Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Eye of the beholder

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 2:17am - 97 Comments

After a day of debate, the Liberal motion was defeated by a count of 144-138, with three Liberals voting against.

The Canadian Press figures we’ve gained no clarity on the government’s position. With the Campaign Life Coalition having deemed this vote a referendum of sorts on abortion, LifeSiteNews calls the result a “pro-life victory.”

Tags: abortion, Campaign Life Coalition, foreign aid, house of commons, LifeSiteNews, maternal health, Parliament

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

The LPC manages to poke itself in the eye.

I think Critical_Reasoning and a number of other commenters called this one early on: it was extremely short-sighted of Ignatieff to trot out the abortion-funding-in-foreign-aid issue in an attempt to corner Harper, apparently forgetting that a lot of Liberals and a number of Liberal MPs are pro-life. Way to widen the divisions in your own party, Ignatieff.

And kudos to those Liberal MPs who either skipped the vote or (better yet) helped to vote the motion down. It's this sort of thing that shows out Parliamentary system is still somewhat operational.

Stan L

I don't think it was short-sighted……..I think he was set-up for failure by someone there……after all, have you seen the ones that were absent? not your usual anti-abortion crowd…..Anita Neville? Gerrard Kennedy?

wilson

Actually Stan, 7 of the missing 11 were Pro Lifers and reportedly asked to stay away.

Iffy didn't give his MPs the respect they deserve.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Waw, eh! MP Derek Lee, who for the past days, weeks, months has been shouting about the "importance of the House to be surpreme, to be the place where ultimate democracy must take place.

But then: "Pro-life Liberal MP Derek Lee was torn before the vote and ended up as a no-show."

Wonder how the G&M will take it from here. I mean, in order to fight a good fight, one needs some courageous warriors, not?

But then again: "But respondents were split almost evenly on the question of paying for abortions, with nays outstripping yeas 48-46."
which reflects the vote within the House pretty accurately.
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Seriously, Aaron, you guys do nightshifts?
Neil from Calgary

Looks like the Liberals gave themselves a "wedgie" instead of the government.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

:) :)

Iccyh

Would you mind if I looked for your email address, so I could send you an email about this?

This is sad and unfortunate on a lot of levels.
Whiskey

Best regards to you, Jack Mitchell.

I really do not visit this blog often.

However, I did hear Ezra Levant on CPAC talking about the virtues of the Ann Coulter visit and he was taking a slice of humanness from the Ottawa university vice-president.

I think I took from that interview, the same feeling that you have taken from the relative lack of caring from the Maclean's personalities.

But, they are 'personalities,' or 'entertainment,' as Ezra suggests.

Perhaps important because of their availability through their profession. But, it does not make them fair, or even nice folk.

So, enjoy your new nest and those you wish to surround yourself with.

You expected too much from folk that do not have too much to offer.

kcm

Jeez Jack what are we going to do without you? Few people on here have given as much pleasure and had so much fun doing it as yourself – so think about that if you're ever tempted to be bitter. This place was much better for your being here. Glad to see life's gotta lot of good things in store for you. Check in again some time. All the best KC.
PS
[ i forgive you for not mentioning me in your epic,[ seriously] what the hell rhymes with kcm anyway :) ?]

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

Congratulations on your upcoming wedding and best of luck in Halifax
Your posts will be missed.

Keep your head up and your stick on the ice and let's have a drink after the game

danby
Anon Liberal

Thank you for all the witty and insightful comments over the years Jack. I understand and support your decision. Your presence will be sorely missed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Mike514 Mike514

Congratulations on the wedding, and all the best at your new position in Halifax.

What's odd about Wells is that he's banned certain people from the comments boards in the past. This shows he takes the comment board seriously, which is why I'm surprised he's so dismissive of your concerns.

If the Macleans writers and administrators are as dismissive of the comments boards as you've illustrated, and won't enforce the rules evenly, then what's the point? Why does Macleans bother encouraging any discussion at all?

http://intensedebate.com/people/macleans Macleans.ca

I believe Well's point was not that we don't take our comment boards seriously, we do. That's why we're putting in some effort to keep them clean (with the communities help).

His point was more so that this is in the internet and there will be people on the internet who's goal it is to offend you. If you plan on spending your time on the internet you need to learn that these people exist and to not take it too personally.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

I believe Well's point…

Wells's.
Sigh

with the communities help
community's help

who's goal
whose goal

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

It was a free vote and that's all you can ask for.
Mr Ignatieff , you could have handed this better and I can't help but think you look foolish.

Most interesting to me is that the Bloc MP's hail from a largely Catholic neck of the woods, yet all voted against the motion.

Greg

But Danby, that's the point, it wasn't a free vote. It was a whipped vote and the Liberal backbench ignored it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

I meant a "free vote" in that it wasn't just one party dictating through a majority.
I conclude that the Liberals who voted against it did so because they just couldn't support abortions; what other reason could there be? Of course their actions undermine Michael Ignatieff's leadership, and the unity of the Liberal party; they surely knew that going in.

There has been much criticism leveled at Stephen Harper for keeping such a tight rein on his MP's. Now we'll criticize MI for not keeping a tighter rein on his MPs?

Greg

The problem is, if you read the stuff over at Inside Politics, that the leader's office and the whip did a terrible job communicating with the MP's (they are claiming they thought it was a free vote). That speaks to the competence of the people running the party.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I think you mean they all voted for the motion.

Anyway, it's worthwhile to remember the distinction between those who self-identify as Catholic due to their upbringing/heritage vs. those who are practicing Catholics. Quebec is largely populated by the former, not the latter, as anyone who's attended Mass in Quebec (outside the Oratory in Montreal) can attest.
richard

"a largely Catholic neck of the woods"

Ummm, I suggest you Google "Quiet Revolution"

Neil from Calgary

Good luck with everything Jack and congrats on the wedding. I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving Maclean's, and I only wish my last post(s) was as eloquent and well-thought out as your posts have been. Best wishes from Calgary.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

All the best Jack. I know you will do well in Halifax.
CAPS

Jack,

So long and thanks for all the fish. Your verse is definitely not Vogonish and I feel honoured to have been mentioned in it.

As with the others I too will miss your comments and your poetry.

Congratulations on the impending nuptuals and your upcoming position at Dal.

I am sure we will hear from you again.

CAPS
wilson

'the result a “pro-life victory.”

The unintended consequences of Liberals playing gotcha.
Yes, it is a victory for Pro Lifers, and calls for the end of Liberals demonizing Christianity.

kcm

Read WDM above. You've just dismissed the right of a good many libs to hold Christian beliefs.
AT1

I can't see this as an outright victory. First, the Lib motion was fairly nonspecific, though I grant you everyone knew exactly what they were referring to, but trying very hard not to say. Second, the motion was larded up this anti-Bush rhetoric that was totally unnecessary and pointless, unless the goal was to link it to the present Cons. Third, the Cons insisted, rightly I believe, that a discussion of abortion is unhelpful when the intended goal is to improve mother AND child care, which I can only interpret as referring to pre-and postnatal care associated Intended/Wanted pregnancies in the 3rd world.

There is simply no victory to be gained, possibly ever, on this subject. The extreme views are dug-in and unmovable. There a more nuanced and populous center opinion, but when these people are forced into an extreme (yes or no), you get this:

"The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggested overwhelming support for providing contraceptives to the world's poorest women, with 74 per cent in favour and 21 per cent opposed.

"But respondents were split almost evenly on the question of paying for abortions, with nays outstripping yeas 48-46."

Every party has Yes and Nays, so how can anyone really win?

wilson

If the Liberal motion was about contraceptives only, it would have passed.
It was about abortion, evidenced by Lib Pro Lifers saying so , and voting against it.

AT1

I don't disagree, but read my last line again, slowly.

It's not as if the debate has been settled.
Lord Kitchener's Own

It was about abortion, evidenced by Lib Pro Lifers saying so, and voting against it.

That's your evidence? That Pro Lifers said it was about abortion and voted accordingly? By that logic, a pro-lifer could say that a vote to abolish the gun registry is about abortion, vote against it accordingly, and have this action then cited as proof that the vote to abolish the gun registry was all about abortion.

AT1

You're reaching a wee bit.

I think everyone understood what the motion was about even if the Libs couldn't bring themselves to speak the word.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, I'd be reaching if I said the motion had nothing to do with abortion, that's quite true. However, I think I'm on pretty solid ground in saying that 3 Pro Life Liberal MPs voting against the motion isn't "evidence" that the motion was about abortion. That's pretty specious reasoning.

I also think the reference to Bush is what stopped it from passing, not the notion that a motion that never uses the word abortion was really all about abortion.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

You think the prolife Liberal NAY votes were protecting W's honour? Huh?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Sorry to see you go Jack. Your contributions here have been entertaining and thought provoking.
Wishing you all the best in marital bliss, and best of luck with life in Halifax.

Salut!
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I don't want to go into details, but I dispute some of things you've said. For instance, I never called you, or anyone, "Mein Mitchell". There have been several occasions you have attributed words to me that I have never said. In fact, I don't think I've ever used the word "Mein" or any Germain derivative in my life. I also make it a point to avoid stupid general comparisons with Nazis or Hitler, which generally do nothing but dumb-down a conversation.

As for the the most recent incident, as far as I'm concerned, you were the one to link the recent incident with the previous incident. You stirred up that tempest again. I took dispute with your comments about Cosh, and nothing more, nobody referred to the Wells flame war except you. Once you had done so, then of course I had to correct all of your factual inaccuracies, because then, as now, you attribute things to me that I have never said.

I've probably had a grand total of 4 or 5 comments of mine deleted because the were reported by you, not counting that one thread you refer to. Your characterization of this issue is false, as usual. Go to Dalhousie and don't come back, I'm tired of personal attacks, followed by your sob stories. Even in this post you could not resist insulting Steyn once more. Get real.

kcm

And when you insult Wherry that's somehow different? What's sauce for the goose…
I have no real problem you criticising AW. [ when i think it through] But i find it odd that JM's views of Steyn, Cosh et al., are somehow outside the pale.[ maybe it's just outside your pale] No need to take this personally, it is after all the internet, right.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I try not to personally insult the abilities and credentials of Wherry. Sometimes I call a post of his a "hit-piece". Or I call it misleading, lacking perspective, showing bias, showing Liberal support, whatever. But I stick to the content. I'll never comment on Wherry's professional abiltiies, in fact – I believe he is an extremely skilled writer and prolific blog poster. I just happen to disagree with most of his opinions and his presentation of ideas. Even then, if I see an insult, I don't consider it beyond the pale, but I may choose to challenge an insult. Free speech for all.

kcm

i think you're rationalizing. I see little or no difference between JM's criticisms of Steyn/cosh and yours of AW. He provides context and reason to his citicism as well as you do. You simply don't like the crticism. Anyway, i've said my piece in defence of Jack. We see things differently – and that's ok too.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But if people think I'm too critical of Wherry the author instead of Wherry's post (which can be a fine line), then they can challenge me on it – that's fine. I might not back down, but everyone is entitled to say what they want, and Maclean's is entitled to decide what the rules are.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

I don't know the history here, nor do I really care to know all of the details. I like what you say within this particular posting.

I believe all participants (including the blog item-writers working at Macleans, for they start off the topic and the rest is allowed to flow as freely as possible) are in the same sort of boat when floating down that river. We need to keep our wits about us and not feel offended so easily. Hell, if Coyne or Wells state somethings that don't make sense, we have a duty to tell them. Does anyone really believe that men such as Coyne and Wells, for instance, have all the insights to dish out and we have none? Each and every morning I rise up out of bed (I'm still in bed!) and say to myself: "What a great new day. And what a great new person to begin the day with!" :)

http://unambig.com Adrian MacNair

Those "3 Liberals" should be commended. What are they doing wasting their time in the Liberal Party?

AT1

Representing their conscience and/or their constituents, no doubt…wish there were more…n every party.
wilson

Well they certainly are the most important Liberal MPs in the caucus now.
As true Pro Lifers, are they there to change the LPC?
Katherine

Yes, I'm impressed with them. That took courage and they're likely to face consequences for sticking to their principles.

I expect that they're Liberals because on most other issues, they agree with more the Liberals than the Conservatives. It's not as if abortion comes up for discussion that much. It should – about half of Canadians think there should be some restrictions on it, but currently elective abortion is available, government-funded and unrestricted up until the moment of birth. Public opinion isn't as unanimously in favour of unrestricted elective abortion as people would think from the political debate (or lack thereof).

Link: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/half_of_cana…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

A fitting valedictory.

Fare thee well, Jack! You'll be sorely missed. Your contribution to these boards over the past two years has been nothing less than heroic, IMHO. With fierce wit, artistic zeal, a background in the classics, and a patriotic interest in the affairs of this country, you've raised the bar here at Macleans and you've advanced the cause of citizen punditry.

Sometime over the next few days, after I've had some time to reflect, I'll be writing a longer response to some of the points you raised. For now, I just want to congratulate you on the exciting developments in your personal life: your upcoming wedding and your new job (and life) in Halifax. We'll keep in touch!

PS: Thanks for giving this "frog of wisdom" a leading role in your hilarious mock-epic poem!

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"Interestingly, I believe these three (s_c_f, jolyon, and JamesHalifax) are all atheist Gentiles of Catholic background." Jack M

Why do you think that was a fitting valedictory? Do you approve of blood libel insinuations?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

You should look up "blood libel" to see what it really means. Saying that someone might be an atheist with a Catholic background is about as far from "blood libel" as I can imagine.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"the fact that I wished to protect Muslims from the kind of hatred visited on the Jews in 1850-1930 meant that I was, yes, an anti-Semite. Interestingly, I believe these three (s_c_f, jolyon, and JamesHalifax) are all atheist Gentiles of Catholic background. "

What does our supposed Catholicism have to do with anything, if not blood libel?

Jack M is claiming to be champion of people while smearing me and Catholics with his odious insinuations about Catholics hating Jews.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I'm a Catholic, and your insinuation that Jack was somehow "smearing Catholics" with that sentence is ridiculous and contemptible.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"your insinuation that Jack was somehow "smearing Catholics" with that sentence is both ridiculous and contemptible"

Imagine my surprise!

Use your critical reasoning skills and tell me what Jack M is implying when he brings up Catholicism in discussion of anti-semitism?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Yeesh. He didn't bring up "Catholicism". He said that you were an atheist with a Catholic background, perhaps because he found it interesting that your accusations of "anti-semitism" weren't motivated by your religious or cultural background. He certainly wasn't "smearing Catholics".

I'm not going to discuss this any further. I have no interest in getting involved in the flame wars of others.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Yes, you're only interested in cheering on Jack to do it for you.

"A fitting valedictory".

The accusations on anti-semitism were directly related to the words written on the page. Nothing less and nothing more. To bring up Catholicism, atheism or anything else is nothing but insanity.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Well. Don't worry. You have resolved the problem known as JM.
The question is – who will eventually fall next?
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Talk about more twisted pretzel logic of the JM variety. Contemptible?

Who knows what the heck made JM say that wacky remark, but there's not doubt it was said with derision.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

That's right. Beat in your points.
Who will be next to face the wrath of righteousness?
Which is better – validity, or class?
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Validity and class are not mutually exclusive.

And speaking of class (or lack of it), I see a blog comment that skewers Paul Wells has received a +4 thumbs up rating. Lots of class from those people hitting the button.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Isn't it interesting he chose 1930 as the end date of that period?

Wotcher?

Atque in perpetuum, frater, ave atque vale. Bona fortuna.
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Ok, I'm getting out of bed…….. NOW!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

You will be missed sir! Congratulations on your upcomming wedding, and the new job! I wish you all the best on your adventures! I enjoy a good read here on Macleans (often all I have time to do is read) but I make a point to scan the blogs as you and a few other posted always have something interesting to say. I'm saddened that your voice will no longer be amongst them.

As for your poem, they always give me a good chuckle. It humbles me that you remember me in your final one here. You spelled my name right to boot!

Cheers from beautiful BC!
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Well, ain't that a bummer :-(
biff

All the best Jack.

Though I disagreed with you virtually all of the time, you were fun to spar with. Your poetic wit was also much enjoyed (your sonnets? made me laugh out loud on more than one occaision – particularly the one where you made fun of my blogging style – nail on the head there).

I would urge you to return, but it sounds like you've got other reasons for quitting the blogging world besides frustration with this current dissagreement.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Fred_Moro Fred_Moro

It is sad that you are leaving bud although I can't say I blame you. Congratulation on the wedding and good luck at your new job. I am going to miss your comments and poetry on this board, always well written, thought provoking and entertaining.

Take care.
Sigh

…sigh