Saturday, February 28, 2009

A Money Grab, A Censorship Or Both?

Yes, I'm talking about the recent initiatives by the "cultural" groups (such as ACTRA) and the CRTC to regulate the content which is being posted on internet. For now they say, all they want is a levy to be imposed on the ISPs so that they could make access to Canadian content online a little easier. So far, they claim, we shouldn't worry about censorship.
While the call "doesn't mean the CRTC should regulate videos of kids or singing dogs on YouTube," said actor Colin Mochrie, inaction could mean "our stories will get lost and our culture will drown in a sea of non-Canadian content."
Hmm... Has this guy ever heard of Google? Could someone please show him the option which allows users to search only pages from Canada? It's right there, under the search bar! All you need to do is to check that small radio button - and you'll get Canadian content, plenty of Canadian content and nothing but Canadian content. So why would they need the CRTC to intervene?

They want to persuade us that all they want is this is all about money and about paying the artists and the producers their "fair share". So they propose a special levy on the ISPs, one that will be passed to the consumers driving the price of a high speed connection from $47.95 to something like $59.95; one that is going to offer nothing in return except a cheerfully decorated website featuring TV shows I never watch and songs I never listen to for a price I'd never consider paying. So, even if they are going to stop there, even if this money grab is truly all they want - still we shouldn't allow it.

But it doesn't look like they're going to stop there. Here's how Colin Mochrie pictures a perfect world in which the "old media" would become competitive again:
First, those who are streaming live programs from Canada, through the Internet or to mobile receiving devices, must be licensed and subject to rules equivalent to conventional TV broadcasters.

Second, those who are using new media to make programs available from Canada for viewing at a time and place chosen by the viewer must be licensed and subject to regulations equivalent to other "on-demand" programming undertakings.
Here you have it. Licensing. But why should we even bother licensing internet broadcasters? Are we running out of web hosting space? Of course not; as Colin Mochrie himself admits, the space for content is practically endless. So what other purpose could there be beside censorship?

After all we already know what the CRTC priorities are: a porn channel is in, a Christian channel with 10 times as many signatures is out. So, even if they allow individual blogs to continue (for a while), a streaming media portal like The Miracle Channel will have to apply for a license. Which will most likely be denied on the grounds that The Miracle Channel is not "inclusive" enough or for some other similar reason.

If the ACTRA and the CRTC have it their way, every independent media portal will eventually be forced to choose between compromising their identity to provide "fair", "balanced" and "inclusive" coverage - or forfeiting its right to broadcast altogether. In other words, it will be a choice between censorship and self-censorship. A choice nobody should be forced to make in a democratic country.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Sorry, Your Health Care Is Too Expensive. How About Assisted Suicide?

Looks like in some states, what began as a "right to die" has evolved into a "duty to die". Of course, the initiatives to legalize assisted suicide for the terminally ill have been around for decades. But with the upcoming massive retirement of the "baby boomer" generation which would drive up the costs of health care and social assistance as well as with new trend in the environmentalist movement when depopulation (starting from the developed countries) is regarded as a way to "save the planet", the threat of euthanasia becoming not just legal but also - compulsory, is becoming real.
Barbara Wagner had recurrent lung cancer and Randy Stroup had prostate cancer. Both were on Medicaid, the state's health insurance plan for the poor that, like some NHS services, is rationed. The state denied both treatment, but told them it would pay for their assisted suicide. "It dropped my chin to the floor," Stroup told the media. "[How could they] not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to pay to end my life?" (Wagner eventually received free medication from the drug manufacturer. She has since died. The denial of chemotherapy to Stroup was reversed on appeal after his story hit the media.)
Here in Canada, the euthanasia bill had been introduced twice before - in 2005 and 2008. Both those times it died on the order paper when an election was called. This time however it could be different. While the proposed euthanasia bill hasn't been introduced yet, it's author, a BQ MP Francine Lalonde is #11 in line for the Order of Precedence. Therefore the proposed bill could move from the notice paper and to the second reading within months if not within weeks. And then we can only hope there are enough opposition MPs siding with the Conservatives to vote it down.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Saving The Planet — For Whom?

At first, radical environmentalists wanted us to have one less child. Now some of them are going even further:
In the U.S., Steven Kotler thinks this is no time to get hung up on details. The planet is going to hell. So what’s the big picture? The rooty-tootiest root cause of all?

Answer: motherhood and apple pie. If we didn’t have so much motherhood, we wouldn’t have all these people eating apple pies, manufactured in a plant in Guangdong and then shipped on some massive floating carbon footprint all the way to Price Chopper in Cedar Rapids. Motherhood is the root cause. As Mr. Kotler says:

“You don’t need to ask what you need to do for the world. You already know.

“Stop having children. It’s that easy.”

It really is! So he’s calling for a five-year moratorium on having children, planet-wide. The Soviets had five-year plans but Mr. Kotler wants a five-year ban—“because a billion less people is a great place to start.” Key word: “start.” Experts agree that the carrying capacity for the planet is about two billion people. Actually, they don’t agree: some of the earthier-than-thou eco-types say it’s only 300 million. But Mr. Kotler doesn’t want to sound like an extremist or anything, so he’s starting with that best-case scenario. If the planet’s carrying capacity is two billion tops, we need to unload a good 4½ billion. And, while no one outside of Dutch hospitals is arguing for compulsory euthanasia (yet), not adding to the total would be “a great place to start.”
Meanwhile yet another group of scientists has come up with a report that disputes human cause for global warming. But try telling that to those eco-freaks who regard humanity as "cancer of the earth", to all those for whom environmentalism is no longer preserving the environment for the next generation, but eliminating the next generation altogether.

So if it's not for the next generation, then whom are we supposed to "save the planet" for? Some environmental fanatics naively believe that convincing the Western society to abort, contracept and euthanize itself out of existence would save the planet for the polar bears and the spotted owls. Mark Steyn has a dose of reality for them.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Reason, Faith And The Abortion Debate

Here's a great article by Fr. Scott McCaig. Even though the title mentions reason and faith - there are more than enough purely scientific arguments against abortions:
We are not dealing with some nondescript cells lining the uterus or a mere ‘blob of tissue’. This is not the mother’s body tissue. Even in the earliest stages of embryonic development these cells contain different DNA than the mother’s. This is a distinct, individual human being. To see this, consider the following question: Does a pregnant woman have four eyes, two brains, or two hearts? Of course not, because it’s not her brain or her heart, it’s someone else’s! They are the fruit of her womb, but they are not her.

If you are unconvinced, try asking Gianna Jessen, Amy Charleton, Heidi Huffman, or many others who have survived after attempted abortions. Talk to Ana Rosa Rodriguez whose arm was ripped off in the process of an abortion. Listen to the words of Sarah Smith who survived an abortion, but her twin brother wasn’t so fortunate: “Andrew was aborted and we lost him forever.” (

The one undisputed fact, the most important fact, the one fact that is most carefully avoided is that in every direct abortion a unique, innocent, living human being is put to death by someone else. Those who promote abortion are claiming that one person has the right to take the life of another innocent human being.

- Whether they adopt the arguments of 19th century slave owners, who believed that one person could be the possession of another and so have life and death rights over them;
- or the arguments of racists who believe that some humans are more human than others and, therefore, should have the right to put their inferiors to death;
- or the arguments of those who opposed the right of women to vote, because, although they were human, they were not deemed equal, so only others were competent to decide their fate;
- or the arguments of dictators and oppressors throughout the ages who believed that the value of a life is measured by the degree of service or convenience it offers to the privileged few;
- or the arguments of eugenicists who believe that humanity should be improved by selectively killing those they deem to be imperfect.
Well said!

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

40 DAYS FOR LIFE @ 180º

This year's 40 Days For Life Vigil begins tomorrow at over 130 locations, including 5 Canadian cities: Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton. Unfortunately there's no vigil site in Atlantic Canada this time - just as there are no vigil sites in Saskatchewan and BC. But there's still a special opportunity to participate for all of us:
40 Days for Life @ 180º, therefore, is a way of acknowledging the participation of Canadians across the country, from north to south (hence the 180º), who either do not have an official campaign in their city or cannot make it out to the Vigil outside of the local abortion mill.

The idea is similar to the one used for recording the hours in front of the abortion mill. Each participant registers for one or more hours of the available 960 hours of the Campaign, indicating the Church or Group and the City they represent. The goal is to cover the calendar completely with prayer warriors.

To register for 40 Days for Life @ 180º, complete the registration form.
So, let's get all those empty spots covered!

Monday, February 23, 2009

Why Can't We Just Send Him Back?

How do you like this message of peace and diversity:
MONTREAL — The videos found on Said Namouh's computer when police raided his Quebec apartment in 2007 are brutal: point-blank executions of Westerners, suicide bombings, a charred soldier's body dragged through the street in celebration. Others offered tips on bomb-making or threatened Western governments over the presence of troops in Afghanistan.
She said evidence recovered from his computer hard drive showed that he was responsible for creating links to publicize a March, 2007, video warning the governments of Germany and Austria that they would suffer terrorist attacks if their troops were not withdrawn from Afghanistan. He provided art for a May, 2007, communiqué by the Army of Islam, claiming responsibility for the kidnapping in Gaza of BBC reporter Alan Johnston and demanding the release of prisoners, Ms. Katz said. He also made available propaganda videos with such titles as Jihad Academy and Top Ten, glorifying insurgent attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. In May, 2007, he announced on the forum that he had created his own compilation video of attacks in Iraq, a 50-minute film known as Final 1000.
The court has also heard that in August, 2007, Mr. Namouh's Internet chats were intercepted, revealing what police believe were plans to explode a truck bomb at an undisclosed location outside Canada.
The National Post refers to him as "Quebec man". However, another article, one that discusses Namouh's ties to the kidnapping of a BBC journalist in Gaza, mentions his country of origin: he's a Moroccan jihadi living in Canada. So why can't we sent him back to Morocco?

After all, if he came here claiming refugee from an oppressive Islamic regime - then his claim was false. Since this Namouh guy admires Sharia rule so much that he wants it to dominate all over the world, there's no way he could have found Islamic laws and customs violating his own rights and freedoms. And, if he came here as a skilled worker, the we should ask - skilled in what profession exactly? Did he put "preparing and distributing jihadist propaganda" as his intended occupation in Canada?

Also I wonder what was his answer to question 9 - whether or not he had been associated with a group that used, uses, advocated or advocates the use of armed struggle or violence to reach political religious or social objectives? Did he answer "yes" and then provided all the details on his ties to Al-Quaeda on a separate sheet? Or did he choose to simply answer "no", counting on the immigration officers to take his word for it?

Either way, his immigration papers were obtained through misrepresentation. That, as well as the fact that Namouh poses a security risk to Canada, provides legal grounds to strip him off his fraudulently acquired Canadian passport of convenience and deport him back to Morocco.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Universities: Islands Of Repression In A Sea Of Freedom

Here's a great article by Richard L. Cravatts:
In what is yet more evidence that universities have become, as Abigail Thernstrom has described them, “islands of repression in a sea of freedom,” Toronto’s York University witnessed a near riot of some 100 pro-Palestinian Israel-haters, as police had to be called to usher Jewish students to safety after they had been barricaded inside the Hillel@York offices and were “isolated and threatened” by the physically and verbally aggressive demonstrators.
Richard brings the recent anti-Israeli riot on campus as an example of the double standard for campus free speech. To that we may add the incident at Saint Mary's University, where pro-aborts and feminazis shut down a pro-life presentation, using similar tactics. And similarly the university administration chose to stop the presentation, removing the speaker and all the peaceful audience from campus, just to avoid inconveniencing the pro-abortion mob.

Not to mention the University of Calgary where the administration has openly taken the pro-abortion side, first threatening pro-life students with arrests and expulsion and then - suing them for trespassing. As for the student association - the one of which every full-time student is obliged to be a member and which is therefore supposed to represent all the students, not just those holding socially perverse views - those were quick to strip the pro-life group of its club status, barring them from using campus facilities for future presentations and making it clear that pro-lifers are less equal than all other students, let alone - leftie radicals.
Therein lies the hypocrisy in academic free speech on campus today: while coddling selected victim groups and granting them unlimited expression as a purported way to further diversity of thought, college administrators have regularly denied those same rights and privileges to groups deemed not to deserve or need them, namely, conservatives, Christians, Republicans, or those who seek a strong defense against radical Islam and terrorism aimed Western democracies, principally the U.S. and Israel.
About a year ago, I saw a blog post quoting the results of a survey, according to which, most traditionalist Americans, among other things, didn't trust universities and academies. (Too bad I didn't save the link.) The blogger who quoted those results, used them bash the US Republicans: look at them in-bred church-going rednecks, clinging to their guns and religion, opposing science, opposing education, opposing progress... Well, that is not science. That is not education. That is not progress. Unfortunately, apart from the strictly professional programs, today's universities stand for censorship, indoctrination and extremism.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

The Courage Of A Mother And The Gift Of Life

She called her baby girl Faith Hope. Despite the fatal diagnosis, Myah Walker chose to carry her daughter to term:
Only about five percent of babies with anencephaly are carried to term...

Most of the mothers I know (actually all of the ones I know) who choose to carry to term are married and are either stay-at-home moms or have jobs with maternity leave.

I am 23 years old, unmarried, in my last year of university, no maternity leave, and pregnant with a baby girl who was diagnosed with anencephaly -a birth defect considered to be "incompatible with life."

If anyone had an excuse to terminate their pregnancy, it was me. But I didn't, not because it's wrong, but because I love her.

If I can do it then anyone can. You don't need to be strong. All it takes is love and faith in God.

If you've made your way to this site because your baby was recently diagnosed with anencephaly, I want you to know that even in the toughest circumstances, there is so much blessing in choosing to carry your baby to term. You will have so much joy that you never thought was possible and you'll never regret your decision.
Myah's blog has several ultrasound pictures of the little baby girl. On one of them we can see little baby Faith Hope, just 5 or 6 days before birth - sucking her thumb. Disabled or healthy, in the womb or out, this is a little baby girl, not a "clump of cells". And, just as any baby girl, she deserves to live - whatever number of years God is willing to give her.

Little Faith Hope Walker is now 2 days old. Let's wish her and her courageous mother all the best.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Saskatchewan MP Comments On "Human Rights" Commissions

Here's a great comment by Brad Trost, MP for Saskatoon - Humboldt:
This leads me to wonder what other greetings could be stopped because of fear of the Human Rights Commission and their thought police mentality.

Merry Christmas would probably have to be banned (people who don’t celebrate Christmas would be hurt), bless you (after a sneeze) could be considered an intrusion into someone’s personal beliefs. Perhaps even Happy Birthday could be banned because it promotes ageism by reminding people of their age.

As ridiculous as my suggestions are, the arbitrary exercise of power by our Human Rights Commissions is a serious matter. People are being harassed over trivial issues. If Canadians cannot exchange simple greetings without incurring the wrath of power hungry bureaucrats, we need to change the human rights legislation. Canada’s Human Rights Commissions do not protect the rights of most Canadians. I for one think if major reforms cannot be accomplished, we need to consider abolishing these parodies of justice.
It's great to see that the debate over freedom of speech is making its way into the House of Commons. With the resolution to repeal section 13.1 receiving near-unanimous support at the Conservative Party Convention, I'm looking forward for a government bill to be introduced if not this spring then sometime during the fall session. And, once the bill is introduced - we'll only need the support of 11 opposition MPs and 11 opposition Senators to get it passed.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Let's Say NO To Regulating Internet

CRTC is conducting a hearing on whether or not internet service providers should follow the same rules as television and radio broadcasters and protect Canadian content online.
The CRTC first looked into licensing new media in 1999 but with few households at the time having access to high-speed Internet it decided that licensing would not contribute to its development and that exempting it would not make it difficult for licensed broadcasters to follow the rules.

With 93 per cent of Canadian households having broadband access and anyone being able to watch videos and television shows, play games and listen to music online, the CRTC has decided to revisit the issue.

The ACTRA representatives highlighted that point in their presentations and said licensing new media will provide needed funding and protection of Canadian content.
Here you have it: Licensing. Now, guess who is going to bear the cost of those licenses? It's a tax grab, all right; it's going to make yet another special interest group richer at our expense, but how is that going to promote Canadian content online?

Are they going to force the ISPs to bombard users with pop-up windows, to inform them about some new Canadian content which is posted online? Are they going to mandate the ISPs to forcefully redirect users to Canadian mirrors of the major websites, so that we get and instead of and Will the users be forced to use their ISP website as a default page for their browsers? Or maybe they're planning to force all of us to use a specific ISP-approved browser that would shove CRTC-approved content down our throats?

If you find all that ridiculous - then so are the arguments that ACTRA uses in support of their case. Licensing ISPs will do nothing to advance Canadian content online. If anything - licensing costs will make it harder for the new ISPs to offer their services in Canada, leaving us with the virtual monopoly of the two giants - Bell and Rogers. Then, once the competition is gone or nonexistent, some of those ridiculous measures could actually be implemented - either as a gesture of goodwill or under threat of having their license revoked.

In the end we may eventually see the ISPs not just forcefully redirecting us to the .ca mirrors of the major internet portals but also blocking access to some of the content which is, while perfectly Canadian, not the kind of Canadian content which the CRTC and the ACTRA would want us to see. Not to mention that such licensed and regulated internet will cost us more than unlicensed and unregulated internet costs today.

So let us say NO to the ACTRA initiative. No to costly licenses on the ISPs which would transform to an extra tax on the internet. No to CHRC shoving its regulated content down our throat. No to fixing a system that is working fine as it is! Use this form on the CRTC website to voice your opposition.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Freedom To Say That Abortion Is About Dead Babies

Michael Coren weighs in on erosion of free speech in Canada. Somehow it sounds as if Michael is surprised that there's a group in Canada that is constantly being denied the right to express their opinion:
Try charging a student with keeping the neighbours awake or smashing windows in publicly funded student housing and you'll be in all sorts of trouble.

Persecute a bunch of young women who believe that the unborn child is unique from the point of conception, with its own DNA and a genomic character that is entirely separate from any other person, and you are thought of as being liberal, caring and responsible.

But, again, it shouldn't be about abortion but about the right of free expression.
That's true, but could our opponents ever allow this to be about the right of free expression? Could any of them allow us to speak up without feeling threatened by what we say? The answer could be found in the very same article, just a few paragraphs above the ones I quoted:
The pictures are disturbing, which leads one to conclude that abortion itself may be disturbing. It's about dead babies stupid — always has been, always will be.
Michael Coren chooses not to elaborate on that statement, but it's obvious this is a primary reason why our opponents want no debate on abortion. After all, do they have any scientific arguments to prove that abortion is not about dead babies? I've never seen any so far.

They may try to pass their groundless claims that fetus is not a baby as scientific arguments. They may try to substitute scientific arguments with ideological ones, claiming that woman's implied right to destroy her baby before he's too big to get noticed takes precedence over her baby's right to live. Those may be acceptable for the abortion activists in the Supreme Court, but what weight will they have in an open debate where the emphasis is on facts, not on the ideology? So the pro-aborts have no choice but to declare ideology superior to facts and try to intimidate anyone who thinks otherwise into silence of self-censorship.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Make Sure You Put Your Opinion Through A "Human Rights Filter"

That's what Ontario's Chief Jackboot Barbara Hall wants us to do. She proposes a so called "national press council" to filter out politically incorrect speech; a national media watchdog that would have the authority not just over newspapers, talk radio and television broadcasts, but also over blogs and websites.
The OHRC insists such a body need not "cross the line into censorship," but it is hard to see how it could avoid it. As conceived by Ms. Hall and her activist cocommissioners, a national press council would have the power to accept complaints of discrimination — "particularly from vulnerable groups" — against any member paper, station or Web site. And while the council, at least initially, would have no power to prevent media outlets from printing, posting or broadcasting what they wished, it could force them to carry the council's decisions, including counterarguments made by complainants.

It's hard not to view these recommendations as a direct response to the OHRC's frustration with its own inability to persecute Maclean's magazine and columnist Mark Steyn for what the commission viewed as the pair's "Islamophobic" views. Last April, the OHRC was forced to drop its investigation of columns and news stories carried by Maclean's because the legislation governing the commission did not give it authority to investigate published work.

Nonetheless, Ms. Hall left no doubt that she sided with the Canadian Islamic Congress and a group of Muslim university students who felt Maclean's discriminated against their faith. Despite having held no hearing, nor hearing any testimony from the magazine or Mr. Steyn, Ms. Hall and the OHRC nonetheless felt justified in concluding that both parties engaged in journalism that was "inconsistent with the spirit" of the Ontario Human Rights Code and which did "serious harm" to Canadian society by "promoting societal intolerance" and disseminating "destructive, xenophobic opinions."

Ominously, at the time, Ms. Hall also stated that all journalists should put their writings through a "human rights filter" before publication. Because she was not able to force such a filter on Maclean's, her current proposal for a national press council is almost certainly an attempt to make such a filter mandatory, in law.
National Post columnist Barbara Kay shares her experience with a similar body from Quebec - the Quebec Press Council. It may not yet have the real censorship power, but it can easily make a journalist - "persona non-grata" in Quebec's mainstream media.
The St Jean Baptiste Society complained to the QPC, which duly validated their umbrage. On February 19, 2007, I was served notice - along with the National Post, included in the "verdict" - that the council had "condemned" two of my columns. According to the QPC I was guilty of serious ethical lapses: "undue provocation" (nobody defined "undue"), a "lack of rigour" in my writing and - mentioned more than once in the "decision" - the especially grave journalistic sin of "altering the facts" upon which my opinions rested (no such allegedly altered facts were actually adduced, then or ever).

Even though my editors took the intervention as a mere irritation - after all, the QPC had no actual power - I was less sanguine, for I quickly realized that my opinion piece would never have been published in a Quebec-based newspaper. Representatives from all the mainstream media sit on the QPC, and they would all know instinctively what would pass muster and what wouldn't. So in fact, even though the council has no legal power, it has strong moral power amongst its constituents. So they self-censure before they publish.
Barbara Hall and her fellow jackboots want this self-censorship to be compulsory, from coast to coast. And it's unlikely that they're going to stop there:
...Making all writers, bloggers and broadcasters hostage to a national press council is merely the first step toward letting the Barbara Halls of the world decide what you get to hear, see and read.
And, unfortunately, that's not mere fear-mongering. Sooner or later those jackboots will have to cross the national borders to persecute outspoken bloggers and journalists. At the very least, they'll have to mandate every ISP to restrict access to foreign resources so that free thinking Canadians can't avoid their censorship by getting themselves a foreign hosting with a foreign domain name.

Monday, February 16, 2009

They'll Reeducate You Good!

Brazilian socialist government is on an arduous mission to reeducate its population which it has found to be just too "homophobic". The objective is to reeducate all those who object to homosexuals kissing and hugging in public, all those who believe that God made men and women with different sexes so that they could fulfill their role and have children, that homosexuality is an illness that should be treated or that it is a sin against the laws of God — a total of 99% of the population. A massive propaganda campaign is coming up in a few months, along with the "anti-homophobia" law which would make it illegal to criticize homosexual behavior in Brazil.

Here in Canada, where outspoken priests and politicians can already be hauled in front of a "human rights" commission for daring to defend traditional values, the government chooses to refrain from loud statements, preparing its reeducation curriculum behind closed doors:
Activists want to celebrate B.C.'s "Corren Curriculum" at this "Social Justice Regional Conference" on February 20th and 21st at the University of the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford Campus. This conference is being sponsored by B.C. teachers' associations. The Keynote Speaker, addressing "Faith & Sexuality," is Alex Sanchez, "who tackles a subject ripped from the headlines in this exciting and thought-provoking exploration of what it means to be both religious and gay."
This is the laundry list of academic whiners and professional victims - disgruntled leftists and professional protestors who despise Western Judeo-Christian civilization. Most of these terms reflect moral categories that mean nothing to intelligent people. It is a gross violation of the intellectual integrity of a one-year old to impose such drivel on them; even worse to waste the time and intelligence of young adults on such foolishness.
That's the same "social justice" course which teaches grade 12 students to "undertake informed action while at the same time not necessarily waiting until having «all the information»". Vancouver Sun columnist Janet Steffenhagen refers to it as "lessons in Isms": ableism, ageism, anthropocentrism, consumerism, cultural imperialism, extremism, feminism, fundamentalism, heterosexism, humanism, racism, sexism, speciesism - you name it. And, in its best reeducating traditions, the government no longer allows parents to exempt their children from this course - effectively turning public schools into radical leftist indoctrination camps.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

CPP Investment Board — Playing The Stock Market With Your Money

And losing big:
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board reported Friday an $8.5-billion drop in the value of the CPP Fund during the October-December quarter to $108.9 billion, as plummeting stock markets caused an investment loss of 6.7 per cent.

For the first three quarters of the fiscal year, the CPP Fund's assets shrank by $13.8 billion. A nine-month investment loss of $17.4 billion or 13.7 per cent was partly offset by worker and employer contributions of $3.7 billion.
This is not the first time the CPP Investment Board loses money on the stock market. Back in 2000-01 they invested in Nortel; the very same company whose shares plummeted from $125 to 69 cents in a little more than 2 years - with predictable consequences for the CPP surplus funds. Too bad that taught them nothing, so they stuck to their stock market gambling.

Instead of playing the stock market, they could have invested the CPP surplus funds in government securities, practically turning Canada's public debt into Canada's retirement savings. That would be far more secure than investing in stocks and at the same time, the interest rate, which is currently paid on public debt (7.5% per annum,) is comparable to the rate of return from a balanced mutual fund.

Had the CPP management used those $120B surplus funds to buy back Federal government bonds, the CPP would have owned ~26% of Canada's public debt. At least $9B of taxpayers money (out of $33B currently spent on interest payments) would have been going to the nation's retirement fund. That revenue, combined with future CPP surpluses, would have allowed us to keep at least $60B of the projected accumulated deficit ($85B over 5 years) as well as about 70% of the extra interest payments in the hands of Canadian taxpayers - in form of future retirement benefits...

That however is unlikely to happen. Not only because the CPP Investment Board strategy left us with a $17B loss and a faint hope to get some dividends on the global market; but also because even after having lost money at least twice, they are unwilling to learn from their mistakes:
The fund has 48.7 per cent of its assets in Canada and 51.3 per cent invested globally, and Denison said the foreign proportion will expand in future years.
And then Mr. Denison & Co will once again be blaming global economy when yet another "tiger" goes belly up. But why should they worry? If something happens - they'll come crying to the government, asking for billions of taxpayers' dollars in bailouts and foreign aid; the government just couldn't refuse to save the troubled markets from collapse if the lion share of our CPP surplus funds is invested there. So, from their prospective - it's win-win. But what about the taxpayers' prospective?

Saturday, February 14, 2009

The Sacrifice Of Love

The nature of man is intrinsically ordered to create and to sustain. This paternal drive, of course, is tangibly reflected in the relationship of marriage. In marriage, man has essentially two roles: first, to focus his attention and sacrifice in serving his wife and, second, to join with her in participating in God’s creation by the raising of their children. If man’s drive is directed towards these goals, his marriage and the society around him flourish into a healthy and prosperous civilization of love. Through his sacrifice of love, his service to his family magnify God’s paternal care for his creation and provide the necessary blueprint for generations to follow.

By showing his complete and total abandonment to his wife and his children, he becomes, what is by today’s standards, a radical man. He becomes a revolutionary against a self-serving and narcissistic culture which seems bent on its own destruction. His self-sacrifice is a repudiation of its values. He is the figurehead of new Christian counter-culture - a living and growing culture which is at war with its decadent sibling.
Great article from the SoCon Or Bust blog. Worth reading - especially on Valentine's day.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Yes, Abortion On Demand IS Genocide!

One deBeauxOs, a pro-abort extremist, is very upset with the Genocide Awareness Project which compares the genocide of abortion to the Holocaust. But since she has no arguments to prove her point, she changes the subject; instead of explaining us WHY abortion genocide can't be compared to the Holocaust, she accuses pro-lifers of being... "secret judeophobes".
They are poaching the Shoah because a Jew who had the temerity to survive became a pro-choice physician, health care practitioner and advocate for women's reproductive options.
That's how she explains it. No m-me deBeauxOs, what is similar between abortions on demand and the Shoah (Holocaust) - is that in both cases, people are being declared "non-humans" or "non-persons" either because of their ethnic origin (Jews in the Nazi Germany) or because of their age, size and location (unborn babies in the womb).

The similarities between abortions on demand and the Holocaust are numerous. In both cases dehumanization of those "unwanted" reached such extent that the society ended up regarding their lives as having no value whatsoever. In both cases the society came to a point where it not only didn't mind the mass exterminations but was actually finding them beneficial.In the Holocaust, the society believed that Germany would be better off without Jews. Nowadays large part of our society believes that a woman would be better off without her baby. The result is the same - millions of innocent people ended up being brutally murdered because in the eyes of the society they were neither persons nor human beings.

"When personhood is denied, the unthinkable becomes reality" - that's the caption on the Genocide Awareness Project homepage. Who could imagine back in 1920s that Hitler's antisemitic rhetoric would result in extermination of 1/3 of the world's Jewish population? Even in late 1930s, when Jews had already become second-class citizens and with racial discrimination gaining momentum day after day, mass exterminations were still unthinkable. But what about exterminating nearly a quarter of the youngest generation? Who wouldn't consider that - unthinkable? And yet, if you put the numbers together - you'll get just that. 1 out of every 4 babies conceived after the ill-famous Supreme Court Ruling ended up being slaughtered before he could see daylight.

And here's more to think about: In the Holocaust, the Nazis used words like "relocations", "special treatment" and "final solution" to describe mass deportations of innocent people to the extermination camps. Nowadays the pro-aborts use fancy words like "reproductive rights", "right to choose" or "partial-birth" to describe murder and dismemberment of innocent babies. And, just like the Nazis tolerated no opposition and allowed no debate on whether or not Jews should have rights, the pro-aborts too tolerate no debate on fetal rights, resorting to persecution, violence, riots and vandalism to silence anyone who says that unborn babies too have a right to life.
Related article: National Post — Paralleling abortion and the Holocaust

See? Even A 12 Year-Old Gets It!

Yes, even a 12 year-old girl understands the fallacy of abortion. Because the murderous nature of the so called "choice" is obvious. And it is equally obvious, that the unborn baby is not a "future child", but a child with a future.
Even though you can't see them or hear them at all, a person's a person, no matter how small!

Even a 12 year-old knows - abortion is not an easy way out; it doesn't make the woman "unpregnant", it makes her a mother of a dead baby. And in her speech, she does take time to list just some of the possible damage which abortion does to woman's health...

You see, it's not rocket science. It's easy to understand: life begins at conception. Stopping a beating heart can never be a matter of someone's "choice". Being small, being dependent, being at the earliest stages of development - none of that justifies taking away someone's life. A child gets it. Too bad our politicians and judges are apparently not even nearly as smart.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Let's Send Those Red Envelopes To Stephen Harper

An empty red envelope with a pro-life message on it - that's a new grassroots pro-life initiative that is gaining momentum in the US. The Red Envelope Project has been spreading for some time by e-mail, and now a website has been set up to further promote the project. The goal is to send a message to US president Barack Obama that there is moral outrage in the country over his administration's promotion of abortion.
The email that has been circulating reads in part: "I have been involved in the pro-life movement for nearly 20 years, and it pained my heart to see a man (Obama) and a political party committed to the shedding of innocent blood. This man, and this party lead our country, but they do not represent me or the 54% of Americans who believe that abortion is wrong and should no longer be legal.

"As I was praying, I believe that God gave me an interesting idea. Out in the garage I have a box of red envelopes. Like the powerful image of the red LIFE tape, an empty red envelope will send a message to Barack Obama that there is moral outrage in this country over this issue. It will be quiet, but clear." was informed of the initiative today, which involves sending an empty red envelope to President Obama with the words, "This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception," written on the back.
Isn't that a great idea, folks? Hopefully, the mailbox at the White House gets flooded with millions of those red envelopes over the weeks to come. And - why shouldn't we try the same Red Envelope campaign here in Canada? After all - don't we have a prime minister who promised never to allow a vote on abortion? Don't we have a justice minister who keeps blocking one pro-life initiative after another? So let's start a Canadian Red Envelope campaign. Let's send those same envelopes to Stephen Harper.

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Multi-Cult Triumphs — Teachers Suffer

Welcome to Canada's multicultural public schools - safe place for some, but not for the others. A Jewish teacher is obviously no longer welcome in a school where most of the students are Muslim. Some of the students apparently know their "enemy" quite well, so being absent on a Jewish major holiday is enough for a teacher to become a target for ethnic slurs, with the principal refusing to do anything about it. If anything, the principal is more concerned about bending backwards to avoid offending those poor mistreated and misunderstood "new Canadians":
Conversely the principal admonished staff for every perceived slight to Muslim sensibilities. Miriam says that the principal insisted staff not look students in the eye, that they not gesture with their forefinger to indicate students should approach, and refused to act against Muslim students who were physically aggressive to male teachers (the principal was a woman).

During the invasion of Iraq, moments of silence were held in the classroom. Students could be excused from class during the playing of the national anthem. Cultural presentations and shows involved only Muslim culture, with no Canadian content. Students were not allowed to speak English, but they were allowed to speak their native languages.
Well, what do you want in this case? If accommodating minorities means not just encouraging every ethno-cultural group to maintain and celebrate their cultures but completely exempting them from any Canadian content whatsoever, trying to recreate the environment of immigrants' native countries instead - no wonder some of those folks choose to go all the way, expressing their traditional contempt towards "infidels" - Jews and non-Jews.
In the spring of 2004, a 17-year old Djibouti male student issued a tirade at her in the classroom. In Miriam's recollection it went: "I don't have to listen to you - you are not a person, you are nothing, you are a Jew, you do not exist as a person." Ordering him to the office and following him down the hall, she was treated to further abuse: "Don't speak to me, don't look at me, you are not human, you are a Jew," repeated over and over. Although the student was suspended for ten days, there was no follow-up. He was not made to apologize, and there were no sensitivity sessions laid on for all the students. In a similar incident with another student who was also briefly suspended, the parents were puzzled as to what the problem was, since, they patiently explained, the teacher was Jewish.
Perhaps you think this is all a he said-she said kind of story, and that you have only heard one side of it. Consider this then: The year Miriam left this school in the spring of 2004, a full sixty out of seventy-five teachers had asked for a transfer. Because of the uncomfortable atmosphere, francophone Canadian students were no longer enrolling. According to Miriam, "They had been complaining for years and parents got wise." Maybe it's time our school boards and our politicians got wise as well.
And another thing: what do you think, how many in Djibouti or Eritrea have a university education, several years of work experience in a skilled occupation and the language skills required for immigration under a skilled workers' program? How many of them could afford a processing fee of over $1000 per adult, plane tickets that cost at least as much, let alone - have some $10,000-$15,000 in cash to finance their settlement in Canada?

Yes, I mean just that. Most of those mentioned in the article must have come here as refugees. Well, if it turns out that they are so attached to the way things were in their home countries - then maybe we should have their refugee claims reopened? If some of them tend to dislike the culture, the values and the national symbols of the country which has shielded them from alleged persecution - then maybe there was no persecution in the first place? And, if some of those who've come here begging for protection end up repaying us with ethnic slurs, not to mention verbal and physical assaults - then maybe it would make sense for us to just send them back where they came from?

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

C-351: An Act To End Abortion In Canada

No, it's not a new private member bill. It's a new initiative to get the churches involved in a 24/7 prayer siege to end abortion. The "C" stands for "Church" and "351" represents the number of churches sought to join the siege. (Check out Psalm 35:1)
We are asking 351 churches to adopt the 24/7 Prayer Siege to end abortion as one of the ministries incorporated into the life of their church by 1) encouraging their members to sign up for a weekly 15 min. prayer time 2) considering hosting weekly prayer meetings for the ending of abortion in Canada 3) educating their congregations regarding the life issue in Canada (through teaching or giving access to life resources, like the site). This is not a political issue. This is about the heart of God. Contact us at to get on board.
Also, don't forget about the upcoming 40 Days For Life vigil. It's just 2 weeks away.

Monday, February 9, 2009

You Call THAT An Academic Debate?!

Silencing pro-lifers has become a trend on campuses from coast to coast. First it was the University of Calgary persecuting students for setting up a pro-life display, with the student association jumping on the bandwagon. Then we have pro-abort brownshirts shutting down fetal rights debate at Saint Mary's University in Nova Scotia.
See for yourself how tolerant those guys are to opinions that differ from their own, see how confident they feel towards an open debate and how solid and rational their counter-arguments are...
Then, as usual, the sheep broke into "Four legs good, two legs bad!" and the momentary awkwardness was smoothed over.
(George Orwell, "Animal Farm")

Sunday, February 8, 2009

"Graphic" Pictures And Double Standards

So, what is so wrong with displaying "graphic" pictures of aborted babies? What was so extraordinary in the Genocide Awareness Project, so that the University of Calgary would go as far as threatening all those involved with arrests and expulsion, let alone - trying to sue all those involved for "trespassing"?

No, it's not because we as a society reject "graphic", "disturbing" or "gruesome" displays. Pro-lifers are not the only group that raises awareness of their cause using pictures that others find disturbing. We have the animal rights of all stripes who are always ready to show us what seal hunt or testing on animals looks like. Not to mention the pictures of the Holocaust, images of the scull pyramids in Cambodia and Rwanda and countless scenes of violence from all over the world.
"It is a double standard when the signs of Campus Pro-Life are censored for being too graphic when less than thirty meters away the university celebrates a graphic protest of the horrible atrocities committed against the Falun Gong. ... It is a double standard when an institution dedicated to unfettered thought ruthlessly silences those who disagree with them."
So it's not really about "graphic" pictures. Neither it's about displaying those pictures to the unprepared passers-by. After all - the animal rights activists or the Falun Gong supporters too display their posters to people that aren't necessarily in the mood for graphic pictures. Not to mention TV commercials that advertise horror movies or gruesome reality shows, which appear on our TV screens without asking us whether or not we want those commercials to interrupt whatever we were watching and of course - without prior warning about the upcoming disturbing content.

What else? Graphic pictures are inappropriate for children? Well, I've already mentioned TV commercials - try hiding that trash from the children. And, as if that wasn't enough, there are movies and video games where blood and guts are splashed all over the screen. There are "sex education" classes where kids are being taught about all sorts of perverse behavior, let alone the perverse "pride" parades with their displays of nudity and lewd behavior, including simulated and actual sex acts in full public view. All that somehow is considered "appropriate" for children by our "progressive" elite. But God forbid a child may accidentally see a picture of an aborted unborn baby...

So it all narrows down to just one reason: Abortion pictures raise awareness of an injustice that many in our society want to ignore. That's why our opponents are so eager to silence us.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Abortion — An Injustice That Must Be Made Visible

Stephanie Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform responds to recent condemnations of abortion photos strategy:
Of course, educating about how abortion kills babies will inevitably involve negative feelings. Know this, however: it's not possible to change peoples' understanding of "choice" and be "positive." That's because dismembering, disemboweling, and decapitating innocent babies is not a positive thing. Of course, this killing of these babies is considered legitimate because the babies aren't perceived as persons — the very status denied to Jews and Blacks in order to rationalize their extermination and enslavement. It is that key issue — unjust denial of personhood — that must be raised in the abortion debate, and yet it's also that comparison (of abortion to the Holocaust) that people like Kay take issue with.
When we are surrounded by darkness, we close our eyes at exposure to light. But eventually the pain subsides, our eyes adjust, and we realize we are better off for being in light than in darkness. So it is with visually sharing the "inconvenient truth" about abortion: initial resistance will give way to acceptance. And we who are the messengers must stay the course, accepting short-term persecution in order to achieve long-term cultural transformation.

As Gandhi once said, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win."
Obviously, our opponents would rather keep claiming that the unborn is merely "a blob of tissue" than admit that they are well aware of the existence of a tiny beating heart, of arms and legs and microscopic fingers, but they still insist on their implied "right" to destroy that tiny baby for the sake of their own convenience. A picture is worth a thousand words and pro-life displays leave no ground for the pro-abort myths. No wonder abortion pictures make our opponents so upset.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Pro-Aborts And Their Lies

A radical pro-abort Joyce Arthur is once again trying to convince us that the abortion debate is over. That's what she titles her Winnipeg Free Press column. And then she talks about MPs and ordinary people debating abortion - be that introducing pro-life bills and motions or speaking their minds publicly or (something Ms. Arthur is unwilling to notice) - educating the public on life issues. If that's no longer a debate - then what is it?

Ms. Arthur begins by claiming that the issue was "settled" by the Supreme Court in 1988. Well, if she's such a strong believer in the infallibility of the Supreme Court, I wonder if she dares to consider herself a person. Because according to the very same Supreme Court - she isn't. Luckily for her, back in 1927 Canadians still had the right to appeal Supreme court decisions. (A right that was taken away from us 20 years later.) But I bet, even back then, there were more than enough people telling the Famous Five that the issue had been "settled" because "the Supreme Court had said so".

Apart from the "court has spoken" mantra, Ms. Arthur is clearly running out of arguments. She refers to the recent poll findings that 92% of the respondents are simply unaware that Canada permits abortion at any time from conception up to the moment of birth as "garbage in, garbage out", claiming the statement isn't true. Then in the very next paragraph she admits that Canada is currently "without an abortion law of any kind". So it turns out there are no laws banning abortions at any time from conception up to the moment of birth after all, isn't it? And if there are no laws then what exactly makes the above statement untrue?

Instead of answering that, Ms. Arthur claims that "the main effect of anti-abortion laws is to kill and injure women in large numbers because they resort to unsafe abortions", suggesting that "anyone who wants to restrict abortion implicitly wants to make it unsafe and endanger women's lives". Well, Ms. Arthur should have checked out the Real Choice Blog which explains in all the details how "safe" those legal abortions truly are. I'll also let Christina Dunigan, the author of the Real Choice Blog to respond to Ms. Arthur's suggestion that we should improve access to what Ms. Arthur calls "abortion care".
Abortion isn't care. It's denying the woman real care and just shutting her up so she stops bugging you with her problems. If we want to address the serious problems faced by women, we'd address the problems that are leading them to the abortion table and FIX THEM.
Finally Ms. Arthur implies that Canada has a "91 per cent pro-choice majority". Oh, really? She should have checked the actual numbers for the poll she quotes, rather than just relying on a brief summary. The lion share of those 42% that would allow abortion only under certain circumstances (whom Ms. Arthur automatically lists as "pro-choice") only support abortions in case of rape, incest or when mother's life is in danger.

So even if we take those numbers as accurate (Angus-Reid polls rarely go beyond 1000-1200 respondents,) the actual number of those supporting unrestricted abortions on demand, according to this poll is 46%, with another 19% supporting abortions on demand up to a certain point. The remaining 35% either support abortions in exceptional circumstances only or support none at all. Ms. Arthur wants their opinions to be ignored, claiming that the debate is "over". Wouldn't that be just too many people to ignore?

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Right To Life Should Come First

Let this article be the answer to all those who suggest that we should forget about social issues and concentrate on fiscal policies, such as keeping the taxes low, balancing the budget and so forth:
"In fact, how we resolve abortion and other fundamental moral issues will largely determine the character of our nation and our ability to contend successfully with external and internal threats to our nation," said the archbishop. "How we settle the abortion issue will determine if we choose to be a nation of self-indulgence, willing to pay any price, even the deaths of our own children, for our insatiable pursuit for pleasure or a nation who will sacrifice heroically to protect and provide for the weakest and most vulnerable."
Would any of us consider voting for a pro-slavery party if they promised us the fiscal policy of our dreams? So why should it be different when it comes to a pro-abortion party? Settling for tax cuts and turning a blind eye on the wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn babies is as immoral as settling for tax cuts financed by profits from slave labor.

And if that argument is not convincing enough, remember this: Fiscal policies have always been derived from politicians' views on social issues. We've seen more than enough politicians who may consider themselves "fiscally responsible", but who would never cut funding to abortions on demand even if the alternative is raising taxes or going into deficit. So don't expect a politician who doesn't believe in personal responsibility (to such extent that he considers killing a child to cover up irresponsible behavior - acceptable) to give you a "fiscally responsible" budget. One who disregards the rights of unborn babies can not be trusted to respect our rights.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Cede Your Children To Homosexuals Or Lose Them For Ever

An elderly couple in Great Britain risks to lose the right to ever again see their grandchildren unless they show "an open mind" to the fact that their grandchildren will be raised by a couple of homosexual perverts.
Two young children are to be adopted by a gay couple, despite the protests of their grandparents. The devastated grandparents were told they would never see the youngsters again unless they dropped their opposition. The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old - at 46 and 59. For two years they fought for their rights to care for the children, whose 26-year- old mother is a recovering heroin addict.
When the grandparents eventually conceded defeat, they were assured by social workers that they would still have regular contact with them. The fostering arrangement worked well, but the council decided that the children should be adopted, to give them a permanent home. The grandparents agreed - as long as they could be assured that the adoptive parents would be a loving mother and father. The couple were then told an adoption had been arranged - but the grandfather ‘hit the roof’ when he discovered that the adoptive parents were two gay men.
When they made their opposition clear, however, the couple were told that social workers would ‘certainly look’ at allowing them access to the children ‘when you are able to come back with an open mind on the issues’.
Here in Canada, the legal conditions for a similar tragedy were established years ago. The very same bill which had finalized the redefinition of marriage, also contained a clause that replaced the definition "natural parents" with "legal parents"; thus becoming a first step towards imposing a fatherless or motherless home on a child as a matter of state policy. Disguised as a "human rights" issue, spearheaded by the activism of the local Liberal and NDP politicians, fast-tracked by the threats of "charter" challenges, homosexual adoption made its way from coast to coast.

Not sure if there's still a province that stands by the old principle that every child deserves to have a mother and a father. What we can be sure of - is that every province has more than enough radical social workers who would be more than happy to find an excuse to take the children away from their loving parents or relatives and hand them over to perverts - as an act of "tolerance", as a show of "open mindedness" and as an exercise in "equal rights". And that is a threat to every parent.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Earth-Worshipers' Commandment: Maintain Humanity Under 500M

That's just one of the "environmentalist commandments" carved on the granite monument called "The Georga Guidestones". The other "anti-commandments" elaborate on that: "Be not a cancer on the earth. Leave room for nature. Guide reproduction wisely improving fitness and diversity." According to the group that erected the monument, those "environmentalist commandments", carved on the granite plates should become "the guidestones to an age of reason".

In which not many of us would be allowed to live. If any.

Because maintaining the population under 500 million means the other 6.2 billion would have to go. And fast. With the people from the "least diverse" but "most consuming" nations to be the first in line for the forced abortions and euthanasia. Yes, those measures will have to be forceful. The magnitude of the task (eliminating 92.5% of the world's population) leaves no room for peaceful persuasion.

And, before you say that this is merely a crazy dream of no more than a handful of insane Earth-worshiping population control freaks, check out this game, which radical enviro-fascists have designed for our children:
That sends a certain message, doesn't it? So, if those guys ever get even close to taking power - they'll make China with its population control policies look like a Libertarian paradise. What's most disturbing is that despite all that, despite all those scandalous Green candidates who refer to people as "cancer of the Earth" on their campaign websites, many still regard the Green movement as nothing but peaceful environmentalists that merely want to keep the air and water pollution-free...
Related post: SoCon or BustThe anti-ten commandments

Monday, February 2, 2009

Pro-Life Students Face "Trespassing" Charges

The University of Calgary found another way to get back at pro-life students who refused to shut down the Genocide Awareness Project exhibit back in November. First they tried to scare them with arrest and expulsion, now the university is sending out summons to the court, charging pro-life students with... trespassing.
Two months after exhibiting the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) the pro-life students received, privately in their homes, summons to court. They must enter a plea by the end of this month, with a trial to be set for later in the year
Leah Hallman, president of CPL, stated today in an interview with LifeSiteNews that the students were "shocked" when they received the court summons, but added that "we did have an idea that it was coming."

"We're disappointed in the university," she said. Hallman said that CPS expects that six students in total will receive the summons, but that the summons have only been gradually coming in over the past week and a half.
"It is a double standard when the signs of Campus Pro-Life are censored for being too graphic when less than thirty meters away the university celebrates a graphic protest of the horrible atrocities committed against the Falun Gong. ... It is a double standard when an institution dedicated to unfettered thought ruthlessly silences those who disagree with them."
That shows how secure the pro-aborts feel when it comes to defending their point of view in an open debate. But there's one thing they forgot - the court is not a "human rights" commission. In the court of law, the truth is still the defense and facts still outweigh hurt feelings. So let the trial begin. It will be another another opportunity for pro-lifers to defend their right to speak up for unborn babies. A right that no pro-abort campus official can take away.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Anthem-Banning Principal — A Radical Green Activist

Erik Millett, the principal of Belleisle Elementary School, blames it on the parents. He claims that some of them had complained about the morning singing of O Canada, so cancelling it for everyone was the only thing to do. But as it turns out, the mysterious complainer, who had trouble with "God keep or land" might as well be the principal himself. Who (just by coincidence) happens to be a raving pacifist and a radical green activist.

Here's what Millett writes about himself:
I am: an ally for gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gendered persons; anti- racist; pro-feminist and a pacifist at heart. My political influences and inspiration are drawn from: Ernesto (Che) Guevera, Noam Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Audrey Lorde, Malcolm X (El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz), Aung San Suu Kyi and Dr. David Suzuki among others.
Well, that explains it, doesn't it? O Canada does no longer mention stalwart sons and gentle maidens, but it still says "all thy sons" without mentioning daughters. Plus, the national anthem embraces patriotism - something a "world citizen" like Millett opposes quite strongly:
Erik has also lived and worked abroad and these experiences... have shaped his worldview to that of a “green internationalist.”
We need political vision which can transcend traditional nationalistic boundaries; only the Green Party is positioned to offer this type of long term political leadership in a complex and interdependent world.
That's from the Green party campaign page. Erik Millett used to be their candidate for Fundy Royal. Here are some of the methods Millett used to get the message out and to prove his point... Sue me for libel if you must but I don't believe that there's anyone else in Springfield, NB (a community of 1500) that could be as disturbed with the morning singing of O Canada as Erik Millett himself. It's just mathematically impossible.

But here's the real problem: we got this socially perverse radical in charge of our children. How do we get him out? He's a principle of a public school, thus - theoretically - the public should have the right to decide whether or not they want to trust their children to a crazed left-wing radical like Millett. So far the only option I'm aware of is to contact the Superintendent for NB School District in which Belleisle Elementary school is located. Not sure if it will make any real difference, but it's worth a try:

Zoë Watson, Superintendent of Schools
New Brunswick School District 6
70B Hampton Road
Rothesay, NB E2E 5Y2

Phone: (506) 847-6262, Fax: (506) 847-6211

P.S. Interestingly enough, a BC college of teachers was quick to strip Chris Kempling of his teaching license when they found out he'd been a candidate for the Christian Heritage Party. (Even though Chris had never done anything wrong.) Somehow I have a feeling that the local school authorities won't be that quick to act when it comes to a raving pacifist lefty that expels O Canada from a Canadian elementary school.

It's better not to take chances. Consider pulling your children out of the public school system. Don't let them become a prize in a secret war.

Obama's Middle Name - A Reason For A "Human Rights" Complaint?

Believe it or not, some radical Muslim thinks that mentioning Barack Obama's middle name, or stating his full name - Barack Hussein Obama - is hateful and derogatory. So he's filing a "human rights" complaint against Andrew Lawton, the author of the Right Wing Canada blog:
I am writing today to inform you that as of 10:27am EST this morning, I have filed a claim against you under the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Among other hateful and inflammatory remarks made on your blog,, you referred to President Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama," citing that he is an Arab-American. This was made in a hateful and dirogatory manner, and such racist propaganda is forbidden under section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Obviously, that won't go far; the complainer probably knows that. But he also knows that the process of being indicted for "hate speech" is in itself a punishment, so he doesn't mind trying. After all - there's nothing there for him to lose; the cost of his complaint will be paid for by taxpayers. And at the same time Andrew may have to spend thousands defending his freedom of speech in front of Canada's Orwellian Tribunal. Could there be a better way for a loud-mouth "designated victim" to get back at someone he doesn't agree with?