Abortion bombshell?

Did Janine Krieber, wife of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, really compare the coming battle to maintain Canadian women's abortion rights to the fight against terrorism? That's what The Peterborough Examiner suggests in a report published June 18 (I've added some links):

Janine Krieber says the next potential domestic terrorism threat is the abortion issue.

While her answer to a teacher's question was a surprise to some of the 50 people in a Fleming College classroom yesterday, Krieber, an expert in international relations, military strategy and the sociology of conflict, said "All social cession, social dividing is a potential threat either high or low."

Krieber, the wife of federal Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, had just completed an hour-long discussion on the history of terrorism and the state.

The real definition of terrorism, she said, is "an action that is bringing terror."

Krieber explained that during the 1995 Quebec referendum when there was a "perceived attack" on the anglophone community in Montreal, the potential threat was high, although that is not the situation today.

"The problem I see, for the moment, coming next is that we bring back abortion discussions into society. We had problems before and if we bring that back too severely it will bring conflict."

Krieber later told The Examiner her response was based on a demonstration earlier this month in Montreal. About 1,000 people protested the federal government's proposed Unborn Victims of Crime Act Bill C-484.

The bill would make it an offence to "injure, cause the death of, or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing, or attempting to commit, an offence against the mother."

The bill has passed second reading in the House of Commons and is now at the committee level.

Protesters said it could lead to a rollback of reproductive rights.

Protestors aren't the only ones. In Quebec, legal and medical associations, as well as the government and unions, are fighting C-484. Dion himself recently said it would not pass -- although he seemed remarkably confident considering how easily it slipped through second reading.

This story has already been picked up and circulated by the usual suspects, such as Terry O'Neill on The Shotgun where the comments are as charming as always.

Krieber does not suggest the bill be withdrawn because of its potential to create the conditions in which terrorism might arise; rather, she merely observes and make predictions.

Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder how long it will be before a pro-abortion activist starts demanding that the bill be killed on the grounds that it could lead to violence--even, of course, if that violence were, as Krieber suggests, to originate with fellow pro-abortion activists.

Anyway, the question is, did Krieber really say what the Examiner says she did? There's no actual quote putting ''abortion'' and ''terrorism'' together.

Meanwhile my attempts to reach Liberal party and Dion spokespeople have gone nowhere. Mark Dunn in the party office replied: "Our offices are closed today. I will look into your request. Should get back to you tomorrow.'' (But then, there's a Fête nationale  parade on right now in Montreal.)

Not that abortion and terrorism haven't been linked before. Firebombing clinics and shooting doctors is terrorism alright. Even the FBI classifies it as such.

And yes, it's happened in Canada too.

Could we see it again?

Well, it's hard to predict what fanatics and die-hards  will do, isn't it?

Maybe this is one reason feminists should be glad for the U.S. ''War on Terror.'' It appears to have had a mitigating effect on violence against abortion providers.

In any case, the Examiner story is obtuse at best and there's been no clarification yet from the Dion camp. When I hear, so will you.

(A great big thanks to April Reign for tipping to me to this.)

Comments

[skdadl]

One other detail in that Examiner report that bothers me, although again it may be a result of confused reporting: Krieber seems to be implying that demos or protests are in themselves worrisome, cause for concern. Certainly, they are reason to pay attention to an issue that may have become a problem, but I thought we all also considered them a sign of health in a democracy. I don't get the negative tone of those remarks at all. At least, I don't plan to start talking about dissent and debate in doom-laden terms any time soon.

[sooey]

Depending on a pre-9/11 definition of the word "terrorist" to make a point about abortion rights is pretty clued-out, in my opinion.