Mary Talbot is the mother of 2005 murder victim Olivia Talbot and grandmother of Olivia’s unborn son, Lane Jr.. The following is a letter she wrote in response to Joyce Arthur’s claims that bill C-484, or the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, was a “back-door attempt to attack abortion”.
Here is that letter as it was published in Ottawa Citizen on February 25, 2008:
I was in Ottawa on Feb. 14, what should have been my grandson’s second birthday, at a press conference urging MPs to vote for Bill C-484, regarding the unborn victims of violence.
The next day, the Canadian Press reported on what Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada had to say about this bill and about the intentions of the MP who introduced it. It appalls me that she is still trying to turn my cause into some sort of abortion issue. Positive or negative, I do not want to see Bill C-484 connected to abortion whatsoever.
Ken Epp, the member of Parliament who introduced this bill, has worked hard to ensure there cannot be any mistaking that the abortion issue is totally excluded. Please refer to Mr. Epp’s website, www.kenepp.com. He has rebutted many of Ms. Arthur’s claims, yet she continues to accuse him and anyone who supports this bill of having an ulterior motive. “It definitely is a back-door attempt to attack abortion rights,” she told the media.
Here is an MP who is doing something to fight criminal violence, to help protect women and babies, to change the law so that no other grandmother in the future has to go through the grief and insult of being told that the murder of her grandson – that the murder of my darling Olivia’s beloved baby, Lane Jr. — doesn’t even register a blip in our criminal justice system.
I also find it an insult that Ms. Arthur suggests my opinion regarding this matter should be irrelevant, as I have a vested interest – my daughter and my grandson were shot to death!
This is what she says on the coalition’s website: “While we deeply sympathize with them and understand their wish, it must be recognized that victims of violence are not those who should be making decisions about justice in a democratic society. Appropriate laws and penalties must be determined by impartial parties who do not allow emotion or personal bias to colour their decisions.”
Just who are these “impartial parties” she is referring to?
On the one hand she speaks about democracy and on the other she implies that I not be part of the democratic process.
In my own daughter’s case, there will be no retribution toward the man who murdered her to kill my grandson. This is “justice in a democratic society”? Ms. Arthur is putting the rights of criminals ahead of the women they abuse, often in very brutal ways, and often done with the intention “to get the baby,” to quote the killer of Olivia and baby Lane.
On the one hand she says she “deeply sympathizes” with me, yet if she doesn’t recognize the violence against my wee Lane Jr., then what does she have to “sympathize” about?
To you Ms. Arthur: Please show some respect for my daughter’s and her unborn baby’s memory, for Lane Jr. who I held in my arms and wept for. And I feel that I can ask the same for the rest of the families who are at this time grieving the loss of their loved ones. I hope you never have to experience the pain and anguish and sense of injustice of losing a beloved family member to violence, only to learn that no crime was committed, only to learn that the one your heart breaks for, was of no worth.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
