The whip

The New Democrats have said they will unanimously oppose Stephen Woodworth’s motion—which, as private members’ business, would generally be considered a free vote—and Jeff Jedras argues that the Liberals should whip their vote.

If this issue is as fundamentally important as our messaging makes it out to be (and I believe it is), why are we not whipping this vote? If Harper not killing a private members bill is evidence he supports it, what does it say when the Liberal leadership lets its members vote for it? How are we any different? And worse, we’re launching petition drives and releasing pious press releases while pretending to be different. It’s ridiculous, and we’re setting ourselves up to look like hypocritical idiots. 

As noted last night, the government’s chief whip spoke against Mr. Woodworth’s motion during the first hour of debate. During QP, the Prime Minister said it was “unfortunate” that the motion had reached the House floor. The NDP sent out a news release yesterday calling on the Prime Minister to prevent Conservative MPs from bringing forward initiatives related to abortion.




Browse

The whip

  1. The party of science wants to ignore science – Libs are the party of social science, not science. There actually is no debate about when life begins unless you are keen to murder babies, that’s when the sophistry starts about when is a person a person.

    wiki ~ “A zygote is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism’s development. “

    • Are you against IUD’s?

  2. PJ O’Rourke ~ The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors–psychology, sociology, women’s studies–to prove that nothing is anybody’s fault.

    No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you’d have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither.

    But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view.

    • So you get to decide who is a devout Christian, based on your values?

  3. Do we really need to urge political leaders to be more stiff-necked and ideological? The leader of Canada’s social conservatives (our own Mr. Harper) is willing to publicly and forcefully rebuke the very notion of the debate, and yet people are clamouring for him to go further and simply ban the debate outright.

    You can not outlaw an idea, even a very bad idea. Let people speak and expose themselves. The people who demand that other’s not be allowed to express a contrary opinion are not showing the strength of their own convictions. They are showing a lack of faith in their own position.

    I’m pro-choice regarding abortion, and I’m pro-choice regarding opposing views.

  4. There is nothing wrong with a healthy debate. But this more of a personal belief, instead of a policy that is good for Canada. This is very divisive. The fact that the government did not bring this forward should tell Canadians the position of the CPC. Added Private Members are granted to bring what business they wish, the PMO should have headed this one off at the pass. The fact that a backbencher brought this up, could very well hurt the CPC in the future, regardless on PM Harper’s position. Besides who is it for anyone (especially a man) to tell a woman what she can do with her body? If you don’t like or want an abortion, don’t get one! But it’s downright wrong for one person to push their religious or personal beliefs up another.

Sign in to comment.