NDP already being annoying in new Parliament

[FiveParadox]

...refusing his elected members to vote their conscience on this matter .

Voting one's conscience should not apply when it is on a question that could, itself, violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Parliament of Canada has a duty not only to do what is popular with the electorate, but to do what is demanded of them by our constitution, unless and until it has been amended according to law.

 

[gerryh]

Voting one's conscience should not apply when it is on a question that could, itself, violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Parliament of Canada has a duty not only to do what is popular with the electorate, but to do what is demanded of them by our constitution, unless and until it has been amended according to law.

still not seeing how outlawing the murder of innocents is a violation of the charter.

 

[FiveParadox]

still not seeing how outlawing the murder of innocents is a violation of the charter.

I think this question has been essentially settled in R. v. Morgentaler.

 

[gerryh]

I think this question has been essentially settled in R. v. Morgentaler.

I see, can you tell me how the courts outlawed slavery when courts had upheld the "right" to own slaves?


So, I gather you would support the continued ability to abort for any reason, even if science was finally able to identify sexual orientation invitro, and people were able to abort for the sole reason of not giving birth to a "homosexual" person?

 

[Cannuck]

Voting one's conscience should not apply when it is on a question that could, itself, violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Parliament of Canada has a duty not only to do what is popular with the electorate, but to do what is demanded of them by our constitution, unless and until it has been amended according to law.

I see you're avoiding the question. How is acknowledging a fetus is a human, thereby granting rights to that individual, violating the charter? Clearly, you're being dishonest, which is not surprising, given you're a Liberal Party hack.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Voting one's conscience should not apply when it is on a question that could, itself, violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Parliament of Canada has a duty not only to do what is popular with the electorate, but to do what is demanded of them by our constitution, unless and until it has been amended according to law.

I'm neither pro-life or choice, but the above statement kills me.

So democracy is trumped by popularity? What a load of Bullsh!t.

So if it becomes popular to harvest human fetus's and sell their body parts on the market then the house should vote for that law?

This is what left wingers were b!tching about when the previous government held power.

Should we now mobilize a Stop Trudeau Movement?

 

[gerryh]

Voting one's conscience should not apply when it is on a question that could, itself, violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Parliament of Canada has a duty not only to do what is popular with the electorate, but to do what is demanded of them by our constitution, unless and until it has been amended according to law.

and how the hell can an MP change the law, when he is not allowed to vote the way he wants to vote? You have now basically said that abortion is legal because there is no law against, MP's MUST vote along party lines on this issue, Which means, they CAN'T change the law.


No matter which way I try to wrap my head around this, it comes out as convoluted logic.


Another thing, one of the cornerstones of "THE LEFT" has been not voting based on crowed popularity. THAT has been a "right" thing. We have always voted on what was right. Even if that went against what the majority wanted. Tyranny of the majority is not a left thing.


One more thing, abortion has never been about a woman's right to control her body. It's always been about a woman's right to convenience.

 

[FiveParadox]

I'm neither pro-life or choice, but the above statement kills me.

So democracy is trumped by popularity? What a load of Bullsh!t.

So if it becomes popular to harvest human fetus's and sell their body parts on the market then the house should vote for that law?

This is what left wingers were b!tching about when the previous government held power.

Should we now mobilize a Stop Trudeau Movement?

I think you misread what I wrote.

 

[gerryh]

I think you misread what I wrote.

No, he didn't.

 

[Cannuck]

I think you misread what I wrote.

Stop being dishonest.

 

[FiveParadox]

Let me rephrase, then. I meant to say that it is more important for a Parliament to do what it is constitutionally bound to do, than it is for it to do what is popular. The Government and our legislators are the closest thing that Canada has to fiduciaries.

 

[Cannuck]

Let me rephrase, then. I meant to say that it is more important for a Parliament to do what it is constitutionally bound to do, than it is for it to do what is popular. The Government and our legislators are the closest thing that Canada has to fiduciaries.

The government is not constitutionally bound to prevent personhood being established for fetuses? Maybe you aren't dishonest. Perhaps you just lack a basic understanding of government.

 

[davesmom]

Let me rephrase, then. I meant to say that it is more important for a Parliament to do what it is constitutionally bound to do, than it is for it to do what is popular. The Government and our legislators are the closest thing that Canada has to fiduciaries.

Democracy means 'rule by majority'. If the Constitution does not support the will of the majority, then let's stop being hypocrits and calling Canada a democracy.
An MP has no business voting either Party line or his own conscience. An MP is supposed to represent his constituents. He gets one vote the same as every other Canadian voter. If the majority of his constituents want him to vote yes or no, he has the right to add his own vote and then he should by rights vote as the majority wished him to do. If he doesn't, then he is not representing, he is controlling.

 

[gerryh]

Let me rephrase, then. I meant to say that it is more important for a Parliament to do what it is constitutionally bound to do, than it is for it to do what is popular. The Government and our legislators are the closest thing that Canada has to fiduciaries.

That is right, and at this time, protecting babies invitro rights is not as popular as protecting the rights of a woman to not be inconvenienced by a pregnancy. What our government is doing by not addressing this is, is allowing helpless babies be killed because they are an inconvenience.

Democracy means 'rule by majority'. If the Constitution does not support the will of the majority, then let's stop being hypocrits and calling Canada a democracy.
An MP has no business voting either Party line or his own conscience. An MP is supposed to represent his constituents. He gets one vote the same as every other Canadian voter. If the majority of his constituents want him to vote yes or no, he has the right to add his own vote and then he should by rights vote as the majority wished him to do. If he doesn't, then he is not representing, he is controlling.

and if the majority voted to remove the vote from women and relegate them to the kitchen under her husband's dominance, then you would be just fine with that?

 

[davesmom]

and if the majority voted to remove the vote from women and relegate them to the kitchen under her husband's dominance, then you would be just fine with that?

Don't be ridiculous! That's a vote that hasn't come up and never will. Even you should know that.
I believe the majority of Canadians are sensible enough to make fair decisions. If the majority vote on something that I don't agree with, I will accept it. What I can't accept is the minority whining and trying the get the law changed once it has been voted on.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I think you misread what I wrote.

I didn't misread anything. It's Koolaid drinking BS. All MP's should be allowed to vote their conscience whether it is law or not.

This was a gripe by the anti-Harperites from the beginning.

 

[gerryh]

Don't be ridiculous! That's a vote that hasn't come up and never will. Even you should know that.
I believe the majority of Canadians are sensible enough to make fair decisions. If the majority vote on something that I don't agree with, I will accept it. What I can't accept is the minority whining and trying the get the law changed once it has been voted on.

Hmmmm.... strange. When unrestricted abortion was "illegal", I remember hearing the minority whining about it.

When women didn't have the right to vote, it was the "minority" that started "whining" about it to get it changed. Seems like you advocate that once a law is in place, then that's the end of it.

 

[B00Mer]

 

[davesmom]

Hmmmm.... strange. When unrestricted abortion was "illegal", I remember hearing the minority whining about it.

When women didn't have the right to vote, it was the "minority" that started "whining" about it to get it changed. Seems like you advocate that once a law is in place, then that's the end of it.

Women were a minority? I don't think so. And when they started to speak up there were enough men on their side to make a large majority. And women didn't 'whine about it'; they went to work and did something about it.

On controversial issues like abortion there will never be agreement. So what's they use of revisiting the issue over and over? What right has either side to force their beliefs on everyone else? When abortion is legal it doesn't force those who are against it to have abortions. When it is illegal, young women die at the hands of butchers.

 

[gerryh]

On controversial issues like abortion there will never be agreement. So what's they use of revisiting the issue over and over? What right has either side to force their beliefs on everyone else? When abortion is legal it doesn't force those who are against it to have abortions. When it is illegal, young women die at the hands of butchers.

If young women died at the hands of butchers, that would have been their choice. No one forced them to go to said "butcher".


The only thing that has happened since the SC struck down the abortion laws is that it has allowed people to avoid their responsibilities. Allowed them to kill someone else for what they had done.