are guaranteed by the Charter — he's dead wrong


Locutus
#1
Word.

National Post editorial board: That’s not what the Charter says



Justin Trudeau appears to be having trouble with his attempt to dictate matters of conscience to members of the Liberal party.

Since he declared that future Liberals will be required to support open-ended abortion rights, Mr. Trudeau has faced a barrage of criticism, and has effectively re-opened a debate he insisted was “settled.” Liberal aides and spin doctors have tried fervently to “explain” his edict. And in an interview on Thursday with the Ottawa Citizen, Mr. Trudeau insisted he’s doing no more than follow in his father’s footsteps: “I had an extraordinary example in a father who had deeply, deeply held personal views that were informed by the fact that he went to church every Sunday, read the Bible regularly to us, and raised us very, very religious, very Catholic.”

“But at the same time, he had no problem legalizing divorce, decriminalizing homosexuality and moving in ways that recognized the basic rights of the people.”

Justin Trudeau then added the one argument that some Liberals apparently feel is unassailable: “And since 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that a woman’s right to a choice in this matter is a Charter right. [It’s] upheld by the Constitution.”


But as Margaret Somerville, founder of McGill University’s Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, pointed out this week, the idea that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees women an unfettered right to abortion is dead wrong.


In the 1988 Morgentaler case itself, the Supreme Court of Canada did indeed strike down Canada’s abortion law — but not because this is not an area or bioethics fit for legislation. Rather, the Justices found that the system of hospital committees that then regulated abortion access was restrictive, unpredictable and time-consuming — and that the health of women often was being compromised as they waited for doctors to pass judgment on their cases.

No one should want to go back to such a pre-1988 system, and the Supreme Court was correct to conclude that it violated a woman’s “right to life, liberty and security of the person” in a way that could not be reconciled with “the principles of fundamental justice.”


But in the same breath, the Chief Justice declared that “protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective.” Justice Jean Beetz added that “the protection of the foetus … relate[s] to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society and which, pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter, justify reasonable limits to be put on a woman’s right.” Justice Bertha Wilson (Canada’s first female Supreme Court Justice) wrote: “The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes ‘compelling’ I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature … It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.” All four Morgentaler opinions — including the three written for the 5-2 majority — plainly indicated that the government has a role in limiting the practice of abortion.


Throughout the governments of Pierre Trudeau, John Turner and Jean Chrétien, the Liberal Party of Canada maintained a healthy respect for matters of conscience. As former Liberal MP Tom Wappel wrote in the National Post this week, he was elected six times, and ran for the party leadership, while making no secret of his strong pro-life views. Yet now, the Liberals have a leader who is so doctrinaire in his no-holds-barred abortion absolutism that none of the 1988-era Supreme Court Justices who decided the Morgentaler case would themselves be eligible to run for Justin Trudeau’s party. All seven would be deemed insufficiently fundamentalist in their pro-choice dogmatism.


Mr. Trudeau’s position feed suspicions he does not fully appreciate the complexities of the abortion issue, the strong feelings many Canadians continue to hold, and the reality that the debate is far from “settled”, as he would like to believe. He shows a shaky understanding of his father’s legacy, and a faulty grasp of the Charter of Rights.


Sixty percent of Canadians say they support some limit on the right to abortion. This includes many liberals, who are appalled by the practice of sex-selective abortion, which systematically wipes out female fetuses. If Mr. Trudeau wants to put down stakes with the other 40%, and force his caucus to do likewise, he’s permitted to do so — but he’s not fooling anyone when he claims that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms leaves him no choice.
National Post




National Post editorial board: That’s not what the Charter says | National Post

fuk you you stupid pony
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#2
The concept of moving on is good the only problem is the Liberal leader insisted on making
it an issue again. Making abortion illegal again is like going back into the Victorian Age.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#3
By: Rosie DiManno Columnist, Published on Fri May 16 2014
Justin Trudeau is far too callow for his age.

There’s no excuse for it at 41.

He is displaying the haughtiness of his father and the vanity of his mother, a most unpleasant combination. The jejune gall, however, is all his own. Dad, at least, was a cunning and brilliant politician. Pierre Elliot Trudeau resorted to autocratic edicts at moments of crisis. Justin Trudeau seems hell-bound to create a crisis where none need exist.

Apropos of nothing, the Trudeau spawn has now decided that ethical lobotomy should be imposed on anyone who wants to fly the Liberal colours as a candidate in the next federal election. You will conform to Trudeau’s “resolute pro-choice” stand on abortion or sacrifice your liberal affiliations.

The irony of unintended consequences here is that all of a sudden abortion is back in the domain of public debate, which we could all have done without. Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn’t want to have that discussion, as he’s made quite clear in recent years — in large part because the issue is too divisive within his own cabinet and among nuisance-distraction backbenchers. He’s crushed all gambits to the contrary.

There is a law of the land, which is that there’s no law of the land. No abortion legislation exists and, while some of us have considerable reservations about this free-for-all state of affairs, the alternative — to once again plunge into furious hostilities over a woman’s right to choose — is counterintuitive.

Trudeau has opened that door by his absolute position. If you have doubts, if you have reservations — moral, religious, any flicker of conscience — then you’re not wanted under the Liberal big tent and can’t exercise, as an MP, a free vote should the matter arise in Parliament in any variation: sex selection abortions, for example, the termination of a female fetus because a boy-child is preferred, with some absolutist pro-choice feminists contorting themselves into intellectual pretzels, caving into gender-hatred disguised as cultural values rather than conceding an inch; late-term abortions, when the fetus is viable, because we’re assured this is a rare occurrence, performed only when the mother’s life is at risk.

On Wednesday, Cardinal Thomas Collins, the Archbishop of Toronto, urged Trudeau to reconsider his position, pointing out that under the new screening process for prospective candidates, Pope Francis — an individual of far more evolved ethical sensibilities than the Liberal leader, beloved by the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics — would not pass the political sniff test for public service within Trudeau’s party as gerrymandered by Justin.

That’s absurd and stunningly rigid: the politics of exclusion. Most Catholics may not practise their faith according to the articles as expounded by their pope — conscientious objection to the canons of divorce and contraception, most particularly — but they will certainly grasp the intolerance of Trudeau’s fiat. And it’s hardly just Catholics because all of the mainstream religions object to unfettered abortion.

In the cockamamie world according to Trudeau, exceptions would be made only for incumbent MPs and candidates who had already been anointed before the hard line on abortion was declared. Previously, Liberal MPs had been permitted to vote freely on matters of conscience and, indeed, until two years ago, the party didn’t even have a formal position on abortion.

Now we will have abortion-vetting for candidates and a party platform that cleaves identically to the position long held by the NDP. (Selectively applied in the past, though. In the 2004 federal election, the party enthusiastically embraced Monia Mazigh as a star-candidate in the Ottawa South riding. Mazigh, wife of torture victim Maher Arar, maintained well-known privately held views against abortion and same-sex marriage but the NDP found her irresistible nonetheless. She lost.)

Trudeau has mused aloud, unwisely, with precious little forethought, about all manner of stuff, from pot laws to his professed admiration for China’s dictatorship. He is a political flibbertigibbet, his judgment a mile wide and a millimetre deep. Thus, Trudeau was stumped for an answer to the obvious followup question after stating that abortion opponents would be barred from seeking Liberal nominations — whether he’d allow Liberal MPs already in the fold to vote freely or absent themselves should an abortion bill come before the House of Commons.

After some humming and hawing, Trudeau seemed to make to settle on a slippery toehold. “They must make concrete commitment to be openly pro-choice in their positions and if they want to be a candidate in 2015.”

He is reinventing Liberal orthodoxy on the fly, deliberately misinterpreting public opinion polls that only touch on the surface of the abortion quandary. Yes, it’s a woman’s right to choose. Yes, abortion should be equally accessible in all parts of Canada. At the moment, it’s not. There is no facility performing abortions on Prince Edward Island, and the Morgentaler clinic in Fredericton, N.B., will close at the end of July, leaving hospitals — with the approval of two doctors — as the only option.

If Trudeau genuinely cares about women’s health and their right to choose, that’s where his attention should be concentrated, not on beating the bushes to weed out candidates who hold more nuanced views. On the broader electoral landscape, this isn’t just about political candidates; it’s about ordinary men and women marking their ballots who’d previously believed the Liberal party had space under their banner for diversity of opinion on abortion. They’ve now been instructed otherwise.

But this is the Trudeau who’s fallen in thrall to his own power narcotic, just as he’s broken earlier vows to ensure open nominations by promoting his own favourites.

Callow and imperious — a toxic mix.


On abortion, Justin Trudeau imposes ethical lobotomy on Liberals | Toronto Star


EVEN THE STAR RECOGNIZES THAT JUSTIN IS IN WAY OVER HIS HEAD.


Conservative majority in 2015 is practically assured.

JustinTrudeau says abortion rights are guaranteed by the Charter — he's dead wrong

Told ya so.......
 
Corduroy
+3
#4
Our supreme court never ruled on the right to have an abortion. It was legal in Canada in 1988 but made difficult by regulations. The court ruled such a legal procedure being tied down with unnecessary regulation was a threat to health. The question of whether it was a right didn't need to be raised. In the United States, Roe v. Wade rested on the right to privacy, a constitutional right (allegedly). The Charter contains similar language and if it ever came up it might support the right. It *could* be in the Charter in a mysterious hypothetical sense, but Trudeau is wrong if he thinks it's already decided.

The government can still legally restrict abortion. It just hasn't bothered, and if it ever did the law would absolutely be reviewed by the Supreme Court.



I also don't see the problem with the Liberals restricting itself to pro-choice candidates. It's entirely up to them who they run.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#5
I can see the value in it.

We don't allow racists or pedophiles, so why should we allow prolifers?

Let Harper deal with them.
 
gerryh
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I can see the value in it.

We don't allow racists or pedophiles, so why should we allow prolifers?

Let Harper deal with them.


Are you putting "prolifers" in the same bag as racists and pedophiles?
 
eh1eh
#7
Even the blue meanies don't want to open the topic.
The law was struck down by the supreme court so there is no law against abortion and no law allowing it either.
 
DaSleeper
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I can see the value in it.

We don't allow racists or pedophiles, so why should we allow prolifers?

Let Harper deal with them.

You heard it here first folks...... Prolifers are equated with racists and pedophiles
Last edited by DaSleeper; May 16th, 2014 at 07:07 PM..Reason: spelling
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I can see the value in it.

We don't allow racists or pedophiles, so why should we allow prolifers?

Maybe because they are PRO life.
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
+4
#10
Oh cripes this again?

Yeah he's dead wrong because someone wants to find one obscure line of wording that has never been enforced and never explained.

Technically speaking he knows exactly what he's talking about:

Quote:

And since 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that a woman’s right to a choice in this matter is a Charter right. [It’s] upheld by the Constitution.

Quote:

the Supreme Court was correct to conclude that it violated a woman’s “right to life, liberty and security of the person” in a way that could not be reconciled with “the principles of fundamental justice.”

The report above even admits to the facts and tells us all what he said is true.... And then they add a "but" at the end. There are no "Buts."

To open up this old debate once again and try to add restrictions would then start to add the red tape in the process once again, which was already removed because of the above and therefore Justin is indeed correct.

His only mistake was from trying to simplify the situation so people can better understand, while pro-life wing nuts continue to try and over complicate the situation by adding a pile of fluff & hypotheticals.

If Pro-Lifers had any sort of case, they would have changed thing by now. Instead they use this whole time to attempt to spread emotional arguments and dig up any old line they can find that might give them some sort of credibility.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I can see the value in it.

We don't allow racists or pedophiles, so why should we allow prolifers?

Let Harper deal with them.

YOU are showing yourself to be a real idiot.

To compare someone who believes the unborn are valuable to a pedophile is beyond ridiculous, it is atrocious.

YOU are the one that wants to allow them to be harmed......

Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

Oh cripes this again?

Yeah he's dead wrong because someone wants to find one obscure line of wording that has never been enforced and never explained.

Technically speaking he knows exactly what he's talking about:




Don't be ****ing ridiculous.

Justiin simply made a fool out of himself yet again, as he does every time he gets off his leash.

He said something important..............and absolutely untrue.......because he is simply ignorant, in every sense of the word.
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
#12
The whole debate of abortion rings the same as the American's rights to bear arms..... They have the right as many argue, and by putting any restrictions on that right infringes upon it.

The Charter says women have a right to life, liberty and security of the person. Adding any red tape in the abortion process thereby infringes on the above.

And the argument of sex selective abortion killing off girls?

Give me a fk'n break. I've know many couple who have wanted a girl yet only have boys. And while one can pull out some statistical mumbo jumbo about Asians picking boys over girls, it doesn't matter.

But Prax, it should be stopped because it's wrong?

You and your personal morals say it's wrong.

Someone gender selecting their child isn't any different than the choice of having children in the first place based on propagating the species.

If someone wants to argue that gender selection is harmful to humanity as one gender is preferred by a couple (which is their business not yours) over another, then be grateful that they're willing to have a child at all.

Otherwise they might as well not produce offspring and thus, increase the chances of more people having more abortions.

The OP talks about Justin not getting the big picture and how complex the situation really is, yet i would say the OP has it backwards as ProLifers try to simplify it in their favor by over complication of the more trivial details.
 
gerryh
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

The whole debate of abortion rings the same as the American's rights to bear arms..... They have the right as many argue, and by putting any restrictions on that right infringes upon it.

The Charter says women have a right to life, liberty and security of the person. Adding any red tape in the abortion process thereby infringes on the above.


You missed this part of the ruling, conveniently.

But in the same breath, the Chief Justice declared that “protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective.” Justice Jean Beetz added that “the protection of the foetus … relate[s] to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society and which, pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter, justify reasonable limits to be put on a woman’s right.” Justice Bertha Wilson (Canada’s first female Supreme Court Justice) wrote: “The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes ‘compelling’ I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature … It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.” All four Morgentaler opinions — including the three written for the 5-2 majority — plainly indicated that the government has a role in limiting the practice of abortion.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I can see the value in it.

We don't allow racists or pedophiles, so why should we allow prolifers?

Let Harper deal with them.

First, I am pro-choice. But having said that, pro-life or anti-choice is an opinion. A perfectly reasonable opinion (but one which I do not share). To compare that to racists and pedophiles is ignorant.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Are you putting "prolifers" in the same bag as racists and pedophiles?

You think they're not?

httpwwwyoutubecomwatchvs-pWoVSrKXo

Last edited by mentalfloss; May 16th, 2014 at 08:03 PM..
 
petros
+2
#16
I though Wednesday was the full moon. It must take a couple days to wear off.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#17
Quote:

The Charter says women have a right to life, liberty and security of the person. Adding any red tape in the abortion process thereby infringes on the above.

The Charter, useless as it is, says "EVERYONE has a right to life, liberty and security of the person"......which leads to the question of when exactly does life begin???

The extremist view is that life begins at conception, or that life begins when the baby emerges at birth.

The moderate position is somewhere in between.........
 
Count_Lothian
+1
#18
This entire strategy on the part of Justin is to force open the issue, make it an election issue and watch as the Conservatives squirm to run interferrence.

The conservatives have the most to lose taking any stance. If theyadmit what they are and go pro life they lose the shaky centre vote. If they even hint at pro choice they cause a ruckus in their party during a campaign.

The die has been set. In the end the liberal vote does not really give a toss as to pro choice or pro life.
In order for this to have any weight at all he had to make the issue verbatim .
It's genius. It causes exactly the right set of arguments and upset in the Conservative Party.

The conservatives now have to show their hand and where Harper stands on abortion.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

You missed this part of the ruling, conveniently.

But in the same breath, the Chief Justice declared that “protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective.” Justice Jean Beetz added that “the protection of the foetus … relate[s] to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society and which, pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter, justify reasonable limits to be put on a woman’s right.” Justice Bertha Wilson (Canada’s first female Supreme Court Justice) wrote: “The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes ‘compelling’ I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature … It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.” All four Morgentaler opinions — including the three written for the 5-2 majority — plainly indicated that the government has a role in limiting the practice of abortion.

Thank you Gerry.....expect nothing but silence from the opposition.

Quote: Originally Posted by Count_LothianView Post

This entire strategy on the part of Justin is to force open the issue, make it an election issue and watch as the Conservatives squirm to run interferrence.

The conservatives have the most to lose taking any stance. If theyadmit what they are and go pro life they lose the shaky centre vote. If they even hint at pro choice they cause a ruckus in their party during a campaign.

The die has been set. In the end the liberal vote does not really give a toss as to pro choice or pro life.
In order for this to have any weight at all he had to make the issue verbatim .
It's genius. It causes exactly the right set of arguments and upset in the Conservative Party.

The conservatives now have to show their hand and where Harper stands on abortion.

Justin would have to look up the word "strategy" in a dictionary.

The idiot just drove a significant number of moderate Liberals into the arms of the Conservative Party.
 
Count_Lothian
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Thank you Gerry.....expect nothing but silence from the opposition.

Hey you stole that . thats my line in this mornings Ontario election thread

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

SO I DO HIT A FEW BUTTONS NOW AND THEN EH.
 
petros
#21
Ooooooo. Weird eh?
 
Colpy
Conservative
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Count_LothianView Post

Hey you stole that . thats my line in this mornings Ontario election thread

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

SO I DO HIT A FEW BUTTONS NOW AND THEN EH.

Didn't read it. Not much interested in Ontario.....either they kick out Wynn or they deserve the disaster they get........
 
Count_Lothian
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Justin would have to look up the word "strategy" in a dictionary.

The idiot just drove a significant number of moderate Liberals into the arms of the Conservative Party.

Wishful thinking . A moderate Liberal will go NDP rather than vote for the fascist.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+2
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Count_LothianView Post

Wishful thinking . A moderate Liberal will go NDP rather than vote for the fascist.

Sigh.

Another ****ing moron that wouldn't know the difference between a fascist and a duck.

Read a little history, a little political science, learn something Grasshopper.....all you do spouting off the Progressive Insult of the Day is make yourself appear even more a fool.
 
petros
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Didn't read it. Not much interested in Ontario.....either they kick out Wynn or they deserve the disaster they get........

Kick out the whole lot of them and start from scratch.

Maybe Western ON (It's not really northern) should seperate and enjoy the wealth beneath their feet?

It would benefit the entire nation as a whole.
 
Count_Lothian
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Sigh.

Another ****ing moron that wouldn't know the difference between a fascist and a duck.

Read a little history, a little political science, learn something Grasshopper.....all you do spouting off the Progressive Insult of the Day is make yourself appear even more a fool.

Why thank you Colpy, it does my heart good to know how far above you I truly am.

You, the idiot that gives money to politicians is having a go at me?
Enjoy your little membership card and emails.

"morons ".

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Kick out the whole lot of them and start from scratch.

Maybe Western ON (It's not really northern) should seperate and enjoy the wealth beneath their feet?

It would benefit the entire nation as a whole.

Yo Petros iksnay on seperationnay if you catch my drift.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

The Charter, useless as it is, says "EVERYONE has a right to life, liberty and security of the person"......which leads to the question of when exactly does life begin???

The extremist view is that life begins at conception, or that life begins when the baby emerges at birth.

The moderate position is somewhere in between.........

I believe life is there right from the getgo- something that is alive was NEVER dead!
 
DaSleeper
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Kick out the whole lot of them and start from scratch.

Maybe Western ON (It's not really northern) should seperate and enjoy the wealth beneath their feet?

It would benefit the entire nation as a whole.

I did invite Lone Wolf to Join me in the "Northern Ontario Heritage Party" to go kick but in Toronto
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#29
All I can see in this is someone atempting to create a generation of work for lawyers since the native rights industry is winding down. the way the law is right now is just fine.
 
Corduroy
+5
#30  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by eh1ehView Post

Even the blue meanies don't want to open the topic.
The law was struck down by the supreme court so there is no law against abortion and no law allowing it either.

The Conservatives would open the topic if it could win them elections, but it usually hurts Conservatives. Maybe Trudeau is banking on that fact. I don't see it getting much traction. I think the electorate is tired of hearing about it, no matter who brings it up.

Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

The whole debate of abortion rings the same as the American's rights to bear arms..... They have the right as many argue, and by putting any restrictions on that right infringes upon it.

The difference being the US second amendment is unequivocal. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The Charter, on the other hand, is dithering. All rights and freedoms are guaranteed within "reasonable* limits".

*reason to be determined as politically expedient
 

Similar Threads

14
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms turns 30
by mentalfloss | Apr 17th, 2012
5
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
by passpatoo | Feb 16th, 2007
10
Charter of Rights & Freedons - Pros & Cons
by westmanguy | Feb 14th, 2007
10
Harper and the Charter of Rights
by cyberclark | Jan 18th, 2006
3
Constitution and Charter of Rights.
by Andem | Aug 13th, 2002
no new posts