<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Campaign for Life Ottawa March coverage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/2009/05/15/461/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/2009/05/15/461/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:04:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/2009/05/15/461/comment-page-1/#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 13:58:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/?p=461#comment-121</guid>
		<description>&quot;That’s a very good reason that such secret caucuses should be done away with. MPs are to be fully accountable for any and all their actions.&quot;

Well, I tend to wonder whether it&#039;s more because it would be controversial with the public than because of the leadership, since plenty of them can and do come forward without apparently suffering. And I do agree with your point:

If MPs - like government in general feel that they have to do something in secret, that&#039;s usually an indication that they shouldn&#039;t be doing it at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;That’s a very good reason that such secret caucuses should be done away with. MPs are to be fully accountable for any and all their actions.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, I tend to wonder whether it&#8217;s more because it would be controversial with the public than because of the leadership, since plenty of them can and do come forward without apparently suffering. And I do agree with your point:</p>
<p>If MPs &#8211; like government in general feel that they have to do something in secret, that&#8217;s usually an indication that they shouldn&#8217;t be doing it at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Torontonian</title>
		<link>http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/2009/05/15/461/comment-page-1/#comment-120</link>
		<dc:creator>Torontonian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 13:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/?p=461#comment-120</guid>
		<description>&quot; . . .the excuse given is that no list can be published because members might face retribution from their party leadership.&quot;
--------------

That&#039;s a very good reason that such secret caucuses should be done away with.  MPs are to be fully accountable for any and all their actions.  

Naturally, party policy and planning and strategy fall outside the limits of accountability but this secret caucus about a volatile issue smacks of subversiveness of a different order.

The pro-choice Canadians should be rightly angry because they don&#039;t need any secret caucus.  They are honest and straightforward on their subject.  The anti-choice people are subversive and secretive--two elements we don&#039;t need in a democracy.

Frankly, any member of that group should not be allowed to stand again in the next election.

But the Christian right has a different view of things and their influence is waning here and elsewhere--another reason for the secrecy.

Get these ardent zygote zealots off the hill.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8221; . . .the excuse given is that no list can be published because members might face retribution from their party leadership.&#8221;<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a very good reason that such secret caucuses should be done away with.  MPs are to be fully accountable for any and all their actions.  </p>
<p>Naturally, party policy and planning and strategy fall outside the limits of accountability but this secret caucus about a volatile issue smacks of subversiveness of a different order.</p>
<p>The pro-choice Canadians should be rightly angry because they don&#8217;t need any secret caucus.  They are honest and straightforward on their subject.  The anti-choice people are subversive and secretive&#8211;two elements we don&#8217;t need in a democracy.</p>
<p>Frankly, any member of that group should not be allowed to stand again in the next election.</p>
<p>But the Christian right has a different view of things and their influence is waning here and elsewhere&#8211;another reason for the secrecy.</p>
<p>Get these ardent zygote zealots off the hill.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/2009/05/15/461/comment-page-1/#comment-119</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 12:57:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/?p=461#comment-119</guid>
		<description>Torontonian,

This issue is being debated at Equipping Christian&#039;s blog, No Apologies, which linked to my work here. The Pro-Life Caucus was started under Chretien, so in that sense it&#039;s not a by product of the Harper government. (Although various ministers, including Jason Kenney, are known former members, and possibly current members, of this caucus.)

And of course other caucuses, like party caucuses, do traditionally keep their discussions secret. I dislike that too, but it&#039;s a side issue to the current matter, which is that we don&#039;t even know the membership.

I suspect they&#039;re afraid that too many pro-choice Canadians would be angered by their belonging to this caucus. Actually the excuse given is that no list can be published because members might face retribution from their party leadership.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Torontonian,</p>
<p>This issue is being debated at Equipping Christian&#8217;s blog, No Apologies, which linked to my work here. The Pro-Life Caucus was started under Chretien, so in that sense it&#8217;s not a by product of the Harper government. (Although various ministers, including Jason Kenney, are known former members, and possibly current members, of this caucus.)</p>
<p>And of course other caucuses, like party caucuses, do traditionally keep their discussions secret. I dislike that too, but it&#8217;s a side issue to the current matter, which is that we don&#8217;t even know the membership.</p>
<p>I suspect they&#8217;re afraid that too many pro-choice Canadians would be angered by their belonging to this caucus. Actually the excuse given is that no list can be published because members might face retribution from their party leadership.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Torontonian</title>
		<link>http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/2009/05/15/461/comment-page-1/#comment-118</link>
		<dc:creator>Torontonian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 10:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/?p=461#comment-118</guid>
		<description>&quot; . . .Just out of curiousity,  how many secret parliament caucuses hand out press releases once a year? . . .&quot;

------------------

Why should there even be a secret caucus in our parliament?  What type of democratic government would entertain such a thing?
Is this a by-product of the Harper government or have there been secret caucuses during Liberal governments?

Why are these people so afraid that they have to resort to sececy?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8221; . . .Just out of curiousity,  how many secret parliament caucuses hand out press releases once a year? . . .&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;</p>
<p>Why should there even be a secret caucus in our parliament?  What type of democratic government would entertain such a thing?<br />
Is this a by-product of the Harper government or have there been secret caucuses during Liberal governments?</p>
<p>Why are these people so afraid that they have to resort to sececy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

