This didn’t take long. Elizabeth May gets a taste of the left’s famed appreciation for nuance;
As you know I was very supportive of your running as leader of the Green Party and despite my differences with some of the platform of the Party I have up until now felt that your presence added a great deal to the federal political scene. But now you have questioned the most important victory of the women’s movement of my generation.
If you had said that you personally oppose abortion but you support a woman’s right to choose, I would have been fine with that. Instead you said that a woman’s right to choose, something tens of thousands of Canadian women fought for for decades, was trivializing an important issue. It felt like a slap in the face.
Since you have so little respect for me or for the women’s movement which mobilized for so long to win this hard-earned right, I hope you will understand that I ripped up the cheque I had written to the Green Party and you can no longer rely on me for support.
There is no middle ground on the abortion issue as you are no doubt finding out. The organized opposition to abortion in this country as in the United States does not care if women die. Of course, there are many people who are opposed to abortion for religious reasons but here I am talking about the anti-choice activists.
More at Big Blue Wave
Dec.22 Update – May responds. I don’t think she’ll be getting that cheque. The usual suspects lose their ever-tolerant minds over “the yucky theology”.
Notice the wording, “a woman’s right to choose, something tens of thousands of Canadian women fought for for decades”. Rights are not something that one “fights for”; they are intrinsic. A woman either has a “right” to abort her child or she does not. If it is an intrinsic right, then one must ask where this right comes from. Apart from God, the giver of life and the one who embued humanity with his image and therefore dignity, there are no “rights”.
So, it must be asked, is a woman’s right to abort a gift from God?
Judy, Judy, Judy, as if your opinions actually matter in the real world.
I do like the part where after condeming Ms May to a life without a Judy endorsment, she says “Best wishes for a good holiday”. Priceless.
I think the greens can consider this an early Christmas gift
Just more evidence that the Left isn’t about tolerance, freedom of speech, respect for “diversity” (of opinion anyway) or any of the other things they love to speechify upon.
In fact, if you really want to know who they are just look at what they accuse conservatives and particularly the “Religious Right” (their term).
Intolerant, rigid, humourless and unthinking, willing to say or do pretty much anything if it forwards The Cause, and happy to cut anyone loose that doesn’t toe the mark. That’d be the Lefties.
I’d have added dogmatic, but the dogma changes so often its hard to tell.
Merry frickin’ Christmas, and they’ll be very merry no doubt.
One of the links posted at BBW was to a site called “dykesagainstharper”.
Call me crazy but, to me, the obvious question should be, “Why would dykes be wading into the abortion issue?”
The left is only tolerant of that which coincides with their POV.
Rob R, you are crazy. (you asked) Moonies, whether they be dykes, tree huggers or just plain dippers, are experts on everything. Just ask them. If you really want to get depressed go over to rabble babble and see what they are talking about. I was just reading a thread about the canadian Wheat board. With one exception, and he was being trashed, none of the commentors had ever seen wheat unless it was in their bread but it didn’t stop them from espousing the doom and gloom of corporate takeover of farms if farmers out west actually sold their own wheat. The fact that Ontario farmers didn’t have to go through the board didn’t matter because ” they only produce 12% of the total production”. Other opinions had no idea of what was happening at all.
Here at SDA, even if everyone did not agree, most of the discussion was based on facts and actual experiences of the people who sow the land.
Bonus: Rebick and May are both American citizens! I propose the following headine: “Yank Skank Breaks Rank, Greens Tank”
Good one, Phantom. Intolerance is what people like Judy Rebick, SOW, and the majority of activists do best.
I’ve watched Judy’s TV show a few times, and her rudeness,and conviction that she is always right, made me change the channel. Compared to Rebick, the twits on “The View” are almost enlightened and reasonable.
If I was a political candidate, and Judy Rebick, endorsed me, I’d retreat to a monastery for the rest of my life, to contemplate where I’d gone so terribly wrong.
Rob,
I would have thought you would have learned a long time ago that ones sexual preference is to have nothing to do with your right to self actualize through child raising, childbirth or abortion. There are no boundries, biological or otherwise to ensuring that everyone can be what they want, or what they THINK they want, I changed my mind.
May’s poisition was interesting. That position alone is enough to ensure she is in the debate in the next election. I think Dion’s head will explode.
Most Canadians dont realize there is no law, that theoretically a woman can abort the moment before birth, not that I think you’ll find a Doctor willing to do that. I dont think thats what most Canadians want, but you cannot impose any limit legally without raising an incredible s**tstorm.
Yet another thing Parliament remaisn silent on, since the law was struck down and nothing replaced it. I still dont see why the intolerable end point needs to be defended and celebrated.
As May said, I cant see anybody being pro abortion, as in people SHOULD get abortions, but the choice discussion is worth having. I know there are others who are for banning it, not my position, but I do believe there needs to be a limit.
As for Judy “Redbrick”. Well, looks like the sistahood wont hold up and she would rather vote for a man.
Just to be clear, the opening para was very tongue in cheek.
Final line, May clearly isnt enough of a woman for Judy….and her opinion doesnt count.
So from what I just read its OK to murder unborn babies?
I’ll go for that if it can be retroactive. Until it is, I will continue to defend the defenceless.
A greenie ripped up a cheque!
For the Love of David Suzuki, living tree’s gave up their souls for that paper.
NOOOOOOoooooooo!!
Stephen:” I cant see anybody being pro abortion, as in people SHOULD get abortions…”
What a season this would be if abortion was enforced on Mary. Pro-choice is a slippery slope just like gay marriage leading ultimately to societal death.
When I first read your comment, Stephen, my first response was “how is a pro abortion stand equating to enforcing abortions on others”? The answer is that enforced abortions haven’t happened yet, BUT IT WILL…if we give the Liberal’s another chance at melting away our individual rights. It’s the end of a logical progression towards the societal death the left is pushing us towards. Like a moth to the flame…
The way out of this death spiral is to douse the flame. We must recognize the rights of the defenseless unborn and strengthen society’s basic building block: the traditional family unit. You were an unborn child once, Stephen. So was Jesus.
“trees”
sorry, the emotion
Yeaas indeed….the moonbat fringe has rejected the Green platform because they won’t play sexual politics with the dipper’s dyke junta…a harbinger of the greens entry into mainstream politics…interesting.
In fact, there have been reports of forced abortions coming from China and other places where human rights are less important than community goals.
And though it’s not really the same, many abortions are virtually forced by parents or lovers on reluctant women.
Moreover, I’ve met people in Canada and the US who believe that handicapped babies or the children of the poor *ought* to be aborted. Social pressure can and does create a climate in which abortion seems like the preferable option.
That’s why framing the debate as a “right to choose” has been so problematic. Its logic completely overlooks the social pressures that may compel a choice.
Richard, is a woman’s right to vote intrinsic? Did women fight for it, or was it a gift from God?
Martin, your reasoning is impeccable.
Well conservatives have more children…but some professor said, as long as they control the universites then they’ll be able to change their minds…..I forget which one.
Anyway, the political angle is interesting…will Belinda be in your face with Ms May saying “yes or no Elizabeth, yes or no?” like she did with Rona Ambrose.
I really, really want that to happen, because I just think the optics change dramastically when you have a non CPC woman saying the no law environment is something we should think about.
As I said, Dion’s head will explode.
If there was any justice in the world one of those Sunday talk shows would get the three of them on and an interesting female Dipper, to
discuss this very topic, including a replay of Belinda’s interesting push on Rona in the election.
It would be even better if it was a surprise to all of them. That would be worthwhile television. My bet, Belinda either melts down or turns into
Damn I wish I kept pursuing that TV journalism career……
The abortion debate is a polarizing one, to extremes on both ends. I happen to be on the con side, particularly after the 1st trimester. But then as W. Kinsella says in his blog today,(Post refused to publish) I am a trogdolyte because I read Kates blog, as it turned out to be very popular. I do detest Ont. McGuinty funding ambulance air to fly abortion clients to U.S. for partial birth abortions as no Ont. physician will perform.
Little do they know. Every day I write a cheque in high six figures to a prominent feminist organization, and then I rip it up.
“Notice the wording, “a woman’s right to choose, something tens of thousands of Canadian women fought for for decades”. Rights are not something that one “fights for”; they are intrinsic.”
Excuse me??? How about you ask an 19th century “African American” about “intrinsic rights”. Or maybe a modern day Somali, Rwandan, North Korean, or an Iranian or Saudi Christian or Jew. See what they have to say about your comment.
” An Interesting Female Dipper “……?
Oh you mean like Sharon Gregson!
Dammit Kate! WARN us beforehand that you’re sending us to rabble.ca. Now I have to un-stupid myself from just visiting that site.
“WARNING: The linked site contains inane comment, irrationality, baseless fearmongering, a complete lack of common sense, and in inbred hatred of all things successful. Click at risk to your IQ.”
Martin: “how is a pro abortion stand equating to enforcing abortions on others”? Well, the baby didn’t make the choice, so the choice is being forced upon it.
Bonus: Rebick and May are both American citizens! I propose the following headine: “Yank Skank Breaks Rank, Greens Tank”
Bob, go to your room.
” An Interesting Female Dipper “……?
Oh you mean like Sharon Gregson!
OMMAG…Right on.
Pat
Doesn’t China have a one child policy, enforced by mandatory abortion. This has led to a shortage of babies for adoption to foreigners. Where is the outrage that no longer can single, obese, gay people adopt a child in China. What if those were the rules for adoption in Canada.
“It felt like a slap in the face.”
A slap in the face is not nice but it’s better than a needle in the head.
“For the Love of David Suzuki, living tree’s gave up their souls for that paper.”
Richfisher, that check might have been printed on paper made from hemp. Or manure.
Dykes, No Tykes, Yikes!
What is Judy going to do about all the aborted trees in stanley park. Will the envirowackos finally allow dead tree to be aborted like they do kids.
There isn’t much middle ground between “a woman’s right to choose” and “it’s genocide” (although granted the later is largely hyperbole).
“Intolerant, rigid, humourless and unthinking,…”
We’re trying to be as tolerant and as accepting of diversity of you guys but it’s a tough act to follow.
C’mon Jose, do people really use the term “genocide”? THAT is certainly the wrong term, IMHO. A more correct term would be “homicide” or “infanticide”.
The baby (or fetus) IS alive (’cause it ain’t dead) and it IS human (’cause it ain’t a potted plant) and someone is knowingly and purposefully and with malice aforethought ending the life of the fetus.
But I’m practical. There is an age (somewhere between 3-5 months, I believe) at which a fetus can survive outside the womb…at the very least (for pity’s sake!) only allow abortion’s to occur for the first 3-5 months when the fetus is not “viable” outside of the womb. After that, if the child-bearing female (I won’t call her a “mother”) can’t make up her mind about her choice, then the right of choice should be revoked and the supplanted by the viable fetus’ right to life.
I would MUCH rather abolish abortion altogether (since you are murdering a helpless little baby, you heartless monster! And all because you didn’t want to have your lover use a condom), but I am willing to compromise and respect a woman’s right to choose…as long as the woman respects a fetus’ right to life once it reaches a “viable age”.
To me, that seems perfectly logical.
And for those who would discount that on the basis of putting a timeline on a “right”, I say that you have only about 9 months anyway to make your choice before the courts WOULD view it as homicide.
Eeyore is a donkey if I remember correctly, an ass. But since you are “willing to compromise” so am I, a timeline law is needed in this country. But never ever assume all women who abort their babies do so because they “choose” to. Maybe, just maybe there are extenuating circumstances…death to baby and/or mother, medical reasons, what if there are children who depend on their mom…who are living and healthy.
Try to look at all sides of an issue donkey, before you go spouting off.
I cannot find in all corners and quarter, individuals closer to being totally innocent and totally defenceless than unborn babies.
jeezuz jeezuz jeezuz, aborting little ones because they ‘might’ be carrying a genetic defect (hint: we ALL do !!!)? oh, poke a neddle into the womb to check; then risk damage to the unborn thus CAUSING a life long handicap you are checking for.
solution? let the kid develop and be born then check for the defect. if they are clear they live, if not, away with them to the tissue disposal !!
ah, too ghastly you say? why ? why exactly ? a couple days for the test results to come back from the lab with a crystal clear verdict? whats so bad about that?
ah, the instinctive revulsion at the thought of killing.
well THAT is precisely what abortion is; choosing who dies.
on the other hand, fetuses are capable or remarkable stuff: growing limbs, breathing underwater.
ah, the instinctive revulsion of killing, unless it’s you….or you die.
Like I said over at big blue wave: Judy Rebick and her opinions are IRRELEVANT.
Next.
I apologize for my sloppy post, which others have correctly criticized.
You can fight for something because it is an intrinsic right (such as the right to life) or you can fight to have something declared a right by a judge — there’s a difference.
The fight for abortion was the latter. If abortion is a “right”, then others are obligated to provide it. This means that others are not free, but are in servitude to your right to an abortion. This violates their rights to freedom and equality. And, of course, the unborn child’s rights are absolutely violated by abortion.
“But never ever assume all women who abort their babies do so because they “choose” to.”
Which is exactly why you’d rather have the state decide the issue for them instead. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery.
According to the writers of Freakenomics – the statistical reason why there’s been a large decline in violent crime in the US is because of abortion. Abortion of poor, ghettoized black and hispanic babies.
The clever left have found a proven and effective way to end violent crime. Deal with the ‘root’ cause through genocide.
“C’mon Jose, do people really use the term “genocide”? ”
Jose: Well, what do you know…I guess they do use that term. I don’t get it.
Kelly: I would LOVE to see some unvarnished statistics on how many abortions MUST be performed to save the life of the mother. I can’t imagine that it would be any more than 1-2%. So, when I state a position that encapsulates 98% of the cases, I think that I’ve represented the situation well enough. However, in fairness, I would agree with you…in those 1-2% of cases where the mother may die if she went full-term, then I would support abortion beyond the 3-5 month period.
But you’ll notice that they don’t say “the life of the mother is in jeopardy”, they say “the health” or the “well-being”…which can be made to be anything. If the “mother” were to feel sad if she went full-term, that would mean that her “well-being was in jeopardy” and the murderers, er-r-r, I mean abortionists, would argue for an abortion.
And finally, I’ll call BS on your bit about women not have a choice in aborting their fetuses…of course they have a choice…its just a terribly difficult one. No one forces them to abort…that’s ridiculous.
It just shows why it is a wise choice for the Greens to cut ties to the hard left. Any votes they lose over this will not be missed.
Have you ever heard the term WATERMELLON ENVIROMENTALISTS? Thats becase their GREEN ON OUTSIDE and RED ON THE INSIDE
Kate:
Don’t be too broad-brush about “the Left.” We haven’t all joined the May pile-on. One can be pro-choice while personally anti-abortion. I don’t have much time for May’s stale metaphysical maunderings, but she has a right to them. The point is, though, that she doesn’t want to re-criminalize abortion, and indeed supports improved access to it. That’s the pro-choice position, in a nutshell.
(Of course, for expressing this thought, I’ve come in for a bit of criticism myself over at Babble and EnMasse. I’m now officially a fraud, a poser, a red-baiter, anti-choice, and a young member of the old boy’s club. To which I can only respond that I’m no longer young.)
The problem with every good idea is that there are inevitably whackjobs on the fringes of it, and their whackjobbedness becomes a convenient excuse for dismissing the idea itself. Let’s try to distinguish good and thoughtful feminist commentary from screechy gender Stalinism. There’s a lot more of the former than the latter. Anyone can find silly people on any side of an argument, as some of the comments here demonstrate perfectly.
One last point: I don’t cast Judy Rebick in that light. She is highly articulate and thoughtful. I give her top marks for helping to get us out of the Charlottetown mess, not to mention for numerous other campaigns, books and articles. I liked the article she co-wrote with Walter Robinson on electoral reform, an article that kick-started the current movement for proportional representation.
I have no idea why she rushed into print on this one without at least talking to Elizabeth first. It will be difficult for her to climb down after May’s response, but I hope she does.