Friday, February 29, 2008

Mary Talbot: My Grandson Was Murdered

Mary Talbot is the mother of 2005 murder vicitim Olivia Talbot and grandmother of Olivia's unborn son. Here's a letter she wrote in response to Joyce Arthur's claims that bill C-484 is a "back-door attempt to attack abortion". It was published in Ottawa Citizen on February 25, 2008.
I was in Ottawa on Feb. 14, what should have been my grandson's second birthday, at a press conference urging MPs to vote for Bill C-484, regarding the unborn victims of violence.

The next day, the Canadian Press reported on what Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada had to say about this bill and about the intentions of the MP who introduced it. It appalls me that she is still trying to turn my cause into some sort of abortion issue. Positive or negative, I do not want to see Bill C-484 connected to abortion whatsoever.

Ken Epp, the member of Parliament who introduced this bill, has worked hard to ensure there cannot be any mistaking that the abortion issue is totally excluded. Please refer to Mr. Epp's website, www.kenepp.com. He has rebutted many of Ms. Arthur's claims, yet she continues to accuse him and anyone who supports this bill of having an ulterior motive. "It definitely is a back-door attempt to attack abortion rights," she told the media.

Here is an MP who is doing something to fight criminal violence, to help protect women and babies, to change the law so that no other grandmother in the future has to go through the grief and insult of being told that the murder of her grandson - that the murder of my darling Olivia's beloved baby, Lane Jr. -- doesn't even register a blip in our criminal justice system.

I also find it an insult that Ms. Arthur suggests my opinion regarding this matter should be irrelevant, as I have a vested interest - my daughter and my grandson were shot to death!

This is what she says on the coalition's website: "While we deeply sympathize with them and understand their wish, it must be recognized that victims of violence are not those who should be making decisions about justice in a democratic society. Appropriate laws and penalties must be determined by impartial parties who do not allow emotion or personal bias to colour their decisions."

Just who are these "impartial parties" she is referring to?

On the one hand she speaks about democracy and on the other she implies that I not be part of the democratic process.

In my own daughter's case, there will be no retribution toward the man who murdered her to kill my grandson. This is "justice in a democratic society"? Ms. Arthur is putting the rights of criminals ahead of the women they abuse, often in very brutal ways, and often done with the intention "to get the baby," to quote the killer of Olivia and baby Lane.

On the one hand she says she "deeply sympathizes" with me, yet if she doesn't recognize the violence against my wee Lane Jr., then what does she have to "sympathize" about?

To you Ms. Arthur: Please show some respect for my daughter's and her unborn baby's memory, for Lane Jr. who I held in my arms and wept for. And I feel that I can ask the same for the rest of the families who are at this time grieving the loss of their loved ones. I hope you never have to experience the pain and anguish and sense of injustice of losing a beloved family member to violence, only to learn that no crime was committed, only to learn that the one your heart breaks for, was of no worth.
Bill C-484 will be debated again on March 3rd. It will be voted on sometime in the second week of March. Please forward this letter to your MP.

A Few Of Questions On Cadman Affair

According to the "advance copy" of Chuck Cadman's biography, obtained by the CBC, the deceased MP was offered a bribe by two unnamed Conservative party officials, that were trying to persuade Mr. Cadman to vote against the government in a confidence vote:
Cadman, a former Reform and then Canadian Alliance MP, was dying of skin cancer when the crucial vote on a budget amendment came up on May 19, 2005.

The Liberal prime minister at the time, Paul Martin, needed Cadman's vote to stay in power, while Stephen Harper's Conservatives needed the Independent MP's support to force an election.

Two days before the vote, Zytaruk writes, Cadman was visited by two Conservative party representatives — who are not identified — and presented with a list of enticements to rejoin the party before the vote.

A million-dollar life insurance policy was on the list, Zytaruk writes.

"That was on him, so that if he died I'd get the million dollars," Cadman's wife, Dona, is quoted as saying. "There was a few other things thrown in there too."
A million dollar policy for a terminally ill man? What underwriter would approve such a policy? According to the book, the offer was made on May 17, 2005. Mr. Cadman died on July 9th. What insurance company would be willing to pay $1M death benefit on a 7 week old policy without launching an investigation on how come such policy was even issued?

Imagine, someone offered you a bribe - a million dollars in $250 bills... But wait a minute, there's no such thing as $250 bills, is there? Well, offering a $1M life insurance policy for a terminally ill man is no different than offering him 4 Tim Horton's bags full of non-existing banknotes. Both are fraudulent and both are more than likely to get anyone involved in jail.

So - shall we believe that some in the Conservative party were creative enough to come up with the whole life insurance policy scheme, but they weren't smart enough to realize that there was absolutely no chance for anyone involved to get away with it? Or maybe we should believe that they thought Mr. Cadman wouldn't be able to see an obvious fraud?

Finally - let's try to remember the political climate back in May of 2005. On May 17 (the same day Mr. Cadman was allegedly approached by the Conservatives), Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to the Liberals. Few days after the vote, Gurmant Grewal claimed that he too was approached by a few senior Liberal MPs; that they were offering him a cabinet position and a Senate appointment for his wife, trying to persuade him to cross the floor. All that was widely discussed in the Parliament and in the media. So if there was an offer made to Mr. Cadman by the Conservatives - why did he choose not only to keep silent about it, but also to deny the existence of such offer in the interview he gave right after the confidence vote?

In the spring of 2005, Stephen Harper sought to vote down the Liberal government, suggesting that following the facts discovered at the Gomery inquiry, the Liberals had lost the moral authority to govern. If there really was a fraudulent life insurance policy offered by the Conservatives to Mr. Cadman, how come he never bothered to remind the Conservatives of their own misdeeds? After all - Mr. Cadman had nothing to lose by then...

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Indoctrinating Elementary School Children

If the question was ever in doubt, it should be no longer: the great majority of sex-ed enthusiasts and AIDS educators are sexual misfits themselves, and their fervid interest in getting into the classroom with children -- other people's children -- stems not from a desire to protect those children from harm but from the need to vindicate their own sexual choices.
...
They see her six-year-old's innocence, as they see all innocence, as a rebuke to their depravity. Hating that innocence, which must pain them whenever they encounter it, they want to extinguish it as soon and as thoroughly as possible. That's why they want into the first grade classroom.
Just as the blogger at Bettnet.com said, they want to turn love and marriage into a disease-riddled, emotionally empty, mechanical exercise of selfishness and physical activity. Compare that to Orwell's 1984, where the Party sought to make procreation an annual formality, like the renewal of a ration card and intimacy was to be reduced to "a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema". Looks somewhat similar, doesn't it?

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

When Pro-Aborts Need It, They Defend Back-Alley Abortions

A lobby group named "abortion rights coalition" released a list of talking points against the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. Most of those arguments falsely claim that bill C-484 will define unborn babies as persons (there's none of that in the bill) or that it will criminalize abortions (which in fact will be exempted under section 7).

So if they bothered to read the bill (especially section 7 which excludes abortions as well as any actions from woman's side that might harm the fetus), there would be nothing in their list of "talking points" except a couple of suggestions to address domestic violence instead (as if any assault on a pregnant woman could qualify as domestic violence), some pathetic statements such as "victim’s families should not determine legal remedies" (sure, let's leave it to the bleeding-heart leftie activists) and - their ultimate argument:
11. People who help women self-abort could be prosecuted. If women try to self-abort and persuade someone to help them, the helper can be prosecuted under a fetal homicide law and suffer grave injustice.
Now that's strange. For years the pro-aborts have been telling us that legal abortions are a must to ensure that women no longer have to turn to back-ally abortions. Remember all those coat-hanger signs? Well, now it turns out that back-alley abortions still exist. And, to make things worse, there are pro-abortion lobby groups that actually support them.

Otherwise why would they even raise that point? If anything - they should be concerned whether the exemption for legal abortions in section 7 would actually let back-alley butchers of the hook. (After all - there are currently no laws regulating abortions, thus it's often hard to distinguish between a back-alley abortion and a legal one.) Instead they refer to back-alley abortionists as "people who help women to self-abort" and they worry that they may face prosecution under the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act.

We've seen already that the pro-abortion movement has nothing to do with choice. Clearly, it has nothing to do with women's rights either. What they campaign for is abortion at all and any cost.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Denying Justice, Denying Choice

When someone says that he is in favor of choice, it's reasonable to assume that there's more than one option to the issue he refers to and that the person in question supports both options equally. So when pro-abortion activists call themselves "pro-choice" it sounds as if they would also respect women's choice to carry the unborn child to term. Their opposition to the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act clearly shows this is not the case.

Despite the common perception, bill C-484 does not grant personhood to unborn babies. Neither does it criminalize abortion or otherwise punishes women for behavior that may harm the fetus (such as drug abuse). Section 7 of the bill provides specific exemption for these cases. The protection of the bill only applies in situations when a criminal action, committed against a pregnant woman, results in death or injury of the pre-born child. Only in these cases the criminal would be charged for harming both the mother and her unborn baby.

Opponents of bill C-484 like to highlight section 5, which states that it is not a defence to charge that the unborn child is not a human being. But wild animals aren't humans either. Yet if you hunt them without permit - you're going to get in trouble. Same like our laws protect animals without granting them personhood, bill C-484 offers legal protection to unborn babies, but it doesn't grant them personhood.

So why does the pro-abort side oppose the bill? Because it acknowledges that there's more than one victim to an attack on a pregnant woman. Because the bill denounces their "one body - one count" myth, confirming the biological fact: that a mother and her baby are two separate beings from the moment of conception. Even that is too much for them. They'll deny choice for women who want to keep their babies, they'll deny justice to the unborn victims of crime, just to prevent any possible threat to what they call a "right to abortion".
The great scam of “choice” has never been accepted by people who have a fondness towards objective truth.
...
It was really never about choice in the first place. It was about preserving abortion no matter how many women get killed, no matter how many families are traumatized, and no matter how many wanted unborn children die.
That says it all.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Just One Body? Let's Count!

The pro-aborts continue their ridiculous "one body, one count" campaign against the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. Not sure how many of them are truly unaware of the simple biological facts (one body can't have two different DNA's let alone - two different blood types) and how many simply choose to ignore scientific facts that contradict their murderous cult. But if biological facts don't appeal to them and they still insist that a mother and her unborn baby are just one body, then how about... counting those bodies?
So how many bodies were there?

A mother and her baby - that's two bodies. The thug who took away their lives should therefore be held accountable for both.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Behold The New Human Right

The "human rights commissions" seem to have parted with whatever remainder of common sense they used to have. Judging from their recent ruling, one now has a right to keep his job even if he doesn't show up to work.
A strange Human Rights Commission ruling in BC. Six employees of the private company that has the contract to run the buses for the Vancouver transit system have been re-instated to their jobs. They were initially fired because of chronic absenteeism. They weren't showing up for work. Taking too many sick days. Several hundred sick days a year. But the employees say they were discriminated against for missing too much work because they were actually chronically sick, disabled or injured. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal also told the Coast Mountain Bus Company it could no longer put employees with high absentee rates into its so-called "attendance management program." The tribunal awarded the workers a total of $33,000 in damages because, it said, the company's attendance program amounted to "systemic discrimination against those with chronic or recurring disabilities." No word yet on whether the company is going to appeal the ruling.
Not sure where all those "several hundred sick days a year" come from, since there are only 250 work days in a typical year. Apparently that refers to the total number of days off taken by those six employees, so each one of them must have been taking some 50 to 100 sick days a year. Which is still more than enough for one to start wondering whether or not he's fit for the job.

Logically speaking, if one doesn't have any health issues, he's expected to show up at workplace as scheduled. If however one is chronically sick or if his disability precludes him from holding a full-time job - then he'd rather apply for disability benefits or look for a different job where his chronic absenteeism won't disrupt his colleagues and his employer. That's common sense. But logic and common sense are no longer welcome in the HRCs.

HRCs were initially mandated to investigate and settle complaints of discrimination in employment. Well, we've just seen the way those guys understand "discrimination" nowadays. If you had any doubts about those "human rights commissions", the recent ruling is yet another proof of how irrelevant those commissions are.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Yes They Are The Architects Destruction

Chimera blogger suggests a new direction for the pro-abortion movement:
Why do we not breed ourselves the same way farmers breed crops and ranchers breed animals? We have the capability to do it that way. So why don't we?

We breed plants and animals to be stronger and more disease resistant, so why do we insist that genetically flawed and fragile humans should not only live beyond their natural abilities, but also that they be allowed to pollute the already flawed gene pool by breeding their weaknesses right back into it?
In conclusion Chimera claims that those who oppose abortions are "determined to wipe humans off the face of the earth entirely". Why? Because Chimera believes fetal rights are to benefit those "genetically flawed". That's why the blog post is titled "pro choice is pro life". (Sounds quite Orwellian doesn't it?)

But the fact is that about 98% of abortions are performed with no medical reasons whatsoever. Thus, even if we leave out the ethical aspect of singling out and exterminating those "genetically flawed", it turns out that Chimera & Co would rather have 98 perfectly healthy babies destroyed before they get a chance to see daylight, just to prevent a couple of "genetically flawed" babies from "polluting" the gene pool.

But there's no way the ethical questions could be avoided. Apart from such obvious question as who's going to determine which baby is ok and which one is "genetically flawed", there's also a question of where do we stop? If killing a disabled unborn is acceptable, why not killing a disabled child? If the pro-death crowd believes that people should be bred like animals or crops - what can stop them from shooting an elderly or a handicapped, just the way a cowboy in the movie shots a wounded horse?

Legal abortion (unrestricted since 1988) has already cost Canada about 3 million lives. That's nearly 10% of Canada's population. Atlantic Canada already faces a severe demographic crisis, that threatens to devastate the Maritimes financially, eventually depopulating the region. Canadian population is aging and you know what usually comes after aging... But a radical pro-abortionist like Chimera still has the audacity to claim that it's the pro-lifers who are determined to wipe humans off the face of the earth...

Chimera quotes Herbert Wells, suggesting that "we are the architects of our own destruction". If by saying "we" Chimera refers to himself and other poor-choicers, then I can't agree more. Abortion supporters are the architects of their own destruction. Too bad they drag others down with them.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Carbon Tax Hits BC

BC Green party holds no seats in the provincial legislature. But the governing Liberals are pushing forward their agenda for them, introducing "carbon tax" in their recent budget. The new tax will increase the price of gasoline by 7.2 cents a litre by 2012. Vancouver Sun begins its article by suggesting that "driving and other fuel-dependent activities are about to get more expensive". What the article doesn't mention is that every activity is in fact fuel-dependent.
This hurts everyone. Absolutely everyone. Yes, even transit riders. They’ll increase transit fares for the increased cost of gas. Yes, even bicycle riders. The price of commodities (safety gear, the bikes themselves) will increase because of shipping costs rising.
Let's not forget about heating fuel in the winter and about air conditioning in the summer (electricity too is mostly a fuel-dependent energy). Thus, those working from home or walking to their workplaces won't be spared either.

The government suggests the new tax hike will be compensated through a package of tax cuts and credits. But the proposed annual "climate action credit" for low-income families ($100 per adults and $30 per child) as well as one-time mail-out of $100 checks for every BC resident fall short of $1.85B the new tax will bring over 3 years.

Vancouver Sun article mentions $1B over four years committed to fight "climate change", but I noticed no broad-based income tax or sales tax reductions. In fact, the government plans to reduce taxes amount to only $481M over 3 years. The government also plans to spend extra $787M over four years on social services, but that's a spending increase, not a tax credit.

Most of those who commented on the article are upset about the new "green" tax hike:
This will hurt the economy. I will travel less. Shop less. China puts 1000 new vehicles a day on the road. B.C. is a fly on the elephant, and we pay through the nose for gasoline. Is Campbell the new Al Gore? I didn't know the B.C. Liberals were so LEFT WING!!!!!!
(Paul Levassiere Tue, Feb 19, 08 at 06:32 PM)
To make things worse, the only other major parties in BC are the NDP and the Greens...

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

On Richard Warman And Canada's Phony-Racism Industry

Update: This post had to be edited following a DMCA complaint. The quote from the National Post article had to be removed due to copyright issues. Those 4 paragraphs discussed Canada's phony racism industry and in particular - the provocative posting against Canada's first black Senator Anne Cools.

The actual article, originally posted in the "Full comment" section of the National Post website, was taken down few hours after it had been published. As it turns out, Jonathan Kay didn't feel comfortable citing Bernard Klatt's affidavit as a source after getting some background information about him. But even if the expert does hold some extremist views, I don't believe that disqualifies his expertise and I don't think it justifies letting a free speech basher like Warman off the hook.

PC thugs don't like publicity. The more light we shed on their dirty tricks, the less comfortable they feel. Let's not let the article vanish. Let's give the phony racism industry all the publicity it takes to drive PC thugs & Co Unlimited out of business.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Our Laws Protect Unborn Fawns But Not Unborn Babies

...conservation officers are reportedly "emotional" after having discovered three men in British Columbia who were hunting pregnant deer.

The three have pleaded guilty to violating the Wildlife Act after having shot two female deer, one of whom was found to have been pregnant with two fawns. The men have been charged with four counts against the Act, two for killing the two adult females and two more for the unborn fawns.
Fawns are not persons, but the law still protects them. Babies' personality starts forming months before birth, but not only the law doesn't recognize them as persons, it denies them even the very minimum protection the animals have under Canadian law. Unlike the poachers that were charged separately for each unborn fawn they killed, a thug who stabbed Charlene Knapp in the stomach 15 times with a sword could only be charged for injuring the woman, but not for killing her unborn son.

Because in the eyes of the radical pro-abortionists Charlene had no son. And unfortunately that's the way the law sees it here in Canada. It's time to end the discrimination. Support the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act!

Monday, February 18, 2008

Bees Or Cockroaches?

When the Conservatives are urged to compromise on their views, the saying "you'll attract more bees with honey than with vinegar" is often used. Tristan Emmanuel has a great rebuttal to it - militant secularists aren't exactly the social equivalent of a bee.
What has been the result of secular-liberal contributions to Western Civilization since the 1960s?

We live in a society where sin is celebrated, and virtue is mocked. A society where there is a total moral and legal vacuum on the abortion issue. We have a school system where teen sex magazines have been introduced as a "hip" way to teach biology, and where "gay-friendly" books are now required to be stocked in kindergarten libraries. These things, and all of the other social trash and bile we see day in and day out, are what "being nice" has gotten us.

These secularists, like the cockroaches, seem to thrive on filth, and our "niceness" has ensured we've got an infestation of muck on our cultural hands that won't come off easily. But we can't sit by and naively believe that a continent that parallels the moral slide of ancient Rome - and celebrates this cultural decline under the guise of "diversity" - will be free of history's way of exterminating unwanted infestations.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Increasing Infertility Rates May be Linked to IVF - British Medical Journal

Those that don't care about all the embryos (practically - unborn babies at their earliest stages of development) that are being destroyed in the process, have something else to think about:
England, February 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An editorial in the most recent issue of the influential British Medical Journal (BMJ) highlights the increasing global problem of infertility, and speculates that there may be a possible link to IVF.

According to authors Drs. Jens Bonde and Jorn Olsen, at present approximately 15% of couples who try to conceive are affected by infertility. The consequence of this has been that "up to 6% of children are conceived through assisted reproductive techniques."
Once again - the Catholic Church opposes IVF for a reason. For plenty of reasons, to be precise.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Liberals Need Taxpayers' Money For Vote Buying

Dion has already suggested that if elected Liberals may consider "revisiting" the GST cut. Now his party is trying to prevent the Conservatives from allocating the surplus for debt repayment - even though the measure will reduce the federal debt by $10B, providing about $750M in annual savings for the taxpayers.
One of the reasons St├ęphane Dion is so gung-ho about bringing down the government over the budget is said to be that he wants to get his hands on the $10-billion the government has allocated for debt repayment this year.

With the federal coffers running dry, Liberals say they need that money if they are going to be able to fund expensive social programs such a national daycare initiative, climate change measures and the Kelowna Accord on aboriginal development.
That's even worse than tax and spend - that's tax and waste. Keep the debt higher, overtax the people and waste the money on climate change scams, on McDaycare (with no opt-out credit for parents), on handouts to special interest groups - you name it...

Back in 1970s Trudeau's mismanagement and reckless spendings brought in the runaway public debt. Nowadays Trudeau's successors look forward to replace the tax cuts and debt-reducing measures brought forward by the Conservative government with yet another round of a Liberal tax and waste frenzy.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Free Speech Rally

Social Conservatives United. News & Action Notice
Never before in our nation's history have the civil liberties of Canadians been under such an assault as they are today.

Every day that we continue to live under the tyranny of the Human Rights Commissions and the other soft totalitarian organs of illiberal regimes is another day where the cost of removing their yoke will be that much higher - either for us, for our children, or for our
grandchildren.

Canadians have never been much of a political or contentious people. We'd prefer to compromise and get along than to raise too much flak. That's just our nature.

Like any people, however, we have our limits. But unless we channel our frustration into real action and start to push back against the strong fascist elements currently assailing our country, the soft totalitarians of today will be the hard ones tomorrow.

Don't look to the next guy to do something about it. That's the approach that got us in this mess in the first place - people passing the buck instead of picking it up.

It's YOUR responsibility to stand up NOW and be counted. Because if you don't stand up now and do something, write something, or say something, the cost of recapturing our precious and eroded freedoms in the future will take more than just a pen.

And one more thing...this Rally is not just a "one-off". Our opponents are not going away so you can't either. The key here is VIGILANCE and TENACITY. Because if you don't have these traits or learn them quickly, you can kiss away our freedoms right now.

You know that line in our national anthem that says "Glorious, Strong, and Free"? It will be nothing more than a quaint punch line of a once free and proud people unless you do something to protect it and KEEP protecting it.

So if you please, sign below and indicate your endorsement AND participation in the rally.

Because, just like the song says we're supposed to do: "We stand on guard for thee."

Sign on here: http://www.gopetition.com/online/16869.html

Visit the Free Speech Rally Website here: http://freespeechers.blogspot.com

Regards,
John Pacheco
Social Conservatives United

Before You Touch My Body, Touch My Soul

The notion of becoming a generous lover not only changes how we address the frequency of sexual relations, it also challenges us to reconsider the thoughtfulness we put behind the quality of our sexual relationship. One wife once told me, "If my husband would just pray with me, he wouldn't be able to handle me in bed. He'd be crying 'Uncle!' long before the night was through!"

Guys, what she's saying is, "Before you touch my body, touch my soul."
A great article that's worth reading. As we celebrate Valentine's day, let us not forget that the spiritual side of a marital relationship is as important as the physical one.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

What About OUR Rights?

Just a week ago Hon. Jason Kenney stated during Question Period that the Conservative Party of Canada believes in our constitutionally entrenched and protected rights to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press and that it will always defend those ancient freedoms. As it turns out today, some in the Conservative cabinet may talk the talk, but they are not ready to walk the walk.

An internal memo, circulated to all Conservative MP's from Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's office (titled "Talking points re: CHRA & CHRC"), asks Conservative MPs to distance themselves from the freedom of speech issues, recommending the following responses:
If asked about the Steyn / Levant cases:
  • It is not appropriate for me to comment on particular matters that might be before the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
  • The Government of Canada is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights.
Well, if the government is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights, then how come one could be hauled before the CHRC for merely saying something controversial?! If the government lived up to his commitment, there would be no need for the Justice Minister to pretend that everything is the way it should be. He wouldn't have to ask his fellow Conservatives to pretend that they are not supposed to comment on the issue. And there would be no need for him to make up an excuse that the government is really really really busy protecting... Native rights.
Regarding Amending the Human Rights / reforming of the Commission and Tribunal process / section 13 (hate messages):
  • Our government is currently taking steps to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill C-21 (being considered by the Standing Committee) repeals section 67 of the CHRA. Repealing section 67 is a priority for the government at this time and we are working hard to see this bill pass.
I agree, protecting Native rights is important. But what about our rights? The bill C-21 is in the Senate, thus beyond the reach of any MP, including the Justice Minister. So why can't Mr. Nicholson devote some attention to subsection 13.1 and to the people whose freedom of speech is being taken away? Why is he making up yet another excuse, suggesting it's going to take a while for the motion to be voted on, rather than just fast-tracking it? Unless, of course he just wants to stay out of this altogether... But then - why would we need such a Justice Minister?

Monday, February 11, 2008

A Mother And A Baby = One Body???

Behold the new campaign the abortion fanatics at bread and roses have launched against the Unborn Victims Of Crime Act. Their slogan is "one body, one person, one count". Yes, they actually want people to believe that a mother and her unborn baby are still one body, thus there's only one victim to an attack on a pregnant women.

Denying the obvious fact that an unborn child has his own body - that's a weird new development for the radical poor-choicers. And the most ridiculous one too. Because if a fetus is not a separate body, then how does it become one at birth? Do those abort-mongering radicals at "bread and roses" and "birth pagans" really want us to believe that human beings multiply by budding, just as plants or bacterias???

One doesn't need to hold a PhD in Biology to prove them wrong. Just look at the picture of the unborn baby at 18-19 weeks. Does it look anything like a "blob of tissue" which is still a part of the woman's body? Look at the head, the face is clearly visible. It may resemble the mother's face but it's still a different face. Notice the tiny little arms and little legs - don't tell me it's the woman who's got another pair of tiny arms and legs, with tiny little toes and tiny little fingers, which by the way have their own unique fingerprints already engraved.

Baby's heart starts beating in less than 3 weeks after conception. That's baby's heart, not his mother's. A baby gets his own unique DNA right at the moment of conception. No, the mother doesn't get to have two sets of DNAs during pregnancy. A baby may even have his own blood type, different than the mother's. Newsflash for the "birth pagans" - you can't have two different blood types at once. Finally, when the baby starts kicking in the womb, it's the baby who decides when to be active and when to calm down.

There's no denying it - unborn baby has a body of his own. Moreover - he also has a personality of his own. Therefore, when a pregnant woman is assaulted - there are at least two bodies suffering; there are at least two persons being hurt. Therefore - the thug who raises his filthy hand on a pregnant woman should be charged with at least two separate crimes, for hurting a mother and for hurting her unborn baby.

Two bodies. Two persons. Two counts. It's as simple as that.
P.S. The most troubling part of Fern Hill's message is the news that the Bloc and the NDP intend to whip their members to vote against C-484. If your MP happen to be a member of the NDP or the Bloc, please write him and make him aware of the public opinion poll which shows that at least 2/3 of his party supporters agree with the bill. The very least he can do if the party leader whips the vote is not to show up.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

No! Order Of Canada Is Not Awarded For Genocide!

Well, that's a relief. It's sure nice to see that even the readers of Canada's most "progressive" newspaper don't find Morguentaler's campaign for unrestricted abortions worthy of the Order of Canada. Hopefully this Globe And Mail poll is noticed by politicians if they ever consider awarding the Order of Canada to a back-alley butcher for unleashing a genocide that wiped out about 15% of my generation and roughly a quarter of the Generation Next.
In 1969 he gave up his family practice and began openly performing illegal abortions. Soon after in 1970 he was arrested in Quebec for performing one... Later in 1973 he claimed to have performed 5,000 illegal abortions.
I believe, a man who brags about having murdered 5,000 babies (let alone - having performed 5,000 back-alley abortions) deserves to be tried for crimes against humanity, rather than being nominated for the Order of Canada.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Political Purge By The BC College Of Teachers

Apparently, if you're a teacher in British Columbia, you're not allowed to be a member of the Christian Heritage Party. That's one of the conclusions you might reach based on the latest disciplinary proceeding against Chris Kempling. Kempling, who's a guidance counselor and teacher in Quesnel, BC, has been hit with yet another complaint from the BC College of Teachers, and this time he could lose his teaching licence altogether.

Four years ago, Kempling was cited for professional misconduct after writing a letter to a local newspaper outlining Christian teachings on homosexuality. After a hearing on the matter, Kempling was found guilty of the charges, and his teaching license was suspended for a month. He appealed that all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, at a cost of more than a hundred thousand dollars. And lost. Now he's received another letter, informing him that he is being cited on numerous counts for conduct "unbecoming" of a teacher. In an email to supporters this week, Kempling says one of the complaints against him is that he was a candidate for the federal political party, the Christian Heritage Party.
I guess the British Columbia's last Social Credit government couldn't imagine that happening back in 1986 when a law that mandates secular public education in BC was adopted. They wanted to ensure that public education in BC remained non-sectarian in character. But due to a semantical error, they've achieved just the opposite.

Having a secular public education system doesn't mean making it neutral or non-sectarian. Neither does the word "secular" mean having the school system non-religious. But with the way the word secular is interpreted now, it clearly means exclusion of Christians.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Peter Ryan: Honesty Is Needed In Abortion Debate

Commentary written by Peter Ryan in response to libelous accusations made by Ginette Petitpas-Taylor, the Chairperson of the NB Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Published in the Telegraph Journal on Friday December 7th, 2007. Appeared on page A7.
Abortion is one of the great public debates of our times. In this and any debate, strong, differing views are to be expected. But both sides need to fight fairly. That means maintaining a certain honesty.

What is clearly out of bounds is when one side resorts to denigrating the opposition by outlandish accusations. Such tactics not only do a serious injustice to one's opponent. It also disrespects the main audience - the public - as they try to understand the issue at hand.

On Nov. 12, in these pages, the head of a provincial women's organization complained about public bullying of women outside the abortion clinic in Fredericton. She called for the government to intervene to outlaw protests near the facility.

To make her case for a no-protest bubble zone, she portrayed vivid images about the supposed bullying tactics of abortion opponents. She referred to "large men, brandishing signs with bloody photos, " "protesters bussed in every week, not to express an opinion...[but] to intimidate women," "public harassment" and "sensationalizing protesters presenting inaccurate judging information on placards."

These images have nothing to do with reality.

I know all the protesters. They are some of New Brunswick's finest citizens. They deeply care not only for the unborn but women and the people who perform abortions.

They know the difference between peaceful witness and dangerous, aggressive behaviour.

They do not give out "inaccurate judging information." No photos of aborted babies are normally displayed. They are not bussed in. They are there to peacefully - for the most part, silently - to express a view, not to intimidate or harass.

Without impeding anyone's access, they quietly hold signs like "Let Babies Live." One may display a true image of an unharmed unborn child. Another very gentle man has a sign that reads, "Jesus loves us Mommy."

These signs are not "inaccurate," "bloody," judgmental or threatening. They do convey relevant facts and respectfully express a point of view.

A careful, impartial observer can verify how far-fetched the accusations against pro-lifers really are.

This not the first time this particular women's organization has employed emotional imagery to demonize its opponents and whip up public fear. Last April its press release linked N.B. pro-lifers' conduct to incidents of violence by "anti-abortion extremists" elsewhere in North America (the present article refers to "attacks and even murders of abortion providers").

The same month its executive director claimed on television that protesters were "bullying" and "barring the way" of women.

The law professor cited in the article, who is associated with the organization, has been quoted as stating pro-lifers were guilty of "threats,-violence" and "throwing themselves in front of cars." Pure fantasy.

This campaign of character assassination must stop. But that is not enough.

Much damage has already been done. Hysteria among pregnant women and pro-choice supporters has been needlessly aroused. Peaceful pro-life protesters have been increasingly victimized by abuse from misinformed passers by. The pro-life movement has been unfairly maligned. The population has been systematically mislead.

We are also concerned that politicians have been led down the garden path. As a result, there is greater likelihood that anti-protest legislation could be brought in, though there is no need for it. The constitutional rights to free expression and assembly by peaceful, law-abiding citizens have been unjustly put at risk.

To rectify the damage done, a public retraction of the allegations, together with a public apology to those injured, is required.

The organization in question exists through public funding and has quasi-governmental status as an advisory group on women's matters. Yet the public trust has now been violated by its leaders. They must resign. Failing that, the government must intervene.

It is apparent these abortion rights advocates are frustrated by our province's public policies of refusing to pay for private clinic abortions as well as placing restrictions on hospital abortions. They are frustrated at the extent to which New Brunswickers have still not bought into the notion of publicly funded abortion on demand.

But that is no excuse for not leveling with the public.

The campaign for a no-protest law is part of a quest to facilitate abortions. Since the abortion clinic opened in Fredericton in 1994, more than 6,000 unborn lives have been ended. If protest is repressed, little ones in the womb will have no voice and the number of prenatal deaths will soar.

To peacefully protest the taking of human life, in public areas near where it actually occurs, is a legitimate activity that should be legally protected in a democratic society.
Peter Ryan is the Executive Director of the New Brunswick Right to Life Association.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

So What If Men Don't Get Pregnant?

Pro-abortionists claim that since men never get pregnant, they shouldn't be speaking against abortions.

Sure, men never get pregnant. But it doesn't look like any pro-abortion man have ever had an abortion, or is going to have one in the future. Yet somehow, it doesn't preclude pro-abortion boyfriends and husbands from pressuring their partners to have an abortion. And somehow, the poor-choicers are ok with that. As well as they are ok not only with men performing the procedure, but also with abortion providers lying to women as they try to disguise abortion as a "five-minute operation" that would "give her back her life" (sic!).

Moreover, when pro-abortion men dare to ridicule women who fell for their lies and who ended up traumatized physically and emotionally, that too doesn't meet any opposition from the Status of Women and other organizations that are supposed to represent all Canadian women, not just radical feminists.

Under existing laws a father has no say on the fate of his baby. Do you think a father who has no choice but to watch his unborn baby being put to death has no feelings? Abortion is one of the major risk factors to breast cancer. Why do you think someone who lost a family member to breast cancer, because nobody bothered to inform her of the possible side effects of abortion, should have no say on how "safe" those legal abortions are?

Unless one believes in some miraculous transformation at the point of delivery, it's not that difficult to see the cruelty and injustice of the abortion. Abortion doesn't make the woman "unpregnant". It makes her a mother of a dead baby. Yet the Globe And Mail columnist Andre Picard (guess who) suggests that Morguentaler's "monumental battle" to exterminate a quarter of the young generation is "worthy of Order of Canada".

So if it's ok for men who never have abortions to praise the unchoice; if it's ok for grown-ups who'll never be aborted to claim that the unborn baby's life isn't worthy of living - then not only it's our right - it's a duty of every decent man to speak up against abortions, protecting women from this injurious procedure and defending the babies who can't defend themselves.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

"No Apologies" Media Revolution - Let's Make Another Step Forward

About a year ago I published this essay, calling on the individual bloggers to unite into a publishing team that would produce a Social Conservative Daily newspaper. A recent article at "No Apologies", titled "The Desperate Need for the 'No Apologies' Media Revolution", confirms that most of what I said then is still relevant now.

"No Apologies" which moved from weekly to daily newscasts is a great start. But we need more than that to get the message out. We need more people and these people must work together. When a single blogger publishes an article on his blog, it won't be noticed by many; if we try to maximize the exposure, we end up with plenty of bloggers all reposting the same article. What we need is a single media portal where people could come in search of high-quality articles and where each article would be read by tens of thousands, rather than by just a few dozens. I believe that "No Apologies" could eventually become just that.

Currently "No Apologies" offers daily newscasts to which an editorial or a guest column is often added. Next step should be bringing more columnists on board. We have some small pro-life monthly newsletters (including The Interim). We have quite a few Social Conservatives bloggers that go beyond just quoting and commenting, each publishing at least a couple of their own articles every week. Let's get the best of them on the "No Apologies" team and let's start working together rather than just reposting the same thing over and over, effectively preaching to the choir in our online ghetto.

Before You Say That "Most Pro-Lifers Are Men"

As the National post summarized the readers' input on the series of articles dedicated to the anniversary of the Morguentaller's decision, the major argument from the pro-abortion side appeared to be as follows:
Ms. Toeman closed her letter with an observation made by many other letter writers: "Is it just me or does anyone else notice that most anti-abortionists are men, seeking once again to control women and their bodies. This discussion would never take place if men were having babies."
That's one of poor-choirces' most popular arguments. One feminist blogger even posted a picture showing five grim-faced middle-aged men with a caption saying "77% of the anti-abortion leaders are men, 100% of them will never get pregnant".

Suzanne has already published a rebuttal to that nonsense, naming over a dozen of pro-life leaders that are women, just off the top of her head. Among those named: Joanne Byfield (of LifeCanada), Gwen Landolt (of REAL Women of Canada), Stephanie Grey (of Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform), Andrea Mrozek (of Pro Woman Pro Life) and many others.

This is by no means a complete list, so I could add a few more names that weren't there, such as Denise Mountenay (of Silent No More) or Susanne Leger (of the New Brunswick Right To Life). Also it's worth reminding that organizations such as Silent No More or the REAL Women of Canada are 100% women organizations. Moreover, as the public opinion poll shows, there are more women supporting legislation that would partially restore personhood of the unborn, than men. So let's leave the "most pro-lifers are men" to poor-choicers' conscience, if they have any.

Finally, no matter how many pro-lifers are men - 100% of the pro-abortion crowd have already been born. None of them will ever be put to death for the sake of someone else's personal convenience. Let them remember that every time they refer to destroying a baby as "choice".

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Their Arguments: "Free Speech Is Hateful And Unbalanced"

Looks like all those opposed to the Keith Martin's motion can't find any other arguments. So they keep claiming that allowing freedom of speech (without persecuting people for publishing something that is likely to expose members of special interest groups to hatred and contempt) will only benefit the white supremacists. Even the CBC couldn't find anything better than trying to link anyone opposing the HRCs to white supremacists.
This morning CBC radio (1 & 2) repeatedly EMPHASISED in its coverage of Keith Martin, Liberal MP, and his private member`s Bill 446 that:

WHITE SUPREMICIST GROUPS ARE OPPOSING HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS…in order (apparently) to damn this initiative.

(It was not even suggested that there were any other opponents of the HRCs).
A US blogger Pundita has compiled a list of citizen's rights violated under administration of Section 13 cases - you don't have to be a white supremacist to be affected one way or another. But try telling that to PC thugs.

One of them however decided to try something new. He suggested that the HRC censorship is done not to curtail free speech but... to strengthen it.
The complaint against Maclean's is FOR free speech and not against it! Maclean's, Canada's only national magazine, recently published 19 defamatory articles against the Muslim community. Representatives from the Muslim community approached Maclean's and requested that a single counterview article by a mutually agreed upon author be published. Rather than politely refuse, Maclean's indicated, "we would rather go bankrupt". All the complainants wanted was a chance to respond to the 19 articles with a single article and reach Maclean's estimated one million subscribers who have had an obviously biased account of the Muslim community. The complainants could have chosen to pursue their complaint through the traditional court system (Canada's hate speech laws), but the potential punitive outcomes would do little to achieve their rights to free speech and open-debate. As a result, the HRC is the only avenue that the complainants could pursue, the only body which could enforce a variety of outcomes including "the chance to respond".
So this unnamed "Pro Tolerance" blogger believes that if the HRC forces Maclean’s to publish something they didn't want to publish in the first place, that would actually be an exercise in free speech. In other words - censorship is freedom, forcing one to say or to publish something he disagrees with is tolerance. Sounds quite Orwellian to me.

Mclean's magazine is not a public discussion board where anyone has a right to publish what he wants. Neither it's a publicly owned national media outlet like the CBC. Therefore there's no reason why Mclean's should be forced to provide anyone with "a chance to respond". There were plenty of other media outlets where the Muslim community could publish their response. After all - they were given an opportunity to outline their justifications to the complaint in the National Post. So why couldn't they publish their "counterview" article there, instead of trying to force Mclean's to publish it?

An open debate can never be open if someone is forced to publish what he doesn't agree with. A free marketplace of ideas means having different media outlets, publishing what they want, not what someone else forces them to publish.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Lefties Reject Freedom Of Speech

Apparently they believe they'll never need it. Apparently they believe that since their views are politically correct - they'll never be hauled in front of a "human rights tribunal" for such "discriminatory practice" as saying something, that is likely to expose members of a group "identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination" to hatred or contempt.

So when a Liberal MP Keith Martin introduced a motion to repeal subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the one which enforces political correctness in the manner described above) plenty of Liberal bloggers blasted the initiative, calling it a "move to ensure Nazi rights". Even The Canadian Press begins its article about Keith Martin's motion by mentioning the praises he received from the white supremacists.

Stephane Dion suggested he'll ask Keith Martin to withdraw his motion. Other left-wing politicians too were quick to distance themselves from it:
"This is not the position of the Liberal Party of Canada or the Liberal caucus or Mr. Dion," said spokeswoman Leslie Swartman.

"We support the Canadian Human Rights Act and will not entertain changes to it such as this."
...
NDP MP Wayne Marston said he was "deeply troubled that any Liberal" would try to weaken human rights legislation. While some complainants may try to abuse the act, Marston said his party has "great confidence" that human rights tribunals can weed out the frivolous complaints from the genuine ones.
Is that so? News flash for Wayne Marston - those "human rights tribunals" have 100% conviction rate. Therefore, none of the "frivolous complaints" was ever weeded out. In fact, with the way subsection 13(1) is worded, a mere assumption is enough to get one convicted. But even if a miracle happens and a false complaint is dismissed at a certain stage - still the defendant will incur thousands in legal fees while the "frivolous" complainer gets a free ride.

Finally, let's look at the people against whom the complaints were filed as well as what those complaints were for. Among the most recent victims are:
  • Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin - for writing a letter to the editor, arguing against promoting homosexual lifestyle to children as young as five or six.
  • Ezra Levant, the editor of The Western Standard - for publishing the famous Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad.
  • Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage Party - for exposing health risks directly related to homosexual lifestyle.
  • Mark Steyn and the Maclean’s magazine - for publishing an allegedly Islamophobic article, "The Future Belongs to Islam"
  • The Catholic Insight magazine - for publishing several articles (some of them dating back to 1994) criticizing homosexual lifestyle.
Did you notice the trend? Now what are the chances that Salman Hossain, a Bangladeshi currently residing in Canada, gets hauled in front of the HRC for posting messages that call for attacks against Canadian soldiers on Canadian soil? Don't count on it! Soldiers don't qualify as a group of "persons identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination", so subsection 13(1) doesn't apply in this case.

Instead of protecting Canadians from hate speech, subsection 13(1) protects special interest groups from criticism, infringing on others' freedom of speech. Which is yet another reason why subsection 13(1) must be deleted from the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Friday, February 1, 2008

How Are We Supposed To "Accommodate" This?

Looks like there was no need for me to write a 700-word essay to denounce a few twisted arguments in support of "reasonable accomodation" for minorities. I could simply wait one more day - until this story was published by the National post:
TORONTO - A Toronto-area man has been posting messages on the Internet supporting attacks against Canadian soldiers on Canadian soil, drawing the attention of RCMP national security investigators.

Police have advised the Bangladeshi-Canadian that he is under investigation for incitement and facilitating terrorism after he repeatedly called the killing of Canadian troops in Canada "legitimate" and "well deserved."
So how are we supposed to accommodate this? And why should a Muslim militant from Bangladesh be "accomodated" in Canada, even if he's been here long enough to get a Canadian passport? If he has so much hatred towards the country that welcomed him, that he justifies terrorist attacks on its soil (let alone killing its soldiers overseas), then the least that could be done is making sure he's no longer welcome in his adopting country. He is not a "Bangladeshi-Canadian", he is a Bangladeshi with a Canadian passport; who must become simply - a Bangladeshi.