Sister Sage's Musings

With everything  I’ve been reading lately about this Bruinooge, some Harpercon flunkie and his private members bill, c-510,  in the supposed memory of Roxanne Fernando who was murdered in 2007 by her boyfriend.  A flimsy way indeed for Harpercons to start the abortion debate; further evidence that one of Brother Steve’s goals would be to criminalize abortion should we allow him that totalitarian regime he so wants. Yes, folks, be afraid…be very afraid!

From what I have read in the blogosphere and the corporate media,  Bruinooge went rogue with this one, that Brother Steve didn’t want this debate  or so Dmitri Soudas and Andrew McDougall, Steve’s new mouthpiece says. Well, I could just see it now,  Steve saying  “no, no, no” when in reality, the eyes are more than likely saying, “yes! yes , yes!”  Truth is, now that Brother Steve has his results from the Manning Institute surveys, he may feel this is ripe right now, however, he can’t come out publicly about this while he is in campaign mode. However, make it look like a back bencher is acting all by his lonesome, well, it’s clever.  As everyone knows, in reality, none of Steve’s caucus steps out of line; I believe Anne Lagace Dowson referred to them as potted plants; they don’t do anything without their marching orders, nor a script to follow.  Why should this be any different?

This new private member’s bill is supposed to criminalize the coercion of women into having abortions. However, we already do have laws in place against that sort of thing. Take Roxanne Fernando, for instance; she was murdered by an ex-boyfriend because she did not want to have an abortion; the ex  did; she refused, he murdered her. A heinous crime? No question! He is serving hard time for this crime though, thus proving that there are laws in place to protect society from things like harrassment, death threats and violence.

These clowns are apparently, using other victims in a pathetic effort to sell this bill…

If they were really interested in violence against women,then do something about it.  More does need to be done to  address violence against women; no question. This private members bill certainly doesn’t cut it.

Another reason C-510 would never protect women from violence? Well, obviously, this bill doesn’t work in reverse.  Does it prevent fetus fetishing demonstrators from coercing vulnerable women on their way to a clinic to have an abortion to change their minds? No, of course not.

Does anyone remember this Supreme Court case from 1989: Tremblay v Daigle? This was a landmark decision that basically says that a fetus is not legally a person in either Canadian Common law or Quebec Civil laws.  I also believe that if Bill 510 were to pass, the decision of  Tremblay v Daigle could end up being moot in the long run and certainly a prelude to a dangerous precedent.

Here is the brief synopsis of  how those two ended up in court in the first place.

Daigle and Tremblay were dating. The relationship went south and she found out she was pregnant. One of the problems in that relationship was that Tremblay was too controlling; he beat her. She felt that if she kept the baby, Tremblay would forever control her life with no relief in sight; certainly no way to raise a child. She felt that an abortion was her only way to extracate herself, permanently from Tremblay’s clutches.

Essentially, Daigle felt that children needed to be raised in peace and that would never be able to happen with Tremblay constantly in the picture.

Not good enough for Tremblay, he hauled her into court, succeeding in getting injunction after injunction against her, citing fetal rights, preventing her from having an abortion. It did become obvious that the Tremblay camp was delaying the case on purpose until after 20 weeks when (at that time) would’ve been illegal for her to have her abortion, here in Canada.

What she did end up doing, was having her abortion anyway, in the U.S., as the case had so much notoriety in the media,no doubt,  pretty much all those clinics and hospitals where abortions were performed, knew who she was and were certainly not going to go near that one. In spite of Daigle having already gotten her abortion, the Supreme Court went ahead in giving a verdict that would finally and legally set Daigle free.   This decision was especially important, as it prevented such litigation from occurring again.

Lucky thing Chantal Daigle managed to free herself from Jean-Guy Tremblay’s clutches. We would hear his name mentioned again in 2000 in another legal matter. This time, in criminal court.  Tremblay was convicted of two counts of assault in the violent beating of his former girlfriend and her close friend which had taken place the year before in Calgary. He was sentenced to five years in prison plus a ten-year supervision order. Tremblay took his fight against the supervision order to the Supreme Court, but the Court decided against hearing his appeal in 2005. At the time it was revealed that he had been convicted of 14 attacks on women, most of whom were his former girlfriends. In 2004, the National Parole Board declined to name him a dangerous offender.

Sidenote: I find it interesting that while Brother Steve rushes in a panic, getting his jockeys in a twist over Clifford Olson being eligible for old-age pension and Graham James having been pardoned, we haven’t seen him jumping up and down, calling Vic Toews in the middle of  something to demand why Jean-Guy Tremblay doesn’t have a dangerous offender status to his name, have we? Somehow, I don’t think we ever will.  What if it were the opposite? What if Jean-Guy Tremblay wasn’t that obviously pro-life?  Would Tremblay be wearing that dangerous offender badge like the scarlet letter? If not, would Brother Steve go huffing and puffing as he did with James or Olson?

Moreover,  we know that this bill would not be extended to afford women going to clinics to have an abortion along with whomever is accompanying them protection from the fetus fetishists, who so obviously don’t have real jobs,  and their sick coercive tactics.

No, this bill is useless, it probably won’t pass anyway.  I think most of us can see the hypocrisy in C-510.  It’s a bill, however, that will no doubt put the abortion debate back on the forefront. And Iggy, if you’re smart,  hammer him over the head with this. That would be far more constructive than that smut chasing going on these days.

One Response to “I Guess This New Abortion Bill Wouldn’t Work in Reverse, Would It?”