Harperites Claim Contraceptives "Anti-American!"

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
When Rae made reference to "failed right-wing ideologies", he'd put his foot in his mouth right there. By equating a vote in favour of the availability of contraception to a vote in opposition to right-wing ideologies, he'd essentially made it difficult for self-identified right-leaning MPs to vote for it even if they agreed with his idea in principle, since voting for contraception would thus mean voting against right-wing ideologies in their mind. Clearly Rae did not really intend for the bill to pass but rather just to take a cheap shot at the Conservatives.

Oh, but of course Co-operation Minister Bev Oda was no smarter by equating contraception with abortion. One is preventative, the other reactionary. If she can't tell the difference between contraception and abortion, should she really be in her position?

And then she turns to accusations of "rash, extreme anti-American rhetoric". Yes, Rae did ask for that, but by bringing it up again, she's just keeping it alive and now equating support for contraception with opposition to the US, which implies that opposition to contraception is a sign of Americo-philia. Needless to say that people on both sides of the issue who don't want to turn this into a pro vs anti-American issue will turn against both Rae and Oda.

And as if Rae was not stupid enough with the earlier comment, he then comes up with "This is an opportunity for the government to clear the air and vote for the resolution, making it very clear, that we’re not going to allow ideology to trump science," clearly suggesting that by voting in favour of this, the Conservatives are somehow implicitly confessing to error. Does he not understand human nature? Either he never intended for this to pass in the first place and was merely trying to score political brownie points with the masses, or he' really stupid when it comes to understanding human nature.

But sure enough, Oda isn't going to let Rae drag himself lower than she can drag herself (the race to the bottom is on, and the gloves are off). So she comes up with this gem:

"transparent attempt to reopen the abortion debate that we have clearly said we have no intention to getting into."

Again, he never mentioned abortion, but rather contraception. You/d think that after a bit of time to think about it she'd have caught on. But oh no, she's still stuck in the abortion issue, an issue Rae never even brought up. She did!

I could go on, but this is clearly a schoolyard fight among grown adult politicians.

Even from a religious standpoint, no religion that I'm aware of has ever explicitly banned contraception in its sacred texts. Sure the Vatican bans it, but that's based on ex-cathedra papal rulings and not the Bible. So essentially the Vatican is the only religious body that explicitly bans contraception.

All the others that I know of leave it to their respective followers to decide for themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnnaG

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
When Rae made reference to "failed right-wing ideologies", he'd put his foot in his mouth right there. By equating a vote in favour of the availability of contraception to a vote in opposition to right-wing ideologies, he'd essentially made it difficult for self-identified right-leaning MPs to vote for it even if they agreed with his idea in principle, since voting for contraception would thus mean voting against right-wing ideologies in their mind. Clearly Rae did not really intend for the bill to pass but rather just to take a cheap shot at the Conservatives.

Oh, but of course Co-operation Minister Bev Oda was no smarter by equating contraception with abortion. One is preventative, the other reactionary. If she can't tell the difference between contraception and abortion, should she really be in her position?

And then she turns to accusations of "rash, extreme anti-American rhetoric". Yes, Rae did ask for that, but by bringing it up again, she's just keeping it alive and now equating support for contraception with opposition to the US, which implies that opposition to contraception is a sign of Americo-philia. Needless to say that people on both sides of the issue who don't want to turn this into a pro vs anti-American issue will turn against both Rae and Oda.

And as if Rae was not stupid enough with the earlier comment, he then comes up with "This is an opportunity for the government to clear the air and vote for the resolution, making it very clear, that we’re not going to allow ideology to trump science," clearly suggesting that by voting in favour of this, the Conservatives are somehow implicitly confessing to error. Does he not understand human nature? Either he never intended for this to pass in the first place and was merely trying to score political brownie points with the masses, or he' really stupid when it comes to understanding human nature.

But sure enough, Oda isn't going to let Rae drag himself lower than she can drag herself (the race to the bottom is on, and the gloves are off). So she comes up with this gem:

"transparent attempt to reopen the abortion debate that we have clearly said we have no intention to getting into."

Again, he never mentioned abortion, but rather contraception. You/d think that after a bit of time to think about it she'd have caught on. But oh no, she's still stuck in the abortion issue, an issue Rae never even brought up. She did!

I could go on, but this is clearly a schoolyard fight among grown adult politicians.

Even from a religious standpoint, no religion that I'm aware of has ever explicitly banned contraception in its sacred texts. Sure the Vatican bans it, but that's based on ex-cathedra papal rulings and not the Bible. So essentially the Vatican is the only religious body that explicitly bans contraception.

All the others that I know of leave it to their respective followers to decide for themselves.
Politicians opening mouth to change feet? Goooo figure. lol
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I have to say though that I could have agreed with Rae's proposed bill in principle, in that instruction in the use of contraception has nothing to do with abortion or even adultery for that matter (even within a married couple, contraception can be used). And for those who feel uncomfortable about contraception on religious grounds, then in a religious society the teachers could always offer pamphlets quoting the sacred texts in question, which in all the cases that I'm aware of are somewhat ambiguous as to whether they are in favour of contraception or not, and so it really ought to be left to the people to decide.

So even from a religious standpoint, there would be no reason to oppose Rae's proposed bill from what I gathered from the article at least.

The main issue I have is with how Rae chose to politicize this by taking partisan jabs, thus ensuring that this bill not pass. Good job, Rae.

Though granted the Conservatives could have chosen to take the high road, vote for the bill anyway, and then let Rae look foolish for all his partisan rhetoric.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Just to make a point here, if I were a politician in a Parliament comprising a large right-leaning segment, and wanted to get a bill passed, instead of taking political jabs at the right, I'd try instead to present the bill in such a way as to allow the right to either save or gain face, and would also point out how this bill conforms to right-leaning ideas in some way or other.

The same of course would apply in reverse if it were a significantly left-leaning Parliament. You don't get people to support your idea by insulting them.

A person who can't figure that out should be flipping burgers at McDonald's and not deciding national policy.
 
Last edited:

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Just to make a point here, if I were a politician in a Parliament comprising a large right-leaning segment, and wanted to get a bill passed, instead of taking political jabs at the right, I'd try instead to present the bill in such a way as to allow the right to either save or gain face, and would also point out how this bill conforms to right-leaning ideas in some way or other.

The same of course would apply in reverse if it were a significantly left-leaning Parliament. You don't get people to support your idea by insulting them.

A person who can't figure that out should be flipping burgers at McDonald's and not deciding national policy.

Come on. The motions of members of the opposition parties have always been for political show. Seldom are these motions taken seriously, even by those who propose them. Rae was simply making a political point; that being that the Harper government is as much tied to the fundamentalist Christian religion of its leader as it is to any well thought out policy.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Come on. The motions of members of the opposition parties have always been for political show. Seldom are these motions taken seriously, even by those who propose them. Rae was simply making a political point; that being that the Harper government is as much tied to the fundamentalist Christian religion of its leader as it is to any well thought out policy.

So our taxes pay all this money for cinematographic purposes? We're talking about democracy here, and they ought to show more respect for it on all sides of the fence.
 

Socrates the Greek

I Remember them....
Apr 15, 2006
4,968
36
48
These Mps are the Emerson’s in waiting to put on the blue. Canada must embrace equality, Because the right wing ideological train has no brakes.

This Crap below makes a good bed time story, typical Con propaganda, I say to Dimiti Sudas keep looking at the polls, the Liberals are coming, going around the bend neck to neck the Liberals are not going from “Bad to worst” the other way around.

Con propaganda will twist the obvious, for self gratification.
Their ship is sinking and the guy puts out crap propaganda……..

"The motion tonight is that we were simply asking for the government of Canada to commit to the position that Canada has held for 25 years, which is to defend women's right of access to the full range of reproductive health services overseas," Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told reporters after the vote.
The vote signalled things are going "from bad to worse" for Ignatieff and the Liberal Party, said PMO spokesman Dimitri Soudas.
"There's so much confusion in Liberal ranks these days, Michael Ignatieff's Liberals don't know if they are coming or going!" he said.
"In any case, we thank those Liberal MPs for their support of our Conservative government on an important confidence motion tonight."

Read more: CBC News - Politics - Contraception motion defeated


Crap, which come election time will make him look short sited.:roll::roll:
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
"The motion tonight is that we were simply asking for the government of Canada to commit to the position that Canada has held for 25 years, which is to defend women's right of access to the full range of reproductive health services overseas," Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told reporters after the vote.

Okay, so it's a position we've held for 25 years. Why do we need a Parliamentary motion to say we haven't changed our minds?

Answer: we don't.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
I suspect a great deal of the fuss on this issue is generated by this story from March 18. Mr. Harper has made little effort to hide his anti-abortion and anti-family planning views and I suspect this is the Liberals' attempt to remind Canadians of that. As I pointed out in my previous post it is all about making noise and embarrassing the government. Ignatieff almost certainly knew that his anti-government motion was not going to pass, especially given the fact that several members of his party are also anti-abortion. It is what Canadian political parties do - try to discommode the party in power.

Feminist Wire Daily Newsbriefs: U.S. and Global News Coverage