Member of the Nation Assembly of Quebec voted unanimously?

Is the debate over a women right to choice over?

Is the Cardinal provoking such a reaction, not because people take him seriously, but because he is a popular target to attack.?

Has Harper made a mistake?

Now that Jean Charest might be wearing out his welcome in the Quebec politics? Could he return to federal politics to become the new Conservative leader? or Liberal Leader?

He has clearly drawn the line with federal Conservatives over the environment, and now social and women's health issues.      Unless he is too tainted by recent scandals, he has a platform that would make the federal conservatives electable.

He would likely face Thomas Muclair, his former environment minister, as leader of the NDP.   The NDP for the first time has a credible MP from Quebec with experience in a cabinet.  Not only would he be their first really fluently bilingual leader,  but he has credibility both as an environmentalist and as a moderate.

Could the two as leaders from Quebec be able to squeeze out the Bloq from federal politics? 

Are Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals finished. Perhaps they will look to Charest if the federal Conservatives do not?

Don't put any hopes in either Charest or Mulcair.

Charest has been fully as damaging to anglo minorities in Quebec as any separatist every war. In fact, the Liberal party in Quebec did more damage to the English that Levesque did. That goes all the way back to Bourassa.

As to Mulcair, I knew him and liked him very much as a member of a board we served on. But politically, he turned his back on all the principles I thought he stood for.

Charest never had any principles. He went from Conservative to Liberal - and could go back again  - without changing a single idea. He has no ideas or principals. He's simply a career politician.

The Ignatieff Liberals are certainly doomed. I just don't see how they are going to rebuild It's going to take more than a leader.

Are you saying the Liberals are doomed because Mulcair and Charest are without principles. Or Just because of Iggy doing what he does on his own.

I really do believe the Liberals face becoming a third party. (IMHO) The core of the federal Liberals has always been Montreal and Ottawa. Due to the greater interest linguistic minorities and others in the region have on National Unity issues the Liberals have always been able to hold on to a core number of seats. Rarely are NDPers or Conservatives trusted with highly federalist voters in these regions.  Now that Iggy has done what he has, the NDP and Conservatives could deliver a coup de grace and cut of the Liberal Party's head by choosing leaders that are trusted by federalist voters in the area. As well federalist in Quebec are eager I believe to go to non-Liberal Federal Parties after they saw what happened with adscam, and saw how dangerous it is to tie federalism to one party.  In 1984 many federalist did go Conservative, but at that time the NDP was not ready to pick up those federalist on the left.  especially in the Ottawa region, and downtown Montreal, where many of the strongest Liberal Seats would switch to NDP before they would go tory.

The abortion resolution adopted by the National Assembly, while addressed to Harper, could hurt the Bloq.  The bloq has always stated their purpose is to be Quebec's voice in Ottawa, however when the National Assembly starts to adopt resolution on federal areas of responsibility like international  development, The need for this resolution shows how Quebec needs MPs inside federal parties who at least have a chance to be part of the government.  It also shows that  the centre/moderates in Quebec are much more aligned with the left in English Canada on many issues,  and thus also the NDP.  (if we still use the terms, left and right very loosely)

The NDP has had big hopes in Quebec ever since it was founded. It has never worked out for anything substantial.

Charest will come out of Quebec too discredited to be the leader of any party. Maybe Mulrcair could become a leader. It's obvious that Ignatieff never will. People don't trust him - and I can see why. And he failed to come up with any image of what he stands for. And, frankly, I think that's because he doesn't stand for anything. Never  has.

 It has been my belief based on my own experience and stories that I have heard, that the NDP has never matter in Quebec because a majority of the French left of for independence.

However if one includes allophones and anglophones, and francophones with families in the rest of Canada,  the left IMHO is just as divided on the National Question as others, with only slightly greater support for independence.

 The NDP when it has tried to break through in the past,  have focused on francophone ridings, with a strategy of promoting how their version of Canada has "special status" for Quebec, which they try to link as between  sovereignty association and federalism.

However that is never enough for supporters of sovereignty, and made Federalists suspicious that the NDP would negotiated away Canada.   The NDP should have instead try to build a base federalist areas in the centre of Montreal, West Quebec and up north.  from there they could build into areas like Quebec City, which have large numbers of federalist 40%.  

 By having an anglophone leader from Quebec who is clearly a federalist, like Muclair, the NDP would be able to put to bed  the idea it can not defend Canada as well as the Liberals.   Since 1976 southern and eastern Ontario has been unwilling to vote for a party that is not accepted by significant numbers of federalist Quebecers.

Of course to do so the NDP will move to the centre, just as when the NDP and Conservatives try to win Bloq seats, they will run people who are nationalists. 

So the change happens incrementally. Today it takes no courage to support choice for instance. But it was the minority who had to fight for choice in the 70s that made it happen. Real change happens outside the political parties. The political parties just make it happen when it is possible or popular to do so.

It's  why by always voting Liberal, federalists in Quebec end up with governments that will do less for them, than the PQ. The Liberals do not need to do anything to win anglo seats, but the PQ have to show to French nationalist moderates that they will accomadate minorities, to win moderate French votes.

The Roman CAtholic church and the Conservative party are the only hope for Quebec and possibly for Canada.  The NDP (the United Church being the NDP at prayer) don't have a prayer in Quebec and people will tire of the Liberals and their eunuch cousins, the Bloc.  As one with Quebecois roots (back to the mid 1600's), I say 'Bravo' to the good Cardinal and let the 'true' revolution begin, not only for Quebec but for Canada.  Bring Quebec and the rest of Canada humbly to their knees before Almighty God.!

 I understand a little better the visceral reaction against the Cardinal if many other religious people in Quebec speak like you do.

It is interesting to note also that the Cardinal has backtracked on his statement and is now saying he does not want to make abortion illegal.     

I like a church that when the people say they do not like a certain belief, the leaders are ready to change it. " We hold strong belief and high principles, but if those are not to your liking we can change those quickly to something that is acceptable". Even if the belief they change, would get others Catholics excommunicated in different parts of the world.  

I wonder if Rep. Patrick Kennedy knows that although he can not recieve communion in Rhode Island because he is for a women being able to choose without being forced by the civil law.    The Head Primate of the Catholic Church in Canada agrees with him politically and would allow him to recieve communion.

Now that is leadership that is bound to create change. 

I listened to some of what the Cardinal said, and I did not get the feeling that he was calling to out-law abortion, but was speaking of his own view, and possibly the view of the Roman Catholic Church.  Maybe there was something I missed.

I have a hard time with groups coming down on individuals from the right for voicing their opinions and assuming because they don't agree with it, they want the laws reversed.

I personally feel similar to the Cardinal on the issue, not as black and white as he, for if I spoke on the matter I would try to address an understanding of the emotional impact that could lead a woman to chose an abortion, I have a hard time seeing many women making the decision lightly.  This does not however mean I want to out-law abortions.  I question why it is deemed medically necessary and thus covered under the Canada Health Act as a covered expense.  I could see in certain circumstances that this would be the case, but birth control is not covered, why is an wanted pregnancy covered?  Unless the woman's life were at risk, or I could see us (Canadians) supporting specific situational pregnancies, such as rape.

I personally know a girl who was the result of rape.  Her "father" was charged and jailed for the offense.  I knew her as a teenager, and although I think much of her situation led to some ethical questions such as: Should mother have told her?  Is this a case of how the rape-abortion issue is simply an emotional issue?  How would this affect her? her mother?  her father? etc..  I would never say that her mother should have had an abortion.  Did she have the right to choose one?  Yes, but I am glad that she didn't, her daughter was a pleasure to know as a person.

Just because someone can be philosophically opossed to the issue, they can maintain another philosophy, such as a right to chose.  I think I am both pro-choice and pro-life, which probably means the hardcores in each group would not like me.

I believe the reaction was so over the top because the Cardinal Marc Ouellet suggested recriminalizing abortion.  (see link)

The cardinal recently referred to secular support of euthanasia and abortion as celebrating a "culture of death."   It either was seen as a new offensive the church had open up to divert attention away from the rape and coverup of the sexual abuse of millions of children and vunerable adults by priests and Bishops. Or as just a bunch of women hating rhetoric, by a bunch of men, who define patriarchy for today. A bunch of men who preach sexual ethics, but who fail to apply these ethics.  Studies done by catholic officlals  show that the majority of Priest are currently sexually active gay men, sexually active heterosexuals and paedophiles. Many more are too old or ill to be still sexually active, but if you include them the numbers rise to %80 of Priests.  They worse preists dominate the hierarchy of the church, because John Paul 2 and Pope Ben have refused to promote people who agree with the reforms of the Vatican Council.  Leaving out the honest Priests and those determine to live right lives.

He is also a lieing, because it is not just seculaist who support abortion rights, but many Catholics, and many other religions.    The fact that he lies like this has changed my opinion of himand I  use to me believe he is naive (does not know), however I believe him to be a socio path (does not care about people either than himself, and believes this will result in him being given greater wealth and privelges from the Vatican.)

I lived in Quebec City in the seventies and as a religious geek, attending catholic High  Schools I came into contact with a Father Ouelett. Not only did I sense he was grooming me as a teen, but I heard from other young men/teens that he  had sex with them.   The line Quebec Priests were using with me in the seventies and eighties (and many still use today, as testified by Australian Bishops recently) )was that celbicacy only applied to sex with women.  I thought they were sincere in their beliefs at the time, but I know know that sociopaths will lie whenever it suits them

It also seems that many priest also had sex with young marginal women, who went to them for help, and then found it acceptable to procure abortions for these girlfriends.  

Because the church no longer has credibility, victims are now being believed. Studies show that Priest are actually more likely to molest vunerable adults than they do children, and it is widely know in Quebec.  I do not know of anyone of my generation, who grew up in Quebec in the seventies who were not either abused by priests as children, or had the moves made on them.  In Quebec unlike elsewhere this has been revealed through plays, books, and movies for over 30 years.  It is now undebatable that priests raped and molested millions of Children in Quebec. They have never accepted guilt, nor apologised.

I am naive, but I used to believe cardinal Ouelette belongs to the both the "out of touch with the world" branch of the Vatican, not the facist wing.   I also believe he belongs to the "politically inept" as a result of his belief and being surrounded by church officials who feed him what he wants to hear and not what he needs to hears.  This is worse than the past, because both Ouellet and his advisor would never had become Bishops if it had not been for the fact that JP 2 refused to appoint the eighty percent of Roman catholic priest who were better qualified, but were unwilling to lie about supporting the Second vatican Council.

Reformers are stuck in that many of us are naive and belief these socio-paths, work in our concillary system with good faith   Our syem workas with the understand that all people in the councillary syetm are working in good faith.  Myself and others who are naive do not know how to distinguish between those sincere conservatives who have legitamate issues, and those who are just playing self serving games, and have turned there back on a living God.

The same might be said of reformers, but they do not have the power in Vatican, and in the UCC reformers are minorites on local church boards, which are often run by sincere naive people, who end up being manipulated by the socio-paths, because they/we are too naive, and believe in the goodness of all.

That is a lot to chew on - thanks Alex

Alex, it seems you have a lot of bad experiences in your life.  I hope you have one or more good friends to hear you out and to work with you and others on the issues you raise.  I would not so harsh as to accuse many 'manipulators' in the UCC of being sociopaths, but, having seen how some of them operate, I can understand your choice of words.  I hope you are able to make connections that can use your insights and experiences to improve how decisions in the UCC are made.  Thank you.

Thank you for your concern.

 I said what i said about the UCC because I did not people to assume that people who display socio-pathic traits are only in the Roman Catholic Church. What ever causes sociopathy or pshycopathy behaviour can be found everywhere.  

We tend to notice them more in business, (Madoff, Conrad Black) big Churches, and other large organsations when they get caught.  

However they exist everywhere.  They take advantage of  those looking for leadership, and also their families, employees, and the naive. 

The solution to dealing with them is similar to the social model of disability. Just as the disabled are made disabled by society, socio-paths are empowered to do there harm by society.

We give them the power to do bad things, in business and elsewhere it is because they have strong leadership traits, it's easy to lead if you only care about one thing(yourself).  In families and smaller organisations they rule because of our fear of them. The way to deal with the fear is to speak out, and not to be ashamed of being a victim. The more people do so, the more likely others will realise they are not alone, and can live without fear of them.

How many times have you heard someone say, "we could never do that in our family or church because of the hostile reaction of someone"  this is particularly true when dealing with homophobia in some small churches. . Socio-paths love to divert attention away from their behaviour by making claims that other people are amoral or immoral.   Similar to the way paedophiles in the RC church attack gay men and lesbians, or women who have abortions. Marcial Maciel, head of the Legions of Christ is everyone idea of one. however he was only able to do what he did  because of his situation.  Cardinal Oueltett fits the criteria of one very well too, he is just more limited in his power to do wrong because of various circumstances. 

from Wiki

Psychopathy  is a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct, masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal. Neither psychopathy, nor the similar concept of sociopathy, are nowadays defined in international diagnostic manuals, which instead describe a category of antisocial/dissocial personality disorder. However, researcher Robert Hare, whose Hare Psychopathy Checklist is widely used, describes psychopaths as "intraspecies predators"^[3] as does R.I. Simon.

 Elsewhere Hare and others write that psychopaths "use charisma, manipulation, intimidation, sexual intercourse and violence"^[  to control others and to satisfy their own needs. Hare states that: "Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse".He previously stated that: "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony"

According to Hare, many psychopaths are glib and superficially charming, and can be excellent mimics of normal human emotion; some psychopaths can blend in, undetected, in a variety of surroundings, including corporate environments. According to some, there is neither a cure nor any effective treatment for psychopathy; there are no medications that can instill empathy, while psychopaths who undergo traditional talk therapy only become more adept at manipulating others. However, other researchers suggest that psychopaths may benefit as much as others from psychological treatment, at least in terms of effect on behavior. According to Hare, the consensus among researchers in this area is that psychopathy stems from a specific neurological disorder which is biological in origin and present from birth although this was not what was reported by a 2008 review which instead indicated multiple causes and variation between individuals.