By Gagandeep Ghuman
Published: Oct. 13, 2012
MP John Weston’s recent ‘yes’ vote on a controversial motion to open discussion on human life was guided by a desire to review an aging legal definition, he said.
Weston would support reviewing any 400-year old definitions in the law that may be ‘out of step’ with medicine, science, or common sense.
Weston was one of the 90 MPs, including several cabinet ministers, who voted yes for a motion brought forward by stephen woodworth, the kitchener centre member of parliament.
The motion proposed the set-up of a new, 12-member house committee to review a law that seeks to define when someone becomes “human” for legal purposes in canada.
The unmistakable intent by Woodworth was to re-open the debate on abortion, a highly sensitive and divisive issue that pits pro-life believers against those who believe in women’s right to abort.
In an email interview with the Reporter, Weston seemed to place himself somewhere in the middle, as a rational man who carefully considered both sides of the argument.
Weston said supporters of the motion would exhort MPs to prohibit all forms of abortion.
As a staunch proponent of human rights, including women’s rights, he said he wouldn’t accept that position, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t willing to discuss when “human” life begins and ends.
Weston also voted in 2010 in favour of Bill-510, a bill that would have made coerced abortion a criminal offence.
Bill C-510, also known as Roxanne’s law, was introduced by conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, but failed to become a law.
Since 1987, there have been 34 attempts to draft a bill dealing with abortion. The latest motion to reopen the debate has met with predictable support and opposition from warring camps.
Campaign Life Coalition has praised the MPs who voted in favour of the recent motion, calling the yes vote courageous.
Canada’s national pro-choice group, meanwhile, came down heavily on those who supported the motion, particularly Rona Ambrose, the Minister for Status of Women.
“Her yes vote on the motion was a shocking failure and a slap in the face to the women of Canada,” Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), was quoted as saying in the National Post newspaper.
Weston’s yes vote was also criticised by Kelsey Rose, a women’s resource worker with the Howe Sound Women’s Centre.
Rose said the vote marked a troubling erosion of women’s rights happening quietly in Canada
“The fact that 10 ministers and one-third of parliament, including Rona Ambrose voted for such a motion is deeply troubling.”
Don Patrick says
John Weston would be serving the country better if he examined the underground tax evasion that is hampering our economy. There are people that feel it is part of the norm to cheat the system and not declare earned income.. the basis of our economy is to receive tax on work performed. How many people have asked “cash and we will not charge the tax ?” . Those people should be reprimanded immediately and penalties be issued sooner than later. When I look back at paying personal income tax over the last 55 years, then hear someone state “why declare income, you worked for it, not the government”. Where is this disrespect for our country system coming from….? These folks are robbing their fellow citizen and seem to be proud with the process. Next time you are waiting in the emergency ward or demanding more income for a government sponsored job or watching the search and rescue save someone, think about the source of the funds that are required to provide these services that enhance all of our lives. John Weston should be getting involved in these type of issues…. a non-religious issue and that is where government should be directing its energy. Cheaters must be prosecuted…let women make their choices. We have far too many unwanted peoples in society.
Elijah Dann says
“Weston would support reviewing any 400-year old definitions in the law that may be ‘out of step’ with medicine, science, or common sense.” – If Weston really believes these are the criteria for today’s discussion over public policy, why is he using a book (the Bible) as the basis for making these decisions about medicine, science and overriding common sense?
Elliot says
Way off topic Don, but a worthy conversation on its own. I assume by your writing you’re talking about individuals who declare personal earnings. I’d say tax evasion is greatest at the top end, where most earnings are received into companies and expenses are written off with fancy accounting. When Warren Buffet stated his secretary paid more tax than him on a percentage of earnings basis, I wonder how many people really understood what that meant. It only seems to make sense that if our most successful citizens set the example by revising tax law to their advantage (whatever happened to estate tax, hmm?), then the other 90% will follow through whatever avenues are available to them, including cash. Ethics and responsibility to “pay our share” were blown out a long time ago by the obvious capitalist / politician connection and ridiculous revisions to law and regulations in the name of “being competitive”. Hahaha, woo
Michael Lonergan says
I think there are a multitude of real problems that the government needs to be tackling – (the economy, jobs, health care, and the environment are just some that come to mind), rather than issues that get the religious right wing knickers in a knot. The Government needs to keep its hands of women’s bodies. I know of no one that takes the decision to have an abortion lightly. As for what some people would have us believe, (and like us to think), this whole area of human biology (when life begins) is far more complex than what one or two verses from a book written by bronze age men would have us believe. Personally, this debate is done and over, and there is no need to re-open it again.
I cannot wait for the next Federal election to turf these idiots to the unemployment line.
Anti-Speedster says
@Don Patrick. What are you talking about? Bit of a digression?