The definitive word on the odious Bill C-484 is handed down by lifesite, which claims that "Canadian lawyers support" the bill:
Do these people never stop the lies, obfuscation and weasel words? "Canadian Lawyers"? Two law professors can hardly be characterized as "Canadian Lawyers", which would seem to infer that the entire Canadian legal profession is in unanimous support of Bill C-484. For that matter, the use of the word "support" is pretty suspect. Neither of the professors quoted in the article has stated whether they support the bill or not, they've only offered opinions on its' constitutional validity.
Oddly, since it's one of the major bones of contention about the bill, the professors haven't opined on whether it could open the door to "fetal personhood" (or if they did, it wasn't included in the article). Both professors noted that C-484 could be used by some to "advance an agenda", that it was possible a lawsuit might proceed to that end, but unlikely it would be successful. Unlikely -- not certain.
A few days ago there was a barrage of little news stories that said "opposition is building to the controversial bill" as people become more aware of what it's really all about. Now we have two cherrypicked legal opinions saying "Nothing to see here, move along". Conicidence? Or Damage Control!?
Oddly, since it's one of the major bones of contention about the bill, the professors haven't opined on whether it could open the door to "fetal personhood" (or if they did, it wasn't included in the article). Both professors noted that C-484 could be used by some to "advance an agenda", that it was possible a lawsuit might proceed to that end, but unlikely it would be successful. Unlikely -- not certain.
A few days ago there was a barrage of little news stories that said "opposition is building to the controversial bill" as people become more aware of what it's really all about. Now we have two cherrypicked legal opinions saying "Nothing to see here, move along". Conicidence? Or Damage Control!?
|