Thursday, May 11, 2006

Liberal M.P.'s Speak Out Against Abortion!!!

Liberal M.P. Tom Wappel and Conservative M.P. Maurice Vellacott appeared on Mike Duffy Live today as a non-partisan, united front discussing the anti-abortion rally on Parliament Hill.

"More than a dozen Conservative and Liberal backbench MPs, along with several senators, spoke at Thursday's rally, urging the crowd to keep up their fight", according to the CTV website.

Wappel said Canada is behind on abortion legislation in comparison to other countries.

"We're the only western democracy that has absolutely no law whatsoever when it comes to protecting the unborn child," he said.

Wappel said abortion is a "taboo" subject among politicians, many of whom won't publicly give their opinion on the subject.


Liberal M.P.'s
Speaking out against abortion
In Canada.

I am not making this up.

Update: As I mentioned in the comments of this post, the NDP has a policy regarding social issues that all caucus members must vote as the party dictates (which is a rather ironic, considering what a fascist concept that is.) Therefore, anyone living in a riding represented by an NDP M.P. has absolutely no hope of having their concerns taken to heart.

This is a problem with moral issues because even with the Liberal and Conservative backbenchers being allowed to vote their conscience, the NDP and quite often the Bloc have to vote along party lines. Bev Desjarlais found that out the hard way during the same-sex marriage vote. The New "Democratic" Party is anything but democratic.

And they talk about Stephen Harper being a control freak.


Mac said...

Hard to imagine, isn't it?

Somehow, I have a feeling Wappel's time in the Liberal Party will be spent on the backbenchs. I'm kinda surprised to hear Vellacott speaking out so soon after his comments about the Supreme Court got such negative feedback.

vicki said...

Tom Wappel has spoken up before...I always wondered why he stayed with the Libs.This is encouraging!

Zac said...

Wappal and Szabo are at it again.

Remember the 1990 leadership campaign? Wappal ran on pro-life, single issue platform.

To prove to you Tories that I'm not overly partisan, I think that I'll rip on my own before moving to you guys first.

RGM said...

Well, hey, if it's such a big tent they should be able to accomodate a few folks with some measure of so-con views, right? They may get relegated to the backbenches if elected, but I'd like to think there are some big-L Liberals who don't tow the party line for fear of scaring off a few people.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

It's encouraging to see that there are a few good men in Ottawa.

vicki said...

and who do they have to fear now with no real Lib leader? Well...hasn't been a one for awhile I guess.

Zac said...

I don't care, let 'em speak thier mind. I'll speak mine.

Anonymous said...

Funny that the liberals always make such a big deal about abortion as being a constitutional right when elections roll around, but forget their 'pro-choice' ardour the rest of the year.

Whatever. Partisanship aside, I'm glad, and this is encouraging. We have never even been able to discuss this issue nationally before (since mulrooney, anyways...) because those on the far left have managed to make it seem like a crime to do so; and the liberal party has always caved to their agenda because it always becomes an election football that no one wants to catch.

If those in all parties (well, except the NDP) can put aside partisanship, perhaps we can pass SOME laws regarding abortion.

hunter said...

I like your emphasis on Liberal supporters, cause all the networks were saying it was only Conservatives supporting this issue.

Anonymous said...

Oh no, It's a hidden Liberal agenda!!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks for your input everyone. I watched Mike Duffy yesterday, and a couple of things struck me:

They talked about a "Woman's right to choose", and that whereas the Conservatives and Liberals can vote their consciences on moral issues, the NDP and the Bloc must vote along party lines.

The NDP always talks about a "Woman's Right to Choose", as if it is some sacred, unassailable edit. But nobody ever calls them up on this, and points out that we don't have to have an "all or nothing" solution to this problem.

I think there is definitely an appetite for discussion about some kind of legal restriction with regards to abortion. But the NDP get on their high horse and start yapping and everyone shuts up.

We need to target the Dippers.

Sara said...

what a way to start off the morning eh, thankfully I'm on my 2nd cup of tea..

someone let me know when the next rally will be I'll take pics for the bloggers...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Cool idea, Sara! Thanks.

Mary said...

Tom Wappel is one of the few courageous pro-lifers that there are out there in spite of being in the liberal party.

After reading the comment of liberal supporter one of the other pages of this blog that a blog is like having a party at your house and I would like to add that
it’s like having a party where the people never go home.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! Good one, Mary!

Dennis said...

Guys, check out this amazing link about a crying fetus -

Zac said...

Let's not keep in mind what a spectacular chimp Tom Wappel is.

Now before you jump on me about abortion, I'm not talking about that issue.

Tom Wappel has a very long history of refusing constituency services for those who he knows worked/voted for other parties.

In fact in 2000, he was sent a letter by a veteran who lived in his riding asking him to help him sort out his veteran benefits with the government. Wappel refused because he knew the man had voted for the Canadian Alliance. He said something to the effect of, "you trust me to sort this out but you didn't trust be enought with your vote, sorry not doing anything."

Obviously that's paraphrasing.

The veteran sent the letter to the National Post (or the Globe, I can't remember which) and Wappel caught flack for it.

I'll post the letter on my blog if I can find it.

Zac said...

There's plenty of pics online Sara if you want them...

Gabby in QC said...

"This is a problem with moral issues because even with the Liberal and Conservative backbenchers being allowed to vote their conscience, the NDP and quite often the Bloc have to vote along party lines."

I find the NDP position on matters of conscience inconsistent. For example, during the 2004 election campaign, 2 NDP candidates apparently would have been "permitted" to abstain from voting FOR SSM: one a Muslim lady, the other a Catholic priest. Yet Ms. Desjarlais was not accorded the same option.

The BQ and the CPC allowed a completely free vote. Liberal cabinet ministers had to vote FOR (or resign, as Joe Commuzzi did). Here's a breakdown of the votes:

Bill C-38 Votes:

BQ 43 Yeas 5 Nays 4 Absent
CPC 3 Yeas 93 Nays 3 Absent
IND 0 Yeas 2 Nays 2 Absent
LIB 95 Yeas 32 Nays 3 Absent
NDP 17 Yeas 1 Nay 1 Absent

I wonder about the absentees ...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Dennis, thanks for that awesome link!
I couldn't see anywhere where it said what that age of the baby was.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks for clarifying that Gabby, about the Bloc regarding the SSM vote.

Now, yesterday on Mike Duffy I thought Tom Wappel said that the Bloc has to vote in support of abortion, as well as the NDP.

Does anyone know for sure if the Bloc would be forced to vote along party lines in this case? Any info would be appreciated. Of course we are talking about a hypothetical issue I suppose.

I do know that when a Candidate signs on with the NDP they lose their autonomy on free votes.

Yeah, and abstaining is just a cop-out.

Zac said...

"Liberal cabinet ministers had to vote FOR (or resign, as Joe Commuzzi did)."

There's a parlimentary tradition called "cabinet solidarity" which reaches back to the days of Sir Robert Walpole in Great Britain. For all matters, the cabinet, ie the Government, votes together.

All parties do it, the Cons will do it at some point and I won't hold it against them. Its parlimentary tradition, not Liberal leashing.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac, I agree that the Liberals can't be blamed for following parliamentary tradition. I do think that Joe Comuzzi is a very courageous man. You don't often see that kind of integrity in politics.

Good discussion going on at your blog too!

Zac said...

To walk away from cabinet takes guts, I'll give him that.

Part of the reason I wouldn't trade him to you before...

You can have Szabo and Wappel though.

To this day I'm still not sure why they haven't crossed the floor. Perhaps because Mississauga and Toronto on Lib strong holds and they don't think they will be elected as Conservatives. Meh, either way.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac - It's the tan, right? ;)

Yeah, that's probably quite politically astute of Wappel and Szabo.

Zac said...

The tan helps him, yeah.

Sara said...

i think I popped a blood vessel :(

TangoJuliette said...

Wappel? A sorry, pathetic creature. A poor excuse for a hjuman being with a soul. A miserably-vexacious dolt, educated as a lawyer. Happens to be a living, horrific insult to all vets as well as being a vile insult to democracy, and to the principle of the secret ballot.

How in blazes did he know how anybody, especially the very needy 80-something year old vet voted? Wappel should be serving hard time somewhere for perverting elections laws.

Wappel's offensive, callous and mean-spirited petty patizanship, as Zac has so properly stated, should have been sanctioned from the highest parliamentary positions. Unfortunately, this was not to be. We wasted weeks debating flag positions on poles, trying to show our "respect" for our military veterans while old vets like Wappel's victim get forgotten. Shame on us all.

But Zac, from one vet, who speaks for many others, my age and older: good call on your part, to bring some balanace on Tom W. I certainly would strongly caution anyone against claiming Wappel to be on their side of any issue. He strikes me as the ultimate sunshine patriot.

He's not a Liberal. He's not a Conservative.

He's an individual with a specific belief system that allows him some latitude in picking his causes--as long as his choice(s) contribute to his personal aggrandisement--at least that's my read on him, in this situation.

l.h.&k TangoJuliette

Joanne (True Blue) said...

There is obviously another side of Tom Wappel that I am not aware of.

Gabby in QC said...

Zac said:
"There's a parlimentary tradition called "cabinet solidarity" which reaches back to the days of Sir Robert Walpole in Great Britain."

True enough, there is a parliamentary tradition to that effect - but that didn't stop pro-SSM people from saying that the MILLENNIAL tradition of marriage, which antedates Walpole, had to be discarded, because society EVOLVES. Well then, let parliamentarians evolve enough to vote their conscience - what a concept! Or better still, have a referendum on such questions.

It might be interesting to read these two articles.

"Personal Conscience, Caucus Solidarity and Public Responsibility

At the time this article was written Mark Koenker was the NDP Member for Saskatoon Sutherland-University in the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly. This article is based on his presentation at the 20th Canadian Regional Seminar of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Fredericton, New Brunswick in October 1996.

"How easy it is for us in the parliamentary system to conform to caucus or cabinet, to toe the party mark and spew the party line. Indeed, the very nature of caucus life seems to require conformity, if not inside caucus, then certainly outside."

And from

Discipline versus Democracy: Party Discipline in Canadian Politics

Neither article covers cabinet solidarity but they both make a compelling argument for not blindly toeing the party line.

Furthermore "For all matters, the cabinet, ie the Government, votes together."
Oh, I thought the government = MPs representing the people of Canada. Don't tell me I'm wrong!

Federico Perazzoni said...

Tom Wappel??


Zac said...

"they both make a compelling argument for not blindly toeing the party line."

True Gabby, but cabinet solidarity is strong. I would expect, and not criticize, Harper for doing the same. The government has to have one face, not many.

I'm just telling you why the Libs did it, why Mulroney did it, and why Harper will do it.

Perhaps a "free" vote would be nice, but I won't and cannot blame any govenment for excluding the cabinet for such a procedure. If you want, you can walk to the back benches, but the government in this country, like all country's, has to sing from the same song book.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Federico - Wish I knew some Italiano!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I've been thinking about this Tom Wappel thing, and him not helping a vet because he knew the guy wouldn't vote for him. I have the same relationship with my Liberal M.P. right here! Is this a party thing?

Gabby in QC said...

Zac said:
"Perhaps a "free" vote would be nice, but I won't and cannot blame any govenment for excluding the cabinet for such a procedure."

You're right, but I can dream, can't I?

Anyway, as I said in a posting on the abortion question, it is NOT on Mr. Harper's agenda, and I would rather such issues be left for another day.

On that note, Happy Mother's Day to all mothers out there.

Zac said...

"I've been thinking about this Tom Wappel thing, and him not helping a vet because he knew the guy wouldn't vote for him."

I will try to get the letter for you guys. Its very harsh. I will post in on my blog if I can find it. It was reprinted by the MSM a few years back.

But yes Gabby, happy mothers day to all those out there, especially Sara, if there was one day to honour your tireless work, today is it.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

That's a very nice comment about Sara, Zac! And Happy Mothers' Day to all the Moms out there.

Zac, if you can find that info about Wappel, that would be great, just so we can see what the fuss is about.

Not wanting to start anything here, but what do gay families do on Mothers' day? I mean if a gay couple adopts a child, and there is no mother around, what does the kid do? Isn't that kind of like discrimination? Should we still be allowing Mothers' day and Fathers' day? Just asking.

Sara said...

thank you Zak,,
I will be at work on mothers day but I do get my kids every other day so I'm all good!

Zac said...

Ok, here is a link to the Wappel thing I was talking about:

Here is a section of the letter Wappel wrote to this veteran who asked for help:

"According to my records, you were a past supporter of mine, yet it seems that in this past election you supported the Canadian Alliance. How is that you are writing me for help if you did not think enough of my abilities to justify voting for me."

Anyone still want to trade for him. Seriously, I'll take Helena Guergis and a draft pick...any takers?

Zac said...

I'll have a post about Wappel on Monday on my blog. The weekend is going to be a bit crazy for me, so it will have to wait.

I'll add a few of his other crazy little comments by then.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Zac. I'm a little busy myself. Isn't annoying how real life intrudes?

Zac said...

Yeah, I decided to have a bit of fun over the weekend before I post about Wappel...its up now though. I finally got around to it.

Anonymous said...

I don't see why this is so suprising? In most countries (the UK is one example) issues about abortion are not decided by the political parties but left to the individual politician's moral beliefs. I would describe myself as very left-wing ("liberal" to north Americans although liberal has totally different meanings in Europe compared to N.America). But I am anti-abortion. I am also certainly not religious. My simple belief is that the unborn child is life and that life should never be taken away. For the same reasons I am anti-capital punishment too.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Your views sounds very reasonable to me, Anon. Where are you from?