Stifling opinions not an aid to democracy
By Letter to the Editor on September 25, 2019.
I am disappointed by Conservative leader Andrew Scheer’s stance on abortion. Scheer may personally hold whatever views he wishes but preventing his future parliamentarians from addressing that or any other issue is not an aid to democracy. Principled legislators should be able to introduce motions on whatever matters concern them or their constituents. Are we hoping to turf Trudeau from office only to replace him with another dictator? Is the Christian Heritage Party the only federal party which supports all human rights? Charmaine Wood Irvine, Alta. 7-6
It makes perfect sense to prevent MPs from bringing up issues for debate that have near ZERO chance of actually being changed. The law, science, and decisions are settled, so why waste everyone’s time? And why call Trudeau a dictator when you’re clearly suggesting forcing your religious doctrine on the rest of the country? Your minority doesn’t get to over-ride democracy any more than his does.
How do you know abortion laws have zero chance of being changed? Are you a psychic? Parliament was set up as place where people could speak out on issues but dictators have changed it into a place that gags free speech. The word “Parliament” is derived from the French word “parlez” which means “to speak.” The science is settled; life begins at conception. The charter is clear; babies have the right to be born. Dictators are exposed; they have no right to force atheism on Christians by taxing them to pay for abortion.
Stephen Harper lost the last election because Justin Trudeau convinced him to throw social conservative supporters under the bus. Social conservatives responded by abandoning the party. Andrew Scheer has repeated Harper’s mistake and will never become Prime Minister.