Stand Your Ground

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...

After sending three or four threatening letters to Free Dominion and then scrupulously digging out all the strongly-worded comments on his activities (which he views as libel and defamation), Richard Warman has filed his law suit against Free Dominion to the Ontario superior court of justice. He wants a total of $150,000 in compensation, but he's ready to agree on a $10,000 out of court settlement.

Richard Warman has already made $43,500, using his legal skills to haul people too poor to mount a legal defense in front of an "above-the-law" tribunal where the usual rules of evidence (including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty) don't apply. This time however his attempt to launch a "human rights" complaint (with the help of Ms. Gentes) didn't last, so the case is going to be reviewed in the court of law. And, unlike Warman's other victims, FD users are ready to pitch in for Connie and Mark's legal defense. Nobody is willing to reward Warman with yet another $10,000 (let alone $150,000) for his continuous efforts to make Canada's Internet look more like China.

A militant homosexual files three "human rights" complaints against the Christian Heritage Party and its leader Ron Gray. The complaints relate to republishing an article from the World Net Daily, which reveals the 'dark side' of homosexual culture and includes some statistical data, according to which, child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis. The complaints also relate to some of Ron Gray's personal comments, such as the one in which the current debate about homosexuality in Canada is compared to a sitcom where the characters can't hear each other.

But is it a crime to publish an opinion, let alone quoting a five year-old article or reposting a research data? Of course it isn't. Even the existing "hate crime" laws (that were tightened in 2004 to severely restrict the debate on homosexual behavior) don't apply in this case. That's why the complaints were submitted to the so called "human rights tribunal". Renown for its Orwellian name, this tribunal gives no value to the freedom of speech (even though it's still in the charter) and has the authority to asses fines of up to $50,000 and incarcerate would-be-haters with no criminal charges laid against them.

And, he [Ron Gray] says, when he had a conversation with a Commission employee, mediator Bob Fagan, about the specifics of the allegation, he was astonished at what he heard.
"I told him that it seemed to be an abuse of the Human Rights Act for someone to try and use it as an instrument of censorship. And when I said that, on the phone, there was a pause and then he said, in a somewhat astonished tone: 'But the Human Rights Act is about censorship'. Then it was my turn to be silent on my end, because I found that breath-taking. For the Human Rights Commission's own mediator to acknowledge that censorship was the purpose of their Act."
More >>>

That says it all. The case has nothing to do with "spreading hate", otherwise the accuser could press charges under Section 319 of the Criminal Code. However the truth bashers' goal is not to seek justice but to silence (and make an example of) anyone who dares to denounce the myths they use to sugarcoat their perverse lifestyle. So they'll never agree to an honest debate or to a fair trial for that matter.

Canada's infrastructure is aging fast. According to Federation of Canadian Municipalities, a $123 Billion investment is needed to rebuild the decaying roads, bridges and water systems.

Canada has used up 79 per cent of the service life of its roads, sewage systems and other vital components of the country's backbone, and municipalities simply can't afford to fix the problem on their own, said federation president Gord Steeves.

Without significant federal funding, infrastructure could begin to fall apart across the country, he said.
...
But federal Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Lawrence Cannon said the federation is misleading the public in suggesting that he hasn't already acted.

A new $33-billion, seven-year "Building Canada" plan will help fund infrastructure renewal in big cities and small towns and will address some of the priorities the federation is focusing on, including roads, bridge rehabilitation and safe drinking water, he said.
More >>>

So the Federal government is providing $33B out of 123. What about the remaining $90B? Most of the politicians would consider only two options to make up the shortfall: higher taxes or higher user fees. (The latter would include charging tolls for using the rebuilt roads and bridges.) But there's another option. We can use the Bank of Canada to provide low-interest loans to provinces and municipalities to finance new highways, roads, bridges, ports and airports, urban and interurban rail transportation, water and sewage treatment.

Similar policy had been used in Canada for about quarter of a century after the Second World War.

To stave off the threat of massive unemployment, the Cabinet of that day instructed the Bank of Canada to make loans, virtually interest-free, to provinces, municipalities and other local authorities for infrastructure: roads, highways, bridges, railways, port facilities, etc. Local governments were able to launch construction programs that brought unemployment down to about 3% (considered by economists to be the minimum level — mostly workers in transition from job to job or from city to city). With local agencies freed from the crushing burden of compounding interest, the increased economic activity generated revenues that enabled the loans to be quickly repaid — and the infrastructure was a legacy.

At the time C.D. Howe launched that program, in the late ’40s and the ’50s, the Bank of Canada created about 50 per cent of the money supply, and the fractional reserve requirement was 10 per cent; today, the BoC creates only two per cent of the money supply, and the reserve requirement is zero.
More >>>

While those loans weren't technically interest-free, all the interest (less the administrative costs) went to the Bank of Canada's owner - the Federal government which could redirect the funds back to the provinces and municipalities.

Unfortunately, the Federal government stopped using the Bank of Canada for national infrastructure funding since mid-1970s. The share of the federal debt held by the Bank of Canada went down from 21% in 1975 to less than 5% nowadays. All governments since then (both Liberal and (Progressive) Conservative) chose to boost the credit bubble, rather than taking control over their finances.

We have asked both the Liberals & (Alliance) Conservatives to look at this idea because it is the best for Canadians. The Liberals sent a form letter thanking us for the idea.... and never did a thing about it. The (Alliance) Conservatives didn't respond.
Source: Vicki Gunn (CHP York Simcoe)

Too bad that none of our legislators is ready to raise the issue in the Parliament. Cutting government handouts to special interest groups is an excellent start, but using taxpayers money on runaway interest payments when better financing option is available is also a kind of wasteful spending that must be addressed.

Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act, has been introduced today. The bill would recognize unborn children as crime victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of an offense against their mothers.

"This is all about protecting the choice of a woman to give birth to her child," said Mr. Epp. "It is about condemning the actions of those who would take it upon themselves to criminally assault a pregnant woman and the child she wants and loves, destroying that child against her will."
...
Such legislation is also supported across party lines: 77% of Conservative supporters, 71% of Liberal, 71% of the Bloc Quebecois, 67% of the Green Party, and 66% of the NDP supporters are in favour of "legislation making it a separate crime to injure or kill a foetus during an attack on the mother."
More >>>

I wonder if we could have this support mirrored in the Parliament for a change. So at the very least, the bill C-484 gets placed in the order of precedence and voted on, rather than becomes a "non-votable" item, just like the C-291 did.

Gwen Landoldt, the leader of the REAL Women of Canada commends Harper for keeping family issues front and centre in Ottawa. But suggests he shouldn't take the Social Conservative votes for granted.

Gwen Landoldt from REAL Women says there's a new political reality in Canada - that Conservative politicians can't get elected without support from the social conservative wing of their party. She says the recent Ontario provincial election proved it - the so-cons didn't like John Tory - a "Red Tory" - and they sat on their hands and refused to work for him or vote for him. She says Steven Harper is starting to understand that reality at a federal level as well, and that the federal Conservatives "cannot ever hope to be victorious in another federal election unless they have the social conservative backing."
More >>>

Let's see if Stephen Harper is really starting to understand that. The Unborn Victims Of Crime Act is the opportunity for him to show his stand on fetal rights. With the bill being supported even by the majority of those who want unrestricted abortions for the full nine months of pregnancy, there's no excuse for Harper not to support the bill. Unless of course he has an ideological preference for fetal dismemberment and destruction.

Slowly but steadily, people start to understand that unborn babies are humans. Suzanne gives us the example of a physician who's realized just that.

I never used to be pro-life. I was brainwashed by the far left media in this country while in college and I remember a pro-life rally once where I got into a shouting match with another student who was pro-life. But my views slowly changed. Then, one day while on call in residency, I was on obstetrics and I was called to see a patient who was 19 weeks pregnant and was in labor. I delivered the baby, it had a head, and fingers and toes and was still breathing. To knowingly suck out a baby and kill it (as abortions are done at 19 weeks) was beyond me.
More >>>

That's why pro-abortions won't agree to honest debate on the issue. They know they are powerless against facts.

Pro-abortion activists in the "student unions" keep silencing pro-life students from coast to coast.

One university after another is denying students who are pro-life, the right to form a club. The latest victims of this onslaught are the young students at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay Ontario. They have just been informed that their application has been denied because they are "too controversial." Defending the right to life of the most vulnerable has become too controversial for a university campus. What ever happened to Freedom of expression at institutes of higher learning? What about the "Free exchange of ideas"?

The students should not be shocked or surprised by this latest denial. It falls on the heals of identical decisions at Kelowna BC's UBC campus, North Vancouver's Capilano College, Memorial University of Newfoundland, and the list goes on. In total more than 20 universities across this country have denied, banned or in some way interfered with the freedom of speech and assembly of university students in recent years. These decisions are not so much being made by the institutions themselves as they are by the student governing bodies on campus. The student unions are affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Students who have a radical "pro-choice" policy when it comes to abortion. They will tolerate no opposition to abortion on their campuses to the extent of infringing on member students personal liberties guaranteed under the Canadian Charter.
More >>>

To make things worse, each student must pay $50 or so off pocket for a mandatory membership in the very same union that denies him his freedom of association. The silver lining in all that is that a debate on whether or not a pro-life group should be "allowed" on campus, usually raises awareness of fetal rights issues among students and more of them start reconsidering the pro-abort dogmas that are being spread by the media, the radical professors and the "student union" establishment.

Obviously, keeping their influence over students is vital for the pro-abortion activists and for the abortion industry as whole. Not only, because most of the women who resort to abortions are of a university age, but also because they wouldn't want to lose their influence over the youth. So they'll never lay down their arms voluntarily.

But it doesn't mean there's no way for the pro-life students to advance fetal rights on the university campuses. Here's my report on the National Campus Life Network meeting at the recent National Pro-Life Conference. Theresa Matters, NCLN Executive Director gave us a few great suggestions and delegates from various universities shared their experience. Yes, winning the pro-life battle on campus won't be easy. But easy doesn't mean impossible.

On October 27, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a precedent-setting cease and desist order which forbids Jessica Beaumont from posting certain Bible verses on the Internet. If this 21-year old woman posts the wrong Bible quotation online - even if it is on an American website - she could face up to 5 years in prison.

Five years in prison for quoting Scripture.
...
Jessica Beaumont does not own a website. She was merely posting comments on existing sites (mostly in the United States). But the fact that she could go to prison for posting Scripture verses on a server in another country means that our religious freedom is in direct jeopardy.
More >>>

Did the Parliament recently pass a bill abolishing Freedom of Speech? Or is it Freedom of Religion which has recently been taken out of the Charter without anyone noticing? If it was none of that, then how come an institution which is believed to protect human rights can decide which Bible verses Canadians shouldn't be allowed to post on the internet?

Of course, this legal abomination didn't happen without help of a famous censorship champion Richard Warman; a compulsive self-googler who uses the "human rights tribunal" to silence people he doesn't agree with. A ruling that could put a 21-year old waitress in jail for posting thoughts that do not violate the law is one of this professional complainer's recent achievements.

The media reaction was typical. The very same mainstream media that is going nuts about the rights of a Taliban combatant with a Canadian passport, didn't utter a sound when a Canadian woman was denied her freedom of speech and threatened with a 5-year prison sentence with no criminal charges laid against her. (Tell me who is your friend and I'll tell you who you are.)

But what about us? The media is silent but why should we remain silent when our rights are being taken away by a bunch of Bible-hating political activists? The misappropriation of state power by unelected unaccountable groups and establishments is getting uglier and more abusive by the day. So if we don't stand up for ourselves - then who will?

Edmonton MP Ken Epp has moved to reintroduce the Unborn Victims Of Crime Bill. A similar bill, C-291, had been introduced in the previous session by Leon Benoit, a Conservative MP for Vegreville—Wainwright, but it was never voted on. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs designated C-291 a non-votable item on June 13, 2006, so the bill was dropped from the order of precedence (and deemed defeated) on the following day.

Now, in light of the recent murders of several pregnant mothers, the bill is going to be reintroduced again. Polls clearly show that majority of Canadians want legal protection for the unborn victims of crime. Unfortunately, these opinions are not mirrored in the Parliament, let alone the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which may once again designate the bill a non-votable item.

Let's make sure this doesn't happen again. Please contact the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, so they allow the new Unborn Victims Of Crime bill to be voted on. And don't forget to Contact your MP, no matter what party he's from. 3 out of 4 Canadians believe it's time to break the law's silence and establish legal protection for the unborn babies that lose their lives or get injured as result of attacks on pregnant mothers. Therefore we must make sure that the number of people asking their MPs to support the bill outnumbers those opposing the bill by the same 3:1 margin.

Just two weeks ago, Tracy Parsons was a leader of the Progressive Canadian party. Now she is a Liberal. And so is Jim Love who used to be the party president. And the other four members of the executive, along with several members of the national council, all of the Quebec organizers and many riding presidents. All of them have abandoned the Progressive Canadian party to join the Liberals.

But what was this Progressive Canadian party anyway? The party founders presented it as a continuation of the old Progressive Conservative party. They expropriated the old PC logo, remodeled their website to resemble the one of the old PC party and run a dozen or two of candidates in the past two general elections under the "PC Party" affiliation. That was enough to siphon a few thousands votes away from the Conservatives but not enough even to influence the outcome of a narrow race, let alone winning a single seat for themselves.

Neither did the party accomplish its goal of becoming the new home for the anti-merger PCs. John Herron, the only PC incumbent in the 2004 election, run as a Liberal. Joe Clark and André Bachand too, threw their support behind "Team Martin". A handful of the Red Tory Senators (including the two, appointed by Paul Martin in 2005) chose to maintain a rump caucus of a non-existing party, rather than forming a Progressive Canadian caucus in the Senate. Even Garth Turner, who blamed Harper for "taking his party away from him" was more interested in becoming a "first Green MP" (and joining the Liberals couple months later), than resurrecting the PC caucus in the House of Commons...

Ever wondered how many Red Tories, would be PC (or Conservative) leaders ended up joining the Liberals? Let's count them together: Scott Brison, David Orchard, Belinda Stronach, Garth Turner... Did I forget anyone? Tracy Parsons too, wanted to lead a political party for the Red Tories. After a couple years of trying she realized that such party already exists. It's called the Liberal party.

"As a political party you are always trying to find your differentiators [with other parties] and I found that when Stéphane Dion became the leader of the Liberal Party that that differentiator was harder and harder to locate," explained Ms. Parsons, who lives in Truro, N.S., and had been party leader since 2005.
(Source)

That's what me and other Social Conservatives have been saying for years now. So if a SoCon like me is not trustworthy enough for you - I guess you can still trust yet another (fifth?) Red Tory leader who has decided that there isn't really much of a difference between the Liberals and Red Tories, so the Red Tories might as well become just plain Red.

The Wall Street Journal Online tells us about the raise of the religious left in American politics.

This new religious left does not expend its political energies on the cultural concerns that primarily motivate conservative evangelicals. Instead, working mostly at the state and local level, and often in lockstep with unions, its ministers, priests, rabbis, and laity exert a major, sometimes decisive, influence in campaigns to enforce a "living wage," to help unions organize, and to block the expansion of nonunionized businesses like Wal-Mart.
(Source)

Sounds pretty much like a praise - instead of just arguing about morals and culture, the above mentioned religious left actually does something to fight poverty, inequality and injustice. But is it really so?

WSJ may try to present the right to life and family values as mere "cultural concerns", which aren't worth the efforts when there are other issues to deal with. Yet fighting for social justice without noticing that the most vulnerable among us are denied their basic human right - the right to life, would be quite inconsistent, wouldn't it? If we deny justice to unborn babies - how can we expect justice and compassion for grown-ups?

And if you still think that fighting poverty is more important than fighting abortions - think again. If we don't challenge the notion that individual's comfort and wealth are so important that they're worth sacrificing the life of individual's own baby, then wouldn't it be naive to expect the very same individual to sacrifice some of his comfort and wealth for the sake of mere strangers? Like it or not, but you can't fight poverty without defending the unborn.

Neither can you fight poverty without defending traditional family. It's a fact: children are better off when raised by both a mother and a father. It's a fact: strong mother-and-father families have the lowest poverty rates. It's a fact: mutual support in the time of hardship is essential for a family which strives to recover financially. And it's a fact, that a vast majority of the unions (if not all of them) adhere to anti-family policies and offer their support to various pro-abortion, anti-marriage and anti-family groups. Thus, by supporting unions, the religious left is in fact perpetuating poverty.

So what kind of religious leaders are those? WSJ mentions ministers, priests and rabbis, not some daydreaming teens who simply don't have the life experience to see beyond the fancy words. Those are people who should know the difference between right and wrong, but choose to pretend there's no right or wrong. Instead of loving the sinner, yet fighting the sin, they believe that loving the sinner means ignoring the sin. They see the injustice, but unwilling to call it an injustice. They pretend to fight poverty, but all their efforts at the very best go nowhere (but most likely - just harm their cause). In other words - those are hypocrites.

Review of the Bella Movie by Rebecca Hagelin, for the "Proud To Be Canadian" blog.

Rarely am I so taken by the beauty and power of a movie that I want everyone I know to see it. “Bella” is a film you must see.

The story (I won’t reveal too much, because I don’t want to spoil it for you) concerns a young soccer star whose career is abruptly cut short. He winds up working in his brother’s restaurant in New York City, where he befriends a struggling waitress. The story is rich in messages of redemption, friendship, sacrifice and hope. No wonder the Hollywood crowd is beginning to cut it to shreds.
More >>

Judging by the number of people who find my blog when looking for information on the Bella movie, I'm not the only one who can't wait until the movie is finally released in Canada. Unfortunately, there's no information yet on when will it happen. None of the theaters I contacted has Bella on the "coming soon" list and all I found online was this 2-minute trailer on Yahoo. Still better than nothing :)

Australian Santas are urged to say "ha ha ha" instead of the traditional "ho ho ho" which in the eyes of some PC thugs could be offensive to women.

One disgruntled Santa told the newspaper a recruitment firm warned him not to use "ho ho ho" because it could frighten children and was too close to "ho", a US slang term for prostitute.

"Gimme a break," said Julie Gale, who runs the campaign against sexualising children called Kids Free 2B Kids.

"We are talking about little kids who do not understand that "ho, ho, ho" has any other connotation and nor should they," she told the Telegraph.
(Source)

I'm 30 and I don't understand that either. I've never heard of "ho ho ho" having some sort of dirty meaning. Maybe it's because "mi no spik Inglish veri gud".

Talking about sexualising children - here's something that no "sex education" teacher would ever tell our kids, when teaching them about "safe sex":

WOMEN who use the contraceptive pill can double their chances of developing cervical cancer, researchers said yesterday.

However, the new study also showed that, ten years after ceasing to take the Pill, the cancer risk drops to normal levels.

Previous research has shown that the risk of cervical cancer rises with increasing duration of oral contraceptive use. This is confirmed by the study, which shows women who have been on the Pill for five years or more are twice as likely to develop cancer as those who have never used it.
More >>>

Just like the old Russian joke says, the safest contraceptive pill is called Sleepalone. And the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy is by having a glass of water (instead). Believe it or not - it never fails. Unlike all those "sexual liberation" utopias.

"Divorcing sex from marriage has not only led to high teenage conception rates and the sexual health crisis in the UK, but it is also has a major part to play in family breakdown.

"The trust rejects the fatalistic and defeatist view that it is unrealistic to expect young people to save sex for marriage and that any teaching or encouragement to that end simply 'doesn't work'."

Entitled Why Save Sex?, the leaflet states that saving sex for marriage is "the way to real freedom: freedom from fear, embarrassment, shame and emotional pain, as well as freedom from physical disease".
More >>>

It's hard to go against the current. It's hard to speak up against what is believed to be "norm". But facts are there to show that we are right. That abstinence before marriage and fidelity - after, was, is and will always be the way to go.

Interesting developments with the Mulroney - Schreiber inquiry. The Liberals wanted this to become the Conservative version of a sponsorship scandal; they were even ready to let go of their claims that the new Conservative party is nothing but a reincarnation of the good old Canadian Alliance (oh, I wish!) and started portraying Harper as Mulroney's direct successor...

Then suddenly it turns out that Liberals too benefited from Schreiber's generosity.

When Pierre Trudeau's Liberals were in power, Mr. Schreiber established connections with a powerful cabinet minister from Nova Scotia, Allan MacEachen and with the former Liberal cabinet minister from Quebec, Marc Lalonde. Mr. Schreiber retained the services of Mr. Lalonde in 1993 when he sought to build a tank manufacturing plant for the Thyssen company in Montreal. In return, Mr. Lalonde agreed to pledge $100,000 security deposit during the hearings concerning Mr. Schreiber's extradition to Germany where he had to face charges of fraud and tax evasion.

Mr. MacEachen, for his part wrote a letter in an attempt to convince the court that Mr. Schreiber should be released without charges by Canadian authorities.

In 1993, the year when Jean Chretien's Liberals took power, Bear Head Industries Limited, a company owned by Mr. Schreiber, poured $10,000 into the campaign fund of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Source (in French)

Not sure which party will end up in bigger mess after this, but if thanks to the inquiry we kick out a few more crooks out of the Commons - that would worth the efforts (and all the money spent on the inquiry).

The government reintroduced the two Senate Reform bills that had died on the order paper when the Parliament prorogued. Bill S-4 that would limit Senate tenure to one 8-year term was reintroduced as the House of Commons bill C-19. Bill C-43 that would provide for Senate elections was reintroduced as bill C-20.

Same as before, the bill falls short of having the Senators directly elected. Technically, the Senators would be still appointed by the Governor General at the advice of the Prime Minister, but the list of nominees would be compiled by the voters province-wide. The election process itself would be called "consultation with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate". Well, call it whatever you want - as long as there are elections held and those elections are binding - I'm ok with that.

Passing those bills however won't be easy. This time, instead of just prolonging the debate, the opposition wants bill C-20 to be sent to a committee before it's debated at second reading. But Stephen Harper too is not in the mood for any more filibustering from the opposition, threatening to support the NDP motion to hold a referendum on abolishing the Senate, if the opposition parties keep blocking the reform.

And, since the NDP and the Bloc clearly favor abolishing the Senate, that puts the ball in the Liberals' court. Will they choose to support the "piecemeal" Senate reform or will the Liberal Senators eventually have to vote on a bill that would set the conditions for abolishing the Senate altogether? Are they going to make it a free vote, thus passing the responsibility to the individual MPs? Either way it won't be an easy decision for the party.

Another interesting point: as the polls go, if Canadians were to choose between abolishing the Senate and keeping the Red Chamber as it is, majority would vote to abolish it. If however the question included another option - such as reforming the Upper chamber - majority would support a Senate reform, rather than abolition. So, if it comes to a referendum, the government better makes sure to put the Senate reform question on the same ballot.

Would a lung cancer awareness campaign make any sense if it failed to mention smoking? What would be the use of all those billboards and colored ribbons, donation drives and multi-million pledges from the government if the rules of political correctness wouldn't allow us to name one of the biggest causes of the disease?

Sure, it's unlikely someone would deny the link between smoking and lung cancer. But when it comes to the link between abortion and breast cancer - many choose to deny the obvious.

Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer said: "The media's behavior is very problematic. When the history books are written on the abortion-breast cancer link, women are going to be appalled by the major media's behavior on this matter and the media will suffer further lose of credibility."

"The mainstream media have aggressively promoted abortion, and the abortion-breast cancer link would mean that more of their readers are getting breast cancer because they believed what the media were telling them."
More >>>

The mainstream media insists there's no link between abortion and breast cancer; they claim any such cases are mere coincidence. The facts however prove them wrong. Dr Clem Persaud gave us a presentation on abortion - breast cancer link at the recent pro-life conference. In fact, not only surgical abortion disrupts the natural process (including formation of milk-producing cells) which elevates the risk of breast cancer, but also the methods by which abortions are performed destroy the cells that could have protected the woman by restoring hormonal level as it used to be before pregnancy.

As for the best way to prevent breast cancer - that would be carrying a pregnancy to term and breastfeeding the baby. Believe it or not - that would reduce the risk three-fold even among those who are genetically predisposed to breast cancer. Sure that's not a politically correct solution. But I don't think there's room for political correctness in medicine. Either we call a disease what it is - a disease and work to eradicate it or the disease eradicates us. Like it or not, there's no other option.

Our opponent claim that abortion is a "personal choice". In fact, it's the "unchoice". It leaves the child dead and his mother - wounded. Often - emotionally, but sometimes - mortally wounded. On average, 15 Canadian women die from breast cancer every single day. Those are the facts. And if you choose to ignore them just because they don't go along with your views on women's rights - then don't forget to throw away your pink ribbon.

Just in time for Remembrance day - "Support Our Troops" stickers ordered off a municipal vehicle in Norfolk County, south of London, Ontario.

Mayor Dennis Travale says the problem is that if these ribbons are allowed on county vehicles, it opens the door to other groups wanting their insignias there too. "People who oppose the troops," he says, would have an equal right to "express their sentiment."
More >>>

What's next? Banning poppies? George Feere, who was ordered to remove the "Support Our Troops" magnet, can see that coming.

Had enough of political correctness? Get ready for some more. A group of atheists is launching a campaign to have a politically correct term of their own.

What makes Dawkins want atheists to be like gays? Dawkins explains that gays used to be called homosexual, but then they decided to pick a positive-sounding name like "gay." Suddenly the meaning of the term "gay" was entirely appropriated by homosexuals. Gays went from being defined by their enemies to defining themselves in a favorable way.
More >>>

From this day forward they want to be known as "brights". The inference, apparently, is that people who aren't atheists would be, well, not bright?

And, speaking about atheists and "secular humanists" in particular - can those guys even be trusted with political power?

What I don't understand is how somebody who doesn't have beliefs can be radically and passionately zealous about anything. If you're only interested in the use of reason, then you should be the most dispassionate person around. Yet some of the most renowned self-proclaimed Atheists/Humanists wear their bigotry and Christian hatred on their sleeves.
More >>>

Secular humanists have been imposing their views on Canada for nearly half a century. And look at the mess they've got us into.

...As my thoughts turned to those who we are called to "remember" at this time of year, I was left to wonder how veterans of past wars would view our society today. What would they think of the way we look at military matters in this day and age? In the first place, I think they would rush in and correct every politician or public official who blathers on about Canada's "tradition of peacekeeping." Let's face it, folks. Until Lester Pearson came along, we had very little in the way of a "tradition of peacekeeping." Canada's military heritage - up until about 50 years ago - was one of warfare. Our soldiers killed bad guys. It's what was expected of them, and they did it. They took no gratuitous pleasure in it, but they did it. And they did it well. Even heroically.
More >>>

Let's make Remembrance day free from political correctness. Let's remember, that our veterans served not only in peacekeeping missions. Let's remember, that over 100,000 Canadian soldiers died, defending our freedoms, among them - our freedom of speech, which the PC thugs want us to forfeit.

Back then Canada was run by true statesmen who were determined to win the war - and Canada won the war. Back then Canadians cherished their freedoms; back then people were ready to die for their liberties - and Canada remained a free nation. But could we say the same about Canada today?

Every year at this time, I get to thinking - as one is supposed to do - about our veterans, and what they died for. And I wonder whether our society today still believes that anything is worth "the ultimate sacrifice". Especially in light of some of the attitudes that are starting to infect us in the West. Because it seems to me that we're getting pretty lazy and lethargic when it comes to our freedoms.
More >>>

Let's not fail our veterans! Let's not let go of the rights which they protected on the battlefield. Let's be ready to make the sacrifices they made, defending the rights they defended.

And so their rights which they maintained,
We swear to yield them never!
Our watchword evermore shall be,
The Maple Leaf forever!

So don't start putting on Christmas decorations right after Halloween.

I walked into a Shoppers Drug Mart tonight and found it festooned with Christmas decorations. I felt all the golds and reds and greens diminished the blood red of my poppy.

I said to the teller, “I realize it is a corporate decision, but I think you should hold off on Christmas until after Remembrance Day.” She expressed equal dismay at the display. I went home, found the shoppers website and sent them the email below.

It is 6 days before Remembrance Day. I will spend those days teaching my students the meaning of sacrifice, honour and grace.

You will be making a buck.

WW1 66000 dead for you,

WW2 45000 dead for you,

Korea 516 dead for you,

Peacekeeping 119 dead for you,

Afghanistan 71 dead for you.

Could you not grant us the dignity of holding off on your Christmas Decorations until Nov. 12?

Those 71 men will not be shopping this year.

I don’t want to punish them. I’m just disappointed. I’ve never taken such action before, but I’m sharing this with everyone on my list. Perhaps it could become a movement.
(Source)

Richard Warman, a censorship champion and a compulsive self-googler has sent another warning letter to Connie and Mark, the owners of Free Dominion forum. Once again he's dug out a few more strongly worded postings to add to his collection. Once again, he's upset about being called a censor and an anti-free speech activist who's making money of the "human rights" complaints. Once again, Warman demands that Connie and Mark publish a retraction and remove all the threads where his name is mentioned...

Come on, Warman, you've threatened Free Dominion so many times it's not even funny anymore.

David Little refused to file tax returns as a form of protest against abortion funding. Over 100,000 surgical abortions are performed in Canada every year, almost all of them are funded with our healthcare dollars. No matter how small an individual taxpayer's contribution could be, David wants none of his money to go towards killing unborn babies. He didn't file any tax returns between 2000 and 2002. And even the threat of legal action didn't scare him.

Judge Leslie Jackson handed down the 62-year-old's sentence in Fredericton on Friday. Little has been told he must pay $3,000 or spend 66 days in jail.
...
Little will have until March 31 to file his tax returns and pay his fine. He is scheduled to return to court on April 4 if he hasn't paid, and could be sent to jail.
...
"My whole case is based on my conscience," Little told CBC News outside the courthouse. "It's deeply troubling when people in authority don't have the basic understanding that abortion for many, many people in this country is simple murder, plain murder."

He continued to insist he will not pay the fine.

"I will never enter into any co-operation with government ever again until they change the law," he said."Human beings in the womb are human beings and we shouldn't be paying our money to kill them."
(Source)

Unless the government backs down and replaces jail time with conditional sentence or community service, David Little could actually go to jail come April 4th. So when we gather at the provincial legislatures for the March for Life next May, let's not forget a courageous man who'd rather go to jail than go against his conscience.

MacDonald wrote next to PSAC president John Gordon but his complaint made no progress through the usual grievance channels of the union. He wrote to Gordon on July 26, 2006 saying that he and the union were ignoring his complaint. “I have to believe that your inaction and the lack of respect you have shown to a local president, will only reinforce the belief that many have that the PSAC is anti-Catholic.”
...
MacDonald wrote in his submission to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that the union has created a “stressful and at times hostile” work environment for him as a believing Catholic. Since the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm of heterosexuality, the policy means that in the eyes of the union, those who adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church are ipso facto “heterosexist”.
More >>>

Some follow-up on the legal struggle against the anti-family union bureaucrats. As always, they resort to the same twisted logics: speaking in defense of traditional marriage is "discriminatory", but treating Catholics (or any other Social Conservatives for that matter) as less equals, refusing to respond to complaints (yet not forgetting to collect their union dues) - they see nothing wrong with that.

Shows once again that it's time to bring in the freedom of non-association. Workers that are displeased with the way their union is treating them must have the right to cancel their membership and form a union of their own.

OTTAWA, Canada, November 6, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A member and officer of Canada’s civil service union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), has brought a human rights complaint against the union and the Treasury Board charging them with religious discrimination. David MacDonald alleges in his complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that he was “discriminated against and harassed based on my religious beliefs” by the Treasury board who refused his request to re-direct his union dues to avoid PSAC’s support for “same-sex marriage.”
...
The issue, he stressed, is not a matter of unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, but one of his union forcing him through his dues to support an “inflammatory political cause.”
More >>>

Some believe that unions are there to protect workers' rights. Maybe that's what they were some 50 years ago. Nowadays however, unions prefer to direct their efforts (and members' money) to issues that are completely unrelated to negotiating just wages and working conditions for union members, promoting policies and lifestyles that weaken traditional families, thus perpetuating poverty.

The membership in the union is compulsory. Not only one must become a union member when he gets hired, he has to contribute part of his own salary to perverse causes and activities promoted by the union - with no conscious objections accepted. Somehow the same section 2(d) of the Charter which guarantees freedom of association doesn't guarantee freedom of non-association. At least that's the way judges and unions see it.

Would another law suit (or a human rights complaint for that matter) change anything? Not likely. Complaints submitted by ordinary Canadians against privileged minority groups are most often dismissed almost instantaneously. What we need is the Defense Of Religions Act (which was promised to us a year ago, but which hasn't even been introduced) that will enshrine our rights to conscious objections and make it clear that as Canadians we have not only the freedom of association, but also - the freedom of non-association.

Let's invite the Pope to come to Quebec City in June, 2008 for the Eucharistic congress.

A very serious effort to bring the Pope to Quebec City has been launched by former Quebec cabinet minister Marc Bellemare (now leader of a municipal party, Vision Quebec).

The Pope's presence in Canada would obviously be an opportunity for him to speak out for the culture of life and the rights of unborn children.

Most of North America is enmeshed in the culture of death, but in Quebec it's especially bad. We need a strong voice to defend the unborn.

So please, sign the petition, and all of you: blog this! It's absolutely important. I want the Vatican to be bowled over by the number of signatures this petition receives, so it's important to make a mass effort.

And this includes Americans! Naturally, you would want the Pope to come to your neighbouring country: it's all good. Please blog this as well.

One small hitch: the petition I have is in French, but no big deal.

Go to www.pape2008.com

Click on "Signer la pétition ici".

On that screen you will get a small form. Note:

Prenom = First name
Nom = last name
Courriel = email address

The checkbox asks whether you want your name to show up in the list of signatures. If yes, check it, or leave it blank to keep your name private.

You can also download a PDF version of the petition. Print it out and bring it to your parish. The contact information to return it is at the bottom of the page. Note, no address is needed, as this is not a political petition.

The petition will be sent to the Vatican. The pope will give his answer at the end of November so get cracking!

Over 3400 signatures have been collected in less than a week. Let's bring it all the way to 5 digits. Please sign the petition online (instructions are provided above) or print it out and bring it to your family, your friends and your parish.

For some time now, I have been saying that the revival of Canada begins in Quebec. It sounds crazy and unlikely, but God confounds human reason and does not work according to our plans. Our downfall started in Quebec and our resurrection will emanate from there as well.

If the Pope shows, the Holy Spirit is coming too in an extraordinary way.

Perhaps the wind the Holy Spirit brings will sweep out the liberal corruption with it.

I have my own special reason for the Pope to come. 2008 is a very important year in the history of Canada. It marks the 40th anniversary of the capitulation of the Bishops of Canada to the contraceptive leviathan which is currently decimating our culture.

After you sign the petition to bring the Pope to Canada, please sign The Rosarium’s petition to restore full, authentic unity between Canada and Rome on the question of human life. We have about 1000 signatures to date.

Oremus meus irmãos!
(Source)

Let's work together to make it happen.

Facebook Group: Bring the Pope to Quebec City in 2008!
Related posts:

Suzanne (Big Blue Wave):
Holy Father: Please Come to Quebec City in 2008
John Pacheco (Socon Or Bust):
Bring the Pope to Quebec City!
Let the Tiber Flow in Quebec
Joel Johannesen (Proud To Be Canadain):
Pope visit: Cheaper than a Gore bore lecture, more truthy than a Michael Moore visit
Deborah Gyapong:
Pope Benedict please come to Canada in 2008
Left-Right? Up-Or-Down?:
Bring Pope to Canada 2008
The Bear Diaries:
If you hate abortion...
Dianne (Family Matters):
Dear Holy Father, Canada Needs You!
Cyril P. Bagin (Kairux):
Pope should come to Quebec in 2008
The Catholic Register:
Petition launched to bring Pope to Quebec
Sébastien (Le Québec de Sébastien):
Le pape doit venir à Québec en 2008!
Wanton Popery:
Would you like the Pope to come to Canada? Then sign here!

Jack Layton is proposing a referendum to abolish unelected Senate and it seems like Stephen Harper is inclining to support his proposal. If so - it would make sense to put elected Senate on the very same ballot, so voters could have a little more to choose from than just keeping the Senate as it is or getting rid of it altogether.

After all - if we are to spend tens of millions on a referendum, why can't we put a couple more questions on the same ballot? The first question, just as Jack Layton wants, would be whether or not the Senate should be abolished. A second question should ask whether or not Senators should be elected directly by voters - provided the Senate is not abolished. We could also use the opportunity to get the voters' input on whether or not there should be equal number Senators for each province - which is the key question to the Senate reform.

Let's put all those options on the ballot and let's see which one of them ends up getting the support of over 50% of Canadians from at least 7 provinces. Personally, I believe that as long as we have diverse regions that differ in size and population, the Upper Chamber, where regions are represented equally is still necessary. So I would be glad to join the "no" campaign on the abolition question, and the "yes" campaign on elected Senators as well as on the equal number of Senators per province.

Paul Tuns, the editor of the interim criticizes the Family Coalition Party for "acting like politicians". Paul reminds the FCP that party was founded by Campaign Life Coalition with its purpose being not necessarily to elect candidates to the provincial parliament, but to raise awareness of the abortion issue. He says that the party efforts to drum up support for proportional representation went overboard, especially when Giuseppe Gori began criticizing the CLC and the REAL Women of Canada for their opposition to the proposal.

Maybe so. It's easy to say it now. But why wasn't there more involvement of those organizations in the FCP before the election? If Paul Tuns thought the FCP was headed in the wrong direction, why didn't he come to one of the party's policy meetings or AGMs, so he could say that directly to Mr. Gori? Those policies have been around for years; I remember them being discussed at the AGMs and policy meetings which I attended in 2004-2005. But I don't recall Mr. Tuns or anyone else for that matter speaking against them. If there had been enough volunteers from the CLC and the REAL Women attending those meetings and proposing a better strategy for the FCP - their proposals would have been voted in quite easily.

Same thing with the candidates. Family Coalition Party was determined to run full slate and, while it didn't succeed to nominate a candidate in every riding, the party came up with 83 candidates. That was more candidates than ever before, with much greater share of Ontario voters having FCP candidate on the ballot. Paul Tuns is disappointed because some of the candidates provided nothing more than a name on the ballot and sat silently during the campaign, while others tried to downplay the abortion issue, pretending FCP was nothing but yet another fiscally conservative party.

I agree with Paul - this shouldn't have happened. But my question is - where was the CLC when Giuseppe Gori was looking for candidates? If Paul Tuns checks out the FCP candidate list, he'll notice that some 15 candidates came from just two devoted families. They were there, because nobody else would.

And the question is - why? How come there weren't enough volunteers from the CLC and the REAL Women available to run as FCP candidates? If there had been - then the FCP could have run full slate of candidates, without nominating those who tried to downplay the abortion and family issues. It could have been arranged that the most active candidates ran in the ridings with no pro-life candidates from the mainstream parties, while other constituencies could have a "ballot only" FCP candidate - so that pro-life candidates from the major parties followed their conscience, rather than their socially perverse leaders...

Paul Tuns suggests the party must return to its roots.

With new leadership that is more adept at using the internet and viral campaigns that will focus on the injustice of abortion, the FCP can once again become an important teaching tool in the public square. It can educate the public and put pressure on politicians in regards to abortion.
(Source)

Well said, but where is that devoted pro-life politician, who is ready to commit himself to the job? Where are the pro-life organizations when a pro-life party needs their help? It's easy to say that one does it all wrong. But is there someone ready to get out and do the job right?

Punching a hole in political correctness, No Apologies now offers daily summary of the news we won't find in our local papers.

If you haven't yet heard of No Apologies - it's a Christian Conservative online radio, run by Tristan Emmanuel. It was launched in March and initially offered a 15-30-minute show every Friday. Now it has moved to daily broadcasts; yet another step in challenging the secular monopoly on the mainstream media.

Great job, Tristan! Keep up with the good work!

The fact that the mainstream media is heavily tilted to the left is well known. Of course it's being denied by those speaking on behalf of the media, but researches confirm the obvious.

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."
More >>>

Interesting data, isn't it? And it isn't any better here in Canada. Examples are plenty. Just check out the blog of the Conservative EDA for Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe. They were following the media for a few weeks during the summer and they found at six occasions in which the media was biased towards the Conservative party.

Clearly they are trying to convey that Prime Minister Harper, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and the whole Conservative government could not care less about human rights. In fact the subject is “not on the radar of senior Tories, MacKay says.” There is little in the rest of the story to erase that initial impression created in the opening lines of the article.

In fact, the story was so imflammatory and biased that days later the Globe and Mail had to issue a retraction of their scintillating headline.
More >>>

When it comes to the right to life, the situation is worse. John-Henry Westen gave us some of the statistics during the Conference. While 64% of Canadians believe there must be legal protection for the unborn at least at some stage during pregnancy, over 90% of the journalists fiercely support unrestricted abortions on demand. No wonder the pro-life movement is almost always portrayed as a small minority that tries to turn back the clock, while abortion is presented as a cornerstone of women's rights.

With the mainstream media being one-sided, people must turn to the blogs in search of the alternative points of view.

Looking at the examples from Canada, especially Progressive Bloggers and Liblogs, one can tell quickly — i.e., by looking at a handful of blogs in each group — that they do not provide any new or different angles on the stories of the day. Quite the contrary is true: they merely rehash and quote from the stories in the mainstream media — or worse, from the press releases of political parties — thus offering their readers the same drivel that is also found in newspapers (including the left-wing/politically correct bias).

Global warming and the Kyoto Protocol are two examples of the media telling the public that these are issues they must care about and/or support, and the bloggers on the left keep repeating the same message. To obtain a more realistic and truthful analysis of these topics one has no choice but to turn to non-leftist blogs.
More >>>

Just 10-15 years ago the mainstream media was pretty much unopposed. Now the blogs give us a unique opportunity to challenge the leftist media monopoly. So we better use it while the opportunity is still there.

Great video published by the ECP Centre.

As usual nowadays, secularist reasoning tramples common sense. They insist that religious beliefs should be kept private, yet they encourage public display of individuals' sexual abnormalities. Disrupting a Christian prayer circle is viewed as a legitimate form of protest, but refusing assistance in promoting perverse lifestyle - is a "discrimination"; and if you dare to publish a newspaper ad, listing (not even quoting) the bible verses condemning perverse behavior - oh, that's a "hate crime"...

The message on this Video is shocking, it is a dramatic presentation of the disturbing degree of bigotry and harassment that is targeted against Christians today in Canada.

We explain that, although Canadians do not yet face the same severity of persecution as Christians do in some other countries, the mentality that under girds Canadian anti-Christian bigotry is the same. Left unchallenged it will foment.

Unless Christians put a stop to it by recognizing what is taking place, and get involved while they still have the freedom to do so - with the help of the ECP Centre - the present anti-Christian bigotry will only fertilize the ground for even greater persecution in the future.

Her name is Danielle Van Meppelen Scheppink. She is a 24 year-old registered nurse from London, Ontario. Her goal - to become Canada's next great Prime Minister so (unlike our today's prime minister) she could legislate the Right to Life in Canada.

Her cause is just and her goals are ambitious. I hope one day Danielle achieves her goal and becomes Canada's great Prime Minister.

Meanwhile - here is her Facebook group. Let's wish Danielle all the best :)

You may be skeptical all you want about a "cell that has split in half", but if the life doesn't begin at conception - when does life begin? Is there any other point during human development that could be clearly identified as the beginning of a new life? I repeat - it must be clearly identified, thus there must be a clear difference between "before" and "after".

Some suggest that life starts after birth. Is that so? The biggest problem with that theory is that the time of the baby's actual birth doesn't always depend on the baby's development. There are cases when birth occurs not because the baby is mature enough to survive outside of the womb, but because his mother can't carry him any longer, so the baby still needs special care for a few weeks. And, since Canada allows abortions at any time during pregnancy, it happens sometimes that a baby at much later stage of fetal development could still be aborted - provided he's still in the womb.

Think about it - the same hospital can be proud of saving a life of a baby that was born at 22 weeks and yet at the same time they'll take away life of a 32-week unborn baby just because his mother doesn't want him anymore. The law states that if it ain't breathing, it ain't living. So the late term abortions (so called "partial birth abortions") are performed in a way that the baby's head stays inside - to make sure he doesn't breath...

John-Henry Westen, the founder of Life Site News told us at the conference about what happened during one of those "partial birth abortions". Usually, the abortion provider pulls the baby by the legs, getting him half-way out, then he uses his scissors to break the baby's scull. But that time apparently he had pulled the baby too far, so the baby could get his hand out and grab his executor by the finger. The man's hand jerked, pulling the baby out completely. And the baby breathed.

In the eyes of the law this was already an American citizen, born on the US soil and entitled to full protection under the Bill of Rights. The law already regarded him as a person. But not the murder wearing white robe. He put the baby back in (as if that could make the baby "unborn again") and stabbed him with the scissors - as if the baby had never breathed at all. For him, even the baby's actual birth didn't mean the start of a human life. Neither it did for some of the journalists that reported on the process. For them, it was all about "three inches", rather about when does life begin (let alone the inhumanity and immorality of those "partial birth abortions"). Those who claim that life begins at birth often don't act on their words.

Finally, if that baby's life hadn't started until he breathed, does that mean, that just seconds before, when he grabbed his killer's hand, the baby was still dead? Or was it some sort of "third state" when the baby was neither dead, nor alive? Think about it - a baby was able to move his hand and touch another man's hand (he didn't know this man was there to kill him) - yet at the same time (as poor-choicers claim) he wasn't yet alive. Then what was he?

Obviously, life begins before birth. But could there actually be a certain point during pregnancy at which we could clearly distinguish between a "tissue" (as it's been referred to by abortion providers) and a baby? Some believe that the baby must be "viable", he must have some chance to survive outside of the womb. But that's different for every baby and with the advance of our medical technology the baby that wouldn't have been viable few years ago, would be viable now. In Great Britain, for example, where abortion limits are based on viability, the pro-abortion lobby is doing everything in its power, denying the obvious facts, just so abortion limit doesn't get moved from 24 weeks to 20.

Others suggest that abortions are ok during the first trimester. But what makes an unborn baby at 13 weeks different than the very same unborn baby at 12 weeks and 6 days? A baby at 12 weeks and 6 days has his heart beating. All his vital organs are already present and brain waves can be detected. His little fingers and toes have already formed and got their unique fingerprints permanently engraved. He responds to touches and he can feel pain. His personality is developing already. Often the baby can already hear and recognize his mother's voice... Clearly, the baby at 12 weeks and 6 days is as much alive as he is at full 13 weeks.

What about 12 weeks and 5 days? 12 weeks and 4 days? 12 weeks even? 11 weeks and 6 days? Most of what I listed above is already there. The heart starts beating at 18 days. (18 days, not 18 weeks!) That's 2 weeks and 4 days. Day before that? The heart is not beating yet, but it's already there - growing and ready to function once the time comes...

As we go back step by step, we'll eventually get to day 1. To the very first instant when the unique genetic makeup is formed. That's the only time when we can pinpoint a real change, a transition from "the mother's stuff" and "the father's stuff" (both incapable to last on their own) into a single organism. That's when life begins. There simply can't be any other moment.

Friday, November 30, 2007

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Monday, November 26, 2007

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Friday, November 23, 2007

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Friday, November 16, 2007

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Friday, November 9, 2007

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Friday, November 2, 2007

Thursday, November 1, 2007