Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Conservatives talking out of both sides of their mouth

Michael Ignatieff came out yesterday with a strongly worded appeal to the Prime Minister to support safe abortion and family planning programs abroad if he was serious about wanting to aid in improving the lives of women overseas.

One of the PMO’s spokespersons, or at least a spokesperson for Harper, came back with this angry retort:

Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Harper, said it was “sad” and “pathetic” that the Liberals were using women’s health as a “political football.”

That quote comes today at the same time we see the Conservative Party planning to send out a new 10%’er ad they’re about to release which tries to use soldiers as a political advantage  for the Conservatives by accusing the Liberal Party of attacking/not supporting Canadian troops and of questioning Canadian soldiers actions in Afghanistan. That of course is ridiculous; the only thing the Liberals and other opposition parties are questioning are the Conservative government’s actions and what they knew was going on over there.

The point I’m trying to make is; Dimitri and the Conservatives have a lot of nerve trying to accuse the Liberals and Ignatieff of trying to use women’s health as a political football, when they’re doing even worse in hiding behind Canadian soldiers and smearing Liberals as being unpatriotic/un-supportive of our troops. This is an obvious attempt to distract Canadians from the prorogation uproar and the fact they were trying to avoid accountability on the issue. This new strategy is an apparent extension of that.

PMO Spokespersons living in glass houses..


9 comments to Conservatives talking out of both sides of their mouth

  • Niles

    A little titbit from the real point. On the Canadian side of things, from the pov of the Aid funding donor, that aid coming from Canada *not* have attachments stating that said Aid *can’t* be used for abortions, contraception, day-after pills, etc. if such options are part of the family planning the recipient of Aid funding determines is part of the desired life survival plan for Recipient Aid funded women’s health services.

    That, as Canadians who believe in legal accessibility to such womens health care options, we don’t egregiously restrict it from being funded as part of the healthcase toolbox outside Canada. Haiti as an example doesn’t allow legal abortion. Well and good. They might change their legislative minds, that’s up to them. But as Canadians, we don’t take the options ‘off the table’ before the opportunity even gets to Haiti to accept or reject.

    But you knew that already.

    • Frunger

      You both huff and puff only to prove my point.

      It’s Iggy who was suggesting that a nation’s abortion laws be taken into account when dolling out 3rd world funding.

      John: What makes your tidbit from the “real world” any different that(sic) if we cut off aid to countries that fund abortion? How is that little piece of hypocrisy any different?

      You’re right, it doesn’t and that’s why we don’t do it. Iggy suggested that we change that philosophy by enshrining access to abortion into the decision making process. That’s what I’m criticizing, and you oddly seem to be agreeing with me while also saying I’m wrong. Weird. Those sort of domestic political decisions are best left to a nation’s own government without our meddling. I never made a statement on what Canadian values were, but our government right now holds the opinion that abortions be unrestricted. That’s just a legal reality.

      And Niles proves my point as well. We send aid without restrictions on how they use it. Abortion, no abortion, doesn’t matter. Not our call. It’s only your man Iggy that is suggesting otherwise.

      You guys should have both just said “I agree with you.” We all think that aid funding should be independant of the recipient nation’s abortion laws / customs / reality. Why don’t you both see that Iggy doesn’t agree with any of us?

  • Niles

    So, Frunger is armed with the new talking point.

    That the eeeeevil Liberals would *FORCE* abortion upon good, baby loving pregnant women and nations that ‘don’t believe’ in abortion…as condition of aid. Oh, the poor, hard done nations spiritually against abortion how they will be forced to bend knee to the dictates of the horrible LIBERAL developed world nation and drag women into abortion surgery so the nation can receive international aid.

    The poor abused women, wanting only aid to help them survive and bear children, would with trembling lips and soulful cries be forced by circumstance into the abortion surgery to have their future child sucked out of them.

    Aiaiai. Good to know that’s the comeback, Frunger. They pay you? or you just volunteering?

    • Frunger

      Just a volunteer Niles, but glad to see you avoided the thesis of my argument completely and got all melodramatic on us.

      It really just shows that you have nothing to refute the point I made about how asanine Iggy’s statement was.

      He’s a smart guy, that Iggy. He knows better, but he’s marching to a different drummer now. Donolo’s pulling all the ‘scary hidden agenda’ nonsense from 10 years ago back into Ottawa.

      A little tidbit from the real world Niles: Haiti outlaws abortion in all cases except where it would endanger the life of the mother. Not even allowed in cases of rape. Maybe we should cut them off because they don’t share our Canadian values.

      I don’t happen to care what a woman does with her own body. It’s probably better for society that we don’t have a pile more unwanted kids running around. We got enough of those already.

      • Jon Pertwee


        Wow lame comeback Frunger. What makes your tidbit from the “real world” any different that if we cut off aid to countries that fund abortion? How is that little piece of hypocrisy any different? And who says pro-life values are Canadian values? Who says your values are Canadian values?

        Teh stupid it burns eh Frunger

  • bull caller

    Kind of hard to use the “trooooopzzzz” as cover when stories such as this keep popping up – ouch!:

    I particularly enjoyed the quote from Stock-boy Day saying that if MP’s want access to the documents, go to the supreme court…. unbelievable. There are so many political minefields out there the cons have no idea where they are buried, or how to get themselves out of it. As for ‘wedge issues’ the cons have clearly backfired on many of them.

  • Frunger

    From what I gather, if you started to ‘impose’ access to abortions as a condition for funding, or aid, or whatever you want to call the financial help we are offering, you’d be cutting off a lot of in need people.

    Not every culture has the same feelings about abortion that we do, and we’d be ending funding for a lot of countries and programs if we forced them to share a stance as controversial as this.

    Iggy and the Liberal party know this, and if the Conservative party cut off funding because there wasn’t free access to abortion (the Liberal suggestion) they would scream bloody murder that the Cons are leaving the poor high and dry.

    That’s why it’s clearly a dishonest, manipulative use of a wedge issue. The Libs and Cons have about the same proportion of MPs that agree and disagree with the practice.

  • DavidA

    Both are staking out their traditional stomping grounds.
    Both are playing political games.
    If you’re hyper-partisan, by all means, jump on into the fray.

    The Libs are using abortion as a wedge issue, hoping some Cons on the far right start calling for abortion to be illegal again.

    The Cons are using the military as a wedge issue, hoping some Libs on the far left start calling for our soldiers to be turned over to the Hague.

    It’s just typical lame-ass, poli-posturing for the mushy middle. Pretty idiotic behaviour all around.

  • Well, they’ve never lacked nerve. Common sense, compassion, the ability to think critically are different matters.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.