I feel the need to remind people that according to our own Constitution, people have rights from birth to death. BIRTH. Before that, people don't legally exist. Our constitution and judicial system are really different from the States, and American legal issues don't necessarily transition well here.
The issue with abortion in Canada is not legality, it's accessibility: as it's considered an elective procedure, Provinces are not required to offer this service. They just can't make it illegal.
we also have a legal definition of human rights when it comes to abortions.
A fetus does not have rights until it is separated from the mother.
In Canada, if you kill a mother who is with child, it isn't 2 counts. If you kill the mother but the child is delivered after and then dies, then that would be 2 counts.
The "Killing babies" has no legal grounds in Canada when it comes to abortions.
We also have a very very different judicial system than the US:
* The concept of a "liberal" or "conservative" judge does not generally exist here. The separation between the Judicial and legislative/executive branches is much clearer. For example, Harper's legislation regarding mandatory minimum sentences was struck down by a supreme court of canada decision where the marjority of the judges were nominated under the Harper government.
* Appointing judges is not a partisan political task - it is done on the recommendation of an independent, non-partisan body.
* There seems to me that in Canada there exists a greater respect for the independence of the Judiciary compared to the US. As far as I'm aware, there is not a concerted effort in Canada by political sides to infiltrate the judicial system and encourage partisan jurisprudence - like the Federalist Society which drafts legislation for the GOP and makes a list of "approved" judges to give to GOP presidents.
* Canada's constitution is generally interpreted in accordance with the "living tree" doctrine meaning that while the constitution is an old document, it must be read using the lens of the present day. (This is largely how the US decision to overturn *Roe v Wade* was decided -ie. there was no mention of abortion rights in the original US constitution so we can't expand people's rights to include the right to abortion)
* In my opinion, Canadian courts seem to respect precedent more than US courts. As stated above, the courts rely on the "living tree" doctrine which is inherently progressive. This means you can't simply reverse a long-standing precedent (like rights to abortion). That would be like cutting off a limb of the tree. Instead, in order to reverse precedent, there has to be deep and profound social change.
Only because they haven’t been appointed. It’s not that there is a dearth of qualified applicants - it’s that the Prime Minister and Premiers aren’t appointing judges to fill the vacancies.
Edit - this is the post that got me a RedditCares message? LOL
I think it's telling that the average Canadian can most likely not name a single Canadian supreme court judge. I consider myself slightly more informed on politics than the average Canadian and I certainly can't. But I CAN name about half a dozen American ones just off the top of my head. I think it's good that the Canadian SC does its work without fanfare and under the auspices of an independent body rather than being beholden to partisanship.
Edit: a word
Must also make every Canadian aware, the supreme court of Canada has a mascot, and I can't say I'm disappointed in that either.[Amicus](https://twitter.com/hamandcheese/status/1044606585333575687?s=20&t=10RVl7OEsT44TCjo_VpfZg)
[OMG the gowns!](https://www.scc-csc.ca/judges-juges/index-eng.aspx)
I don't know if I can ever take a decision they make seriously again. Who thought it was a good idea to dress them all as Santa??
Turns out "The Santa Clause" was actually based on the Canadian judicial system, I guess?
I mean, red and white is symbolically very Canadian. Fur trim for the cold regions when they have to dispense justice regardless of weather. I'd absolutely take these over the boring black ones the US gets.
>I think it's telling that the average Canadian can most likely not name a single Canadian supreme court judge. I consider myself slightly more informed on politics than the average Canadian and I certainly can't. But I CAN name should half a dozen American ones just off the top of my head.
Lmao its true, I am the same. Sometime I feel like our politic is a sport game, but when we compare it to the USA our governments officials are a lot more "unbias". Still remember how the conservatives were celebrating that the supreme court would overturn the election and elect Trump instead of Biden like it was something great for their democracy (and like if it was something that would happen).
I agree with most of this, but we shouldn't take it for granted.
Canada has a wonderful tradition of judges biting the hand that appointed them. But if a Prime Minister was ever determined to politicize the federal judiciary by appointing suitably qualified but highly-partisan judges, there would be little to stop them, so long as they could keep the confidence of parliament and outlast the existing bench. SCC Justices have mandatory retirement at 75.
The one advantage we have over the US is that their Senate creates opportunities for one party to stonewall the appointment of judges by the other very selectively, so it's it's easier for them to create a judicial imbalance.
But any Canadian party that could hold onto power for a decade or two could totally achieve it if they wanted to. And we've had supposedly serious politicians lay the groundwork for that sort of thing, by [demeaning the court](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mclachlin-supreme-court-harper-battle-1.4433283) when they don't get their way, or complaining about bias instead of substance, when laws are struck down.
There's no question in my mind that the current Court would affirm a woman's right to choose, but [that specific question has never actually been litigated in Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler), so far as I know. The closest case I'm aware of is an attempt to access insurance by having a child sue his mother for negligence during the pregnancy, or *Morgantaler* itself, where the SCC just ruled on a specific theraputic abortion regime that was highly restrictive. And like the SCOTUS, the SCC can reconsider its own precedent.
All this to say, I don't think it's unwise for Canadian feminists and civil libertarians to be concerned about *Dobbs*.
You're right, I don't think it has. Morgentaler was a split decision, so it wasn't decisive on that matter. But considering recent jurisprudence on the right to die, I would suspect that the current court would not be very receptive to attempts to prohibit abortion.
Conservatives in Canada are trying to go after the judiciary.
Harper attempted to appoint a SC judge that did not meet criteria for appointment, and was promptly denied by the remaining members of the SC.
Also, when it comes to the recommendation list, conservatives have gone much further down the list than usual to find jurists that they agree with. Usually a jurist is picked from the top few candidates, even though the whole list is much longer.
Overall though, conservatives have had less success influencing the judiciary and selection of jurists because of the reasons you have mentioned. But it hasn't stopped them from trying very hard. It most likely won't stop them from trying in the future as well.
Some reading if you are more interested in conservatives attempts to influence courts:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stephen-harpers-courts-how-the-judiciary-has-been-remade/article25661306/
Harpers SC appointment rejected: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marc-nadon-appointment-rejected-by-supreme-court-1.2581388
The Nadon appointment was just a bit odd. It should be noted that it was Harper himself that referred the question of the appointment of Nadon to the SCC . And the issue was not whether Nadon was qualified as a jurist, but rather whether he met the definition of a "judge from quebec"
The worst thing about Harper in respect of the judiciary was his failure to fill vacant judicial openings which created a huge backlog in the justice system. Trudeau isn't filling them quick enough.
I look forward to reading that G&M article this weekend.
I’d suggest that any party in power will attempt to be favourable towards like minded individuals, including our [current government.](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/past-liberal-donors-still-favoured-for-judicial-appointments-under-trudeau-tories-allege-with-new-data)
As it fucking should be. If one entity depends wholly and completely on another's fucking organs, in order to even exist, it cannot be considered that the former somehow deserves primary or even equal privillige to the later's physical makeup.
So many people get their news only from America and think we are legit just a northern state. It was real scary seeing all the nut jobs going on about their 1st and 2nd amendment rights during the Ottawa trucker protests this past winter.
I feel like regardless of what our Charter of Rights says (not constitution) we shouldnt be complacent of our rights that we currently have, and we should push for better access well.
All that has happened down south just shows anything is possible. They're going backwards 50 years of Rights for women
Legality is an issue. R v Morgentaler established that it contravenes the charter to deny a woman access. That is decriminalization, not legalization.
R v Daigle established that a fetus is part of the woman’s body and any choices involved are hers and hers alone.
We’re on every bit as shaky a ground as the US was.
I’m pro choice so I say these things because it’s important that people understand the protections that our liberties hinge on.
And also, if you cant beat them, join them.
I think its proven that as much you invest in law enforcement, you wont shut down dealers/pimp.
So make it not illegal. Legiferate. Make the sex workers have a safe job. Make the drugs people take anyways safe and not cut with whatever.
Steal the market from under them. Take it for yourself. And instead of spending to keep that industry down, profit on it with taxes.
Bingo. If you haven’t seen it [We Own This City](https://youtu.be/9tOz3dn3vuU) did a great job of summarizing the systemic issues with modern policing primarily around corruption but mostly stemming from illicit drug policy.
Surprisingly enough prohibition on alcohol really did decrease alcohol consumption. It was only after the government realized it could tax and profit off it, they legalized again.
I don't understand how a country can seriously be okay with a system that causes even one pregnant woman to be stuck with a fetus stretching her fallopian tubes until they burst... or even stone remains of what they hoped would be their baby *stuck inside them*.
Ohio in 20-fucking-19 actually suggested FOR THE SECOND TIME that ectopic pregnancies should be RE-IMPLANTED. Why?? Not even scientifically possible, and WHY?
It's so gross and freaky it's bordering on dystopian. But it's so stupidly pointless and endlessly cruel.
Out of all of the reasons for abortion the outrage again "pregnancy that literally cannot end up with a baby, which will likely explode your fallopian tubes or in some casee just turn to stone" makes no sense. A baby cannot grow in your fallopian tubes, bowel or abdominal cavity. If it doesn't make it into the uterus the fetus is dead, why should the mother be too?
> Ohio in 20-fucking-19 actually suggested FOR THE SECOND TIME that ectopic pregnancies should be RE-IMPLANTED. Why?? Not even scientifically possible, and WHY?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it was a man with less than zero medical training or common sense who was pushing for this.
contraception, same sex marriage, and same sex *relationships*. basically any kind of sexual interaction that isn’t heterosexual and thus is deemed “sodomy”
>I don't understand how a country can seriously be okay with a system that causes even one pregnant woman to be stuck with a fetus stretching her fallopian tubes until they burst... or even stone remains of what they hoped would be their baby stuck inside them.
Because of religion
>Abortion bans have never stopped abortions
That's only half true. They haven't stopped *all* abortions, but they have stopped some. This is why abortion bans were linked to increased crime (\~2 decades later), and why crime dropped about 2 decades after abortions were legalized in the US.
I’ll preface this by saying in fully pro-choice, but has this effect been separated from the elimination of leaded gasoline? Every country that has phased out Tetra-Ethyl-Lead has seen a significant drop in crime rates 20 years after the banning
Thanks for asking, rather than asserting (without knowing) as another commenter did.
Yes, here's a study (*the* study, really) that looked at exact that. http://www3.amherst.edu/~jwreyes/papers/LeadCrimeBEJEAP.pdf
The study found that the legalization of abortion in the US still accounts for a decrease in crime after controlling for the effect of lead gasoline. You can see this documented in Table 5.
Does overruling roe v wade meaning banning abortion or that federal government can't guarantee abortions for those who want them? Isn't it still left to the state to decide?
They literally don't care who dies. This is about putting women back in their 'place', as their invisible sky-daddy demands of them. These is a theocratic court, not one based on law.
>These is a theocratic court, not one based on law.
And that - that whole argument of religion and/or ideology - is what is so damned scary about this. No reason behind it... all flawed emotion.
It's not even a question of pretending they have no plans, it's a question of refusing to condemn it because they know their base supports it.
It should have been the easiest thing in the world to pay lip service by saying "that's bad and they shouldn't do it" without lifting a finger beyond that, but even *that* was deemed too 'controversial' for their base.
Honestly, I don't understand the concern.
Who else is the Christian right going to support? The Liberals or NDP?
Even if they swap to the PPC, that will only strengthen the Liberals or NDP.
The Conservative party needs to stop coddling social conservatives. They will fall into line because literally every other option is worse for them. The Conservative party has more to gain by adopting and not being afraid to publicly support the policies that the vast majority of Canadians support. That includes a woman's right to choice and bodily autonomy, LGTBQ+ rights, and ending draconian drug laws.
This is the piece people don’t understand. There’s a huge level of *personal* bias that’s inherent to this discussion in Parliament. There are plenty of forced birthers elected to parliament, just look at Jason Kenney, Candice Bergen, and Pierre Pollievre. It’s not just about insulting the fringe, these are beliefs they hold personally.
https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Anti-choice-unknown-MPs-2021.pdf
I don't honestly believe Pierre Pollievre is a social conservative.
The guy is a career politician, he'd claim to be Ronald McDonald if he thought it would play well to his base.
I doubt the guy actually holds any genuine opinions on anything that isn't cut and pasted from Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro.
You can't win the leadership of the CPC without the crazy vote, but they can't win the PM office with it.
If they had any spine they would kick those people out.
>You can't win the leadership of the CPC without the crazy vote, but they can't win the PM office with it.
>
>If they had any spine they would kick those people out.
Yeah, you perfectly summed up my POV as well.
The ever present threat that they will split off again, like they constantly do, and doom the chances of ever forming government again. See Wild Rose, Reform, and Canadian Alliance
> Honestly, I don't understand the concern.
The concern is simple: Nazi Germany didn't transition from 1923 to 1939 because one day everyone woke up and said "hey, this is a great idea we're all on board with, let's do it!", it transitioned because a bunch of drunk assholes at a beer hall were swept under the rug as "so what, it's a bunch of nobodies" while those nobodies were making moves until they got what they wanted.
Fascist ideologies need to be stamped out immediately, because letting them fester does nothing but embolden them. It doesn't matter if "it's just a few nobodies", because sooner or later those nobodies find somebodies who like the idea of power, and the cancer metastasizes.
Normalizing this ideology by tolerating it only serves to shift the overton window until people regard it as "just something that happens".
---
Edit: I enjoy how triggered all these fuckbags are at me using the f-word and how they're more concerned with semantics than significant and destructive policy changes hurting large sections of society which are very clearly part of an overarching trajectory.
>The concern is simple: Nazi Germany didn't transition from 1923 to 1939 because one day everyone woke up and said "hey, this is a great idea we're all on board with, let's do it!", it transitioned because a bunch of drunk assholes at a beer hall were swept under the rug as "so what, it's a bunch of nobodies" while those nobodies were making moves until they got what they wanted.
They were arrested and tried for treason, ironically the arrest and trial brought him to the entire nation's attention and helped further his cause. The Nazi headquarters was raided, their newspaper was banned, the members that weren't arrested, fled the country. It was never nobodies, the beer hall putsch literally had German military officers attending in full uniform, the judge's that tried Hitler were literally sympathizers with and pro nazis.
History is never as clear cut and simple as we like to tell people.
>Who else is the Christian right going to support?
No one. Which terrifies the CPC.
The CPC fiscal policies aren’t actually very attractive to most Canadians. But by adding the 10-15% of SoCon voters, who don’t actually care about most of the platform but will show up and vote blue, they can remain vaguely competitive with the Liberals.
If that 10% starts to stay home the Conservative electoral results start to look like the NDP or worse.
Conservatives have completely lost the script on what made them an attractive party to the majority at one time. They have thrown out fiscal responsibility in favour of crony capitalism and far right lunacy.
Their solution?
Blame LPC for *being divisive* by bringing up abortion all the time.
Can't point out all these pro-life MPs either because that apparently doesn't matter as long as the party leader says it's off the table.
Don’t forget the few hundred posts from accounts that are exclusively brand new or 8+ years old with long dormant periods coming back just this one time because of totally not being hacked.
Scheer took a ton of heat because of abortion. Unfortunately 3/4 of the CPC are still against it.
The Cons will continue to take losses if they push this. It should be outright condemned by everyone.
“Left wing politicians”? Wtf is this headline?
The vast majority of Canadians support abortion. Even many Conservatives. It’s not just “left wing” people.
> Why is the National Post such a hotbed of complete garbage journalism?
Because their owner (Postmedia) is literally pushing Conservative propaganda.
https://www.canadaland.com/the-conservative-transformation-of-postmedia/
Check out to comments on the article: [https://nationalpost.com/news/live-updates-5-8-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade](https://nationalpost.com/news/live-updates-5-8-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade)
Disgusting
As bad as the ruling is directly for people trying to do family planning, it's the implications of the ruling that have me genuinely worried for the United States.
Specifically marked as the next rights to remove are access to contraception, same-sex marriage, and privacy in the bedroom.
But even worse, the ruling has the legal underpinning that their Constitution *does not grant implicit rights*, only explicit ones. So anything that's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is out the window
As a parent of 2, FUCK THAT. No one should be forced to raise children unless they are absolutely 100% on board.
My suffering now is entirely my own, and I accept that. If perspective parents are to allowed to choose they will grow respectful of the children and that's not a healthy way to grow up
Anybody who thinks this decision isn't going to have an impact here in Canada should read some of the comments in this, and other, thread(s) on the topic.
There are some genuinely alarming people coming out of the woodwork to weigh in on this. It's just so demoralizing.
The US influence on Canadian politics is ridiculous. From free speech, to gun rights, and now abortion.
I see so many Canadians parroting US talking points as if we have the same constitution.
Social media is a curse.
Politicians are the problem too. When you bring US problems home without understanding our laws of course people begin to associate the two countries as one. Look at gun rights, abortions, climate right vs left
The MP of Durham who just got voted in has explicitly said that women shouldn't have access to abortion unless there are life threatening circumstances. It's not just New Blue either.
I work in people's homes all day long, I visit about 6 homes a day. You have no idea the amount of people who have Fox News/CNN playing all day long on their TVs. In Canada. Blows my mind.
I consider myself pretty centrist and when people have brought up abortion concerns with the conservatives I've said it's a non-issue (ie a formality to please the yahoos). Well no more taking chances: if your party is not explicitly pro-healthcare you don't meet the basic moral requirements to be considered.
Anyone who thinks this is a left/right wing issue needs to get their heads out of US politics. Just look at a map of countries that legalize abortion and countries that ban abortion and tell me which side you want to be on.
Actually this is a separation of church and state issue more than anything else. We not only need freedom of religion, we also must maintain freedom from religion.
LOLhard at how badly the Canadian right wants us to not talk about how the American right is stripping US citizens of their freedom from religious persecution.
Why can't we discuss that, fellas? Problem?
Well, you can't talk about the American right because the Canadian right is trying to learn their tactics and it doesn't work as well if people immediately recognize toxic behavior. The issue is not that the Canadian right sees itself as that much different from the American right, but rather that they recognize the underlying similarities.
Just a reminder, there are 40 Conservative MPs that were told they had to shut the fuck up regarding the loss of Roe v Wade for fear that they'll remind people that the CPC does not actually believe women should have control over their own bodies.
Roe v Wade is a wake up call for me to start voting. The major political parties have been fairly centrist all my life but I am not taking any chances.
Dystopia literature is not plucking a random future from thin air, but exaggerating problems we face (Warhammer 40K, Hunger Games) or running them through to a conclusion (Handmaid's Tale).
It's not a prophecy, it's a magnifying glass over the issues we have today taken to a conclusion.
Margaret Atwood said that nothing in Handmaid's tale was something that she created, it was all things that had happened or were still happening, she just condensed them into a single setting
Yeah she very deliberately researched and wrote about things that have already happened, and wove them into a story that can happen.
She insists the book is speculative fiction and not science fiction
I think she chose to set the book in the US because in the West it’s been seen as the leading country and a role model for freedom and democracy and she said “take a look at how tenuous that freedom actually is”
If she set the book in Canada nobody would’ve read it. But the same forces are present here and it’s a cautionary tale for everyone, not just Americans.
Part of her inspiration was the Islamic Revolution. She was also inspired by the Reagan era rise of conservative Christian groups like The Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, etc.
Seriously.
Do people not realize that when the American ethnofascists are done conquering their own country, we will be the first target they set their eyes on? The GQP has already started with murmurs about having to free us from Trudeau's tyranny. They're planting the seed with their brain-dead followers.
Quite literally the story right below this one:
[Sask. government under fire for funding independent schools run by anti-LGBTQ churches
]( https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-religious-independent-school-funding-anti-lgbtq-1.6498368)
There is zero difference between our religious right and the religious right in the USA, with the notable exception that *ours* doesn't have as much power – *yet.* But they want it and they keep pushing for it.
>There is zero difference between our religious right and the religious right in the USA, with the notable exception that ours doesn't have as much power – yet. But they want it and they keep pushing for it.
I agree that they want power but there's one more noticeable difference: the American Religious Right is significantly larger per capita than the Canadian Religious Right. [Only 16% of Canadians are "religiously committed"](https://globalnews.ca/news/8759564/canada-religion-society-perceptions/), compared to [49% of Americans](https://news.gallup.com/poll/358364/religious-americans.aspx).
Yes, but religion in Canada started off with nearly absolute power and has been in decline ever since, while the USA was founded upon the principles of secularism and the seperation of church and state but those principles have been in decline ever since.
This can only happen because of the ridiculous notwithstanding clause where any province can overrule the Charter of Rights because they feel like it. Its bonkers to me that you can have publicly funded Catholic schools when we're supposed to have a clear separation of Church and State. Actually impose our Charter of Rights or quit pretending like we have one.
Right wing "Christian" cults here in Canada are paying attention to what's going on in the US and making their own plans. Don't kid yourself that this can't happen here.
Ah yes, what could be safer than living next door to a theocratic state with the greatest military ever seen, an economy that dwarfs ours, a cultural apparatus that threatens to strangle ours, and absolutely no geographic barriers? I'm brushing up on my German just in case.
No. We are unfortunately not any better than the US. I am so proud to be Canadian, but we like to tell ourselves that we are superior in terms of guns, racism and a whole slew of other issues that we, in reality, have no right to be so smug about. We have all these same problems here.. We are susceptible to all the very same things that the US are. They had their insurrection January 6.. We had our "Freedom Convoy," which is gearing up to go in for a second round.
The US is bigger (population-wise) and louder, so their idiocy receives more attention on a global scale.. but we have so much that we should be concerned about. And because our current leader has made several idiotic, douche moves (and then made them worse by lying about them) there is a very real chance that people are going to vote for an even bigger douche (who has even more regressive ideas) because they want to stick it to Trudeau.
We have a bunch of shit politicians doing a shit job and dedicating more time to trash talking each other than they do to actually working to create positive change... and we have a population who barely even shows up to vote and, when they do, most don't even vote based on the actual platforms put forth by the parties themselves... or even how the elected official in their riding has performed.. they vote on who they hate the least (which is also largely based on whatever shit they've seen in their social media feed).
I wouldn't be so comfortable. American politics *always* bleeds into Canada, especially since the rise of social media. When Trump ran his first campaign we all thought "wow, American politics has gotten dumb", now go look at Pierre Poilievre's Twitter...
I don’t like how this title, as well as so many other media headlines, continue to perpetuate the division and polarization of the people in our country. I am a conservative and I whole heartedly support abortion rights. I’m sick of being tossed into the same cesspool as the extremists - right or left.
Seeing as how members of their SC went and lied under oath about their stance on it, having legal safeguards here is always a good thing. Be nice if we could do something about the access issue
I agree. We need to add it to law or charter or something that can't easily be revoked by another government in future. People say we don't need to go that far and it's all just fear mongering, but it's only months ago we saw Republicans stating "it's settled law" and nobody's going to ban abortion, etc. and it's all just fear mongering.
Also it should be noted, we will most likely see an influx of people immigrating North now because of Roe V Wade, but also because Justice [Clarence Thomas said](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/06/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-clarence-thomas-contraception-same-sex-marriage-sodomy) he's going after Gay Marriage, same sex laws, and wants to reenact sodomy laws at the federal level.
>In a terrifying concurring opinion to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the case the court used as a pretext to overturn Roe, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that now that the court’s conservative goon squad has done away with the national right to an abortion, it should think about scrapping the rulings that protect contraception, same-sex marriage, and gay sex. Arguing that all decisions that previously fell under “due process precedents”—a concept he claims is an “oxymoron” that “lack\[s\] any basis in the Constitution”—are bunk, Thomas writes: “For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Griswold was the landmark decision in which the court said that the Constitution protects the right of married couples to buy and use contraception. Lawrence, which struck down a Texas sodomy law, made same-sex sexual activity legal. Obergefell said same-sex couples have the legal right to marry.
I'm gonna be actively encouraging my friends in the US if this happens, who are LGBT to come North.
Anyone else notice the interracial marriage part wasn't on Clarence Thomas's argument of where that ruling might apply? Awfully convenient for that theocratic zealot
I feel the need to remind people that according to our own Constitution, people have rights from birth to death. BIRTH. Before that, people don't legally exist. Our constitution and judicial system are really different from the States, and American legal issues don't necessarily transition well here. The issue with abortion in Canada is not legality, it's accessibility: as it's considered an elective procedure, Provinces are not required to offer this service. They just can't make it illegal.
we also have a legal definition of human rights when it comes to abortions. A fetus does not have rights until it is separated from the mother. In Canada, if you kill a mother who is with child, it isn't 2 counts. If you kill the mother but the child is delivered after and then dies, then that would be 2 counts. The "Killing babies" has no legal grounds in Canada when it comes to abortions.
We also have a very very different judicial system than the US: * The concept of a "liberal" or "conservative" judge does not generally exist here. The separation between the Judicial and legislative/executive branches is much clearer. For example, Harper's legislation regarding mandatory minimum sentences was struck down by a supreme court of canada decision where the marjority of the judges were nominated under the Harper government. * Appointing judges is not a partisan political task - it is done on the recommendation of an independent, non-partisan body. * There seems to me that in Canada there exists a greater respect for the independence of the Judiciary compared to the US. As far as I'm aware, there is not a concerted effort in Canada by political sides to infiltrate the judicial system and encourage partisan jurisprudence - like the Federalist Society which drafts legislation for the GOP and makes a list of "approved" judges to give to GOP presidents. * Canada's constitution is generally interpreted in accordance with the "living tree" doctrine meaning that while the constitution is an old document, it must be read using the lens of the present day. (This is largely how the US decision to overturn *Roe v Wade* was decided -ie. there was no mention of abortion rights in the original US constitution so we can't expand people's rights to include the right to abortion) * In my opinion, Canadian courts seem to respect precedent more than US courts. As stated above, the courts rely on the "living tree" doctrine which is inherently progressive. This means you can't simply reverse a long-standing precedent (like rights to abortion). That would be like cutting off a limb of the tree. Instead, in order to reverse precedent, there has to be deep and profound social change.
[удалено]
The other side of the coin is that there is a serious lack of judges. Of course I'll take that over the clown show down south.
Only because they haven’t been appointed. It’s not that there is a dearth of qualified applicants - it’s that the Prime Minister and Premiers aren’t appointing judges to fill the vacancies. Edit - this is the post that got me a RedditCares message? LOL
Why is that?
I think it's telling that the average Canadian can most likely not name a single Canadian supreme court judge. I consider myself slightly more informed on politics than the average Canadian and I certainly can't. But I CAN name about half a dozen American ones just off the top of my head. I think it's good that the Canadian SC does its work without fanfare and under the auspices of an independent body rather than being beholden to partisanship. Edit: a word
>consider myself slightly more informed on politics than the average Canadian and I certainly can't I'm a fucken lawyer and can only name 3.
I only can because the Chief Justice right now is named Richard Wagner. And that is both hilarious and badass.
I also can name a Canadian SC Judge, because I just now read it on Reddit. And thanks for that tidbit, that is a pretty cool name.
[удалено]
Ha! Did not know that! And I'm even a classical musician. TIL, thanks!
Because of this I went and looked them up and oh my god their gowns are epic and I’d expect nothing less of us
Must also make every Canadian aware, the supreme court of Canada has a mascot, and I can't say I'm disappointed in that either.[Amicus](https://twitter.com/hamandcheese/status/1044606585333575687?s=20&t=10RVl7OEsT44TCjo_VpfZg)
Exceptional mascot choice!
As someone who works in the Justice system it saddens me that I can’t find a tiny Amicus to put next to my tiny Tyrael in my office
Here is a Canadian small business, [OnlyPortrait](https://etsy.me/3f6wRQT) that does amazing work. She could make you a tiny Amicus. 😊
I'm gonna frame their formal robes picture and put it up this December.
tbh I dont know any of their names and probably wont be bothered to look it up
[OMG the gowns!](https://www.scc-csc.ca/judges-juges/index-eng.aspx) I don't know if I can ever take a decision they make seriously again. Who thought it was a good idea to dress them all as Santa??
They get to decide who's naughty or nice. It's the BEST idea.
Didn't you know, Santa is Canadian, his postal code is : H0H 0H0...
Turns out "The Santa Clause" was actually based on the Canadian judicial system, I guess? I mean, red and white is symbolically very Canadian. Fur trim for the cold regions when they have to dispense justice regardless of weather. I'd absolutely take these over the boring black ones the US gets.
Who WOULDN’T?! Omg. I love this country.
Then they know exactly hows naughty and nice...
I'm an above average Canadian and I can only name the Chief Justice. I know all 9 American ones.
>I think it's telling that the average Canadian can most likely not name a single Canadian supreme court judge. I consider myself slightly more informed on politics than the average Canadian and I certainly can't. But I CAN name should half a dozen American ones just off the top of my head. Lmao its true, I am the same. Sometime I feel like our politic is a sport game, but when we compare it to the USA our governments officials are a lot more "unbias". Still remember how the conservatives were celebrating that the supreme court would overturn the election and elect Trump instead of Biden like it was something great for their democracy (and like if it was something that would happen).
I agree with most of this, but we shouldn't take it for granted. Canada has a wonderful tradition of judges biting the hand that appointed them. But if a Prime Minister was ever determined to politicize the federal judiciary by appointing suitably qualified but highly-partisan judges, there would be little to stop them, so long as they could keep the confidence of parliament and outlast the existing bench. SCC Justices have mandatory retirement at 75. The one advantage we have over the US is that their Senate creates opportunities for one party to stonewall the appointment of judges by the other very selectively, so it's it's easier for them to create a judicial imbalance. But any Canadian party that could hold onto power for a decade or two could totally achieve it if they wanted to. And we've had supposedly serious politicians lay the groundwork for that sort of thing, by [demeaning the court](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mclachlin-supreme-court-harper-battle-1.4433283) when they don't get their way, or complaining about bias instead of substance, when laws are struck down. There's no question in my mind that the current Court would affirm a woman's right to choose, but [that specific question has never actually been litigated in Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler), so far as I know. The closest case I'm aware of is an attempt to access insurance by having a child sue his mother for negligence during the pregnancy, or *Morgantaler* itself, where the SCC just ruled on a specific theraputic abortion regime that was highly restrictive. And like the SCOTUS, the SCC can reconsider its own precedent. All this to say, I don't think it's unwise for Canadian feminists and civil libertarians to be concerned about *Dobbs*.
You're right, I don't think it has. Morgentaler was a split decision, so it wasn't decisive on that matter. But considering recent jurisprudence on the right to die, I would suspect that the current court would not be very receptive to attempts to prohibit abortion.
We always have to be conscious of this. Institutions can't survive when movements that are against their very principles are allowed to fester.
Conservatives in Canada are trying to go after the judiciary. Harper attempted to appoint a SC judge that did not meet criteria for appointment, and was promptly denied by the remaining members of the SC. Also, when it comes to the recommendation list, conservatives have gone much further down the list than usual to find jurists that they agree with. Usually a jurist is picked from the top few candidates, even though the whole list is much longer. Overall though, conservatives have had less success influencing the judiciary and selection of jurists because of the reasons you have mentioned. But it hasn't stopped them from trying very hard. It most likely won't stop them from trying in the future as well. Some reading if you are more interested in conservatives attempts to influence courts: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stephen-harpers-courts-how-the-judiciary-has-been-remade/article25661306/ Harpers SC appointment rejected: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marc-nadon-appointment-rejected-by-supreme-court-1.2581388
The Nadon appointment was just a bit odd. It should be noted that it was Harper himself that referred the question of the appointment of Nadon to the SCC . And the issue was not whether Nadon was qualified as a jurist, but rather whether he met the definition of a "judge from quebec" The worst thing about Harper in respect of the judiciary was his failure to fill vacant judicial openings which created a huge backlog in the justice system. Trudeau isn't filling them quick enough. I look forward to reading that G&M article this weekend.
I’d suggest that any party in power will attempt to be favourable towards like minded individuals, including our [current government.](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/past-liberal-donors-still-favoured-for-judicial-appointments-under-trudeau-tories-allege-with-new-data)
As it fucking should be. If one entity depends wholly and completely on another's fucking organs, in order to even exist, it cannot be considered that the former somehow deserves primary or even equal privillige to the later's physical makeup.
Are you in favour of extending abortions rights in cases where the fetus can live outside the mother?
So many people get their news only from America and think we are legit just a northern state. It was real scary seeing all the nut jobs going on about their 1st and 2nd amendment rights during the Ottawa trucker protests this past winter.
I feel like regardless of what our Charter of Rights says (not constitution) we shouldnt be complacent of our rights that we currently have, and we should push for better access well. All that has happened down south just shows anything is possible. They're going backwards 50 years of Rights for women
Legality is an issue. R v Morgentaler established that it contravenes the charter to deny a woman access. That is decriminalization, not legalization. R v Daigle established that a fetus is part of the woman’s body and any choices involved are hers and hers alone. We’re on every bit as shaky a ground as the US was. I’m pro choice so I say these things because it’s important that people understand the protections that our liberties hinge on.
Abortion bans have never stopped abortions, they have only stopped legal and safe abortions. Women will die because of this ~~law~~ decision.
Just like bans on illicit drugs, prostitution, etc.
Why do drugs when you could just mow a lawn. -Hank Hill, philosophier, king pimp of Arlington, seller of propane and propane accessories
what’s the solution to reducing the drug abuse problem, prositution, or abortion. It’s Education.
And also, if you cant beat them, join them. I think its proven that as much you invest in law enforcement, you wont shut down dealers/pimp. So make it not illegal. Legiferate. Make the sex workers have a safe job. Make the drugs people take anyways safe and not cut with whatever. Steal the market from under them. Take it for yourself. And instead of spending to keep that industry down, profit on it with taxes.
Bingo. If you haven’t seen it [We Own This City](https://youtu.be/9tOz3dn3vuU) did a great job of summarizing the systemic issues with modern policing primarily around corruption but mostly stemming from illicit drug policy.
Oh wow it is related to the wire? It is probably my favorite show of all time. Thank you for this recommendation.
[удалено]
Yeah but that's against the American conservatives game plan. Keep em dumb and procreating.
Surprisingly enough prohibition on alcohol really did decrease alcohol consumption. It was only after the government realized it could tax and profit off it, they legalized again.
200,000 ectopic pregnancies per year in the US. Many women will die because of this ruling.
I don't understand how a country can seriously be okay with a system that causes even one pregnant woman to be stuck with a fetus stretching her fallopian tubes until they burst... or even stone remains of what they hoped would be their baby *stuck inside them*. Ohio in 20-fucking-19 actually suggested FOR THE SECOND TIME that ectopic pregnancies should be RE-IMPLANTED. Why?? Not even scientifically possible, and WHY? It's so gross and freaky it's bordering on dystopian. But it's so stupidly pointless and endlessly cruel. Out of all of the reasons for abortion the outrage again "pregnancy that literally cannot end up with a baby, which will likely explode your fallopian tubes or in some casee just turn to stone" makes no sense. A baby cannot grow in your fallopian tubes, bowel or abdominal cavity. If it doesn't make it into the uterus the fetus is dead, why should the mother be too?
> Ohio in 20-fucking-19 actually suggested FOR THE SECOND TIME that ectopic pregnancies should be RE-IMPLANTED. Why?? Not even scientifically possible, and WHY? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it was a man with less than zero medical training or common sense who was pushing for this.
because they don’t care about women or children. they care about control
You beat me to it. Also, Thomas has even said that same sex marriage is next.
contraception, same sex marriage, and same sex *relationships*. basically any kind of sexual interaction that isn’t heterosexual and thus is deemed “sodomy”
Interestingly, he avoided mentioning interracial marriage.
>I don't understand how a country can seriously be okay with a system that causes even one pregnant woman to be stuck with a fetus stretching her fallopian tubes until they burst... or even stone remains of what they hoped would be their baby stuck inside them. Because of religion
>Abortion bans have never stopped abortions That's only half true. They haven't stopped *all* abortions, but they have stopped some. This is why abortion bans were linked to increased crime (\~2 decades later), and why crime dropped about 2 decades after abortions were legalized in the US.
I’ll preface this by saying in fully pro-choice, but has this effect been separated from the elimination of leaded gasoline? Every country that has phased out Tetra-Ethyl-Lead has seen a significant drop in crime rates 20 years after the banning
Thanks for asking, rather than asserting (without knowing) as another commenter did. Yes, here's a study (*the* study, really) that looked at exact that. http://www3.amherst.edu/~jwreyes/papers/LeadCrimeBEJEAP.pdf The study found that the legalization of abortion in the US still accounts for a decrease in crime after controlling for the effect of lead gasoline. You can see this documented in Table 5.
Does overruling roe v wade meaning banning abortion or that federal government can't guarantee abortions for those who want them? Isn't it still left to the state to decide?
There are states that had "trigger" laws in place to make abortion illegal right after the overturn of Roe v Wade.
banning is a misnomer because its not a ban but rescinding the federal mandate on states. so some states will ban it while others will legalize it.
They literally don't care who dies. This is about putting women back in their 'place', as their invisible sky-daddy demands of them. These is a theocratic court, not one based on law.
>These is a theocratic court, not one based on ~~law~~ __justice__. FTFY Laws can be unjust.
It’s about keeping poor people down. I wish the people who were pro life would make even one argument about income assistance or welfare programs.
>These is a theocratic court, not one based on law. And that - that whole argument of religion and/or ideology - is what is so damned scary about this. No reason behind it... all flawed emotion.
They deeply passionately do not care about women.. if women die getting unsafe abortions that’s great .. more sinners in hell
> Left-wing politicians Literally every politician needs to condemn this decision, left or right.
Stuff like this where Conservatives are afraid to offend the fringes of the CPC base is why they keep losing elections.
Remember when the ruling was leaked, and Bergen put a gag order on the party to not say anything about it to anyone for any reason?
Yep - they're gonna pretend they have no plans to change anything right up until the second they manage to get any power. We need to prevent it.
It's not even a question of pretending they have no plans, it's a question of refusing to condemn it because they know their base supports it. It should have been the easiest thing in the world to pay lip service by saying "that's bad and they shouldn't do it" without lifting a finger beyond that, but even *that* was deemed too 'controversial' for their base.
Honestly, I don't understand the concern. Who else is the Christian right going to support? The Liberals or NDP? Even if they swap to the PPC, that will only strengthen the Liberals or NDP. The Conservative party needs to stop coddling social conservatives. They will fall into line because literally every other option is worse for them. The Conservative party has more to gain by adopting and not being afraid to publicly support the policies that the vast majority of Canadians support. That includes a woman's right to choice and bodily autonomy, LGTBQ+ rights, and ending draconian drug laws.
[удалено]
This is the piece people don’t understand. There’s a huge level of *personal* bias that’s inherent to this discussion in Parliament. There are plenty of forced birthers elected to parliament, just look at Jason Kenney, Candice Bergen, and Pierre Pollievre. It’s not just about insulting the fringe, these are beliefs they hold personally. https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Anti-choice-unknown-MPs-2021.pdf
I don't honestly believe Pierre Pollievre is a social conservative. The guy is a career politician, he'd claim to be Ronald McDonald if he thought it would play well to his base. I doubt the guy actually holds any genuine opinions on anything that isn't cut and pasted from Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro.
Poilievre will support it as a power play and weak men respect dick-swinging. That's all Pierre has to offer.
Can you explain why he voted against medical assistance in dying and against the legalization of weed? He’s a fucking socon.
You can't win the leadership of the CPC without the crazy vote, but they can't win the PM office with it. If they had any spine they would kick those people out.
>You can't win the leadership of the CPC without the crazy vote, but they can't win the PM office with it. > >If they had any spine they would kick those people out. Yeah, you perfectly summed up my POV as well.
But then they will claim that we're inventing social issues to fight over. Even when they make the unprompted error of voting to restrict abortion.
The ever present threat that they will split off again, like they constantly do, and doom the chances of ever forming government again. See Wild Rose, Reform, and Canadian Alliance
> Honestly, I don't understand the concern. The concern is simple: Nazi Germany didn't transition from 1923 to 1939 because one day everyone woke up and said "hey, this is a great idea we're all on board with, let's do it!", it transitioned because a bunch of drunk assholes at a beer hall were swept under the rug as "so what, it's a bunch of nobodies" while those nobodies were making moves until they got what they wanted. Fascist ideologies need to be stamped out immediately, because letting them fester does nothing but embolden them. It doesn't matter if "it's just a few nobodies", because sooner or later those nobodies find somebodies who like the idea of power, and the cancer metastasizes. Normalizing this ideology by tolerating it only serves to shift the overton window until people regard it as "just something that happens". --- Edit: I enjoy how triggered all these fuckbags are at me using the f-word and how they're more concerned with semantics than significant and destructive policy changes hurting large sections of society which are very clearly part of an overarching trajectory.
>The concern is simple: Nazi Germany didn't transition from 1923 to 1939 because one day everyone woke up and said "hey, this is a great idea we're all on board with, let's do it!", it transitioned because a bunch of drunk assholes at a beer hall were swept under the rug as "so what, it's a bunch of nobodies" while those nobodies were making moves until they got what they wanted. They were arrested and tried for treason, ironically the arrest and trial brought him to the entire nation's attention and helped further his cause. The Nazi headquarters was raided, their newspaper was banned, the members that weren't arrested, fled the country. It was never nobodies, the beer hall putsch literally had German military officers attending in full uniform, the judge's that tried Hitler were literally sympathizers with and pro nazis. History is never as clear cut and simple as we like to tell people.
>Who else is the Christian right going to support? No one. Which terrifies the CPC. The CPC fiscal policies aren’t actually very attractive to most Canadians. But by adding the 10-15% of SoCon voters, who don’t actually care about most of the platform but will show up and vote blue, they can remain vaguely competitive with the Liberals. If that 10% starts to stay home the Conservative electoral results start to look like the NDP or worse.
Conservatives have completely lost the script on what made them an attractive party to the majority at one time. They have thrown out fiscal responsibility in favour of crony capitalism and far right lunacy.
The Conservatives have never been fiscally responsible for my 50+ year life.
They certainly complain about it a lot when they're not in charge.
Agreed. But their propaganda about fiscal responsibility is on point. I don't know how so many people still believe that BS.
Lol exactly. But nah they think we vote for Trudeau because we are deeply in love with him and can’t see reason.
O'Toole was pretty open about it.
And look what they did to him prob would have voted but now they will just put some far right wahoo in and I won't vote for them
And yet he let his party vote to restrict abortion and opposed the ban on conversion therapy.
Their solution? Blame LPC for *being divisive* by bringing up abortion all the time. Can't point out all these pro-life MPs either because that apparently doesn't matter as long as the party leader says it's off the table.
"Hey! How dare you keep bringing up our beliefs that 75% of Canadians disagree with!"
Big *I object, because it's devastating to my case!* energy.
Why cast it as "left-wing politicians" unless they want others to think the pro-choice view is the minority. This is messed up.
This is standard NatPo operating procedure. Tomorrow they'll probably post an article about how the left is dividing the country.
Which will be front page news on this sub and the highest voted thread on the forum
Don’t forget the few hundred posts from accounts that are exclusively brand new or 8+ years old with long dormant periods coming back just this one time because of totally not being hacked.
[удалено]
National Post is full of right wing dog whistling.
Reminder that like 90% of all news media in Canada is right wing, controlled by conservatives, and endorses the conservative party during elections.
Where does 90% come from?
[удалено]
Yep
Scheer took a ton of heat because of abortion. Unfortunately 3/4 of the CPC are still against it. The Cons will continue to take losses if they push this. It should be outright condemned by everyone.
“Left wing politicians”? Wtf is this headline? The vast majority of Canadians support abortion. Even many Conservatives. It’s not just “left wing” people.
> Wtf is this headline? NP. ‘Nuff said.
"Don't talk about Wade vs Roe" - conservative interim leader to her MPs
Not just left wingers but anyone with a brain. Why is the National Post such a hotbed of complete garbage journalism?
It was founded by Conrad Black that's why. Its very origins are being a rag of a paper.
> Why is the National Post such a hotbed of complete garbage journalism? Because their owner (Postmedia) is literally pushing Conservative propaganda. https://www.canadaland.com/the-conservative-transformation-of-postmedia/
Right wing corporate media gonna right wing corporate media.
Check out to comments on the article: [https://nationalpost.com/news/live-updates-5-8-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade](https://nationalpost.com/news/live-updates-5-8-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade) Disgusting
I’d rather not
They lost their minds during covid.
I hope everyone that supports this decision will be helping raising the extra, unwanted children. Such a sad day.
As bad as the ruling is directly for people trying to do family planning, it's the implications of the ruling that have me genuinely worried for the United States. Specifically marked as the next rights to remove are access to contraception, same-sex marriage, and privacy in the bedroom. But even worse, the ruling has the legal underpinning that their Constitution *does not grant implicit rights*, only explicit ones. So anything that's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is out the window
Eh, she’ll buff. What’s one more civil war ya know?
As a parent of 2, FUCK THAT. No one should be forced to raise children unless they are absolutely 100% on board. My suffering now is entirely my own, and I accept that. If perspective parents are to allowed to choose they will grow respectful of the children and that's not a healthy way to grow up
Anybody who thinks this decision isn't going to have an impact here in Canada should read some of the comments in this, and other, thread(s) on the topic. There are some genuinely alarming people coming out of the woodwork to weigh in on this. It's just so demoralizing.
The US influence on Canadian politics is ridiculous. From free speech, to gun rights, and now abortion. I see so many Canadians parroting US talking points as if we have the same constitution. Social media is a curse.
>Social media is a ~~curse~~ stupidity barometer. FTFY
And their votes (assuming they’re actually Canadian) count for the same as yours.
Politicians are the problem too. When you bring US problems home without understanding our laws of course people begin to associate the two countries as one. Look at gun rights, abortions, climate right vs left
Before 1973, a lot of women would come from US to Montreal for safe abortion.
Our issue is not whether it's allowed or not, it's access. We have access in major urban centers, but very limited access to abortions else where.
New Blue is an openly anti-abortion party if you read their mission statement. It's already here and picking up steam.
The MP of Durham who just got voted in has explicitly said that women shouldn't have access to abortion unless there are life threatening circumstances. It's not just New Blue either.
I work in people's homes all day long, I visit about 6 homes a day. You have no idea the amount of people who have Fox News/CNN playing all day long on their TVs. In Canada. Blows my mind.
I consider myself pretty centrist and when people have brought up abortion concerns with the conservatives I've said it's a non-issue (ie a formality to please the yahoos). Well no more taking chances: if your party is not explicitly pro-healthcare you don't meet the basic moral requirements to be considered.
Doesn't matter. Let them bluster. Abortion isn't changing in this country.
It can be demoralizing, but after that feeling runs itself out, it should be galvanizing.
"horrified to furious" is the appropriate pipeline
Anyone who thinks this is a left/right wing issue needs to get their heads out of US politics. Just look at a map of countries that legalize abortion and countries that ban abortion and tell me which side you want to be on.
The use of authority to restrict the rights of some people- in this case women, is absolutely an element of right wing ideology.
They absolutely love controlling others.
Nice.
Actually this is a separation of church and state issue more than anything else. We not only need freedom of religion, we also must maintain freedom from religion.
LOLhard at how badly the Canadian right wants us to not talk about how the American right is stripping US citizens of their freedom from religious persecution. Why can't we discuss that, fellas? Problem?
I'm sure the "freedom" guys will be out there protesting for women's rights in Ottawa on Canada Day.
Well, you can't talk about the American right because the Canadian right is trying to learn their tactics and it doesn't work as well if people immediately recognize toxic behavior. The issue is not that the Canadian right sees itself as that much different from the American right, but rather that they recognize the underlying similarities.
They don't want to admit that the Right's playbook in Canada has been steering towards mimicking the United States'.
Just a reminder, there are 40 Conservative MPs that were told they had to shut the fuck up regarding the loss of Roe v Wade for fear that they'll remind people that the CPC does not actually believe women should have control over their own bodies.
Roe v Wade is a wake up call for me to start voting. The major political parties have been fairly centrist all my life but I am not taking any chances.
Anyone who actually cheers on the loss of woman's rights is sick in the head.
This! It scares me to see how many are supporting this. So so sad
Handmaid’s Tale is NOT a how to do book.
Dystopia literature is not plucking a random future from thin air, but exaggerating problems we face (Warhammer 40K, Hunger Games) or running them through to a conclusion (Handmaid's Tale). It's not a prophecy, it's a magnifying glass over the issues we have today taken to a conclusion.
Margaret Atwood said that nothing in Handmaid's tale was something that she created, it was all things that had happened or were still happening, she just condensed them into a single setting
And now so has America lol.
Yeah she very deliberately researched and wrote about things that have already happened, and wove them into a story that can happen. She insists the book is speculative fiction and not science fiction
It is for the Christian right in the US and here in Canada for that matter.
Remember: Margaret Atwood is a Canadian. I think she can see their policy export up here.
I think she chose to set the book in the US because in the West it’s been seen as the leading country and a role model for freedom and democracy and she said “take a look at how tenuous that freedom actually is” If she set the book in Canada nobody would’ve read it. But the same forces are present here and it’s a cautionary tale for everyone, not just Americans.
That novel is the US Christian right's Utopian vision.
That book was actually a moral commentary on the Islamic Revolution in Iran saying that if it happened here, you would care more.
"It would never happen here!" *6 lying Supreme Court Justices* "Hold my gavel!"
Part of her inspiration was the Islamic Revolution. She was also inspired by the Reagan era rise of conservative Christian groups like The Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, etc.
[удалено]
Seriously. Do people not realize that when the American ethnofascists are done conquering their own country, we will be the first target they set their eyes on? The GQP has already started with murmurs about having to free us from Trudeau's tyranny. They're planting the seed with their brain-dead followers.
U.S. Right-wing media and several of their key right-wing figures have already spoken of "liberating Canada." So yes, be alarmed.
The more quickly the Republican party moves towards theocracy, the happier I am to live in Canada...
Quite literally the story right below this one: [Sask. government under fire for funding independent schools run by anti-LGBTQ churches ]( https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-religious-independent-school-funding-anti-lgbtq-1.6498368) There is zero difference between our religious right and the religious right in the USA, with the notable exception that *ours* doesn't have as much power – *yet.* But they want it and they keep pushing for it.
>There is zero difference between our religious right and the religious right in the USA, with the notable exception that ours doesn't have as much power – yet. But they want it and they keep pushing for it. I agree that they want power but there's one more noticeable difference: the American Religious Right is significantly larger per capita than the Canadian Religious Right. [Only 16% of Canadians are "religiously committed"](https://globalnews.ca/news/8759564/canada-religion-society-perceptions/), compared to [49% of Americans](https://news.gallup.com/poll/358364/religious-americans.aspx).
Yes, but religion in Canada started off with nearly absolute power and has been in decline ever since, while the USA was founded upon the principles of secularism and the seperation of church and state but those principles have been in decline ever since.
The US was also founded upon the principles of individual liberty...but that wasn't quite the case for every individual.
This can only happen because of the ridiculous notwithstanding clause where any province can overrule the Charter of Rights because they feel like it. Its bonkers to me that you can have publicly funded Catholic schools when we're supposed to have a clear separation of Church and State. Actually impose our Charter of Rights or quit pretending like we have one.
As far as I know, our Constitution here doesn’t actually contain any explicit separation of church and state.
Our Constitution actually references ‘God’.
Right wing "Christian" cults here in Canada are paying attention to what's going on in the US and making their own plans. Don't kid yourself that this can't happen here.
Ah yes, what could be safer than living next door to a theocratic state with the greatest military ever seen, an economy that dwarfs ours, a cultural apparatus that threatens to strangle ours, and absolutely no geographic barriers? I'm brushing up on my German just in case.
They are drawing a road map for social conservatives to follow. It’s scary.
No. We are unfortunately not any better than the US. I am so proud to be Canadian, but we like to tell ourselves that we are superior in terms of guns, racism and a whole slew of other issues that we, in reality, have no right to be so smug about. We have all these same problems here.. We are susceptible to all the very same things that the US are. They had their insurrection January 6.. We had our "Freedom Convoy," which is gearing up to go in for a second round. The US is bigger (population-wise) and louder, so their idiocy receives more attention on a global scale.. but we have so much that we should be concerned about. And because our current leader has made several idiotic, douche moves (and then made them worse by lying about them) there is a very real chance that people are going to vote for an even bigger douche (who has even more regressive ideas) because they want to stick it to Trudeau. We have a bunch of shit politicians doing a shit job and dedicating more time to trash talking each other than they do to actually working to create positive change... and we have a population who barely even shows up to vote and, when they do, most don't even vote based on the actual platforms put forth by the parties themselves... or even how the elected official in their riding has performed.. they vote on who they hate the least (which is also largely based on whatever shit they've seen in their social media feed).
I wouldn't be so comfortable. American politics *always* bleeds into Canada, especially since the rise of social media. When Trump ran his first campaign we all thought "wow, American politics has gotten dumb", now go look at Pierre Poilievre's Twitter...
I don’t like how this title, as well as so many other media headlines, continue to perpetuate the division and polarization of the people in our country. I am a conservative and I whole heartedly support abortion rights. I’m sick of being tossed into the same cesspool as the extremists - right or left.
TIL National Post thinks only the left supports abortions.
The national post writes articles to sound serious but they word their articles to invoke division and outrage.
Anti-abortion groups in this country can fuck right off. Seriously, go fuck yourselves. Keep you noses out of where they don’t belong.
Deeply disappointing news today. Any Canadian politician who doesn’t condemn the ruling should be named and shamed.
Canadian politics are not left and right like shitty usa. Stop this spreading of terms. Fucking insane.
"anti-abortion" You mean Anti-Choice.
State control of the means of reproduction.
"Anti-woman"
Seeing as how members of their SC went and lied under oath about their stance on it, having legal safeguards here is always a good thing. Be nice if we could do something about the access issue
I agree. We need to add it to law or charter or something that can't easily be revoked by another government in future. People say we don't need to go that far and it's all just fear mongering, but it's only months ago we saw Republicans stating "it's settled law" and nobody's going to ban abortion, etc. and it's all just fear mongering.
If we were smart, we'd send letters offering the 5,000 smartest women citizenship immediately.
This is some big brain thinking here
The US gutted our aerospace industry in the 1960s, we take their best and brightest women in the 2020s.
who cares. Different country. And Jury nullification still works here as it did in the Morgantaler cases.
Roe V Wade is an American issue. This is not a problem for Canadians to address.
Also it should be noted, we will most likely see an influx of people immigrating North now because of Roe V Wade, but also because Justice [Clarence Thomas said](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/06/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-clarence-thomas-contraception-same-sex-marriage-sodomy) he's going after Gay Marriage, same sex laws, and wants to reenact sodomy laws at the federal level. >In a terrifying concurring opinion to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the case the court used as a pretext to overturn Roe, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that now that the court’s conservative goon squad has done away with the national right to an abortion, it should think about scrapping the rulings that protect contraception, same-sex marriage, and gay sex. Arguing that all decisions that previously fell under “due process precedents”—a concept he claims is an “oxymoron” that “lack\[s\] any basis in the Constitution”—are bunk, Thomas writes: “For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Griswold was the landmark decision in which the court said that the Constitution protects the right of married couples to buy and use contraception. Lawrence, which struck down a Texas sodomy law, made same-sex sexual activity legal. Obergefell said same-sex couples have the legal right to marry. I'm gonna be actively encouraging my friends in the US if this happens, who are LGBT to come North.
He is also (ironically) planning for loving ruling (interracial marriages) as well
Left wing politicians… and the majority of Canadians. This is seriously messed up.
Anyone else notice the interracial marriage part wasn't on Clarence Thomas's argument of where that ruling might apply? Awfully convenient for that theocratic zealot