"If It Were Not For Politics and Ideology": Ken Epps Thinks You're a Strident Elitist
Following Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's announcement earlier this week "that the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights."*
Ken Epps is standing up for Bill C-484, in today's National Post. In the process, he insults women, doctors, and the Canadian public, in the most rational, reasonable terms:
If a pregnant woman is violently attacked by a third party who intentionally kills her unborn child, the violent offender should be held accountable for not only the attack on the woman but also for causing the death of her baby.
If it were not for politics and ideology, who could argue against this?
There's something rather disingenuous about a politician-someone whose job is to do politics-complaining that politics are getting in the way of his perfectly good bill. Politics are only good when they're his?
Politics are, among other things, how societies negotiate their ideologies, and the practical applications thereof. Ideology is not some esoteric consideration-our ideologies provide the foundations for our social and political considerations. They shape our thinking, and frame our rhetoric. Mr. Epps nobly lays claim to his own ideologies, while loudly denying any pro-Life agenda to his bill:
Let me be clear: I am what some people refer to as "pro-life." As an elected official I have no difficulty acknowledging that. But why is it that opponents can so easily dismiss anything said by someone who is Christian, pro-life, evangelical, supposedly "conservative," etc.?
What he doesn't seem to notice is how his own ideology has shaped his framing of the question: foetuses in utero are "unborn children," "babies," and (eeeew) "preborn children."** His rhetoric, which bespeaks an ideology in which a foetus is a child just hanging out, waiting to be born, already conveys personhood on the foetus.
Is this Mr. Epps's intent? He claims not. He states quite clearly that his bill as drafted would apply only in cases of assault against a pregnant woman, when the assault is clearly intended to cause harm to the foetus. It can't be applied in cases where a woman has voluntarily sought an abortion. It therefore wouldn't be used to prosecute doctors who provided abortions. Ever. So Canada's medical community is being shrill and alarmist and is completely lacking in compassion towards pregnant women who are violently attacked and lose their babies.
Those nasty, mean doctors, who oppose true justice, and insult the intelligence of Canadian people with their strident claims that a bill that recognizes that a foetus can be a victim of a crime might just someday provide ideological fodder for further legislation building on the notion of foetueses as people who can have things done to them.
Or is it Mr. Epps who insults the intelligence of the Canadian people, with his earnest belief that Canadians somehow don't grasp that laws are built on other laws, that laws are applied in the courts, and interpreted by judges? Does he think we're all so shockingly naive as to believe that just because Mr. Epps doesn't think anyone would ever use this law (had it not been thrown out) as support for another bill advancing foetal rights? That ten or twenty years down the road, somebody might not charge a pregnant woman who had somehow engaged in activities risky to her "preborn child," with violence to said "preborn child," and use the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" to support their charge?
It seems clear to me that Mr. Epps is aware of the symbolic functions of laws-else why would he not be content with the new bill that the Conservatives propose to draft, which would add pregnancy to the list of factors a judge can consider when sentencing someone convicted of a violent crime?*** But Mr. Epps believes that it is important to recognize the violence to the foetus as a separate crime. If this recognition is not going to make a practical difference on the level of sentencing someone convicted of assault or murder, then the difference can only be symbolic.
Once again, it seems that we're to allow the importance of symbols when they're Mr. Epps's symbols. When those opposed to the bill refer to its symbolic import, though, we're being shrill and alarmist.
ETA: This comment from Graydon points out something fundamental about C-484, which I, being an overtired ninny, took for granted-Epps doesn't even acknowledge that C-484 grants a foetus legal rights and standing, and that this is what feminists are worried about. Assigning any personhood to the foetus opens up the question of what rights it should have. Epps doesn't even deign to address this question.
ETA: Joyce Arthur 'splains to the National Post, back in March. I'm posting here so that I'll be able to find it again.
* I'm deeply dubious of this very notion. I guess one could argue that pregnant women-especially those who are in advanced stages of pregnancy-represent a more vulnerable population than do non-pregnant women, men, or other less-vulnerable groups, but this still seems to me to single out pregnant women in a weird way. I really firmly believe that laws should hold every living person's life and safety dear and that society should cherish the safety of each living person equally, whether that person be pregnant or not, male or female, very young or very old or somewhere in between. That said, we, as a society, do recognize that some groups of people-children, for example-are more vulnerable to harm than others, and classify crimes against these people differently. I just don't see how a pregnant woman is that special and particular a case, except insofar as she might be more physically vulnerable. Do we have laws to protect other physically vulnerable adults-very old people, or people with disabilities?
** Do I need to mention how squicktastic I find the notion of "preborn children?" The very construction makes me think of vaccuum-packed zygotes, pre-born for your convenience. Just gestate for 10 minutes in warm water and you too can have a baby without any of that inconvenient pregnancy or labour! I mean, it'd be cool if we could do that, I guess, but I'm betting a lot of people would be really irresponsible with their preborn children, and give them to each other for birthdays and Christmas, and the like, and then we'd have lots of abandoned children, once the novelty had worn off, and people realised that children are noisy, smelly little creatures.
*** This list currently includes crimes against victims under the age of 18 and crimes motivated by bias against the victim on the grounds of sexual orientation, ethnic origin, or race.
Ken Epps is standing up for Bill C-484, in today's National Post. In the process, he insults women, doctors, and the Canadian public, in the most rational, reasonable terms:
If a pregnant woman is violently attacked by a third party who intentionally kills her unborn child, the violent offender should be held accountable for not only the attack on the woman but also for causing the death of her baby.
If it were not for politics and ideology, who could argue against this?
There's something rather disingenuous about a politician-someone whose job is to do politics-complaining that politics are getting in the way of his perfectly good bill. Politics are only good when they're his?
Politics are, among other things, how societies negotiate their ideologies, and the practical applications thereof. Ideology is not some esoteric consideration-our ideologies provide the foundations for our social and political considerations. They shape our thinking, and frame our rhetoric. Mr. Epps nobly lays claim to his own ideologies, while loudly denying any pro-Life agenda to his bill:
Let me be clear: I am what some people refer to as "pro-life." As an elected official I have no difficulty acknowledging that. But why is it that opponents can so easily dismiss anything said by someone who is Christian, pro-life, evangelical, supposedly "conservative," etc.?
What he doesn't seem to notice is how his own ideology has shaped his framing of the question: foetuses in utero are "unborn children," "babies," and (eeeew) "preborn children."** His rhetoric, which bespeaks an ideology in which a foetus is a child just hanging out, waiting to be born, already conveys personhood on the foetus.
Is this Mr. Epps's intent? He claims not. He states quite clearly that his bill as drafted would apply only in cases of assault against a pregnant woman, when the assault is clearly intended to cause harm to the foetus. It can't be applied in cases where a woman has voluntarily sought an abortion. It therefore wouldn't be used to prosecute doctors who provided abortions. Ever. So Canada's medical community is being shrill and alarmist and is completely lacking in compassion towards pregnant women who are violently attacked and lose their babies.
Those nasty, mean doctors, who oppose true justice, and insult the intelligence of Canadian people with their strident claims that a bill that recognizes that a foetus can be a victim of a crime might just someday provide ideological fodder for further legislation building on the notion of foetueses as people who can have things done to them.
Or is it Mr. Epps who insults the intelligence of the Canadian people, with his earnest belief that Canadians somehow don't grasp that laws are built on other laws, that laws are applied in the courts, and interpreted by judges? Does he think we're all so shockingly naive as to believe that just because Mr. Epps doesn't think anyone would ever use this law (had it not been thrown out) as support for another bill advancing foetal rights? That ten or twenty years down the road, somebody might not charge a pregnant woman who had somehow engaged in activities risky to her "preborn child," with violence to said "preborn child," and use the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" to support their charge?
It seems clear to me that Mr. Epps is aware of the symbolic functions of laws-else why would he not be content with the new bill that the Conservatives propose to draft, which would add pregnancy to the list of factors a judge can consider when sentencing someone convicted of a violent crime?*** But Mr. Epps believes that it is important to recognize the violence to the foetus as a separate crime. If this recognition is not going to make a practical difference on the level of sentencing someone convicted of assault or murder, then the difference can only be symbolic.
Once again, it seems that we're to allow the importance of symbols when they're Mr. Epps's symbols. When those opposed to the bill refer to its symbolic import, though, we're being shrill and alarmist.
ETA: This comment from Graydon points out something fundamental about C-484, which I, being an overtired ninny, took for granted-Epps doesn't even acknowledge that C-484 grants a foetus legal rights and standing, and that this is what feminists are worried about. Assigning any personhood to the foetus opens up the question of what rights it should have. Epps doesn't even deign to address this question.
ETA: Joyce Arthur 'splains to the National Post, back in March. I'm posting here so that I'll be able to find it again.
* I'm deeply dubious of this very notion. I guess one could argue that pregnant women-especially those who are in advanced stages of pregnancy-represent a more vulnerable population than do non-pregnant women, men, or other less-vulnerable groups, but this still seems to me to single out pregnant women in a weird way. I really firmly believe that laws should hold every living person's life and safety dear and that society should cherish the safety of each living person equally, whether that person be pregnant or not, male or female, very young or very old or somewhere in between. That said, we, as a society, do recognize that some groups of people-children, for example-are more vulnerable to harm than others, and classify crimes against these people differently. I just don't see how a pregnant woman is that special and particular a case, except insofar as she might be more physically vulnerable. Do we have laws to protect other physically vulnerable adults-very old people, or people with disabilities?
** Do I need to mention how squicktastic I find the notion of "preborn children?" The very construction makes me think of vaccuum-packed zygotes, pre-born for your convenience. Just gestate for 10 minutes in warm water and you too can have a baby without any of that inconvenient pregnancy or labour! I mean, it'd be cool if we could do that, I guess, but I'm betting a lot of people would be really irresponsible with their preborn children, and give them to each other for birthdays and Christmas, and the like, and then we'd have lots of abandoned children, once the novelty had worn off, and people realised that children are noisy, smelly little creatures.
*** This list currently includes crimes against victims under the age of 18 and crimes motivated by bias against the victim on the grounds of sexual orientation, ethnic origin, or race.