Thursday, January 31, 2008

Informed Choice Saves A Baby's Life

Here's an update on a previously reported story about a pregnant teenage girl whose father insisted on abortion. Fortunately, the abortion didn't take place. The girl's father changed his mind after a devoted pro-life friend convinced him to spare his grandchild's life and not to subject his daughter to the health risks associated with abortion.
I talked to Natalie, her boyfriend, her mother and her aunt and am confident that they were honest with me. Her mother talked to her husband last night for a long time and he listened when she told him how the abortion could hurt her. He said he will not force her against everyone else's opinions. Thank God that the baby is 17 weeks old. The size of the baby was their main reason for not having an abortion. Natalie said she saw one of the baby's hand and one foot on the ultra sound. She did not know she was pregnant until Friday and had the ultra sound the same day. The baby is due early to mid June.
...
Within a few hours of the decision to miss the abortion appointment they were making plans for Natalie's semester at school, doctor's visits, telling her to get lots of sleep and making sure she eats well. Her aunt said she is welcome to live with her and go to high school with her cousins. She can finish her school year, will have the summer to devote to her baby and be ready for Gr. 11 in the fall. It is amazing what family can do when they accept a new member of the family.

Please keep them in your prayers.As time goes on it will not be all smooth. It is a great deal for a young girl to cope with in a very short time. Natalie is still worried about her friends and neighbours finding out and "getting fat". Her only sister is still very angry and says Natalie does not have the right to embarrass the family. She has not spoken to Natalie since Friday. It's a lot for a young girl to face.
Let's hope and pray that Natalie's sister too finds it in her heart to accept her little nephew or niece, rather than considering him or her as an embarrassment to the family.

Motion To Bring Back The Freedom Of Speech

Keith Martin, Liberal MP for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has introduced a motion (M-446) calling on the Parliament to delete subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

That's the very same subsection which makes it a discriminatory practice for individuals or groups to communicate messages that are "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt", as long as those persons "are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination". It therefore provides legal grounds for "human rights complaints" against those who say or publish anything the special interest groups may not agree with. The most recent victims to such complaints are: a journalist - Mark Steyn, a publisher - Ezra Levant and a political party leader - Ron Gray.

There's no information yet on whether or not the motion will be placed in the order of precedence and voted on. But even if the motion is declared non-votable by the Committee, or voted down at later stages, it will allow us to see for ourselves which politicians and which political parties are willing (or unwilling) to defend our freedom of speech.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

CHP: Children Are The Prize In A Secret War

"Following BC's bad example" - a close look at the alarming trend in public education in BC, which started with the official secularization of the school system in 1986. As the parents ceded control over their children's education to the government, the government in its turn, ceded control over the school curriculum to radical groups, including militant homosexuals.

Part 1: Getting the language wrong:
In 1986, British Columbia’s Social Credit government—which included several Christians in its cabinet—made a major philosophical blunder. The error could perhaps be attributed to the declining condition of public education in BC (and, indeed, across Canada), reflected in the fact that when the MLAs voted, they did not understand subtle differences between the words secular and non-sectarian.

The BC government, rewriting the province’s School Act, wanted to ensure that public education in BC remained non-sectarian in character. But what they actually wrote was a law that mandates: “public education in BC must be secular…”
Part 2: When is non-religion a religion?
BC MLAs, rewriting the School Act in 1986, mandated that public education should be Secular. Why? Apparently they didn’t understand that Secularism is a religion — arguably one of the most bigoted of all faiths, exceeded in virulence only by Taliban/Wahabbi Islam. These share with Secularism the goal of extirpating every other religion — the radical Islamists by roadside and suicide bombs, the militant Secularists by legislation and substituting indoctrination for education.
Part 3: Children are the prize in a secret war:
Right now, in British Columbia, a secret war is being waged against parental control of children’s education. The story is an astonishing web of duplicity and deception.

It began a couple of years ago when two men (both teachers) — who think they’re married to each other — threatened the BC government with a “human rights” lawsuit because the public school curriculum didn’t give adequate recognition to homosexuals.
Part 4: Recovering real education to save kids:
How can Canadians recover control over the education of their children, and stop the re-structuring of our society by militant Secularists?

First, we must understand that it urgently needs to be done.

There’s little sense of urgency about this among most hard-working parents; because most families are time-strapped, with both parents holding jobs outside the home. Such parents trust the schools to take proper care of their children; but that job was given by God to parents, not to the state.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Multi-Cult As Canadian As A Hijab? Only If You're Being Sarcastic.

Richard W. Woodley argues that multi-cult is "as Canadian as a kilt or a hijab" and he suggests that if we can accommodate our friends from other cultural backgrounds at home, it shouldn't be so controversial on a societal level. While the comparison "as Canadian as a hijab" alone may be mistaken for sarcasm by many (including myself), let's look at the examples he uses to convince us:
When you invite friends over do you ever serve food that their religion forbids them to eat. If you go to a wedding of someone of another faith do suggest they should be married in a “Canadian” church. If neighbours invite you to a cultural celebration do you complain about their foreign customs. Of course not, because that would be impolite and certainly not the Canadian way.
These analogies however work against what he believes should be the reasonable accommodation of minorities. Sure, when we invite friends over - we want to make sure we serve the food they like. But I doubt anyone would cancel a barbecue just because one of his friends is vegetarian. The host may get some soy burgers for that case (or he may not - that's his decision), but I doubt that any host (unless he's a vegetarian himself) would make everyone eat soy burgers, just because one of the guests can't stand meat.

Also, notice the word "invite". Sorry, but nobody is actually invited to come to Canada. People have to apply for immigration visa before they are admitted to Canada as permanent residents. The embassy doesn't mail out immigration visas randomly, hoping that some people would actually get on the plane and come to Canada. So at the very least the question above should have read "if your friends come over..." If not "if a student who rents your room..." (referring to those who come here on a student visa) or even "if a homeless guy asks for food and shelter..." - referring to the refugees.

The other two examples are "if you go to a wedding of someone of another faith..." and "if neighbours invite you to a cultural celebration..." - those analogies are twisted. Sure, when I'm the one invited, I'm not going to complain or insist or otherwise try to change things my way. But that is also the kind of behavior I'd expect from the people I invite.

Anyone who doesn't like the event he was invited to, may leave, or he may wait until it's over and choose not to show up again. He may choose to throw away the invitation and not to show up in the first place. But demanding that hosts reshape the event in the way one of the guests sees fit, just because he has 'honored' their event with his presence - that's clearly not an option.

And this is the principle which I think must be applied on a societal level. Same as having one vegetarian guest at a barbecue doesn't justify making everyone else eat buns with nothing but vegetables on them, having a few people in the audience that don't celebrate Christmas doesn't justify throwing the word "Christmas" out of a Christmas carol. Same as no tenant would be allowed to alter the premises he rents in the manner that the owner could no longer recognize his own house, no community should be permitted to establish "no go areas" or ghettos, making others feel like aliens in their home town.

If a guest starts complaining loudly about kitchen utensils being dirty, he'll be advised to go get some fresh air. That's why I believe the Muslim cash register worker who refused service to a Christian customer, should be given a one-way ticket to a country where bookstores never sell "unclean" Christian books. And clearly I don't believe that a custom like this one is going to strengthen or enrich Canada's culture.

It's not the mult-cult that made Canada great. (The latter was only brought in by Pearson government in 1965.) Canada became a great and prosperous nation thanks to the rule of law, thanks to democratic governing, based on the British Parliamentary system as well as thanks to the Christian traditions and the heritage of free speech that goes back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta, which made democracy and the rule of law as we know them possible.

Bella Movie Touches Hearts And Saves Lives

Radical poor-choicers are upset because there aren't enough aborting teens in the movies. Well, here's the news they won't like - the movie Bella will be released in select Canadian cities in the first week of March. This movie has already touched many hearts in the US. And it has even saved a few lives:
In his comments to the group the Bella movie producer revealed it has been confirmed that so far at least 12 mothers have changed their minds about aborting their babies after seeing the movie. He said they learned about the most recent two that day from participants in the March. Severino told LifeSiteNews "all were scheduled to abort and through Bella they changed their minds."
Twelve lives saved. Twelve more reasons to welcome the movie Bella to Canada.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Abortion Clinics - Same Old Back-Alley Butchers

When poor-choicers try to defend unrestricted access to abortions, the word "abortion" is always accompanied with the words "safe" and "legal". Those words repeat themselves over and over, creating an impression, that legal abortion is safe and safe abortion, as they say, should be legal. But are those legal abortions really safe?
Los Angles, CA (LifeNews.com) -- Officials in Los Angeles are pursuing a case of practicing medicine without a license against southern California abortion business chain owner Bertha Bugarin. Los Angeles police began the case last fall but details are only now coming to light after a pro-life organization obtained records from authorities.
...
The office said Bugarin is charged with five felony counts of practicing medicine without certification and two misdemeanor counts of dispensing medication without a license.

Her sister, Raquel Bugarin, 49, of Los Angeles, is charged in the same complaint with five felony counts of aiding or abetting the practice of medicine without certification.

The office said that when abortion practitioners were not present, Bertha Bugarin "allegedly performed medical procedures on five patients."
That doesn't really look safe, does it? But wait, it wasn't really legal either... In that case, Morguentaller & Co believe it's the law that must be changed. And they are trying to do just that here in New Brunswick:
Regulation 84-20 says the provincial Medicare plan won't pay for an abortion unless it is approved by two physicians and performed by a specialized gynecologist.

Morgentaler's lawsuit states this is unconstitutional and contrary to the Canada Health Act. The lawsuit demands public funding for clinic-based abortions, which can be accessed without a referral and can be performed by a general practitioner instead of a specialist.
As if we were talking about pulling out a splinter...

As we commemorate the 20th anniversary of the court decision which struck down what's left of Canada's abortion laws, the Real Choice blog reminds us of another anniversary:
Evangeline McKenna was 38 years old when she checked into Cedars of Lebanon Hospital in Los Angeles for an abortion and tubal ligation. Two days after the procedure, she had a seizure. She stopped breathing and went into cardiac arrest. Doctors told the family that Evanegline was brain dead, but they held out hope and asked that she be put on life support.

On January 28, 1974, after twelve days on life support, Evangeline was pronounced dead.
Legalization let the "back alley butchers" hang up their shingles on Main Street. To what end?

VIDEO: 1st Degree Morgentaler

video

The ten minute video is being released as part of the online film contest Project Breakout. Interestingly the date of the announcement of the winners of Project Breakout happens to coincide with the 20th Anniversary of the January 28, 1988 Supreme Court ruling, known as the ‘Morgentaler Decision,’ which decriminalized abortion in Canada. Since that ruling, the fate of Canada’s abortion law has been in the hands of Parliament, and, since it has failed to act, there has been no legal restriction on abortion for twenty years.

Transcript (courtesy of Marginalized Action Dinosaur):
“We came to a stop light and I wanted to get out and run,” says Mrs. Green, recalling her former boyfriend driving her to Dr. Morgentaler’s first clinic in the east end of Montreal. But soon she found herself face to face with the doctor himself, “I was surprised it was Dr. Morgentaler doing the abortion.”

After a brief counseling session she told him, “I don’t want to do this to my baby.” According to Mrs. Green Dr. Morgentaler replied, “It’s not a baby.” She says she cried the whole way through the abortion procedure.
As Mrs. Green tells her story she asks, "What part of that was choice?" Her question is answered by Denise Mountenay, the founder of Canada Silent No More: Abortion is an unchoice.

The Day Humanity Became Cheap

On Jan. 28, Canada marks the 20th anniversary of what may be the most astounding decision in the nation's legal history: R. vs. Morgentaler, the case that struck down Canada's abortion laws.

The Morgentaler case was followed the next year by Daigle vs. Tremblay, which clarified and amplified the Morgentaler ruling.

The result of the two decisions was to give Canada the Western world's most radical abortion regime. The mother's ownership of the pregnancy is absolute and final, and she may end it at any moment, for any reason. Neither the father of the child-to-be, nor the government, nor the child itself has any rights in the matter at all.
...
Late-term abortions remain legal in Canada. When it was reported that no Canadian doctor would perform them, the Quebec government acted to create a new clinic in Montreal specifically for this purpose.
Shows how worthless human life is nowadays. Abortion supporters praise that as a triumph of "women's right to choose", without specifying what exactly is being chosen. They claim that abortion on demand is a woman's right which is not subject to debate, but what about the baby's right to life?

Poor-choicers claim that restricting abortions limits women's personal autonomy. However a decision which affects someone else's life (let alone - takes that life away) can never be considered as such. A notion that people could be forced to submit to one's decision, that a baby's life could be destroyed to benefit the adult, has nothing to do with personal autonomy. It's a radical autonomy, that unfortunately is often mistaken for a human right.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Disallowing Fetal Rights Debate - A Disservice To Women

Pro-life organizations provide support for women in crisis and help women cope with the often traumatic effects of abortion. These are just some of the noble and compassionate services provided by pro-life organizations and people. McHattie and Hull are especially doing a disservice to women in crisis pregnancy situations, who have the right to receive information on all their choices, some of which pro-life organizations provide.
...
Abortion on demand has done nothing to improve the status of women in Canada. Women are still poor, abused and discriminated against. In fact, we now have evidence that abortion negatively impacts women. Organizations such as Silent No More, Project Rachel and Feminists for Life are bringing to light that abortion exploits and oppresses women. Even unborn female babies are at higher risk of being aborted than unborn males, simply because they are female.
A great rebuttal to those who claim that fetal rights are "a very delicate issue that should not be advertised on panels and posters" (2nd comment from the top.)

By the way, did anyone notice that none of the 5 pro-abortion posters (so far) bothered to sign their comments? Not even a nickname, let alone signing their real name. Compare that to the pro-life comments - 8 out of 10 are signed, 7 of them - with an actual name. That too shows something about our opponents, doesn't it?

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Municipalities Censor Pro-Lifers

Pro-life posters are not welcome in the bus shelters of at least three cities - Kelowna, BC,
Hamilton, Ontario and Fredericton, New Brunswick. In Hamilton, the posters were removed after some of them got vandalized; the city transit director Don Hull and the Councillor Brian McHattie found that to be a good excuse. In Kelowna and Fredericton, the City Hall simply found the ads too controversial to be put on bus shelters.

No those weren't posters picturing what's left of a baby after abortion. The posters were similar to the one shown on the picture - feating the profile of a pregnant woman with an illustration of an unborn baby in her womb. The text simply stated a few facts - that human heart begins to beat 22 days after conception and that in Canada that heartbeat can be stopped up until birth - with no medical reason necessary. Finally there is a question - "Abortion. Have we gone too far?" It provokes thought (as any advertising ought to) but only radical secular fundamentalists would find that offensive.
But Mayor Brad Woodside stands by the decision made by city staff and contends that a public bus stop isn't the right venue for such a contentious and political debate.

"We don't want to bring that divisiveness to a public space where people are coming to wait for a bus," he said.
Apparently Mr. Woodside still holds a grudge against pro-lifers, after a pro-life group Show The Truth got him upset with a few graphic pictures back in the summer of 2006. Since the subsequent attempt by the Fredericton Police Force to charge Suzie Ryan with "displaying obscene material" for protesting outside of the Morguentaller's abortuary was unsuccessful (Suzie had nothing to do with Show the Truth and she wasn't displaying any graphic pictures), the city apparently decided to block fetal rights debate on a technicality.

Fortunately, there will be municipal elections held all across New Brunswick in less than 4 months. The least we can do is to make sure Woodside & Co don't get our votes.

Friday, January 25, 2008

No Wonder Poor-Choicers Want No Debate On Fetal Rights

They know they'll lose. Some pro-abortion leaders in the US finally got the courage to acknowledge that:
In an opinion piece published by the Los Angeles Times on January 22nd, Frances Kissling and Kate Michelman write that the phrase "culture of life", coined by Pope John Paul II, has had a significant impact.

"To some people, pro-choice values seem to have been unaffected by the desire to save the whales and the trees, to respect animal life and to end violence at all levels," they write.

"Pope John Paul II got that, and coined the term 'culture of life.' President Bush adopted it, and the slogan, as much as it pains us to admit it, moved some hearts and minds. Supporting abortion is tough to fit into this package."

The authors' also admit that the pro-life movement's focus on the unborn child and its attempts to limit access to abortion have worked, both politically and socially. They lament that "Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé. Now it is a respectable point of view."
Canadian poor-choicers appear to be in slightly better position than their US colleagues, since we don't have that many pro-life MPs, let alone having a pro-life Prime Minister. But at the very least the House of Commons agreed to have a debate on whether the criminals should be held responsible for injuring an unborn baby during an attack on a pregnant women. Yes, I'm talking about the bill C-484, the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act, which wasn't declared a non-votable item this time and which is supported by 72% of Canadians.

As the bill was debated in the Parliament, the Bloc MP Meili Faille couldn't find any other arguments against the bill, beside appealing to the worn-out mantra that abortion on demand is a "woman's right" which is "non-negotiable", as well as stating how shocked she was that such debate had actually taken place in the House of Commons. No wonder she doesn't want any debate on the issue. She knows she has no arguments against a simple fact: Unborn babies are humans too.

P.S. It's projected that bill C-484 will be debated again on February 29, 2008. The vote is expected to take place on March 5. Please contact your MP (no matter what party he is from) and encourage him to support the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Investigative Report On Ezra Levant

Defendant acknowledges awareness of charges against him. He is represented by counsel but insists on opening statement and filming the hearing. Despite warnings and brochure on self incrimination he proceeds.
...
Starts yapping about British common law, Magna Carta, Canadian law, UN Declaration of Human Rights, other documents of white male privilege, etc. Subject seems agitated. Stuff about conscience, religion, expression blah blah blah. Seems to be stonewalling because none of this has any reference in my copy of Publication AHRCC-0503(k), "Hearing Guidelines for Human Rights Clerks." Long diatribe about Sharia Law, radical Islam.

Sorry, I crossed my arms and kind of spaced out there for a second to look at that nice big landscape painting in the hearing room. Does the Commission gift shop have prints? Anyhoo, defendant still seems agitated, and offers thanks to (probably also racist) magazine donors. What is this, the racist Oscars?
Of course this is not the official investigative report released by the Alberta human blights commission on Ezra Levant's case. But I won't be surprised if that's what the real report looks like.

Alberta HRC officers are upset with the publicity they are receiving. They are not amused with the fact that the YouTube videos of the interrogation have been viewed by over 400,000 people so far. While Canadian media continues to boycott the case, Ezra Levant has recently made it to the CNN - giving the freedom-snatching committees more publicity they wouldn't like.

Giuseppe Gori: I have a dream!

Giuseppe Gori, leader of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario:
Yesterday it was Martin Luther King day. His dream of equal dignity with respect to the colour of one’s skin was realized within a generation.

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and I have a dream of my own.

I have a dream that within my life time truth shall prevail, and abortion shall cease to be called a “procedure” and be recognized for what it is, the killing of a human being.
I have a dream that one day we will look back at our society, and our judges and our politicians and ask: “How could they?”

“How could a few judges affect all of society for two generations?”

"How could politicians not be moved to action?"

“How could they allow the killing of millions of their own children and continue with their daily business?”

“How could they destroy human life, when their knowledge of biology was so advanced as to know exactly when life begins?”

Just as today we look back at the Russians, and Stalin and his army and ask, “How could they?”

Just as we look back at the Germans, and Hitler and his Gestapo and ask: ”How could they?”

I shall not rest until cultural leaders like King will emerge, and set aside their own ambitions of fame and power, and dream of a world of justice and dignity for all.
Note: As of Jan.24, Straight Thoughts #162 was still unavailable online. The above essay was posted by Xaveryptak on the Left-Right? Up-Or-Down? blog.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

A Tax Proposal Worth Considering

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) proposes a multi-year tax reform that would both lower the income tax burden on Canadians and simplify the tax code in a manner that strengthens the Canadian economy. The proposal recommends extending the 15% tax rate for personal income under $80,000 (currently the limit is $37,885, after which 22% rate applies), with the income above the $80,000 threshold to be taxed at 25% (currently: 26-29%).

To further simplify the tax code, over a dozen various tax credits would be replaced with higher personal and spousal exemption ($15,000 instead of $9,600), with only a handful of deductions maintained (age amount, child/eligible dependent allowances, RRSP contributions and charitable giving). If implemented, the proposal would provide overall personal tax relief of $25B by 2012.
“The tax relief proposed by the CTF is readily affordable by 2012, provided modest spending restraint is undertaken by the federal government … Restraining federal spending to 2.5% nominal growth per year, beginning in 2008, would produce planning surpluses of $21.9-billion and $28.1-billion [in fiscal 2011/12 and 2012/13]. This implies that personal tax relief of $25-billion per year is possible by 2012, while setting aside $3.0-billion annually for debt reduction and without running a fiscal deficit.”(The C.D. Howe’s Impact of Fiscal Measures is included in the report.)

“The decisions Finance Minister Jim Flaherty makes in the upcoming budget will determine the size of tomorrow’s income tax cut,” noted Williamson. “If the Conservatives exercise modest spending restraint they will finally be able to deliver meaningful personal income tax relief. We must not forget that Canada has the highest personal income tax burden of G7 nations, yes even higher than the French.”
Notice, the CTF doesn't even mention spending freeze, let alone bringing the program spending back to 1996/97 level. The CTF only calls for a spending restraint, suggesting a 2.5% limit on program spending increases. With tens of billions in wasteful spending, that have accumulated since 1996/97, such restraint could be achieved and overachieved quite easily.

If you think that the CTF proposal only benefits the rich - think again. While the high-income earners may be saving 1 to 4 cents on each extra dollar they make, the low- and middle- income Canadians will see the biggest reduction percentage-wise:
  • Nearly 1.4 million low-income Canadians (individuals making between $9600 and $15,000, families making between $19,200 (+$2038 per child) and $30,000 (+$2200 per child) will be removed from the income tax roll. Their tax savings will be 100%.
  • Individuals making between $15,000 and $37,885 (those that are currently in the 15% bracket) will be saving between 20% and 100%, depending on their income level.
  • There will be no more income tax penalties for single income families, earning between $37,885 and $80,000. Their tax burden will go down by at least 38%.
Also let's not forget another important fact: 52.6% of the income tax revenues are paid by the top 10% of taxpayers. And, guess what - the top 10% aren't really millionaires. Those are middle-class Canadians, earning $64,500 or more - barely enough to sustain a household. For decades, they've been picking up the tab for the lion share of the government's wasteful spending, election promises and handouts to special interest groups. The CTF proposal will provide them with a tax break they truly deserve.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

"Choice" Irony

A great video from the Real Choice blog. No, don't worry, there are no pictures of dismembered unborn babies. The video actually features the poor-choicers, the signs and the slogans they use to argue with us... And there are a few facts concerning those slogans. Legalization let the "back alley butchers" hang up their shingles on Main Street. To what end?

Notice that a few signs read "abort more children" and "stop breeding". Those are their fellow earth-worshipers promoting murder of babies as well as suffering (and sometimes - death) of the mothers for the sake of their green Utopia. "Gaia needs saving", that's what they call this frenzy of human sacrifices.

Monday, January 21, 2008

What Kind Of A "Choice" Is That?

This message was forwarded to me yesterday evening.
From: Rosemary Connell
Date: Jan 20, 2008 12:13 PM
Subject: Urgent prayer request

Please pray for a fifteen year old mother of a pre-born baby whose parents have booked an abortion for her this Tuesday. She is 4½ months pregnant and just told her parents on Friday. They booked the abortion the same day! She and the baby's father do not want to have an abortion. The girl's mother says she does not want the abortion either. The baby's grandfather is worried about the family's reputation in the family and community. He also thinks giving birth may harm their young daughter.

The family has agreed to meet with me to look at information that the doctor did not give them and maybe cancel the abortion. Please pray for me and for the family that they will make the right decision for their daughter and let their grandchild live.
So what kind of a choice is that? One would think that if nobody (not even the baby's father) has the right to challenge woman's decision to have an abortion, then at the very least, the same rules should apply when the woman wants to keep the baby. That however doesn't happen.

According to Planned Parenthood's own statistics, 90% of the women who turn to abortion, are pressured to do so by a partner, a family member or a physician. In some cases, even screaming "stop" won't help if someone else had already decided that the woman would be better off without the baby. So what happens to the "choice"? To "stay away from my body"? How come none of that applies when a woman wants her baby to live?

Let's look at it again: the girl wants to keep the baby. The girl's mother wants to keep the baby. The baby's father too wants the baby to live. Only the girl's father doesn't want his daughter to have a child, but somehow his decision prevails over the girl's desire to keep her baby.

And look how quick he is to act: the moment he'd found out his daughter is pregnant, he booked the next available appointment at the Morguentaller's abortuary. No counseling, no ultrasound, nothing. Just call in and get the baby aborted on the next business day; if the abortuary operated Monday to Friday, the baby would probably be ripped to pieces by now.

But why? The girl's father views the baby as a threat to the family's reputation. Apparently he thinks that he can force his daughter into an abortion clinic, have his own grandchild to be put to death - and still remain a respected man.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Liberal Spammers Show Complete Lack Of Conscience

Several families were surprised to find a rather unusual item attached to their Universal Child Care Benefit checks. Those were pamphlets from a political party that actually opposes the UCCB, proposing McDaycare brainwashing centres for children as an alternative. I'm talking about the Liberal party of course.

As you probably know, their party is cash-strapped. Not only they have a hard time raising funds (only $2.9M during the first three quarters of 2007, compared to $12.1M raised by the Conservatives), but they still have some unpaid loans left from the past election and from their recent leadership campaign. No wonder the Liberals have to look for cheaper ways to advertise.

But apparently the CBC volunteers, feeding tricky questions to Liberal MPs and bloggers posting mock "I'm a Liberal and I'm a PC" ads on YouTube, just aren't enough to get the Liberal message out. So some of their supporters decided to attach Liberal pamphlets to the Universal Child Care Benefit checks which the government mails out each month.

Most likely this wasn't a move authorized by Stephane Dion and I understand that. But that still shows the mindset of some Liberal supporters, who chose the most dishonest form of mass mailing, trying to make their pamphlets look like information brochures, that are routinely mailed out by the CRA along with the benefit checks and tax refunds.

The fact that they couldn't think of a better way to get their message out shows that some Liberals start feeling desperate. And the fact that Liberal spammers chose to attach their paper trash to a benefit the Liberal party opposes demonstrates their complete lack of conscience.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Victory For Free Speech. Victory For Fetal Rights. (Bill Whatcott)

"Human rights" tribunals aren't the only ones that usurped the authority to deny people their freedom of speech. Professional associations could do just that. In 2002, Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses (SALPN) accused Bill Whatcott of professional misconduct for picketing the "Planned Parenthood" office in Regina. The pro-abortion adjudicator named Jamie Struthers did her best to turn the trial into a farce.

At the hearings, Bill exposed many of RPP's lies (RPP director Director Barbara McWatters claimed under oath that late term abortions don't take place in Canada, despite clear evidence to the contrary), highlighting the health risks arising from abortions as well as the immorality of killing pre-born babies. In spite of the RPP testimony being thoroughly discredited, regardless of the fact that Bill never represented himself as a nurse at the RPP, Bill was found guilty of "slandering" Planned Parenthood. His license as a practical nurse was suspended for 45 days and he was ordered to pay $15,000 fine. SALPN informed Bill that his license would not be reinstated until the fine was paid.

Bill tried to fight the suspension in court. He lost his first appeal, but now, he's got a win as the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found no justification for SALPN's disciplinary committee decision. It was kind of a hollow victory for Bill. The court awarded him no compensation for lost wages, claiming that since Bill refused to pay the fine then his forced unemployment was, "in significant part, of his own choice." (As if one could easily raise $15,000 in 45 days, especially if he's not allowed to work in his chosen profession.)

But it's a great victory for the freedom of speech. The ruling clearly stated that SALPN's disciplinary committee infringed on Whatcott's freedom of expression. This is also a great victory for the pro-life cause, as it confirms the right of the health professionals to speak up for fetal rights even if someone in the management finds their arguments controversial or untimely.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Are We Preaching To The Choir?

Not everyone reads blogs. What's obvious to us, is sometimes quite hard to understand for others, especially if they don't spend much time online. We hear that Ezra Levant's videos were viewed over 320,000 times and we think we're getting the word out. Meanwhile, an assistant to a federal Conservative Member of Parliament was quite surprised to receive a few emails from his constituents complaining about the HRC. He couldn't figure out whether this was just a blanket complaint or whether HRC was recently in the news. (It sure was, but that guy doesn't listen to No Apologies and he doesn't watch videos on YouTube.) So he asked for his colleagues to help him shed some light on what this issue might be about.

As Al Siebring describes it - we are preaching to the choir:
While the Internet is becoming a very interesting place for people of like mind to share information, it is also keeping various parts of our society from truly talking to one another. Conservatives, Christians, libertarians, and other free speech advocates can write insightul blog entries till the cows come home. And through the technology of trackbacks and "links" we can be inspired by each other's brilliant posts for days on end. We can even email the stuff we really like to our friends. But in the end, we're operating in a closed circle. We've created an online ghetto, and all the rhetorical and polemic brilliance in the world ends up being nothing more than "preaching to the choir."
Online ghetto seems to be better description than preaching to the choir. After all, when we needed pro-lifers from all across Canada to get on Facebook and vote for the wish to abolish abortion at the Great Canadian Wish List contest, we did manage to get nearly 10,000 supporters in a little over a month, winning the contest and getting the desired CBC coverage (at 7:30 AM on Canada Day morning). But as we can see, spreading the word online is not enough to reach out to our elected officials - even if many of them now have their own website or their own group on Facebook.

So what could be done about it? What steps should be taken to denormalize the freedom-snatching commissions and press the legislators to abolish them? As a first step, since we still have such ignorant assistants to our MPs, No Apologies has compiled a list of the "issues" plaguing these commissions (in plain text and MS Word formats). So if your MP doesn't bother to read the blogs - you could easily mail or fax it to him.

But that would be just a baby step. The real step forward would be to actually start working on the SoCon Daily; on a full-scale newspaper or a radio station to broadcast the Social Conservative message. We have the No Apologies, we have the Life Site, as well as the Life News, along with other pro-life websites and plenty of pro-life bloggers. We need to start working together, forming a strong Social Conservative media outlet, so our voices could be heard outside of the online ghetto.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Complainer Gets A Taste Of His Own Medicine

One of Ezra Levant's accusers is now facing a discrimination complaint himself. The same human rights commission that is currently reviewing a complaint filed by the Calgary imam against Ezra Levant, will soon be reviewing a complaint filed against the imam himself - for the way he treated women.
Syed Soharwardy, the Calgary imam and national president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, is named in a complaint filed by three women from the Al-Madihan Calgary Islamic Centre. The women lodged the complaint against Soharwardy just after Christmas, alleging various types of mistreatment at the centre. They say in their complaint that they were "discriminated (against) as women and were treated poorly, differently, negatively and adversely by the Directors and Officers of Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre, Islam Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC), Muslim Against Terrorism (MAT), Al-Madinah Dar-Ul-Aloom Ltd and Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Assembly."
Let's see how he likes being on the other end. This time the matter is much more serious than just publishing a few cartoons that might have hurt someone's feelings. And of course, after the imam tried to use the Alberta HRC against Ezra Levant, he won't be able to say that he doesn't believe the Commission has any authority to make him apologize.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Ezra Levant vs Orwellian Tribunal: Observations

Meet Ms. Lori Andreachuk - a divorce lawyer who was given the authority by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal to rule on constitutional rights issues. She was the sole adjudicator in Stephen Boissoin's case. There was no proven link between what Stephen had said and any act of discrimination. But since Ms. Andreachuk believed that Stephen could be "indirectly responsible", she convicted anyway him without bothering to present any evidence to her claims.

The mainstream media didn't show much enthusiasm, choosing to ignore the case. But judging from the number of times the videos were viewed on the YouTube, it's their loss, not ours.
It’s been a busy few days since my “human rights” interrogation on Friday afternoon. As of yesterday, the video clips I uploaded were viewed nearly 200,000 times, making them the 5th most watched “channel” on YouTube. I’d like to thank the blogosphere for covering a story that has been under-reported by the mainstream media, and I’d like to thank generous visitors for their financial support for our legal defence via PayPal. (Ezra Levant.com)
Some columnists however chose to speak up for Ezra Levant and for our freedom of speech. Among them Herman Goodden from London Free Press.
The stifling menace that has been unleashed on Canadian civic life over the last couple decades by those federal and provincial tribunals known as human rights commissions is finally being dragged into the full glare of public scrutiny with the highest profile cases of their kind yet to be heard.

Originally formed as a means to prevent discrimination against minorities in matters of employment and housing, since the 1985 signing into law of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and the subsequent broadening of provincial codes), the HRCs have increasingly been preoccupied with Charter challenges.

Ezra Levant vs Freedom-Snatching Committee: Part 2

Ezra Levant: It is not I who am on trial: it is the freedom of all Canadians - continued.
All 8 parts are also available at the SoCon or Bust blog.

PART 5 - YOU’RE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINIONS - …provided you pay our fine:

How ironic that something calling itself the “human rights commission” is the one corroding those rights.

PART 6 - THE LIMITS OF FREE SPEECH - time for an education in freedom:

I put it to you that unbridled political speech is not just allowed but it is the antidote, the prophylactic, against violence...
Only a fool would think that censoring and gaging someone is equivalent of changing their mind ... I’ll rot in hell before I use my mouth to say that fascist’s words with you as his instrument to compel me to do so.


PART 7 - VIOLATING THEIR OWN POLICIES - but they do acquit from time to time, slave!

Ezra: I read the Boisson decision and there was no proven link between what he said and any act of discrimination, but they found him to be in violation and what you're saying it's [even untrue].
InTerrogator: That was Ms. Andreachuk.
Ezra: That’s the human rights commission. It wasn’t Ms. Andreachuk. She wasn’t speaking for herself. She was speaking with the hammer of the State.


PART 8 - CLOSING COMMENTS - It is my hope that this matter is not dismissed.

I hope that you recommend that we go to a hearing and I hope we're convicted and I hope this goes higher off to a court and will cause enough of a political schandal...

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

De-Fund The HRC In 50 Words Or Less

If you want the government to stop bankrolling CHRC, SOW and other special interest groups, you have the opportunity to communicate your opinion to the Department of Finance through online pre-budget consultations.

First the website suggests you to select your priorities - with an option to select "other priorities" as well. Then on the next page, they give you the opportunity to comment on your priorities. Your comments bust not exceed 50 words.

Here's my submission on the "other" priority:
There should be no further funding to CHRC and its provincial counterparts, which operate as extrajudiciary tribunals, denying the defendants their freedom of speech and their right to fair trial.

Those commissions are being used exclusively by radical special interest groups to silence their opponents at taxpayers' expense.
You can also e-mail Jim Flaherty and outline your arguments against funding the HRC in more details.
The page says that there were 8000 responses last year. If 1000 people write to say that the Canadian Human Rights Commission should be abolished, they cannot ignore that point.

I feel giving input on a pre-budget consultation is even more effective than writing an MP. MP’s can’t necessarily do anything about the CHRC, but the Finance Minister sure can.
How about making it more than a thousand? How about having every second survey urging the government to stop using our tax money to fund organizations which take away our rights and freedoms? I think we can do it, can't we?

Monday, January 14, 2008

Political Correctness Overrides The Magna Carta

So Ezra decided to take advantage of the ancient Anglo-Saxon right to free expression and published the cartoons.

What he was reminded of, almost immediately, is that Canada is no longer an Anglo-Saxon nation. Gone is the robust belief held by our ancestors for 800 years that the citizen is sovereign, that he is free to do as he wishes unless the state can show unambiguously that there is an overriding need to limit his liberty temporarily. It has been replaced by the continental notion that nothing is allowed unless it is expressly permitted by the state. The belief that the citizen owes the government an explanation of his actions, not the other way around, has gripped our politicians, bureaucrats, judges and professors.
Magna Carta? Habeas Corpus? Forget those! In the eyes of the freedom-snatching committees, hurt feelings of a radical Muslim who has publicly called for sharia law to be imposed in Canada outweigh the rights of Canadians; including immigrants who chose to come to Canada specifically because of Canada's strong democratic traditions and the heritage of free speech that goes back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta.
Ironically, human rights commissions are the best examples of just how many rights we have lost. They follow none of the rules of evidence built up over centuries to assure the accused of a fair hearing. Many commissions will hear plaintiff 's testimony in secret, violating the protection of being able to confront one's accusers. Most admit hearsay and limit the right of the accused to counsel or to call his own witnesses and experts.

Whether they will admit it or not, most also employ reverse onus: Before them, the accused is presumed guilty of racism, sexism, homophobia or general insensitivity if someone from a favoured minority claims to have been offended. It is the responsibility of the accused to prove he is not.

Unlike in a defamation court, at a human rights show trial truth is no defence. What's more, the accuser will be represented by the tax-funded officers of the commission, sometimes even by government-paid lawyers, while the defendant will have to pay his own way.
That too is important. Not only those extrajudiciary tribunals violate our freedom of speech - they deny us the right to a fair trial. The common law rules of evidence don't apply there; the truth is not a defense and the presumption is that the accused is guilty until proven innocent, not vice versa. Yet the committees have the authority to asses fines of up to $50,000 and incarcerate would-be-haters - even if there were no criminal charges laid...

I know I'm repeating what I've already said about the freedom-snatching committees. But I better say it one more time. Because unless the people realize what hides behind the Orwellian name "Human Rights Commission", anyone daring to dismantle those kangaroo courts would be unjustly accused by hysterical zealots of rolling back human rights.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Ezra Levant: It Is Not I Who Am On Trial: It Is The Freedom Of All Canadians

Ezra Levant's opening speech at the so called "Alberta human rights commission".

A few quotes:
As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, a man who helped form these commissions in the 60’s and 70’s, wrote, in specific reference to our magazine, being a censor is, quote, “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons.” Unquote. Since the commission is so obviously out of control, he said quote “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation.” Unquote.
...
Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don’t apply. Rules of court don’t apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and part Stalin. Even this interrogation today – at which I appear under duress – saw the commission tell me who I could or could not bring with me as my counsel and advisors.I have no faith in this farcical commission. But I do have faith in the justice and good sense of my fellow Albertans and Canadians. I believe that the better they understand this case, the more shocked they will be.

The Star Chamber Interrogator vs. Ezra Levant - (Related post by John Pacheco)
Part 2: "What was your intent"?

We published those cartoons for the intent and purpose of exercising our inalienable rights as free born Albertans to publish whatever the hell we want no matter whatever the hell you think.

Part 3: The real violence in Edmonton - Hatred brought on themselves by their conduct.

It’s radical Muslims who blow things up, who torch my Synagogue, who file nuissance lawsuits. They are the ones who make people hate Muslims.

Part 4: I DON’T ANSWER TO THE STATE - The Thugs at the HRC

I do not seek to be excused from this complaint because I meet your test of reasonableness or Laurie Andreachuck, the thug from Lethbridge who convicted a Christian pastor for having Christian views. She’s a thug. You’re a thug. Your whole company is a thug. I do not seek to convince you because to do so means that I grant you some moral authority.

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

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Who Said Our Taxes Must Be High?

The tax-and-spend zealots like to present high taxes as part of a distinct Canadian identity, one that actually makes us different from the Americans. Sure, Americans have slightly lower taxes, they say, but we got universal healthcare. So, they claim we must be proud that our taxes are among the highest in the developed world. And every time the Conservatives propose (let alone implement) new tax cuts, they regard it as Harper's attempt to "Americanize" Canada.

But who said that high taxes are actually a Canadian value? If you believe that Canada's founding fathers dreamed about a country with high taxes and all-pervasive public sector - I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this wasn't the case.
So, for example, the first post-Confederation Liberal finance minister, Sir Richard Cartwright, speaking in 1878, had this to say about taxation: "All taxation is a loss per se. It is the sacred duty of the government to take only from the people what is necessary to the proper discharge of the public service; and that taxation in any other mode, is simply in one shape or another, legalized robbery."
Compare those Liberals and the Liberal party nowadays. Compare it with Stephane Dion who considers reversing the GST cut. Or compare it with Paul Martin who campaigned on a slogan "choose your Canada" - referring to the tax-and-spend Canada which he apparently considered to be the "genuine" Canada. But Canada didn't start as a tax-and-spend nation.
To many present-day Canadians, such political talk seems odd. But our first governments favoured a limited role for governments and were also intent on keeping taxes lower than the Americans' in order to attract and retain immigrants. Also, contrary to popular modern belief, it was American governments, not Canadian ones, who first blazed the path to newer and higher taxes.

Take a national income tax for example. It was first introduced during the U.S. Civil War, cancelled, and then re-introduced in 1913. In Canada, our first federal income tax didn't become law until 1917.
...
Another example comes from gasoline taxes. This province was the first Canadian jurisdiction to tax gas, in 1922, (at two cents a gallon.) But 19 American states levied taxes on gasoline before Alberta. Similarly, plenty of U.S. states introduced sales taxes before any Canadian province. Ironically, Alberta was the first Canadian province to introduce a sales tax in 1936 (though it was repealed one year later).

This pattern, where taxes were introduced first in the United States and later copied in Canada was also evident in other provinces. The first provincial corporate tax, in Quebec in 1884, was modelled on an American precedent. When in the late 19th century, Ontario and other provinces introduced estate ("death") taxes, the Ontario legislation was directly copied from Pennsylvania and New York statutes already in force.
Only in the 1960s, when the Liberal governments (led by Pearson and later - by Trudeau) began unilaterally redefining nation's values and principles (presenting their policies as such, in order to perpetuate their rule); only then the tax-and-spend policy was proclaimed to be a part of Canada's national identity. The notion that taxes must be high and that public service must be pervasive is therefore a Trudeaupian value, not a Canadian value. And it's great to see more people willing to discard it.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Rex Murphy: Human Rights Gone Awry

Rex Murphy comments on the recent barrage of "human rights" complaints. It's a rare occasion when CBC broadcasts a speech in defense of the common sense and freedom of speech, yet surprisingly they allowed Rex to express his opinion. I was unable to download and post the video itself so I'm posting some of the transcript.
More currently, I associate real human rights advocacy with the case of a young Saudi woman, who very recently was repeatedly gang-raped - and then she – the victim - charged and sentenced by a Saudi court to 200 lashes and six months in jail for being in a car with a male not her relative. The sentence, after international protest, was voided --- but that young woman’s case represents a real example of the violation of basic human rights.

What I do not associate with this deep and noble concept is getting ticked off by something you read in a magazine - or for that matter hear on television - and then scampering off to a handful - well, three - of Canada's proliferate human rights commissions - seeking to score off the magazine: this is what four Osgoode Hall law students and graduates --- a very definition of the 'marginalized' --- under the banner of the Canadian Islamic Congress have done after reading an excerpt from Mark Steyn's America Alone in Maclean’s. The complainants read the article as “flagrantly islamophobic”.
...
But where does the BC Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Commission come into this picture? Has anyone been publicly whipped? Has someone or some group been hauled off to a gulag? Is there a race frenzy sweeping the land?

Why is any human rights commission inserting itself between a magazine, a television show, a newspaper and the readers or viewers? Is every touchy, or agenda-driven sensibility now free to call upon the offices of the state and free of charge - to them - not their targets - to embroil them in "justifying" their right to write and broadcast as they see fit? The Western Standard magazine, during the so-called Danish cartoon crisis got hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the cartoons that all the world was talking about. The action drained the magazine’s resources - but it was free to the complainant.

Mr. Harper, Please Use Your Pen!

There is no place in a free society for state-run organizations such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its provincial counterparts. There is no place in a free society for any organization designed to punish those who haven’t broken the law. And there is no place in a free society for tribunals where the truth is not considered to be a defense, where all trials end in convictions, and where all the expenses fall to the accused.

Such is the state of our freedom in Canada today. It need not remain so.

You have the power to put an abrupt end to this, Mr. Prime Minister. These organizations were created and nurtured with a stroke of a pen by your predecessors and they can be abolished in the same manner by you. Entire ministries have come and gone at the stroke of the prime ministerial pen.

Today the nation needs its leader to wield his pen. Today Canadians need the kind of leadership that will keep us a free and prosperous people.

Lead us in this, Mr. Harper, the country will follow you.

Please use your pen.
(Source: Free Dominion)
Back in late 1990s Harper spoke up against those freedom-snatching committees with Orwellian name. But in his two years in power he didn't even use the chance to balance out the radical left 'Commissars' when appointing replacement members to CHRC, let alone dismissing the most radical members or nixing the extrajudiciary tribunal altogether.
Under his watch, both the Chief and Deputy Commissioners were appointed. You can read about the bios of these two individuals here. What words comes to mind here? How about “unelected activist lawyers”? Does that work for you? Not exactly a great inspiration for conservatives, is it?
As the polls keep showing the Conservatives just a few points ahead of the Liberals (and - quite far away from majority territory), we see the Conservative party trying to appease the left-of-center voters by boosting spendings and holding back (or considerably slowing down) the Conservative policies.

Why wouldn't Harper take a leadership role and instead of appeasing the lefties, try approaching the small-c Conservatives that didn't vote in the past election? We need a strong Conservative platform to convince them that they lose much more than they think by staying at home on election day.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

German Homeschoolers Flee The Country

They've seen what happened to Melissa Busekros. They are aware of the ordeal of several other homeschooling families and they don't want this to themselves and their children. So they flee their home country.
LONDON, January 9, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A German family has fled to safe haven in the United Kingdom after the mayor of their town attempted to have their children seized and put into state custody for the crime of homeschooling according to WorldNetDaily (WND).
...
Joel Thornton, President of the International Human Rights Group, which advocate for homeschoolers in Germany, told LifeSiteNews.com that the report from Netzwerk-Bildungsfreiheit is troubling since, "German government officials are willing to violate their own procedures to take the custody of children from the parents for nothing more than homeschooling. Were there criminal activity going on that was being avoided it would be understandable, however the system would probably not be so quick to act."
...
WND reports that this week a Bavarian man identifying himself as "Mathew" sent this message: "This morning we received a call from the German ministry of education. Tomorrow (Wednesday) morning they will send the police to our home and take Josia (6), Lou Ann (10) and Aileen (13) by force, to the public school."

According to "Matthew," the government was emboldened by the high court's decision, and since then it has increased substantially its persecution of homeschooling families.
...
Another family said they were escaping Germany after their lawyer concluded that "only jail and loss of custody are left" as penalties from the government.
German laws against homeschooling were brought in by the Nazis in 1938 to ensure no child escapes their control and indoctrination. The Nazi regime is long gone, but the laws are still on the books. And as it turns out, today's German government doesn't see anything wrong with using those anti-homeschooling laws to spoon-feed their own agenda to public school children.

Traditional Values - A Path Towards Happiness

Believe it or not, but that's what the new Gallup poll shows. It turns out that married Church-going Republicans are more likely to be happy and satisfied with their lives, compared to unmarried secular Democrats. The gap gets even bigger among those who are very satisfied with their lives.
  • 88% of married people are satisfied with their lives, versus 78% of unmarried folks.
    (-- 65% ”Very Satisfied” versus 45% ”Very Satisfied”.)
  • 90% of Republicans are satisfied, versus 82% of Democrats.
    (-- 66% ”Very Satisfied” versus 53% ”Very Satisfied”.)
  • 88% of weekly church-goers are satisfied, versus 82% who seldom or never attend church
    (-- 66% ”Very Satisfied” versus 51% ”Very Satisfied”.)
The breakdown on personal happiness is quite similar. Married people that are very happy with their lives outnumber unmarried folks 59% to 41%. Very happy Republicans outnumber Democrats and Independents 61% to 47%. And among those attending church regularly, 62% are very happy, compared to 45-50% of those who never or seldom attend church.

Looks like traditional values help people to better manage their lives and to find guidance in the time of hardship. Sure, traditional values are not guaranteed to make your life perfect. But as it turns out adhering to traditional values puts you on a path towards happiness and satisfaction with your life.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Dion Will Consider "Revisiting" GST Cut

According to CTV report, Dion may consider "revisiting" (in other words - canceling) the GST cut, which he believes is an "ill-advised choice".
We will consider if in our plan we need to revisit the decision of the government about the GST, we'll consider it. It's 34 billion dollars, that means 6 to 7 every year on the ill-advised choice.
(Transcript from the video)
Apparently the recent GST cut would leave Dion's hypothetic government with little or no cash for vote buying and for handouts to special interest groups. Gentlemen, watch your pockets!

Liberal Hidden Agenda Exposed

You won't find any of that in the Liberal party platform. But these are the policies they've been following for decades. Even when the Liberal party is not in power, unelected Liberal appointees in the courts and "human rights tribunals" do the job for them.
First when it comes to free speech people say nothing is brewing or has been done to curtail that of late. To them I say with the massive results we’ve obtained what more is there to do? I mean not only are Canadians kowtowed into only saying things that socialists like to hear because everything we on the left disagree with is hate speech. But now we fine the crap out of people for merely quoting what others have said.

Hugh Owens quotes the bible 20k

Bill Whatcott quotes homosexuals who publish a magazine soliciting for sex with,… well I better not say, 17k

Mark Steyn quotes an EUrabian Imam, well, who knows, how much he will have to pay but our tribunals have never ever found anyone not guilty.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Nanny State Hand In Hand With The Big Brother

Many of us have already heard the news about the new set of regulations which the city of Brampton, Ontario plans to impose on churches. Those regulations go far beyond removing the tax-exempt status from church properties that are not used for worship. The proposal also suggests there should be no more than one church for every 10,000 residents.

Since the above ratio limits Brampton to about 45 places of worship (churches, synagogues, Hindu temples etc), the proposal slaps major restrictions on new church start-ups, regulating what space these start-ups could rent, where, and for how long. Major increases in permitting fees for things like zoning and variance issues are proposed for the existing churches, with an obvious intention to drive Brampton's "surplus" churches (that are over 100) into bankruptcy.

Finally, the proposal restricts house churches to no more than 20 people - children included. This is presented as a measure to address parking issues in residential areas. But if parking was the concern - the city could just enforce the parking rules. At worst they could suggest restricting the number of vehicles that could be parked in a single driveway, not the number of people that attend home-based prayer circles. Apparently someone in the City Hall is eager to see Brampton more secular.

But there's more to it than just an attack on religion. Let's take another look at the proposed property tax rules:
All "non-worship space" owned by religious organizations (offices, kitchens, nurseries, fellowship halls, parking lots, etc) would become subject to property taxes.
...
The study recommends a redefinition of what constitutes "places of worship" - including a removal of provisions expressly allowing church properties to be used for "community services" such as day care centres, soup kitchens, etc.
So the churches will not only lose their tax exempt status - they'll also be denied their charitable function in the community. But why would the City Hall want to shut down church-run soup kitchens and daycares? It's not like we have surplus of those in our cities...

The only possible explanation is that the City Hall wants to leave the residents with fewer choices for child care, charities and other community services, thus creating more demand for the government-run child care services and social assistance.
Aggressive outreach - the process of actively soliciting trade for social workers. Generally employed when ‘customers’ fail to show required enthusiasm for services on offer.
That's double-plus ungood, comrades. I won't be surprised if it turns out that those who drafted the plan count on artificial shortage of food banks and daycare spaces to get more people supporting the left-wing parties that promise universal "McDaycare" for kids and higher welfare payments for adults.

So what could be done about it? First - we need to have more Social Conservatives in the city councils. Most of us tend to neglect the municipal level politics, choosing to deal with nation-wide issues instead. But let's not forget that it's the city officials that issue zoning permit for churches, appoint social workers and decide whether or not Christmas celebrations should be allowed on public property. So it is important that we take back the municipal councils - with all the affiliated organizations such as school boards, hospital directorates etc.

Second - let this be a lesson to the spiritual leaders of all faiths, to all those who chose to distance themselves from debates over social issues, to avoid losing the tax-exempt status for their church. Most of Brampton churches too preferred to stay silent on issues like fetal rights and the sanctity of marriage - is that helping them now in any way? I hope it becomes clear to more clergymen that playing nice guy with the secular fundamentalist government doesn't mean that the government will always be nice to you; that accepting the iron-clad rule of separating religion from politics may result in politicians separating your church from whatever rights it may still have.

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Silent No More Women: Time To Break The Silence!

The mainstream media refers to them as "women who turn their backs to choice". The fact is - those are the women who had made that "choice". They were misled and traumatized by the abortion industry - and they are Silent No More.
January 28th, 2008 marks the 20 year anniversary when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion law in Canada, giving us NO law or restrictions on abortions. As you can see in the articles below, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, a Jewish immigrant who survived Dachau and Aushwitz came to Canada and began to break the laws, to change the laws in order for him and others to legally abort Canadian babies without question.

He runs the most abortion clinics across Canada and has done over 70,000 abortions with his own hands.

Already, several newspapers are heralding him a hero for women’s rights and feature columns in the Sun chain newspapers hail this 20th anniversary as a victory for women. Sadly, we know the truth that abortion killed our children, and hurt us deeply. Most of us were lied to, and decieved about the fetal development and were told it was a “safe” procedure. However, many women aborted the only child or children they could ever have! Some of us have suffered irreparable damage to our cervix, uterus and reproductive health. Most of us have suffered the great anguish, guilt, remorse and regret of this diabolical procedure.

And it is TIME to BREAK the SILENCE!
...
Stand with us on JANUARY 24th, 2008 at 10:AM in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, in Ottawa, Ontario and mourn with us for the hundreds of thousands of babies murdered in our land, almost 3 million. Please dress in BLACK to represent the deaths of these children and ours. Please prepare to give a 3 minute impact statement on how you were affected by your abortion(s), if you are not ready to speak publicly, thats okay, but please stand with us, pray for the others who will speak.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

If Unrestricted Abortion Really Was A Right

...Then why would late-term abortions be reported as stillbirths?
If an intrauterine fetal death occurs greater than 20 weeks and is induced it is coded as a stillbirth. It is useful to have a field on the computer which helps to classify post 20 week events, e.g., stillbirth – termination, live birth – termination. This is to provide a clearer picture whether a temporal trend is due to treatment, e.g., folic acid fortification, natural temporal trends or unnatural ones, e.g., terminations.

And another thing:
Some human rights organizations in the US find that using potassium chloride for lethal injections is too painful for the convicts. So they challenge the constitutionality of lethal injections in the Supreme Court. But what about the unborn babies, that are often given the same lethal injection yet without anesthetic?! If killing a convicted murder using potassium chloride is cruel, then using the same potassium chloride to take away life of a baby, just weeks before baby's first breath is at the very least barbaric.

Friday, January 4, 2008

The Liberal Understanding Of Fairness

Stéphane Dion has appointed Joan Beatty, former Saskatchewan NDP cabinet minister and Aboriginal activist as a Liberal party candidate for Desenthe-Missinippi-Churchill River, thus canceling the nomination vote. This is a bad news for anyone who sought Liberal nomination in the riding - including David Orchard.

Orchard's supporters are upset:
I am at a total loss for words. The appointment of an NDP MLA over two solid Liberals in this Northern Saskatchewan riding defies all credible logic. Keep in mind the NDP in the last federal election finished 6500 votes behind the Liberals and Conservatives in DMCR. I guess, as a party, we are content to own one seat in the Province of Saskatchewan perpetually.
Just as I said couple weeks ago - if Orchard chose to join a political party that believes in ethnic and gender quotas for public and private sector jobs (as well as for candidate nominations), it's only fair that Orchard himself got a "white males need not apply" notice.

Orchard has been campaigning for a couple of months, selling hundreds of memberships at $25 each (not an easy sell in one of the poorest ridings) - just to find out that there would be no nomination vote. Maybe now he understands what it feels like to spend weeks and months looking for a decent job, just to find out that the position you've been applying for went to someone who is less qualified, but who is a member of a special interest group.

On the same blog that brings the news about the appointment of Joan Beatty, there's a picture of Stéphane Dion with a slogan that reads "A Richer, Fairer, Greener Canada". Could there be a better example of how Dion & Co understand fairness?

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Bring Back The Hippocratic Oath!

When a doctor injects a syringe full of potassium chloride into the heart of a fetus (often in the 2nd or 3rd trimester), you the taxpayer, pay him $248.50 for that "service".

That doesn't include payment for the delivery of the "stillborn" baby. Or any other service that's part of the abortion.
But isn't that against the Hippocratic Oath? Doesn't the Oath say "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."? It does. But the problem is - our physicians are no longer required to take a Hippocratic Oath before they start practicing medicine.
In the 1970s, cultural and social forces induced many American medical schools to abandon the Hippocratic Oath as part of graduation ceremonies, usually substituting a version modified to something considered more politically up to date, or an alternate pledge like the Oath or Prayer of Maimonides.
In other words - political correctness tramples over ethics. And it shows with the way some patients are treated nowadays.
Paris, France (LifeNews.com) -- A French woman who is a serial surrogate mother and now pregnant with triplets refuses to have an abortion even though doctors say there is a small risk the pregnancy could threaten her life. Carole Horlock, 41, says physicians told her that the pregnancy could pose issues because of her age.

They said she has a 2.5 percent chance of suffering major medical problems, but the news isn't deterring Horlock from going through with giving birth to all three babies.
...
But Horlock, who is originally from Britain, has rejected their advice because they admitted there is a 12 percent chance that aborting one of the babies would result in the loss of all three.
Instead of caring for the well-being of a mother and her three babies, instead of protecting all four lives, those doctors are looking for lives that they believe could be sacrificed. For them a 2.5% chance of major medical complications to the mother outweighs certain death for one of the babies and a much higher chance for the other two babies to die. Hippocratic Oath includes a pledge to treat all the patients equally, regardless of their social status. But our physicians no longer take the Hippocratic Oath.

It's time we demand to bring it back.