Monday, June 30, 2008

How Did We Lose Our Canada?

Most revolutions are declared, fought, won and then consolidated. How long they last depends on how they evolve, or how much repression they can bring to bear.

But the Canadian revolution of 1968 was not declared, only fully visible in retrospect, and has not entirely replaced the ancien regime. This makes it the most unusual revolution in history. Even today, fewer than ten per cent of the people of Canada understand that a revolution has taken place, although perhaps half of them accept most or all of its principles.

As a result, Canada is a nation governed alternately by representatives of the revolution and the ancien regime, and the gulf between them continues to widen. Rather than being in dialogue, they operate along separate channels, without much interaction, just a mutual fear and loathing.
Here's a great research posted by Peter O'Donnell on Free Dominion. Peter analyzes the political and cultural trends that turned out to be nothing less than a social revolution, as they had reshaped the old Dominion of Canada into a Soviet-like state where secularism, multi-cult and pseudo-environmentalism are enforced by unelected officials.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Order Of Canada - For Genocide Of Canadians?!

Radical pro-aborts have apparently succeeded in their effort to get Morguentaler nominated for the Order of Canada - not without backdoor deals and protocol violations.

Morguentaler's nomination was rejected by the Advisory Council back in February. On February 20th the office of the Governor General confirmed in its press release that Morguentaler was not included on the list for 2008. Still the pro-aborts kept trying to sneak their idol through the back door and apparently they've got their wish. It's alleged that Madam Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin overruled the traditional protocol which required unanimous approval and forced the Chancellery to accept a majority decision instead.
TORONTO, June 28 /CNW/ - It has come to the attention of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) that the Governor General intends to bestow the Order of Canada on abortionist Henry Morgentaler on July 1st.

"It is dreadful that this honour should even be considered for a man who's only claim to fame is that he is a professional killer of defenseless babies in their mothers' wombs," said Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition. "Those who have received this prestigious medal should return it because it will have been devalued and disgraced," he continued.

"If Morgentaler had any integrity he would refuse the medal", said Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organizer of CLC. "This presentation should be given to people who have made Canada a better place to live and the elimination of thousands of human beings who would have contributed to the future of Canada is a disgrace not an honour."

Campaign Life Coalition calls on the Federal Government to address the Governor General stating the inappropriateness of this action. Concerned people should contact the Governor General's office and express their disgust.
If that is true; if the Governor General of Canada is willing to award the Order of Canada to a man whose action have resulted in deaths of nearly 3 million Canadian babies - it will not only devalue Canada's highest civilian honour. It will expose the immorality of Canada's governing elite to the world, leaving a shameful mark on Canada's history for generations to come.

How could any statesman (or any person acting as such) consider granting an award that is given to those select few that worked hard to make their country better to a man who has unleashed a terrible genocide upon his adoptive country? How could a highest civilian honour be granted to a man known to have personally killed tens of thousands of babies before they had a chance to see daylight? If there is an award Morguentaler truly deserves for his "outstanding contribution" - it's the nazi iron cross.
Canada's pro-life groups are not taking any chances and are urging an immediate strong public response to hopefully circumvent this apparent high jacking of the Order of Canada process by the pro-abortion Chief Justice, Governor General and other members of the Advisory Committee for their own agenda.

Please contact the Office of the Governor General to express your outrage.

Note: The Prime Minister does not control who is nominated for the Order of Canada but can exercise a degree of moral persuasion upon the committee and could publicly denounce the decision.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

It's Time To Let Go Of The Grudge

Many in Atlantic Canada may still regard Stephen Harper as "too much of a Westerner" and may still hold a grudge against the Conservatives because of last year's equalization dispute. But who said the Liberals with their carbon tax are going to be better for Atlantic Canada?

So far the Liberals have already had to make some changes in their carbon tax scheme, trying to make it look slightly better for Nova Scotia. Still, with coal being the primary target of Dion's tax plan, it's hard to see how this could ever be acceptable (let alone - beneficial) to a province like Nova Scotia.
Nova Scotia & Newfoundland better pay heed to what Steffi is telling the west about the carbon tax. Our economies are going to be wrecked badly by this carbon tax & he doesn't give a s##t about us. Mind you the results of his would be handiwork wouldn't be anywhere near as catastrophic as it will be for Alberta & Saskatchewan, but given how fragile our economy is here in NS, we're gonna get hurt by this.
Well said. It's time for the provincial politicians (as well as for voters who still can't forget the leftover PC party) to let go of the grudge, take an unbiased look at the major parties and decide for themselves which party they would want to form the next government.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Who Needs A Family When You've Got A Government?

Instead of supporting the family, many governments are usurping its prerogatives, Brian Lilley says in his article. I can't agree more:
The late Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau famously said, “The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nations.” The remarks were made by Trudeau when, as Justice Minister in 1968, he sought to decriminalize homosexual acts and relax Canada’s restrictions on abortion. Forty years later, the Canada Trudeau left behind still seems to believe that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation — but can make itself very active in its living rooms.
In fact, the government has no choice but to be active in our living rooms. How else would all those militant secular pro-abort and anti-family folks prevent their ranks from shrinking? Just compare the birth rates and you could easily see what exactly would happen to the socially perverse crowd if parents were allowed to raise their children without the secular fundamentalist brainwashing.

Case Dismissed - The Problem Remains

The federal "human rights" commission has followed its Ontario counterpart and dismissed the complaint against Mclean's. That however doesn't let Mclean's and Mark Steyn off the hook, as the very same complaint is still being reviewed by the star chamber in BC. Neither does the CHRC decision address the actual problem which the "human rights" commissions have become in the past decade.

The problem is that technically - anyone who believes that his feelings have been hurt can file a complaint against just anyone. That's right - just anyone against anyone. With the way the freedom-snatching committees operate, the complainer doesn't have to be the direct victim. All he needs is to explain in writing why does he think someone's article or blog post or even a joke is "likely to expose" a member of a designated victim group to hatred and contempt - and he's got his complaint going.

Dismissing the complaint against Mclean's does nothing to address the flawed arbitration, employed by the HRC. The truth is not a defence in the star chambers. The right to a fair trial doesn't exist. The very same complaint could be filed in multiple jurisdictions at the same time - after all, the complainer gets all his legal expenses paid by the taxpayers. It's the respondent who must spend thousands if not tens of thousands to defend himself and his business...

Sure, I'm glad that the complaint against Mclean's was dismissed. But we shouldn't stop there. We need to make sure that motion M-446 is voted on and that section 13.1 is deleted from the "human rights" act. We need to have the commission mandate reviewed, so that kangaroo courts could be brought under control and reformed, if not abolished altogether.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

A "Human Rights" Complaint Over A Bad Joke

No, it's not a joke. A Toronto comedian Guy Earle has got a key role in a tragicomical farce named "human rights in Canada".
A Canadian stand-up comedian will face a human rights tribunal hearing after a woman complained she and her friends faced a "tirade of homophobic and sexist comments" while attending one of his shows.

In a decision released this week, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled there is enough evidence to hear the case of Vancouver woman Lorna Pardy against Toronto comedian Guy Earle. Zesty's Restaurant in Vancouver, where the May 22, 2007, show took place, was also named in the complaint. The restaurant has since closed.

Pardy could not be reached Wednesday for comment. However, the tribunal's decision says she alleges she was discriminated against over her sex and sexual orientation when Earle made public comments "intended to humiliate her." The ruling says Earle and Pardy "have very different versions of who was to blame for the incidents, how it came about and how it escalated." There is also a dispute over what role alcohol played in the incident.
Reached Wednesday, Earle said he was the show's MC when Pardy and two of her friends walked in, sat in the booth closest to the stage and began heckling him and other comics.

"Two of them started making out, flipping me the bird and saying I hated lesbians," he said.
Somehow this whole story doesn't look like a typical discrimination scenario when a person is greeted with the sign saying "no dogs or {people of your kind} allowed". Neither does it look like a situation when the "undesirable" person is allowed in, yet has to face insults and humiliating jokes until he has no choice but to leave the place.

Could it be that Pardy and her perverse "girlfriends" provoked Guy Earle's sarcastic remarks with their heckling? After all, it's not the first time when militant homosexuals attend an event with a sole intention to disrupt and then - pretend to be the victims. The restaurant in which the ill-fated performance took place (and which was also named in the complaint) is no longer in business. Is this a mere coincidence?

Most of the people who commented on the news release, seem to have no illusions about those "human rights" complaints and the quasi-judiciary tribunals with a 100% conviction rate that process them. But Guy Earle has already admitted that he used comments which he now regrets. In the eyes of the star chamber commissars that means nothing but conceding defeat. Too bad Guy Earle chose to give up rather than using his wit and sarcasm against the freedom-snatching commissions.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

New Poll Confirms Strong Support For Bill C-484

Looks like Canadians don't buy into all that fear-mongering and misinformation which the pro-aborts have unleashed against the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. The support for bill C-484 remains about the same as it was last fall.
According to the Angus Reid survey: "Two-thirds of respondents (68%) would like their Member of Parliament to vote in favour of this bill, while 13 per cent are opposed and 18 per cent are not sure. Atlantic Canada (80%) and Alberta (77%) hold the highest levels of support for the bill, while Quebecers (54%) are less enthusiastic."
Unlike radical pro-aborts, most people realize that unborn babies are valuable to their mothers thus they support the bill which would make it a separate crime to harm a wanted unborn baby while committing a crime against the mother. And, unlike our politicians, they don't put ideology ahead of women's right to give birth.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Big Brother Says "No Opt-Outs"

As if Canadians haven't seen enough attacks on parental rights lately, more bad news came recently from BC. The Vancouver board of education announced its plans to enforce a ministry policy that prevents parents from pulling students out of classes that indoctrinate children into accepting perverse lifestyles as "alternative sexuality".
According to ministry guidelines, students can only opt out of the health portions of Health and Career Education K to 7, Health and Career Education 8 and 9, and Planning 10.

They aren't exempt from the lessons completely and must learn the material outside the classroom setting, by home instruction or self-directed studies.

They also have to prove they've learned the material.
In other words the choice is between learning about perverse lifestyles in class or studying the same thing at home - and then demonstrating to the instructor that they understood the material and that they understood it the way the instructor wants them to.

And, according to the Vancouver board of education, parents should be lucky to have even that, because no opt-out will be allowed of any other classes containing controversial material. Moreover - perverse sexual indoctrination will be entrenched into the general school curriculum in a way that classes containing controversial material can't be identified:
Edward Da Vita, a spokesman for the Catholic Civil Rights League, said he would prefer parents be able to pull their children out of any class containing controversial material. "The problem now is that controversial subject matter can be brought up any time, anywhere, and there is no reasonable alternative delivery available for that," he said.
Well, if the parents can no longer protect their children from controversial content at school - how about pulling the children out of the public school system altogether? There are private and religious schools - expensive yet efficient.

And there is home schooling. Even if none of the parents can afford to stay home full time - a few homeschooling families could arrange it so that each adult doesn't have to take more than a single day off every two or three weeks. Sure, even that will result in a slight loss in pay, but the opportunity to give children the right education is worth the sacrifice.

Monday, June 23, 2008

A Fraud In The Name Of "Mother Earth"

We've been hearing a lot about "man-made global warming" (or "man-made climate change") resulting from the greenhouse gas emissions. What is never told is that greenhouse gases (including water vapors) constitute about 1% of the Earth's atmosphere. Only 0.28% of them are man-made. That's 0.28% of 1% or ~28 parts per million. Now that's turning up the heat!..

"It's about votes, not Mother Earth", says Lorrie Goldstein in his Toronto Sun article. I couldn't agree more.
Most politicians don't know what the Kyoto accord says.
They think it's an environmental treaty. It's not. It's an economic treaty.

Its purpose is not to reduce GHG emissions -- under it GHG emissions are guaranteed to rise.

Kyoto is a United Nations treaty designed to transfer wealth from the developed world to the developing world by charging the developed world for the right to emit carbon.

That's hardly surprising given that wealth redistribution from rich nations to poor ones is the goal of most countries belonging to the UN.
And what about the ordinary middle-class people? What can they expect from Kyoto-related scams? You'll find the answer in this great essay. It was posted by Steve Janke slightly over a year ago, but the only thing that changed since is that instead of voluntary "carbon offsets" we have carbon taxes, mandatory for everyone living in BC and Quebec.
The vast majority of the people in the middle -- the vast majority who all own TVs and drive cars to work and live in detached homes with central air conditioning -- those people have to choose as well in this carbon neutral world. But they don't really have a choice, do they? If they were so wealthy that they could pay the 20% or more surcharge to buy offsets, then they wouldn't be middle class. On the other hand, what can they reduce? Refuse to take jobs that can't be reached by bus, only live in multi-family apartment units, make do without air conditioning -- sounds like a major move down the social ladder.

And that made me think more -- can a carbon neutral society even have a middle class? And what is a society in which the middle class doesn't exist, or is almost invisible? It was like that in the Middle Ages, wasn't it?
Sure, the pro-Kyoto crowd would be quick to dismiss that as fear-mongering. But somehow this essay corresponds quite well to the Green's not-that-hidden agenda. Their "eco game" which tells people at what age they should have died to avoid consuming too much, is emphasizing on "eco-spending" and "green investments" far more than on actual conservation. Using a cab is considered better than using a bicycle because it leaves you with less money to spend - that's the way those eco-freaks see it. Steve had been able to see that coming a year before the "eco-game" was posted online.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Carbon Tax Swindle — More Taxes, Higher Prices

Finally the numbers are in. Finally we know that if implemented, the carbon tax will start at $10 per tonne, increasing gradually over 4 years until it reaches $40 per tonne. Applying this price to the calculation example in Wikipedia gives us the following fuel levy per litre: $0.094 for gasoline, $0.108 for diesel and $0.102 for jet fuel.

Sure, Dion has promised to eliminate the existing 10-cent excise tax on gasoline to compensate for the 9.4 cents per litre carbon tax. But no such promise was made for diesel fuel. Thus shipping gasoline will cost more. Producing gasoline too is going to be more expensive. Therefore even without the new direct tax on gasoline, the price of gas will go up.

Expect higher heating bills since carbon tax will also apply to propane and heating oil. Your hydro bills too will go up - depending on the energy source, the carbon tax will be ranging between 2.13 and 4.13 cents per kilowatt-hour. Natural gas will be taxed at 7.75 cents per cubic meter. Planning a vacation? You'll have the carbon tax on top of the fuel surcharges that are already there...

But what about the tax cuts that are supposed to offset the effect of carbon tax? The numbers are in; recalculating the percentages into the actual rates gives us the following scenario: The lowest 15% tax rate will be reduced to 13.5%. The two middle rates (22% and 26%) will be reduced by 1 percentage point - to 21% and 25% respectively.

Thus, an individual with a $37,885 income will be saving about ~$370. A single income family that makes $75,769 will be saving ~$600 less $30 for every child they have. Will that be enough to offset higher heating and hydro bills? Will that be enough to offset higher shipping prices which the businesses are going to pass along to the consumers?

Rebates? Don't hold your breath. If those rebates are calculated using the same formula as the GST credits, then neither the individual nor the family I brought as example will qualify. So, with the numbers handy it's obvious that we have a green tax swindle rather than a green tax shift. Ladies and gentlemen, watch your pockets!

Saturday, June 21, 2008

CHRC's Achievement In Doublethink

CHRC has launched an "independent review" of its policies. Independent of what? - George Jonas asks in his National Post article. He provides a great review of the freedom-snatching commission, its policies as well as viewpoints held by the Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch:
To use a kinder metaphor, balancing perceived contradictions between freedom and human rights is Ms. Lynch's act on the high wire. Ms. Lynch seems proud of being a free speecher as well as a human rightser, presumably because she considers it an achievement in doublethink, defined as holding two contradictory notions in one's head.

"Freedom of expression is the foundation of a free, open and inclusive society. It must be preserved," Ms. Lynch intoned on Tuesday, then two paragraphs later said: "What is not permissible, however, is to use free speech as a cover for hatred."
In fairness, she isn't alone. Propositions such as "colliding freedoms" and "competing human rights" have spawned complex schools of legal-political thought that extend across the political spectrum. The result is liberalism lobotomized. For the purpose of social engineering, we call human ambitions "human rights," then enforce the first ("Boss, I want to be a foreman") at the expense of the second ("Not in my shop, Miss") to the point of absurdity until, in CHRC's utopia, a human ambition called "Doctor, I want to be a woman" trumps a human right called "I only do necks and noses, sir." Far fetched? There has already been an example.
Meanwhile, after a pro-HRC 'human rights' lawyer Pearl Eliadis singled out the Blazing Cat Fur blog as "poisonous" for being one of the most outspoken against the freedom-snatching committees, some at Free Dominion (and not just there) are wondering if the blog author is next to be targeted. Hopefully that doesn't happen. But you can never be sure nowadays.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Prison Sentence To German Homeschooling Parents

To say this is terrible and outrageous is to say nothing.
June 19, 2008 ( - The parents of a homeschooling family in the German state of Hesse have each been sentenced to three months in prison for the crime of homeschooling their seven children.

According to a staff attorney for the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), the sentence was issued to Juergen and Rosemarie Dudek after the federal prosecutor, Herwig Muller, said last year that he was dissatisfied with the fines the couple had already paid for homeschooling their children.

As reported by WorldNetDaily (WND), staff attorney for the Home School Legal Defense Association, Mike Donnelly, was appalled by the decision.

"Words escape me, it's unconscionable, incredible, shocking." He then affirmed, "They will appeal of course."

He concluded by summarizing the actions of the prosecutor: "You guys are rebelling against the state. We're going to punish you."
The law banning homeschooling in Germany is a leftover from the Nazi era. But the current German government doesn't mind enforcing it, fining families into bankruptcy, snatching their children and now - sentencing parents to prison.

What exactly is so dangerous about homeschooling that justifies incarceration? Ask the German chancellor. Not the current one, but the one that was there seven decades ago. The one with the mustache.

Fetal Rights Debate - Almost As Bad As Terrorism?

I knew that the pro-aborts wouldn't welcome a debate they could never win. But who could have thought they are that afraid of it?
PETERBOROUGH, ON, June 18, 2008 ( - The wife of Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion has said that the next most serious domestic terrorist threat in Canada could be the return of the abortion debate, reports the Peterborough Examiner. She indicated that the factor that has introduced this threat is Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, brought forward by Conservative MP Ken Epp.

Janine Krieber, an expert in international relations, military strategy and terrorism, was speaking to a small audience at Fleming College in Peterborough, Ontario, yesterday. In her speech she identified any area in society that creates "social division" as a "potential threat either high or low".

"The problem I see, for the moment, coming next is that we bring back abortion discussions into society," said Krieber. "We had problems before and if we bring that back too severely it will bring conflict."
Hmm... I wonder how many people ever lost their lives due to an open debate? Let's compare it to the number of people who lost their lives in terrorist attacks... I also wonder how many people ever ended up being ripped apart limb by limb in the days when abortion debate was still going on? Now, how many unborn babies are being ripped apart limb by limb every single day in Canada's hospitals and abortion clinics?

Sure, some will be quick to claim that abortion is their "right", which is non-negotiable and non-debatable. But who said that abortion is actually a right? Even the Charter says nothing about abortion, let alone Canada's original Bill Of Rights. And if we're talking about basic human rights - what about one's right to life? How come it's being denied to the babies that are just months (weeks, days) away from their first breath? What happened to
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I guess, in the eyes of our "progressive" politicians, that is an American concept, which has no value in Canada. Just as they give no value to our freedom of speech.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Remember - You're Just "Legal" Parents Now

That's the way it's been for almost three years. Remember Paul Martin's infamous bill C-38 which redefined civil marriage? The very same bill also redefined parenting, replacing "natural parents" with "legal parents" and making it clear that in the eyes of the law, people are parents by the authority of the state, not by virtue of biological and natural relationship. So don't be surprised when the state tells you how to raise your children.

Here are some of their recent initiatives:
Senate passes anti-spanking bill
Proposed legislation that could see parents hit with charges of assault for spanking their children has passed a first crucial step on its way to becoming law.

The bill, which would prohibit parents from using force on their children except in very limited circumstances, was adopted without fanfare by the Senate last evening. Liberal MP Marlene Jennings will now take it to the House of Commons, which must also adopt it before it can become law.
The bill, first tabled in 2004, removes the defence currently contained in Section 43 of the Criminal Code for parents and educators who resort to corporal punishment as a corrective measure. Without that defence, they could be open to charges of assault for striking children in their care - particularly if it occurs often or is severe.
Ms. Hervieux-Payette said she believes police and prosecutors will show discretion and won't prosecute in minor cases. Oh, sure we all know how tolerant and impartial the social workers are to Christian families. And, before you tell me that spanking is cruel and that there are other ways to punish a disobedient child, - check out this story:
OTTAWA (AFP) - A Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl's grounding, overturning her father's punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet, his lawyer said Wednesday.

The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's computer.

The father's lawyer Kim Beaudoin said the disciplinary measures were for the girl's "own protection" and is appealing the ruling.
Judging from the quotation marks, whoever wrote the article apparently doesn't agree with the girl's father. Apparently he doesn't believe that preventing a 12-year-old girl from posting certain pictures of herself on social networking sites is for the girl's own protection. Neither did the judge. But what troubles me the most is that Quebec Superior Court saw it appropriate for a 12-year-old to sue her father over mere house rules and that the judge presumed that she actually has the authority to overrule a father's decision as "too severe".

So here you have it folks. The government and the courts now have the authority to tell you whether or not you have the right to discipline your children. And if they don't like the way you raise your kids - they'll seize your children and find them some other "legal parents".

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Red Deer Advocate to Alberta HRC: We're Not Your Propaganda Organ

Rev. Stephen Boissoin said no to Alberta's freedom snatching committee. The Red Deer Advocate has finally found some courage to do the same. Here's what they say about the ruling which orders them to publish Rev. Boissoin's letter of apology (which he won't provide) along with the commission's seven-page Decision on Remedy:
The galling presumption of the rights commission to subvert a newspaper’s own judgments over whether, when or where it should publish coerced opinions offers a window into its dangerous thinking.

The commission has its own website where it can readily publish any and all of its documents. Curiously though, more than two weeks after its Decision on Remedy was handed down, that ruling was not posted.
Why bother? Who's going to read it there? The commissars want publicity; they want public humiliation for Rev. Stephen Boissoin and they believe that a mass-circulation newspaper suits better for that task rather than their website of which nobody is aware.

Here's a couple more things that concern the Red Deer Advocate:
The more fundamental and serious defects of the rights commission surround its flawed processes that can lead to repressive and dangerous fallout.

Canada has criminal laws against libel and expressing hatred. Those laws are applied in courts, after police investigations and careful review by skilled prosecutors.

They are argued by lawyers before a judge, in a legal framework with rules of evidence that protect all sides.

The Alberta human rights commission, and others like it across the country, lack these tested and protective structures.

But their findings have the force of law.

The effects of how their processes are applied and findings are enforced endanger free speech and liberty.
In its ruling, the adjudicator (formerly - a divorce lawyer) Lori Andreachuk suggested that publishing the letter of apology along with the committee ruling in a local newspaper would "educate and hopefully prevent actions of this nature in the future". They couldn't force Rev. Stephen Boissoin to denounce his views. And the only educational effect they've achieved is educating more people about the true meaning of the fancy words "human rights commission".

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Two Murders - Only One Count

Surrey, B.C., June 17, 2008 ( - Yesterday, two men were convicted of first-degree murder in the stabbing of a pregnant Surrey B.C. woman in 2005. One of the men, Amjad Khan, was the father of the unborn baby. However, neither of the men was prosecuted for the death of the child, since no provision currently exists in Canadian law to do so.

This recent conviction comes in the wake of a growing trend of abuse and violent crimes aimed at pregnant women. Frequently such attacks are perpetrated by the partners of women who refuse to abort a child not wanted by the father.
No justice has been obtained for the murder of the unborn baby because Canada has no laws protecting the unborn. For this reason, MP Ken Epp has introduced the widely approved-of private members bill C-484.

Bill C-484 seeks to prosecute anyone who harms an unborn baby without a mother's consent. The bill is currently waiting to enter third reading in the House of Commons.
Opponents of bill C-484 keep claiming that the bill is "about abortions", that it would grant personhood to the unborn and that it would lead to prosecution of women, rather than protecting mothers and their babies from abuse. None of that is true. The bill falls short of granting personhood to the unborn, it merely defines wanted unborn babies as objects worthy of protection. Abortions and other actions performed by the mother are specifically exempted.

The text of the bill makes it clear - it's purpose is to prosecute the offender who harms an unborn baby while committing an offense against the mother. And yet radical pro-aborts keep making up arguments in their attempt to block the bill. Why? Because it will recognize a wanted unborn baby as a separate body which is valuable to the baby's mother. Because it will show the true nature of abortion, exposing all the selfishness and violence that are masqueraded by the word "choice".
Abortion: what a great invention for selfish men.

“Honey, you’re going to the abortion clinic tonight and you’ll like it, dammit. If you don’t, I’ll kick you in the stomach and kill that clump of cells.”

No law against coercion. No law against harming an unborn child.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Complainers Wanted, Nothing But Hurt Feelings Necessary

What could be worse than a government department which does nothing except giving out generous paychecks for themselves? A department that must get others in legal and financial troubles to show its importance - so the stream of paychecks and lucrative business trips never stops. And since "human rights" complaints are down 15% year over year in Alberta, the province's freedom snatching committee began targeting immigrants.

Ezra Levant wrote an excellent review of a brochure which the Alberta HRC has issued to familiarize newcomers with their grievance industry. Judging from the sample stories, newcomers and minority groups are encouraged to constantly hunt for a reason to file a "human rights" complaint against their neighbours, co-workers, employers - anyone they believe may be "discriminating" against them.

It took too long for a waiter to come and then the waiter was rude? That must be discrimination! And don't tell me there are thousands of reasons why a waiter may be impolite. We all know that a waiter is no one but a closet racist who didn't like the color of the customer's skin. And if so - could there be a reason not to haul him in front of a quasi-judiciary tribunal known for it's 100% conviction record?

Other stories are just as pathetic. None of them are actual stories. There were no complainers with those names. None of the stories resemble actual complaints; not even closely. But their message is clear - every tiny thing that hurts your feelings is good for a "human rights" complaint. Unless you're one of those ignorant bigoted folks that aren't "identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination"...

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Top 10 Reasons To Envy The Irish

  1. They use Single Transferable Vote for parliamentary elections.

  2. Their constitution can only be amended by popular vote, not by a kitchen deal cooked by the PM and accepted by 9 out of 10 provincial premiers.

  3. Similarly, treaties on the issues of national sovereignty must be approved in a referendum. No back door deals there either.

  4. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right; children of illegal migrants don't become automatic citizens.

  5. Ireland holds on to the true definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

  6. And it's up to the elected members of Parliament to decide whether or not Ireland should recognize some sort of "civil partnerships", not up to the activist judges.

  7. Fetal Rights debate is allowed!

  8. Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland recognizes the right to life of the unborn.

  9. Two referendums were held to further strengthen constitutional protections for the unborn child. The last one (in 2002) was lost by less than 11,000 votes (0.8%)

    And finally:
  10. National interests take precedence over socialist pan-European utopias.
    Ireland was the only EU member country to allow its citizens to vote on a treaty which was to become a de-facto constitution of a godless anti-national Euro superstate.
    And the Irish responded by a solid 53.4% NO to the Eurocrats!
Thank you, dear Irish! Thank you for speaking up for hundreds of millions of Europeans that weren't allowed to vote with you! Thank you for sticking to common sense in our crazy day and age! Thank you all for showing the rest of the Western world what a true democracy should look like!

Down with EUSSR! Éireann go Brách! Long live Ireland!

Raise Your Children Communist - Or Else...

It turns out that "child welfare" workers actually have the right to seize the children if they find the parents' views objectionable.
WINNIPEG, Manitoba (AP) - Child welfare workers removed two children from their home in Winnipeg after a seven-year-old girl went to school with hate-related drawings on her body, police said Monday.

Police Const. Blair Good said the girl and a boy, 2, were removed, but she would not confirm a report that the girl's body had a swastika and a white supremacy slogan written on it. Manitoba Child and Family Services wants permanent guardianship of the children.
Those social workers sure knew that not many would feel for allegedly racist parents, thus - there wouldn't be much opposition to their actions. With little or no opposition, people will soon get used to the idea that children could be taken away from the parents whose views are considered politically incorrect. And what's going to happen next? Who is going to be their next victim?

We've seen that with the HRCs. At first they came for the lone extremists and for their webmasters. Then they came for a Christian pastor who refused to accept perverse lifestyles as normal, for a nurse whose "crime" was distributing flyers, picturing medical consequences of homosexual lifestyle, they came for a Christian couple who didn't want to allow a perverse orgy in her bed-and-breakfast... Finally, they came for Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, they came for McLean's and for The Catholic Magazine, they came for the Christian Heritage Party and for its leader - Ron Gray...

...So it would be naive for any parent to consider himself immune from social workers' newfound right to snatch the kids from families whose views they disprove.
In Ontario, and probably the rest of Canada, “children’s aid” legislation makes it clear that they are to operate under the philsophical premise that children belong to the state, not to their parents. Also, the legislation that changed the definition of marriage to allow homosexual “marriage,” also changed the definition of parent from natural parent to legal parent. This means that, in the eyes of the law, people are parents by the authority of the state, not by virtue of biological and natural relationship. If child welfare workers are going to snatch the children of suspected racists today, then what’s stopping them from snatching the children of Christians - or anybody else tomorrow? This is the transition that we’ve seen take place in the “human rights” industry.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Public School Abuse - What The Media Won't Mention

As if we didn't have enough reasons to distrust the mainstream media along with the public school system:
Since many people only know what the media tells them in screaming headlines, they would be shocked to learn of the finding of one federal study that sexual misconduct perpetrated by personnel in public schools is an almost incomprehensible 100 times worse than that perpetrated by abusive Catholic priests.

Commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education as part of the No Child Let Behind Act of 2002, the report, prepared by Hofstra University Professor Carol Shakeshaft, found that between 6 and 10 percent of public school students have been the victims of sexual misconduct. Although its methodology has been criticized by some, its bottom-line documentation of a clear, present, and alarming risk to America's public school students is unassailable.

The report, however, received relatively minor interest from the media. For example, the National Catholic Register reported that, following its issuance, the 61 largest newspapers in California published 2,000 stories about sexual abuse at Catholic institutions in that state and only four about the findings of the federal report.
What kind of unbiased reporting can we expect from media outlets that don't mind publishing classified ads such as "Man seeking boys.... age not so relevant"? No wonder all those "progressive" journalists try to portray Catholics as hypocrites and child molesters - it sure makes them feel morally superior.

But the facts are - while no society or establishment could be 100% crime free, child abuse is far less likely to happen in an establishment that upholds strong moral values than in an establishment where almost everything is acceptable. The actual statistics (as opposed to headline counting) proves just that.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Confirmed Price Tag For Cabron Tax: $15,000,000,000

Finally the Liberals themselves have announced how much is their carbon tax going to cost. And when those guys promise to increase taxes - we can believe them for a change.
In the next two weeks Dion plans to unveil his policy -- aimed at curtailing greenhouse gas emissions -- which one Liberal source said would add C$15 billion ($14.7 billion) in taxes on energy, with the idea that some or all of it would be returned via corporate and personal tax cuts.
Most likely some, rather than all. Dion has already made over $60B in spending promises. There's no way he could keep even a tiny share of those promises without raising taxes. And then of course there's this:
The Liberals have said the price of gasoline would not rise since it already has a federal excise tax of 10 Canadian cents a liter (37 U.S. cents per U.S. gallon).

However, fuel oil, natural gas and some electricity would also be taxed, and the tax on diesel, used by transport trucks, would probably have to be nearly tripled to match the tax on the carbon content of gasoline.
How many truckers will go out of business once the price of diesel fuel jumps up from $1.55 a liter to about $2.00 or even higher? How is Dion's future government planning to replace all the lost income tax revenues? What other alternatives are Dion & Co going to consider except postponing or cancelling the proposed income tax cuts?

So even if we do get a slight reduction in personal income tax - it will be supplemented by a sharp increase in the GST and other excise taxes - which Dion will desperately need to compensate for the tax revenue lost due to higher unemployment and due to lower consumer spending. (Even those who keep their jobs will earn less and their heating and grocery bills will be considerably higher.) And then Dion has his spending promises on top of all that... Do you still hope there will be any room for tax cuts in the Liberal tax-and-spend budget?

The only positive thing about this whole story is once the Liberals start showing the actual numbers for the proposed income tax cuts (even if it's obvious that none of them could ever be implemented) - the Conservatives will try to match them. And, since the government doesn't have a carbon tax on the agenda (neither do they plan "revisiting" the GST cut), the Conservatives will have no choice but to cut wasteful spendings to remain competitive during the campaign. A $15B spending cut followed by $15B income tax cut - that will make much more sense.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Shouldn't "Reproductive Rights" Include Right To Give Birth?

By Ken Epp, MP June 10, 2008

It has become clear in recent weeks that there is, in full swing, a determined and concerted effort to oppose and defeat Bill C-484. The tactic is to overwhelm the media, especially in Quebec, and my fellow MP‟s with so much misinformation that it has become almost impossible to have thoughtful discourse on this Bill.
In trying to bring criminal law protection to a pregnant woman and her not-yet-born child, it is impossible to speak without using certain terms that just make common sense – the same words already in the Criminal Code – words like “mother” and “child.”

Sadly, as soon as these words are mentioned, those who are staunch supporters of “reproductive rights” for women jump into the debate and insist, totally incorrectly, that this is about abortion rights. It isn‟t!
Interesting, isn't it? If we're talking about actual reproductive rights - shouldn't that include first and foremost women's right to give birth? Yet those who call themselves supporters of "reproductive rights" fiercely oppose the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act, which would make it a separate crime to harm an unborn baby while committing a crime against his pregnant mother. And, judging from their objections, the only "reproductive right" those guys actually value - is an implied "right" to avoid giving birth at all costs even if it requires killing a baby before he gets a chance to see daylight. Sounds quite Orwellian, doesn't it?

It's been confirmed by the independent legal experts that bill C-484 doesn't grant personhood to unborn babies and that it couldn't be used to restrict abortions. The pro-abort "reproductive rights" crowd knows that. But they also realize that admitting in a piece of legislation that wanted unborn babies are valuable to their mothers and defining them as objects worthy of protection will eventually turn public opinion against abortions. Obviously, radical pro-aborts can't allow that to happen. So they respond by waging a campaign of fear-mongering and misinformation against the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Humor: Secret Recording Of CHRC Staff Meeting Discovered

Found it on the "What Do You Believe?" blog. With all the recent scandals involving HRC investigators (hijacking someone's internet connection to post provocative messages, editing hearing transcripts etc) - this conversation looks almost real...
MALE 1: Man (or Woman) I need a coffee. I was up all night posting on Christian and Neo-Nazi sites.

MALE 2: Hah! As if there’s any difference!

FEMALE 1: Any luck?

MALE 1: Yeah, I got this so-called “normal Alberta housewife” to admit she wants to bring back slavery!

MALE 2: Was her name “Alberta Eve”?

MALE 1: Yeah! You know her?

MALE 2: Uh… That was me, actually. Sorry … So I guess you were “Hitlerhadtherightidea88″?

FEMALE 1: I object to men dominating this conversation!

MALE 2: Oh, I’m really sorry. Please, go ahead…

FEMALE 1: I have nothing to say at this time. I just wanted to raise my objection.

MALE 2: As is your right, of course.

FEMALE 1: Stop treating me like a child. I am a woman, not a girl.

MALE 2: Please, please forgive me. May I lick your boots, mistress?

FEMALE 1: Later. Anyway, I just remembered. Last night I was online too, and I got an Albertan construction worker on record demanding that white men be permitted freedom of speech.

MALE 2: Jesus Christ! Wow! I hope you got a screen shot!

FEMALE 1: Of course. I think we can get “Agent Jadewarr” to pass this on to those <bleep> Zionists he hangs around with. … By the way, when are we going to have them rounded up?

FEMALE 2: Well, they still serve their purpose, for now. And, I’m sorry, but was that construction worker called “Heil Harper”?

FEMALE 1: Yeah, you know him? … … Oh. … … I see.

FEMALE 2: Yeah. That was me. Sorry. … So I guess you were “Deathtoniggers571″?

FEMALE 1: Yeah. [sighs]

[Unanimous groaning]

MALE 1: How the hell are we going to get Canadians to start hating each other!?

FEMALE 2: Does anyone know how to make a bomb?

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

9-Month Pregnant Women Slain - Murder of Unborn Child Will Go Unpunished

ST. JOHN'S, NL, June 10, 2008 ( - A 29-year-old Newfoundland mother was days away from delivering her third child when she was brutally murdered by her boyfriend and the father of the baby, Warren White. Four neighbourhood kids recently made the gruesome discover of her dismembered body in a forest near an apartment the couple had moved into six months previous.
Current Canadian law has no legislation regarding the unborn. Hence, White will escape unpunished for the murder of his child. So far White has been charged only with second-degree murder for the murder of his girlfriend and performing an indignity to a dead body.

If bill C-484 - which is currently making its way through Canadian parliament - were to be passed, however, White could be facing a life sentence for the murder of the baby in addition to a sentence for the murder of his girlfriend. The Unborn Victims of Violent Crime Bill recently passed second reading in the House of Commons, but is facing stiff opposition from pro-aborts who fear the bill is a step towards the re-criminalization of abortion.
Had the tragedy happened after the baby had seen daylight - there would have been no doubt even among the poor-choicers that Warren White must be charged with two counts of second-degree murder. But since the baby had yet to make his first breath - the pro-abort crowd insists that the baby and his mother were still "one body".

Amanda Power and her baby each had its own beating heart. They had different DNA and perhaps - different blood types as well. The baby was moving on his own and he was just days away from breathing on his own - the pro-aborts don't care. They'll defy science, they'll trample on woman's right to give birth, they'll let a criminal get away with half of the punishment - just out of fear that more people may start questioning the morality of abortion. Does anyone still doubt that those people are pro-abortion, not "pro-choice"?
A representative for Women for Women's Health, which has represented the families of pregnant women who have been victims of violent crime, also condemned those opposing bill C-484, saying, "It appears to me that people opposing this legislation are bluntly twisting the truth and ignoring the fact that the proposed bill makes a point of stating that this does not apply to a woman's right to chose. It is either intellectual laziness or pure lies to propagate the notion that this will criminalize abortion."
Bill C-484 does not change the definition of a human being, nor does it take any choice or rights away from women. It empowers a woman's choice to reproduce and it sends a clear message that violence against pregnant women is wrong by addressing the very thing that defines a pregnancy – her fetus.

The bill attempts to empower a victim of violence by validating her choices and freedom, yet it appears that its critics are concerned with everyone whom it does not apply to.

Find a woman whose pregnancy has ended because of violence and ask her how she feels.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Are Chimps More Equal Than Babies?

They won't allow fetal rights debate, but they don't mind holding a hearing on whether human rights should be extended to... chimpanzees.
The European Court of Human Rights has agreed to a preliminary hearing to determine whether chimpanzees are entitled to the legal status and protections granted to human beings.
At the center of the case is Hiasl, a 26-year old chimpanzee now called Matthew by his keeper, Briton Paula Stibbe. Matthew currently shares a shelter with another chimpanzee named Rosi in the town of Voesendorf, outside of Austria. Their upkeep runs nearly $8,000 a month and the shelter recently filed for bankruptcy.

Donors have stepped in to offer assistance, but Stibbe says only official status as a human can permanently prevent Matthew from being transferred out of Austria. That status would force the state to appoint a guardian to look after his status, and presumably also entitle him to government assistance for upkeep.
Government assistance? Sure! As if there aren't enough special interest groups draining the public purse - especially in the EUSSR. What else? Official status "as a human" can prevent the chimp from being transferred out of the country? That sounds like citizenship rights awarded to an animal...

Next step would probably be voting rights - how else would all those "progressive" politicians replenish their aging and childless electorate? And marriage rights - why not? If secular fundamentalists view human beings as nothing but evolved apes - what would stop them from willing to cohabit with an ape that hasn't yet evolved?

This whole story shows once again how morally bankrupt this crowd which calls itself "socially progressive" really is. They may be still powerful, but they have no future. Their days are numbered - it's a mathematical certainty.

Sunday, June 8, 2008

You Don't Win The Argument By Silencing The Opponents

Alberta's freedom-snatching commission has recently handed down its ruling against a Christian pastor Rev. Stephen Boission. The reason for the complaint was a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, in which Rev. Boission argued against promoting homosexual lifestyle to children as young as five or six. There was "no direct victim who has come forward" - as admitted by Lori Andreachuk, the adjudicator in the case, formerly - a divorce lawyer. Yet the complainer (a homosexual activist which was in no way affected by the letter) was awarded $5000 and Rev. Stephen Boission was given the following order:
So what does it achieve? Does it somehow prove that what Rev. Boission said in his letter wasn't true? Does it somehow convince us that the complainer was right and that Rev. Boission was wrong? Of course not. All it achieved is silencing a man, courageous enough to share his concerns with others:
So, let's re-cap.

A Christian pastor has been given a lifetime ban against uttering anything "disparaging" about gays. Not against anything "hateful", let alone something legally defined as "hate speech". Just anything negative.

So a pastor cannot give a sermon.

But he must give a false sermon; he is positively ordered to renounce his deeply held religious beliefs, and apologize to his tormentor for having those views.

And then that pastor is ordered to declare to his entire city that he has renounced his religious views, even though he has not.
So that's the kind of "justice" you can expect from an organization which, in the best Orwellian traditions, has the words "human rights" in its name. The only purpose of the above ruling is to remind all of us that we have no rights to say anything that may offend a member of a designated victim group. But hurt feelings have nothing to do with seeking the truth and silencing the opponents doesn't win an argument. Sure, you can silence one man, you can scare thousands into silence, but you can't silence common sense:
So here goes. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If two homosexuals want to live together that is entirely up to them, but it is not and can never be a marriage.

World's still round

The state may say otherwise, but if the state suddenly decides that the world is flat, the world is still round. I will never, while there is breath in my body, regard a same-sex union as a marriage.

Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children, whether they are part of what they think of as a marriage or not. If at all possible children should be raised by a mother and a father.

Eco-Freaks Want You To Die Young

Looks like population control is no longer enough for all those eco-fanatics. Now they want humanity extinct. And they preach their message to children using what they call the "first irreverent environmental website" named... "planet slayer". The latter features a special greenhouse gas calculator which tells you at what age you must die "so you don't use more than your fair share of the earth's resources."
Situated between an "Aussie pig" generating 24.6 tonnes of CO2 and the "green pig" generating 3.0 tonnes of CO2, a player can figure out who should live and who should die at what age depending on their use of the planet's resources or more accurately their total carbon usage.

Playing the game will let you know that ABC believes the average working class Aussie should die at 9 years of age for consuming too much of earth's resources. The eco-pig, however, "should die at age 77."

A rough estimate of CO2 usage of an ordinary family provider, who is unable to make "eco-friendly" investments because he needs to support his family, shows that he will have used up his share of the earth's resources by 2.7 years. Third-world inhabitants would average between 25-30 years before their time was up.
Notice how they portray human beings as pigs. At the end of the game the "verfluchte schwein" explodes, leaving no doubt of what should have happened to the player decades ago. I bet you won't find anything similar even in the children's workbooks designed by the Nazi propaganda ministry. Yet somehow Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the Auzzie equivalent of the CBC) doesn't mind hosting the "planet slayer" on its site.
The very fact that this site is designed for children makes what would be an outrageous site even worse, especially when you consider that your carbon-fattened pig explodes into a pile of blood at the end of the quiz (see image). It is also the latest evidence that the movement spearheading the climate change cause simply does not value human life and in fact sees each human as a virus leeching off the planet’s life source.
But no "progressive" media outlet will ever utter a word about greens' hidden agenda.

Saturday, June 7, 2008

'Demographic Winter' - The Threat Is Real

Here's a series of articles by the Christian Heritage Party, analyzing the population trends. Their message is clear: Lack of children will lead to a 'Demographic Winter'; with not enough young people to replace the aging population, our countries will experience an economic collapse and social deterioration.

Part 1: 'Demographic winter' is really coming…
You may or may not believe in 'global warming'; I do not: I think it's a power grab by international socialists. But I'll concede that there are arguments being made on both sides or that debate.
But nobody is arguing with the demographers who are warning of a soon-coming 'demographic winter'.
Part 2: How did we get into this mess?
As we reported almost a decade ago in the CHP Communiqué, UNFPA's statisticians have been tracking demographics for a long time; they predicted a decade ago that the world's population will peak at about 9 billion around 2030; then it will go into a decline steeper and longer than the population "boom" of the last half of the 20th century.

Yet even while they were pumping out those statistics, UNFPA was funding abortion and other "population control" measures around the world!
Part 3: Specific causes of 'demographic winter'.
Last year a music video out of Québec became the most-downloaded video in Canada—although it was in French (one version with English subtitles). The second stanza said:

"Your great-great grandmother had 15 children;
your great-grandmother had about the same.
Your grandmother had three, that was enough;
your mother didn't want any—you were an accident.
And you, little lady, you go from boyfriend to boyfriend;
and when you mess up, you get an abortion.
And at night you dream of a big table, surrounded by children
And you wake up crying."
Part 4: Trends en route to 'demographic winter'.
We looked at eight social trends that are behind the world's coming 'demographic winter'— the crisis of depopulation that will result in vastly more golden-agers than young people, and will plunge the world into a depression worse than the 'Dirty Thirties'. But there are already social consequences from those trends.

We noted that easy divorce meant less family stability, and fewer children per family. But easy divorce has had other consequences:
Part 5: Can we avoid 'demographic winter'? Maybe.
Japan has done the world a favour by paddling into the turbulent waters of demographic winter before the rest of us. After the second World War, Japan did not have the 'baby boom' the West experienced. As a result, they're already deep into the problems of an aging population. Most of Japan's population is over 50.

In our consumer economies, spending peaks at age 48. A little over a decade ago, when Japan's average age passed that level, the Nikkei Stock Index tanked, losing almost 80% of its book value.
'Demographic Winter' is already taking its toll on Japan. Unless we change our ways and embrace the Culture of Life - Canada is next. And so are all other developed nations.

Kill The Pill, Not The Child

Many eco-freaks view children as some sort of "environmental burden". Very few of them notice that unlike the mythical environmental effect of children's "carbon footprint", the damage caused by use of chemical contraceptives is real. So if you truly care about the environment - protest the pill.

If you think that chemical contraceptives are good because they reduce the number of surgical abortions - think again: The birth control pill already is the abortion pill. So if you are pro-lifer - protest the pill.

Recent studies show that a link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer is real. If you want to contribute to the fight against breast cancer - protest the pill.

For women's sake. For babies' sake. For environment's sake - Protest the pill.

Friday, June 6, 2008

What Is It About Liberal Politicians And Senate Elections?

If the Liberal politicians (federal and provincial) are so concerned with over a dozen seats in the Senate which remain vacant - why would they oppose holding consultative elections to fill them? Why are they so eager to force the Prime Minister to fill those seats by appointment. How many Liberals, do they think a Conservative Prime Minister is going to appoint?! Can you understand their logic? I can't.

The Montreal Gazette outlines some of the concerns raised by the Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoît Pelletier. First of all he mentions that Quebec has already got 2 vacant seats in the Senate, with another one to become vacant in just a couple of months. 2 or 3 vacant seats out of 24 - that's not as bad as in BC - which lacks 3 out of its 6 Senators. Still, if it's a reason for concern - go ahead, have a province-wide election to choose the nominees, the PM has already promised to honor the results...

But Pelletier gives us two excuses not to do so. First he expresses his concern that a sovereignist candidate may actually win the election. As if it isn't up to the Parti Libéral du Québec (of which Monsieur Pelletier is a member) to provide Quebecers with a solid alternative to separatism. Then Pelletier predicts that in this case Stephen Harper would break his promise to appoint Senators elected by the province and refuse nomination to a sovereignist that wins the vote. What makes him so sure? Apparently Pelletier simply has the power to predict the future. I wonder if he can predict winning lottery numbers too...

Finally Pelletier brings forward his most powerful argument against electing Senate nominees:
Pelletier's comments came moments after he told a parliamentary committee that the Harper government's proposal to have consultative elections to fill Senate vacancies, Bill C-20, constitutes a change to the fundamental nature of an institution that was an important part of the deal that brought Quebec into Confederation. Consequently, it can only be done by amending the constitution in conjunction with the provinces, said Pelletier warning the Quebec government is contemplating taking Ottawa to court if necessary to block the bill.
I just don't get it. What exactly makes Pelletier believe that allowing Quebecers to elect their Senate nominees constitutes a violation of the deal that brought Quebec into Confederation; a violation so terrible the Federal government should be sued for? If anything - it strengthens Quebec since it gives the province 24 more elected representatives, reducing the number of Federal government appointees in the Parliament to zero...

I could understand if the sovereignists opposed Senate elections so they could propose separation as the only way to get rid of the 24 unelected appointees that speak for all of Quebec in the Upper Chamber. But why would a federalist party oppose the bill that would get the province more involved in federal politics? What is it about Liberal politicians and Senate elections? Some sort of hidden agenda we don't know of? Or is it just partisanship - they reject the idea because the Conservatives thought of it first?..

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Dion Woud Rather Let The Mothers Suffer Than Allow Fetal Rights Debate

Dion vowed to block the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act because he's afraid it could reopen the abortion debate.
The "unborn victims of crime" legislation is a private member's bill proposed by Edmonton Tory MP Ken Epp, which would make it a crime to take the life of a fetus against the will of the mother.

Although the bill specifically excludes abortion, pro-choice advocates fear it would give legal status to the fetus and would, thus, be a step towards recriminalizing abortion.

Dion indicated that he shares the view that the bill would reopen the abortion debate and vowed: "We will not allow that to happen."
So what if it's been confirmed by independent legal experts that there's no way bill C-484 could be used to outlaw abortion? So what if 72% of Canadians support a bill that would make it a separate crime to harm an unborn baby during an attack on the mother? It's the debate itself that scares Dion and his fellow pro-aborts. A debate they know they could never win.

So here you have it folks. Pro-abort ideology mandates that a mother and her unborn baby are "one body". This myth has no scientific basis whatsoever. But it fuels extremely profitable "businesses". So when it comes to a choice between pregnant mothers' best interests and a powerful myth which brings in money - the myth and the money take precedence.

But not everything is lost however. Dion is not a leader. It took him 7 months(!) to decide that he's against the bill (when the bill was voted on 3 months ago, Dion was absent). Now he can't decide whether or not he should order his MPs to vote down C-484, waiting for the party whip to make that decision. So if there are enough people letting their MPs know that they want the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act passed and if there are enough Liberal MPs convinced that should vote for the bill, Dion may actually back down - just as he's recently backed down on his opposition to carbon taxes.

So let's redouble our efforts to make Dion back down. Here's a great video which gives a brief introduction to bill C-484. Let's make sure this video is watched by as many people as possible - including the 7 out of 10 Liberal voters who support the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. If Dion succeeds in his attempts to kill bill C-484, those voters better respond by reconsidering their allegiance, killing the Liberal party in the next election.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

A Show Trial In BC

The writings of Canada's most talented journalist, Mark Steyn, went on trial in Vancouver on Monday, in a case designed to challenge freedom of the press. It is a show trial, under the arbitrary powers given to Canada's obscene "human rights" commissions, by Section 13 of our Human Rights Act.

I wrote "obscene" advisedly. A respondent who comes before Canada's "human rights" tribunals has none of the defences formerly guaranteed in common law. The truth is no defence, reasonable intention is no defence, nor material harmlessness, there are no rules of evidence, no precedents, nor case law of any kind. The commissars running the tribunals need have no legal training, exhibit none, and owe their appointments to networking among leftwing activists.

I wrote "show trial" advisedly, for there has been a 100 per cent conviction rate in cases brought to "human rights" tribunals under Section 13.
The trial itself is being live-blogged by Ezra Levant and Andrew Coyne. A lot has been already said by dozens of bloggers about the trial itself as well as about the extra-judicial tribunals used to suppress our rights and freedoms. Including this:
The Left may think they have found the ideal method to silence anyone who challenges their insane, "politically correct" ideas, but have instead created a monster that can as easily eat them next.
Shall I mention what happened to Russian Anarchists and "Left-wing" Socialist-Revolutionaries, that chose to form a coalition with the Bolsheviks and supported their moves to establish a dictatorship under which all other parties were outlawed as "bourgeois" and "counter-revolutionary"? Shall I mention what was the fate of the Bolshevik leaders themselves just 15-20 years thereafter?..

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." That was said by Abraham Lincoln. History shows that Honest Abe was right.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Little Orphans To Living Parents

Here's what hides behind the fancy words which the "progressives" (a group with the lowest number of children per family) use to promote their McDaycare projects:
Two-year-old "Janie" takes the little, pink- knitted sweater her grandmother gave her from the small cubicle at the day-care centre. She holds it close and walks towards the outer door. It is closed. She stares at the door. It is only mid-afternoon. Janie doesn't express herself well with words yet, but her actions say she wants to go home. No one notices.

Fourteen-month-old "Tommy", who has been in full time day care since he was six months old, approaches every adult who enters the room muttering "Mama," regardless of gender. When the wall phone rings, he toddles over to it, looks up and, with his eyes wide, repeatedly calls out, "Mama?"
Economic pressures often force both parents into the work force while many struggle as single parents. For others, pursuing careers is often the impetus to place their children in day care. While these arguments may have some validity, they also have one thing in common -- they are all based on accommodating parents' needs. No one seems to be asking the very important question: "Is this really in the best interest of the child?"
And then the parents complain about losing touch with the children. Sure, it's the "generation gap", it's none of your fault...

There are better alternatives for families and children. The Christian Heritage Party proposes a $1000 a month tax credit for families to encourage one of the parents to stay home with the children. I won't be surprised if that's where the Conservatives got the idea of a Universal Childcare Benefit, which provides the parents with real money, leaving the decision on child care to the parents and only to the parents.

Sure, the UCCB is only $100 a month. It's a baby step, but it's a baby step in the right direction. We don't need institutional McDaycares that are being aggressively marketed by the left-of-centre politicians. Instead we need to create economic conditions that would allow parents to spend more time with their children. So that our next generation doesn't grow up orphans to the living parents.

Monday, June 2, 2008

Focus On Life Benefit Dinner — Moncton 2008

Moncton Right To Life held its seventh Focus On Life Benefit Dinner tonight. Guests were plenty (well over 200); we even had to add two extra tables at the very last moment. The food was delicious. And we had a couple of guest speakers to deliver the pro-life message.

Our first speaker was Pam Chase, a mother of 7 adopted children. All of them were discarded by their biological parents because they were disabled. All of them were regarded as write-offs by the doctors who refused to believe those children could ever live a normal life. But Pam listened to her heart, not to the skeptics. Her love and her dedication made not just one but seven miracles happen.

Pam raised 7 disabled children - all of them ended up achieving much more than anybody ever hoped. Her oldest children have already graduated from high school, one is now serving in the military... Every life is a masterpiece - that was Pam's message. A message to which Pam and her children are a living proof.

Our next speaker was David MacDonald. He used to have a great career in music. He was the Rock & Roll Cat in the First U.S. National tour of Cats. He was on Broadway, produced rap music in Harlem and for CBS... Then he made a terrible choice. He convinced his girlfriend to abort. Abortion didn't solve their problem; it didn't turn back time, making the baby disappear; it made David and his girlfriend parents of a dead baby.

David told us how he lost everything he was hoping to maintain once the baby was aborted. His girlfriend left him. He fell into addiction and ruined his voice. His singing career was ruined. None of his friends and admirers was willing to help. David spent years trying to rebuild his life - with no success - until God showed him the way. David had a powerful Christian experience and became Catholic. His voice came back and he tells people through songs about what happened to him. Life is the only choice - that's the message David wants to share with everyone, urging people not to make the same mistake he did...

Finally - there were door prizes. One of which - the X-Box 360, was contributed by yours truly. Too bad my digital camera glitched so the picture of the lucky winner passing the X-Box to one of our young volunteers didn't turn out well. Today was also the day I turned 31. And I can tell you - there's nothing better than having over 200 of your pro-life friends wishing you a happy birthday.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Just Say It: Kyoto's A Crock

Great article by Lorrie Goldstein. Among other things, it exposes a few interesting facts on the Kyoto scam:
Look at the thing. Why do you suppose the main instigators of Kyoto -- the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United Nations -- happened to pick 1990 as the base year for reducing GHG emissions?

It wasn't written in stone. Kyoto wasn't even agreed to until 1997 and didn't come into effect until 2005. The drafters could have picked any year as the base year.

They retroactively chose 1990 because that was just before the Soviet Union imploded, meaning the European Union was able to take advantage of the dramatic drop-off in GHG emissions of the former Soviet satellites which later became part of Europe, countries which dramatically cut their GHG emissions not by doing anything, but by suffering a recession.
That was to damage the U.S. economy by putting it at a competitive disadvantage had the Americans been stupid enough to ratify Kyoto. But even with Al Gore as their vice-president, they weren't.

We were. We ratified it because a reckless Jean Chretien was looking for an environmental legacy.
Interesting, isn't it? No wonder the Liberals didn't do much to actually implement Kyoto while they were in power. Now, while in the opposition, they're trying to get the Conservatives into this mess. So far it's win-win for the Liberals: either the government repudiates Kyoto and gets blasted for neglecting the environment or it follows through with Kyoto - and takes the blame for the lagging economy.

The only way for the Conservative government to break out of this trap is to seize the initiative. After all, the Conservatives are the governing party, aren't they? So instead of merely dragging their feet on dubious "climate change" initiatives brought forward by the opposition, the Conservatives must provide their own plan. They must propose real measures to combat air pollution as an alternative to the Kyoto scam. They must be far more proactive promoting a Conservative plan, than they were when Rona Ambrose was the Environment Minister.