Big Blue Wave's Comments
An excellent rebuttal was printed the next day in the Citizen - as you can guess, I agree with the rebuttal. It says it all really.
http://www.canada.com/ottawaciti...87-
f68416b48edc
Re: My grandson was murdered, Feb. 25.
In her opinion article, Mary Talbot says she does "not want to see Bill C-484 connected to abortion whatsoever." If that's true, then she should not support a bill that openly conflicts with pregnant women's rights by giving legal status to fetuses. The bill is being backed and promoted by anti-abortion groups, and there's ample reason to fear that if it's passed, they'll use the law as a foot-in-the-door to recriminalize abortion via future measures.
Both pregnant and recently-pregnant women are at increased risk of domestic violence, yet Bill C-484 ignores the issue completely, and ignores pregnant women completely. The only thing the bill does is enshrine fetal personhood under the law, in direct conflict with the Criminal Code, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and many legal precedents.
The type of law that Ms. Talbot is supporting has criminalized many pregnant women in the U.S. for behaviours perceived to harm their fetuses. Pregnant women have even been arrested under state laws that exempt them from prosecution, as Bill C-484 does. That's because these laws set up a confusing and irreconcilable conflict between women's rights and fetal rights, which encourages law enforcement and prosecutors to take punitive action against pregnant women.
(cont'd next post)
Ms. Talbot says "there will be no retribution toward the man who murdered (my daughter) to kill my grandson." But the killer of her daughter is now serving life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. This maximum sentence likely reflects the fact that he killed a pregnant woman, because the option of increased penalties for such heinous crimes is already available.
Prosecutors can charge perpetrators with first degree murder, judges can impose harsher penalties, and parole boards can deny parole. Increased penalties can also be mandated under the Criminal Code's hate crime law; its gender clause would cover attacks against women because they are pregnant.
These measures can provide justice, while avoiding the abortion controversy and protecting the rights of all pregnant women.
I recognize and respect Ms. Talbot's grief over her loss. But grief, as powerful and painful as it is, should never drive legislation. Neither should the wish for vengeance. That's why it's the role of impartial legislators and judges to make and interpret laws for the benefit of all society.
Joyce Arthur,
Vancouver
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada
******** end of rebuttal *****
What an excellent letter - she makes strong points and sums up why we shouldn't be letting Mary Talbot influence the laws:
"I recognize and respect Ms. Talbot's grief over her loss. But grief, as powerful and painful as it is, should never drive legislation. Neither should the wish for vengeance. That's why it's the role of impartial legislators and judges..."
Okay Joe. Suppose you were mugged. And the guy took your wallet. He got prosecuted for the assault, but not for stealing.
Is that fair? No it's not.
Justice is about giving people what they deserve. When people violate the rights of others, they must be accountable for that. That's the very basis for justice.
Taking away a woman's fetus is a violation of her right to her fetus-- DISTINCT from her right to integrity.
"Suppose you were mugged. And the guy took your wallet. He got prosecuted for the assault, but not for stealing.
Is that fair?"
It depends... does the criminal's sentence take the stealing into account? If the sentence is harsher because of the theft then I'd say it's fair - yes.
Would the man that killed Mary's grandson get more jail time if bill C484 were already passed?? The answer is NO! So what exactly are you trying to get accomplished here?
If bill C484 passes it's opening the door for some really scary possibilities! A pregnant woman could be arrested for not taking enough care of the fetus in her stomach - if she didn't wear a seat belt, or rode on a roller coaster for example. I know that's an extreme example but it's definitely possible and likely given the fetus zealots out there!
I can see this bill opening up a whole can of worms that are best left closed.
As I just said - the bill won't increase the punishement of the accused, it'll just open the door to more gov't regulations on how you grow your fetus.
Would the man that killed Mary's grandson get more jail time if bill C484 were already passed?? The answer is NO! So what exactly are you trying to get accomplished here?
Okay then, Robert Pickton has been convicted six times over for murder, and there are unprosecuted cases. There is no possibility of a harsher jail sentence. Should the families of the victims whose cases are not prosecuted be satisfied and go home and not demand to hear what the truth is of their case?
The Justice system owes people more than just a harsher sentence.
And I have no reason to believe that pregnancy would not be taken into account for the sentencing for the injury against the woman, even if there is a fetal homicide law.
A pregnant woman could be arrested for not taking enough care of the fetus in her stomach - if she didn't wear a seat belt, or rode on a roller coaster for example.
Not true. It says it in the bill-- no act or omission on the part of the woman can be prosecuted.
The abortion lobby says that women have been arrested for this in the states, but what they don't say is that not a SINGLE woman has been prosecuted.
If we had to kill a bill simply on the fear of false arrests, we wouldn't pass any laws.
it'll just open the door to more gov't regulations on how you grow your fetus.
No, because the woman's actions are not being legislated.
"Should the families of the victims whose cases are not prosecuted be satisfied and go home and not demand to hear what the truth is of their case?"
In my opinion... yes, definitely! Just think of the wasted money being spent on the ongoing trial... what a waste.
Yeah, demanding an account for a person's actions...a total waste of time.
I didn't say time Suzanne... if people want to waste there OWN time (or money) that's there issue.
It's a total waste of TAXPAYERS money!
I didn't say time Suzanne... if people want to waste there OWN time (or money) that's there issue.
It's a total waste of TAXPAYERS money!
Justice is a function of government. Justice is NOT a waste of taxpayers money.
Justice is not just about harsher jail sentences.
Justice is about many other things.
Justice is about making people accountable for their actions.
Justice about finding the truth about crimes.
Justice is about sending a message that certain actions are wrong.
Justice is about protecting rights.
For the record, Pickton won't be tried on any more counts unless he wins his appeal.
http://www.thestar.com/article/307053
The families aren't happy about it. They feel deprived of justice, don't they?
And the NDP seems to support their push for a second trial.
As I said, justice is not just about harsh sentences.
"The families aren't happy about it. They feel deprived of justice, don't they?"
So because some family members, understandably distraught, aren't "happy" about it we (the canadian taxpayer) should fund (at a HUGE cost) another trial?!
That is not the least bit reasonable.
Considering the ONLY outcome of such a trial would be peace of mind for some family member and NO ADDITIONAL jail time I'd say it isn't worth the money.
"the NDP seems to support their push for a second trial"
Of course they do! They're the 'bankrupt the country at any cost' NDP after all! When has fiscal prudence ever gotten in the way of a good NDP story??
So because some family members, understandably distraught, aren't "happy" about it we (the canadian taxpayer) should fund (at a HUGE cost) another trial?!
Well what are they unhappy about?
Justice was not served.
That is worth the taxpayers' dollars.
When has fiscal prudence ever gotten in the way of a good NDP story??
They are prone to put principle before profit. Or so that's the standard they want to live up to.
"Well what are they unhappy about?"
If they were honest with themselves they'd likely answer that with: 'I'm unhappy because a loved one has been killed and this is my only outlet for my pain'.
These people are angry and need an outlet. That's all it is...
"Justice was not served."
Please! The murderer is going to jail for the rest of his life - how is that NOT justice?!?!
Because justice is not just about prison sentences. It's about sending a message that when you perform a criminal act, you will be accountable for it.
"It's about sending a message that when you perform a criminal act, you will be accountable for it."
At some point common sense has to kick in though!!
Pickton (for example) is going to jail for the rest of his life. I think he's aware that he's accountable (as is everyone following the case).
The costs FAR outweigh the benifits in regards to trying him for the other murders. In a reasonable society we would all agree with this - and know that he's going to jail for the rest of his life. That HAS to be good enough!
Justice:
"The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law."
Assuming his appeal fails - he's in jail for the rest of his life. He will not get out. That will not change with 20 more counts.
"Justice" has been served.
"Fair treatment" and "due reward" are not served ONLY by a jail sentence.
"'Fair treatment' and 'due reward' are not served ONLY by a jail sentence."
So you keep saying... you aren't addressing my points, you're just saying the same thing over and over again.
Because you keep saying the same thing.
My objection is that your concept of justice=jail sentence is wrong.
So now you're supposed to show how your concept is correct.
That's how it goes.
"My objection is that your concept of justice=jail sentence is wrong."
What about my suggestion that the costs out-weigh the benifits? Tax payers are on the hook for the money this 'justice' you're seeking would cost... and for someone like Pickton (who is already going to jail for life) I suggest that the money it would take to continue trying him on other murders wouldn't be worth the peace of mind (which is the only result of such an undertaking) that some family member might get out of it.
money isn't unlimited and shouldn't be thrown around on court cases whose goal isn't jail time but giving peace of mind to some of the victims.
What about my suggestion that the costs out-weigh the benifits?
Some things are more important than money. You can't put a price on everything, especially on something like justice, which is the government's job.
life) I suggest that the money it would take to continue trying him on other murders wouldn't be worth the peace of mind (which is the only result of such an undertaking) that some family member might get out
This isn't just about peace of mind, but about seeing through the justice process. These families have a RIGHT to know what happened.
money isn't unlimited and shouldn't be thrown around on court cases whose goal isn't jail time but giving peace of mind to some of the
Justice isn't just a question of peace of mind.
Your views on justice, and spending money to get justice, make me more glad than ever that you didn't get anywhere near elected when you ran in the last election!
You'd bankrupt the whole country trying to provide your version of justice to every bleeding heart that had a victim's story.
Of course I could be wrong... you may just be debating justice in this way so that you can (eventually) ban abortion. Could you really believe it'd be worth continuing to try Pickton?? You must be pulling my leg...
This was written in response to Mary Talbot’s letter in the Ottawa Citizen. I do not dispute the depth of her anguish, but I disagree with her political tactics.
"No one can possibly imagine the horror, the grief and the rage one feels when a daughter is murdered, unless one has experienced it. So I will not condescend to you, Mary Talbot. Nor will I will say “I feel your pain” - because my own daughter is alive and well, in spite of the fact there wasn’t a moment during her childhood, and still now, that I lived without the awareness that someone could do irreparable harm to her.
Nonetheless, I am directing this open letter to you, since you have chosen to become the public champion and staunch defender of Bill C-484.
Do you understand that this amendment will do nothing to protect women - pregnant or not - and their zygote/embryo/fetus or their children against brutal, murderous violence?
One might even comprehend this self-serving campaign, if C-484 resulted in a more severe sentence for the man found guilty of murdering your daughter. As it so happens, that is not be the case, as stated on Court TV, where Ken Epp appeared on February 25th.
The thing that confounds me is this: how could you let political opportunists exploit your grief? What were you thinking when you provided them with a photo of your daughter and her fetus in their funeral casket? Why stop there? Why not supply them with the police and coroner’s pictures of her stabbed, bloody abdomen too? After all, isn’t it supposed to be all about the crime?
Or could it really be about the redemption that you were vicariously seeking through your daughter’s choice? You thought you had lost Olivia to drugs. Then she found herself pregnant, and through the possibility of motherhood, she re-created a new life for her own self, as she was giving life.
I have not lost a daughter, but I have lost a beloved sister to ovarian cancer. The very same biological source of life-giving power that you and I have experienced turned against her. Instead of giving life, those cells gave her death. I am still grieving my sister’s unwarranted, incomprehensible, horrifying death.
But I would surely not allow photographs of my dead sister lying in a coffin or of her disease-ravaged body to be propagated across the internet, even in support of increased funding for ovarian cancer research. That would be manipulative. That would not be respectful to her memory."
Grief does strange things to people. I find it sad and disturbing that this woman would, however inadvertently, besmirch her daughter's memory by allowing pictures of her, in death, to be plastered all over the internet.
It's one thing to put up pictures of the person as they were in life, but dead?? I would never have done that to my mom, take a picture of her dead and put it online. Sorry, but that's just sick. It's like snuff porn.
You both seem to be so certain that you know this woman.
And JJ: what about Mary Talbot's grandson? You do not seem concerned about his memory.
What exactly is disrespectful of a tasteful picture of her deceased daughter and her grandson?
Lots of people get photographed in their coffin when they're dead.
Besides, this is newsworthy and informative material. The feminists keep saying that there's only "one body, one count". Well guess what? The picture shows you're wrong. Maybe that's the reason you're so opposed.
"what about Mary Talbot's grandson? You do not seem concerned about his memory."
What's there to remember about him, he wasn't even born yet. Certainly there'd be the tragedy of dashed hopes and dreams of a grandchild, but she hadn't even met the guy yet so I doubt if she has much in the way of memory of him.
"What exactly is disrespectful of a tasteful picture of her deceased daughter and her grandson?
Lots of people get photographed in their coffin when they're dead."
Yikes! Are you serious?! Egads!! This must be some new thing that I haven't heard about yet. I better add it to my will, I sure as @#$! don't wan't anybody taking my picture after I've croaked.
"The picture shows you're wrong. Maybe that's the reason you're so opposed."
Nah, I know what a 6-month fetus looks like. That little guy clearly isn't ready for prime time, look at the bulgy eyes etc. No, it's because I place a high premium on privacy. Privacy = respect. Especially when one is in no position to defend themselves against the prying eyes of outsiders.
It's sad.
The letter that debeaux posted is one that is shocking. I respect that people can disagree with the legislation out of concern that it will change the face of abortion in Canada. Surely though persons can articulate this concern without insulting the horrible loss that Mrs. Talbot and her family have faced.
The nasty hateful tone of that letter makes me cringe.
While I would not share a photo of someone in my family after they had passed I have no right to question the judgement of Mrs. Talbot. She knows her daughter and her wishes better than I do. And she certainly knows them better than a person who sees her as a political enemy and writes hostile open letters to grieving grandmothers.
The author manages to twist the letter into a tale about her difficulties with losing a sister with ovarian cancer and makes the letter all about herself.
I can respect that people who want abortion to stay legal in Canada see the bill as a threat but perhaps they could think of better ways of communicating that to the public than berating grieving family members.
What's there to remember about him? Did you really say that JJ? Do you really think that inspires people to not be sympathetic to Mrs. Talbot when hostile pro choice people behave this way? Your callousness is unimaginable to people.
Even people who want to protect abortion rights in Canada have sympathy - for the most part - with Mrs. Talbot. A handful of extremists *(who fortunately or unfortunately seem to get the mic too much) dismiss her pain or belittle her experience because she is some kind of "political enemy" in their books.
The family has shared some of their memories publicly - getting to feel the baby kick, the excited conversations about a new life, Lane (the fiance to Olivia and the father of the baby) talking about talking out loud to their unborn baby, etc. Those are memories - special ones.
I also can't believe that someone would look at a photograph of that little soul and say he had "bulgy eyes" and other disparaging things. You people are seriously hard-time heartless.
Commenting by HaloScan
