In their never-ending and fruitless quest to patch together some credibility for the nefarious Bill C-484 (aka the "Kicking Abortion's Ass" bill), SUZANNE and friends have come up with a new analogy that they believe demonstrates the bill's "common sense". To wit:
"Let's say some guy is on his way from WallMart (sic) carrying a brand new big screen plasma TV. As he walks to his car, a criminal approaches him and hits him on his arm with a metal rod, breaking the bone. Of course, there's no way the guy can hold a heavy TV set with his arm broken, so he drops the box, and the TV gets smashed. What crimes should the assailant be charged with in this case? Would it be sufficient to charge the guy only with causing bodily harm or should he be charged with destruction of property as well?"Party-pooper that I am, I feel obliged to point out that the "victim" in this little scenario is still the guy who got attacked, not the TV set that got smashed in the commission of the assault.
And so it goes with Bill C-484: the victim of an assault on a pregnant woman is always the woman first, the TV set second. And since the TV set isn't a person, it can't be a "victim of crime". This is where a bill like C-543 makes so much more common sense, since it allows extenuating circumstances (like a smashed TV set or a miscarriage) to be considered when assigning the punishment for the crime of assault.