Dissecting the Rhetoric

I found an article authored by anti-human rights propagandist Janet Bagnall which contains such a plethora of antitruth style-guide phrases, non-fact-checked assertions, errors, and blatant falsehoods, that I feel it provides excellent examples to use to expose the lame propaganda tactics so often offered by the anti-human rights, pro-eugenics minority in Canada.

The anti-truth, pro-eugenics style-guide:
The typical labelling of pro-human rights advocates and advocacy with negative words like "cynical", "opponents", "anti", and so forth, is done to create and enforce a false heuristic that ties "bad" to "pro-human-rights supporters". Similarly, the use of positive connotations like "pro" is always linked to the masking word in use; "Pro-choice" is the most common example where being allowed to kill human beings is masked with the word "choice" so support for this license to kill defenseless people becomes "pro-choice". Makes killing sound good.

Examples of some of the heuristic abuses in Bagnall's article:
"abortion opponents"
"anti-abortion marchers"
"Pro-choice advocates believe anti-abortionists"

Another frequent tactic used by anti-human rights extremists is the false assertion of a "right" where none exists. Error has no rights- it is merely tolerated in some times and places. The pre-meditated, deliberate killing of a scientifically and philosophically verified individual human is undeniably an error.
... reaffirm "the right of women to abortion"
... because they support "the right to abortion"

The Right to life supercedes all other human rights and is inalienable. What really exists in Canada is a legal void where this most fundamental human right is refused protection and violators against that right are not prosecuted. It's not a right, it's the exploitation of a legal void which allows the killing of citizens without prosecution. It's a failure in the duty of those in power to exert the rule of law in order to protect the fundamental and inalienable human rights of all of the citizens for whom they are enlisted to serve and protect.

Another tactic they use to help reinforce the false heuristic is to demean, or demonize human rights supporters by the use of unpopular characterizations. Here Bagnall tries to present the image of slowness, volatility and violent extremism:
"...they lacked in speed, they made up in intemperance ..."
"...lit a firestorm, calling abortion a moral crime even in the case of rape..."

Propagandists like Bagnall also attempt to dehumanize their intended victims through labelling. They go to great extremes to avoid calling their victims human. Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo, Fetus, blob of cells, mass of tissue.... anything but person. It is a well known tactic of war and genocide to first dehumanize the opponent in order to reduce the level aversion to killing them.

Bagnall tries to paint the call to the Canadian Parliament to live up to their solemn duty to protect the basic human rights of all Canadian Citizens, as an absurd call to extend legal protection to a thing called a "fetus"
"...advocating laws protecting the fetus."

It is also common for anti-human rights extremists like Bagnall to infer that their position is acceptable because it is the opinion held by the majority, or by the unquestionably correct intelligent elite, or by the majority of a relevant reference group, or by a popular icon for a target reference group.
"The fact is that no government that cares about getting elected would dare try to limit access to abortion in Canada."

The anti human rights minority also have no aversion to making up "facts". The real fact is that 2/3's of Canadian voters are not content with the current legal void, and want various legal protections for unborn Canadians. An astute political strategist would be wise to exploit this majority and put human rights protection for all humans in their platform. 2/3's of voters is a significant proportion.

Credit where it is due - In Bagnall's writing below, she manages to plant the idea that there is a majority who want the legislative void to remain; whereas her actual writing refers to a majority of the minority (that would be the 33% who are content with the current lack of human rights protection.)
"...the majority of Canadians who do not want the abortion issue re-opened."

In this next bit Bagnall is just making stuff up again. This time she is trying to "divide and conquer" her opponents by falsely branding a peaceful, respectable, noble Canadian as an extremist. Note how she inverts the truth about the esteem the Catholic heirarchy have for him. FYI Janet, no legitimate Catholic, nor anyone in the heirarchy find him "extreme" in any way whatsoever; he is merely doing his job.
"someone even the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Quebec finds extreme"

With these next lines Bagnall throws in a little fear mongering to help activate the reptilian brains and fight reflexes in her minority reference group.
"...anti-abortion protesters are showing up in greater numbers..."

And then Bagnall prophecies by stating absolutely that current tactics will be unfruitful, and then reads the mind of her opponents revealing their hope. Is Bagnall a clairvoyant?
"Abortion opponents know they can't win through legislation or public protest; their hope is to chip away at abortion access ..."

And here Bagnall makes an attempt to gain sympathy and empathy by victimizing the poor, rural woman deprived of her license to kill.
"... those who can afford to -- travel... Rural women in general must travel, sometimes long distances...

And once again, an other example of the use of positive spinning words "safe" and "legal". Makes you all warm and fuzzy doesn't it?
"But they can still get a safe, legal abortion."

In the statement below, she denies the uncontestable fact that decriminalizing abortion led from a few thousand deaths annually, to over a hundred thousand deaths annually, with an aggregate toll of over 3 million Canadian citizens killed over the past 40 years. Using statistics showing a slight decline over a recent 4 year period (2002-2006)she asserts a connection to the decriminalization in 1969 (41 years ago). After decriminalization, abortion rates did shoot through the roof; in fact they absolutely skyrocketed. It's a pathetic attempt at manipulation by misusing unrelated data.
"...despite the lack of legal restrictions, abortion rates have not shot through the roof in Canada..."

The same data refutes Bagnalls next erroneous assertion.
"There is no proof that decriminalizing abortion leads to irresponsible use..."

And her proposed solution is to spend money so some hack can manipulate data to prove once again that their flawed eugenics strategy is flawed. Newsflash... Contraception is not effective and all the data available shows that increased contraceptive use always increases unwanted pregnancies. It's kind of a dumb suggestion Janet.
"spending more on research to find out why various contraceptive methods aren't working as well as we had hoped..."

Now Bagnall uses "victim abuse" making us "hypocrites" in a daft appeal to her readers fear of embarassment.
"Using these women to score points among Canada's abortion opponents turns the idea of foreign aid on its head...Our reputation abroad, however, will take a hit. We are becoming known as a nation of hypocrites."

And once again our clarivoyant author shares her fantasy with a bit of wishful thinking phrased as an absolute statement of fact.
"...nothing will happen to abortion rights in Canada."

The actual fact is, the days of flagrant human rights abuse in Canada are coming to their end. Killing innocent, defenseless Canadians will be soon recognized for the abominable crime that it is. The use of this transparent linguistic drivel has become trite, and the days of anti-human rights minority control are numbered. Get with the program Janet. Try writing truth to power for a change.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/cynical+abortion+politics/3070960/story.html

"Janet Bagnall's column is an insult to the intelligence."
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tenfold+hike+abortion+rate+huge+increase/3091212/story.html

... and in keeping with the basic premise:

How Many Pro-Choice Euphemisms Can You List?
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/05/31/how-many-pro-choice-euphemisms-can-you-list/

"Choice," as I've said before, doesn't cut it any more.
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/06/01/pro_choice_versus_pro_freedom/