Human Rights

Canadian MP calls out the hypocrisy of pro-abortion bullies

As indicated by last month’s critically acclaimed documentary Bully, bullying awareness seems to be in vogue right now. A welcome development, to be sure – the more children learn to overlook race, weight, orientation, or any of the million other reasons kids find to hurt each other, the better – but amidst this outpouring of compassion for the young, one wonders: aren’t we missing somebody?

Conservative Canadian MP Maurice Vellacott noticed the discrepancy:

He calls it the “cruellest of ironies” that there’s no protection in Canada for fetuses at any stage of pregnancy.

“In this case, it’s in every case a terminal victim as a result of the bullying that occurs,” Mr. Vellacott said in an interview Thursday. “It seems almost too obvious to state, but it’s bullying in the worst degree.”

Mr. Vellacott has long advocated for laws to protect fetuses. He joins fellow Tory caucus member Stephen Woodworth in calling for a public re-examination of the abortion issue – something Prime Minister Stephen Harper opposes.

Of course, one of his colleagues doesn’t see it that way:

Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett called Mr. Vellacott’s appeal “ridiculous,” noting that it came Thursday, on the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

“It represents a certain number of Mr. Harper’s supporters and it just feeds that group, even though it’s totally offensive to all those Canadians who have fought so hard for gay and lesbian rights and a woman’s right to choose, so in some ways he’s managing to offend all of those people,” Ms. Bennett said.

Bennett has the offense exactly backwards. However severe anti-gay bullying may be in Canada, I’m pretty sure it’s not legal for gay kids’ mothers to kill them because they decided they don’t want to be parents.

And if by “rights” she’s referring to same-sex marriage, that’s an entirely different can of worms. The tangible legal benefits gay couples desire (like hospital visitation) can be achieved without redefining marriage, and the intangible satisfaction of government endorsing somebody’s relationship, aside from completely missing the point of marriage, is just that: subjective perception of an intangible effect, whereas the direct, literal violence of abortion is about as tangible as can be.

Indeed, that’s precisely Vellacott’s point: we purport to be so attuned to the suffering of our children, yet we turn a blind eye to the most egregious violence of all, inflicted on the most innocent of all. (Actually, that’s not completely accurate – merely ignoring abortion might be preferable to the enthusiastic celebration of it that goes on today.)

That’s the dirty little secret of too many of today’s politicians and activists: their compassion extends only to the easy cases, where there’s a photogenic victim or no-risk credit to be had by taking a stand on something everyone agrees about. But when we can pretend the victim doesn’t exist, or if the offense has a powerful interest group backing it, well, tough luck.

Canada’s true anti-bullying champion, Maurice Vellacott, should be commended for calling out this hypocrisy and sticking up for the littlest guy of all.

Live Action on Facebook
  • bnotestine

    Our Father in Heaven is, according to His own word, pro Life, (He BEING Life), and has set up marriage between a man and a woman as the loving basis for progeneration. Who would bully a population into violation of eternal Truth. To those – repent!

  • peach

    Some people would call you a bully, Calvin, for being against same-sex marriage. But it’s okay for you to be a hypocrite. 

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Wow. Way to mindlessly repeat a talking point I explicitly addressed in the very article you’re commenting on.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=681473501 Clarissa Masnaghetti

      I fail to see how a person who is against gay marriage is immediately a bully.  A bully is someone who hurts or intimidates smaller, weaker people.  Holding a position that is contrary to another person’s does not make someone a bully, and I saw no intimidation or physical violence in his expression of his stance.

  • http://twitter.com/MarauderTheSN Marauder

    I’m bisexual and I support same-sex marriage, and I don’t find what Maurice Vellacot said to be offensive at all. Carolyn Bennett should speak for herself.

    On a minor point, I don’t think that “the more children learn to overlook race, weight, orientation, or any of the million other reasons kids find to hurt each other, the better.” I think that the more children learn that race, weight, orientation, et cetera aren’t reasons to be cruel to someone, the better. People don’t have to ignore each other’s differences in order to not bully them.

    • peach

      It’s not what he said that’s offensive (though I find it to be, personally), it’s when he said it. He said it on International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. He’s trying to co-opt a day against bullying LGBT people and make it all about his little cause.

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        Ah, so we’re only supposed to care about certain bullying victims on certain days. Gotcha.

        • peach

          You can care about fetuses all day everyday but abortion has zero to do with homophobia and transphobia. It was rude and disrespectful for Vellacott to co-opt an LGBT day to basically say that he cares more about fetuses than LGBT people (on a day dedicated to LGBT people). Not only is it rude, it’s not a fair comparison and it doesn’t even make sense. I thought fetuses were murder victims?

          • MoonChild02

            It may be an international holiday to the LGBTQ community, but it is not nationally recognized in Canada, or even in the US. It is only recognized in Montreal, Buenos Aires, Spain, Belgium, the UK, Mexico, Costa Rica, the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg and Brazil. It was officially recognized by the EU parliament, but not by each individual state.

            MP Vellacott represents Saskatchewan, and, therefore, is not under obligation to recognize it as an official day for the LGBTQ community. Therefore, using the day to say that it’s unfair to not recognize other forms of bullying, is acceptable. It may not be to you, but he doesn’t have to recognize it because his locality doesn’t recognize it.

            Fetuses are murder victims in abortion. Abortion is a form of genocide. Genocide can be seen as an extreme form of bullying, since it is a form of being unaccepted.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            No, it’s pointing out the hypocrisy of people who make grand causes out of one group’s mistreatment while simultaneously ignoring – or worse, actively promoting – the far worse mistreatment of another group.

          • http://twitter.com/MarauderTheSN Marauder

            “to basically say that he cares more about fetuses than LGBT people (on a day dedicated to LGBT people).”

            All LGBT people start out as fetuses.

            “Not only is it rude, it’s not a fair comparison and it doesn’t even make sense. I thought fetuses were murder victims?”

            Aborted fetuses are just as dead as Matthew Shepard and Gwen Araujo and Sakia Gunn. Somebody didn’t think they were worthy of life, so they killed them.

          • peach

             I’m not sure what your point is that all LGBT people start out as fetuses. Pedophiles start out as a fetuses. That doesn’t mean we like them. 

            If you don’t know the difference between abortion and brutally murdering someone because they’re gay, then I don’t know what to say to you.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            They’re both brutal murder. One victim is killed because he’s gay, the other is killed because he’s inconvenient.

          • peach

             When a woman decides to have an abortion, it’s not an act of hate. Murdering someone because they’re gay is an act full of hatred. That’s why it’s called a hate crime.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            The motive makes precious little difference to a dead victim.

          • peach

            It makes a difference to the law. And I bet it makes a difference to the surviving family. That’s how there can be fetal homicide laws protecting pregnant women, but abortion can still be legal.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            You do realize that the whole abortion debate is about what the law SHOULD BE, not what the law CURRENTLY IS, right?

            And it doesn’t matter how a family feels about a murder.

  • cal

    I read this whole thing thinking it was a parody, until I read the bio at the end. This looks like a pretty well funded, well run site, so I’m a little shocked that such a fallacious crock would be allowed to pass as journalism. 
    Way to use bullying as a big ol straw man for abortion. They’re totally the same problem. 

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      If you’re gonna presume to judge what’s a crock and what’s not, shouldn’t you also put in the effort to explain why? With, y’know, an argument or facts or reasons or something?

      • cal

        Well that’s kind of the thing about straw man fallacies. You’ve remove the argument from a context in which it could logically be argued by bringing up a different problem altogether.
        I could give you reasons to rail against bullying, and I could give you reasons not to legislate against abortion – these are highly contentious subjects and there are many, many valid arguments to support both perspectives, but my point was that they are unrelated subjects. 
        The fulcrum of the abortion debate is the definition of when life begins; if we ought to attribute rights to fetuses, and does the fetus’ right to develop to maturity supersede the woman’s liberty. There is no question that bullied young people are alive and subject to rights! Bullying is bad, there really aren’t any compelling arguments otherwise – except perhaps that if promotes conformity, but that’s quite a stretch, and conformity is a fraught issue in and of itself. 
        Abortion is a very complex issue, and minds far greater than you and I and Vellacott and Bennet have been teasing it to bits for years now. There just isn’t an objectively right response to it. For Vellacott to bring abortion up in response to the bullying issue, is sort of silly and insensitive. And sure, we all say stupid things sometimes without really thinking about the implications of our words, but now here you are defending him, so…

        • cal

          Now that I’ve taken the temperature of the site though, I realize it isn’t just you. Feel better?

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Oh, I feel fine. It’s hard to rattle me without bringing substance to the table ;)

          • Elise77

             Hi Cal, you’ve wandered onto a site frequented by people who believe it’s possible to objectively state that an unborn human being is still a human being and, thus, entitled to life and protection under law. Not sure how this escaped you initially, but glad you’ve caught up.

            The interesting thing about the pro-”choice” side you apparently represent is that you define the beginning of life based on subjective, self-serving standards. It’s only a living person if it’s wanted by its mother. It’s only a living person if it’s attained such-and-such a stage of development. It’s only a person if it’s breathed room air. It’s only a person if the umbilicus is severed.

            Alternately, you consider the answer to the question of personhood unknowable, and believe that since it’s not possible to definitively determine the beginning of “life” we should just let the mothers do as they please from conception through birth (or beyond) with total disregard for the “fetus.”

            We believe it’s medically established that a unique human life begins at conception, and that everything else from that point to natural death is simply another stage in human development. We pull up medical texts to support this view. We believe that, if nothing else, we should err on the side of caution and give the “fetus” the benefit of the doubt, rather than even risk committing an atrocity. We consider that ths same arguments used to dehumanize Jews, slaves, and others are the ones used to dehumanize unborn children.

            Hope that helps.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          I find it’s usually a waste of time to debate anyone who believes “there just isn’t an objectively right response to” this or that issue, but here goes.

          Of course murder isn’t the same as bullying. But it’s obviously in the same category: the inflicting of suffering on innocent people. If there was an anti-bullying activist who also happened to advocate, say, segregation, or the legal killing of a certain class of people post-birth, you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation, because EVERYBODY would understand the obvious correctness of calling out his hypocrisy.

          Questions of rights may be value judgments, but we happen to live in a society founded on certain value presuppositions regarding rights, and a certain framework for evaluating value judgments. Meaning it is possible to find the “right” answers.

          Further, the definitions of life and humanity, and the question of whether these correctly describe the unborn, are NOT value judgments. They’re not unknowable. They are objective, empirical facts, and the answers conclusively fall on the side of life.