April 26, 2008

Bill C-484

I don't have a lot of interest in federal politics. I've said it before in this blog, and as much as I try to keep my nose out of it, I'll likely say it again. It's not that I'm trying to get involved, it's that the clowns at the federal level try to pull the same shit as their provincial counterparts.

So this time, I'd like to take a moment to rail against Bill C-484, the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act". It's a private member's bill introduced by Conservative MP Ken Epp (Edmonton Sherwood Park), and it's just passed Second Reading on March 5. While ostensibly a bill to amend the Criminal Code to allow separate homicide charges in attacks on pregnant women resulting in the death of a foetus, it's really a backdoor to criminalize abortion and subvert a woman's right to choose.

The bill is constructed specifically to grant a kind of personhood to a foetus, in spite of the conflict this causes with the current provisions in the Criminal Code (Section 223[1]). The bill uses anti-choice language, specifically "unborn child", and continually refers to the foetus as a "child". The kicker is Section 238.1[5], which reads "It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being."

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has an excellent page of talking points for this bill, along with a number of links to news sources discussing similar laws in the US and their consequences:
14. We can impose harsher penalties for attacks on pregnant women: Double homicide convictions result in concurrent sentences in Canada, so this bill will not mete out any greater punishment for perpetrators, making it rather pointless. Measures to achieve better justice in these tragic cases already exist. Prosecutors can recommend more serious charges, such as first degree murder or aggravated assault. Judges may impose harsher penalties, and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators. We could even pass a law mandating greater penalties for attacks on pregnant women, as has been done in 13 U.S. states (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873). Alternatively, harsher penalties are already mandated under the Criminal Code's hate crime law, which would cover attacks against women because they are pregnant. Any of these measures would provide justice, while avoiding the abortion controversy and protecting the rights of all pregnant women.
If you care at all about a woman's continued right to choose, please take some action. Send your MP a letter opposing this bill (a sample letter can be found here). You can also sign the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's online petition.

7 comments:

Unknown said...

While i can understand why using the words "mother" and "child" in the bill will cause some fear in people - the bill is very explicit...especially here:

"(7) For greater certainty, this section does not apply in respect of

(a) conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented;

(b) an act or omission that a person acting in good faith considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of the child or the life of the child; or

(c) any act or omission by the mother of the child."

This bill was not created as a backdoor to criminalize abortion. I'm not sure how many people are actually reading the bill or if most are just reading the talking points from the ARCC.

Even though I knew this would turn into a pro-choice vs pro-life debate...it's still unfortunate that it did. You couldn't be more wrong about the intention of this bill.

Wolfman Brad said...

Hi Ray. I know abortion and women's rights are very heated topics, so thank you for your balanced comments.

I did read the entire text of the bill, and I did note Section 7, which explicitly states that this bill would not affect lawful terminations.

Of course, if abortions are rendered illegal, this becomes moot. And while you address the use of mother and child, you do not address the blatant anti-choice usage of "unborn child" five times in this bill. Surely we have better and less politically charged language to use than this.

But the real crux of this issue, as I pointed out, is how the bill attempts to slip personhood for a foetus through the back door. Section 238.1[5], which I reference, is a loaded gun; and while it can be construed that this section applies only to defense against this Act, it very clearly provides the ammunition to shoot down the foetus's current legal standing.

Interestingly, LifeSiteNews is reporting on this bill, and framing it as an abortion issue through some very strong anti-choice language: please see this story on the bill's second reading, and this story on the "pro-abortion extremist Liberal[s]" who voted against the bill.

Maybe you can explain how voting against this bill makes people pro-abortion, when it so clearly has nothing to do with abortion. Or how supporting this bill means women are "choosing life" for their children.

Unknown said...

Hi Brad. I tried posting a reply last night, but I accidently trashed it...argh...I'll try again this morning.

First off, let me just say a couple of things about my own views. I am 100% pro-choice. I do not waiver on this stance at all. I am probably the most left-wing person I know. I'm a socialist, I'm an atheist, I beleive (strongly) in the separation of church and state, the separation of church and schooling...I think you get the picture. I just don't want to be seen as aligning myself with groups like LifeSiteNews.

I've been reading many of the articles and blog entries regarding Bill C-484, and while I knew it would inevitably turn into a debate about abortion rights, I am a bit surprised to see that it seems that the only people supporting this bill are right-wing, religious conservatives. I just really feel that both sides of the abortion debate are missing the point completely. Pro-lifers grab onto the same terms as Pro-choicers. Words like "mother", "child", and "unborn child" seem to elicit equal and opposite responses from each side of the fence.

But, this bill is not about abortion. I know this for a fact. This bill is about violence against women. In particular pregnant women. Even more in particular violence carried out illegally by a third-party against a pregnant woman.

I'll quote a portion of the bill again (emphasis added by me):

"238.1 (1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant,"

Granted, the wording could've been different. "Mother" could've been "Pregnant Woman" and all references to "child" and "unborn child" chould've been "foetus". But I really believe that the people involved in the creation of this bill thought the bill was so explicit and that it had nothing to do with abortion and that made them slightly blind to the fact that these words would cause such an uproar.

I feel like I might be the only pro-choice / pro-bill c-484 person out here. But I am. And I wish the dialogue could change. It was not intended to be any kind of backdoor legislation to criminalize abortion - I know this.

Abortions are legal in Canada, and I am glad they are. And if there is a real threat to abortion rights in this country I would be standing right beside you fighting against it. But I'm sorry, I really believe you are missing the point with this one.

Unknown said...

Sorry, I forgot to address your concerns about Section 238.1[5].

This has to be in there. If it isn't, then every man that stabs his pregnant girlfriend/wife in the stomach (as an example) will try to use that as a defence. It isn't saying that the foetus is a person...just that the fact it is not a person cannot be a defence. I see no way this bill could work without that line in it.

Wolfman Brad said...

Well Ray, you certainly bring an interesting perspective to this post. Thank you for taking the time to point out your position. I'm certainly not trying to align you with anyone, so please don't take offense.

I guess I'm a little late for this dance. skdadl at Peace, Order, and Good Government did a reasonable slice-and-dice of this issue back in February, which I suggest you read. In particular, he notes that Bloc MP and Catholic priest Raymond Gravel has spoken out against this bill because of Epp's ties to radical anti-choice group Campaign Life Coalition. There appears to be some dispute over whether Epp is or is not a member, but it's very safe to say that he espouses similar views; in fact, the Campaign Life Coalition strongly supports Epp and the work he's doing (see the heading "Raymond Gravel").

skdadl also points out that criminal sentences usually run concurrently in Canada. The ARCC says the same in their page of talking points under Point 14: "Double homicide convictions result in concurrent sentences in Canada, so this bill will not mete out any greater punishment for perpetrators, making it rather pointless. Measures to achieve better justice in these tragic cases already exist. Prosecutors can recommend more serious charges, such as first degree murder or aggravated assault. Judges may impose harsher penalties, and parole boards may deny parole to convicted perpetrators. We could even pass a law mandating greater penalties for attacks on pregnant women, as has been done in 13 U.S. states."

Epp has a FAQ about Bill C-484 on his website. Under Point 7, about concurrent sentences, he writes the following: "Secondly, if a mother and her already born child were attacked and intentionally killed, or if a person opened fire in a public place and killed multiple people, the offender would be charged with multiple counts of murder, not just one, regardless of our concurrent sentencing system. The point is that our criminal law recognizes each of these victims, and recognition is not dependent on whether or not more jail time would be served. In this respect, Unborn Victims of Crime legislation is no different from how our existing criminal law handles multiple victims."

Again, this seems to be the crux of the issue: Epp is not concerned about providing harsher punishment for those who commit crimes against pregnant women, nor even in providing more protection for pregnant women under the law (though it's arguable that this would be an ancillary benefit of the bill), but in providing recognition that there was a second victim. That's all this bill has been designed to do: pave the way for the recognition of a foetus under the law.

The Campaign Life Coalition, for its part, would recriminalize abortion in a heartbeat, as we see in its February newsletter. So its not much of a stretch to view its vocal support of this bill as a step toward this goal. To put this another way, any legislation that a rabidly anti-choice group is fully in favour of ought to give immediate pause to anyone who cares about women's rights and the recriminalization of abortion.

Ray, I obviously can't speak for you and I don't know what your experiences are. But if you have something to share with me that you feel may have an impact on this discussion, please contact me directly at wolfman.brad@gmail.com. You can trust me to keep your confidence.

pogge said...

Skdadl's a she. And a belated welcome to blogtopia.

Wolfman Brad said...

Thanks, pogge. Sorry for the mix-up.