{ "version": "https://jsonfeed.org/version/1", "title": "Healthcare on Marti Abernathey", "icon": "https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/a65647c633168fccd9a98104bb2f2e7b?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2Fmicro.blog%2Fimages%2Fblank_avatar.png", "home_page_url": "https://martiabernathey.com/", "feed_url": "https://martiabernathey.com/feed.json", "items": [ { "id": "http://marti-abernathey.micro.blog/2025/09/25/shaming-and-stigmatising-sex-workers.html", "title": "Shaming and Stigmatising Sex Workers isn't Feminism", "content_html": "

A post on the Feminism Reddit proclaims: “Sex Work isn’t feminism”. A commenter on that thread said:

\n

“The main reason I think prostitution is bad because

\n
    \n
  1. \n

    human trafficking/slavery

    \n
    2. \n
  2. \n

    the great risk it puts women in

    \n
    3. \n
  3. \n

    most woman who willingly are prostitutes only do it out of desperation/no other way to support themselves (or their children.)” “How do I know prostitution is bad? What woman who has millions (is very wealthy) prostitutes herself?”

    \n
    4. \n
\n

Taking each issue one by one:

\n
    \n
  1. Is an immigration issue. Human trafficking happens because of the threat of deportation/incarceration. If you’re concerned for trafficking, end that threat. A great book on this issue is “Not Your Rescue Project: Migrant Sex Workers Fighting for Justice”.
    2. \n
  2. Then make it less risky? Decriminalising it makes sex workers safer (Decker et al., 2015; Shannon et al., 2014) (if you believe the actual workers). The UN, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, all support decriminalisation for this reason.
    3. \n
  3. That’s a capitalism problem. You’re correct, many do it for financial reasons. Many people in SW also do it because they have disabilities. As capitalism continues to drag many into poverty, that will only continue. Providing a viable social safety net will help people to not make that choice. But social safety nets are being destroyed (by financial institutions, mainly IMF policies), not created.
    4. \n
\n\n", "date_published": "2025-09-25T09:38:02+01:00", "url": "https://martiabernathey.com/2025/09/25/shaming-and-stigmatising-sex-workers.html", "tags": ["Feminism","Capitalism","Books","Healthcare","BodilyAutonomy","SexWork"] }, { "id": "http://marti-abernathey.micro.blog/2024/12/12/alice-thomson-on.html", "title": "Alice Thomson on Class and Society", "content_html": "\n
\"\"
\n\n\n

After the shooting of United Health's CEO, this image has gone viral. Like most people, I saw it, and laughed and moved on. But after seeing a remix today of it, and I was curious about what the underlying context of it was. Alice Thomson is a journalist, as is her husband. A quick google search reveals the journalist's squalid living conditions:

\n\n\n
\"\"
\n\n\n

\"Chevithorne Barton\" was taken by Alison Day and licensed to use under Creative Commons license CC BY-ND 2.0

\n\n\n

Thomson lives in this run down shack (featured in House and Garden) with Edward FitzGerald Heathcoat Amory (of the Baron Heathcoat Amory clan). Thomson explains why hardy, down home folk like themselves are concerned with the coming class war:

\n\n\n
\n

Voters appear to have had enough of distractions and division; the majority, I suspect, just want a pragmatic government that’s going to get on with the job of sorting out education, the NHS, transport and social care rather than stoke any more discord. Most say they hope for a more equal society, but they espouse meritocracy and aspiration rather than Jeremy Corbyn’s politics of envy and redistribution.

\n\n\n

Labour needs to be clear about its motivation. Its policy of putting VAT on private school fees may be a practical measure to find more money for the state sector but they shouldn’t be doing it if it’s also about punishing the rich.

\n
\n\n\n\n

\n\n", "date_published": "2024-12-12T12:55:41+01:00", "url": "https://martiabernathey.com/2024/12/12/alice-thomson-on.html", "tags": ["Humour","UKPolitics","Healthcare"] }, { "id": "http://marti-abernathey.micro.blog/2024/11/07/the-future-of.html", "title": "The Future of American Politics: Moving Beyond Party Lines", "content_html": "\n

I woke up yesterday morning in my bed in Southeast England. I realized the country of my birth has elected Donald Trump again. I wrote this post in 2016 talking about the many reasons the Democrats lost to Donald Trump. Over the four years after the election, many individuals were blamed. Yet, the blame did not fall on the Democratic National Committee. Today I'm already seeing the blame laid at the feet of black/Latino men, Arab-Americans, and third-party voters. The blame is being laid anywhere but at the feet of those who run the campaigns.

\n\n\n

The Democrats have not addressed the material conditions Americans are facing. This is the biggest issue over the past three election cycles. This is a significant concern, yet Democrats continue to play the “I'm not the other guy” card.

\n\n\n

Ronald Reagan asked in the 1980 election, “are you better off than you were four years ago?”. Most Americans consistently have said no. Saying you're not Trump isn't going to put food on the table. It's not going to lower the price of ($3.00 a dozen) eggs, or a pound of bacon ($7.00).

\n\n\n

A seesaw of power between parties will continue every four years for the foreseeable future. Both the Republican and Democratic parties use distraction, rather than point to policy change. How they distract is different. Republicans focus on social issues. Democrats focus on how bad the Republican candidate is. Nonetheless, the outcome is the same.

\n\n\n

The electorate will continue to vote for the change candidate until people feel like their lives are improving.

\n\n\n

A user on TikTok called @simkern said in this video that there are essentially four choices you have going ahead:

\n\n\n
    \n\n
  1. Continue your current level of political engagement
    2. \n\n\n
  2. Fix the Democratic Party from within
    3. \n\n\n
  3. Work really hard between now and the next midterm election to try to build third-party power
    4. \n\n\n
  4. Try to build power outside the political system.
    5. \n\n
\n\n\n

If I had to pick two, it would definitely be the last two. If I had to pick one, though, it would be number four. This is something that the anarchist YouTuber Anark has talked about quite extensively, especially in this video:

\n\n\n
\n[youtu.be/yXOgbbHyi...](https://youtu.be/yXOgbbHyii8?si=9zEu1j3RTt_xOTY4)\n
\n\n\n

He elaborates about a dual power strategy in this video. It really hits at the reality of number four in the above choices. This idea isn't something really all that new. The Black Panther Party (BPP) had the People’s Free Food Program that fed the hungry children breakfast. They also provided healthcare through the Peoples’ Free Medical Clinics. What the BPP did can be built upon to include worker run cooperatives, mutual aid organizations, reading groups, etc.

\n\n\n

This is what I am going to focus on in the years ahead. There's a lot of work to be done that doesn't center US politics as a team sport. Building community, building dual power, is the way ahead that makes sense to me.

\n\n \n", "date_published": "2024-11-07T11:30:00+01:00", "url": "https://martiabernathey.com/2024/11/07/the-future-of.html", "tags": ["Elections","SocialMedia","USPolitics","Healthcare"] }, { "id": "http://marti-abernathey.micro.blog/2017/03/25/its-foolish-to.html", "title": "It's Foolish to Think of the Saving of Obamacare is a Victory", "content_html": "\n

Many Democrats are celebrating the defeat of the Republican's attempt to \"repeal and replace\" Obamacare this morning. What the hell are Americans celebrating?

\n\n\n

I'm an American ex-pat working for the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom. I've been a health care provider in the US system for 29 years before coming to the UK. If you're a citizen here, you get free healthcare at the point of service. It's true that your hospital may not have:

\n\n\n
\"hospitals\"
\n\n\n\n\n\n

But you do get good quality health care.  That's my opinion as a provider and as a patient.

\n\n\n
\"hospitalstay\"
\n\n\n

But that's not just my opinion, it's a fact. Health care in the UK costs less and has better outcomes than in the USA.

\n\n\n

You'll have US politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They'll stand there flag waving, saying America is the greatest country in the world, while saying America can't afford to do what the rest of the civilised world already provides for its citizens. They'll say this while spending more on defence than China, South Korea, Italy, Germany, Japan, France, India, Iraq, Australia, Brazil, Israel, and the United Kingdom combined (and Donald Trump wants to spend 54 billion dollars more).

\n\n\n

If you're an American citizen, do you feel safer? Since September 11, 2001, the United States has spent 4.79 TRILLION dollars on two wars and the so-called \"battle on Islamic terrorism.\" Do you feel like the world is a safer place making that kind of investment?

\n\n\n

If you're celebrating Obamacare, you're like this guy:

\n\n\n
\"nobike\"
\n\n\n

He might be happy that he's got a car to drive, but he's still driving a clunker.

\n\n\n

Now that's not to say say that the NHS is perfect. It's underfunded and stressed, but what do the people being served by it fear? They fear the NHS becoming something that mirrors the US health care system.

\n\n\n

I understand why people are relieved that the health care they have now won't be taken away, but celebrate. Being screwed over a little less is no reason to celebrate. This should be a wake-up call, not a party.

\n\n", "date_published": "2017-03-25T13:24:10+01:00", "url": "https://martiabernathey.com/2017/03/25/its-foolish-to.html", "tags": ["USPolitics","Healthcare","War"] }, { "id": "http://marti-abernathey.micro.blog/2016/05/19/bernie-or-meh.html", "title": "Bernie or Meh, The Clinton Path to Defeat", "content_html": "

I’ll say it up front, I’m a Bernie Sanders supporter that:

\n\nThe Democratic Party seems to want to have a fight with Bernie Sanders. Today's post from the Hill:\n
Bernie’s not a Democrat. What are we worried about? Why would Bernie want to play nice?” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). “I’m just saying if a person doesn’t even want to conform to be Democratic, it’s kind of hard to say, ‘OK, all of a sudden you have to do all these things.’ ”
\nSanders isn't a Democrat? Huh. I guess then they didn't count him as a Democrat from 2008-2010? He wasn't a Democrat when Obamacare passed by 1 vote? The reality of this election cycle is that to win, Hillary Clinton supporters need Sanders supporters. Sanders may not be a Democrat, but a very large portion of HIS SUPPORTERS ARE.\n

There are no super-delegates in the November general election. Clinton my be on the verge of clinching the nomination of the Democratic Party, but she may also be heading for a massive defeat in the fall.

\n

Trump could just rerun Obama’s 2008 ad:\n[youtube www.youtube.com/watch

\n

The ad said:

\n
\"The Washington Post says Clinton isn’t telling the truth. [...]\n

“But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote ‘paid tribute’ to Ronald Reagan’s economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA –- even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush’s war in Iraq.

\n

“Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing. It’s time to turn the page. Paid for by Obama for America."

\nSince 1994 Ohio has lost 320,000 manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was enacted. You can argue whether or not those job losses were from NAFTA, but what I don’t think is arguable is how effective a talking point it is in states that have been hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs.

\n

If Trump keeps hammering Clinton on her support of NAFTA and the Iraq War, while stoking anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment, he has a very good shot at becoming the next President of the United States.

\n

Clinton and the Democratic establishment aren’t going to win over Sanders voters by falsely labeling them as violent. They won’t win Sanders voters over by painting Sanders as a lonely outsider, effectively aligning his voters out in the cold with him. Say 2/3 of Sanders voters do vote for Clinton, and most Republicans vote for Trump? Trump would win Pennsylvania and Ohio. Clinton’s ahead in the polls in Florida by 1 percentage point.  I have a  question for establishment Democrats. How’d that whole letting Florida decide the election in 2000 work out for you?\n \n

\n", "date_published": "2016-05-19T17:21:23+01:00", "url": "https://martiabernathey.com/2016/05/19/bernie-or-meh.html", "tags": ["Elections","USPolitics","Healthcare","War"] }, { "id": "http://marti-abernathey.micro.blog/2015/08/21/no-my-bits.html", "title": "No My Bits Aren't Your Business or Your Trans Advocacy", "content_html": " \n\n

Recently I read the en(Gender) post,\"Guest Author: Zoe Dolan, When Political Correctness Hits Below The Belt.\" Helen Boyd states in an introduction to the piece:

\n\n\n
\n\n

\"Here’s a controversial piece from Zoe Dolan, lawyer, author, and friend, in a smart piece about why, when it cones to dating – amongst other things – talking about genital surgery is important.\"

\n\n
\n\n\n

If this piece was a post strictly concerning intimacy and talking to a potential partner in frank terms about sex with a trans person, then I'd agree it was a \"smart piece.\" Unfortunately it does not stay within the boundaries of negotiating intimate relationships. The post opens up with:

\n\n\n
\n\n

The conversation goes like this:

\n\n\n

Him: Do you mind if I ask you a personal question?

\n\n\n

Me: Yes, I have a vagina. Yes, I have a clitoris, and also labia majora and labia minora. Yes, I feel sensation and I can have orgasms — both vaginal and clitoral. And yes, I self-lubricate; but who ever said no to a little coconut oil?

\n\n\n

Him: Wow. That’s amazing. Thank you for being so open. I’ve been curious but afraid to ask.

\n\n
\n\n\n

First off, what's the context of this hypothetical concersation? Dolan doesn't give lay out a scenario in which the questions are asked. Is this man a potential lover that you're on a date with? Is this question being asked by a co-worker that is \"just curious?\" The context matters.

\n\n\n

Dolan continues, saying:

\n\n\n
\n\n

I’ve written before, and I maintain: my view is that there’s no shame in the human body. We all have one.

\n\n\n

Nevertheless, a politically correct script of deflection dominates public discourse when it comes to sex change surgery. This condescension shames people into believing that questions arising out of natural curiosity are somehow overly intrusive, and that inquiring about the medical aspects of being transgender is wrong.

\n\n
\n\n\n

First of all, there's an assertion underlying here that trans bodies are surgically created bodies. Dolan repeatedly conflates M2F transsexuality and transgenderism. Trans bodies can be surgically created, synthetically created through hormone therapy, or by winning the genetic lottery. Dolan is correct that there should be no shame in talking about the human body, but context matters because respecting a person's body matters. Context matters because a right to personal privacy matters.

\n\n\n

Recently I met a fella at a music show that told me that he thought trans women were women and he respected them. He then asked me if I'd had \"the surgery.\" I'd literally known this guy for minutes. He also informed me that I needed to smile more. I'm in a long term monogamous, committed relationship. I'd given him no signs that I was interested in him in any way. In this context, this man was being disrespectful.

\n\n\n

I don't and haven't ever publicly stated the state of my genitals, because I don't believe that's something I personally feel the need to share or that should be up for public consumption. If you ask me about the state of my genitals when I've not expressed an interest in you, you've crossed a boundary and are being disrespectful. Some similar violations of privacy and personal boundaries/space without consent are:

\n\n\n\n\n\n

Dolan states:

\n\n\n
\n\n

While the privacy that others may choose deserves respect, there is fallacy in the proposition that everyone should know better than to pursue understanding of a subject to which they have yet to be exposed.

\n\n\n

After all, I myself had no idea what sex change surgeons were capable of these days until I asked and found out. So how can I hold regular people to a higher standard and expect them to know what I, as a transgender person, once did not?

\n\n\n

Indignation exacerbates at least four problems created by muzzling discussion of sex change surgery. First, silencing talk about the procedure undermines its medical necessity for many of us who identify as transsexual. In the United States, we are now required, like anyone else, to carry medical insurance; yet, although more and more insurers are developing policies that cover transgender genital surgery, many have historically excluded coverage for an operation they deemed “cosmetic.” Tell that to a transgender person wincing every time they have to go to the bathroom, weeping at their body in the shower or the mirror or trying to explain their sex to a potential intimate partner. 

\n\n
\n\n\n

There's no muzzling of discussions of sex change surgeries. If one is interested, they only need a web browser to educate themselves. I hate being so repetitive, but again it's context of the inquiry that is disrespectful. Trans people should not be asked to educate cis-gender (not transgender) people, with their own bodies as the curriculum of that education.

\n\n\n

Sorry, I'm not your trans101 sex education doll.

\n\n \n", "date_published": "2015-08-21T11:13:50+01:00", "url": "https://martiabernathey.com/2015/08/21/no-my-bits.html", "tags": ["Activism","Transgender","Healthcare","BodilyAutonomy"] }, { "id": "http://marti-abernathey.micro.blog/2014/10/28/scroungers-benefit-cuts.html", "title": "Scroungers, Benefit Cuts, and the Tory Media", "content_html": "

This morning I was listening to LBC radio and the radio presenter, John Stapleton (who was sitting in for James O’Brien), took a call from someone that said the Tories don’t care about benefit cuts and people in poverty:\n[soundcloud url=“https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/174327300” params=“auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=“100%” height=“450” iframe=“true” /]\nStapleton called the caller “harsh,” then parroted the government line. I had a brief conversation with him on Twitter, of which there was little response. I’ve noticed that when callers hit pay dirt on talk radio, the presenters don’t like to talk about it.

\n

You can logically argue what banking practices caused the financial crisis in 2008 that still haunts the global economy, but you can’t say it wasn’t the fault of bankers.

\n

When I read Howard Zinn’s “The People’s History of the United States of America”, I often wondered how people could be duped into supporting policies that actually suppressed them. I now understand how that can happen, because I’m seeing it happen globally today. In the United Kindgdom some will blame the floundering British economy on immigrants, some will blame the fiscal malaise on the NHS budget, but still others will blame the UK benefits system. The media willingly promotes this myth by producing shows like Benefits Street, that seek to build a narrative. But that narrative is simply fiction when applied to the majority of people claiming benefit. If you look at the benefits pie as a whole, a solid majority of it goes to pensioners. Do you see UKIP/Tories going after pensions/pensioners? If they really were concerned about the economy, they’d focus on the majority of the burden. But that wouldn’t win them any elections. Pinning immigrants against the poor, has always been a tool of the wealthy ruling class to keep the lower classes busy. This war is no different.

\n

It’s hard to form policy around the actual data that shows the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer, because that won’t fire many people up. It’s all rather glum. It’s a much easier task to blame those who can least defend themselves. The poor, disabled, and the disenfranchised don’t have friends in places of power to advocate on their behalf, but the rich do.

\n

Apparently they also have their mouthpieces in the media, as well.

\n

Update:\nAnother example of this use of poor to forward an agenda:\n\"image\"

\n", "date_published": "2014-10-28T01:56:00+01:00", "url": "https://martiabernathey.com/2014/10/28/scroungers-benefit-cuts.html", "tags": ["Media","Elections","SocialMedia","UKPolitics","Healthcare"] }, { "id": "http://marti-abernathey.micro.blog/2014/10/09/thoughts-on-suicide.html", "title": "Thoughts on Suicide, Living, and Dying", "content_html": "\n

My mind has been in a million different places today. I read this thoughtful post by a doctor about a patient that committed suicide. I saw this today on dying with dignity:

\n\n\n
\n[www.youtube.com/watch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPfe3rCcUeQ)\n
\n\n\n

I come at this from the perspective of a medical professional that has seen death and dying up close and personal for almost thirty years. I come at this from the place of a person with a history of persona trauma and loss. I come at this from the perspective of an atheist. I come at this from the perspective of someone that researches the deaths of trans people across the world for the Remembering our Dead/Transgender Day of Remembrance project. I come at this from having partners who struggle with mental illness. From each one of these perspectives, I see life and death up close. I often see conflicting messages when seeing the suffering, the pain, and the joy of living.

\n\n\n

When I saw Brittney's story and I read the doctor's words about the suicide of a 50-year-old man with a history of depression, I saw a similar story. I saw a story of two people dealing with a life-threatening illness. I saw a story of two people taking control of their life, destiny, and pain.

\n\n\n

I think about every person I've ever treated as a medical professional that was at their life's end. So many times, what I end up seeing is suffering. Needless suffering. Terminally ill patients with families that just can't let go of their loved ones. I've had to perform scans on those patients. Patients who cried during the procedures cried out that they just wanted to die. They are the patients who have feeding tubes. The patients who have lived years, sometimes a quarter of a century, living in a bed. I've gone home, just put my face in my hands, and cried because of those patients. From that perspective, I'm like close to 80% of doctors that would avoid chemotherapy for aggressive forms of cancer that have little hope of a cure. I understand the rational choice not to suffer needlessly and have control over your life up until the end of it. I'm an atheist, but the needless suffering I've seen has made me see it as a kind of \"hell on earth.\" I don't want that for myself.

\n\n\n

From my trauma, I can understand losing hope. 12 years ago, I lost the ability to see my daughter and be a part of her life because of who I am. For almost 6 years, I suffered from situational depression because of this. Most recently, I'm about 6 months out from ending a relationship. I mourn that.

\n\n\n

Being visibly trans isn't the easiest path in life, either. At times it weighs on my life like a heavy anchor. It limits my job choices, income, and many other aspects of my life. Parts of my trans life history have been so damaging, so brutal, and honestly... so unnecessary. When news broke of Kate von Roeder's very public suicide, I commented at the time that I think anyone that's visibly trans can understand why she took her own life. I looked at her letter and can honestly say that I understand why she did it. Some may say that makes me unstable or depressed, but I think of the words of comedian Marc Maron:

\n\n\n
\n\n

\"If somebody comes up to you and says 'you might be clinically depressed', you should probably say 'thank you! That means I'm awake.' Is there any indication I shouldn't be depressed? Are you living on the same planet as I am? Do you ever think that depression might be the reasonable human response to the crap we're going through as a species?\"

\n\n
\n\n\n

I'm not saying I want to kill myself. I've thought about it,  and every time I do it comes back to the same question:

\n\n\n
\n\n

\"Do I want to relieve myself of pain, more than I want to live?\"

\n\n
\n\n\n

The answer to that question has been a consistent no. As complex as life is right now and unsure of my future, I still find joy and wonder in life. I still want more. I still want to be here and see how this all plays out. Doing the TDoR list, I see (sometimes graphically so) trans women losing their life because they are trans. The pain I feel from my life experience is tempered with the knowledge that my privilege (class, race, geography) allows me not to feel as much pain as many others do.

\n\n\n

I'm glad I'm here, and I'm glad I'm alive right now. Though my pain may last, I acknowledge that it will lessen over time. That there will be a day sometime in the future when I'll yearn for today, for more time, for one more chance at living, but tomorrow won't come. I'm hopeful I'll have a choice of when and if enough is enough when the answer to the question above is that the pain is too much. Personal autonomy/agency is a gift that many people don't receive.

\n\n \n", "date_published": "2014-10-09T08:43:55+01:00", "url": "https://martiabernathey.com/2014/10/09/thoughts-on-suicide.html", "tags": ["Transgender","Reflection","MentalHealth","Death","Religion","Healthcare"] }, { "id": "http://marti-abernathey.micro.blog/2005/07/10/why-i-want.html", "title": "Why I Want To Be A Canadian", "content_html": "

Very few times in life have I heard something so moving, so honest, and so historically relevant that it moved me to tears….

\n

To my Canadian friends, I envy you… if all goes well, when I die, it shall be on Canadian soil.

\n

I can’t believe I missed this…

\n

Prime Minister Paul Martin on February 16, 2005\nSee video of speech

\n
\"I rise today in support of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act. I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law.\n

This is an important day. The attention of our nation is focused on this chamber in which John Diefenbaker introduced the Bill of Rights, in which Pierre Trudeau fought to establish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our deliberations will be not merely about a piece of legislation or sections of legal text. More deeply, they will be about the kind of nation we are today, and the nation we want to be.

\n

This bill protects minority rights. This bill affirms the Charter guarantee of religious freedom. It is that straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and it is that important.

\n

And that is why I stand today before members here and before the people of this country to say I believe in, and I will fight for, the Charter of Rights. I believe in, and I will fight for, a Canada that respects the foresight and vision of those who created and entrenched the Charter. I believe in, and I will fight for, a future in which generations of Canadians to come, Canadians born here and abroad, will have the opportunity to value the Charter as we do today – as an essential pillar of our democratic freedoms.

\n

There have been a number of arguments put forward by those who do not support this bill. It’s important and respectful to examine them and to assess them.

\n

First, some have claimed that, once this bill becomes law, religious freedoms will be less than fully protected. This is demonstrably untrue. As it pertains to marriage, the government’s legislation affirms the Charter guarantee, that religious officials are free to perform such ceremonies in accordance with the beliefs of their faith.

\n

In this, we are guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, which makes clear that in no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple – in no religious house will those who disagree with same-sex unions be compelled to perform them. Period. That is why this legislation is about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

\n

Moreover, and this is crucially important , the Supreme Court has declared unanimously, and I quote: ‘The guarantee of religious freedom in section 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.’

\n

The facts are plain. Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe. If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right. The Supreme Court says so. And the Charter says so.

\n

One final observation on this aspect of the issue: Religious leaders have strong views both for and against this legislation. They should express them. Certainly, many of us in this House, myself included, have a strong faith, and we value that faith and its influence on the decisions we make. But all of us have been elected to serve here as Parliamentarians. And as public legislators, we are responsible for serving all Canadians and protecting the rights of all Canadians.

\n

We will be influenced by our faith but we also have an obligation to take the widest perspective – to recognize that one of the great strengths of Canada is its respect for the rights of each and every individual, to understand that we must not shrink from the need to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of Canadians in an evolving society.

\n

The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this – not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter.

\n

The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

\n

We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact.

\n

Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to ‘civil union.’ This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.

\n

Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: ‘Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships …falls short of true equality.’

\n

Put simply, we must always remember that ‘separate but equal’ is not equal. What’s more, those who call for the establishment of civil unions fail to understand that the Government of Canada does not have the constitutional jurisdiction to do so. Only the provinces have that. Only the provinces could define such a regime, and they could define it in 10 different ways, and some jurisdictions might not bother to define it at all. There would be uncertainty. There would be confusion. There would certainly not be equality.

\n

Fourth, some are urging the government to respond to the decisions of the courts by getting out of the marriage business altogether. That would mean no more civil weddings for any couples.

\n

It is worth noting that this idea was rejected by the major religions themselves when their representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2003. Moreover, it would be an extreme and counterproductive response for the government to deny civil marriage to opposite-sex couples simply so it can keep it from same-sex couples. To do so would simply be to replace one form of discrimination with another.

\n

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are some who oppose this legislation who would have the government use the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights to override the courts and reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. And really, this is the fundamental issue here.

\n

Understand that in seven provinces and one territory, the lawful union of two people of the same sex in civil marriage is already the law of the land. The debate here today is not about whether to change the definition of marriage, it’s been changed. The debate comes down to whether we should override a right that is now in place. The debate comes down to the Charter, the protection of minority rights, and whether the federal government should invoke the notwithstanding clause.

\n

I know that some think we should use the clause. For example, some religious leaders feel this way. I respect their candor in publicly recognizing that because same-sex marriage is already legal in most of the country, the only way. The only way to again make civil marriage the exclusive domain of opposite sex couples is to use the notwithstanding clause.

\n

Ultimately Mr. Speaker, there is only one issue before this House in this debate. For most Canadians, in most parts of our country, same-sex marriage is already the law of the land. Thus, the issue is not whether rights are to be granted. The issue is whether rights that have been granted are to be taken away.

\n

Some are frank and straightforward and say yes. Others have not been so candid. Despite being confronted with clear facts, despite being confronted with the unanimous opinion of 134 legal scholars, experts in their field, intimately familiar with the Constitution, some have chosen to not be forthright with Canadians. They have eschewed the honest approach in favour of the political approach. They have attempted to cajole the public into believing that we can return to the past with a simple snap of the fingers, that we can revert to traditional definition of marriage without consequence and without overriding the Charter. They’re insincere. They’re disingenuous. And they’re wrong.

\n

There is one question that demands an answer – a straight answer – from those who would seek to lead this nation and its people. It is a simple question: Will you use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the definition of civil marriage and deny to Canadians a right guaranteed under the Charter?

\n

This question does not demand rhetoric. It demands clarity. There are only two legitimate answers, yes or no. Not the demagoguery we have heard, not the dodging, the flawed reasoning, the false options. Just yes or no.

\n

Will you take away a right as guaranteed under the Charter? I, for one, will answer that question Mr. Speaker. I will answer it clearly. I will say no.

\n

The notwithstanding clause is part of the Charter of Rights. But there’s a reason that no prime minister has ever used it. For a prime minister to use the powers of his office to explicitly deny rather than affirm a right enshrined under the Charter would serve as a signal to all minorities that no longer can they look to the nation’s leader and to the nation’s Constitution for protection, for security, for the guarantee of their freedoms. We would risk becoming a country in which the defence of rights is weighed, calculated and debated based on electoral or other considerations.

\n

That would set us back decades as a nation. It would be wrong for the minorities of this country. It would be wrong for Canada.

\n

The Charter is a living document, the heartbeat of our Constitution. It is also a proclamation. It declares that as Canadians, we live under a progressive and inclusive set of fundamental beliefs about the value of the individual. It declares that we all are lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right.

\n

We cannot exalt the Charter as a fundamental aspect of our national character and then use the notwithstanding clause to reject the protections that it would extend. Our rights must be eternal, not subject to political whim.

\n

To those who value the Charter yet oppose the protection of rights for same-sex couples, I ask you, If a prime minister and a national government are willing to take away the rights of one group, what is to say they will stop at that? If the Charter is not there today to protect the rights of one minority, then how can we as a nation of minorities ever hope, ever believe, ever trust that it will be there to protect us tomorrow?

\n

My responsibility as Prime Minister, my duty to Canada and to Canadians, is to defend the Charter in its entirety. Not to pick and choose the rights that our laws shall protect and those that are to be ignored. Not to decree those who shall be equal and those who shall not. My duty is to protect the Charter, as some in this House will not.

\n

Let us never forget that one of the reasons that Canada is such a vibrant nation, so diverse, so rich in the many cultures and races of the world, is that immigrants who come here – as was the case with the ancestors of many of us in this chamber – feel free and are free to practice their religion, follow their faith, live as they want to live. No homogenous system of beliefs is imposed on them.

\n

When we as a nation protect minority rights, we are protecting our multicultural nature. We are reinforcing the Canada we value. We are saying, proudly and unflinchingly, that defending rights – not just those that happen to apply to us, not just that everyone approves of, but all fundamental rights – is at the very soul of what it means to be a Canadian.

\n

This is a vital aspect of the values we hold dear and strive to pass on to others in the world who are embattled, who endure tyranny, whose freedoms are curtailed, whose rights are violated.

\n

Why is the Charter so important, Mr. Speaker? We have only to look at our own history. Unfortunately, Canada’s story is one in which not everyone’s rights were protected under the law. We have not been free from discrimination, bias, unfairness. There have been blatant inequalities.

\n

Remember that it was once thought perfectly acceptable to deny women ‘personhood’ and the right to vote. There was a time, not that long ago, that if you wore a turban, you couldn’t serve in the RCMP. The examples are many, but what’s important now is that they are part of our past, not our present.

\n

Over time, perspectives changed. We evolved, we grew, and our laws evolved and grew with us. That is as it should be. Our laws must reflect equality not as we understood it a century or even a decade ago, but as we understand it today.

\n

For gays and lesbians, evolving social attitudes have, over the years, prompted a number of important changes in the law. Recall that, until the late 1960s, the state believed it had the right to peek into our bedrooms. Until 1977, homosexuality was still sufficient grounds for deportation. Until 1992, gay people were prohibited from serving in the military. In many parts of the country, gays and lesbians could not designate their partners as beneficiaries under employee medical and dental benefits, insurance policies or private pensions. Until very recently, people were being fired merely for being gay.

\n

Today, we rightly see discrimination based on sexual orientation as arbitrary, inappropriate and unfair. Looking back, we can hardly believe that such rights were ever a matter for debate. It is my hope that we will ultimately see the current debate in a similar light; realizing that nothing has been lost or sacrificed by the majority in extending full rights to the minority.

\n

Without our relentless, inviolable commitment to equality and minority rights, Canada would not be at the forefront in accepting newcomers from all over the world, in making a virtue of our multicultural nature – the complexity of ethnicities and beliefs that make up Canada, that make us proud that we are where our world is going, not where it’s been.

\n

Four years ago, I stood in this House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. Many of us did. My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples were a function of my faith, my perspective on the world around us.

\n

But much has changed since that day. We’ve heard from courts across the country, including the Supreme Court. We’ve come to the realization that instituting civil unions, adopting a ‘separate but equal’ approach would violate the equality provisions of the Charter. We’ve confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms.

\n

And so where does that leave us? It leaves us staring in the face of the Charter of Rights with but a single decision to make. Do we abide by the Charter and protect minority rights, or do we not?

\n

To those who would oppose this bill, I urge you to consider that the core of the issue before us today is whether the rights of all Canadians are to be respected. I believe they must be. Justice demands it. Fairness demands it. The Canada we love demands it.

\n

Mr. Speaker, in the 1960s the government of Lester Pearson faced opposition as it moved to entrench official bilingualism. But it persevered and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was. In the 1980s the government of Pierre Trudeau faced opposition as it attempted to repatriate the Constitution and enshrine a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But it persevered, and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was.

\n

There are times, Mr. Speaker, when we as Parliamentarians can feel the gaze of history upon us. They felt it in the days of Pearson. They felt it in the days of Trudeau. And we, the 308 men and women elected to represent one of the most inclusive, just and respectful countries on the face of this earth, feel it today.

\n

There are few nations whose citizens cannot look to Canada and see their own reflection. For generations, men and women and families from the four corners of the globe have made the decision to chose Canada to be their home. Many have come here seeking freedom of thought, religion and belief. Seeking the freedom simply to be.

\n

The people of Canada have worked hard to build a country that opens its doors to include all, regardless of their differences; a country that respects all, regardless of their differences; a country that demands equality for all, regardless of their differences.

\n

If we do not step forward, then we step back. If we do not protect a right, then we deny it. Mr. Speaker, together as a nation, together as Canadians, let us step forward."

\n", "date_published": "2005-07-10T06:20:42+01:00", "url": "https://martiabernathey.com/2005/07/10/why-i-want.html", "tags": ["LGBTQ","Religion","Healthcare"] }, { "id": "http://marti-abernathey.micro.blog/2005/06/27/holy-water-of.html", "title": "Holy Water of Jesus!", "content_html": "

US Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, said recently “That [the] insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years. Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency. We’re going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency.” This stuff isn’t rocket science, Donald….

\n

Every day that the US is in Iraq and doesn’t provide basic life sustaining needs, the insurgency will grow. Consider Iraqi blogger hnk’s words (a 16 year old Iraqi blogger)

\n
\"we have big problem in Mosul this week. The fuel is not available and it cost 25 times more than before from the black market. We don't buy it from the fuel station because it's too crowded and there is no hope to reach your turn before 10 hours, and after that 50% they will not get you fuel. That if you could wait till after 10 hours.\"\n

“Baghdad have another problem, the people there don’t have water, not even polluted water. And we are in summer and this is Baghdad.”

\n

“Clear water, dirty water doesn’t trouble it’s not making a different. We drink both of them. My uncle house’s water has a small fish on it beside its color and its taste which we get use on them. But fish, It’s another problem.”

\n

Water! Iraqi’s are drinking foul, polluted water!

\n

Another common problem in Iraq is lack of electricity. Hnk said

\n
\"Bad electricity service that we have here in Iraq couldn't give us more than 4 hours in the day. In lucky days, we have 7 hours of electricity at the most level.\" You see a pattern developing?
\n

Then there is the matter of security. Hnk said

\n
\"I said that today is better than tomorrow we were so near from being died this week. Especially my parents. The people around me killed and kidnapped. OH, Allah help us.\"\n

“One of the people who work with my father in the same building, called before an hour and asked my father not to come to the clinic, he said there is a confrontation in the region around the clinic."

\n

Having no clean water, little electricity, and no security will do more to grow this insurgency than anything else. Security and quality of life issues should be front and center if we expect to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi’s.

\n

Like I said, it’s not rocket science. Unfortunately those in authority believe more in the power of neocon Jesus than in science.

\n", "date_published": "2005-06-27T23:01:24+01:00", "url": "https://martiabernathey.com/2005/06/27/holy-water-of.html", "tags": ["Family","Religion","Healthcare","War"] }, { "id": "http://marti-abernathey.micro.blog/2005/06/15/terri-schiavo.html", "title": "Terri Schiavo", "content_html": "

I told you so….

\n

From the Florida’s medical examiner’s office:

\n

Reported by BBC

\n
\"'She was incapable of surviving without her feeding tube,' Mr Throgmartin said, adding that she was blind and incapable of thinking, feeling or interacting with her environment.\n

‘This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons,’ he said."

\n

I’m rubbing it in because of how many people weighed in on this topic but had no medical background to base their position on.

\n

Next time trust medical professionals… instead of Neocons.

\n", "date_published": "2005-06-15T18:47:34+01:00", "url": "https://martiabernathey.com/2005/06/15/terri-schiavo.html", "tags": ["Media","USPolitics","Healthcare"] } ] }