March 22nd, 2018

Denying Harder committee chair was right move

By Letter to the Editor on October 8, 2017.

Complaints from Ms. Harder and her supporters that it was undemocratic and intolerant to deny her the chair of the Status of Women committee miss the point entirely. As chair, she would be a spokesperson and defender of the rights of women. One key right that has been confirmed by our Supreme Court is women’s reproductive choice, i.e. control over their own bodies. Hard to think of any more basic right than that, but for women it has been a very long time coming.

Harder and her backers seek to replace that integral right, that bodily right, with the competing authority of religious doctrine, the further outrage being that this is yet another entirely arbitrary “interpretation” of that silly doctrine. The arrogance of these people is unsurpassed and yet they continue to force this competition, this showdown between human rights and religious “rights,” in spite of it being doomed for the simple and obvious reason that we are all human beings but we are not all religious believers. Hence the separation of church and state. Hence the more reasonably revered, modern, evolving and dynamic rule of law.

The nerve of supposed leaders among women such as Harder in particular to seek control over other women’s bodies is beyond perverse. It begs the question of whose side they are on. I know that they would smugly and self-righteously proclaim it to be “the fetus” or the “pre-born,” which implies that a fetus is free-range rather than inarguably implanted within another person’s body. This is the bottom line, truly, with no way around it. Messy, yes, and far from ideal but have you met bodies? Or human beings, for that matter?

Keep in mind that these same religious people of highly dubious moral superiority are also often bizarrely lined up against sex education in schools, which could obviously reduce the need for abortions! And Catholic doctrine is notoriously against even basic birth control, which is fundamental health care! How this array of backward nonsense can be perceived as anything other than purely punitive and therefore classically misogynist, we fail to see. Welcome to the world of religion.

Andrew Scheer nominated Harder as chair to signal to his religious base that the Conservative party views Christian dictates as superior to human rights. Harder stated in campaigning that she would work to eliminate women’s right to reproductive choice. The Liberals and NDP were quite right to deny her this platform.

Patricia and Tony Pargeter


Share this story:

16 Responses to “Denying Harder committee chair was right move”

  1. GHG says:

    Nice anti-religion rant.

  2. chinook says:

    Points well made. We need to keep religion out of politics!. Problem is Harder would not be able to keep her religious views out of politics. Liberals absolutely made the right decision.
    What Harder & her pro-lifers ignore is how overpopulated our planet is with humans and how each day over 300 species that also have a right to life go extinct. We need to manage our species and we’re not; rather we’re out of control breeding like bugs.

    • jill0122 says:

      Harder has NEVER brought in religion, but that fits into your agenda to smear her name. But for myself and other pro-lifers, we actually “get” that abortion is not how you control population, and science can show when a baby develops enough to proclude abortion. Interesting to note, we are bringing in thousands of Muslims, who often have 7,8 + children, and with multiple wives, if possible. They do not support abortion on religious grounds. Good luck attacking that one.

  3. biff says:

    the devil will have us believe the pre-born have no rights, and let us not forget the pre-pre-born, those souls awaiting their human host so they can get aboard with destroying the planet in the name of economics. women had best get impregnated at all times to accommodate for pre-pre-born, too. if people would only watch the handmaids tale, if only to get an idea of how there is a better world with a better way – the way of the conservative christian right – where women do their duty as god wishes, by choice or not. it brings tears to my eyes to watch women so stoic in their sole role as pre-born vestibules, carriers of the next potential baby jesus (who may well have reappeared by now to save us all, were it not for the murder of the sacred pre-borns). women should be held accountable for having intercourse, and carrying the pre-born to term is fair compensation for their outrageous choice to have intercourse.
    i had best underscore that this paragraph is satiric, tongue-in-cheek nonsense, based on the views of the conservative christian right, and is not necessariyl the expressed view of the web site or the editor – i have observed a few too many literal reads on some of my comments.

    • jill0122 says:

      Forget religion as Harder has never brought it into her politics.
      Try looking at Science Biff, and acknowledge that there is factual information the rest of the world uses to make laws around abortion. In Canada apparently, we have no right to a request that Canada should too.

  4. onlymyopinion says:

    well said Biff and Chinook. (as well as the Pargeters)

  5. zulu1 says:

    This attitude only illustrates the fact that if you live in this free and democratic country ,divergent views are embraced fully, on condition that you adhere strictly to liberal ideology. Nothing narrowminded about liberals !!!

  6. George McCrea says:

    It appears that some of the supporters who share your point of view have a slightly different opinion when it comes to your view is the only one.

    • Tony Pargeter says:

      This discussion goes beyond simple opinions or “views” found in any comments section. This is an historic issue of basic human rights that are the hallmark of our generally evolving civilization over time, rights that are “enshrined” in our rule of law, our constitution, and our particular Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is inherently dynamic and steeped in process, intent on as much reason and fairness as we have been able to muster as a society. And even though that quest has clearly led to the conclusion that it is of utmost importance to separate church and state, religion continues to seek power and influence as a valid competing authority. Its credentials are also historical—the man-made, stubborn codification of the classic human tendency toward wishful thinking ( in that sense it is the original fake news actually), all these doctrine-fuelled “belief systems,” or cults, have the audacity to also claim “divinity,” placing them “beyond the fray” that we all actually exist in. The natural fray, not the supernatural fray. As an atheist, I would agree that Trudeau is a hypocrite here, after watching him toady to the Pope and becoming misty-eyed about his own personal “faith.” But that blatant cherry-picking, all that sucking and blowing, is endemic to religion, more now than ever before as the nonsense factor becomes blaring. These people using their “religious beliefs” to sanction the rights of the “pre-born” while blithely and even casually, completely dismissing completely the rights of the “born” i.e. the pregnant, full-grown woman, is just another example of the blatant hypocrisy that abounds when religion has sway. But at least Trudeau’s cherry-picking errs on the side of modern society by bending toward human rights over religious freedom, understood by many of us to be the right to be deluded. Conservatives use the economy as a Trojan horse to usher in social conservatism, a.k.a.religious belief. That “hidden agenda” that Harper and the reform party brought in has never gone away because their worldview of wishful thinking is obviously paramount.

      • snoutspot4 says:

        Thank you Tony Pargeter. In writing “These people using their “religious beliefs” to sanction the rights of the “pre-born” while blithely and even casually, completely dismissing completely the rights of the “born” i.e. the pregnant, full-grown woman, is just another example of the blatant hypocrisy that abounds when religion has sway.” You have captured the core of the issue.

  7. jill0122 says:

    Our Supreme Court had not struck down legislation to support woman’s reproductive right’s, they struck down poorly written legislation, and sent them back to re-write it. The Conservatives made several attempts which the liberals rejected. We still have no law, and that was not the intent when the law was struck down. There are millions of pro-lifers who don’t believe in religion, but trust the science. Many others, believe in thier religion, and they’re thrilled that science has come on board. I think that Scheer thought it was safe putting this young, smart female from his caucus, in a position where she was the only one who would represent the pro-life view. I guess that was too much for the Liberals to handle.

    • Tony Pargeter says:

      The court threw out existing legislation because it violated women’s rights. The Conservative government had a majority but could not find a way to restrict women’s choice without violating their rights. That reality remains. So it’s true that no legislation was brought forward and abortion is legal. But although you make it sound like it’s rampant at any and all stages of pregnancy, and “science’ has “come on board” like that’s a new thing, this procedure has always been in the medical realm but remains quite limited in availability. For example, Edmonton and Calgary are the only places in Alberta where you can obtain an abortion. So the religious, patriarchal zeal to control women also remains, in spite of modernity, reminding us that women are “the niggers of the world.”

  8. GHG says:

    …So the religious, patriarchal zeal to control women also remains, in spite of modernity, reminding us that women are “the niggers of the world.” – Wow what a bitter disposition you possess.

    • snoutspot4 says:

      Bitter? That would be you. Any law that removes a woman’s right to ownership of her life and her body and leads to forced birth against a woman’s will is slavery. Too bad you don’t like the bald-faced accurate comparison.

  9. johnny57 says:

    Yeesh Patricia! I have never seen the baby thrown out so quickly with the bath-water ever!

  10. GHG says:

    You are so easily rattled, you make this fun.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.