Friday, 17 August 2012


Woodworth's Wank has been insultingly dishonest from the get-go.

As JJ said:

But no. Woody thought he was sooooo clever. Faffing about with talk of a '400-year old law' that needed 'modernizing' with input from experts.

If they were serious about imprecise, antiquated language, there is a simple fix as JJ has pointed out repeatedly on Twitter. In sec. 223 of the Criminal Code change 'human being' to 'person'. There. Problem solved.

But no. Because while SHRIEEEKING (as usual for Fetus Fascists) that their cute little ploy had nothing zip zero nada rien to do with abortion, it is about if not personhood then about gestational limits to abortion.

The ploy itself is a lie. And the ensuing 'campaign' has been a laff riot.
Why Lifesite would choose to publish this less-than-encouraging data at the height of the battle of words & wits over Motion 312 is a mystery.  But then again, why not: it’s in line with the haphazard and utterly clueless way the rest of the M312 campaign has been run, a confused and riotous crusade of Twitterspam, fetusmobiles, inconsistencies, transparent lies and general dumbness.  For an initiative thought by some to be the last kick at the anti-abortion can for a long, long time, the ineptitude of its handling has been breathtaking to behold.

And fun to watch.  Did I mention fun to watch?
They could have salvaged some cred by -- as I relentlessly asked -- offering up some examples of experts MPs should hear from should M312 pass.

Fumbled that ball too.

While JJ finds it fun to watch -- and it has been -- I'm getting really bored. (Betcha regular DJ! readers hit that wall months ago.)

It's soon over. The second and final hour of 'debate' is on September 21, with the vote on September 26.

How big will the FAIL WHALE be? According to ARCC, there are 108 anti-choice MPs. Those among that number with any political sense or ambition in Stevie Spiteful's caucus are booking dental appointments for September 26 as we speak.

How many will be left? I'm thinking Woody will be lucky to get 70 yeas.

What do you think?


Beijing York said...

Finally got a response to my Motion M312 letter from my MP, Joyce Bateman. She emphatically states that neither she nor Harper campaigned on re-opening the debate on abortion and that that has not changed. "We have been clear that the issue of abortion will not be revisited by this government."

She attached Gordon O'Connor's HoC statement which she describes as "the government's official response to this private member's bill.

From O'Connor's April 26, 2012 statement:

"Thus the ultimate intention of this motion is to restrict abortions in Canada at some fetal development stage."

All in all, further proof that even the Conservatives officially acknowledge that the motion is about restricting abortions.

JJ said...

Ahhh, I forgot all about the M312 Dead Pool. (Real Life, get off my back!)

Motion 312 will die: it's just a matter of how painful the death will be (for the fetus fetishists). I suspect it will get an astonishingly low number of votes. Harper has a public position on it, and even if it was voted down, if the vote was too close it would make Harper look like a bit of a lame duck, with no control over his own caucus. And we all know how much Steve likes to look like he has no control.

I think we'll see the usual brain-damaged suspects - Trost, Vellacott et al - voting for it, but not much support beyond that.

fern hill said...

Cool. Probably any CON who does vote for it will be punished.

fern hill said...

Some MPs are polling their constituents and say they will vote as they wish. Warawa says his constituents want him to vote for it.

I hope prochoicers don't sit on their hands on this.

Anonymous said...

My Con MP told me she is voting against M312 and she hasn't polled. Mind you, she is a woman, despite being a Con.
I feel M312 will assuredly die but am pissed off that Woodworth was allowed to bring this forward. Harper's excuse was that a parliamentary committee allowed M312 to be heard on the floor. Handy excuse, but why not a pre-emptive strike? Does anyone believe that backbenchers are allowed to introduce motions without pre-clearance? Where's Harper's legendary control when you want it? But no, he allows it to enter the public sphere. Some people believe he is just throwing a bone to the antis and they keep following through with pathetic, misguided hope. I believe that is correct, but that he secretly hopes it does get legs which will allow him to let it go a little further each time and eventually we will have ourselves a steaming little piece of anti-choice legislation. Ask yourself this. Would Steve prorogue parliament to stop antichoice legislation from passing? And are prochoicers playing into his hands by participating in the discussion?

Sheila Kieran said...

We must NEVER forget that Stevie hates women:the first thing he did after he hung up his fuzzy blue sweater was to cancel programs that affected the lives of women. Therefore, we must keep an eye on him and examine his every move with care and scepticism. He undoubtedly was putting a toe in the water by allowing Wentworth's motion to come forward. We need to be sure to keep the water so hot, he doesn't try to go any further.
Sheila Kieran

Post a Comment