Politic?

This is a blog dedicated to a personal interpretation of political news of the day. I attempt to be as knowledgeable as possible before commenting and committing my thoughts to a day's communication.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Fizzle, Pfft! Mischief in the House

What a tangled web was woven, only to come awry. Any holes that can possibly be tugged into a Conservative-government initiative seem to Michael Ignatieff to be worth the attempt to drag the Government of Canada into a state of ignominy through design. A truly worthwhile project whose intent it is to focus the attention of the G8 on the critical issue of women's and children's health - even that presents as fodder for a clever political opponent to disparage the government's intent.

What could sound more responsible, coming from a head of government, the acknowledgement that this federal government seeks to gather momentum in influencing other wealthy countries of the G8 to to commit to improving the lives of females in parts of the world where 536,000 women die through complications of pregnancy or childbirth yearly. The need for proper nutrition, medicines, health tutelage, building of clinics and support for women living in under-developed countries is obvious.

The government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans to put forward that very agenda of committing to improving the health of women and children in developing countries at the upcoming G8 summit. It took no time at all for the Liberals, and their astute leader, to pounce on the opportunity to turn a humanitarian commitment into an ideological free-for-all.

The claims that without setting out specific parameters through the inclusion of sensitively-phrased references to abortion and contraceptive help, the government's right-wing agenda was obvious. It meant to deny desperate women an important tool through which they could space pregnancies. And gave the opposition parties yet another cudgel to smite the Goliath of right-wing government with.

But of course, Stephen Harper, when pressed, claimed "The door isn't closed to any option, including contraception, but we don't want a debate on abortion", which wasn't all that remarkable, since Canadians are not really interested in discussing that divisive topic. Abortion is recognized as a legal medical procedure in Canada. But Canada, under the guise of helping poor nations is not in the business of endorsing abortion as a contraceptive tool.

All the more so in that abortion is a religious, cultural taboo in so many poor nations of the world. Abortion rights represent a touchy subject, anywhere in the world. In extending much-needed aid to those who need it, there should be no strings attached: abortion if situations require such procedures, but no requirement, necessarily for abortion to be recommended.

Which is not quite the same as equating the Government of Canada's position with that of the United States under Ronald Reagan who refused to fund 'family planning' in undeveloped countries which might include abortion. Under President Reagan this was a deliberate hold-back of funding because of abortion. Under Prime Minister Harper, nothing is off the table, and contraceptive means may include abortion, but that will be decided by the aid-receiving country.

Michael Ignatieff, while pompously warning that this critical issue of providing much-needed aid to third-world countries to improve the health of women and children should not be a matter of ideology, made it just that, by attempting to force the government into wording the proposal to come before the G8 in such a manner as to obliquely include abortion in a maternal-health proposal.

Mr. Ignatieff was obviously oblivious to the reality that within his own party this is a divisive issue.

So the motion placed on the floor of the House of Commons that could be interpreted as including abortion flat-out inclusive to a "full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options", to be reflected in the government's maternal G8 maternal health initiative fell flat on its inglorious face.

Somehow taking for granted that all Liberals MPs would be steadfast in support of the motion, no one bothered, neither the Liberal leader nor the House whip, to ensure the troops would be on hand and willingly complicit in stopping the enemy in its tracks. Divisiveness and polarization of opinion appears to be the Liberals' new stock in trade. Lacking any meaningful alternatives they themselves can usefully devise.

Truth is, the Conservative-led government has been leading quite in the manner that a Liberal government would.

The grim reality for the Liberals is that Michael Ignatieff keeps proving over and over again how ineffective he is in his current position. His eagerness to return the Liberals to power, and his overweening desire to become prime minister appear to have sapped his grey matter of intelligent awareness of reality. Why would he not be aware that several of his MPs would vote against the Liberal motion, and that there would be a good chance that 14 would abstain by absence?

What kind of never-neverland does this man inhabit? "I would have preferred a different result last night, and we have some internal caucus issues to work out", Mr. Ignatieff allowed, to curious reporters. Now isn't that absolutely droll?

"Clown City" - where's that at?

And failing all that, isn't it time for the opposition to give the opposing a rest and join the government in the best interests of the country - opposing when and where there is a reason to.

Labels: , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

() Follow @rheytah Tweet