Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Demographic Winter Part 2 Has Been Released

Second part of the Demographic Winter documentary is now available on DVD. The newly released documentary, titled "Demographic Bomb: demography is destiny," shows that the current global economic crisis is in part a symptom of a global population crisis, also referred to as "demographic winter".
Demographic Winter used hard data to demonstrate the irreversible destruction of the West’s and the world’s prosperity due to sharp drops in population growth in recent decades. The provocative documentary also showed how anti-family trends have operated side-by-side with anti-natal sentiment and de-population. Part 2 continues this report by “illuminat[ing] the history of population control, how we came to believe that there are too many people in the world, and how these beliefs became institutionalized.”

The social scientists interviewed in this project show that this is not the first time in history that depopulation and anti-family trends have wreaked havoc on civilization. Contrary to the blind faith religious fundamentalism of today’s Secularists/Socialists, the science demonstrates the importance of the Judeo-Christian, “social conservative” message of strong families and children as a blessing.

Demographic Winter is not a Christian production and the experts interviewed are not necessarily Christians, they are honest professionals looking at the data as it exists. Feminism, homosexuality and environmentalism, leading branches of today’s Secular Humanist establishment, are unsustainable ideologies. But what view of the future is necessary to organise people’s behaviour in a way that perpetuates life and growth? Even within Christianity, there are different views about how the future on earth will unfold. Is our view of the future inconsequential or central to providing a credible alternative to the radical ideologies that conservative Christian war against today?
It costs more to sustain broken families; up to $7B more, according to the Institute of Marriage and Family. It costs a lot more to sustain the nation's pension plan - the CPP premiums have gone up 175% since 1986 - from 1.8% to 4.95%, costing taxpayers and employers roughly $30B in extra payroll taxes. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The overall cost of the demographic decline amounts to tens of trillions.
Demographic Winter predicted the financial crash of 2008 to within 12 months. Demographic Bomb reveals how it is just the beginning.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Ending Subsidies To Political Parties — Could Be Back On The Agenda?

According to MacLean's magazine, the proposal to eliminate per-vote subsidies to political parties could resurface come next election:
Whenever the election does come, Harper has one plan in mind for afterward: the elimination of public funding to political parties. A punishing blow to his opponents. Sure, the idea caused a showdown last autumn, the adviser said. “But in retrospect, we should have stuck to our guns. It was strategically smart. It’s still strategically smart. We’re going to run again on it. And we’re going to do it, if we win the next election. It’s coming.”
Why stop here? Apart from the per-vote subsidy, qualified political parties get 50% of their election expenses reimbursed by Elections Canada. So if we want to take the public funds out of politics, then let's go all the way and abolish the election expenses reimbursement as well.

This will put an end to the status-quo, when major political parties can become "election ready" in 12-18 months without even bothering to solicit individual party members for donations. (They get half of their campaign expenses back right away and the rest adds up in 4-6 quarterly installments thanks to the per-vote subsidy.) This will leave it up to the voters to decide which political party they would like to support, forcing every political party to listen to the individual members, rather than just sending them flyers and requests for more donations.

And, if you are concerned about the low-income Canadians who don't have much cash to donate to a political party - first of all, that's what the tax credit for the political party contributions is for. Contributions of up to $400 a year qualify for 75% tax credit. Donate $20 and get $15 back. Then let's not forget that the allowance is only $1.99 per vote. ($1.75 adjusted to inflation.) Campaign expense limit is something like $1 or so per registered voter in the riding. Thus - if 1 in 5 voters donate just $20 a year to the political parties of their choice - that would be more than enough to compensate for the lost public funds.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Bob Rae Wants PM To "Come Clean" On CHRC

Bob Rae is concerned that a victory of Tim Hudak in Ontario could jeopardize the Federal Star Chamber. He wants Stephen Harper to publicly pledge not to scrap the freedom-snatching commission:
Mr. Rae was responding to the fact that five Conservative cabinet ministers and 15 other Conservative MPs have endorsed candidates for the Ontario Progressive Leadership campaign who have called for the abolishment of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

So far, Transport Minister John Baird, Industry Minister Tony Clement, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, along with MPs Dean Allison, Gord Brown, Patrick Brown, Paul Calandra, Barry Devolin, Rick Dykstra, Royal Galipeau, Daryl Kramp, Pierre Poilievre, Joe Preston, Gary Schellenberger, David Sweet and David Tilson, have endorsed candidate Tim Hudak.

Conservative MPs Scott Reid and Cheryl Gallant have both endorsed candidate Randy Hillier.

Both Mr. Hudak and Mr. Hillier have made the abolishment of the Ontario Human Rights Commission a centrepiece of their campaigns for leadership.
Yep! And then Bob Rae should demand Harper to assure Canadians that he does no longer adhere to any Conservative values and that, if he stays in power, he'll keep governing like a Liberal.

Hopefully, Stephen Harper does take a stand on the issue, but not the one Bob Rae is looking forward to:
Mr. Harper has said:

“Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” (BC Report, January 11, 1999)
Well said, Mr. Harper! How about doing something to get rid of of those freedom-snatching commissars? If you believe this stuff is less scary now than it was 10 years ago - listen to your own party; it's been just half-a-year since the Conservative party delegates voted almost unanimously to remove subsection 13(1) from the Human Rights act. How come the bill to do just that still hasn't been introduced?

And here's what Bob Rae himself thinks of the Orwellian tribunals:
“...Human Rights Commissions, like the Ontario Commission, provide a vital resource to the community. They are an avenue to handle claims and disputes in a manner that is far more financially accessible than litigation,” said Mr. Rae.

“They can never replace courts of law, but they help to assure that principles of fundamental justice – namely access to justice and fairness – are available to all Canadians...”
Sure, a quasi-judiciary tribunal where truth is not a defense, where the defendant is presumed guilty until proven innocent and must pay for his own defense while the complainer gets all expenses paid - that kind of establishment sure stands for fundamental justice and fairness.

Bob Rae says that the Liberals "believe in the protection of minorities and minority rights, and ... support legislation, commissions and tribunals that aim for those goals". What about our rights? How come special interest groups' implied right not to be criticized outweighs our freedom of speech and our right to a fair trial?

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Late Term Abortions: Never Necessary

Those are the facts. Those who work in the abortion industry will never admit them. (They wouldn't want to ruin their business, would they?) But those who quit may tell the truth after all:
Referring to a statement by Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who admitted in 1997 that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions were performed on healthy mothers and babies, Dr. Davenport explains that "contrary to the assertion of abortion rights supporters that late- term abortion is performed for serious reasons, surveys of late abortion patients confirm that the vast majority occur because of delay in diagnosis of pregnancy. They are done for similar reasons as early abortions: relationship problems, young or old maternal age, education or financial concerns."
Considering the claim that serious maternal health problems require abortions, Dr. Davenport states that "intentional abortion for maternal health, particularly after viability, is one of the great deceptions used to justify all abortion."

"The very fact that the baby of an ill mother is viable raises the question of why, indeed, it is necessary to perform an abortion to end the pregnancy. With any serious maternal health problem, termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby."
Not to mention that those so called "procedures" are performed without proper informed consent. (Just compare that to any other type of surgery.) And, if late-term abortions were just ordinary medical services - why would hospitals report some of them as stillbirths?

Friday, June 26, 2009

Back Alley Abortion Deaths — Pro-Aborts Cling To Their Lies

They claim that there were roughly 12,000 of them a year back in 1960s. No, I'm not making this up. Just check out the timeline posted on The Tyee next to an article entitled "Tension High at Abortion Clinics". The timeline, entitled "Abortion and Choice in Canada" says just that:
Early 1960s: Roughly 12,000 Canadian women died each year during illegal abortions.
One who is unfamiliar with the facts (or isn't so good with math) may actually believe them. But let's look at the actual numbers. Here's some statistics on surgical abortions in Canada: 11,152 of them were performed in 1970. So they want to tell me that the number of back alley abortion deaths in a typical year in early 1960s was actually higher than the overall number of legal abortions performed in a year following the legalization.

Sure, just a year later, in 1971, the number of surgical abortions jumped to as many as 37,232 and kept increasing year after year. But that was after more hospitals had started performing abortions. That was after the abortion itself had gradually became "just another form of birth control", accepted not just by the general public, but also by some liberal churches. Back in 1970, most of that hadn't happened yet. Those 11,152 women who had an abortion in 1970 - they were the ones ready to literally walk the extra mile to get an abortion. But by then surgical abortions had already become legal. How many of them would have been ready to do what it takes to have an abortion, if abortion had been still illegal? So, not only there couldn't be 12,000 back-alley abortion deaths in Canada in early 1960s, but there couldn't even be as many as 12,000 back-alley abortions in those years.

But what is the real statistics on the back-alley abortion deaths? Here are the numbers for the US:
The National Center for Heath Statistics reveals that before 1941, there were over 1,400 abortion-related deaths. Yet after Penicillin became available to control infections, the number of deaths was reduced in the 1950's to approximately 250 per year. By 1966, with abortion still illegal in all states, the number of deaths had dropped steadily to 120. The reason? New and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population.
For Canada, with its population being 10 times smaller, those numbers should have been roughly 10 times lower. Could it be that the real number of back-alley abortion deaths was 12 and the pro-aborts have simply added the three zeroes to scare the uninformed public?

Finally, let's take a glimpse at the abortion mortality nowadays:
It is no surprise that abortion providers have tried to set our minds to rest by providing the political push to eliminate uniform legal requirements for reporting abortion related deaths. In the years when there was an accurate reporting procedure, Oregon reported 14 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions, compared with 8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Maryland reported 40 deaths per 100,000 abortions, compared to 23 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. In Sweden and Denmark, abortion mortality rates are twice the maternal death rate and conditions are safer there.
Sure, legal abortions are safer than the back-alley abortions were back in the 1960s. But there are a lot more of them nowadays. As result, the number of abortion deaths is actually higher than it was when abortion was illegal.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Euthanasia: "Right" To Die May Become A Duty

At first euthanasia supporters used such arguments as personal choice and personal autonomy to explain why it should be legal. Now, some of them don't even bother to hide their intention to make euthanasia mandatory for those, whose lives in their prospective are uworthy of living:
Last year Baroness Warnock - Britain’s high panjandrum of medical ethics and “Britain’s leading moral philosopher,” according to imbeciles who wouldn’t know a moral principle if it bit them in the kiester - made news by publicly stating that old, broken-down Brits were “wasting the resources of the National Health Service.” These patients, according to the former headmistress (aren’t you glad you didn’t send your child to her school?), have a duty to die. And if they’re too out of touch to realize that, she said, others should be “licensed to put people down.”

Which leads us to Bob Beckle, Clinton apologist and manager of the Walter Mondale presidential campaign, which carried one state out of 50. Talking about the crying need for a massive government health care system, Beckle remarked that too much time and money is being spent keeping alive those persons whose best years are behind them and who have nothing to contribute anymore. The talk show’s host, self-identified “Catholic” Bill Cunningham, didn’t disagree with him. I think we may take his silence as consent.

But they aren’t alone anymore. Various health care “reformers” are questioning the wisdom and cost-effectiveness of providing extended care for Alzheimer’s patients. The poor old things cost a lot of money and they’re no good for anything, so why keep them alive? Think of all the money that could be saved by snuffing them out.
Here in Canada, the situation isn't any better. We've already seen a Manitoba hospital trying to deny basic care to 84 year-old Samuel Golubchuk to "allow him to die". And we have a law suit, launched by parents against a hospital in Quebec for not following through with their plans to dehydrate their disabled newborn baby girl to death.

As the population keeps aging, there will be more politicians, judges and other high-profile figures believing that some people just "live too long". And, unless we the people take a stand and make it clear that such views are unacceptable, there will be more in the governing elite supporting the notion of putting a limit to those lives "unworthy" of living; secretly at first, then - openly...

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Be Politically Correct! Big Sister is watching you!

Chief jackboot Jennifer Lynch claims that Canadians are "uninformed and deliberately misinformed about the hate speech provisions of human rights law, and are engaged in a debate that is 'completely unbalanced'". She goes on complaining how mean and unfair her opponents are and how ready she is for an informed dialogue {as long as none of her opponents is allowed to rebut} and then she says this:
"Please, please, look. We have experienced 16 months of invective hurled at us, and at any time when anybody has tried to speak up and correct misinformation, gross distortions, caricaturizations, then the very next day there's been some full-frontal assault through the blogs, through mainstream media. I have a file. I'm sure I have 1,200, certainly several hundred of these things," she said.
Want to know if you are on the Big Sister's revenge list? Blazing Cat Fur has the instructions and the link to the Access to Information form posted on his blog. And in case you wonder whether or not having "1,200, certainly several hundred" opponents on file is even legal - of course it is! When it comes to fighting thought-crimes hate, the end justifies the means, doesn't it? If anything, the Orwellian Tribunals believe they need more powers:
Believing perhaps that the best defence is a good offence, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has proposed the Canadian Criminal Code be stripped of the few common-law defences available to someone charged under its hate-crime provisions... Rather than present a suitable humility, it instead recommended the Code be rendered as oppressive as the commission itself!
So what if what you've said is true? So what if the facts clearly show that you're right? You've hurt someone's feelings, got it? So be politically correct or else:
Unfortunately, the Human Rights Commissions have done terrible harm to many innocent victims of (ultimately) unsubstantiated charges. Perhaps the most egregious fault is that complainants have subsidized legal advice, those who are attacked must finance their own defence. They have outlived their usefullness. Let the courts and the laws deal with discrimination.
That's what a "balanced" debate looks like according to Lynch & Co.

The fact that two Ontario PC leadership contestants - Christine Elliot and Frank Klees are seriously concerned about losing the next election if the party adopts an anti-HRC stance; the fact that they have all the polling data to confirm that those concerns are well founded, all that shows that there's one thing the Chief Jackboot is right about: most Canadians are uninformed and deliberately misinformed about the HRCs. Unfortunately, many still believe that those Star Chambers actually have something to do with defending human rights.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

No Right To Peaceful Protests For Pro-Lifers

The Supreme Court of Canada decides "not to hear" the case of Donald David Spratt against the "bubble zone" laws, which ban protests (on public property) outside of the abortion facilities. Once again, pro-lifers are less equal than others:
Unions are allowed to protest in front of factories. So-called anti-poverty groups are allowed to protest, even if their demonstrations often erupt in violence. Environmentalists, homosexuals, Tamils and all other minority groups are allowed freedom of speech anywhere, and rightly so, but pro-life citizens are treated as second class.
Sure, they're not against our right to peacefully protest; by no means. It's just they wish we had our protests someplace where we couldn't be seen. Because they know: a pro-life protest, no matter how peaceful, sends a message, against which the pro-aborts just have no arguments.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Wait! You Forgot To Bail Out Nortel!

Yeah, if there's a company that could really use some bailout money - it's Nortel. Heck, they hadn't even recovered from the hi-tech bubble burst and the subsequent recession by the time the company was hit by the global financial crisis last fall... Luckily for us, most of their downsizing and layoffs took place back in 2001-02. Otherwise we'd have seen the government buying out their shares at $120 a piece (actually, if we factor in the reverse split, it would be $1200) as part of their "stimulus" effort.

Nortel has been in a nosedive since 2000, but its directors still believe they deserve another chance:
Mike Zafirovski, Nortel's CEO, told the parliamentary committee the he had heavily invested in Nortel stock last year because he was sure that the fallen technology giant was on track to recover its status.

Zafirovski said that several of the company's directors, him included, invested their personal money in Nortel stock last year.

He said his family invested about $500,000 in the company's stock, including some money that had been earmarked for his three sons' college tuitions, because he was certain Nortel was on the rebound.
Hmm... How long they've been saying that for? 7 years? 8? 9? Sure, they'll rebound. Yeah, I've seen their stock rebounding from $122 in late August of 2000 to less than $10 just a year later. The only way they could bring the stock price back into the double-digits was through a "reverse split" - when 10 old shares were replaced with 1 new, worth 10 times as much. Now, even those shares worth pennies. I believe that's enough. If Nortel ends up out of business - so be it; I bet, what's left of the company just can't do any worse under different owners.

So I applaud the government's decision not to include Nortel in the bailout package. Finally - a common sense decision for a change. I'd rather see that money going towards buying new streetcars for Toronto - after all that's something that's going to last 30 years, not to mention that it will be serving a city of 3 million...

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Lynch Jennifer Lynch And The CHRC In A T-Shirt Slogan Contest

How about an "anti-CHRC" T-Shirt slogan contest? There's one going on right now on the Blazing Cat Fur blog. A few dozens of T-shirt slogans have been submitted so far; here are a few examples:
"I'll debate anyone, anywhere, after they've left the building"
"Freedom of speech? Jennifer Lynch and her mob know where to draw the line, so you don't have to worry..."
"Submit to being Lynched: it's the Canadian way!"
"CHRCs: always ready to Lynch you into 'niceness'"
"Shut up and smile - the CHRCs are watching!"
"CHRC / How the Lynch stole Christmas. (And Canada)"
"CHRC & Jennifer Lynch want to know / Are you Politically Correct?"
If you think you can do better than that - go ahead, add your slogan to the comments and you can win a free (one you don't have to pay for) free (from censorship) T-shirt.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Ontario Conservatives, Don't Make The Same Mistake Again!

Yes, I'm talking about the upcoming Ontario PC leadership vote. Remember how it was back then? John Tory won 45% of the electoral votes. His rivals, Jim Flaherty and Frank Klees won 33% and 22% respectively. Had their supporters been united - the disastrous Tory leadership could have been avoided. But... we know what happened. Let's not let it happen again.

Remember - it's a preferential ballot, so you can mark more than one choice; and this time the preferences are quite obvious: We have Randy Hillier with his strong campaign in support of Ontarians' freedom of speech; his position is clear - the province's "human rights" tribunal should be abolished. We have Tim Hudak who shares Randy's position on the Orwellian tribunal. Then there's Frank Klees, who believes that the tribunal could still be reformed. And finally, we have Christine Elliott who supports the Star Chamber as it is.

Randy Hillier is not strictly pro-life, but he's not pro-abortion either. At the very least he supports the right of doctors to refuse to perform abortions. Tim Hudak has received an endorsement from The Catholic Insight. So - if you rank one of them as your first preference - don't forget to rank the other as your second choice. They both deserve it.

Frank Klees - his readiness to compromise on the HRCs and his apparent reluctance to touch "controversial" issues speak against him. But he was endorsed by the CLC, and that puts him ahead of Christine Elliot. So, let's give Frank the third preference. If it happens that both Randy Hillier and Tim Hudak get eliminated after the second count - a pro-life moderate Frank Klees will still be a better choice for the leader of the Ontario PCs than a pro-abortion progressive Christine Elliot.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Liberal Spending Raises Some Questions

First there's Elections Canada with its questions over suspicious campaign expenses which look more like cash transfers to the LPC headquarters:
Elections Canada is scrutinizing almost $800,000 worth of expenses filed by Liberal candidates in last fall's election campaign, The Canadian Press has learned.

The elections watchdog has asked the federal Liberal party to produce detailed invoices and documentation to prove that a mandatory riding services package was actually worth the $2,500 each candidate was required to pay for it.

Until Elections Canada is satisfied the packages aren't really a thinly veiled donation to party headquarters, the candidates won't receive rebates for any of their election expenses, worth a total of about $3.5 million to the cash-hungry party.

"Until that's resolved, then it's holding the process up somewhat," Liberal party national director Rocco Rossi confirmed in an interview Wednesday.
And then there's an issue of the Liberal caucus in the Senate attempting to buy voter tracking software with public funds - in clear violation of the Elections Act. Hmm... I wonder why would unelected Senators ever need a voter tracking software? How many of them actually had to face voters in order to get their seats, let alone - to retain them until they turn 75? Oh, well, let those scandals keep piling up...

Thursday, June 18, 2009

What?! A Child Needs A Stay-At-Home Parent?! Apologize This Instant!

It sounds crazy, but that's the way the Alberta Liberals have reacted to a suggestion by the provincial Finance Minister Iris Evans that it takes a stay-at-home parent to raise children properly. They want her to apologize for committing such an appalling act of crime-think and, if Iris Evans refuses to repent, they believe, the Premier should fire her.

No, I'm not making this up:
"If she really said these things, she must apologize. If she doesn't apologize, the premier must fire her," David Swann said in a statement Wednesday. "These are truly outrageous claims. I have never been as stunned by the sheer arrogance and ignorance of the Tories as I am today.
Hmmm... let me remind you that this is the same provincial political party that fiercely opposed an amendment to the Alberta Human Rights Act that enshrined the rights of parents to have their children exempted from controversial curriculum. Apparently they believe that allowing parents to scrutiny the values taught to their kids at school is also not the way to properly raise children. If so then what is their recipe for success? Apparently - it's something similar to the one that's being promoted by their Ontario colleagues:
A new plan for Ontario could see kindergarten students in school from 7:30am until 6pm.

The full day of child care is better for both children and their families, a government report suggests.

Premier Dalton McGuinty commissioned Charles Pascal to conduct the two-year study back in 2007. At the time, it was expected to cost $500 million.
Now, let's think about it: if a child stays at school from 7:30 to 6 - how much time does he get to spend with his parents and siblings on an average weekday? 3-4 hours, 5 at most. Should we wonder that so many children put their classmates and even their teachers ahead of their parents?

Locking up children in public schools could be a great option for the Liberals of all stripes, who want to indoctrinate the young generation into their utopian views. But when it comes to the families' and children's best interest - I believe Iris Evans is absolutely right: Children are better off when one of the parents stays home to take care of them.

As for the income - guess what - even nowadays it's still possible for families to live on just one income. It's just a matter of setting priorities: What's more important - luxurious lifestyle or your relationship with your children?

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

...But, Of Course, They Are Not The Ones Being Killed

If an unborn child could write a letter - what would he say to all those who prefer to distance themselves from abortion and fetal rights issue, just because they consider it "controversial"?

Great essay by Stephen J. Gray:
“Dear fellow human beings, I know there are some people out there who want to be ‘non-confrontational’ about my fellow little innocents being slaughtered by abortionists. They believe they have a ‘new,’ ‘wise,’ and ‘strategic’ approach to this heinous crime. Their words sound nice and reassuring. But, of course, they are not the ones being killed. Don’t they realize that there is nothing ‘compassionate’ about killing us? And if they are ‘not concerned with the law,’ (there is no law) or any law prohibiting abortion, then they should be. And so, these murderous atrocities perpetrated on we the innocent continue unabated in depraved acts of lawlessness.

“There are some in the judiciary who call the killings ‘terminations’ and advocate that an abortionist should be paid for his bloody slaughter. They even honored this butcher, with his country’s top award, and some even called him a ‘hero.’ Then there are some in the media who are supposedly ‘searching for truth,’ but when it comes to the awful truth of the abortion slaughter they hide the truth with lies like ‘freedom of choice’ to make it look like killing us is acceptable.
One of the pro-aborts' commonly used slogan is "[certain percentage] of the pro-life activists are men, 100% of them will never get pregnant". To that there's a great rebuttal: 100% of the pro-abortion activists have already been born. 100% of them will never be aborted.

Sure, if they keep promoting the culture of death - then some of them could fall victims to euthanasia (among with many of those who just don't have the guts to touch a "controversial" issue,) but that's a different story.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Chief Jackboot Boycotts Parliamentary Hearings

The Parliamentary hearings into the Canadian Human Rights Commission's censorship powers began today. The Chief Commissioner, Jennifer Lynch, wasn't there:
I understand that Jennifer Lynch has refused to attend -- just like she refused to debate me on television. MPs who would dare to ask her questions are personae non grata to her, just like I am.

Princess Lynch is above answering questions -- it's so dirty. It's for the little people. And, surprise! She's busy on another junket, this one to the annual five-star human rights industry gala, in Montreal. Montreal is just 90 minutes down the highway from Ottawa.
I'm guessing Lynch will send that same useless intern she sent in her place to the CTV debate. I wonder if Lynch will give him the same instructions again -- not to answer questions.
I can understand why Jennifer Lynch wouldn't want to participate in a debate with Ezra Levant. But what's wrong with the multi-partisan Parliamentary hearings? Is she afraid to lose or is it that an unelected Chief Commissioner believes that her office should be immune from criticism; therefore even elected Members of Parliament have no rights to question its censorship powers?

Meanwhile the Chief Jackboot accuses the bloggers of working to "destroy ... investigators and litigators’ reputations and credibility with untrue accusations", twisting the context to portray her organization as a victim of an "unbalanced" debate. Sure, it's those evil bloggers that have dared to commit an unthinkable act of blasphemy by comparing the CHRC to Gestapo. Sure, it has absolutely nothing to do with an organization that not only runs a tribunal where truth is not a defense, but also recommends the government to remove the defense of truth from the criminal code...

Monday, June 15, 2009

Help Stop Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia Bill C-384

Life Canada media release:
Dear Friends,

A new bill that would legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in Canada has been introduced in Parliament. Bloc MP Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l’Île) brought forward Bill C-384: An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Right to die with dignity) on May 13, 2009.

While we oppose any legislation that would allow assisted suicide or euthanasia (AS/EU) under any circumstances, this bill is particularly dangerous. It would permit AS/EU for anyone 18 or older who is experiencing “severe physical or mental pain” and has “tried or expressly refused” treatment. This would mean that a depressed 18-year-old who refused medication could ask for and receive a lethal prescription.

The legislation would also allow AS/EU for those who request it “while appearing to be lucid”. Individuals may appear to be lucid while suffering from dementia, confusion, incapacitating depression or other factors, and may be particularly vulnerable to pressure or coercion to request assisted suicide or euthanasia.

We urge you to help oppose this legislation! It is important to act now to oppose Bill C-384 before it moves to debate in the fall.


Contacting your MP to express your views on Bill C-384 may be the most effective method of ensuring this bill does not become law in Canada. Sample letters, a link to help locate your MP and information on how to write your own letter (the strongest approach) may be found at the links below.

Sample letters (Eng.)

Sample letters (Fr.)

Find your Member of Parliament here

Some member groups with charitable status may be concerned over engaging in political activity. While remembering that Revenue Canada permits charities to put 10% of their resources towards political activity, we also suggest that you direct your members to our website at www.lifecanada.org where they can access information on responding to Bill C-384 directly from the site.


Please write letters! Write them to your local paper, national papers, spiritual leaders in your community, your local doctor or medical centers. Watch for articles in the news on the issues of suicide, palliative care, the elderly or disabled and use the opportunity to write a letter in response that will help educate the public about assisted suicide and euthanasia. There is great confusion on this issue in Canada. Help your local community understand what is at stake by bringing the debate forward and offering information on the issues.

Some points to remember:
  • Refusing or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment when dying a natural death is not assisted suicide/euthanasia. There is nothing wrong with letting death occur naturally when treatment is no longer effective.

  • This does NOT include withdrawing food or fluids. Providing food and water is basic care that under no circumstances should be withdrawn unless the body is no longer able to absorb nutrients due to imminent death. “Quality of life” considerations should never be a factor—food and water is a basic human right for every living person.

  • Nearly 4,000 Canadians die by suicide every year. Suicide is the second leading cause of death in young Canadians age 15-34. The leading cause of hospitalization in this age group is mental disorder—Bill C-384 would significantly increase the risk of suicide among young people suffering mental illness. Suicide is the leading cause of death among First Nations communities. Canada does not have a national suicide prevention strategy in place.

  • Keep letters short, clear and to the point. 300 words or less is a good length.

See these links for more information:

Text of Bill C-384

Analysis of Bill C-384

Assisted Suicide—Threat to Canada’s Seniors

LifeCanada press release on Bill C-384
Also - check out this 30-minute speech on euthanasia, by Alex Schadenberg. It's a great overview that touches every aspect of the issue of euthanasia; from explaining the common terms (euthanasia, assisted suicide etc) to outlining all the threats that legal euthanasia poses to the society.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Open Debate - CHRC Style

Actually, it looks more like two separate interviews. And we should be thankful even for that - because the chief jackboot Jennifer Lynch refused to participate in the talk if Ezra Levant appeared anywhere in the program. Her replacement, Philipp Dufresne, the director and senior councilor of the commission, agreed to tolerate Ezra Levant's presence but only on the condition that he did not have to talk to Ezra Levant. So, Tom Clark interviews Philipp Dufresne first and then it's Ezra's turn. (If the show is no longer available online - leave a comment and I'll post a screen copy on YouTube.)

It's quite interesting to compare the two interviews. And in the end, Ezra mentions something that hasn't got much of the media attention: in the report, there is a recommendation to remove the defense of truth from the criminal code. So, not only CHRC jackboots are trying to keep their power of censorship, they also want to expend the power of censorship of the police. No wonder they don't have the guts to face Ezra Levant in an open debate.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Barbara Kay: The Abortion Issue We’re Ignoring

Barbara Kay raises awareness of the medical complications, resulting from abortions - an issue that better not be overlooked:
There’s a third side to the debate that gets short media shrift: emerging knowledge about medical risks surrounding induced abortion (IA). Throughout 40 years of highly publicized ideological squabbling, researchers in the field of human reproduction have been quietly beavering away on mounting epidemiological data around IA and its link to preterm birth (PTB) in a future pregnancy. Recent findings in their research remind us of a “right” generally observed in the breach: the right of women seeking safe abortions to informed consent.
In 2004 emeritus French ob/gyn professor Emile Papiernik co-authored a European human reproduction study, reporting that: i) Women who had one prior IA had 34% higher relative odds of a VPT birth compared to women with no prior IAs; and ii) Women with more than one prior IA had an 82% higher relative odds of a VPT birth.

In 2007 Dr. Greg Alexander of the U. S. Institutes of Medicine (a branch of the National Academy of Sciences) identified a “prior first trimester induced abortion” as an “immutable medical risk factor associated with preterm birth.”
The evidence is plenty - just check out one of many sources. Not only does abortion kill a child, it forever wounds the mother.

Barbra ends her article by asking: "Abortion on demand: empowerment — or bamboozlement — of women?" For those many women traumatized by abortion and for the relatives of those who didn't survive one, this is a rhetorical question.

Friday, June 12, 2009

No We Don't Want "Modern Conception Of Human Rights"

Deborah Gyapong weighs in on the recent CHRC recommendations and on the arguments they come up with in defense of the section 13.1:
Say what? Jennifer Lynch I DO NOT WANT A MODERN CONCEPTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Because this "modern" conception is really postmodern, and this bogus new right of "freedom from hate" is not equal to the right to freedom of speech. (Which is really the right to be left alone by government so we can think and say what we want. Most genocides, by the way, have been orchestrated by---guess what!!!!---governments!!!!!!)

She says there is "no hierarchy of rights" but she adds a whole bunch of new rights to the matrix which are like metastasizing from the cancerous so-called "right to equality."

This is not equality before the law, folks, i.e. the good equality. Can you can smell the dusty whiff of Marxist utopianism in this document? Can you see that equality, for this progressive, "modern" mindset, trumps every other right because it breeds like bleepin' rabbits, creating new rights exponentially that government must make everyone else pay for and shut up about to make sure that structural racism and prejudice is eliminated. But if there is racism or prejudice expressed against Catholics, you are out of luck.

In other words, this document is utterly opposed to everything I ever thought about equality of opportunity but is totally focused on equality of outcome.
Meanwhile the chief jackboot Jennifer Lynch claims that the debate over freedom of expression is "out of balance". The critics, she says, are "manipulating information and activities around rights cases and freedom of expression to further a new agenda" and she believes that the debate itself "has been used as a wedge to undermine and distort our human-rights system"...

Oh, sure it's always those reactionary free-speechers who just can't understand what progress is all about. Sure, it's not Ms Lynch and her fellow jackboots with their "modern conception of human rights" that undermine and distort Canada's centuries-old tradition of individual rights and the rule of law...

No, we don't want "modern conception" of human rights. We want our basic human rights. Such as the freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial. It's as simple as that.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Freedom-Snatching Jackboots Just Won't Let Go

Criminal Code alone isn't enough to stop thought hate crimes, they say:
Canada's Human Rights Commission has rejected suggestions that it stop investigating hate messages on the Internet, saying the issue shouldn't be left solely to the Criminal Code.

In a report to Parliament obtained by The Globe and Mail, the commission argues that both the criminal code and the Canadian Human Rights Act should be used to deal with the promotion of hate.
But what about the abuse of power? The report suggests that the commission should leave the imposing of fines to the criminal courts; however when it comes to conviction - that would apparently remain the responsibility of the "human rights" tribunals. Hmm... shall I remind you that once a "hate speech" complaint makes it all the way to the tribunal, the conviction is pretty much certain?

Then - what about the fact that a victim of a frivolous complaint has to pay tens of thousands for his defense, while the complainer gets all expenses paid? The report recommends that victims of frivolous complaints too get their legal expenses reimbursed. By the complainer? Of course not! By the taxpayers! Yeah, it's the taxpayers' fault that the law allows just anyone with hurt feelings to file a "human rights" complaint...
This is more than an insult to Canadian traditions, it is an assault on the values of free expression and democratic liberty. The CHRC is a corrupt, power mad bureacracy staffed by radical leftist zealots who have abused their power repeatedly and with impunity. This travesty cannot be allowed to continue.

The alleged Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal have demonstrated their corruption time and again. These illegitimate bodies have tolerated the abuse of due process, tolerated misleading testimony under oath, evidence substitution and have in the words of Senator Jerry Grafstein been hijacked by extremists.
Ok Harper act or lose the next election.
Let me reiterate: act now or lose the next election! It's been just six months or so since the delegates at the Conservative Party convention voted almost unanimously to remove section 13.1 (the one that criminalizes speech) from the Canadian Human Rights Act. If Stephen Harper chooses to distance himself from the issue (instead of doing what's right for the country and re-energizing his voting base in the process) - then he better not complain should his party lose even more votes than the Liberals did last fall.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Euthanasia Exposed

Alex Schadenberg, the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, speaks about euthanasia at the Foctus on Life benefit dinner in Moncton, NB. His 30-minute speech touches all the aspects of the issue.

Alex explains the terms such as euthanasia and assisted suicide, exposes the true meaning of some euphemisms used by euthanasia supporters and dispels some of their myths. And, of course, this presentation also includes a thorough review of the recently introduced private member bill to legalize euthanasia in Canada. Alex highlights some of the most dangerous provisions of the bill and talks about the strategy of the pro-euthanasia side and what can we do to block their murderous agenda.

Part 1: What is euthanasia? What is assisted suicide? Are we talking about a medical procedure or are we talking about direct and intentional actions that cause another person's death?

Part 2: Euthanasia — Is it about terminal illness? Is about people who are nearing death anyway? Who are those asking for euthanasia and what are their reasons? Private member bill C-384 — what's in there?

Part 3: "Appearing to be lucid" — that's how bill C-384 determines competence. Can such a radical bill pass? What is the strategy of those who support euthanasia and assisted suicide? And what can we do to stop them?

P.S. This was recorded at the banquet, so please excuse the rattling dishes and the crying baby in the background and the shaking picture - yes, I should have got a tripod, instead of just trying to hold the camera still for half-an-hour...

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Nova Scotia Election — Let This Be A Lesson...

So, it's the worst case scenario - not just an NDP government, but an NDP majority. How bad could that be? Well, I'm not going to argue with the observers, most of whom suggest that Darrell Dexter is fiscally moderate. They are all "fiscally responsible" when tax revenues outpace program spending and all of them are faithful to Keynesian economics when tax revenues dry down but spending habits are just too hard to break. But when it comes to social policy - we better don't have any illusions about the kind of views shared by the Nova Scotia's new Premier and his party.

Thus - even if the upcoming 4 or 5 years of NDP rule don't result in new taxes or deficits - we can still expect the government to pander to all the special interest groups that are New Democrats' long-time allies; including of course the pro-aborts and militant homosexuals. So it's just a matter of time until we see more funding for abortions and more hospitals being bribed into providing them. Obviously, we can expect more restrictions on pro-life protest rallies and prayer vigils - from all sorts of "bubble zone" laws to existing laws against obscenity and disruption of peace being used to prosecute peaceful vigil-keepers.

Not to mention all sorts of compulsory "social justice" and "sex education" lessons where perverse views on sexuality are presented as the only indisputable truth. Not to mention giving more power to the local HRC and amending the provincial Human Rights Act to include so called "gender identity" and "gender expression" as prohibited grounds of discrimination. Sure, you won't find any of that in their election platform, but when it comes to the NDP (either Provincial or Federal; the two are directly affiliated) - it's not even a hidden agenda anymore. So it's hard to expect anything positive of the choice that Nova Scotians have made.

But did they have any other choice? Hardly. And the provincial PCs have only themselves to blame. If anything - the voters were more than merciful to them, when they gave them another chance back in 2006. Obviously, people didn't expect much from the PC party (so it returned to the legislature with a weaker minority and with just 3-seat lead over the NDP,) but it was still a chance for Rodney MacDonald to prove that he can do things differently. Well, his luck has run out.
Why, oh why, do conservative parties keep making the same mistakes over and over? They talk a good game, bring the base on board, get into power, then throw conservatism overboard to chase the mushy middle, the base abandons them, they get thrown out, socialists take over, rinse & repeat? We're going to see it happen on Tuesday, and I fear we're going to see it again in the next federal election.
What he said. Let this be a lesson to every Conservative leader; first and foremost - to Stephen Harper: Quit playing moderate! The left won't believe you, but the right will leave you. Let it be a lesson to every Conservative strategist. It's time for them to realize: even if there's no other mainstream right-wing party - it doesn't mean that Conservative voters could be taken for granted; when a disgruntled Conservative has nowhere to turn - he just stays home on election day.

John Pacheco, the author of the SoCon or Bust blog, has outlined three key initiatives that could turn the tide and re-energize the Conservative voting base. They are:
  • Pass the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill.
  • Scrap the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
  • Reform the tax system to deliver significant income tax cuts for families.
To that I can also add: Stop inflating program expenses (which have doubled over the last 10 years). Have the guts to cut all the wasteful spending, impose austerity on public service and take all steps necessary to balance the budget during the fiscal 2011/12. Or - end up just like Rodney MacDonald.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Focus On Life Benefit Dinner — Moncton 2009

About 200 people attended our eighth Focus On Life Benefit Dinner. Our keynote speaker this year was Alex Schadenberg, the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. So the subject of his presentation was - euthanasia. A subject that is harsh, yet unfortunately - current; especially in light of the recently introduced private member bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

Alex gave us a thorough review of the bill, exposing all the radical agenda which the euthanasia supporters (along with the mainstream media) try to hide or sugarcoat. The fact that bill C-384 fails to define terminal illness and the clause, according to which an individual is deemed competent to consent if he "appears to be lucid" - those are just few of many examples.

But could our MPs actually support such a radical bill? In fact - many of those who support assisted suicide, intend to do just that. They look forward for the committee to rewrite the bill, to take out some of the controversial stuff, while hiding the rest (including assisted suicide) behind fancy words and ambiguous legal rhetoric, so that the version presented for the third reading (and later - to the Senate) doesn't look that controversial.

For those who support the bill in its existing form, it's a foot in the door for euthanasia. For us the goal is clear: bill C-384 must be defeated at the second reading. Each guest at our dinner was advised to send a postcard to his MP, urging him to vote against the bill.

Then at the end, Peter Ryan, the Executive Director of the New Brunswick Right to Life, gave us a brief presentation of what is being done to advance the culture of life here in New Brunswick. TV ads, (about 100 of them,) informing people about the life in the womb, about the physical and mental consequences of abortion and about counseling services available to pregnant women - that's just one of our achievements.

We've had a record turnout at the March for life (over 400 people came from all across New Brunswick). We've organized our local Red Envelope campaign, sending several hundreds of red envelopes to the New Brunswick Health Minister, Mr. Michael Murphy. This year Fredericton joins hundreds of other cities in North America for the 40 days for life vigil. And, we are hiring and training a regional coordinator for the National Campus Life Network, to advance the pro-life cause on university campuses. So there's a lot that has been done - but there's still a lot more to do.

Meanwhile - we had a great meal and enjoyed some lovely Acadian songs and dance performance by the Fiddling Landrys...

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Global Warm Enough For Ya?

It snowed in Calgary yesterday...

(For those who took social justice instead of geography - Calgary is in the Northern hemisphere and it's just two weeks before the summer solstice!)

I wonder how many more cold snaps it takes until people start noticing that the global temperatures are actually going down...
Once again, as we do each month, GORE LIED has taken significant liberties with Dr. Roy Spencer’s monthly UAH globally averaged satellite-based temperature of the lower atmosphere. We’ve marked it up with a red marker to more fully illustrate the really inconvenient truth - that temperatures have dropped significantly, .63°F (.35°C), since Al Gore released his science fiction movie, An Inconvenient Truth at the Sundance Film Festival on January 24, 2006.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Happy Tax Freedom Day!

Well, better late than never...
VANCOUVER, BC—Tax Freedom Day falls on June 6 this year, meaning the average Canadian family had to work more than five months in 2009 to pay the total tax bill levied on them by all levels of government, according to the Fraser Institute’s annual Tax Freedom Day calculations.

If Canadians were required to pay all of their taxes up front, they would have to pay each and every dollar they earned to governments prior to Tax Freedom Day.
This year Tax Freedom Day falls three days earlier than 2008, when it was June 9. The latest Tax Freedom Day in Canadian history was in 2000, when it fell on June 24.

While the federal government recently provided some minor tax relief, most notably increasing the basic personal exemption for income tax as well as various new or expanded tax credits, and some provinces decreased taxes in 2009, Veldhuis points out that these actions are not the primary reason for the earlier Tax Freedom Day.

When the economy slows and incomes stagnate or decline, an average family’s tax burden tends to be reduced to a greater extent than its income. The reason for this accelerated decrease in the tax burden compared to income is the progressive nature of Canada’s tax system.
Canadians may be thinking about the economic and tax implications of the government’s recent return to budget deficits. Indeed, most federal and provincial governments are forecasting budget deficits for 2009. But today’s deficits must one day be paid for by taxes. Deficits should therefore be considered as deferred taxation. For this reason, the Fraser Institute calculates a Balanced Budget Tax Freedom Day, the day on which Tax Freedom Day would fall if governments were obliged to cover current expenditures with current taxation and were not able to defer any of the tax burden by running a deficit.

Under this scenario, Balanced Budget Tax Freedom Day arrives on June 25 – 19 days later than Tax Freedom Day.
Tax Freedom Day varies from province to province, depending on the taxation levels of provincial and local governments. Alberta continues to enjoy the earliest Tax Freedom Day on May 16, followed by New Brunswick on May 31, then Ontario on June 1. Next comes Prince Edward Island on June 3, followed by Manitoba (June 7), British Columbia (June 8), Nova Scotia (June 11), and Quebec on June 12. Newfoundland and Labrador has the second-latest Tax Freedom Day, June 16, surpassed only by Saskatchewan where Tax Freedom Day falls on June 20.
Considering the amount of wasteful spending (Federal program expenses have doubled in the last 10 years,) it's obvious that out of those 157 days a year that we work for the government, at least 57 (if not 78) are wasted. But then... we're saving jobs (at the cost of $200,000 each). Without our help, freelance artists without real talent or education would have to look for a job in a nearby fast food restaurant. Not to mention Canada's role in the world, of which we are so proud... And to think that after footing the bill for all that, we still have 57 cents on every dollar we earn left in our pockets - isn't that great?

So let us celebrate. How about this song? I believe it's the right tune to celebrate government's generosity...
...at our expense.

Friday, June 5, 2009

The Real Cost Of Family Breakdown

Want to fight poverty? Start with strengthening families, because family breakdown is one of the key contributors to poverty:
June 3, 2009 (Ottawa) - The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada released new research yesterday on the cost of family breakdown in Canada at a briefing on Parliament Hill. “Private choices, public costs: How failing families cost us all” examines the relationship between poverty, families and government.

The authors, Rebecca Walberg and Andrea Mrozek, quantify government spending directed at poverty alleviation for broken families through welfare, child care costs and housing. They find that cost to be close to $7 billion annually. If family breakdown decreased by half, a conservative estimate of savings is close to $2 billion annually.

The report can be read in full, here.

The in-depth, quantitative assessment examines the links between broken homes and poverty alleviation measures. Consistently, not only in Canada but in all OECD nations — lone parent households are more likely to live in poverty. “Certainly the main concern around family breakdown is the emotional toll,” say the authors. “But the fiscal costs are evident, and those can be more readily measured.”

The report highlights the costs province by province, discussing why and how stable marriages contribute to a stronger economy. “If we are serious about reducing poverty,” say the authors, “especially children and women in poverty, we must address the effects of family breakdown.”
But apart from direct costs outlined in the report, there are also indirect costs - such as higher CPP premiums (4.95% instead of 1.8% in 1966-86) due to population aging. (And why do you think our population is aging?) Having to pay an extra $31.50 per thousand ($63 per thousand for self employed) to sustain a pay-as-you-go pension plan burdens working families, making it harder for those who have job to save for rainy days. Not to mention that higher contribution rates also penalize the employers, discouraging them from hiring more people and taking away funds that could have been used to provide higher wages and benefits for existing workers.

Calculate the average amount per paycheck (from ~$500 for a minimum wage earner to a maximum of $1348,) factor in the employer share (which is the same amount; self employed pay both) and multiply by the number of CPP contributors (15 million or so) and it turns out that nation-wide, the cost of higher CPP premiums (in other words - the cost of population aging and extremely low birth rates or the cost of the decline of the traditional family) amounts to about $30 billion a year.

Private choices, public costs. You just can't count them all.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Tiller and Anti-Abortion Violence: Let’s Get Our Facts Straight

Radical pro-aborts often portray the pro-life side as bloodthirsty extremists, eager to bomb clinics and kill doctors who don't share their views. Facts however show otherwise:
Pro-lifers should indeed condemn the murder of George Tiller. But we should not play permanent defense as the nonsense snowballs and the unfair attacks against the pro-life movement multiply. Here are some facts that should be taken into consideration by all people of good will, especially those whose responsibility it is to report on this story.
  1. George Tiller is the first abortionist to be killed in eleven years. If you think that's a "trend,” or an “epidemic” as some have said, you're just not a serious person.

  2. All of the posturing going on in the pro-abortion movement over the safety of abortionists is a ruse. There are four times as many hairdressers and 150 times as many convenience store clerks murdered as there are abortionists. Where is the “pro-choice” grieving over them?
  1. Abortionists are not only widely considered an embarrassment to the medical profession, but they are much more likely to commit violence than to suffer violence. You may be surprised to learn that more than a dozen abortionists have been convicted of murder and manslaughter ― of their wives, of their patients, and even of other abortionists. Yet you never hear about these killings in the press (see www.abortionviolence.com for documentation). Abortionists are more likely to kill than to be killed.
Let's not be bullied or silenced by those who are trying to tar the whole pro-life movement by cynically exploiting the murder of George Tiller. Let's instead reply with facts which add context to the "abortionists are heroes, pro-lifers are violent" narrative that the "mainstream" media seems too willing to parrot.
I won't be surprised if this turns out to be a provocation to frame the pro-life movement and to set the stage for Obama's radical pro-abortion agenda. There are just too many similarities with other historic provocations; not just the fact that the person assassinated has immediately become a martyr who'd do more in death than in life (remember Sergey Mironovich Kirov and Yitzhak Rabin?) but also - mounting evidence that no escape was originally planned, that the culprit was apparently supposed to get caught on or near the crime scene with a smoking gun and the respective membership card in his pocket. Well, we've seen that already, didn't we?

Revoking Custody Because Of Parents' Views Sets A Troubling Precedent

As usually, they start with the lone radicals, whom most of us condemn for their extremist views. But today it's the racist parents (those are the easy target) and tomorrow?...
Parents in public schools already have little choice but for their children to be indoctrinated in pseudo-Marxist, multicultural utopian hogwash. But for now, they at least have the possibility of undoing some of that damage within the home. The potential seizure of children for a lack of intellectual and philosophical compatibility with mass promoted multicultural dogma (and not genuine health and safety issues) is a horrifying and troubling precedent.
How comfortable are any Canadian parents with the idea that comments they have made, no matter how odious, on a web site, could be used as a weapon against them in the state’s tool box for ‘child protection’? Today, it is ‘racist’ comments that have allegedly warranted the seizure of children from their parents. Tomorrow, it could be bad jokes, one’s children being overweight, parents being smokers, or having other political views that are considered by the righteous left as unpalatable (hello rightwingers, “neo-cons”, Jewish and Christian Zionists, and other assorted mainstream heterosexuals out there). How about recycling? What if parents refuse to inculcate their children with acceptable Gaia-based orthodoxy? What then?
Sounds more and more like the Soviet Union, when parents had to hide their views from their little children, because if a child accidentally repeated some of the politically incorrect stuff at his daycare - that could spell big troubles for the parents. Is that what we want to have here in Canada?

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Why Do We Vote Conservative?

Hunter from Climbing Out Of The Dark blog, outlines his reasons to vote Conservative:
Liberal values; suck up to terrorists, special interest groups and immigrants. Hire immigrants to shine your shoes, and demand your entitlements. Support swingers clubs because that is so "now". Reject religion because you are too smart to be taken in by it, but global warming is real because Gore created a movie about it.

Why do you vote Conservative? What do you want to see if the Conservatives ever get a majority and don't have to cater to the leftist voters?

I have my priorities; get rid of the CWB and CBC, reduce the power of racists unions, allow income splitting for families, spend more on the disabled and seniors, and quit banning everything.
Not sure if we can get even that. Even now, when the government considers selling some of the assets to prevent sharp increase in interest-bearing debt, I doubt they'd go ahead and fully privatize the CBC.

So what's left then? Not much, except the reason to vote against, rather than to vote for. Conservatives aren't perfect, but the remaining major parties are far worse, at least from the social prospective.

I don't want the Federal government once again to start pressuring New Brunswick to pay for abortions on demand, performed in the private clinics. Not to mention Paul Martin's idea to enshrine abortions in the Charter. I don't want the government to raise taxes so it could waste even more money on ideologically-driven spending programs ("Human rights" commissions, CBC, SOW, film tax credit for porn movies, meaningless "art", foreign aid, you name it!) I don't want more affirmative actions, I don't want more gun control (yet lax laws on crime and drugs,) I don't want any more "commitments to the world" that would drive Canada into another man-made recession in a pathetic attempt to avert Sun-made climatic trends. So I have no choice but to vote Conservative.

A year ago I'd say - let's go by the candidates; let's support those Conservative candidates who actually adhere to Conservative values and run our own candidates (Independents or CHP) in those ridings where a Conservative candidate is actually a Liberal running under the Conservative banner. Now, when anything less than a majority means Liberal/NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc, I'm not sure if we could do even that...

Monday, June 1, 2009

Order Of Canada — The Best Ones Are Leaving...

A Cardinal, an astronomer, a pianist... Their requests to be removed from the order of Canada in protest over Morgentaler's appointment, have been approved by the Governor General:
MONTREAL - The Governor General has rubber-stamped a request by the archbishop of Montreal that he be removed from the Order of Canada in protest over Dr. Henry Morgentaler's appointment.

Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte returned the prestigious award last September after learning that controversial abortion-rights activist Morgentaler was about to be named to the Order.
Turcotte's resignation, published Sunday in the Canada Gazette, was officially accepted by Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean in December.

The resignations of two other Order of Canada recipients - astronomer Rene Racine and pianist Jacqueline Richard - were approved by Jean the same day.

Rideau Hall said Monday that Richard, named to the Order in 2001, cited Morgentaler's appointment in her letter of resignation.
Since his appointment, several Order of Canada recipients have returned their medals in protest, including former New Brunswick lieutenant-governor Gilbert Finn, B.C. priest Lucien Larre and members of the charitable group the Madonna House, who returned the medal of their deceased founder, Catherine Doherty.

In December, two members of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate - Father Anthony Sylla of Edmonton and Father Michael Smith of Toronto - also gave back their awards.
So, most of those resignations are now official. With the best ones leaving - what will be left of the Order of Canada?