Two-Tier Policing

If saying something controversial is a crime - it should fall under a jurisdiction of a criminal court, not of a quasi-judicial tribunal where truth is not a defense:

At the federal level, we have what amounts to two-tier policing of racism and hate speech in Canada -- one through the courts applying Criminal Code and the other through a human rights act.

Critics say the Code is all that's needed. They contend that the CHRC, with a bar set far below criminal standards, often adjudicates trivial complaints and serves as a censor of ideas that are not intended to provoke hatred or violence, but to promote controversy and debate. As well, the commission has an almost never lost a case it's prosecuted.
...
However, the problem is that the CHRC is essentially the investigator, prosecutor and judge of complaints of racism and hate speech. The burden of proof under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is also subject to interpretation. It says it's an offence to communicate anything "likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt."
...
The Criminal Code, meanwhile, has clear sanctions to deal with true hate speech -- which must clearly encourage or incite hatred and violence. This is far different than making individuals account for expressions of thought that are controversial, offensive or deemed to be politically incorrect.

Last year, an independent report by the University of Windsor's Richard Moon said the Canadian Human Rights Commission should be stripped of its power to investigate online hate messages. That job, says the free speech expert, is best left to police, prosecutors and Internet service providers.

More >>>

If you're the complainer - you get Tier 2 service. If you're the defendant - you get Tier 0 justice.

Anybody or any group can file a complaint. Complaints may be filed in multiple jurisdictions concurrently. While complainants need not retain a lawyer or incur any legal expenses, the subject of a complaint would be foolish not to do so. Having launched a complaint, complainants need not appear at or testify at any subsequent hearing. There is no effective screening process to eliminate complaints with no reasonable prospects of success. Only complaints shown to be trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith may be disposed of expeditiously. There is no fixed time period within which a complaint must be investigated or brought to a hearing.

The subject of a complaint can be left twisting for years as B'nai Brith Canada discovered when it became the subject of a complaint in Manitoba. There is no defence of truth, fair comment or lack of intent. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has wide powers including the power to award monetary damages and fines to an aggregate of $30,000.

More >>>

The motion M-153 (to have subsection 13.1 deleted from the Canadian Human Rights Act) was re-introduced last fall. It should be put in the order of precedence and voted on as soon as the Parliament resumes. It's time to bring back the one-tier policing and one-tier justice.

Too-Open-Door Policy — Time To Reform The Refugee System

Instead of burdening tourists with useless paperwork, it's time to reform the abuse-prone refugee determination system:

Mr. Kenney can hardly be blamed for wanting to call a halt to what amounts to a cynical game that exploits the hopes of foreign citizens while undermining the chances of those who authentically deserve refugee consideration, and Canada's legitimate desire to help them. He can be criticized for the means in which the visa requirement was imposed: the immigration minister gave just 48 hours notice, claiming a longer lead-in would produce a last-minute rush. But rumours of the move have been around for at least a week, suggesting Ottawa could have given more consideration to the inconvenience caused to legitimate travellers and still achieved its goal.

More >>>

---

When the legislation establishing the IRB came into effect, however, the refugee lobby was successful in pressuring the government into not declaring any other countries to be "safe." The objective was to ensure that our door would be left as wide open as possible. As a result, our refugee-determination system has been constantly clogged, and at times overwhelmed, by thousands of claims from people whom no other country would permit to register an asylum application. In 2007, for example, Canada allowed into our system thousands of claimants from democratic countries such as Thailand, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Israel, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Guyana and the United States.

More >>>

The only step in the right direction was a Safe Third Country agreement with the US, signed by Chretien government in 2002. The agreement compels potential refugee claimants in either country to file their claim in a country where they arrive first, rather than coming to the US because it's easier to obtain a visa and then moving to Canada to claim refugee status, because Canada's acceptance rate is higher and so is the social assistance for refugee claimants. (Not to mention that successful claimants are granted permanent residence almost automatically.)

So, instead of slapping visas on Czech citizens, Canada could have signed a similar Safe Third Country Agreement with EU as well as with other democratic nations from which no credible refugee claim is likely. And, of course, Safe Third Country agreements should also exclude citizens of those safe countries from claiming refugee status in Canada. It's just common sense.

Memories From Before Birth

Even if nobody can recall what life in the womb was like, baby's capabilities to memorize things develop well before birth.

July 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 30-week-old babies in the womb already have short-term memory capabilities, a new study from the Netherlands, published in the July/August 2009 issue of the journal Child Development, has found.

Researchers at Maastricht University Medical Centre and the University Medical Centre St. Radboud examined 93 healthy pregnant Dutch women and their unborn children, measuring changes in how the child responds to repeated stimulation. The children were tested at 30, 32, 34, and 36 weeks, and again at 38 weeks gestation.
...
The scientists found that at thirty weeks, the child in the womb has a short-term memory of about ten minutes. At 34 weeks, the child can store information and retrieve it up to four weeks later. The younger children who had been tested at 34 and 36 weeks were later able to habituate much faster than children at 38 weeks who had never been tested.

More >>>

Yet another scientific proof to the known fact that an unborn baby is a living human being. With a unique DNA. With an autonomous circulatory system and a beating heart. With his tiny fingers and toes each having a unique fingerprint already engraved... And now we know that at later stages, a baby in the womb acquires short-term memory capabilities as well...

A "future child"? No, it's a child with a future!

Why Should A Government Body Intervene In A Religious Dispute?

Wally Keeler from Cobourg, ON asks this question in his letter to the editor:

I am an atheist. What is my stake in this internecine quarrel between one group of Catholics with an agenda represented by Jim Corcoran and Father Allan Hood and another group of Catholics with an agenda represented by the 12 parishioners?

The majority of Ontarians are not Catholic. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for a costly and lengthy investigation and adjudication by the Ontario Human Rights Commission of a ceremonial rite conducted within a non-taxpaying private international organization that proselytizes The Only One?

And, by the way, whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

Human Rights Commissions, whether federal or provincial, have become something quite the opposite of what their name implies. If you believe that a Human Rights Commission is about human rights, then you are likely to believe that the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s novel, 1984, is about truth.

Will those calling for the bureaucrazy of the Human Rights Commission to have more power, next be calling for major revisions and amendments to the Torah, Bible, Koran and similar odious books to conform to the political correctmess zeitgeist?

(Source)

Here's another look at the case - from a different prospective. And the conclusion is similar - when a government body like the OHRC assumes the authority to rule on Catholic liturgy (something which is clearly beyond the scope of its mandate) - it abuses its powers and wastes taxpayers' money.

Keep The Taxes Low; Cut Program Expenses To Balance The Books

Terence Corcoran, a Financial Post columnist, weighs in on the Globe and Mail article which calls Stephen Harper's views on taxes "scary".

...In a new book just published by MIT, The Marginal Cost of Public Funds, University of Alberta economist Bev Dahlby -- a world expert in taxation --makes exactly the point Mr. Harper makes about the negative impact of taxes.

Taxes -- all taxes -- destroy economic activity in one way or another. In a market economy, Prof. Dahlby writes, the invisible hand of the market produces an efficient allocation of resources. "Taxes," he says, "will result in a less efficient allocation of resources to the extent that they alter households' and firms' decisions. We can think of this efficiency loss as a decline in the size of the 'economic pie' -- the value of the goods and services produced and consumed in the economy."
...
But what is really going on here is a mounting Liberal campaign to set the state for tax increases to cover future deficits. Liberals cannot officially plant this idea, and they would much rather have Mr. Harper bear the burden by forcing him to raise taxes. As Rev. Simpson says, donning his economic hat, "economic growth alone will not restore Canada's balanced budget."

If that's true, then the real alternative is is to cut spending. Now that, in Rev. Simpson's Liberal church, is really, really scary, scary.

More >>>

Program expenses have nearly doubled over the last 10 years - from $118B in 1999/2000 to over $230B for 2009/10. (The amount originally budgeted was $229B but with all the extra stimulus spending, the actual number is expected to be a lot higher than that.) At the same time, Canada's tax burden is 33% of the GDP. That's at least 40% higher than the optimum level (17 to 23% of the GDP). Higher taxes and more program spending will burden the economy, diminishing future growth, if not eliminating it completely. Canada just can't afford that.

OHRC vs The Bishop — Stephen Boissoin's Case Taken To A New Level

For those who aren't familiar with Stephen Boissoin's story: He spoke up against the propagation of homosexuality to young people and the Alberta HRC made an example of him. Apart from being fined $7000 (not to mention having to pay the legal expenses, while the complainer was getting a free ride,) Rev. Stephen Boissoin was ordered to publish a letter of apology in the very same newspaper that had published his letter to the editor which triggered the complaint. And on top of all that - the ruling forbade Rev. Stephen Boissoin from criticizing homosexual lifestyle ever again. Somehow, the "human rights" act allows those jackboots to impose a lifetime ban on what they believe is "hate speech".

A similar story is now unfolding in Ontario on a much larger scale. This time, the defender is a Catholic bishop that chose to dismiss a controversial altar server and the 12 parishioners who were the whistle-blowers in the case. As more details become public, it turns out, that there was more to it than the controversial altar server's lifestyle choices. It turns out that the man in question also likes to associate with an excommunicated priest, rewarding him with a lucrative job, making him an "unofficial chaplain" at his business. Sure, it's his business, but then he shouldn't complain if a Catholic church doesn't want him as an altar server.

Yet, the complainer believes he was unfairly singled out. Here's what he wants on top of the hefty $265,000 compensation:

He has also requested six other "remedies." First, he indicates that he "would like the group of 12 parishioners to be held accountable for their un-Christian actions, in front of their peers in a public forum, by the Bishop or the Bishop's superior." Second, he wants the Bishop to preach at his parish "on the consequences of practicing discrimination and the slanderous spreading of rumours, hate and innuendo."

Third, he wants to be restored as an altar server, and fourth, for the bishop to apologize for having removed him. Fifth, he wants the bishop to write an article for the diocesan newspaper "on the rights of persons with same sex attractions to practice their faith within the Catholic Church without fear of threats, recrimination or discrimination." And finally, sixth, he wants the diocese to develop policies "that support the human rights of all people within the church."

More >>>

In other words - he wants anyone who finds his lifestyle and his views too controversial, to be publicly shamed, to be forced to apologize on their knees for hurting his precious feelings. And, since no church authority as well as no court of law would back him, he resorts to a quasi-judiciary tribunal where truth is not a defense and where hurt feelings matter more than facts. Just like in Stephen Boissoin's case, we have a self-disillusioned thug who knows that he can't win an argument, so he wants to silence his opponents by all means possible.

PM Bashes Taxes? How Scary!

A Globe and Mail columnist finds Stephen Harper's anti-tax rhetoric "very, very scary":

Think about it: The prime minister of a country is saying, “I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes.”

There is no “school,” to use Stephen Harper's word, anywhere in economics that says “no taxes are good taxes.” Not even Milton Friedman and the Chicago school think that. Nor do Mr. Harper's former mentors at the University of Calgary.

They, like right-wing politicians, might think taxes are too high, maybe way too high. They might think the private sector can do lots of things better than the public sector. They might believe taxes should be lower. But anyone who says “no taxes are good taxes” and “I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes” is wrong economically, and very, very scary socially and politically.

More >>>

If anything - there's absolutely no reason for Jeffrey Simpson to be scared. Judging from the budgets, tabled by Harper government (20% spending increase over the first three years and then another ~10% increase for 2009/10,) his anti-tax rhetoric is nothing more than a figure of speech. Even if Stephen Harper truly believes that no taxes are good taxes (oh, I wish he did!) - he certainly lacks the courage to defend those beliefs in Parliament. So it's time to let go of this 6 year-old "Harper is scary" mantra.

Then - if there are good taxes - then how come the Liberals too used to oppose certain taxes, be that the GST back in early 1990s or the new taxes on income trusts in more recent days? And, when they did come up with their carbon tax proposal (which they tried to position as some sort of a "good tax") - how come it was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters? Let's face it - people hate taxes and Stephen Harper is no exception. Most likely, when he said "I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes" - he meant just that - that he personally hates taxes. That doesn't mean we can look forward for a truly Conservative budget anytime soon.

"Roe" of Roe v. Wade Arrested For Vocally Opposing A Pro-Abort Judge

About 40 years ago, she was campaigning for unrestricted abortions. But she is "Roe" no more:

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade who now is a leading opponent of abortion, was arrested for disrupting the hearing of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor today along with several other pro-life protesters.

Sgt. Kimberly Schneider of the Capitol Police said McCorvey and one other protester were charged with unlawful conduct for disrupting Congress, making a total of four arrests related to abortion protests during the hearing, reports the Washington Post.

McCorvey had at first stayed outside the Hart Senate Office building with a small group of pro-life activists protesting Sotomayor's confirmation. She then gained admittance to the building as one among the crowd of citizens regularly admitted in brief intervals to listen in on the hearing.

"You're wrong Sotomayor, you're wrong about abortion," McCorvey declared to the Supreme Court hopeful before being quickly escorted out.
...
McCorvey, whose Supreme Court victory in 1973 unleashed legalized abortion in America, became an active opponent of the procedure following a conversion experience in 1994. Her 2005 petition to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade was rejected.

More >>>

Of course, nobody likes to be told that he's wrong. But a witness like Norma McCorvey is worthy of attention. Too bad that apparently there was no opportunity for Norma to meet the soon-to-be judge in person and to share her experience in all the details - instead of merely yelling "you're wrong"...

Supreme Court of Canada: Buses Cannot Refuse Political Ads

OTTAWA, July 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an important defense of freedom of expression, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today that busses cannot refuse ads of a political nature, rejecting the appeal of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (Translink) and B.C. Transit in a case brought against them by the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) and the B.C. Teachers' Federation (BCTF).

Legal experts have suggested that this decision will be important in the pro-life cause, as the principles of the case will be transferable for advertising of pro-life and other related issues on busses, bus stops, and other areas.

There has been controversy over pro-life advertising in Canada during the past year after LifeCanada launched a national education campaign in over 50 communities using a pro-life ad on busses. The ad featured a pregnant woman with the line: "Nine months. The length of time abortion is allowed in Canada. Abortion: Have we gone too far? http://www.abortionincanada.ca/."

LifeSiteNews.com reported in January 2008 that the ad had been pulled by city officials in Hamilton, Fredericton, and St. John's, claiming inaccuracies in the ad, and "controversy."

More >>>

Logically speaking - if those political ads comply with all the applicable laws (be that the laws that restrict campaign spending by political parties and lobby groups or the laws and by-laws that prohibit obscenity, hate mongering, libel, copyright violations etc) - what reason could there be for an advertising agency to refuse them?

And, if it's ok for the unions and student groups to use bus advertising in their campaign - why should the same service be denied to pro-lifers? After all - if, according to the OHRC decision, a Christian printer does not have the right to refuse a printing job that violates his conscience - shouldn't the same rule apply to other businesses as well?

Late-Term Abortion Statistics — Only The Tip Of The Iceberg

Not all late-term abortions are reported. Some of them are reported as "stillbirths", others are not reported at all.

The “less-than-one percent” statistic is cited with much authority. But in fact, the statistics on abortion are shadowy, and leave much to the imagination. According to data available at the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada website, in 2003, approximately 46,000 abortion records collected by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) contained the gestational ages of the pregnancy. Of these, 0.7% reported abortions performed later than 20 weeks. That comes to a total of 325 of which we are certain took place.

Over 57,000 records contained no information on gestation.
...
Besides the lack of reporting on gestational age, we must also contend with the phenomenon of late-term abortions being coded as stillbirths. As I mentioned in my first column in this series, many late-term abortions are coded as stillbirths in medical databases instead of abortions and, as a result, those numbers are not collected by CIHI. Even if those induced stillbirths are marked off in a separate category, they will not be added to abortion statistics, because StatsCan, which publishes abortion numbers, does not have the mandate to collect that data.

Another point to consider is that the abortion questionnaire that CIHI distributes to clinics across the country is voluntary. Clinics are not under any obligation to tell the government about their activities. According to Deby Copes, the medical director of the Choice in Health abortion clinic, an estimated 10,000 procedures are not being counted in the City of Toronto alone (Globe and Mail, Mar. 30, 2009). Although Canadian abortion clinics tend not to perform late-term procedures (elective cases are often sent to the States), the inadequate coverage of the numbers leads us to speculate that many late-term abortions are not identified.
...
The attempt to downplay late-term abortion numbers minimalizes the tragedy of the deaths of unborn children. It harkens back to Stalin’s famous quote of one death being a tragedy, and a million deaths being a statistic.

That these deaths were intentional makes it even more appalling.

More >>>

And then let's not forget that every abortion (be that first trimester or a late-term abortion) - is a tragedy. It kills the baby, it injures and traumatizes the mother and the fathers too, often feel the pain:

Personally, knowing the sting of abortion in my life, I can speak from experience, indeed how painful it was and even still is. I can see in hind sight (not saying hind sight is 20/20) what lack of care on my part and selfish disinterest cost: lament, regret and the full knowing of a life taken can never be given back.

Before this event, I had no stance on abortion, cared very little about the subject, but of course thinking myself high minded and liberal about the matter. Post abortion, was a crash into reality about the matter, as I sought to make sense of the event, and events that had transpired in our lives. Looking full in the face of it all brought me to the conclusion, that I had aided, conspired and taken, premeditatedly the life of my daughter/son.

More >>>

And yet there are pro-abort activists who believe that... we don't have enough late-term abortions in Canada...

"Human Rights" Commissions — A Supreme Religious Authority?!

An openly homosexual man has filed a "human rights" complaint against the church that chose not to have him as an altar server. He claims he was "discriminated" against and he demands as much as $265,000 - that's the price tag he puts on his hurt feelings.

PETERBOROUGH, ON, July 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Jim Corcoran ... has launched a human rights complaint against the Bishop of Peterborough Ontario for refusing him permission to continue to serve as an altar server.

Corcoran admits that he is homosexual and lives with another homosexual man, but says that he follows the Church's teaching and lives a chaste lifestyle. According to the Catholic Register, Bishop Nicola De Angelis asked Corcoran to accept his decision that he not serve on the altar based upon the bishops' desire to avoid public scandal.

Corcoran is seeking monetary damages of $25,000 from the bishop and $20,000 each from 12 parishioners who complained to the bishop about Corcoran and his roommate having been invited by the local priest to serve on the altar at Masses.

More >>>

According to The Catholic Register, both sides "have opted for mediation". But who gave a quasi-judiciary institution like the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission the authority to rule on Catholic liturgy?

Suppressing Climate Skeptics

How do you "settle" a scientific discussion when the facts are against your theory? Just don't give your opponents the opportunity to prove you wrong:

Still, if anything, the rhetoric of global warming and climate change has become even more frenzied since 2006, not less, even to the point where scientists skeptical of the warming theory are being gagged by the Obama administration and the UN.

At a time when lawmakers in the United States and Canada are considering new regulations on energy use, new taxes on its consumption and new controls on carbon dioxide emissions -- all of which could compound our economic woes -- they are hearing mostly just from one side of the debate.

More >>>

The reason is obvious: all this global warming hysteria has never had anything to do with a scientific debate. It's been nothing but a socialist plan to redistribute wealth on a global scale.

"To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country."

More >>>

Well, George Orwell could see that coming. The only difference is that instead of using continuous warfare as a way to destroy the products of human labor (to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the people,) the green socialists came up with the idea of "fighting global warming". The result is pretty much the same: people have to work harder, pay more taxes, buy all those phony "carbon credits" just to get nothing in return. Except the moral satisfaction of doing their share to "save the planet".

Feminist Hate Mongering — Al-Qaeda Would Be Proud

From the World Congress of Families press release:

The anti-family left in the Netherlands is mobilizing against World Congress of Families V (Amsterdam, August 10-12) in ways intended to intimidate participants.
...
To illustrate its anti-family message, Feminist Action has posted a menacing drawing of a man and a woman, with a child and a cross between them. There’s a dotted line going through the necks of the couple and a pair of scissors ready to cut off their heads!

Larry Jacobs, Managing Director of the World Congress of Families, responded, “Clearly, the social left is terrified of the Congress bringing a pro-family message to what it considers its turf.”

More >>>

Well, here's a picture that's worth a thousand words. So, if those radical feminists are upset that me and some other Conservative bloggers call them feminazis - they have only themselves to blame.

---

Source: No Apologies.

"Bubble Zones" — Protecting What?

According to one Sandra Thomas, the bubble zones are needed to protect abortion providers from violence.

"Kansas abortion doctor killed."

"Buffalo abortion doctor killed by sniper."

"Vancouver abortion doctor hospitalized after shooting."

A quick search on the Internet pulls up dozens of similar headlines from the past decade from across North America. But a recent search of blogs and websites created by anti-abortion crusaders shows these murders and attacks are rarely mentioned. In reading comments posted by anti-choice protesters regarding "bubble zones," that lack of information was glaringly absent.
...
Many anti-choice bloggers argue protesters' civil rights are being violated because they're no longer allowed to stand directly in front of abortion clinics in B.C. and approach women and staff as they enter. But rarely do they mention the shootings, stabbings and physical and verbal assaults that happened before the law came into effect.

Just like S. Thomas herself isn't eager to mention the acts of violence committed by the pro-abortion activists. Even though the latter are far more numerous than those isolated incidents from the pro-life side (which are condemned first and foremost - by the pro-lifers themselves). Instead, she prefers to quote a pro-abortion activist Joyce Arthur, who claims that "a lot of people in the anti-choice movement have mental health problems". The bubble zones, she concludes, are needed to protect the abortion providers from the "crazies".

But can a "bubble zone" actually provide such protection? Not really. Banning protests within 50 meters can ensure that none of the protesters gets close enough to be able to smash the windows or to spray-paint graffiti on the walls or to splash red paint on customers' fur coats. But pro-life protesters could hardly be accused of doing any of that. Even a large wooden cross with a sign that reads "You shall not murder", no matter how terrifying it looks to S. Thomas, is not something that a pro-life protester would ever use for poking or window smashing. So, it turns out, the "bubble zone" law protects abortion facilities from a threat that isn't even there.

Sure, their primary concern is - shootings. But how could a "bubble zone" protect one from being shot? One of the headlines quoted by S.Thomas reads "Buffalo abortion doctor killed by sniper" - a sniper can shoot from several hundred meters away, "bubble zone" or no "bubble zone". Then - a ban on protests only applies to clinics. But Tiller was shot in his church - no "bubble zone" law would have protected him there.

Finally - when a man has decided to commit a first degree murder - he doesn't care about violating a minor law such as a ban on protests. The police could be there, keeping the protesters away, but he's not a protester; he's a murderer. He'll come in disguised as a journalist or as a mailman; he'll put on women's clothes to pass as one of the patients or he'll come in wearing a gas company robe and sabotage the pipeline... And he'll do his crime while the police is busy chasing away peaceful protesters with their rosaries and plastic fetus dolls.

So what the "bubble zone" laws are for? To keep the sidewalk counselors away. "The protesters can still do their thing, they just have to do it across the street." - S. Thomas suggests in her article. Yes, a sign with a picture of an unborn baby could still be visible from across the street, so there's still a chance that a woman who enters the abortion facilities could see what her baby looks like. But no information brochures, no eye contact, let alone - answering questions...

And that's the way pro-aborts want it to be. Because of the legal vacuum on the abortion issue, there aren't many regulations and safety rules with which abortion providers must comply. It takes more paperwork, more informed consent and malpractice waiver forms to remove a wart than to have an unborn baby sucked out of the womb and ripped to pieces during the process. Informed consent? What informed consent? She came here at her own will, didn't she?

Nobody assesses her for risk factors for poor psychological adjustment and informs her if she is at high risk for being traumatized by the abortion experience. The risk factors are well known; but nobody screens for them and nobody informs the woman of what risk factors she has and what the possible negative outcomes may be.

Nobody informs her of the risk that she might not be able to carry a future pregnancy to term -- despite decades of evidence linking abortion to future pregnancy complications. Instead, she's assured repeatedly that she can have a baby later, when the time is right.

More >>>

That's how abortion business works in North America. That's the status-quo which the pro-aborts want to keep. Sidewalk counselors, that provide women with information, so they could make a truly informed decision - that's the last thing abortion providers need. They don't want to lose their business. So they need a "bubble zone" law to keep anyone who doesn't agree with them at least 50 meters away.

Government Funding For Perverse Parade - A Costly Mistake?

That's what they say now. Someone in the Ministry has merely overlooked a $400,000 expense...

SASKATOON, July 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The revelation of $400,000 in funding from the federal Conservatives for the recent Toronto Gay Pride parade, which is notorious for its inclusion of full frontal nudity and public sex acts by homosexuals, came as a shock to most social conservatives in the nation. According to Conservative MP Brad Trost, however, the decision to fund the event also came a shock to most of the Conservative caucus, even those inside the Prime Minister's office.

Speaking to LifeSiteNews.com from his riding office in Saskatoon today, the 36-year-old Conservative said, "The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by - I think it's safe to say by a large majority - of the MPs. This was a very isolated decision."
...
The MP attributed the move to "sloppiness."

"Canadian taxpayers, even non-social-conservative ones, don't want their tax dollars to go to events that are polarizing or events that are more political than touristic in nature," he said.

More >>>

When a supposedly "fis-con" government doesn't have the guts to cut all the ideologically-driven spending, don't be surprised, when they make a $400,000 "mistake". (It's not a big deal when you got billions to waste.) Now they're conducting a spending review (oh, well, better late than never).

Here is a better idea - implement zero-based budgeting. Let every single program expense expire at the end of the fiscal year, so that departments have to justify all their expenditures, not just the extra money they get on top of last year's spending. If that had been done back in 2006 - not only none of those costly "mistakes" would have been possible, but also the government could have kept program expenses within reasonable limits, rather than allowing them to swell from $175B in 2005/6 to over $215B or so (not counting the "stimulus") in 2009/10.

Even now it's not too late. If zero-based budgeting is implemented, if the burden of proof is on the departments to explain why they still need those funds (rather than on the government to explain the reason behind spending cuts,) the government could easily find $15B to slash from the budget to get the books balanced by 2011/12 and to legislate mandatory debt repayments in the following fiscal years.