Justin Trudeau has taken the highly unusual step of raising a political issue concerning which there was no current political debate at the federal level, while claiming some kind of moral high ground for doing so. The issue, of course, is abortion. Beyond raising it, he has used commitment to the loosely defined pro-choice mantra as the litmus test of who is an acceptable Liberal, at least for candidacy as a federal MP.
For taking this unexpected stand, he was labelled a bozo by a long-serving member of his caucus, John McKay (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/05/26/liberal_mp_criticizes_justin_trudeau_over_abortion_edict.html). As reported by the Toronto Star, McKay was having what he thought was a private conversation, not realizing that he was being recorded. The Star goes on to say:
McKay says on a recording obtained by CTV News that he thought Trudeau had a “bozo eruption” and didn’t think about what he said when he declared that anti-abortion candidates won’t be allowed to run for the Liberals. He added that it “scares the hell” out of him that Trudeau’s brain trust could have thought this through without realizing how much of a “toxic issue” it is.
Of course, when all of this became public, McKay had to do the classic sniveling political crawl down. But he did not retract his beliefs.
Another long-time pro-life Liberal MP (and former cabinet minister) Lawrence MacAulay (pictured above) understood his leader to say that current pro-life caucus members such as himself would be "grandfathered" and could continue to vote his conscience. But Trudeau's original pronouncements along this line changed dramatically as days passed:
Mr. MacAulay hoped a grandfather clause would exempt him from supporting any abortion bill that might come before the House of Commons. Parliament has failed to pass replacement legislation after the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1988 ruling striking down the country’s abortion law as unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The country has been left with only the court’s ruling for over 25 years, without the guidance of a replacement law, since those same judges said the state should also have an interest in the protection of the unborn.
Mr. Trudeau ordered that all candidates must declare as pro-choice before being allowed to run for the party in the next election. Then he clarified that to say it wouldn’t apply to sitting MPs who are pro-life. Mr. MacAulay grasped at that straw since his pro-life stand is well known, believing he could vote his conscience on the matter.
The grandfather clause would respect, to a certain extent, their choices, the leader had said. Mr. MacAulay felt he was unaffected, that he could vote whatever way he chose. It took one day for Mr. Trudeau to say: “Sorry, Lawrence, you may have a personal opinion on the issue but you will be required to vote party lines.”
A thunderstruck Mr. MacAulay had to backtrack and say he would bow to his leader’s wishes, while Mr. Trudeau had to clarify his own comments for the benefit of other MPs or potential candidates. (http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/Editorials/2014-06-20/article-3770462/Cardigan-MP-ensnared-by-Trudeau-error/1)
Trudeau's justification for bringing this fundamental test of acceptability was the leadership of his father, Prime Minister Pierre. As recorded in another report in the Star, Justin makes this observation:
For taking this unexpected stand, he was labelled a bozo by a long-serving member of his caucus, John McKay (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/05/26/liberal_mp_criticizes_justin_trudeau_over_abortion_edict.html). As reported by the Toronto Star, McKay was having what he thought was a private conversation, not realizing that he was being recorded. The Star goes on to say:
McKay says on a recording obtained by CTV News that he thought Trudeau had a “bozo eruption” and didn’t think about what he said when he declared that anti-abortion candidates won’t be allowed to run for the Liberals. He added that it “scares the hell” out of him that Trudeau’s brain trust could have thought this through without realizing how much of a “toxic issue” it is.
Of course, when all of this became public, McKay had to do the classic sniveling political crawl down. But he did not retract his beliefs.
Another long-time pro-life Liberal MP (and former cabinet minister) Lawrence MacAulay (pictured above) understood his leader to say that current pro-life caucus members such as himself would be "grandfathered" and could continue to vote his conscience. But Trudeau's original pronouncements along this line changed dramatically as days passed:
Mr. MacAulay hoped a grandfather clause would exempt him from supporting any abortion bill that might come before the House of Commons. Parliament has failed to pass replacement legislation after the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1988 ruling striking down the country’s abortion law as unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The country has been left with only the court’s ruling for over 25 years, without the guidance of a replacement law, since those same judges said the state should also have an interest in the protection of the unborn.
Mr. Trudeau ordered that all candidates must declare as pro-choice before being allowed to run for the party in the next election. Then he clarified that to say it wouldn’t apply to sitting MPs who are pro-life. Mr. MacAulay grasped at that straw since his pro-life stand is well known, believing he could vote his conscience on the matter.
The grandfather clause would respect, to a certain extent, their choices, the leader had said. Mr. MacAulay felt he was unaffected, that he could vote whatever way he chose. It took one day for Mr. Trudeau to say: “Sorry, Lawrence, you may have a personal opinion on the issue but you will be required to vote party lines.”
A thunderstruck Mr. MacAulay had to backtrack and say he would bow to his leader’s wishes, while Mr. Trudeau had to clarify his own comments for the benefit of other MPs or potential candidates. (http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/Editorials/2014-06-20/article-3770462/Cardigan-MP-ensnared-by-Trudeau-error/1)
Trudeau's justification for bringing this fundamental test of acceptability was the leadership of his father, Prime Minister Pierre. As recorded in another report in the Star, Justin makes this observation:
“I had an
extraordinary example in a father who had deeply, deeply held personal
views that were informed by the fact that he went to church every
Sunday, read the Bible regularly to us, and raised us very religiously,
as Catholics,” Trudeau wrote.
“But at the same time
my father had no problem legalizing divorce, decriminalizing
homosexuality and moving in ways that recognized the basic rights of the
people.
“He too held fast to
his beliefs. But he also understood that as leaders, as political
figures, and as representatives of a larger community, our utmost
responsibility is to stand up for people’s rights.” http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/05/19/trudeau_says_position_on_abortion_influenced_by_his_famous_father.html
But Trudeau Jr.'s explanation left much unanswered, including his own father's concerns about abortion and its effect on society, and the tolerance that Pierre had for different points of view within his caucus.
What did Pierre Trudeau really think of the abortion issue, and how would his views stack up against the pro-choice scrutiny that holds sway today? Consider this interview, reported this month in the Hill Times, that Pierre did with a Montreal paper in 1972 (N.B. underlining added):
The quotation is from a Montreal Star column that quoted Mr. Trudeau’s comments, during the federal election campaign that year, to women in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., who were protesting his new law’s requirement for prior permission from hospital abortion committees.
At the time, wealthier women or families were still travelling to the U.S. to obtain abortions, without having to go through committee screenings in hospitals.
“You would have to convince me that a person who asks for an abortion has no responsibility at all,” the Montreal Star article quotes Mr. Trudeau as saying. The report said he was responding to the protestors by stating his “private attitude.”
“You know, at some point you are killing life in the fetus in self-defence, of what, of the mother’s health, or her happiness, or of her social rights or her privilege as a human being?” Mr. Trudeau went on to say.
“I think she should have to answer for it and explain. Now, whether it should be to three doctors, or one doctor, or to a priest or a bishop or to her mother-in-law is a question you might want to argue, you do have a right over your own body, it is your body. But the fetus is not your body; it’s someone else’s body, and if you kill it, you’ll have to explain,” Mr. Trudeau said. (http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2014/06/19/tory-mp-vellacott-digs-up-old-pierre-trudeau-quote-to-oppose-justin-trudeaus/38855)
Knowing the self-appointed guardians of women's rights as I do, I am quite sure that if I voiced Pierre's concerns, they would be insisting that Justin not consider me as suitable material for running for Parliament.Yet Justin says that his father is his role model in this regard.
I'm not at all convinced that Justin and Pierre are on the same page in the least on the issue. We'll look at the important differences next.
But Trudeau Jr.'s explanation left much unanswered, including his own father's concerns about abortion and its effect on society, and the tolerance that Pierre had for different points of view within his caucus.
What did Pierre Trudeau really think of the abortion issue, and how would his views stack up against the pro-choice scrutiny that holds sway today? Consider this interview, reported this month in the Hill Times, that Pierre did with a Montreal paper in 1972 (N.B. underlining added):
The quotation is from a Montreal Star column that quoted Mr. Trudeau’s comments, during the federal election campaign that year, to women in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., who were protesting his new law’s requirement for prior permission from hospital abortion committees.
At the time, wealthier women or families were still travelling to the U.S. to obtain abortions, without having to go through committee screenings in hospitals.
“You would have to convince me that a person who asks for an abortion has no responsibility at all,” the Montreal Star article quotes Mr. Trudeau as saying. The report said he was responding to the protestors by stating his “private attitude.”
“You know, at some point you are killing life in the fetus in self-defence, of what, of the mother’s health, or her happiness, or of her social rights or her privilege as a human being?” Mr. Trudeau went on to say.
“I think she should have to answer for it and explain. Now, whether it should be to three doctors, or one doctor, or to a priest or a bishop or to her mother-in-law is a question you might want to argue, you do have a right over your own body, it is your body. But the fetus is not your body; it’s someone else’s body, and if you kill it, you’ll have to explain,” Mr. Trudeau said. (http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2014/06/19/tory-mp-vellacott-digs-up-old-pierre-trudeau-quote-to-oppose-justin-trudeaus/38855)
Knowing the self-appointed guardians of women's rights as I do, I am quite sure that if I voiced Pierre's concerns, they would be insisting that Justin not consider me as suitable material for running for Parliament.Yet Justin says that his father is his role model in this regard.
I'm not at all convinced that Justin and Pierre are on the same page in the least on the issue. We'll look at the important differences next.
2 comments:
So awesome that you're back to blogging! I look forward to your contributions!
Feel free to post further comments and critique, Suzanne.
Post a Comment