Stand Your Ground

FREDERICTON - Atlantic Canada will become the Third World of the 21st century unless provincial governments immediately get to work on population growth, predicts the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies.
...
"Unless we do something to make changes, we face two options. One is that the public services of the future will be lessened ... or, alternatively, the tax impact on the working population will have to be higher. Either way, it means a lower standard of living."
More >>>

No surprise here; especially when you have someone like the chairperson of NB advisory council on the status of women (Ginette Petitpas-Taylor) vigorously promoting contraception, pursuing abortions on demand as women's right and making up lies about pro-life protesters being "bussed-in every week" to "publicly bully" women that enter abortion clinics.

When it comes to proposing a solution, the article doesn't say much about addressing the demographic problem. All the proposals are aimed at bringing more people to the workforce:

Munro said the region will also have to start bringing under-employed groups into the workforce, such as aboriginals and people with disabilities.

Munro, an economist with the market institute, believes there will have to be wholesale tax changes and a new attitude towards child care to encourage more women to work.

In plain English: Keep slaughtering thousands of Atlantic Canadian babies before they get a change to see daylight and count on the handicapped to replace them at workplace. Increase the tax penalty for single income families to pay for the system of public upbringing (Marx is dead but his ideas live on) and get those housewives to work...

That may postpone the workforce crisis for a few years. But it won't prevent it from happening since it wont prevent the society from aborting and contracepting itself out of existence. Creating an environment in which children will be spending more time at school or at a daycare, than with their parents is not going to strengthen families or encourage parenthood. Especially if those public daycares are managed by the same radical socialists and feminists like Petitpas-Taylor who claim to speak for all the women of New Brunswick.

The real solution is - the culture of life. We need to strengthen traditional families, encouraging parents to spend more time with their children. We need a cultural environment that would encourage commitment, rather than selfishness; that would value parenthood, rather than promiscuity; that would teach our children abstinence and fidelity, not "safe sex". Only the culture of life will help us overcome the demographic problem. Like it or not but there's no other solution!

Even after redefining marriage and launching massive persecution campaign against those who won't accept their lifestyle choice as moral, natural and inborn, those militant perverts keep finding reasons to accuse the society of discrimination.

Case in point: A recent report on a popular homosexual "news" site declares, "A transgendered student says he is the victim of discrimination at a small Massachusetts community college because he is biologically female."

Say what? "He" is "female"? Welcome to PC-ville. Come for the oxymoron, stay for the cognitive dissonance.

In other news, "French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte says he is the victim of discrimination because he is biologically Bob from Detroit."
More >>>

At the same time - since this "female trapped in a man's body" can pretend to be a "bride" of another man at a marriage-like ceremony for which an official certificate is issued - there aren't many legal grounds left to keep those so called "women that are biologically men" out of women's dressing rooms (and vice-versa). Unless the silent majority wakes up and realizes it's time to put an end to this nonsense called "political correctness".

St. Dunstan’s church in Fredericton wasn't the only one in Canada, where a diocesan Mass was held, commemorating the Holy Innocents - the babies that were killed just because some adults had found their lives unworthy of living.

Back in those days Herod believed that slaughtering all the baby boys in Bethlehem would be an easy way to get rid of a potential claimant to the throne. Nowadays it's believed that taking away life of an unborn baby is an "easy way out" of an "unwanted" pregnancy. And instead of Herod we have the Morguentaller, a man who runs most abortion clinics across Canada and who is proud of having performed 70,000 to 100,000 abortions throughout his career.

Probably, the only difference between Herod and the Morguentaller is that Herod ordered an indiscriminate slaughter of all the newborn boys in Bethlehem, while Morguentaller's abortion franchise takes away babies' lives at request of their mothers or other family members who often pressure women to have an abortion.

And, of course, Morguentaller's abortuaries slaughter babies at an earlier stage of their lives - before the babies have their first breath and therefore before their personhood is recognized by the law. But the fact is - lives are being lost. Canada loses over 100,000 babies to abortion, year after year. Herodians of our age outperform the king known as Herod the Great hundred- or thousandfold.

(Now That Stephen Boissoin's Been Nailed)

Here are some more details on Stephen Boissoin's case.

An additional important point from this Boissoin case, and which is recorded in the decision - again in the words of Ms. Dodd - is the way the alleged assault has been handled. I can't find anybody who can confirm that anyone was charged in this alleged assault. You'd think that if a young person had been assaulted and, everyone knew who did it, that somebody would have been charged - especially if the victim was a homosexual. Yet you hear nothing in the media about anyone being charged.

Yet, in the human rights commission decision, we read from Ms. Dodd's testimony that: "Ms. Dodd reported that she was personally aware that one of the youths who beat the 17 year old youth was a person who frequented the youth center quite often. Ms. Dodd further reported that Mr. Boissoin was aware of this and did nothing in response to the beating. Ms. Dodd reported that as a rule if there was any violence within the center, those involved were asked to leave for an extended period of time depending on how violent the situation was. Ms. Dodd reported that the youth who perpetrated this assault was never subjected to any repercussions at the center."

How much more fork-tongued, hypocritical and hatefully bigoted can you get than to expect Stephen Boissoin to take action against an alleged assaulter that nobody is screaming at the authorities to charge? Ms. Dodd actually indicates that more than one person committed the assault. If that much information is known, why have no charges been laid? And if charges have been laid, why aren't they part of the news stories?
More >>>

If you believe Tim Bloedow is wrong - try to find another explanation. Try to explain what is the logic behind persecuting a Christian pastor who "might have a circumstantial connection" to the assault, yet not doing anything to find those who actually committed the assault and to bring them to justice.

Think about it - there was a crime committed, wasn't it? So wouldn't it be more reasonable to get the police involved, to have those thugs who committed the crime arrested and charged? Their testimonies would then become a solid evidence against the person who masterminded the assault, so that person too would have criminal charges laid against him.

Thus there would be no need for a "human rights commission" with the guessing game of a sole adjudicator ("there might be a circumstantial connection"... or there might not... but let's find Stephen Boissoin "indirectly responsible" anyway...) The mastermind behind the attack would be tried in a criminal court and he'd be convicted based on an actual evidence against him... So how come none of that was actually done?

The unwillingness of the prosecution to deal with an actual assault and the vigor with which the complainers used extrajudicial body to persecute Stephen Boissoin, against whom they had no evidence, shows that there might be some facts concerning the assault, which the complainers didn't want to come to light.

It might as well be that the assault was masterminded by someone from the homosexual community, that needed to create the "circumstances" in a "circumstantial connection" between violent assaults on homosexuals and Stephen's letter to the editor, which criticized teaching homosexual lifestyle to 6 year-old children. After all - there is a precedent to that already.

Here's something nice for Christmas Eve - an Irish version of Silent night, sung by Enya. Enjoy and have a Merry Christmas!

OREGON, Ohio, December 21, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A couple in central Ohio gave birth to quadruplets last week, their second pregnancy after giving birth to twins three years ago. It had been suggested they abort one of the children, using the terminology "selective reduction", but the parents refused. They were also offered induced labour and early delivery of the children but they opted to wait for labor to begin naturally.

Tony and Shannon Hand of Oregon Ohio became the proud parents of Madison Claire, Everett Joseph, Isabel Grace, and Olivia Justine. The couple was expecting two boys and two girls, and were surprised by three girls and a boy instead.

"During all the moving around, they fooled us," said Tony. "It's a better [Christmas] present than I could've hoped for."
More >>>

Luckily for the quadruplets, their parents chose not to take advice from phony experts, so none of the babies was aborted; all four of them lived to see daylight and to have their first breath. And they are looking forward to say their first word, to make their first step and to do plenty of other things life is there to offer them as they grow up.

Let's wish all the best to Shannon and Tony, to their four newborn babies and to their two older kids, that will now have three little sisters and one little brother. And let us redouble our efforts to make sure that every baby is lucky to be born - just as those four babies were. Every child is a blessing. There might be an unwanted pregnancy but there's never such thing as unwanted child.

The owner of a Charlottetown bookstore that sells religious material is frustrated by the CBC's refusal to air his advertisement.

Roger May owns and operates Maritime Christian Bookstore with his wife. He said the CBC's reasoning for rejecting the ad doesn't make sense.

Mr. May said yesterday he was told that the final phrase in the proposed advertisement - "What goes into a mind, comes out in a life" - goes against CBC advertising standards.
More >>>

I would tolerate that if Canadian entrepreneurs did have the right to refuse deals that go against the owner's views. The problem is that such right was taken away by the courts and "human rights tribunals" years ago. So if a Christian printer has no right to refuse printing propaganda materials for militant homosexuals - why is it ok for a TV station to refuse advertising to a Christian bookstore?

Some may suggest that since the CBC is a government-owned national broadcasting company, it must therefore keep its advertising "balanced" and "neutral"... Well, the Toronto Transit Commission is also a publicly owned service, yet that didn't prevent the courts back in late 1990s from forcing the TTC to advertise homosexual services on bus and streetcar transfers.

Perhaps Roger May too should file a law suit or a "human rights complaint" against the CBC. Even though such complaint is unlikely to go far, it will make many more Canadians aware that when it comes to protection from discrimination, Christians are certainly less equal than others.

Here's a great article by Werner Patels. A little research shows that when businesses and government institutions avoid using the word Christmas, this isn't done because of the complaints they receive from those who practice other religions. Most of the time, the word Christmas gets banished just because a mental disease named political correctness claims yet another victim:

That example of a Christmas card from a Muslim well-wisher shows perfectly how we are failing ourselves and our immigrants. It's not immigrants who make those demands on us to drop all references to Christmas and such; no, it's deranged people in our midst who take these pre-emptory measures as if they were driven by a weird need to prove something -- something that doesn't exist and something that doesn't require proof one way or other.

Those who want to ban Christmas from our lives fall into two groups:
Atheists who are so frustrated with their sorry little lives that they want to ruin things for everyone else, not realizing that Christmas is a special time of the year even for those who do not necessarily associate it with God or any specific religion.
Those who are racists deep down inside and therefore want to regulate things in this way, so that they can hide what they really think and feel (and who, perhaps, secretly hope that immigrants get blamed for their actions and measures).
More >>>

Here's yet another example of how those guys "just try not to offend anyone". Werner suggests some of them are racists deep down inside. I would call them self-hating bigots. Same as there are self-hating Jews (those who hate being reminded of their Jewish roots and who fiercely oppose Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state), there are also self-hating Canadians (as well as self-hating Americans, self-hating Europeans etc) who hate being reminded of their Christian roots and who try to erase any reference to Christianity from public places. So when they say that the word Christmas is offensive to minorities - they refer primarily to themselves.

David Orchard used to be the key opponent to the PC/Alliance merger. Even though the Alliance had to let go of most of its policies and the new Conservative party constitution included so called "progressive" social policy among the founding principles, Orchard kept insisting that the merger was in fact a takeover. While Orchard didn't run in the 2004 election, his campaign against the merger and against the new Conservative party was one of the factors that helped the Liberals to remain in power that time.

Now Orchard is seeking a Liberal nomination in the northern Saskatchewan riding of Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River. He's recruited hundreds of new members to the party, preparing for the nomination vote. But the vote may never take place.

Anxious to increase the number of women running for the Liberals in the next federal election, Dion is considering appointing former provincial NDP cabinet minister Joan Beatty to be the party's candidate in the northern riding.

So far, she hasn't said anything about this one way or the other beyond the fact that both the NDP and the Liberals want her as a candidate. I suppose it would be hopelessly old-fashioned to suggest she has an obligation to the voters who just re-elected her to the legislature, but that's another issue.

However, it's pretty clear that unless she's appointed, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of becoming the Liberal candidate in northern Saskatchewan.
More >>>

If Dion goes ahead with his plan and cancels the nomination to appoint a token woman candidate, let it be a lesson for David Orchard. Back in 2003 he denounced the Alliance as "reactionary throwbacks" and praised "progressive" ideology - the very same ideology that mandates ethnic and gender quotas, claiming that "fair representation" of women and minorities outweighs the rights of the best qualified candidates to get the jobs. Well, if that's what Orchard supports, it will be only fair once Orchard himself gets a "white males need not apply" notice. Especially if that comes from a political party that benefited from Orchard's support a few years ago.

The Greater Moncton Chamber of Commerce had a Christmas reception today. Yes, they had the courage to call it a Christmas reception. Unfortunately, not many member businesses followed suit. One of the Chamber employees had taped all the greeting cards he received to the glass door of his office. Almost all of them read "happy holidays" or "season's greetings".

This happens in New Brunswick, where only 0.8% belong to other religions. Even if we count the 8.7% with no religious affiliation, that means our business people prefer to avoid mentioning Chistmas, which is celebrated by 91.5% of New Brunswickers, just so they don't accidentally hurt the feelings of some of the remaining 9.5%. What's worse - most of us apparently got used to this discriminatory practice, so only few realize that tolerance doesn't mean excluding the majority.

All real progressives know there is no better month to get riled up for hating and intolerance than December. And while you tell Canadians to be tolerant everyone knows that doesn’t include Christians or that hetronormative Santa Clause.
...
Any display of Christianity tells other religions they aren’t wanted, while there is only one religion that isn’t wanted by good Trudeaupian socialists that’s the Christian one. Luckily every other religion in Canada is wanted, just not the one the people who built the country belonged to.
More >>>

A few months ago the government of Quebec formed a committee on "reasonable accomodation" of minorities. The initiative was denounced by the leftists when the committee allowed ordinary Quebeckers to express their true opinions on milti-cult. What are the chances for the final report to mention that excluding Canada's founding religion is clearly not a reasonable accomodation?

Video courtesy of Marginalized Action Dinosaur

According to the information posted on the MP Ken Epp's website, the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act will have its second hour of debate on February 29, 2008. The vote is expected to take place on March 5.

That may sound like plenty of time, but this time better be used efficiently, to make sure that MPs in all 308 ridings receive enough requests from their constituents to support the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. For those 4 ridings that currently don't have a sitting MP, we need to make sure that bill C-484 becomes a by-election issue.

A special diocesan Mass for the respect of human life will take place on December 28, Feast of the Holy Innocents. The Mass will be at 11 a.m. at St. Dunstan’s in Fredericton.

Fr. Paul LeBlanc, vice-chancellor, will represent Bishop Harris as the main celebrant. A reception will follow at the Mother and Child Welcome House, 562 Brunswick St.

Welcome House president Peter Ryan notes a diocesan Mass has taken place for the past several years year on this feast. “It’s a way of remembering the unborn innocents of our time, while praying for a turnaround in our society’s disregard for them.”

The Welcome House is located next to the abortion clinic in Fredericton.

“Life is such an incredible gift,” says Ryan. “It’s so sad how we are sometimes blind to this gift, and even treat it as a threat to be eliminated.”

At the upcoming Mass there will be a special blessing for expectant mothers. “This is a beautiful way of expressing our Church’s appreciation for maternity and new life,” Ryan says.

The Mass for life is a way of keeping the true spirit of Christmas alive, Ryan points out.

With the introduction of DNA testing, it is possible to show that from the time of conception (fertilization) a new human life was in existence.

That quote from the Edmonton Sun article says it all. So what is the poor-choice movement all about? That there are lives unworthy of living.

Environics poll shows that the bill is supported by 72% of Canadians. Online poll on the Edmonton Sun website shows even higher number - 84%. Support for the bill is high even among the left wing voters. 71% of the Bloc supporters as well as 66% of the NDP supporters are in favor of a legislation that would make it a separate crime to harm an unborn baby during an assault on a pregnant mother. Unfortunately, this support is not mirrored in the Parliament.

As the bill C-484 was debated in the House of Commons, Alexa McDonough stated that a brief discussion among NDP members "does not lead to the conclusion that there is a great deal of support or enthusiasm for the bill". Thus NDP MPs are likely to vote against the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act, defying two thirds of their votes.

Among other things McDonough mentioned that "laws shouldn't be based on revenge". She said that not a single woman or a single representative of a single organization has approached her, asking to support the bill. And she claimed that since the Conservatives didn't nominate many women candidates in the past election she is "not sure about the authoritativeness of speaking on behalf of women's pressing needs".

Well, if McDonough doesn't trust Ken Epp and the Conservatives, she may trust Dena Gallant, who has become a one-woman lobby group in a campaign for the rights of pregnant mothers and their babies.

“I’ve been lobbying pretty much ever since the beginning to ensure that the Criminal Code gets changed to include charges for the murder of an unborn child when a pregnant woman has been murdered or be harmed by someone,”
...
“I believe it’s a human rights issue as opposed to a pro-life (or) pro-choice issue,” said Gallant.

“This bill has nothing to do whatsoever with abortion laws and only deals with a wanted, unborn child.”
More >>>

The bill will be debated a couple more times before it's voted on. Let's make sure that no other MP could say that none of his constituents has asked him or her to support the bill. No matter what party your Member of Parliament is from, please contact your MP, and encourage him to vote for the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act.

Moncton has been hit by yet another snow storm. A third one already since December 1st. Looks like it's going to be not only the coldest winter in 15 years, but also the snowiest one. Meanwhile we got some grim news from Bali. (Those eco-crooks sure know where to get together come winter and they get there on their private jets without caring much about "carbon footprint".) John Baird did his best to resist yet another global warming swindle. But at the end he threw out a white flag and accepted the agreement which required the developed nations to reduce their GHG emissions by 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, with no clear commitment from major polluters like India and China.

For Canada (with the GHG emissions some 25% above the 1990 levels as of 2005,) that means 41 to 55 percent emission cut in 12 years. Considering that by 2020, Canada's population will be at ~37 million (compared to ~27 million in 1990), that would require much higher reduction per capita. But even if all that is achieved, the results won't be as impressive as the earth-worshipers think.

Let's not forget - Canada's contribution is only 2%. Thus, a 41 to 55% cut would only represent a 0.8 to 1.1% reduction in global GHG emissions. Even if the climate change was truly man-made, that would hardly make any difference. (Especially if at least one of the major pollutants that's been left out increases its GHG emissions.) However, the main cause for the all the weather deviations we get is the Sun.

(CNSNews.com) - According to a new study on global warming, climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia found that the climate change models based on human influence do not match observed warming.
....
"Our findings basically are that fingerprints - that is to say the pattern of warming - that's predicted by greenhouse models does not match the fingerprints of observations, so there is a disconnect between greenhouse models and the actual reality of observations," Singer told Cybercast News Service.

"This means that the greenhouse effect - while real - is not very important in producing climate change," he said. "It's a lot smaller than what the models calculate."
More >>>

Thus, instead of driving Canada into a recession, striving to slash per capita emissions by about 2/3 by 2020, John Baird should have drafted a plan to reduce air pollution; encourage green technologies and work out a strategy to make an average small-town household less dependent on cars. At the very least the government could do more to strengthen traditional families, so there wouldn't be that many single-adult households. Instead however the eco-crooks demand that we overtax our industries (as if the high Canadian dollar wasn't enough) and waste tens of billions on phony "carbon offsets" that won't make the air any cleaner.

Now here's my problem with this approach. For the poor, the amount of energy they use is minimal. Side effect of being poor. They don't have much to do that is energy-intensive, like drive twenty minutes on the highway to get to a job. The rich, on the other hand, can pay the tax (let's put aside criticisms that many of these offsets are bogus and just take them at face value), and can continue to consume energy at whatever rate they please.

The vast majority of the people in the middle -- the vast majority who all own TVs and drive cars to work and live in detached homes with central air conditioning -- those people have to choose as well in this carbon neutral world. But they don't really have a choice, do they? If they were so wealthy that they could pay the 20% or more surcharge to buy offsets, then they wouldn't be middle class. On the other hand, what can they reduce? Refuse to take jobs that can't be reached by bus, only live in multi-family apartment units, make do without air conditioning -- sounds like a major move down the social ladder.
More >>>

It's so tempting to link Kyoto to some sort of Orwellian conspiracy to keep people busy and oppressed (except that instead of a permanent war with Eurasia and Ostasia, there's fight against global warming). But I guess the explanation is much simpler. Some guys are going to make plenty of money on carbon offsets and other scams alike. At the expense of our tax funds and our jobs.

Received by e-mail. The text is attributed to Ben Stein but it appears that the original commentary might have been mixed with a few anonymous messages that circulate on the Internet. I published the text the way I had received it, but I removed Ben Stein's name from the title and the signature once I found out that some of the text has been added anonymously by other emailers, under the pretense of being by Ben Stein.

Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart:
I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important?

I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife. Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. If this is what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.

Next confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crèche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution, and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.
Original Ben Stein’s commentary ends here (?)

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this Happen?" (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW." Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through; cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it...no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

The right to a fair trial is being violated by the freedom-snatching "human rights" committees to a no lesser extent than our right to free speech. Take almost any aspect of the usual legal proceedings - and you won't find that in a so called "human rights tribunal".

First of all - there's no presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Usually it's up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant actually broke the law. But when it comes to the "human rights complaints" - it's up to the defendant to prove his innocence. The usual rules of defense too don't apply in the "human rights tribunals". Truth is not a defense and the main consideration is given not to the actual laws but to the... hurt feelings of the complainer. Especially if the latter belongs to a protected minority group.

Therefore, it's ok for a homosexual to post a classified ad which reads "Man seeking boys.... age not so relevant". But when a Catholic activist distributes flyers that include a photocopy of that same ad - the "committee" finds it a hate crime and... bans Bill Whatcott for life from publicly criticizing homosexuality.

Proof of crime beyond reasonable doubt? Forget it! A mere assumption is enough for a man to be found guilty. Just as it happened to an Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin, who wrote a letter to the editor, expressing his opposition to introducing homosexual lifestyle to elementary school children - and whom the Alberta "human rights commission" has found "indirectly responsible" for an assault on a homosexual teenager.

There was little investigation (if any) on the assault itself. Those who did it were never found, thus there was no way one could find out whether they even read the paper where Stephen's letter was published. But Lori Andreachuk, the only adjudicator in the case, believed that "there was a circumstantial connection". So she delivered her ruling without bothering to seek any proof to her claims.

Right to an attorney? A complainer gets all his legal expenses paid by the taxpayers. But the defendant must pay for his own legal defense. Thus, unless you carry a few $10,000 treasury notes in your pocket, you don't even get the minimum legal defense that is available to anyone facing criminal charges.

And finally - a "human rights commission" can make certain actions retroactively criminal. That's something that is never used in a civilized world. No laws could be applied retroactively. Nobody could be prosecuted for an action which was legal at the time it was committed. But even that rule doesn't apply to a "human rights tribunal".

It takes someone's words or actions - words and actions that were entirely legal at the time they were uttered or committed - criminalizes those words and actions, and then retroactively punishes the newly created "criminals".
...
There is no way for anyone to learn what is deemed to be illegal by the CHRC, because Commissioners create the laws as they go along, while prosecuting retroactively. The only way for citizens to protect themselves from attacks from the CHRC is to live in fear that any word they say or any act they may perform must first be viewed through the CHRC prism. And to remain quiet.
More >>>

And yet those establishments are called the "human rights commissions". Could there be anything more Orwellian?

Ron Gray, the leader of the Christian Heritage Party, his lawyer Ronald McDonald and Paul Arthur, the host of the In Sight program on The Miracle Channel discuss the sorry state of the freedom of speech in Canada.

When does a free speech becomes "hate speech"? Not many can give a clear answer to that. Especially not the younger generation, which appears to be completely disoriented on the issue. Some of them actually agree that if you criticize one's lifestyle choice - it's nothing but a hate speech. Others suggest that you have the right to say that a certain lifestyle or culture is wrong, provided you don't really mean that it's wrong. (So why would one say it then?)

With the way the concept of "hate speech" is understood today, considering that most of the so called "human rights complaints" have been filed against Christians, it's hard to disagree with Ron Gray that even if nobody has yet been thrown to jail for merely advocating traditional family values, that doesn't mean this won't be happening let's say 20 years from now. Unless, of course there are enough people willing to stand up for their freedom of speech.

A Free Dominion Against the HRCs

No, I'm not talking about the famous discussion forum. This time, A Free Dominion refers to all Canadians who want to be free; who refuse to be suppressed, who demand our freedom to speak. Here's a petition launched by John Pacheco. If you want to preserve the right to free expression of opinion for yourself and for your children, take a few minutes to sign it.

To the Prime Minister of Canada, all federal leaders and provincial premiers:

We, the undersigned Canadians, declare our firm and unequivocal support for free speech.

We categorically reject any effort on the part of the government or any of its organs to limit free expression of opinion on any issue, except where there is a clear communication to do physical harm to another person or where there is a question of defamation.

We affirm that controversial opinions are a constituent part of a healthy and vibrant democracy, and that to silence any opinion, however seemingly offensive to any member of the public, is harmful to a free and open society.

We believe that Canadians themselves, and not unelected quasi-judicial bodies, will decide which ideas are advanced and which ideas are rejected in forming the values and laws of our country. We believe that government should not intrude in this dialogue between Canadians and among Canadians.

We believe that free speech should not be fined or taxed because it does not meet the speech conditions imposed by a group of government functionaries.

We believe that Canadians should not live under the yoke of intimidation and threats when they seek to speak their minds on the issues of vital importance to the future and security of our nation.

We believe that every Canadian is entitled to due process under the law if a complaint is lodged against him or her.

We believe that truth is a defense against any and all allegations. We believe that without the acknowledgment of the truth, there can be no justice or peace in Canada.

We consider many complaints launched through so-called “human rights commissions” to be political tools to shut down dissent and uphold politically correct thought and opinion. In particular, we note the inordinate number of successful cases brought against conservatives and, in particular, Christians.

We believe that continued support for the suppression of free speech by these commissions will have far-reaching and destructive consequences to the Canadian state.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, call for the immediate suspension of all so-called human rights commissions in Canada until a full and impartial review is conducted to ensure that Canadians’ fundamental right to freedom of speech is preserved.

We are a free people. We refuse to be suppressed. We demand our freedom to speak.
More >>>

It's time those freedom snatching committee stop punishing people who haven't broken the law.

It's a pity that Moncton wasn't chosen to host the conference on climate change. It would have been funny to see the participants getting trapped in their hotels, unable to reach their gathering place last Tuesday, when most of the city's businesses and transportation were shut down by a snow storm. Let alone - watching them getting around when it's -10 outside and the winter is expected to be the coldest in 15 years.

But the "warm-mongers" chose to have their gathering in the warmest place for that time of the year. Their agenda is extending Kyoto protocols beyond 2012. Not that it would help to make the air cleaner (let alone - cooler), but some guys will obviously make a good money from it.

The Kyoto agenda is not principally about affecting climate change. Even if we accept all its proponents' figures, we would succeed in reducing the projected temperature rise by just 0.3F over the next century (at a cost of an almost unbelievable £3 trillion).
More >>>

Converting pounds and Fahrenheit to dollars and celsius - that's 0.16C at the cost of $6,000,000,000,000. Any buyers?

No wonder that not only scientists, but even journalists that may be skeptical about this whole global warming hysteria were purged from the conference. After all, the science has been settled on Kyoto, hasn't it?

A group based in Chicago, the Heartland Institute, says the conference has refused accreditation or any kind of space for any scientists who don't parrot the official line on global warming. Not only that, but journalists who might be expected not to tow that line have also been refused press credentials for the event.
More >>>

Stephen Harper and John Baird deserve recognition and respect for their courage to stand up to the warm-mongers and for their efforts to work out a workable agreement (similar to the Montreal protocol) that would propose real actions against deforestation and air pollution, rather than placing undue burden on Canada, while leaving out the major pollutants such as US, India and China.

Stephane Dion, who had made plenty of promises on Kyoto, but ended up achieving nothing, disagrees. Apparently, the commie-Dion thinks himself an acting Prime Minister, so he came to Bali to sabotage Harper's efforts to secure a fair deal for Canada. He wants Canada to "lead by example", believing that if Canada accepts unachievable targets, that will somehow convince the US and other major pollutants to follow suit. And if they don't?

Supporting another Kyoto type deal does nothing to deal with pollution which we can, and must, deal with. It makes our elected government subordinate to an unelected world government. Should we agree to a plan which allows unequal responsibility for 'global warming' action, we are damaging our own economic prospects while allowing other countries to develop their economy.
...
Mr. Dion seems to want any deal, good or bad for Canadians, just to say we've reached agreement.
More >>>

Meanwhile radical earth-worshipers keep going nuts over greenhouse gases. One of them is proposing a $5000 tax on babies to "offset" baby's carbon footprint. Another claims that bagpipes are bad for the environment. Not sure if they truly believe that babies playing bagpipes are also to be blamed for the warming on Mars, let alone - Neptune. But somehow many of those who lecture us about environmental consciousness are reluctant to lead by example. Maybe that's what they should start with, before demanding that Canada drives itself into another Great Depression in a desperate attempt to reduce global emissions by a fraction of a percent.

Christian Heritage Party leader Ron Gray will be interviewed on Wednesday, Dec.12 on the Miracle Channel's "Insight" program. The main topic of the interview will be three "human rights" complaints filed by militant homosexual activists against the CHP, against one of its Riding Associations and against Ron Gray himself.

From the CHP news bulletin:

Does a registered federal political party have a right to promote the policies it has held for 20 years?

Does a Christian have a right to state publicly that he (or she) regards homosexuality as immoral, unnatural and unhealthy?
...
Mr. Gray and the CHP are merely the latest in a long line of defendants subjected to ‘human rights’ allegations by militant homosexual activists. Earlier victims of the purge of free speech rights have included Toronto printer Scott Brockie; Hugh Owens of Saskatchewan, in whose case a judge declared that citing Bible verses made his newspaper advertisements “hate”; an elderly couple in PEI who had to close their Bed & Breakfast establishment because they did not want two unrelated men sleeping together in their home; Craig Chandler of Calgary, who wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate denouncing the ‘gay agenda’; Dr. Chris Kempling, a BC teacher with a doctorate in counselling psychology, who was punished by his employer for advocating CHP policies about homosexuality, when he sought the nomination as a CHP candidate; Rev. Stephen Boissoin of Calgary, convicted by an Alberta ‘human rights’ tribunal for writing a letter to the editor expressing his concerns about homosexuality. Other victims of the ‘human rights’ campaign against free speech have included Mark Harding of Toronto, accused of fomenting hatred when he published a booklet complaining that Christian prayers were not allowed at his daughters’ school, but a room was set aside for Muslim prayers. And now, internationally renowned columnist Mark Steyn has been accused before the Canadian Human Rights Commission of ‘Islamophobia’.

“If an agency of the government can tell a registered political party what it can and cannot say in advancing its policies,” notes Mr. Gray, “Canada has gone a long, long way down the road to totalitarianism—to becoming a one-party (militant Secularist) state. What the human rights commissions and others forget is that Secularism is also a religion—perhaps the most intolerant in the world; it seeks to drive every other faith out of the public square.”

The Miracle Channel is available coast-to-coast by satellite; or on the Internet by live streaming at www.miraclechannel.ca

Live broadcast will take place at 11AM (Mountain time) with rebroadcast available at 11PM MST.

The Parliament will be debating bill C-484, the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act on December 13. While it's unlikely the bill is going to be voted on before the Parliament adjourns for Christmas break, it's still worth contacting your MP before Thursday.

Another news - there's more to the pro-life movie Bella than just acting. Eduardo Verastegui, the star actor of the movie, has actually saved a real baby while doing research for his role in the movie.

Eduardo says, "I decided to go to an abortion center to see if I could learn more about what women think and feel when faced with a crisis pregnancy..." That's when Eduardo met a couple seeking an abortion. He spoke with them for 45 minutes, offering them hope, help, encouragement and his phone number.

"Several months later," Eduardo continues, "I received a phone call from the man I met with the pregnant lady in front of the abortion center. He said, 'Hello Eduardo - this is Javier, and I have great news. My boy was born yesterday! I want to thank you and ask your permission - I would like to name him, Eduardo.'"
More >>>

That's probably why the militant pro-abortionists want a law that would ban pro-lifers from approaching abortion facilities.

(Not my text. Received in the e-mail.)

It was the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.

See the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.

It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say,
December 25th is just a "Holiday."
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down just to get it!

CDs from Madonna, an X-BOX, an I-pod.
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa...
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.

As Targets and Wal-Mart were hanging their trees upside down,
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found,
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears -
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.

Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty,
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!

At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace

The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate "Winter Break" under your "Dream Tree"
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me. ~ ~ ~

Choose your words carefully, choose what you say...
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, not happy holiday!

New Brunswick pro-lifer David Little, who's been refusing to pay his income taxes since 2000, is determined to fight to the end. About a month ago, the judge ordered David to file his tax returns and pay $3000 fine; failure to do so by March 31 could result in a 66-day jail term. That doesn't scare David. He would rather sacrifice his freedom, than his conscience.

Here are a few quotes from his letter that was forwarded to me today:

Many of you already know of my legal fight against tax-funded abortion. I was convicted November 9, (911 reversed) of failing to file my income tax despite written constitutional arguments based centrally on freedom of conscience and religion. In the infamous 1988 R. Vs. Morgentaler SCC case which left us with no abortion restrictions whatever, Justice Bertha Wilson co-wrote the majority opinion. Ironically this statement in that Supreme Court of Canada decision was the basis of our case, to wit: my formed Catholic conscience would not permit me to file my income taxes any longer knowing that a portion of every penny surrendered to the government would be used for abortion/murder.
...
From the beginning in countless hearings and the trial itself I have made it clear that I will go to jail rather than pay any fine or file ever again unless laws are passed or amended prohibiting taxes to be used to pay for these murders. I have been ordered by the court to file 3 tax forms by March 31, 2008 and of course, I will not. I was only charged with failing to file for three years, 2000, 2001 and 2002, they will no doubt continue to charge me with the remaining years 5 years, 2003 to 2007. A physician has pledged to financially care for my family as long as I am in jail. I will write to my wife and little children every day. I love them all so much, I will miss them to death, and being forced to part will be the greatest loss in my life. But it is small compared to the loss suffered by victims of abortion.

I take comfort and courage from the teachings of my faith. Three million of our brothers and sisters have been murdered in the womb since 1968. Imagine that, think about that deeply please. THREE MILLION INNOCENT CHILDREN KILLED WITH MY MONEY AND YOUR MONEY.
More >>>

We may disagree with David. Many of us may find his way of protesting somewhat controversial. Some would probably suggest that if he didn't want his taxes to go towards abortion funding, he could just take advantage of all the tax breaks out there, reducing the amount of income tax payable to zero. Others would view his efforts as pointless because no government would ever allow conscious objections to taxation, because abortion expenses constitute less than 0.1% of New Brunswick's $6Billion budget or because apart from the income tax, we also have the sales tax, which, of course, can't be avoided...

Still, David's courage to openly resist state funding of abortions deserves respect. David is not a politician and, as far as I understand, he's not a clergyman. And yet he has the courage to stand up for what is right despite the enormous pressure he faces. If we had more bishops as courageous as David, so they spoke up against the perverse trends in our society, instead of being worried about their charitable status; if we had more politicians who had the guts to stand up for their conscience, rather than bending backwards for a party leader - there would be no reason for David to refuse to file his tax return.

Yet another study confirms that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Having an abortion raises a woman’s risk of breast cancer by at least 30 percent, and is fueling an “epidemic” of the often fatal disease, according to British researchers.

According to a new study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, young women who had an abortion before having a child are at the greatest risk for developing breast cancer.

The study’s lead author Patrick Carroll calls abortion the single “best predictor” of breast cancer trends.
More >>>

Moreover - carrying a pregnancy to term as well as breastfeeding significantly reduces the risk of breast cancer even among those women who are genetically predisposed to it. Clearly, a legal abortion is nowhere near safe. All those who claim that destroying an unborn baby is nothing but an ordinary medical procedure, similar to pulling out a sore tooth - they are simply lying to us.

Pro-abortion activists claim they defend women's "right to choose". But when a women's group chooses to raise funds for a Pregnancy Centre, those allegedly "pro-choice" activists bully the Pregnancy Centre, forcing them to withdraw from the fundraiser. A non-profit organization that tells the truth about abortion and that proposes other options, such as adoption, is obviously viewed as a threat by the Planned Parenthood and their hanger-ons that promote the unchoice.

Planned Parenthood doesn't want "The Better Halves", a charity group run by the wives of the hockey players for the Ottawa Senators, to solicit donation for a local Pregnancy Center.

The idea of helping women in crisis pregnancy situations is coming under fire from abortion advocates and Planned Parenthood Ottawa has sent out a press release attacking their effort.

The group claims pregnancy centers exploit women and pressure them against having abortions.

Abortion advocates have been putting pressure on Sens Foundation president Dave Ready, trying to get him to declare the donations illegal under Revenue Canada's rules for charities.
More >>>

Plain and simple - Planned Parenthood needs customers. So they do their best to block funds and publicity to the Pregnancy Centers and other non-profit organizations that don't afraid to tell what abortion is all about. They accuse Pregnancy Centers of pressuring and exploiting women. The truth is - any organization that dares to say there are alternatives to abortion, is viewed by PP as a threat to their business.

Those who work at Planned Parenthood know that most of the time women "choose" abortion in response to the pressure from partners and family members. Obviously, they are aware of the health risks associated with abortion. And there's no doubt they know what the unborn baby looks like at 10, 15 or 20 weeks. They know that the baby's heart is beating, that he can feel pain and recognize voices, that the baby's personality is developing already. All that is known to them, but they'll never tell any of that to the women who come to their facilities, because the truth will drive them out of business.

And then they accuse Pregnancy Support Centers of exploiting women.

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the honour to present its
FIFTH REPORT

The Committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business met to consider the items added to the Order of Precedence as a result of the replenishment of Friday, November 23, 2007, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House:

C-484 — November 21, 2007 — Mr. Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park) — Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Bill C-484, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence).
(Source)

Great news! Unlike its predecessor (bill C-291 from the previous session), bill C-484, the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act, was not designated a non-votable item by the Committee. It will be voted on at second reading. Please contact your MP (no matter what party he's from) and ask him to support the bill that would establish legal protection for the unborn babies who lose their lives or get injured as result of attacks on pregnant mothers.

Here's a great essay by John Pacheco, that exposes the satanist agenda of the new series of children's movies and provides suggestions for concerned parents (as well as anyone else who wouldn't want satanism to be fed to elementary school children) to fight back.

Philip Pullman is the author of His Dark Materials, a fantasy trilogy for children which is more popular in England right now than the J.K. Rowling Harry Potter series. As controversial as Harry Potter was to the Christian community, Pullman’s trilogy (Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, The Amber Spyglass) makes Rowlings look like the next candidate for beatification in St. Peter’s square.

You see, Pullman is an atheist. Not just a garden variety athiest but an atheist who is very open and forthcoming about his hatred for Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular:
”My books are about killing God.”₁

“I am of the Devil’s party and I know it.”₂
More >>>

P.S. That's quite a weird set of beliefs for an atheist. Judging from the above statements, Pullman actually believes in the existence of God which, as he believes, could be killed by a certain power that opposes God. Thus, Pullman is in fact a satanist and a theophobe. Which is yet another reason to keep Pullman's trash away from our children.

Alberta PC leadership vote was just a year ago. The vote was open to anyone willing to purchase a $5 membership of the Alberta PC party. And, since Alberta PC doesn't forbid members from holding membership in rival parties, this meant anyone living in Alberta for more than a few months (even if he wasn't a Canadian citizen), was eligible to purchase the membership card and to cast a vote for Alberta's next Premier.

The "instant-tories" gave Stelmach the plurality. But he owes his victory to the second choice votes from the Social Conservative supporters of Ted Morton. Without these votes Stelmach wouldn't have had the absolute majority he needed to get elected. Does he still remember that?

Looks like he's already forgot.

Chandler's Tory nomination in the Calgary-Egmont riding has been nixed by the party due to his connections as the founder of the Concerned Christian Coalition (CCC) that was specifically cited in the AHRC ruling. Stephen Boissoin's letters, published in the Red Deer Advocate, protested the indoctrination of school children "as young as five and six years" into the homosexual subculture in classrooms.
...
Premier Ed Stelmach, leader of the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, told reporters Saturday that Chandler's nomination in Calgary-Egmont was "not in the best interests of the party".
More >>>

"No wonder party officials have been resigning from the party all over the province since Stelmach took the leadership of the party a year ago", says Alberta blogger Werner Patels. It appears that during his year as Alberta Premier and as a PC party leader, Ed Stelmach has alienated many of his party's Fiscal Conservative supporters. Now he's alienating the Social Conservatives. Craig Chandler already said that he's not going to belong to a party that doesn't want him.

Craig's options are numerous. He can run as independent. Another option would be joining one of the existing right-wing parties, such as Alberta Alliance or Social Credit. He might as well contribute to the formation of a new Wildrose Party of Alberta.

Craig is not a newbie in politics. Few years ago, his efforts greatly contributed to the creation of the united Conservative party on a federal level. This time, he might help another political party in Alberta to achieve an electoral breakthrough and eventually become Alberta's new ruling party.

Truth-bashers are on the offensive. Silencing Conservative media is no longer enough for them. Now they are targeting a magazine that chose to provide a balanced point of view rather than sticking to the typical "left versus far left".

I find it ironic that a magazine like Maclean’s - which has only recently started to realize that there are two opinions on world events - is feeling the brunt of the kind of thinking which it has fostered in Canada these past few decades. Of course, it is simply a coincidence that now that Maclean’s has decided to offer some conservative viewpoints, apart from the liberal milksop we have all come to enjoy, they find themselves SHOCKER OF ALL SHOCKERS!!!! in front of the CHRC.

It is clear that the CHRC is nothing more than a political tool of the Left to silence dissent. When has a conservative ever won a case against a leftist? Or perhaps the most salient question is: when has a conservative ever even filed a case against a leftist?
More >>>

Meanwhile, as the shamans of political correctness are preparing to sacrifice yet another outspoken journalist to their idols of tolerance and multi-cult, the Alberta Human Blights Tribunal found a young Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin guilty of "exposing homosexuals to hatred and contempt". Stephen's crime was writing a letter to the editor, outlining his arguments against promoting homosexual lifestyle to elementary school children. Stephen is a youth minister and he had frequent occasion to help those suffering from the homosexual disorder. Among other things, he mentioned the following fact:

Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.
More >>>

The tribunal found that to be "hate speech" which, they believe, could have been "indirectly responsible" for an assault on a homosexual teenager a few weeks later. The latter has never been proven. And, of course, nobody bothered to explain how come the link between criticizing a lifestyle choice and violent attacks on those practicing the lifestyle never works on, let's say, smokers whose lifestyle choice is being aggressively denounced by governments, organizations and individual activists. But that's what the truth-bashers' chairman believes in, so the tribunal rules accordingly.

In the extrajudicial courts of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, the complainant’s expenses are paid for by the state, but the defendant must pay for his own defense and the rules of evidence, normal in the regular courts, do not apply. In nearly every case in Canada brought against Christians who criticize the homosexual subculture, the Tribunals have found in the complainant’s favor. A defendant may follow the case up with an appeal to the legal courts, but again must pay his own expenses.
...
Gwen Landoldt, the group’s vice-President, told LifeSiteNews.com, the decision is “typical of the Human Rights Commission. If a complaint is laid against you, you’re automatically found guilty.”

She said bluntly, “Something has to be done to curtail the power of these commissions,” she added. “People in a democracy should be able to have an opinion on homosexuality or on gardening or on anything without being charged or paying money out to protect oneself.”
More >>>

Who is going to be courageous enough to stand up to those freedom-snatching committees? Stephen Harper had the "court challenges program" nixed. (Better late than never.) Can we hope that among next steps would be cutting government funding to kangaroo courts, which would effectively bring their operations to a halt? Or will we have to organize a party-like lobby group that would help those of us who are targeted to defend themselves and pressure politicians (under threat of splitting the vote) to start doing something to bring back justice and freedom of speech.

VIENNA, Austria, November 30, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Video footage of abortion clinic escorts in the employ of Vienna abortionist Dr. Christian Fiala are so offensive that a local Bishop was stunned and is convinced that the case must be brought to state authorities. In the video, Dr. Fiala’s staff can be clearly seen sexually abusing, humiliating and using grotesque intimidation tactics on pro-life activists who pray silently outside the abortuary.

The video shows abortion clinic escorts grabbing the genitals of male pro-life activists, undoing pant zippers, threatening to poke them in the eyes, sexually hugging them, making grotesque faces etc. One clinic escort is seen on the video taking a wooden wedge and simulating sex with a female pro-lifer, pushing the wedge into her genital area.
More >>>

And then guess what - it's them who complain about "public bullying" and "intimidation" allegedly done by pro-lifers. Some even go as far as accusing pro-lifers of chasing people and throwing plastic fetus dolls at them. (No, I'm not making this up!)

Since poor-choicers can't defend their position in an argument, they try to use the law to block the debate on the right to life. So I won't be surprised if it turns out that those pro-abort thugs inflicted perverse assaults on pro-life protesters in order to provoke a violent response - which they would use to justify the need for their "bubble zone law" that would outlaw any form of peaceful protest outside of the abortion facilities.

Don't change the channel. This "holiday season" the CBC invites us to watch some "holiday favorites" which be playing almost every day for the next few weeks... Well, it's very nice of the CBC to offer us our favorite movies, but how come their "CBC holiday magic" commercial keeps saying "holiday" over and over, but never mentions the name of the holiday we celebrate?

Judging from the movie previews, I could say that those "holiday favorites" are unlikely to include any Hanuka movies. I didn't notice any Soviet New Year's Eve movies either, so the mysterious unnamed holiday isn't the New Year's Eve. But there were plenty of Christmas movie scenes in the commercial. In fact, all the movies I noticed there, were Christmas movies. Believe it or not, it was a Christmas commercial. So how come the word Christmas isn't there?

Some activists may be quick to remind me about Canada's official multiculturalism; that not all Canadians celebrate Christmas nowadays and that some may even be offended if we wish them a merry Christmas... But doesn't the word 'multiculturalism' mean co-existence of many cultures, including Christian culture? And shouldn't tolerance, sensitivity and respect be mutual? I mean if Canadians are to accept the newcomers the way they are, maybe it would be reasonable to expect that the newcomers too accept Canada as it is, with all the holidays, including Christmas?

Finally, who gave those activists the right to speak for all the immigrants? Do they believe that people willing to spend $1500 per adult on processing fees alone, plus whatever the immigration consultant charges them, plus the flight tickets, won't bother to look in the encyclopedia and find out at least the basic facts about the country they are coming to, including - whether or not Canadians still celebrate Christmas? If that's the way those activists picture immigrants - that's even more offensive than wishing a merry Christmas to a Jew or to a Muslim.

So have a merry Christmas, CBC. And let me also wish you guys a happy New Year - under a new management!

A few interesting facts, regarding the information for which a libel suit has been filed by Richard Warman against the Free Dominion website. Somehow, Warman didn't really care when the very same information was republished by other media. Things became libelous only when they got published on a website owned by Connie and Mark Fournier.

"One of the many things he's suing us for is for reproducing an article that was originally published in the Ottawa Citizen," Fournier says. "But Warman didn't sue the writer of the article, he didn't sue Ottawa Citizen, (and) he didn't sue any other website where this thing might have been reproduced. He sued Free Dominion. For some reason, (the article) wasn't libel(ous) until Connie and I published it. Then suddenly it magically became slanderous and libel. The average citizen - the way it's laid out now - has no way of knowing whether they're breaking the law with Richard Warman."
More >>>

I agree with Mark Fournier - if that is the logic our opponents use, then there's no way anyone could know anymore what is and isn't legal in Canada when it comes to libel and slander. To make things worse - it costs at least $5000 to hire a legal expert who would help figuring that out.

But at the least, the case against Connie and Mark will be heard in the court of law, where standard rules of evidence (including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty) still apply. None of that is going to be available to Ron Gray, the leader of the Christian Heritage Party, who was targeted with three "human rights" complaints filed by a militant pervert. Unless Ron Gray succeeds in his efforts to have those complaints replaced with the official criminal charges, his case will be reviewed in a tribunal where hurt feelings of the accuser outweigh the defendant's constitutional rights...

First they came for some lone marginals. Then they came for a website that refused to enforce political correctness. Then a small political party got targeted for refusing to accept perverse behavior as normal and natural. Who is going to be next?

Many Kyoto supporters claim that with the Australian PM John Howard defeated in the last Sunday's election, Harper is now the only leader of the Commonwealth country who refuses to go along with the protocols. The truth however is that even the Australian Labor Party government led by Kevin Rudd is not ready to accept Kyoto targets with open arms, as long as it lets major emitters like China or India off the hook.

Mr Rudd also flatly contradicted his environment spokesman and said a Labor government would not ratify the new round of Kyoto plans unless developing nations signed binding agreements. "I have made absolutely clear that we would need to see clear-cut commitments from the major emitters from the developing world for us to become party to that agreement," he said.
...
"If we get to the next set of negotiations for the next commitment period and we find that there is a complete impasse through developing countries refusing to accept reasonable, rational, hard commitments for the future, our attitude to that is back to the negotiating table - that sort of outcome is unacceptable," Mr Rudd said. "We need to have those major emitters in the next round."
More >>>

I envy Australians. Their leaders know that people elect them so they work to the benefit of their country. Even their Labor party (which is obviously a left-of-centre party) puts nation's interests ahead of some fancy nonsense.

What is it in Australia that we don't have in Canada? How come we have 3 out of 4 political parties whose leaders would happily get Canada into another Great Depression for the sake of an agreement that doesn't acknowledge the demographic changes which took place in Canada since 1990, that offers preferential treatment to countries emitting 10 times more greenhouse gases than Canada and that proposes "emission trading" that won't make the air any cleaner?..

Describing a "hate crime" isn't as easy as it looks. Usually, the descriptive words we use to classify different types of crime are easy to understand. We have violent crimes, like assault, robbery or rape as opposed to non-violent crimes such as fraud or shoplifting. There are gun-related crimes as opposed to crimes committed without use of a weapon. But what is the logic behind referring to certain criminal deeds as "hate crimes"? We call it "hate crimes" as opposed to what? Love crimes?

Some would interpret "hate crimes" as crimes that are motivated by hate, as opposed to crimes motivated by greed. If so, then almost any violent crime could be defined as hate crime. After all, when a dozen of street thugs assault an innocent passer-by and beat him half to death, it's hard to argue that they've done it out of love. Ditto with every single case of rape and domestic violence, as well as those murders that weren't motivated by greed. But almost none of those crimes are regarded as "hate crimes".

So we get another explanation - a "hate crime" is the one in which the victim gets singled out because of his ethnic, religious or cultural background. So let's say, if white supremacists attack a passer-by just because his skin is darker than theirs - that's a hate crime. But what if aboriginal protesters in Caledonia, Ontario beat up a construction worker who is white? That was never viewed as a "hate crime".

The "hate crime" label is applied to broad range of crimes - from assaulting people to harming property and even to "inciting hatred". But no matter what kind of a crime we are talking about, we get the same inconsistence when it comes to a question whether or not this is a "hate crime". Vandalizing a homosexual bookstore is a hate crime. Vandalizing a business just because the owner supports traditional marriage - is not. Sending hate mail to a Hindu is a hate crime. Sending hate mail to a Catholic - is not. Desecrating the Koran - is a hate crime. Desecrating the Bible could easily pass as art. Obviously, there's much more to the notion of "hate crime" than just protecting people from being assaulted (or even - from being insulted) just because they look or act or worship differently.

And here's another paradox that is worth noticing. Somehow those "hate crimes" are the only crimes for which the bleeding-heart Liberals want tougher sentences. That too is somewhat inconsistent with their beliefs that crime has "social roots" and that criminals need as much help and sympathy as their victims. Suddenly we hear them saying that there's a certain type of criminal actions that don't have "social roots", therefore those who commit those crimes, must be dealt with severely, so nobody else dares even to think about doing something similar...

So how do we explain these paradoxes? What is the reason behind applying the definition of "hate crimes" not to just any hate driven crime, but to those that are committed against the members of specific ethno-cultural groups? And how come the very same people who demand compassion to the ordinary criminals, suddenly want stricter penalties for those who commit those specific "hate crimes"?

Here's my explanation: the proponents of the "hate crime" laws need them to silence anyone who speaks (let alone - acts) against their utopian beliefs. Hate crime laws are against those who believe in absolute truth and refuse to accept moral relativism which denies the existence of good and evil, right and wrong. They are against those who insist there is a difference between masculine and feminine sexuality. Against those who don't believe that all cultures are equally beneficial to our society; and against those refusing to agree that a culture which gave the world the concept of human rights and accountable government is "no better" than a culture which finds a multiple rape victim guilty for "just being there" and sentences her to public flogging, doubling the number of lashes for daring to appeal...

A policy which is based on nothing but beliefs may look good on paper. But what if those beliefs often go against the facts? Well, too bad for the facts; those who impose moral relativism on our society want us to ignore them. But you can't completely ignore the way the world works. If you put a wolf and a sheep in the same barn, the sheep will get eaten. Well, let's blame it on the sheep and suggest that anyone who thinks otherwise simply has a grudge against the poor mistreated fuzzy gray animal which looks just like a big dog. That's when "hate crime" laws come into play. If the establishment has decided that a sheep and a wolf can live together in peace, then anyone who disagrees is a "hate monger". And if he dares to take a rifle and to shot the wolf dead, protecting his sheep - he'll be accused of committing a "hate crime".

That's exactly what "hate crime" laws are for - to silence those who has the courage to tell the truth and to prosecute those who dares to fight back, instead of just letting his family suffer for the sake of yet another Utopia. Proponents of the "hate crime" laws suggest that these are laws against hatred and discrimination. But the fact is that "hate crime" laws are designed to perpetuate discrimination and hatred. That's why I believe they must be repealed.

Poor-choicers claim there's no need for the Unborn Victims Of Crime bill. They view attacks on pregnant women as an issue of domestic violence, therefore they believe that assault charges (with "aggravating circumstances taken into account") would adequately address the situation.

If so - I got a question for them. If, let's say, someone hits a woman in the stomach with a steel-clad boot, causing her to miscarry the baby - do they truly consider whatever maximum sentence there is for kicking a woman in the stomach to be a sufficient punishment? Because that's exactly what they propose. Domestic violence laws only prosecute the attacker for an aggravated assault, causing bodily harm. Suffering and death of another victim - the baby - is not accounted for.

How long of a jail term could one get for kicking someone in the stomach with whatever aggravated circumstances there are? And even if the maximum sentence is handed down by the courts - it will most likely be reduced by the parole board. Because they too, are going to see nothing but a kick in the stomach. Sure, a kick in the stomach with plenty of aggravating circumstances to be taken into account, but as per the existing laws - nobody actually died from it.

Except for the baby, whose suffering and death the law ignores.

Secondly, the injury to the woman is separate from the loss of the child. Suffering bruises, broken bones or amputation is a far different thing than suffering the loss of a being whom you and your family looked forward to raising.
More >>>

So the attacker must be held responsible for both. Charging the criminal for harming a woman, but ignoring the loss of her baby caused by the very same person - is a legal abomination that must end.

Contrary to Ms. Arthur’s claim, that Canadians who want to see some legal protections for fetuses “have a hidden agenda”, they have a very open one: They believe we need such law, including some governing abortion.

Moreover, in one sense, they are more pro-choice than the pro-choice abortion advocates. Respecting a woman’s decision to give birth to her baby and the wrong that is done when that decision is thwarted by the criminal act of another person, is to recognize and respect the full range of the choice that should be available to her. In contrast, the pro-choice advocates wish to protect abortion as the only legitimate choice, or at least the only one that should be recognized by the law.
More >>>

Well said. In order to safeguard their unchoice, pro-abortion crowd is ready to sacrifice other women's choice to keep and raise their babies. Motherhood is the choice the law currently ignores, instead of respecting and protecting it.

A few more comments on the "human rights" complaint against the Christian Heritage Party.

Tristan Emmanuel: Case shows the need for Canadians to speak up.

The president of the ECP Centre, Tristan Emmanuel, says the charges against the CHP are more evidence of how far militant homosexuals will go to shut down any form of dissent in Canada. "The only reason these people are getting away with it", Emmanuel says, "is because there's not enough of an outcry from the common folk in Canada saying: 'Enough! You're not going to short-change our Charter rights simply because you figure everyone either has to agree with what you're doing or shut up.'" Emmanuel says there's a real need to wake Canadians up to the "sorry state of Free Speech" in their country.
More >>>

John Pacheco: Social Conservatives - The CHRC’s Whipping Boys

Freedom isn’t free and those of us who are on the front lines of speaking the truth can expect to get hit for it. Not really sure when other social conservative leaders are going to get nailed but it’s gonna happen. If a political party can get hauled before the Kangaroo court, then there is no limit to this fascism. If they can take down the leader of a political party, no social conservative group or individual is safe. And we can expect these socialists to continue in their quest to eradicate anything that does not square with their view of the rainbow.
More >>>

I thought about putting in my two cents, but then I realized that most of what I wanted to say, has already been said by George Orwell. So I only needed to change a few words, replacing Animal Farm characters with the people they represented...

There was a deadly silence... It was as though the world had turned upside-down. Then there came a moment when the first shock had worn off and when, in spite of everything... they might have uttered some word of protest. But just at that moment, as though at a signal, all the media burst out into a tremendous bleating of-

"~~Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!~~" "Man and woman good, man and man better! Man and woman good, man and man better! Man and woman good, man and man better!"

It went on for a few years without stopping. And by the time the media had quieted down, the chance to utter any protest had passed, for ~~the pigs had marched back into the farmhouse~~ it was announced that the issue had been settled.

Benjamin felt a nose nuzzling at his shoulder. He looked round. It was Clover. Her old eyes looked dimmer than ever...

..."My sight is failing," she said finally. "Even when I was young I could not have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks different. Are the ~~Seven Commandments~~ Charter Rights the same as they used to be, Benjamin?"

For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:

~~ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS~~
ALL CANADIANS ARE EQUAL. BUT MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

P.S. There were no kangaroos in the Animal Farm. But they did have a Kangaroo court out there...

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Friday, December 28, 2007

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Monday, December 24, 2007

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Friday, December 21, 2007

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Monday, December 17, 2007

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Friday, December 14, 2007

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Monday, December 10, 2007

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Friday, December 7, 2007

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Monday, December 3, 2007

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Friday, November 30, 2007

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Monday, November 26, 2007

Sunday, November 25, 2007