Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Honesty Needed In Fetal Rights Debate - 2

It's not the first time Ginette Petitpas-Taylor, Chairperson of the NB Advisory Council on the Status of Women resorts to misstating facts (not to say - lying) when it comes to abortion vs fetal rights debate.

It was just last fall when she accused pro-life protesters of "public bullying of women". Her op-ed in Telegraph Journal, designed to set the minds for a ban on protests near the Fredericton abortuary, pictured "large men, brandishing signs with bloody photos" that are "bussed in every week" to "intimidate women". None of those images had anything to do with reality. Peter Ryan, (unlike Petitpas-Taylor - a Fredericton resident,) denounced those lies in his article titled "Honesty Is Needed In Abortion Debate".

Now Petitpas-Taylor is up in arms against the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. Judging from her claims that bill C-484 "would grant a type of legal personhood to fetuses" and that "it will eventually create a category of behaviours that will be criminal for pregnant women", it seems like she didn't bother to read the bill, choosing to rely on some other sources of information. (Most likely - on pro-abort blogs and newsletters.) She then compares the proposed Act to fetal protection laws in some US states, repeating her allegations that once passed, bill C-484 will be used to persecute pregnant women.

Ken Epp dispels those myths in is article titled "Disinformation does women, babies no favours":
Unlike most of the U.S. laws, including those in South Carolina which Ms Petitpas-Taylor singles out, C-484 applies only when the pregnant woman herself is the victim of a crime.

A mother endangering her unborn child through drug or alcohol abuse is not a victim of a crime, so C-484 cannot possibly apply. And as noted above, C-484 explicitly excludes actions by the pregnant woman, unlike the laws in South Carolina (and various other States) to which C-484 is being compared.
Nobody here has any intention to persecute pregnant women. And the whole claim about "type of personhood" is a complete nonsense - one is either a person or he's not. Bill C-484 won't grant personhood to the unborn, it will merely make it an object worthy of protection from violent attacks.

It's been confirmed by independent law experts that bill C-484 can't be used to criminalize abortions. What Petipas-Taylor & Co apparently fear is that recognizing the value of a wanted unborn baby will eventually bring a change of attitude towards abortion, so that there will be more women voluntarily rejecting it.

And it's sure sad to see that a Chairperson of the Status of Women NB cares more about maintaining public support for unrestricted abortions, than about protecting pregnant women and their babies from violence.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Michael Coren: Put People First

Life matters more than planet on which humans dwell, says Michael Coren in his Toronto Sun article:
Here lies the point. Life matters much, much more than the planet, which is merely a place on which humans live. We need to care for Earth not because of it, but because of us. Pure self-interest. If humanity did not exist, to hell with the planet. It's a means to an end. We're the end; Earth the means.

Problem is, fashionable thinking has reversed the equation. The planet is to be saved because it is precious in itself and we, dangerous intruders, are the problem. Earth is to be revered, loved and even worshipped. Like some perverse replacement theology, Mother Earth takes on the role of real mothers and fathers.

This is why some of the leading spokesmen for the green movement are calling for the world's population to be reduced by 75% and see every birth, particularly in the developed world, as an ecological disaster rather than a living miracle.
They won't allow a scientific discussion but they still pretend that their neopagan suicidal cult is scientifically based. They mock Christianity by wishing each other a "merry solstice", but they cling to a fanatical belief that buying "carbon offsets" will somehow make the air cleaner. Or how about a hotel chain that has replaced the Bible with Al Gore's "inconvenient truth"? To make things worse, earth-worshiping missionaries have virtually unrestricted access to our children:
The same ideologues behind the public school system that has worked so hard for years to expunge classical education from our children and prevent them learning about true greats such as Shakespeare, are obsessed with promoting Earth Day and guaranteeing that if kids know nothing else, they will know how and when to reduce their carbon footprint.
Another reason to choose homeschooling? You bet!

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Kim Campbell To Harper: Dump The SoCons

She believes she knows the way for the Conservative party to win majority. Her advice for Stephen Harper is to be nice to the Liberal-appointed civil servants and to marginalize the Social Conservative wing of the party, making it clear that the CPC won't implement any pro-life or pro-family policies once it wins a majority government.
PARIS - Prime Minister Stephen Harper is running a competent government but should curb his "control freak" tendencies and make clear to Canadians his government won't impose a socially conservative agenda if he wins a majority, according to former prime minister Kim Campbell.
Campbell also said polls indicating Harper has been unable to cultivate enough public support to win a majority government suggest that many Canadians are nervous about the potential impact of the many social conservatives in his caucus with strong opinions on issues like abortion and gay rights.
Well, Kim Campbell sure knows how to win majorities. So if she gives us such a great advice, then each card-carrying CPC member has a moral obligation to follow it to the letter.

Too bad the newspaper ran out of space, so it couldn't publish two other steps Stephen Harper must follow in order to secure a majority in the Commons: He must change the party's name to Progressive Unconservative Party of Canada (PUPC), then he must resign and appoint Garth Turner as a party leader. Then the renewed party will get every single Liberal vote there is.

And what about Conservative voters? Don't worry, they're not going to vote Liberal, are they? They'll vote what the Party tells them to or they'll stay home. Who cares? It's the Liberal voters that matter! So pretend to be as far to the left as possible to lure all the disgruntled Liberals you can get - that's the path to a majority government!

In fact - that's exactly what Kim Campbell tried to achieve back in 1993 with her undefeatable team of extremely progressive Conservatives such as John Tory and Garth Turner. In just seven weeks of the campaign Campbell and her team boosted the party support by almost -20 percentage points, adding as many as -149 seats. Kim herself showed a great performance in her Vancouver Centre riding winning an honorary second place, while her Liberal opponent ended up with less than a third of the popular vote...

Well, I guess that's enough sarcasm for this post. It's sad to see that those directly responsible for the demise of the old PC party haven't learned one simple thing: no Conservative party could ever win without help of the Social Conservatives. When the old PC party of Canada made a sharp turn to the left, Social Conservatives voted Reform. When Ontario PC party did the same under John Tory leadership, most SoCon voters simply stayed home (some cast a protest vote for the FCP). And that's exactly what's going to happen if Harper follows Kim Campbell's advice.

March For Life 2008 - Let's Speak Up For Those Who Can't Be There

Mark your calendars - the National March For Life will take place on May 8th at the Parliament Hill. The rally is scheduled to begin at noon with the march through downtown Ottawa expected to start at 1:30pm.

If you can't attend - check out for information on a March For Life in your province. So far I've found the information on the Marches in Newfoundland, PEI, New Brunswick (May 7), Manitoba (May 11) and Saskatchewan (May 2). (Other provinces, anyone?)

Last year there were about 7000 people at the March for Life in Ottawa with a few thousands more attending the Marches in other provinces. Let's not be silent this year. Let's be there and and speak up for over 100,000 unborn Canadians who fall victims to unrestricted abortions year after year. They can't come to the Parliament hill and speak up for their right to life. If we don't speak up for them - then who will?

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Freedom-Snatching Commissions Won't Back Off

In fact, as Mark Steyn outlines in his new article, Ontario branch of Orwellian tribunals will soon be getting even more power. Now they'll be able to persecute you not just for what they believe is "hate speech" but also for... being hatefully silent.
Happily, beginning on July 1, under Ontario's "human rights" reforms, Commissar Hall will have far greater powers to initiate prosecutions against all and sundry. Under the new proposals, " 'hate incident' means any act or omission, whether criminal or not, that expresses bias, prejudice, bigotry or contempt toward a vulnerable or disadvantaged community or its members." "Act or omission"? Of course. The act of not acting in an insufficiently non-hateful way can itself be hateful. Whether or not the incident is a non-incident is incidental.
In other words - if you don't enforce political correctness vigorously enough - then you must be agreeing with politically incorrect speech, that the freedom-snatching commissions deem hateful. And if you agree with "hate speech" - then of course you deserve to be hauled in front of an extra-judiciary tribunal, to spend thousands in legal defense while the complainer is getting all expenses paid and to be proclaimed guilty based on nothing but a mere assumption that someone's feelings must have been hurt.

To make things worse, anyone branded a "hater" won't even be able to speak up in his own defense. ISPs will simply refuse to host his blog or homepage, because that might be interpreted as "hate incident". Similarly, no newspaper editor will dare to print his letters. There may be no official censorship, but there will be millions of people afraid to say what's on their minds, let alone helping someone singled out by freedom-snatching commissions...

Apparently that's how the "progressives" see their "hate-free" utopia.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Shire Network News Podcast Advocates Free Speech in Canada

From Shire Network News website:
Our interview this week is with Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals and Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury, two of the Canadian bloggers being sued by former Human Rights Commission employee Richard Warman.

Richard Warman has been caught out by several Canadian websites using Canada's human rights machinery to make claims and collect money based on inciteful speech posted on websites.

Speech which sometimes was posted by...Richard Warman, using various pseudonyms.
Other defendants named in that law suit are Ezra Levant and Free Dominion.

As far as I understand, that's already a second law suit filed by Warman against Free Dominion. At first he didn't like that some FD posters called him a censorship champion. Now he's upset that FD and its supporters dared to investigate his activities and shed some light on the provocative tricks he used in his "human rights" complaints...

By the way, dont forget to check the previous podcast (podcast #125) as well. It too gives out lots of great information about Orwellian "human rights" commissions and about the professional complainer and agent provocateur Richard Warman who apparently believes he has the right to be immune from criticism.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Don't Let The Government Raise Your Children

Tina Marie published a great article at No apologies, exposing the link between teaching Evolution as a secularist dogma and teen violence. Sure, she was talking about the US education system, but what happens in Canada isn't much different.
From the time they’re old enough to understand, they are repeatedly taught that they are the product of nothing but random chance. But if life is really about nothing but “random chance”, is there any kind of ultimate purpose in taking your next breath? If you don’t have a purpose, you don’t value life; that includes both your own life and the lives of others. And there you have the core reason for the sky-rocketing murder rates, both in America around the world. If we teach kids that they evolved from animals, why should it surprise us so much when they act like animals?
And here's a couple more quotes from another article. While the article itself isn't about education, some of the passages give us better understanding of what the state-run education system is like and what kind of people are in charge:
Rather than teach us what was good and beautiful about Western Civilization and the country to which our parents had fled, teachers gave us Marxist nonsense, if they bothered to teach at all.
I know your liberal cronies, Barack; they make me check off my skin color on job applications and ask me during job interviews of how I teach multiculturalism, yet don’t know where Slovenia is on the world map.
Again - that's all about the US public schools. But what happens in Canadian public school system isn't much different. We may not have all those racial tensions (or shall I say - not yet?) but our job applications too include questions on whether or not we are members of visible minority groups. Similarly, our public school system too is overrun by radical Marxists, for whom "multi-cult" means excluding European culture, denouncing Judeo-Christian values and purging Christians for expressing opinions that are different than theirs.

So what is the solution? Tina Marie gives a great advice - don't let the government raise your children. Keep your eyes open, join forces with others in your community, and never give up.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

No, Bill C-484 Is Not About Criminalizing Abortions

Bill C-484 seeks to make it a separate crime to kill or injure an unborn child in an attack on his mother. It has nothing to do with criminalizing abortions. That has been recently confirmed by Michel Morin, a law professor at the University of Montreal and by Stephen Scott, professor emeritus at McGill University.
In the opinion Michel Morin, a law professor at the University of Montreal maintains that allegations that the bill was intended to reopen government debate on abortion are unfounded. "The expression 'unborn child' used in the bill already appears three times in the Criminal Code. It is nothing new," he says, referring to the concern expressed by abortion advocates that the proposed bill refers to the fetus as a "child" and not simply as a "fetus".

Mr. Morin points out that "the bill in no way addresses the issue of legal abortion. Therefore, it is unlikely that the bill will be contested on that issue, much less make it to the Supreme Court."

"The only thing that might possibly happen, is that a far-fetched legal suit might go forward," he said. "But the likelihood of that happening is one in a million."
Actually it's not the legal suit that the pro-aborts fear, but an eventual change of people's attitude towards abortion. Once the law recognizes that there's more to an assault on a pregnant woman than just a physical pain and emotional trauma from the assault, once the pain of lost motherhood gets accounted for, there will be more people ready to accept motherhood as a precious gift, rather than as an "accident".

Once the legal system recognizes the unborn baby as a separate body, there will be more people ready to accept unborn babies as persons even if they aren't recognized as such by the law. (And of course it will be much more difficult for the radical pro-aborts to claim that a mother and her baby are "one body".)

Bill C-484 won't re-criminalize abortions. Abortion clinics will remain open. Except there will be fewer people willing to use them. And that's what the radical pro-aborts want to prevent at all costs.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Too Cold For "Global Warming" Nonsense

At least that's the way it was in Western Canada where Lenin's birthday "Earth day" celebrations (ones that are focused on the notion of "global warming") were wrecked by a... cold snap. As the No Apologies reports, the event in Edmonton was only attended by a handful of people, so all 40 exhibitors managed to crowd their wares into a single tent in Hawrelak Park. The "global warming" scare sure lacks credibility when it's below zero in late April...
Indeed, one of the reasons "global warming" morphed into "climate change," beginning a couple of years ago, was so any weather extreme could be interpreted as an omen of impending doom.

Despite the claims of the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki, the planet has not warned appreciably since 1998, itself the warmest or second-warmest year on record. Eight of the last 10 years have not been the hottest in history.

Indeed, if you use 1998 as the base year, the Earth has cooled in the last decade. Even if you use 2002 as Year Zero, there has been no discernable warming. We have entered a "temperature plateau" so far this decade. Even Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, grudgingly had to admit as much a couple of months ago.
Climate change - that has been around all the time. The "Little Ice Age" that drove the vikings out of Greenland is a great example. Don't tell me that too was man-made.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Do You Believe In Life After Birth?

Two unborn babies, a believer and a non-believer are talking inside their mother's womb:

Non-Believer (N): Do you believe in life after birth?
Believer (B): Sure. There must be life after birth. We are here to become strong enough and to get ready for what comes afterwards.

N: That's nonsense, there can be no life after birth. Can you imagine what such life would be like?
B: Well, I don't know all the details but I'm sure there will be more light there than here. Maybe we'll even be able to walk on our own legs and eat with our mouths.

N: What a nonsense! Eating with our mouths — that's ridiculous. We get our nourishment through the umbilical cord. And how are we going to walk around? The cord isn't long enough!
B: I'm sure there must be something. But perhaps everything will be a little different from what we are used to now.

N: But nobody has ever come back from there yet. Life simply ends with birth. After all, life is nothing but the constant feeling of being crammed in the dark.
B: Well, I don't exactly know what it will be like when we are born, but we'll be able to see our mother, and she'll take care of us.

N: Our mother? Do you really believe in mother? And where do you think she is?
B: Everywhere, all around us! We are living in her and thanks to her. Without her, we simply wouldn't exist.

N: I don't believe that! I've never noticed a mother so she doesn't exist at all.
B: Could you tell me then, thanks to whom do we exist?

N: I can't explain it to you just yet. Let us grow a little more and we'll find an explanation to it all. But why don't you tell me where was mother during the contractions? If she is so loving and caring, why didn't she help us? Why did we have to live through that nightmare on our own?
B: I can't agree with you on that. You see, sometimes, when the world around us gets quiet, we could hear her singing and we could feel her caressing the world around us. You know, I honestly think that real life is only awaiting us afterwards, out there...
(Not my text; found it in my inbox few days ago.)

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Time To Stop Subsidizing Porn With Our Tax Dollars

Taxpayers - it appears the Senate is trying to stonewall the wishes of the elected parliament.

Bill C10 which passed by all parties in the House is now being stonewalled by unelected Senators.

That means they are in essence in favor of allowing your tax dollars to freely flow to the movie / arts industry for sex and violence movies with no checks and balances, with no accountability and with no limit of dollars. Over 2 billion tax dollars were "given away" last year.
According to the polls 75% of Canadians oppose subsidies for porn films. But the opponents of Bill C-10 insist that withholding tax credits from movies that feature sex or violence is censorship. Well, if they can't understand the difference between banning the movie outright and simply not using taxpayers money to fund events like the "freakzone international festival" or "trash cinema" - then maybe the government should just abolish those movie credits altogether.

After all, we could find a better use to the $2B. Applied to the income taxes $2B would be enough to raise personal exemption by $1000 (from $9600 to $10,600) which would mean a $150 tax break for anyone with a full-time job. I bet most taxpayers would choose that over government-funded porn.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

McLean's: Protest While You Still Can

The title of this McLean's article says it all: Human rights commissions are undermining the fundamental Charter rights of all Canadians. Protest while you still can.
The net result of allowing Section 13(1) to stand is that all manner of political and social and religious debate is now vulnerable to censure under Canada's ill-defined human rights apparatus. To engage in free and wide-ranging discussion on issues of politics, race, religion, terrorism, fanaticism, foreign policy, or domestic policy is to court being stigmatized as a bigot. That risk will chill discussion of the war in Iraq, the push to introduce sharia law in Ontario, Canada's anti-terrorism act, or Quebec's reasonable accommodation hearings, to name just a few examples. Given that the commissions are not led by judges, but are increasingly staffed by political activists — who aren't required to respect normal rules of evidence, courtroom procedure, or the defence of truth — the system seems fundamentally skewed against anyone who finds themselves accused.
First they came for the independent journalists and "politically incorrect" bloggers. Unless you want them to come for you - protest while you still can.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Poll: Too Much Accommodation To Minorities

There’s a new poll out that says most Canadians feel their country makes too many accommodations to visible minorities. More than 60 percent of respondents to a survey done for CTV and the Globe and Mail say Canada does too much. There was an interesting rural-urban split in the numbers. Folks who live in big cities apparently don’t feel as strongly about this - but even there, a majority of 55% felt there was too much accommodation. In smaller towns, the number was at 71 percent.
Sure there will be plenty of activists out there crying "racism" even louder than the legendary boy cried "wolf". Yet, as the same survey shows, it's not the race that matters nowadays. In fact only 9% of the survey respondents thought encouraging the immigration of visible minorities was a “negative” for the country. Far larger share of respondents (45%) said the problem was in a lack of integration. People aren't comfortable with the way newcomers tend to hold onto their customs and traditions for too long rather than embracing the country that has accepted them.

No, nobody says that newcomers should forget their mother tongue, change their names to John or Jane Doe and start avoiding people from their home country. But when we get tens of thousands of immigrants voluntarily isolating themselves in their neighborhoods and trying to recreate the very same living conditions they supposedly wanted to avoid by leaving their home country - then anyone witnessing this might ask why did they leave their home countries in the first place. And that's a perfectly valid question, which has absolutely nothing to do with racism.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Marriage Question - Nowhere Near Settled

Our politicians may not have the guts to discuss it, but it doesn't mean that the debate over the definition of marriage is actually over. Two great articles on the issue were published today. One, exposing some of the lies told in Canada about the homosexual lifestyle, was published by Wally Moran on the No Apologies website. Another, titled The error that dare not speak its name was published by Michael Coren in the National Post.
The four great and historic qualifications for marriage always have been number, gender, age and blood. Two people, male and female, over a certain age and not closely related. Mainstream and responsible societies have sometimes changed the age of maturity, but incest has always been condemned and, by its nature, died out because of retardation.

As for polygamy, it's making something of a comeback - and here begin the objections.

Whenever this is mentioned by critics of same-sex marriage we are accused of using the slippery-slope argument. Sorry, some slopes are slippery. Polygamy is an ancient tradition within Islam -- and was in Sephardic Judaism and some Asian cultures. When the precedent of gay marriage is combined with the freedom of religion defence, the courts will have a difficult time rejecting it.
That's exactly what the Social Conservatives were saying several years ago, when the definition marriage was debated in the Commons. Back then the response from the anti-family crowd was nothing but mockery.

Since then we had a court decision, according to which a child could have more than two "legal parents". Since then polygamous unions have become eligible for social assistance and there are calls to allow polygamous immigration as well. If love is the only criterion for marriage, as the socially perverse crowd has been telling us, then what legal grounds could there be to justify limiting marriage to just two persons?

Looking back at the marriage debate, it's easy to notice that we had little or no debate on the actual meaning and value of marriage. Instead of discussing whether or not a men-only couple (or a women-only couple) is actually capable of forming a relationship of the same unitive and procreative nature as traditional marriage, the debate question was whether or not we should "legalize something-something marriage".

The term "something-something marriage" implied that we were in fact talking about some sort of a marital relationship and the word "legalize" led many to believe that people may actually get in trouble with the law (or even go to jail) for nothing but living together. And with the media repeating the "something-something marriage" nonsense over and over (to the extent that even some Social Conservatives too started using that terminology) it was just a matter of time until most of the population was "ok" with the redefinition of marriage.

Polygamy supporters have a beaten track to follow; it's just a matter of time until they come up with their own "something-something marriage" term and until some subway preacher of a "m├ętro church of tolerance and inclusiveness" performs a mock ceremony which will be claimed as actual marriage that should be "legalized".

And they will eventually get what they want - unless there are enough people willing to dump the "something-something" prefix off the word marriage and bring the debate back to the actual question. Which is whether or not a relationship other than a unitive and procreative relationship between one man and one woman, that are over certain age and not related by blood is actually a marriage.

And the onus will be on the socially-perverse crowd to prove that it actually is.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Making Freedom Of Conscience A Priority

Bill C-537, a private member bill that would protect the conscience rights of pro-life healthcare workers was introduced today by a Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon — Wanuskewin).

This is the third time Maurice Vellacott introduces a bill to ensure that healthcare workers who respect the sanctity of life are protected from involvement in elective procedures that end up taking one's life away. The previous two attempts were blocked by the pro-abortion lobby in the previous parliaments. Hopefully this bill goes all the way to the Royal Assent.

Introducing the bill in the Parliament this afternoon, Vellacott said:
Mr speaker, the bill would prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human life is inviolable. The bill seeks to ensure that health care providers will never be forced to particiapte against their will in procedures such as abortions or acts of euthanasia.
Unlike the pro-aborts' implied "right" to "abortion access", freedom of conscience is in the Charter. This freedom must be respected. No healthcare worker who respects the sanctity of human life should be compelled to perform a procedure that stops a beating heart.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

I Knew That Radical Pro-Aborts Despise Motherhood

It's not like they're really trying to hide that. I just couldn't imagine they'd sink this low:

Bethany, a moderator at Jill Stanek's Blog posted some pictures of her 6 week-old miscarried unborn baby. One Barbra Walters didn't find anything better to do than photoshopping those pictures and sending them back to the baby's mother with hurtful and humiliating comments.

Here are a few examples of a pro-abort's sense of humor:
Enjoy your child. he looks delicious!

Children. They are the future. But not this one LOL

That lovin' rag!!
and of course -
Happy abortion is happy
There's no way this one could be left out. Barbra Walters couldn't make it any clearer - next time think twice before going against the pro-abortion crowd.

But maybe that Barbra Walters is just a lone radical? Not likely. At least you won't find many of her fellow pro-aborts condemning her actions. For them it's nothing but a "photoshop fun" to which they refer as "warped humor". So what if it hurts the baby's mother? Not only they don't care, but they actually believe she deserves that.
The feminists at JJ's blog are just oozing with sensitivity on the issue:

JJ writes:
But it's a tough old world out there -- you want to advocate the curtailment of womens' rights? You get what's coming to you. Resisting *by any means necessary* includes bombardments of warped humour.
Translated from feminazi slang into plain English: if you object their privilege to kill unborn babies, if you refuse to accept their beliefs about an unborn baby being just a "blob of tissue", if you try to raise awareness of a mother's pain, resulting from the loss of her unborn baby, the pro-abort thugs will do anything in their power to get back at you. So photoshopping the pictures of a dead baby and sending those pictures to the baby's mother is obviously not the lowest they can go.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Liberal Party of Canada - All About Power?

That's what Arthur Weinreb suggests in his recent Canada Free Press article - "The Liberals – they don't even pretend anymore". Analyzing the Liberal recent voting record (or non-voting record to be precise), Arthur suggest that the Liberals are ready to let go of their party's key priorities just to avoid triggering an election.
The party’s entire reason for being is to gain power and once that is achieved is to hold onto it. If there was any ever doubt about this, that doubt vanished last Wednesday.
After weeks of calling these proposals racist and xenophobic, part of some hidden agenda, they did what the Dion Liberals do best. They sat on their hands and allowed the changes to pass. Harper made these amendments part of the budget implementation bill so its defeat would be a matter of confidence and would have led to the defeat of the government and an election. When it comes to a choice between the Liberals vision of Canada and power, they’ll take power every time. This has been the most blatant case of the Natural Governing Party selling whatever principles they have out in an attempt to gain power. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely and the loss of power corrupts even more.
Now there are speculations that the Liberals may eventually move forward on their opposition to the immigration changes and force an amendment even if it results in an early election. I would say - on one condition: provided that Angus Reid or any other pollster brings in a poll in which the red and the blue trade places. Unless that happens, we'll have the lion share of the Liberal caucus missing their buses, getting trapped in the downtown transitway traffic or finding some other reasons not to show up for vote. Because, just as Arthur Weinreb said, Dion wouldn't want to become the first Liberal leader in over 120 years who never gets to be Prime Minister.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Misusing The Word "Phobia"

Al Siebring wrote a great article on the subject, showing us how the word "phobia" (which means irrational fear of a specific object) is being used against anyone whose views are contrary to the political or sociological mainstream.
Take, for example, the notion of “homophobia.” It’s a term that’s attached to anyone who tries to advocate for what has been – pretty much since the dawn of civilization – considered “normal” behaviour in the area of human sexuality. In the past 25 years, our society has arrived at the point where anyone who dares to say that monogamous, hetero relations should be the benchmark for human sexuality has become “homophobic.” In other words, people who don’t think homosexuality is “normal” must have some kind of deep-seated phobia about this. And if it’s a phobia, they must be irrational. What follows from this, of course, is that traditionalists never stand a chance in this discussion. After all, they have a phobia - that’s a “persistent and irrational fear” - and well, there’s no point trying to have a rational discussion with people who are demonstrably irrational.

But that dog won’t hunt with me. I happen to hold to a traditional view of sexuality, and I equally know that there’s not a single shred of “phobia” in my heart on this. I have known homosexuals. I have worked with them. I have befriended them; had them over to my house. Like my other friends, I have disagreed with them at times about various issues, and I’ve told them so. But I’ve never been scared of them. The very notion that I have a “phobia” about this is stupid. But because of the views I hold, I’m homophobic, and therefore irrational. Ergo, neither me nor my views are to be taken seriously in polite company.
If the so called "homophobia" has anything to do with fear - it's nothing but a fear of reprisals from homosexual lobby. But that fear is fully rational. So it's time we demand that our opponents let go of their beloved word. Just like Al Siebring, I'm tired of being called irrational.

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Radical Environmentalism, Politics And Double Standards

Barbara Kay's article titled "Hug the Earth, kill the humans" reveals a few facts about the death-friendly cult of environmentalism, which unfortunately has become quite influential nowadays. Yes, believe it or not, radical environmentalism is in fact a pagan cult, based on anti-natalist teachings (Earth is a victim, men are evil-doers and consumption of natural resources is a grave sin), which calls for ~85% reduction in Earth's population - through abortions, sterilizations and other means of ideology induced suicide.

Earth-worshipers have their high priests like Paul Watson, the chief of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, for whom death of a seal is a "greater tragedy" than death of a sailor. And they have their saints like Toni Vernelli, who had herself sterilized so she doesn't bring any of those resource-consuming, carbon-footprinting babies to the world...

...But those are radicals, aren't they? They don't represent the mainstream "green" movement, do they? Well, here's an interesting fact:
Publicly discomfited, Green party leader Elizabeth May resigned from the advisory board of Sea Shepherd, but tellingly ... wouldn't distance herself personally from Paul Watson. As a faithful adherent to their mutual church — Our Gaia of all that is Non-Human — to which she remains fully committed, May elected to stand by Watson for the sake of his "good work."

But what "good work" can compensate for Watson's advocacy of a population-decimating cap of one billion people, or calling human beings "the AIDS of the Earth?"
Hmm... Let's try to project a similar situation to the other side of the political spectrum. Let's try to imagine the leader of a major pro-life organization (one that would have a prominent Conservative MP on its advisory board) saying it plain and clear that deaths of the unborn babies are, in his opinion, a greater tragedy than deaths of the women. What would become of him?

And what would be the fate of that hypothetical high-profile Conservative MP if he only goes as far as resigning from the advisory board - without condemning the organization outright? I bet, the opposition parties and women's groups would be ripping him to pieces, while the media would have its fun going through the Conservatives' possible connections to the far right and the party's alleged "hidden agenda"...

...When will we see the mainstream media discussing the Green Party's hidden agenda?

Friday, April 11, 2008

Policing The Thought Police?

Looks like the government is finally starting to notice that something is wrong with all those "human rights" commissions. The Federal Privacy Commissioner has launched an investigation into the investigative techniques used in the Mark Lemire case.
Technical records presented at a recent hearing in the Lemire case show that someone using the psuedonym “Jadewarr”, an identity that HRC investigator Dean Steacy has admitted to creating - used an internet connection that was registered to a woman who lived about a block from the HRC office. The woman says she knew nothing about this. Now, office of the Privacy Commissioner admits this could have been a serious breach of privacy.
By the way - that's the same Dean Steacy who once told Lemire's lawyer Barbara Kulaszka that he gives no value to the freedom of speech, because he believes that freedom of speech is an American concept.

Apparently, Mr. Steacy also believes that the right to own property (including internet connection) is also an American concept and so is the one's right to privacy, since he didn't mind using someone else's unprotected wireless network to post provocative messages anonymously. Lemire's lawyer is now demanding that CHRC investigators fully disclose all of the aliases they have used in the course of their investigations.

As the old Roman saying goes - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who's going to watch the watchmen? The investigation launched by the Privacy Commissioner is just the first step. What we need is a full-scale investigation into the laws that gave "human rights" committees the authority to override people's constitutional rights, including property rights and privacy rights, let alone the freedom of speech as well as the right to a fair trial.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Scrapping The "Born Gay" Myth

Militant homosexuals want us to believe that their sexual behavior is innate. Ryan Sorba challenges that concept. As the Mass Resistance website reports, his blockbuster speech on “The Gay Gene Hoax” silenced pro-homosexual crowd at Framingham State College.
The concept of a “gay gene” started out as marketing strategy and has had stunning success. But the mountain of historical and contemporary evidence – from both ends of the political spectrum – make one wonder how anyone could believe it. That’s what author and researcher Ryan Sorba laid out before a full lecture hall at Framingham State College on Monday evening, March 31.

It appeared that at least three-quarters of the nearly 60 people in attendance were homosexual activists. ... At the beginning, you could feel the tension in the air.

But Sorba’s speech and his demeanor was quite powerful, and the crowd was silent, even polite.
As often happens at these kinds of speeches, it appeared that nearly all of the homosexual activists had never heard these arguments before. They were clearly affected by them. You could see the confusion (and a little anger) in their eyes as their ideological world was being taken apart. Plus, they were so used to dealing with this issue in an emotional and illogical way that they are rhetorically crippled when forced to deal on a logical and factual basis.
Muzzling the truth never succeeds. People could be silenced, but there's no way one could silence common sense.

The book is expected to be released within 6 to 9 months. But a draft copy with lots of great information is already available on the Mass Resistance website. Let's see if militant homosexuals can find any arguments against it. Except for their beloved buzzwords such as "bigotry" and "hate", of course.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Professional Complainer Strikes Again

Richard Warman is suing Ezra Levant as well as several other known Conservative bloggers. Their "crime" - exposing Warman's dirty deeds, such as posting provocative messages on websites against which he then filed his "human rights" complaints, let alone using the HRCs to silence anyone Warman doesn't agree with. Warman believes exposing those facts about him is libelous and defamatory.
Today I was sued by Richard Warman, Canada’s most prolific – and profitable – user of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. As readers of this site know, Warman isn’t just a happy customer of section 13 and its 100% conviction rate, he’s a former CHRC employee, an investigator of section 13 thought crimes himself. In fact, he was often both a customer and an investigator at the same time.
Warman’s not just suing me. He’s suing some of the biggest names in the Canadian blogosphere – from Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals to Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury (or, Five Feet of Furry, as the lawsuit says on page 2), to Free Dominion, the largest conservative chat site in Canada. Warman’s goal is breathtaking in its chutzpah: he wants to muzzle the Canadian conservative Internet. It’s not just his goal – it’s the goal of the CHRC itself, and its friends at the Canadian Jewish Congress, who have stated their goal is to “tame” the Internet – or at least those voices they disagree with. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the CJC was bankrolling Warman’s lawsuit – they’ve done joint legal work together before, and Warman’s number one defender is on the CJC’s legal committee. The CJC hates conservatives, and this would be a way for them to do damage to the conservative blogosphere without taking the political flak for it.
I guess, me and other bloggers have already said enough about Warman and his campaign against freedom of speech on the internet. All I can add to it is this:

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." -- Abraham Lincoln.

P.S. Looks like we've got some good news too. As SoCon or Bust reports, Ontario HRC has decided not to proceed with complaints filed against Maclean’s magazine related to its publication of an article “The future belongs to Islam.”, stating that Ontario Human Rights Code does not give the Commission the jurisdiction to deal with the content of magazine articles through its complaint process.

Does this mean that Mark Steyn is off the hook? Not really. Judging from the comments posted on SoCon Or Bust, this merely removes Ontario HRC off the case. But with a few more active complaints still pending in other HRCs, it doesn't leave Mark Steyn off the hook just yet.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

"Yes, these are all my children; and they're awesome!"

A great T-shirt and a great response to all those anti-family activists from the pro-aborts to population control freaks.

P.S. No, that's not my T-shirt (the pic was originally posted on the SoCon Or Bust blog). But it's just a matter of time until I get myself one of these.

Monday, April 7, 2008

Denormalization Of Social Conservatives

From Deborah Gyapong's blog:
I suppose that someone who refers to social conservatives as knuckle-draggers must be a Darwinist at heart and believes human beings ascended by chance from the primordial slime and evolved to our present state via natural selection.

In this modernist, "rationalist" view of progress and evolution, I presume he thinks social conservatives, however, failed to evolve and still have ape-like qualities such as the long arms and short legs that make knuckle-dragging possible. Another explanation could be that social conservatives---especially those who populate the Conservative Party Caucus-- are so backwards and inbred that they represent genetic throwbacks.
That's what Tom Lukiwski gets for the humiliating apology he was so quick to deliver. Apart from denouncing his comments from 17 years ago and describing his behavior back then as "stupid, thoughtless, and insensitive", Tom went as far as suggesting that "they are words that should not be allowed to be spoken today, either publicly or privately". (Is freedom of speech still in the Charter?)

Not only that wasn't enough for anyone calling for his head - the Conservatives ended up getting some more bashing from the media. Just as I said couple days ago, bullies never let go of someone who's begging for mercy. Playing along won't help. It's time to stop apologizing.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Abortion Providers Lying To Women

Here's a great article by Barbara Kay. It analyzes some of the risks associated with abortion and compares the facts to what abortion providers actually say about the procedure.

One of the most common risks to abortion (apart from breast cancer) is the extremely pre-term birth or XPB:
Sometimes XPB is just bad luck. Sometimes it isn't. According to obstetrician Barbara Luke's classic Every Pregnant Woman's Guide to Preventing Premature Birth, "If you have had one or more induced abortions, your risk of prematurity with this pregnancy increases about 30%." After two, a woman's chance of an XPB doubles. A woman who has had four or more abortions runs nine times the risk of XPB, an increase of 800%.
But you'll never hear that from any pro-abortion organization, let alone - from the abortion clinic personnel. And even if someone asks them about possible risks - they'll be lying shamelessly, suggesting there's absolutely no risk associated with having one abortion after the other.
The Morgentaler clinic does not offer consultations prior to abortions. One signs the consent form and proceeds directly to the abortion. A consultation was only reluctantly arranged at Johanne's insistence.
At the Clinique Medicale de l'Alternative, Johanne was received with less suspicion. As at the Morgentaler, there is no consultation prior to the abortion. (I stress this because where prior counselling is offered, as in Sweden, fewer women choose to abort).

Johanne asked a doctor there the same questions, and again, was there a risk to future pregnancies associated with a second abortion? "No, a woman can have one, two, three, four, five abortions with no problem ?"
Imagine an employee of any other medical clinic caught lying to the patient, denying any possible side-effects of a procedure he was pitching... A massive malpractice lawsuit and an immediate dismissal for anyone involved in the fraud would be instant consequences.

But abortions and abortion providers appear to be above the law. Abortions are performed with no prior consultation; without informed consent - false information and outright lies can't be considered as such. Judging from the way radical pro-aborts in New Brunswick oppose the provincial regulations which require abortions to be performed in a hospital by a gynecologist, it would be reasonable to conclude that abortuaries don't necessarily have the best qualified people to perform this injurious procedure...
So the fact that women are guinea pigs is something else you won't see on the pro-abortion fact sheets or on consent forms. What other abortion risks are women not being warned about? Too many to mention in one column, that's for sure.
Can't agree more.

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Tommy Douglas Says The Darndest Things

Well, if the NDP can't let go of what a Saskatchewan MP Tom Lukiwski said some 16 or 17 years ago, why can't we go further back (some 30, 40 or 50 years) and see what Tommy Douglas, the founder of the NDP and the role model for Canada's left used to say back then:
Back in 1988, when the Sun's Paul Jackson was at the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, he broke a startling story that showed Tommy Douglas, now revered by the CBC as "the greatest Canadian of all time," eagerly recommending the castration of homosexuals and chronic criminals.

Douglas had expressed these views in his master's thesis at McMaster University.

He had other alarming recommendations on the various measures to be taken against Natives, French Catholics, and other (as he saw them) dubious members of society.

Were these the outpourings of Douglas' fervent youthful hysteria?

Not at all. He wrote the thesis when he was 30 years old and repeated some of the same ideas a few years later.
And if you don't believe the Calgary Sun, the No Libs blog has this video for you:

So when Tommy Douglas says that, the CBC names him "the greatest Canadian of all time". I wonder if we should nominate Tom Lukiwski and Larry Spencer as the greatest Canadians of all time...

What actually bothers me with this whole story is the way Tom Lukiwski gave in to the pressure of a bunch of militant perverts. Instead of making it clear that one public retraction is enough and that it's time for them to let go of a silly joke uttered nearly two decades ago, it almost seemed like he was begging for forgiveness. As if those bullies would ever leave alone someone who begs.

Friday, April 4, 2008

Scrapping The Penny? Good Idea To Be Poorly Implemented.

Yes I believe that it's time to let go of the penny. The coin is worth so little that it doesn't make any sense using it. At the same time - it costs the government about $130M every year to produce 12M worth of pennies. That's 1.2 billion coins, the lion share of which goes nowhere but the penny jars. I believe it's time to cash those in. Let those tons of copper be melted down and put to a good use.

Many people are worried that prices may go up once the penny is withdrawn; that merchants will always be rounding the prices up. That however didn't happen in Australia and New Zealand when those countries had abolished their 1- and 2-cent coins in early 1990s. Neither does it happen at our gas stations. Despite the lack of a coin worth one tenth of a cent, gas prices always include fractional value, such as 112.9¢. The 0.9¢ counts towards calculating the final amount of the purchase - but then the amount gets rounded up or down to the nearest penny.

Once the penny is gone - final amounts (not the actual prices) will be rounded up or down to the nearest nickel, making some of the purchases 1 or 2 cents more expensive and others - 1 or 2 cents cheaper. Overall, prices won't change. So I believe, scrapping the penny is a good idea. But demonetizing the coins overnight, leaving millions of Canadians with jars, piggy banks and charity cases full of useless scrap metal, as NDP MP Pat Martin proposes in his private member bill C-531 - is not the right way to do so.

Instead, Royal Canadian Mint could just stop producing any more pennies. As simple as that. Let's see how the money circulation goes without some 3-4 million pennies being minted each day. Then, once we see that people can handle the lack of pennies, the banks can start withdrawing the coins - just as it was done with the $1000 bill - once they get deposited, they're not released back into the circulation. Then, once most of the coins are withdrawn, it would make sense to demonetize the rest - most of which will have been melted down, used as washers by some handymen or otherwise destroyed anyway.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

Dispelling Pro-Abort Lies

On April 1st the National Post published Joyce Arthur's op-ed in which she accused Suzanne Fortin of "distortion of facts" about bill C-484, also known as Olivia Law or the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. Ms Arthur claims the bill is "all about abortion". Ken Epp, the MP who introduced the bill, dispels those lies.
Joyce Arthur says that referring to a human fetus as a "child" in my bill C-484 is "unprecedented" in the Criminal Code (CC). In fact the exact opposite is true. I used the term "child" precisely because that is the term currently used in the CC to refer to a woman's offspring before birth — not "fetus."
Furthermore, the very section of the CC which my bill amends, namely 238, also uses the term "child" to refer to the unborn child/fetus.

My bill extends criminal law protection to unborn children in a very narrow circumstance that is not currently covered by section 238, using existing CC terminology, and despite the fact they are not considered "human beings" in the code. As the Law Reform Commission of Canada pointed out in its 1989 report: "to decide whether to give the foetus criminal law protection we don't need to decide if it is a person — There is nothing which limits criminal law protection to persons."
Ralph and Rachel Mooney from Woodstock, Ont sent their own letter to the editor. They wonder how could anyone be against the bill that protects the unborn child, which the pregnant woman has "chosen" to keep and is looking forward to cradling, loving and enjoying... They are right. Except that Ms Arthur doesn't really care about women, let alone their babies. All she cares about is abortion.

She is against the bill, because if harming a "wanted" unborn baby is recognized as a separate crime, that would leave absolutely no place for those ridiculous claims (brought forward by pro-abortion fanatics from "bread and roses") that a mother and her unborn baby are "one body and one person".

She is against the bill because recognizing a "wanted" unborn baby as an object (not even as a person) worthy of protection will contribute to the attitude change towards abortion. That's what Ms. Arthur is afraid of. That's why she keeps distorting the facts about bill C-484, claiming the bill is against abortion, even though section 7 of the bill specifically excludes abortion as well as any act or omission by the baby's mother. Even a hypothetical threat to this secularist sacrament she cherishes so much is too much for her.

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Professional Complainer And His 157 Memory Lapses

Richard Warman turns out to be not only the most easily-offended man, but also - the most easily-forgetful.
In his case against Marc Lemire, Richard Warman was cross-examined on his testimony for three and a half days. He answered "I don't remember" 157 times. You can read through those three and a half days' worth of transcripts, or see a handy compilation here.
So are we supposed to believe that people with Alzheimer's can pass the bar in Ontario? It might have worked if we hadn't known better. Judging from the threatening letters that Connie and Mark, the owners of Free Dominion, received from him last fall, Warman is not really the forgetful type.

His claim notice lists over 60 postings in which his actions are described as censorship, bullying and making money off "human rights" complaints. It almost seems like Warman remembers everyone who's ever called him a jerk. Thus - his 157 sudden memory lapses at the cross-examination can't be blamed on Alzheimer's. I doubt they could also be blamed on a car crash, a brick fall or radiation poisoning or anything else except Warman's unwillingness to tell the truth.

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

CHRC - A Law Unto Themselves

Great essay by Lorne Gunter (as per Ezra Levant - his best column yet) on the methods used by "human rights" commissions to prove one guilty.
After years of investigating Lemire, CHRC investigators had too little proof that he was a hatemonger to proceed to a hearing. So they began logging onto his website under an assumed name, "Jadewarr," and posting provocative comments in hopes of obtaining racist replies they could then use in their case again Lemire.

To cover their activities, it appears commission employees logged onto the Internet through a wireless connection they detected in a woman's apartment near their offices, rather than using the commission's own server. They neither sought the woman's permission nor acquired a judicial warrant to tap into her computer.
These are the actions of people who have become a law unto themselves. They have convinced themselves that their goal -- the eradication of hatred as they see it -- gives them licence to run roughshod over traditional legal protections against wrongful conviction.

If they are convinced you are guilty, yet cannot gather enough evidence to prove it, they are not above manufacturing proof. There is no innocent until proven guilty. You are guilty once they decide you are and they will prove it no matter what.
You can see this in the words of lead CHRC investigator Dean Steacy. Asked by Lemire's lawyer, Beverley Kulaszka: "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?" Steacy replied, "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept." Pardon me? Freedom of speech is entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Charter also says that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. The supremacy of God was the first to go, when activist judges and politicians started interpreting "separation of church and state" as separation from traditional values and basic human morals. Now it's the rule of law that's being sacrificed to enforce political correctness.