Photo: Globe and Mail
It was Ekos President Frank Graves who put into words what the “culture war” is all about, but the fact is that the Liberal Party never needed his advice. They’ve been playing games for years now, but it’s only been recently that they’ve really struck some divisive pay dirt. The current squabbling over maternal health in the third world and Afghan detainee documents are perfect examples that the Liberals don’t need to find domestic issues in order to hammer the government.
Every moment that the Liberals attack the government on alleged torture Afghan detainees, further reveals how utterly uninterested they actually are in human rights and torture. Because the truth is that nobody who actually cared about human rights and torture would spend all of their time focusing on just one tiny aspect of the broader issue in the country.
But the Liberals realized that the detainee issue could have resonance with Canadians, particularly the ones who already buy the myth that the Harper government has a “hidden agenda”. By obsessing on the detainee documents under the guise of supporting human rights, the Liberals make it appear as if the government has something to hide, or that they’re complicit in torture. If they have nothing to hide, the argument goes, then just release the documents. Simple right?
Well, not exactly. The fact is that we’re a country at war, and while we should be focusing on the mission objectives of that war and the secure creation of a stable Afghan state, we’re busy trying to rifle through mountains of paperwork pertaining to the allegations of possible prisoner abuse which occurred long after they left Canadian custody. To borrow a metaphor, this is like looking for a needle in a haystack, except that the needle happens to be completely inconsequential to the job of farming.
We’ve established that the opposition parties don’t actually give a damn about human rights. If they did, they’d actually travel to Afghanistan to ask people about them. If they did, they wouldn’t be spending all of their time focusing on something that not even the Taliban seem to care about.
Take the maternal health program as another example of the Liberal “culture war.” Not happy with the nebulous “legality” of abortion in Canada, they wanted to push the issue on the Conservative Party to spawn a debate about it in the hopes that the government would reveal itself to be full of ideological social conservatives. Nothing would please the Liberals more than an open argument about women’s rights and to put themselves as being “on side with women.”
But the Conservatives wouldn’t engage them in such a vote-killing initiative. So when the government made the announcement that they were pursuing a maternal health plan for CIDA, the Liberals saw their golden opportunity to bring it in the backdoor. And you can’t help but be impressed with how unscrupulously Machiavellian it is.
Don’t for a moment think the Liberals actually care about women in the third world, whether that be access to health care, abortions, or anything else. That’s what’s so sick about the “full range of services” euphemism for abortion. It has absolutely nothing to do with people living in a country that, just like Afghanistan, they don’t care one iota about.
No, it’s all about the “wedge”. The Liberals know the position is “win-win”, because if the Conservatives cave in and allow abortion to be part of the CIDA maternal health plan, then the social conservatives who actually support the party, will think the government gave in on a key ideological issue. But if they hold firm to the no-abortions mandate, the Liberals can accuse them of being ideological and of having a hidden agenda.
It isn’t that I’m saying that Liberal supporters don’t care for people in the third world. I’m sure some of them actually do care, in a sort of vague and peripheral way that one might care about bloated and malnourished children shown in a World Vision infomercial. But what bothers me is that they let their political leaders manipulate genuine concern for people, into these divisive and disgusting wedges between Canadians.
Like Frank Graves says, the Liberals want to place a wedge between educated people living in the cities and the rednecks in the countryside. The intellectuals who believe in a society led by an educated aristocracy, and the popcorn and beer slobs. The secular humanists and the religious wingnuts. The tolerant progressives and the homophobic racists.
The irony of all of this is that the shamefully relativist, racist, morally superior view is the one held by the Liberals, in that the Afghans aren’t capable of taking care of their own judicial matters, or that countries in the third world shouldn’t be polluting the Earth with more of their children. The tragedy is that they can’t seem to see that.
Notice how iggy is clutching his left hand, just like he clutched it at the gym. Is he sending a subliminal message to the leftists in the crowd.
I’ve noticed he really uses his hands a lot, but he does do the fist-shaking too much. Even Liberals have noted this peculiarity.
Great post, it captures the spirit of the Liberals disdain for anything approaching the ideal that national unity is important to them.
And the histrionics continue.
Why don’t you just go all the way Adrian. Say the liberals support genocide and murder.
You know you wanna…
I heard the liberals secretly worship satan. They study the history of Nazi Germany in the hopes to emulate Hitler some day.
They boil little kittens alive and have them for dinner.
Yes I heard the same thing Gayle about the Libs. It is well known.
I think I’ve made a fairly airtight argument that their policies are all wedge issues meant to divide Canadians.
Sure, based on your “belief” the liberals do not care about women’s reproductive rights and the liberals do not care about Afghanistan and the liberals do not care about anything you think is important.
When you make stuff up to support your argument, it’s not “airtight”.
Finally after all her efforts to say liberals are good, she has finally come to her senses. Must be all the comments tearing her comments apart. Welcome to the club gayle.
I know the liberal are bad, but you have enlightened me as to how bad. Thanks for that, you have finally proved your point.
Air Tight Can be blown:
See Libby Scooter. (US example)
Canada Mulrony-Schreiber
She pointed out that Parliamentarians “leaked” material to her. She asked whether that, too, is unethical. My reply would be that Parliamentarians could look after their own ethical standards—the journalist’s job is to get information, test it and publish it, within ethical parameters. Our job is to share information with the public, not to assist any party or government in doing what it is perfectly capable to doing on its own.
There is absolutely no evidence of any partisan interest on her part—she is an aggressive reporter who will pursue a story no matter whose interests are at stake.
http://www.cbc.ca/ombudsman/page/ERICKSON%20%28Rev%29.pdf
200 posts defending the Liberals on BT in two days? OCD?
Gayle denies her Liberal membership. She refuses to provide proof she is not paid Liberal shill?
Hiding behind an a anon internet alias?
It is a classic divide an conquer strategy and it has elements of the classic insurgency as well – where by if there is regional/social/class discord in the country, either real, perceived or even manufactured, then the Liberals can sell themselves and their concept of an all encompassing, large, powerful and intrusive central government as being the only answer for a united country. It is counter to the original idea of confederation which saw a smaller, more restricted central government and more power devolved to the regions, which is more in line with current Tory policy.
Of course if you’re a socialist from one of the traditional power centers you will opt for a stronger central authority. This is simply a continuation of the oldest power centers in the country, the Chateau Clique and the Family Compact (now the Montreal and Toronto wings of the Liberal party).
Liberals have nothing to offer the future except their own quest for power at the expense of everyone else.
Frank Graves’ strategy is nothing new. I’m sure most of us can recall the Liberal smears against evangelical Christians during the 2000 election.
Hi Gayle:
No, the Liberals support abortion in third world countries.
Not in Canada.
Get your facts straight.
I’ll disagree with the dinner portion, but you’ve pretty hit the nail the head.
Good post.
Watching her defend a party she claims she does not support is hysterical.
Can you imagine spending the keystrokes on the NDP or Liberals yourself defending their politics of division?
Every party does this. BM used this against John Turner on Free Trade.
Liberals were pushing the xenophobic mantra suggesting America would swallow up Canada with FTA.
Sigh…
Get your fats straight CS (and as I type that I realize I am asking the impossible).
I never said I do not support the liberals. I said I am not a member of the liberal party.
But it is funny reading your posts considering how much you whine about people attacking you on other blogs. Maybe go look up the word “hypocrite”.
No need to apologize for your numerous distortions.
You won’t come clean with your identity to remove doubt about your income as a Liberal staffer.
Hundreds of posts on BT attacking others who don’t vote Liberal.
Come clean and provide proof you are not a Liberal staffer.
It’s not that hard.
Sure – if you come clean and prove you are not a member of the KKK.
I don’t get the abortion strategy on the part of the LPC. I just don’t think that Canadians are going to hold that championing abortion for African women is a ‘fundamental’ right. I don’t see it as a big vote getter for them. The only people that I’d think are even in play over this decision are younger women in Quebec and metro Toronto and Vancouver, constituencies that Liberals already have in the bag. As the economy improves its getting harder for the Canadian media to legitimately bash Harper, so the abortion ‘controversy’ allows the CBC to write those ‘non-Canadian values’ stories to try and make the CPC look ‘scary’, so the LPC can help their media buddies keep up the negative press, but the real payoff for the LPC has got to be fund-raising. Scaring women about Harper and abortion has to be some kind of scheme to make money.
What are you hiding? Nice try with cultural war “KKK”. Anyone defending them? Next.
You have spent over 200 posts in two days on behalf of the Liberal Party.
You wont allow rule of law, natural justice with regards to the CPC, it is only fair same standards be applied to your internet pattern.
Come clean.
Partisan CPC blogger, have website.
You prefer to hide your trail, no blog, potential for multiple post aliases.
Snort.
To understand Iggy just listen to the tape of UK’s Gordon Brown ragging about the women ‘bigot’ that wasn’t buying his BS answers to her concerns. Just listen to the tape, picture Iggy instead of Brown.
“And the histrionics continue.
Why don’t you just go all the way Adrian. Say the liberals support genocide and murder.
You know you wanna…”
Gayle, you old leftist hypocrite..when conservative minded people pointed out to you much the same thing (that you really wanted to call Canadian soldiers war criminals and complicit in torture allegations) YOU said that THEY were the ones saying that, not you.
That they were projecting.
Well..
Tu quoque, madame..
I think there’s a difference between a political “wedge” issue and a “culture war” issue.
The best example I can think of right now is Mr. Harper’s attempt to cut off the political subsidies that precipitated the first proroguing of parliament. There were a lot of things going on there, (and I do think the subsidies should be phased out gradually), but I think it’s obvious to everyone that the primary benefit there was to stick a knife in the opposition. But it’s not an example of “culture war”.
Similarly, the Liberals political maneuvering on Afghanistan has a lot of stuff going and it’s being used (or trying to be used) as a wedge issue, but it’s not a culture war thing.
Abortion is a culture war thing and it’s fundamentally different. Using it as a political weapon means dividing people into baby killers and misogynists based on little more than when they believe that human beings become “alive”.
I suggest everyone read the new Oklahoma abortion law. Before an abortion the woman must undergo a sonogram, and the doctor must explain what he sees. Imagine telling a mother to be that her child is alive, has five fingers/hand and 5 toes/foot, has a heartbeat etc. Many women close their eyes but they can’t close their ears. They leave the clinic in tears, but they know in their heart they have murdered their child.
With all due respect, the same logic that says that the seal hunt is evil because seal pups are cute. It’s a purely emotional argument that doesn’t establish when people become “people”.
A chimp has five fingers on each hand. A brain dead human adult has a heartbeat. (As does a mouse I might add.) Neither establishes that they are “people”.
I’d also like to add that your comment are a prime example of “culture war” talk. It’s a line of thinking that divides people into baby killers and misogynists. I want no part of it.
Coke?
Is this why you support Insite?
Not the same.
Women are not going with clubs on the ice?
Some pro-abortion groups are against medical information being given regarding the abortion and “status” of the child inside the womb.
I don’t understand the rationale in not ensuring/providing/requiring an informed consent of the mother/father, opinion from a medical doctor in the procedure.
Are you suggesting this is equivalent to a removing hangnail?
Just curious we have no laws on this procedure. What other country has this status?
Is it a human right for someone to be able to obtain 5-15 abortions with full funding, no questions asked? Abortion can be used as a form of birth control.
Delisting of annual eye exams, chiropractic in Ontario, as a taxpayer am I entitled to demand fiscal responsibility for family planning?
I could use the example of prisoners obtain tax funded gender changes instead.
Several states are lobbying to have the status of the unborn recognized as persons. I think they want this to be recognized almost at conception. Things are changing.
The Oklahoma law re sonograms might be the start. Of course planned parenthood is fighting it. There lies re it is just tissue will come tumbling down.
Do all those pro abortionists object that their mother didn’t have one.
Is that a wad of bubble gum in Mr Z’s cheek.
Of course it’s not “the same”. Any example will be different in some way unless you’re using abortion as an example of abortion.
What the “seals are cute” and “fetuses have heartbeats & fingers” arguments have in common is that they don’t in any way establish any relevant facts.
Seals are cute. So what? Does anyone argue that the ethics of hunting depend on how cute something is?
Fetuses have heartbeats & fingers. Again. So what? Lots of things have heartbeats & fingers. Does anyone in the pro-life camp argue that killing anything with fingers & heartbeats is murder.
No they don’t. The contention is not relevant.
The ONLY issue is whether or not a fetus is “alive” in the sense that we ascribe to humans and not to animals. You can call this “having a soul” or “being sentient” if you like. Beliefs about that are VERY deeply held, which is why using abortion as a political weapon degenerates into an ugly “culture war”.
…
..
.
Just to be clear, the idea that “life” begins at birth is ludicrous. Thinking that motion from an enclosed space to an unenclosed space makes one “human” is laughably ridiculous.
But I’m cold enough to identify an irrelevant appeal to emotion when I see it.
I am have three children, have had 3 dogs.
I don’t pretend to equate animals with humans.
Many people do, it just not my thing.
We have NO laws on abortion. Nothing has changed in restricting women. CPC have not supported a change in dividing Canadians on this issue.
Is it unfair to require informed consent?
Provinces are responsible for delivery of health, delisting procedures and closing hopsitals and letting go of staff.
The CPC do NOT need to revisit the issue in Canada. Voters can pressure their provincial governments.
Your feelings about animals and humans don’t change the fact that sonograms don’t establish when human life/sentience/soul, (as opposed to mere biological life) begins. Sonograms rely entirely on a non-relevant emotional appeal. It is baby seal argument of the pro-life movement.
Your question about the fairness of informed consent neatly dodges the complete irrelevance of sonograms. Futhermore, informed consent is already given in abortions. A sonogram is not required for informed consent on an abortion unless the goal extends beyond informing the patient and extends to emotionally manipulating them.
If you want to reduce the number of abortions in Canada, I promise you that a move like trying to require sonograms is at the very least counterproductive. You’ll lose the middle ground voter and you just can’t pass laws without them.
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
Re read my posts and provide the link I stated a sonogram is required to provide informed consent.
Are you suggesting “informed consent” will reduce abortions? I never did.
I have said we have no interest by this Federal Party to raise the divisive issue in Canada. I have stated the provinces are responsible for delivery of health, delisting health procedures. (Not sure why you keep trying to puts words in my mouth)
I’m not putting words in your mouth. Mary T started this thread by talking about a law in the US that required sonograms. She seems to support the law as a good thing. My contention was that the sonogram law is an example of using irrelevant feelings in place of logical arguments.
This thread is about sonograms and their validity as an argument against abortions.
If you want a thread that isn’t about sonograms, you should reply to Adrian’s main post.
MaryT states “….everyone read the new Oklahoma abortion law. Before an abortion the woman must undergo a sonogram, and the doctor must explain what he sees.”
She asked us to look at another example how informed consent is being delivered.
Do you object with a medical doctor explaining the status of what a sonogram shows?
This is delivering “fact based evidence” from a qualified expert.
Where is the politicial religious agenda?
Should we ignore the use of technology, medical experts in explaining the stage of development or the dangers of a medical procedure?
Are you suggesting we should restrict the delivery of information from video, sound in making an informed decision because the person may become too emotional?
What is your point? I don’t see it.
I don’t think the motivation is necessarily religious, but no one thinks for one second that the law isn’t rooted in the belief that abortion kills a human being, so let’s move on from there.
(Incidentally, Mary T used the word “murder”, or as I would term that, “the language of culture war”.)
The law doesn’t make sonograms available. It doesn’t require that patients be informed of risks or side effects. It doesn’t even require that patients be informed about particular facts about fetal development. It requires that particular information be made available in a format intended to illicit an emotional response. That is what makes it a law based on emotional manipulation rather than on facts or logical arguments.
The majority of articles from the pro-abortion lobby cite this state as anti-choice and the law is designed to invoke emotion, trauma.
Here is a neutral piece
http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/abortion/oklahoma/
I am trying to understand the objections from the pro-abortion groups in labelling this procedure as invasive vs the actual abortion.
Looks like the courts may have already struck it down. Not sure if I understand if sugar coating the act of abortion is a fair depiction of “protection of choice”.
I am for full disclosure with experts includin collecting data to shape policy in the future.
What are the factors, patterns of women seeking abortions. (Causes etc)This state does 3,000 on an annual basis.
I approach this from a data collection point of view to examine why and how, in an anonymous manner for statistical purposes to shape better regulation.
Abortion is the utter lack of discipline which results in the final insult to god’s creational abilities. Only a communist/satanist would love abortion.
I have never met a single person who loves abortion.
How many have you met?
I see what you did there. You put communist & satanist together. What an incredibly sharp mind you have there. A fine example of trolling…
“The majority of articles from the pro-abortion lobby cite this state as anti-choice and the law is designed to invoke emotion, trauma.”
That’s because it IS designed to invoke emotion. If it was designed to impart information, it would require that information be disclosed, not that it be disclosed in a particular format.
…
..
.
Of course the label “anti-choice” is another example of the culture war language we don’t need. What? You oppose abortion? You can’t possibly be motivated by beliefs about when life begins, you must really be motivated by an evil desire to control women!
ugh.
Gayle Rawanda ring a bell dear, wasn’t that a genocide that occurred on Liberal watch who signed on to the ROE via the UN? The self same libs that sent us to Afghanistan buttercup.
Communism and satanism do have ties actually and I can prove it if you like?
And then someone else can prove the links between churches and molesting little boys for us.
I shouldn’t bother addressing your post at all except that you had the unmitigated gall to paint yourself role of defending God and his creation while simultaneously denigrating people created in the image of God by implying that pro-choice supporters are satanists.
I have no idea what god you worship, but I know that your post was thoroughly unChristian. You should be ashamed of what you wrote.
And this means what, exactly?
Maybe if you were more coherent you could actually make a point.