Time Immortal

It’s hardly enough, but any law which recognizes that the unborn are living, human beings worthy of some manner of protection from harm is a good thing. And with the Liberals paralyzed for fear of triggering an election, and the NDP and Bloc Quebecois to weakened at the moment to present serious opposition to the bill, now is the perfect time for the Conservative government to be passing it.

A controversial federal justice bill that would make it a separate crime if a fetus dies when its mother is attacked passed through the second stage of proceedings in Parliament on Wednesday.

But MPs opposed to the bill — who say it’s a back-door attempt to attack abortion rights — say they will try to make sure the bill never makes it out of committee.

“I think the NDP, the Bloc and about half the Liberals will mobilize at committee stage to try and nip this in the bud,” said New Democrat MP Pat Martin.

The Unborn Victims of Crime Act passed second reading Wednesday evening by seven votes, splitting support among the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP.

Martin and other critics — including pro-choice groups — fear that, by giving the fetus a right through this legislation, it opens the door for anti-abortion groups to go back to court and argue against abortion.

I like how the newspaper reporter didn’t bother to seek out the opinion of pro-life groups or supporters of the bill, preferring to stay safely on the pro-choice side of the issue and only quoting those who oppose the bill. Media bias aside, though, there’s good news here.

It’s beyond all reasonable debate that the fetus is human, and that it is alive, and that it is a unique being set apart from either of its parents; it is, genetically speaking, different from both the mother and the father. Observations of that nature tend to do away with most of the pro-abortion arguments one tends to encounter, including the notion that the only issue is a woman’s right to “control her own body” (because it’s not just her body, is it?).

Indeed, the only recourse that the pro-abortion lobby has, in the face of the facts, is to argue that the unborn are not “persons” under the law, and to oppose any and all attempts to grant them some or all of the rights enjoyed by those who, under the law, are considered “persons.” If that sort of reasoning sounds familiar, it ought to — notions of personhood have been used to justify the bigotry and murderous excesses of many a dictator, and even a few racist groups, throughout history. Marching in lockstep with the notion of personhood is the notion of “wantedness,” and the suggestion that it is legal and morally acceptable to kill those unborn children which are not “wanted” by the mother. Apparently, though, that reasoning is only valid up until the moment of the child being born — if the mother should decide a couple of years later that she no longer “wants” the child, she’s out of luck.

Not that one could ever accuse the pro-choice side of having the most consistent arguments, logically speaking.

And yet, the plain fact of the matter is that if someone does kill a pregnant woman, two lives are ended; if a pregnant woman is attacked and loses her baby, a human being has still died. Any reasonable person ought to be able to see that in that circumstance, a punishable offence has occurred, and that Canadian law should include provisions to prosecute those who commit such crimes. If nothing else, this bill — Bill C-484 is its technical name — is a breath of fresh air and fresh thinking from a government that, two years on, continues to impress.

And it should pass, not only because it will throw pro-choicers everywhere into hysterics, but because it reflects a biological reality.

MP Dan McTeague has given his support to Dr. Keith Martin’s Bill M-446.

Way to go, Mr. McTeague — thank you for standing up in support of this important human rights issue!

Now, if only a couple of Conservative MPs would follow suit…

It would appear that the Conservative Party’s current proposed text of Bill C-10, alterations to tax law that would also see the guidelines for which Canadian productions will or will not be granted federal funding, is in fact almost exactly the same as a proposed amendment to the same act put forth by the Liberal Party in 2003.

Strangely, there were no warnings of “chill winds” back then, and no fears of “censorship.” But I guess that was when the Liberals were in power, wasn’t it? Now that et. al. are in power, the very same words have a vastly different meaning, and I expect we’re only a few more steps away from becoming a theocracy.

Pffft…yeah, right. Progressives are such a twitchy lot, aren’t they?

Erf writes in with a request for a bit more information about the Facebook group I mention in this article.

Since at least some of your readers (such as myself) aren’t on Facebook and therefore can’t look at the group you linked to, would you mind telling us a little more about them? It sounds like there’s a group of people who oppose government Censorship and are trying to stop such a censorship bill from passing. (I’ve heard about this bill, and it’s pretty bad news for small filmmakers.) What about the group has convinced you that (a) they’re liberals, (b) they’re whiny, and (c) they’d still support stuff like the HRCs? The last in particular sounds like quite a jump. if a bunch of liberals are supporting freedom of speech, I thought you’d be pleased.

While I am generally happy to see people standing up for freedom of expression, I utterly despise people who pick and choose which freedoms of expression to stand up for — on the subject of fundamental human rights, I’m very much “all or nothing” and cannot stand to see a person at one moment advocating for his or her right to speek freely, while in the next breath advocating for some manner of restriction on another person’s right to do same.

And I do happen to think this group, unfortunately, is comprised mostly of people who act in that exact way. I joined the group for all of five minutes and asked, on the group’s “Wall” (sort of an open chatbox concept) whether anyone who opposed Bill C-10 likewise supported MP Dr. Keith Martin’s Bill M-446, which would see subsection 13(1) removed from the Canadian Human Rights Act, ending the particular form of government censorship that we call the human rights commissions.

I’ve left the group already, but I keep checking back on it from time to time. As yet, I’ve yet to receive a reply to my question.

But let’s take Erf’s questions in order, O Reader.

First, why do I suspect that the group is comprised of liberals? Well, apart from the fact that it was founded by a political science professor, and aside from the fact that all of the people on my friends list who have joined are of a liberal political bent, I have no concrete evidence. But gut feeling and experience suggest to me that if one did a survey of the group’s membership, the predominant majority would be of a left-wing bent (especially if the trends I have seen among the people on my own friends list can be taken as any kind of indicator).

Second, why do I classify the group as whiny? Well, let’s begin by taking a look at the group’s “charter”:

http://ualberta.facebook.com/profile.php?id=120403672

WHAT THIS GROUP IS FOR:

This group is for people who are *opposed* to the provisions in Bill C-10 relating to tax credits for film and TV production, and who want to work together fight the Bill. Purposes of this group include:

* Supporting one another in writing letters of protest about Bill C-10 (see info below).

* Organizing demonstrations and other forms of action to oppose the Bill (see Discussion Board).

* Keeping track of the progress of Bill C-10 through the legislative process, so that our activism can be well directed.

WHAT THIS IS GROUP NOT FOR:

This group is not for arguments against public funding of the arts in Canada. It is not for bashing people who oppose Bill C-10. It is not for talking about other issues that people should be concerned about instead of Bill C-10. If you are not sure whether this is the group for you, please see the Terms of Use below.

We don’t want to constrain others’ speech; we just want to be able to use this group to plan political action against C-10, and don’t want to get sidetracked. We’ve created another group if you want to discuss whether C-10 is a good idea, whether the arts in Canada should be funded at all, etc. This group is called “What’s so bad about Bill C-10?” and is at http://facebook.com/group.php?gid=8184619495

WHAT IS BILL C-10?

Bill C-10 is a long, omnibus bill of technical changes to tax laws; but hidden away in there is a provision that would allow the Heritage Minister to withhold tax credits if a production was considered ‘contrary to public policy’. We are opposed to this legislation because:

* IT IS UNDEMOCRATIC: This controversial new provision to screen the content of productions in awarding tax credits was never debated in the House of Commons, because it was hidden away in a long, technical piece of legislation.

* IT WILL HAVE EXTREMELY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE WHOLE CANADIAN FILM AND TV INDUSTRY: Films and TV programs apply for tax credits late in the game, after scripts have been written and principal photography completed. They use the predictability of tax credits to apply for federal subsidies, loans, and Telefilm Canada grants. With the proposed new guidelines, films and TV programs with even a whiff of controversy will become risky for funders, and artists will be under strong pressure to self-censor. Indeed, all productions will find it more difficult to secure financing due to this uncertainty. See these discussions for details: http://facebook.com/topic.php?uid=9036150977&topic=4369 and http://ualberta.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=9036150977&topic=4388

* IT FEELS LIKE A COVERT ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE A RIGHT-WING CULTURAL AGENDA ON CANADIAN FILM AND TV: The Tories’ evangelical base is celebrating the new legislation as a victory: the Globe and Mail reports that “Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, said his lobbying efforts included discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, and ‘numerous’ meetings with officials in the Prime Minister’s Office. ‘We’re thankful that someone’s finally listening,’ he said yesterday. ‘It’s fitting with conservative values, and I think that’s why Canadians voted for a Conservative government.’ ‘There are a number of Conservative backbench members that do a lot of this work behind the scenes,’ he said.”

See Items Posted for links to news stories that will tell you much more about the Bill.

Incidentally, the last point above might also support my theory that the group is predominantly liberal in its outlook. Notice, O Reader, how willing the group is to denigrate Bill C-10 as a method of imposing a “right-wing cultural agenda” — “right-wing” being a negative thing here (and the implication thus being that “left-wing” is preferable).

But let’s unpack the first two claims made about Bill C-10.

First, is it undemocratic? Well, no…it’s not being imposed by a judge, after all (which would truly be undemocratic, since judges are unelected). Instead, it is a bill which must pass through multiple votes in the (elected) Legislative Assembly of Canada — the same Legislative Assembly that was democratically elected by the people of Canada. And even if the bill passes, future governments always have the option to strip out the amendments made in it. There is nothing undemocratic about this bill.

Second, will it have negative effects? Reading through the charter above, one gets the strong sense that the founder of the group feels that Canadian filmmakers are entitled to government funding, but that the government has no business saying what content it feels comfortable funding in Canadian films. That’s a bit of a double standard, methinks. But really, is that not the government’s right? If the government is going to be expected to fork over dollars for the development of television programs and films that do not have enough private funding on their own, shouldn’t the government be able to say whether or not it feels that a television program or film is something it would be comfortable to support? Canadian citizens have that right — we cannot be compelled to hand over money to causes we do not support (I will note that federal funding of abortion is one exception to that statement), nor can we be compelled to pay money to see a movie we would rather not see. That’s one of the cornerstone principles of a free and democratic society: that the people can choose what to support, and what not to support, based on an individual set of criteria.

Why shouldn’t the government of a free and democratic nation have the same right?

I’ve read through the discussions taking place in this Facebook group, and most of them seem to devolve into condemnations of conservative politics and religious belief. One would think, reading some of the comments, that Canada is only a couple of days away from becoming a formal theocracy, and then a fascistic one.

But when I read the actual text of the bill itself, all I see is the government saying that it won’t automatically support all television programs or films produced in Canada, that it would rather not support a Canadian-produced movie like Young Teens F***ing (you think I’m making that up, don’t you?).

These complaints are based on sensationalism and deliberate distortion of the facts. They are, in a word, whiny, and much more than that as well.

Now, in response to Erf’s third question, why I think the group would nevertheless support Section 13 being kept in the CHRA…well, I do seem to have already answered that, and I am still waiting on a reply to my question about Dr. Keith Martin and Bill M-446. But it one takes a stroll through the many and various liberal-minded Canadian blogs out there, one tends to note that in many corners, the response to Bill M-446 is extremely negative, even (and perhaps especially) on blogs that oppose Bill C-10. I would find it difficult to believe that the membership of this group thinks differently about the issue.

I would bet good money that pretty much every member of this Facebook group (”Keep your censoring hands off of Canadian film and TV! No to Bill C-10!”) would nevertheless support keeping subSection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) intact, and would condemn Liberal Party MP Dr. Keith Martin as an associate and abettor of hatemongers and Nazis.

In other words, another pack of whiny little liberals who have the physiological appearance of being all grown up, but who have the capability for rational thought of elementary-level schoolchildren.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

After threatening to force an election over the federal budget, Stephane Dion’s Liberal Party decided today that the Opposition would not actually try and defeat the government on the issue.

See, the problem with making threats is…well, really, one should never really make threats. If one is going to imply that a certain action will have a certain consequence, one had better be ready to administer the consequence specified if the action is taken; to do otherwise, to back down in the heat of the moment, is nothing short of a failure, and communicates both a lack of resolve and an inability to stick to one’s professed principles.

The Liberal Party doesn’t want an election right now; I get that. It makes sense, given that the Liberals are currently polling somewhere in the vicinity of 10% less than the Conservatives in terms of national approval at present. But if that is in fact the case, the last thing that will work to the Liberal Party’s advantage is meaningless bluster by its leader. People will look at the Liberal threat to force an election, and then will look at the way that the Liberals backed down from the threat when the budget was tabled, and will see a party with a lack of resolve and poor commitment to its principles. And all the talk about this budget being a “watered down Liberal budget” does little to deflect that image — it’s like the scrawny kid calling out “yeah, you’d better be afraid!” to the bully whilst standing in the shadow of the teacher that has just shown up on the scene.

I interviewed Keith Martin again today. He said support within the Liberal caucus for his motion is “huge.”

Stephane Dion has not talked to him about it, or asked him to withdraw it. Only a couple of Liberal members raised concerns, but no one has asked him to remove the motion.

“There is enormous support within caucus and across party lines,” he said.

Stay tuned.

P.S. Check the Dion link, because the one time he is on the record talking about the Martin motion, he is not in favor.

Good to hear.