Re-Re-Opening the Abortion Debate in Canada

photo from the straight

"We don't want to re-open the abortion debate" is a popular line deployed by the majority MPs in Ottawa when a minority of Conservative MPs - backbenchers like Stephen Woodworth – bring up a woman’s right to choose.   

As I have documented before, there have already been backbencher attempts at re-opening "the debate.” The most prominent attempt was by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth who felt that all members should get together to discuss what legally constitutes life.

 And so, after many Canadian women became rightfully pissed off and tweeted, blogged, marched, signed petitions and spoke up in parliament, the Woodworth-induced outrage subsided for a while.

Unfortunately, as I was tuning into the ever-entertaining circus that is Question Period yesterday (for my non-Canadian readers, this the live televised proceedings of parliament in which members of all parties can address various issues and policies) I learned that the "debate" was emerging once again. Megan Leslie, the NDP Health Critic, asked the Prime Minister why the issue is being raised yet again.

In response to Leslie, Harper replied:

"I think all members of this house, whether they agree with it or not, understand that abortion is legal in Canada and this government, myself included, have made it very clear that the government does not intend to change the law in this regard”

Why then, did a trio of Conservative party members – Maurice Vellacott, Leon Benoit, and Wladyslaw Lizon – go out of their way to compose and sign a letter to the RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson regarding abortions after 19 weeks and the “killing of born children”?

 First of all, as many of us know, the Harper government tends to silence any in-party dissent (such as during the lead-up to the CNOOC deal) so why is abortion the exception?

Why does this particular practice, which neither involves nor impacts any of these white Conservative men, continue to surface? What are the possible repercussions for women’s reproductive justice, sense of bodily autonomy, and access to health services and resources in Canada?

 The content of Vellacott and Co.’s letter, however, seems even more troubling as they discuss the possibility of women being charged with homicide. Rather than discussing the concept of “life” and who is considered legally “human,” this letter alludes to a potential criminality of pregnant women or women who, for whatever reason, require abortions at or beyond 19 weeks of pregnancy. These late-term abortions, however, are very rare in Canada as 90% of all abortions take place in the first trimester.

But I digress,

The CBC news article features part of the letter to the RCMP Commissioner on their website, it reads:

“From 2000 to 2009 in Canada, there were 491 abortions, of 20 weeks gestation and greater that resulted in live births," reads the letter dated Jan. 23.

"This means that the aborted child died after it was born.”

It is quite clear in this letter that the authors, similar to Stephen Woodworth, have confused human children with developing fetuses in their interpretation of Criminal Code Section 223(1). In  Section 223(1) of the criminal, a fetus becomes a human after it completely emerges from a woman’s womb, breathes on its own and has an independent circulatory system.

These statistics, which were gathered by the MPs from a blog called “Run with Life,” was followed by a reference to Section 223(2), which contradictorily defines  homicide of a child as causing injury to a child “before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.”

This definition of human, however, does not seem to match the definition in Section 223(1).

These MPs feel, because of this seemingly contradictory set of laws, that “late-term” abortions (those after 20 weeks) do constitute child homicides under the Criminal Code Section 223(2) even though Section 223(1) disagrees. These Conservative MPs feel that these alleged “killings of children” must be investigated by the police as the “killing of Canadian children may continue to grow if these apparent crimes are not investigated, and the perpetrators prosecuted.”

However, unlike Stephen Woodworth who held a televised, public debate on his interpretation of Section 223(2), Vellacott and Co. took a much more furtive approach by directly contacting the head of the RCMP, suggesting he take some form of legal action.

Leon Benoit, one of signatories, spoke about the letter in Ottawa yesterday:

"But I thought the letter said exactly what I said — there was an attempted abortion, the baby was born alive, then killed."

He continued, "In fact, that's not what it says. It says there was an attempted abortion, the baby was born alive and died as a result of the injuries caused through the attempted abortion, so I just wanted to correct the record as to what this is about."

Benoit continues on to say that the 19-week mark is not really an issue for him (like the letter suggests) in fact, he’s mainly concerned about this supposed “botch” abortion wherein a doctor allegedly killed a baby that fully emerged from a woman’s womb. But why then, does the letter say something much different?  

Yesterday unlike in the letter, Benoit asserted that there was AN attempted abortion and THE baby was born alive then killed – indicating there was ONE incident of a born-baby being killed.  The letter he signed, on the other hand, alludes to far more of these incidents.

Nevertheless, this letter—like the Stephen Woodworth debate—is part of a much larger campaign by Harper’s Conservatives to challenge the legal status of abortion in Canada. 

As Canadians, we must stand up and defend women’s human rights. We must understand that all of these attempts are dangerous and may impact all Canadian women.

Let us all stand up, like Megan Leslie did in Question Period yesterday, and remind the Conservative Party of Canada that abortion is NOT murder.

White Western Agenda Within Charity Organizations such as World Vision

found here

* This post has been revised and updated as of November 29, 2012* 

Some interesting topics were brought up in my WMST class today...
We were going through our end of semester project presentations and one woman mentioned UNICEF and UNICEF's attempts to eradicate female genital cutting in Egypt. This led to a conversation about the practice in class and how charity organizations operate and the framework they work within.

It became clear that oppression, inequality etc was not being properly addressed due to many organizations' adherence to a westernized, colonialist agenda.

When I think of UNICEF, I often think of a Christian group that is similar to say, World Vision. I have just learned, however, that UNICEF stemmed from the UN, although. Nevertheless, as many of you may remember, some Christian groups would often send out their children to gather money for UNICEF during Halloween, usually done by their church. This seems to happen with a lot of so-called 'neutral' or 'secular' organizations.

So, what I began to ponder is how are these so-called 'secular' organizations operating from such a white Judeo-Christian perspective (i.e. Church-based organizations receiving funds for children around the world) to deal with poverty that has REAL causes that are being blatantly ignored, offering real hope or change? What is change if it comes at the cost of having to discord one's own culture and belief systems in order to receive assistance from white-dominated Western organizations. 

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the folks at World Vision are malicious  in fact, i'm positive they are doing what they think is right and have their hearts in the right place for the most part. However, their conditional and often gendered policies based on Christian beliefs, political motives and impacts on local communities is problematic. 

photo from here

But I digress, one of the women in this class, who I am quite fond of, brought up the point that it is difficult to give money to many large charities because one does not know if there are any strings attached or conditions in place.

 And so, it is important to ponder:  1) is the money actually getting to the people who need it and is it being used by those people alone?  2) Does the organization earn any money from the donations? 3) Does the money get used exactly how it was intended? And 4) Does the group of people needing the charity have to take part in particular activities or adopt similar religious, spiritual and cultural beliefs in order to receive funding from these organizations?

The problem with asking these questions though, is that you'll never be able to find an honest answer because many of these organizations are large, transnational entities and many do have strings-attached.

World Vision, is probably one of the most popular and well-known charities around the world, but particularly in North America. It is clear from both the advertising they circulate and their website that they are operating from a particularly religious framework.

And now, many of you may be asking "So, what's wrong with a Christian group spreading charity to other countries?"

Well, nothing is wrong per say with the people who want to help out others and ally with World Vision but there are problems with charities that give funds while taking part in a kind of neo-colonialism. This neo-colonialism stems from attaching conditions regarding religion and culture, onto those funds. World Vision is a large-scale charity that often tries to “develop" non-Western nations (fund them, build schools and teach their children European, white curriculum, build them roads etc.) by spreading the word of Jesus Christ through communities with diverse religious and spiritual beliefs.

According to their website, World Vision’s stated goal is "to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God." This group works on six continents and has total revenue of 2.6 billion dollars. 

It is important, firstly, to unpack the mission statement of World Vision,

"To follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God."^[3]

I will list various problems with this statement,

1) It attaches condition to the charity being given– one must accept a Christian spirituality and Western, Christian values to receive aid.

2) Since the charity is based on one notion of spirituality, it restricts the choices of the people living in the communities assisted by World Vision. 

3) Christianity, evangelical Christianity especially, has many beliefs based in westernized, white-dominated, patriarchal and hetero-normative frameworks. It thus poses a danger to women's rights, particularly women's labour and land rights as well as their reproductive rights and access to appropriate healthcare. 

4) This idea of “human transformation” under evangelical Christianity is only one notion of “being human” and is thus horribly restrictive to individuals who do not deem Christianity as the “correct” way one's life, especially people who likely already have their own cultural spiritual beliefs. 

The language of “poor” and “oppressed”however, is by far the most disturbing and unfortunately  the most common. The notion of “poor” is often defined differently in the West and may not apply to everyone. In the West, we base poverty on how little money and access to resources someone has. 

Why is our definition of poor the correct definition? Why does our reality have to apply to everyone else? 

The Trobriand Islanders, for example, do not rely on a money-based economy and yet, manage to supply everyone in the community with what they need. Here, there is less gender stratification, if any, and you become "rich" not by gaining for yourself, but by giving to others. Social capital trumps money in this community and yet, most Westerners would consider these people "poor."

It is really quite demeaning to call these people “poor” based on our narrow definitions and our own worldview. 

5) “Justice” is used by World Vision, but I’m not sure in what context. Do they mean justice as in ‘following the rules of our religious beliefs and thus altering the way one lives their life to fit the Christian way of life?’ Why do other cultures need wealthy, white Christian groups to give them justice? What is this idea of justice, anyway?

6) The kingdom of God is mentioned again - an essentialist view of the afterlife provided to us by White Christian groups like World Vision. How dare they tell other cultures that their beliefs are incorrect and their way of life will not get them in the “kingdom of God”? The only thing different from old school colonialism and World Vision’s approach is that World Vision is willing to give money in return for another non-Western nation to disregard their own heritage, beliefs and culture.

Also, and very importantly, there is an obvious power struggle between the charity groups like World Vision and those receiving the charity. This is a fundamental problem with many of these groups as they are often dominated by white, western males. These groups have millions of dollars and a very Westernized perception of reality and they claim these people are all victims of this ‘unknown’ oppression caused by ‘unknown’ things (or possibly ‘god’s wrath’). The "poor people" shown on World Vision commercials just are poor...because...they're poor...The discourse of World Vision ignores colonialism, globalization and neo-liberal capitalist policies and their role in inequalities and poverty all over the globe. 

In their advertisements, a famous, almost always white man or woman sits next to a non-white/non-Western child and tells the camera about how awful that child’s life is. They speak over the child, as if the child is not even there. Of course, the 6 year old was likely unable to give informed consent. Then, they tell the audience that the child has lost his or her mother or father and now has to take care of his or her brothers and sisters. They talk about this child’s parent as if the child is not even in the same vicinity as the speaker. How would they feel if some stranger was talking about their life and their experiences in a way that showcased them as ‘poor’ or ‘oppressed’ to the rest of the world? How dare they define these experiences for them and in front of them? Often the World Vision folks will have a camera on a child as he or she cries, they will zoom in on the tears. It is likely that this child has no idea what these people are saying as language was probably a barrier. After the speaker tells about how awful the child’s life is, they let the audience know how adopting a child (by adopt, they mean send money to a child over several years) will make the audience members feel good about themselves and better the world. They say that you will feel great about yourself but really, you merely continue to live a life of unsustainable abundance off the backs of exploited workers who work on less than 2$ a day. 

Bottom line: We need to be far more critical of organizations and groups that are discussed in the mainstream media as being moral, concerned and most importantly, politically-neutral. If they want to help, they must stop denying the reasons why the poverty and inequality exists in the first place. 

Disowning of Women's Rights in America. Cutting Funds and Slashing Choice.

The amount of rage I feel inside regarding the recent cutting of funds for essential women's reproductive and general healthcare in inexplicable.  Since the extreme-right wing got into some position of power in America recently, the country is launching assaults on various groups, but most recently, women. The extreme cuts will encompass planned parenthood and various other women's health facilities and access to contraception, abortion and so forth. 


A piece in the New York Times states that, 

The egregious cuts in the House resolution include the elimination of support for Title X, the federal family planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases. In the absence of Title X’s preventive care, some women would die. The Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health, says a rise in unintended pregnancies would result in some 400,000 more abortions a year.

Everything listed above is a basic human right. These are basic rights for women and women's healthcare. These services and facilities must be written in stone - plastered in the constitution like a stain. Patriarchy, capitalism, and religion are all institutions working to put women in America back into full-on submission with little to no bodily control, reproductive choice or basic access to necessary health care.


I feel such a sickening anger for those who believe women are worth nothing. This disregard of basic human rights in America - the robbing of women's bodily control, reproductive choice and access to necessary health care. This is intolerable, absolutely unacceptable. I can barely believe it is happening in America, that the clock could be turned so far back. What can women do, what can we do? How do we upturn the pedestal that these so-called representatives stand on when they give their speeches about women's bodies, experiences and wombs. We must uproot it, burn it, slash it - destroy it forever. Then we must cement the rights of women in the government's concrete so that the hands of greedy godbags and misogynists cannot reach them, touch them, or destroy them.