Lingering stench from the ‘Odour of Canada’ fiasco
Great letters in today’s National Post about Morgentaler’s appointment to the Order of Canada, including one from our own Dr. Roy.
Please check them out.
This one by Michael Bliss is especially worth the read:
As a Member of the Order of Canada, I am deeply saddened by the way that our honours system is apparently being debased and cheapened by appointments such as the Henry Morgentaler one. Those of us who occasionally nominate worthy people for consideration for the Order have been told repeatedly that if they have been considered and rejected on an earlier occasion, the files are not normally reopened. I cannot understand why the Morgentaler file was apparently reopened on several occasions.
If the Order of Canada’s advisory committee, meeting behind closed doors, continues to make divisive, apparently political recommendations, it will undermine the integrity of the Order and further discourage those of us who tried to help make the system work. I am particularly distressed that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is involved in a process the trustworthiness of which many of us now question.
And this is where the title of this post came from.
* * * *
Update: Check this out!!! Ethicist expresses empathy - Ottawa citizen:
…Dr. Morgentaler’s appointment to the order "is being trumpeted by those who agree with him" as proof that abortion is something that Canadians want to honour, Ms. Somerville said. "Obviously, people would feel the same thing about me in relation to my opposition to same-sex marriage, so it’s sort of a weird situation."
Ms. Somerville is not a member of the Order of Canada. A nomination submitted a few years ago by Anglican minister and preaching professor Carol Finlay was unsuccessful. Ms. Finlay was told it was because Ms. Somerville was too controversial.
Ms. Finlay, who disagrees with Ms. Somerville on the same-sex marriage issue, said Ms. Somerville deserved the honour because of her commitment to open debate…
…Last July, she was copied on a letter that someone had sent to the Governor General’s office expressing concerns that, if she were ever named a member, "the integrity and greatness of the Order of Canada would be undermined."
So, what do you say now, Raphael?
Kelly McParland: Opposition to Morgentaler’s Order is Wide and Deep and Intense.
From comments at McParland’s post:
by ladylawyer
Jul 03 2008
4:43 PMI am not a church-goer, a Catholic, a fundamentalist, or a woman who opposes women’s rights. In fact, I practice family law in a small town where it is part of my job to enable women, especially immigrants and refugees, to realize the equal rights that Canada’s legal system allows them.
I used to think that having an abortion was a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor, but now I know better. My daughter was born before the end of her second trimester–an age of gestation when abortions are still routine. She is alive today because of wonderful technology and the round the clock care of the ICU doctors and nurses. She is now 29 years old, married, and has an MA in archeology.
Giving the Order of Canada to Morgentaler is an affront. If I had been awarded an Order of Canada, I wouldn’t be able renounce and return it quickly enough.
CTV - Abortion restrictions continue 20 years after ruling. (i.e. nobody wants to do it. I wonder why?)
ProWomanProLife - A callous sort of Canada.
Also please check out Joan Tintor - Bliss: Morgentaler’s OC file was reopened several times.
Saturday Update: Don Cherry for Order of Canada! - Rex Murphy.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Big deal! Why don’t these other Order of Canada “honorees” show some real backbone and tell this committee to take their medal and stick it where the sun don’t shine? Letters to the editor? Give me a break!
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
One did just that this morning. Rev. Lucien Larré, has indicated that he will be returning his order of Canada because Morgentaler’s appointment degrades the award for those who believe in the sanctity of life.
Only one problem……he was convicted of physically abusing children in 1992.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
If it is true, once denied, don’t apply again, then this is definitly a political statement.
The head honch of the SCC has made some very political stmts and judgements. Can she be removed, or impeached. Her and that Louise Arbor are a disgrace to women and women’s rights everywhere.
When does her term end. That is why PMSH needs a majority, so we can appoint judges who care about the law as it is, not what they want it to be.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Only one problem……he was convicted of physically abusing children in 1992.
Just to set the record straight here…
B.C. priest renounces Order of Canada over abortion doctor’s award
VANCOUVER — A B.C. priest says he knew his controversial past would surface when he renounced his Order of Canada over the award being bestowed upon abortion rights doctor Henry Morgentaler.
But Father Lucien Larre says he had to speak out anyway.
The Vancouver-area priest received the award in 1983 for founding the Bosco Centres for emotionally disturbed and addicted adolescents.
He was convicted and later pardoned for assault and administering a noxious substance - convictions he says related to the high-risk youth he worked with.
And Larre candidly talks about sexual abuse allegations that arose against him when he worked in Regina many years ago and says those were false allegations and he was acquitted.
He says he has been haunted by the allegations ever since but that didn’t stop his from speaking out about Morgentaler, who is due to be inducted into the Order of Canada for his work to repeal the country’s abortion laws and make the procedure a matter between a woman and her doctor.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
That is why PMSH needs a majority, so we can appoint judges who care about the law as it is, not what they want it to be.
the law as it is allows for same-sex marriage and abortion. if conservatives seek to change the law of the land, let them say so and openly campaign on the issues.
i dare them.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Jeff please tell us what the abortion law is in Canada. There isn’t one.
And remember, when this whole argument started sale of contraceptives was illegal.
That is not the case today, and abortion is used as a contraceptive, with no information to the woman on possible health hazards.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Yes Jeff. Please do enlighten us. What exactly is the law of the land regarding abortion?
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
The GG can strike his name from the list.
The GG is the Queen’s representative in Canada, and therefore by granting this order to M, the Queen is saying she supports abortion.
Maybe we should write the Queen and express our displeasure with her representative in Canada. Could she fire the GG. Just asking.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Mary T, writing to the GG might be a good first step with a cc to the Queen. Oh, and how about the Chief Justice herself?
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Who is the Governor Generals boss? Who gives her the pay cheque?
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Nice try Jeff…the ladies have got you there pal!
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Who is the Governor Generals boss? Who gives her the pay cheque?
Jean was appointed by Paul Martin. We pay her salary.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
There were a few discussions on the blogosphere WRT this award actually being an attempt by the Libs to put PMSH in a bad spot. After reading this Joanne I am convined the Libs have a so-called hidden agenda( they like that term don’t they?) I can see how it has been divisive amongst CPC supporters. You just know how this will upset Suzanne at Big Blue Wave,and others, understandably so.
However judging by the reaction you have mentioned here, the recipients of the Order who are just now speaking out against the decision will have a much greater influence than pro lifers.
I see this as coming back to bite the 12 who sit on the committee.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Well, Jeffy could be a man and answer the question or run away and hide under a rock. I’m guessing he will go with option B.
If by some reason Jeffy wants option A, I hope he’s smart enough to actually do a little research before posting another stupid comment.
Does anyone remember awhile back Don Cherry was said to be too contreversial for the order of Canada? This guy does tons for charity, including Rose’s house, named after his late wife. He works with youth daily promoting exercise and acting properly. He’s also been a Canadian icon for years. Sure, he says the odd stupid thing, but I think he is far more deserving than Morgentaler.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
If the other side of this argument could just admit that what they are destroying is a potential life of a human being, most of the constravery would go away.
They can’t do that because they would then have to admit they killed a child. They would have trouble living with that (I think they live with it forever). As long as they think they are throwing away a glob, there is no guilt. Just like I have no guilt when I throw out the innards of a turkey I buy.
Then there is the law of the lowest common denominator, if they can convince us they did no wrong and we accept it, they feel vindicated.
Never going to happen, it is wrong.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
What I don’t understand is why the opposition to limiting abortion after say 20 weeks. The fetus is viable around 22-24 weeks. Yet as Barbra Kay says Morgentaler is an extremist he opposes any reasonable limit on abortion.
At this point given the Daigle decision, You can kill a child at 9 months gestation and there is no consequence. the fetus has no rights.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Interesting how chastity seems to be making a comeback.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
What I don’t understand is why the opposition to limiting abortion after say 20 weeks.
You lost me there, Dr. Roy. Do we have an abortion law?
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
The integrity and greatness of the OOC has already been besmirched, and will be in the future. It’s a political sop, of both the left and right, of little importance to ordinary people.
My university once gave an honorary doctorate to Jean Chretien. Despite my disgust, I didn’t give mine back.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Dr. Moebius, I presume?
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
No we have no law. We should at least have a law for the third trimester, which the Regina vs Morgentaler decision said was reasonable!
The Court ruled 5 to 2 that the law violated section 7 and could not be saved under section 1 despite the fact that it was not beyond the authority (ultra vires) of government to create such a law. However, there were three different opinions given by the majority, none having achieved more than two signatures. As such, no Morgentaler precedent is binding.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Jeffy must still be researching for the abortion law.
But, a comment over at Halls, was interesting. Young girls today have no use for the feminist movement or their beliefs and actions. They are having their babies, opting to be a stay at home parent, than climb the ladder. Maybe this will get them out to vote to show their disgust with M and his supporters.
The committee has been besmirched, the chief justice and the GG are all getting bashed pretty good.
If this name had not come up, to embarrass the govt, M could probably lived out his remaining years in quiet obscurity.
But, someone chose to try to divide and conquer, women against Harper. But, I would bet there are more women in Canada that have never had an illegal abortion than have had one. Now, thanks to this, they will have to think, will a vote for Dion or Layton mean I support abortion. Yes it will. Fence sitters will have to jump. With this coming out so far away from an election, it will get lots of discussion and people will have to really think.
Sort of like the shaft, could have sold in a 35 day campaign, but not after months of reviews.
And of course the results of the tax in BC will really have hit people by the fall.
Seems some retailers of gas learned new math or something. When you add 2.4 to get an increase of .10 cents, something is wrong.
Stop the contraversy and admit that a child is being killed, that is all we ask of you. Once you admit that, your views on abortion will change.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:34 pm
MaryT - “When does her term end. That is why PMSH needs a majority, so we can appoint judges who care about the law as it is, not what they want it to be.”
Jeff -”the law as it is allows for same-sex marriage and abortion. if conservatives seek to change the law of the land, let them say so and openly campaign on the issues.”
MaryT -”Jeff please tell us what the abortion law is in Canada. There isn’t one.”
So I am just a little confused here. First Mary complains the justice is not applying the law “as it is”, and then she points out there is no law against abortion.
Is it possible the complaint is that the SCC threw out the abortion provisions? If so, may I respectfully point out that occured because they were following “the law as it is”.
The Charter IS the law, and as part of our constitution, it is superiour to any Act of Parliament.
Jeff is, of course, completely correct when he says the law as is allows for abortion.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
double speak again from Gayle. I ask her to show us where in the constitution it says abortion is law, and where in the constitution is says same sex marriage is allowed or accepted. There are many judgements where the supreme court read into the law. It was not there before, so they made the law.
There is no law allowing or disallowing abortion in canada. You can not show me the bill, the vote, the senate hearing etc or when the vote was to allow or
disallow abortion. That is how law are supposed to be made in Canada. At one time we had a respectful SSC, until Trudeaus Charter of Rights. That was when the SSC decided to read into the law a lot of rights that were never intended to be there.
And there was a time when liberals shouted loud and clear that no way, under a liberal govt would abortion be allowed in Canada. Unless liberals shredded them there have to be copies of letters sent to numerous org. religious and non religious stating that fact, in the files of the Justice Minister. The one I got was dated late 1960s, and signed, in pen by the Liberal Justice Minister of the day. It was not a signature stamp, and it was in gold ink on HofC stationary. Maybe I should find it and sell it on e-bay.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
It is not double speak Mary. The Charter is the law, and that law says each individual in this country is entitled to the protection of their rights.
Judges did not ask for the authority to overturn legislation that violates people’s rights. That authority was imposed upon them when the Charter was entrenched. In other words, it was POLITICIANS who gave them that authority.
If you want to change that, you are going to have to seek the repeal of the Charter. Good luck with that.
As for your questions, there is no need for a law allowing abortion, just like there is no need for a law allowing me to brush my teeth. I think what you mean to say is there is no law outlawing abortion, which is true of course, because the last law that prohibited abortion was contrary to our Charter rights.
Same sex marriage is allowed because to prohibit it discriminates against s. 15.
I am surprised you do not know this.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I think what you mean to say is there is no law outlawing abortion, which is true of course, because the last law that prohibited abortion was contrary to our Charter rights.
But that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be some kind of restriction.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I asked you gayle, where in the charter does it say you can have an abortion or words to that effect. You say the law prohibiting abortion was contrary to our charter rights. What rights in the charter are you talking about.
And quit putting words in my mouth, considering you complain when the table is turned.
Jeff referred to the abortion law, still waiting for an answer.
And the answer is yes, if I could I would abolish the charter of rights and freedoms.
I was against it before it was signed and been against it ever since. You should research some of the comments, articles, columns etc about what passing this piece of crap would lead to, then read how all the libs said never. We have been proven right and again libs were/are wrong.
If the Charter had ever been put to a referendum it would never have passed. It was forced onto us by PET, with the help of the media, of course. The day it was signed the had tv crews in the malls etc. I followed them around, and guess what, all across Canada not one negative comment was shown. I heard 7 people call it a bunch of crap, worst thing to happen to Canada, and my own comment. So, of course I didn’t believe what was shown on the news. Biased, not a bit.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
This is interesting:
…The court did agree that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus, referring to such an interest as a “perfectly valid legislative objective,” and invited parliament to draft another law restricting abortion.
In the Morgentaler ruling, the court did not declare abortion a constitutional right. Only one of the seven Supreme Court Justices who heard the case, Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, wrote in support of a woman’s right to abortion, and then only in the first trimester of pregnancy. Dissenting Justices McIntyre and La Forest JJ. wrote in their opinion, “Save for the provisions of the Criminal Code permitting abortion where the life or health of the woman is at risk, no right of abortion can be found in Canadian law, custom or tradition and the Charter, including s.7, does not create such a right.” [emphasis added]
Furthermore, they stated that “there has always been a clear recognition of a public interest in the protection of the unborn and there is no evidence or indication of general acceptance of the concept of abortion at will in our society. The interpretive approach to the Charter adopted by this court affords no support for the entrenchment of a constitutional right of abortion.”
Chief Justice Dickson reiterated his statement from the 1975 Morgentaler case that Parliament “holds the view that the desire of a woman to be relieved of her pregnancy is not, of itself, justification for performing an abortion…”
So what happened here folks? Somebody dropped the ball.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Joanne, thanks for that. You have just shot gayles comments and facts/theory all to you know where.
So, yes, who dropped the ball. It had to be liberals, they were in power all those years with a majority.
I just had a thought, and posted it on Hunters.
What if, polls are showing women are starting to turn to PMSH and will vote conservative in the next election. This past few days there have been all kinds of comments and articles on how women hate Harper. What if they are wrong, and this award is a last ditch effort to get the womens vote back.
However, those that are diehard abortion believers usually vote ndp. Women and men opposed vote conservative. This just might get those fence sitters to jump on board the Harper ship. Knowing how the media lies and spins, just maybe all their stories re women and Harper are wrong. If the media can spin why can’t we.
]
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 pm
What do the muslim groups think of this? I guess they would just kill their daughters if they had abortions so maybe it doesn’t matter if we kill the next generation before it’s born.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
“I asked you gayle, where in the charter does it say you can have an abortion or words to that effect. You say the law prohibiting abortion was contrary to our charter rights. What rights in the charter are you talking about.”
At what point did I claim the Charter gave the “right” to an abortion? What I said was that the abortion law at the time was thrown out because it violated our rights. The particular right was s. 7 - right to life, liberty and freedom of the person.
So, I suppose if Parliament can come up with an abortion law that does not violate our s. 7 rights, it would pass constitutional muster. I never said otherwise, though I will say that I highly doubt Parliament would be able to do that, nor do I think it is necessary.
I would also point out that I believe the judges did not have to find a constitutional right to abortion because it was not necessary to do so in order to decide this appeal. Should this subject come back before the SCC you may find the Court making that ruling.
“So, yes, who dropped the ball. It had to be liberals, they were in power all those years with a majority.”
Nice try - the decision was in 1988, and I am sure you are aware it was not the LPC in government at that time.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
The court said a new law should be drafted and it never was. And your section says the right to life, doesn’t say only those living, it says the right to life, and a fetus is a living being and therefore has the right to life.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Having just voted in the poll at Bourque, and also at Jasons, I think I am right re internal polls showing support for PMSH growing. At Bs, the question is
has the current session of parliaments made you
lose faith want a new govt 12%
No, best government ever 61%
no never had faith 27%
Will dion be next PM yes 25%
no 75%
another on line poll
will you vote for PMSH yes 58%
no 42%
That 42% will be split 3 ways, not good news for libs.
So, I really believe they are pulling out all the stops to divide and conquer, and this award is the lowest of lows. But hey, they are libs, that is their style.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:51 am
“…and a fetus is a living being and therefore has the right to life.”
Tell that to the SCC, because they did not agree.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Last question for Gayle who has all the answers. How many liberal and how many conservatives were in the senate when Brian M tried to get his new law passed. It passed the house, but ended up tied in the Senate.
So, he tried to bounce the ball, but the senate dropped it. The liberals never even tried, with a majority in both the House and Senate. So, it is the liberals who dropped it.
I did not know that abortion was not covered by inter provincial billing, so I guess some women are paying for it. However, with more and more doctors refusing to preform this, and hospitals not providing them, maybe the problem will solve itself. This fiasco for M might push more docors into saying NO. The law of unintended consequences comes back again to bite the liberals in their rear end.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Are you referring to the bill that passed the House of Commons and then was defeated in the Senate by a tie vote…in 1989…4 years before the LPC took office?
Of course there was plenty of time for the PC’s to introduce a new bill, and since Mulroney stacked the Senate to pass the GST he certainly could have passed a new abortion bill.
The reason he did not do so is because there was very little support for such a bill.
We cannot ban abortion, and we do not need to limit it. The medical profession already places limits on abortions.
But I for one certainly hope Harper introduces such a bill in the House. He does not need to wait for a majority - according to you he is already governing like he has one and he has plenty of support from the electorate. In fact, it seems to me his failure to do so is a slap in the face of his many supporters, like you, who are waiting for him to do something about this.
Write him and demand action.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:54 am
If you had read my post, I did mention it was Brian that got a bill passed in the House and it was tied in the Senate. I asked you what was the count of liberal and conservative senators during that time.
Don’t need to ban it, doctors are refusing to do them. Only 22 clinics all across Canada.
As long as the liberals sit on their hands, yes, PMSH has a majority. And unless the Bloc and NDP support Dion, no matter how often he says I will decide when to have an election, he can’t bring the govt down. And during that 4 yrs did any liberal ever bring forth a private members bill dealing with abortion.
Liberals can’t get off the hook with that one.
Why should I write PMSH when I can see him in person this summer. Maybe I will get another pic with him to go with the one I have. In case your interested, and I know you aren’t, but FYI I have known Steven for years before he became leader. We were on first name basis, but I now call him PM. out of respect.
I am also friendly with landslide annie, deb grey and knew Pam also.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:06 am
I am not a huge contributor to the Federal Party, but just to show you I associate with liberals in high places, I have known Senator Joyce Fairburn from her days as a university student when she was my sister-in-laws roommate. We are still friends and again on first name basis. She has requested I call her Joyce, not Senator.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:10 am
How very nice for you Mary.
So when you have tea with him, will you be asking him to make abortion illegal? I ask because I could not help but notice you avoided that question.
The reason the liberals did not bring legislation forward is because people in Canada do not want it. If you want to prove me wrong, urge Harper to do something.
You also completely ignored the fact that Mulroney had more than one opportunity to bring in legislation, and could easily have it passed in both Houses as he was able to do with the GST.
As for your question- do your own research. I hardly think it is relevant and certainly does not explain the fact that Mulroney did nothing about this for the four years he was in government after his bill failed.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:23 am
I don’t drink tea. And yes we have discussed abortion, but usually I am talking about changes to tax laws dealing with disabilities and other tax changes. I was glad to see one of them took place in the last budget. I deal with things that affect me personally and others caring for disabled children or spouses. Until the liberals brought this up to cause division, it was a non issue. My point re number of senators, and a tie vote, I wondered how many libs or Progressive conservatives voted party lines or against party lines. As for the gst, chretain has a majority in both houses also and still refused to abolish it as he promised, even if he said he had never said it. And he hung Sheila out to dry on that but she won again anyway.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Shorter Mary
“I know that Harper cannot bring in abortion legislation unless he has a majority, and that he cannot campaign on that issue, because he will lose, and lose big. Best wait for a majority and then spring it on people.”
July 4th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Shorter Gayle:
“Hidden agenda!!!”.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
It is not on his agenda to change the non law. Why should he, doctors and hospitals, and young girls are doing it for us all by saying NO to abortion.
I read once that one law of unintended consequences of all this is abortion by sex selection in certain cultures. Guess what sex is killed. Girls.
July 6th, 2008 at 2:12 am
“Shorter Gayle:
“Hidden agenda!!!”.”
Except I am not saying Harper is going to do that - but rather that is what Mary wants him to do, while at the same time she recognizes it would defeat him if he did so.
In other words, this is a comment about Mary, no matter how hard you try to make it a comment about Harper.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
You really must work harder on your Liberal-approved rhetoric.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Gayle, you are out to lunch, you have no idea what I want to do, and PMSH will not be defeated. Why don’t you practice what you preach, and quit putting you words and ideas into others posts.
Then you have a habit of posting, I did not say that, or it is a theory, or some other bs. Go visit cdn cynic where your ideas will be welcomed, but do include very foul language to be accepted.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
“You really must work harder on your Liberal-approved rhetoric.”
Way to miss the point…again.
But then, that is all you’ve got…again.