Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Latimer Granted Full Parole After Murdering Disabled Daughter

Another shameful moment for Canada's justice system:
Robert Latimer, the Saskatchewan farmer convicted of second-degree murder for killing his severely disabled daughter, has been granted full parole.

The loosening of Latimer's parole restrictions will take effect Dec. 6, his lawyer told CBC News on Monday.

That's the first day Latimer was eligible to receive full parole, Jason Gratl said in a brief interview.
At the same time - what else could we expect? If the courts refuse to protect the lives of the children in the womb, why should we expect them to enforce legal protection for the children that are no longer in the womb? And, if killing a disabled baby 6 months before birth is considered to be a "choice" - why should we expect the killing of a disabled child some sixty months after birth to be viewed differently? Especially in light of a growing pressure to make euthanasia (e.g direct actions that intentionally cause a person's death) legal...
Advocates for the disabled have argued that the light treatment given to Latimer is a frightening sign that Canadians with disabilities are not equally valued.

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews Tuesday that his organization has “always held that Robert Latimer should be treated in the same manner as any other person who was convicted of second-degree murder.”

“The tragedy of the Latimer case was that many people, including many media outlets, were willing to describe Tracy Latimer in a dehumanizing manner in order to defend the heinous crime of her father,” he said.
“A truly compassionate society will care for its vulnerable members, not kill them,” Schadenberg insisted.
But many in our society would rather be compassionate to baby seals than to baby humans. They'd rather feel sorry for a convicted murderer like Khadr, than for a little girl who, in spite of whatever birth defect she had, still wanted to live.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Most Canadians Still Want Elected Senate

According to the recent Angus-Reid poll, almost 70% of Canadians want directly elected Senate:
Across the country, three-in-five respondents (63%) support holding a nationwide referendum to decide the future of the Senate of Canada, including three-in-four Albertans (74%).

A sizeable majority of Canadians (63%) believe Canadian senators should be limited to eight-year terms. About a third of respondents (35%) endorse the idea of creating a panel distinguished Canadians to choose senators, instead of the Prime Minister. Three-in-ten Canadians (30%) are ready to abolish the Senate of Canada altogether, including 43 per cent of Quebecers.

However, the most popular idea continues to be allowing Canadians to directly elect their senators. Two thirds of respondents (69%) would like to see this happen, including 78 per cent of British Columbians.
Well, today is the day when the Conservatives have finally caught up with the opposition in the Red Chamber. With the retirement of Peter A Stollery, it's now 52:52 - enough to defeat a bill, but not enough to pass it. But we have another retirement just a week from now, which will reduce the opposition ranks to 51. Can we look forward for bill S-8, the one that establishes a framework for electing Senate nominees, to move beyond the second reading? After all, there is already a similar law on the books in two provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan,) all what's needed is to make these elections binding, so that other provinces would be encouraged to follow suit.

And another thing: according to the same poll, three-in-five Canadians (61%) claim Harper is being hypocritical because he has appointed senators despite his long-standing opposition to the Senate in its current form. That only shows that the Conservative party has a lousy PR team, that can't even remind the public, what party it was that actually tried to address the issue and which political parties did everything in their power to torpedo every single attempt to legislate Senate elections or term limits.

For years, the opposition kept demanding appointed Senators - by introducing a Senate bill of their own, by appealing directly to the Governor General and even by threatened a constitutional challenge should the Senate elections bill pass... And now they blame Harper?! Well, I guess it's time for Harper to show them who is a hypocrite here.

P.S. What would an elected Senate look like? - an article by Éric Grenier, the author of ThreeHundredEight blog. The online poll on the same page shows that 75% of the voters support elected Senate. But tell that to the opposition parties that keep blocking Senate reform - including the term limits...

Sunday, November 28, 2010

No End In Sight To Gibbons Court Odyssey

The prosecutors do their best to prevent the "temporary" injunction (that forbids pro-life activities outside of certain abortion clinics) from being jeopardized. Even if that means keeping an innocent woman in jail without trial for almost two years.
TORONTO, Ontario, November 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The production of a startling new document has further delayed an already long overdue trial for Linda Gibbons on a charge of disobeying a court order that has kept her imprisoned for almost two years. At issue is a communiqué sent from Gibbons’s former attorney Peter Jervis to the Ontario Crown attorney’s office. It made it clear he was no longer acting on her behalf when meetings were held in 2001 on the progress of a temporary court injunction issued by a civil court in 1994 that prohibited pro-life activity near certain Ontario abortion sites.

Gibbons could not have legally given her assent to the results of those meetings without representation. The document should have been produced for Gibbons’s current defence team as part of mandated procedures for complete Crown disclosures to defence counsels, but apparently was not. That irked defence lawyer Daniel Santoro, who is pursuing an abuse of process motion in the case and told presiding judge Mara Beth Greene at a hearing on November 19 that the situation is “highly problematic, to say the least.”
The current charge dates back to January 20, 2009, when Gibbons was arrested outside the “Scott Clinic” abortion site in downtown Toronto for allegedly violating the temporary court injunction. An earlier conviction for disobeying a court order regarding a matter in October 2008 is being pursued to the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis that - as with all criminal charges laid against Gibbons over 16 years - a civil matter was improperly pursued in a criminal court. Word is being awaited on whether the Supreme Court will hear the appeal.
It's a shame on all who run the law enforcement in Ontario, that an innocent pro-life protester is even kept in jail, let alone - being treated worse than dangerous criminals.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Mob Rule On Campus. Germany, 1930? No, Canada, 2010

There's just no other way to describe it.
If a mob disrupted a pro-choice speaker at a Canadian university, chances are the protesters would be removed. If a mob disrupted a pro-life speaker at a Canadian university, chances are the speech would be cancelled.

One kind of speech is free in Canada; another kind isn't. Speech broadly characterized as "left-wing" a.k.a. "progressive"--e. g., pro-choice, anti-Israeli, anti-capitalist -- is protected even at its extreme. Speech broadly characterized as "right-wing" a.k.a. "reactionary" -- pro-life, pro-Western, pro-Israel--isn't protected, even when it's moderate.

That "left-wing" speech is protected more rigorously than "right-wing" speech is hardly in dispute. David Frum noted it recently by contrasting York University's warm reception of suspended U.K. parliamentarian George Galloway with its cool reception of the scholar Dr. Daniel Pipes. From pro-life university students arrested (Carleton) to Israeli speakers de-invited (Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu), examples abound.
For those who don't understand what does it have to do with Germany of 1930 - there too it started with the nazi-sozis taking over the German Student Association and the campuses a couple years prior to seizing power and putting an end to Wiemar Republic. Nowadays, it's the internazi-sozis that have taken over Canada's universities and and threaten to put an end to our freedom of speech - unless we fight back.

Again, please consider participating in a fundraiser for the courageous pro-life students from Carleton U, who were arrested for speaking up for unborn babies and whose club has been banned by so called "student association". They need our help to defend their rights - as well as ours.

About $3000 has been raised so far, but it's a drop in the bucket of what will be needed to fight this thing... perhaps all of the way to the Supreme Court. None of us have any idea of where this is going to lead. If you haven't donated, please consider doing so now. Even $5 donated by everyone, would generate a lot of funds.

Update: As if all those examples listed in the National Post article weren't enough - here's another one: U of Calgary appeals court ruling, doesn’t want Charter to apply to campus. Now, let's try to guess - who, what group, will this be used against? It's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

Friday, November 26, 2010

Historic Worldwide Prayer Vigil For Unborn Happens Tomorrow

Let's join the Holy Father in a worldwide prayer vigil for the unborn:
WORLD, November 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pope Benedict’s request for Catholics throughout the world to observe a “Vigil for All Nascent Human Life” on Saturday, November 27 has met with an massive positive response from around the world and from pro-life leaders.

Joseph Meaney, director of international coordination for Human Life International, the world’s largest pro-life organization, said this weak, “We hope that Catholics understand the historical significance of Pope Benedict’s invitation.”

“The Holy Father for the first time in history has asked the Universal Catholic Church to gather together in a common liturgical event and pray for our preborn brothers and sisters who are being slaughtered around the world by abortion and other attacks of the culture of death.”
If you can't attend, or if there's no vigil held in your community - at least say the rosary...

Update: Check out the full text of the Pope's homily for the vigil for all nascent human life on the Life Site News website.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The "Transgender" Deception — Children's Day vs. "Transgender" Remembrance Day

Some sexual deviants want to proclaim a special "trasgender day of remembrance" on the same day which is known as Universal Children's Day. Could that be just a coincidence?
Sex activists wear adult clothes but they have never grown up. Instead of recognizing natural reality and truth, they embrace perversion. When young people express confusion about their sexuality, these adolescent adults want to affirm them in the most perverse expressions of this confusion instead of guiding them into clarity and truth.
They pretend to be victims. The facts however make it clear where violence and abuse come from:
The incident prompted Miller, who is an issues specialist with Concerned Women for America North Carolina, to do some research. She discovered that “bathroom attacks” – where, most often, a woman is attacked in a public bathroom by a man who followed her in or hid inside – are unfortunately very common. “I think people would be surprised at how many attacks really are going on,” she said.

But while the government should be working to protect women from these kinds of incidents, Miller told LifeSiteNews that legislation like Canada’s Bill C-389 – a private members bill seeking to enshrine protections based on “gender identity” and “gender expression” – will actually further endanger women.

“The gender identity bills will put more men in bathrooms,” she explained. “We’re having tremendous problems with bathroom attacks already. Why would you allow more boys in girl’s bathrooms?”
That's quite obvious. Even now, thanks to the so called "human rights" commissions, "transgender" perverts can harass individuals and businesses, demanding access to the other sex facilities, as well as hefty sums of money for hurt feelings.
...Ms. Selick recounts the story of St. Catharines gym owner, John Fulton, who declined to admit a pre-operative transgendered man as a member of his all-women's health club. Before he knew it, he was hit with a human rights complaint. Late last year the complainant suddenly dropped the complaint—leaving Mr. Fulton with approximately $150,000 in legal fees.
If C-389 passes, there will be no legal grounds to stop these complaints.

The governing caucus is finally taking some steps to stop the bill. But, considering that the bill is supported by all three opposition parties, that may not be enough. Will the Conservative caucus in the Senate be willing to stand up to the opposition's socially perverse agenda or will they be too afraid to act against the majority of MPs and to defeat what the leftists describe as "human rights" bill? Unless at least 9 opposition MPs stand up for common sense, the Senators will be facing that choice in just three weeks time.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Sidewalk Counselor Arrested Outside Toronto Abortion Facility

Unwilling to argue, powerless to stop the debate, the pro-aborts respond with intensified arrests of peaceful pro-life protesters:
Yesterday, November 21, 2010, Mary Wagner, a citizen from British Columbia, was arrested at Women’s Care Abortion Clinic at 960 Lawrence Street, West in Toronto. Her court appearance is scheduled for today, Tuesday, Nov. 23, at College Park courts, at 10:00 am. Mary was acquitted in July of a previous arrest in April of this year at a different abortion clinic in Toronto. She was incarcerated for nearly four months at the Milton Vanier Centre for Women.
Mary’s support team of Wilma Debruyn of Ingersol and myself of London (and many others behind the scenes) provided sidewalk counseling to the women and some of their partners who were entering from the street and pamphlets were distributed.

Approximately one hour later Mary was arrested with a trespassing charge and was released, but not without some rough handling by the two officers, who forced Mary against her will to walk towards us who were on the sidewalk. Their intentions seemed to be good however, wanting to spare Mary a second arrest with the greater consequence of a possible charge of criminal harassment.

At one point Mary was in tears because she felt she was abandoning the women and their pre-born babies. At one point Mary was with us for a brief few minutes and Wilma noted, in a later reflection on the morning, Mary’s passion for the pre-born: “She is really following her call. She is passionate with them [the pre-born babies]”. Quoting Mary she said: “I have to go back to save the babies, I feel my heart is still with them, I have to go back.”

After considering her options with us, Mary returned to the building while in the process of counseling a mother and her partner who was pushing a stroller with a nine-month-old child inside. She was successful in turning back the couple, but not before being arrested again. While Mary was in the police cruiser, sadly the couple returned to the clinic. The two of us on the sidewalk just couldn’t convince the couple with their young child not to return to the clinic. We prayed fervently that they would change their minds. Their fate is unknown.
According to the same article, there was still one baby saved as result of Mary's heroic actions. And there may have been others too. No wonder the pro-aborts are so furious. But loss of business and loss of support (as well as their inability to defend their point of view in an open and honest debate) certainly doesn't justify persecution and arbitrary arrests.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Help Pro-Life Students Who Have Been Arrested

They were arrested for daring to show what so called "choice" looks like. They are being targeted by the union jackboots who believe that freedom of speech should only be available to those who support abortion. They need our help:
Now, these brave students need your help once more.

Two weeks ago, Carleton Lifeline (the pro-life student group at Carleton) was notified that the school Student Association would be decertifying the group in less than a week, on November 18th, unless they renounced the pro-life beliefs expressed in their group constitution. The Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) is using the school’s “Discrimination on Campus “ policy, which upholds “a woman’s right to choose” to justify discriminating against the pro-life student group. Read more from the students here: http://carletonlifeline.wordpress.com/

If Carleton Lifeline loses their official group status, it will be a significant loss and will hinder their activities on campus by denying them the student space, resources, and funding all other student clubs have access to.

For student pro-lifers, being on campus is fundamental to the mission of educating other students about abortion and helping women facing unplanned pregnancies.

Today, whether you are American or Canadian, will you take a few moments to stand with Carleton Lifeline?

ACTION 1: Add your name to our petition protesting Carleton University’s discrimination against pro-life students here: www.standwithcarleton.com

ACTION 2: Call and e-mail Dr. Roseann O’Reilly Runte, President and Vice-Chancellor of Carleton, and tell her to stop the discrimination against pro-life students. Her office phone is 613 520-3801, and her e-mail is: presidents_office@carleton.ca.

ACTION 3: Next, please DONATE to the Carleton University Lifeline group. They need help to pay their attorney fees and launch new educational projects on campus. Just $5 would help this group! Please know, 100% of all funds will be donated directly to Carleton University Lifeline and all American donations are tax-deductible.
So Con or Bust is running a fundraiser for Carleton Lifeline. So far, $1345 have been raised; the goal is $2500. Please consider chipping in for the brave pro-life students at Carleton University. Together we can help put an end to this outrageously absurd situation when abortion is illegal to show but legal to perform.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Let Men Be Men

ChristianGovernance commemorates International Men’s Day:
November 19th is International Men’s Day. It is an annual international event that was inaugurated in 1999 in Trinidad and Tobago. The day and its events find support from a variety of individuals and groups in Australia, the Caribbean, North America, Asia, Europe, Africa, and – for what it’s worth – the United Nations.
Today’s androgynous culture of feminism is a curse. This is perhaps most evident in the aimlessness and lethargy among men. Men are remaining home with their parents a lot longer. They are refusing to take on the responsibilities of leadership in a new home through marriage to a much larger extent. Shack-up relationships are increasingly common in place of marriage. Men are not pursuing important educational goals as aggressively or as successfully as women. Young boys are increasingly medicated in schools to manage their behaviour in a system more conducive to the way girls learn.
I have mixed feelings about the idea. Sure, we need to expose the damage which feminism has done. But don't believe we actually need to copy the "eighth of March" for that purpose. Celebrating family, as well as the roles of both men and women in family life, would make more sense.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Fathers Don't Count

As long as they are pro-life:
DUBLIN, November 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Joseph Lee, who serves as the development officer for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in Scotland, is the father of a four-year-old boy. But he almost lost his son just over four years ago, thanks to the fact that Britain’s abortion laws do not allow men to be taken into account in abortion decisions.
Canadian laws too, won't allow a father to intervene in order to save his baby from being put to death. However, if he drags his girlfriend to an abortion mill kicking and screaming - now, that's different; then he can be sure that the law is on his side. And so are all those organizations and politicians that pretend to speak on behalf of all women.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Something Is Very Wrong With Canadian Campuses These Days

Check out this National Post editorial:
Something is very wrong with Canadian campuses these days. Left-wing students and outside agitators get away with shouting down speakers they disagree with, smashing windows to prevent lecturers they don’t want to hear, even chaining themselves to a stage and screaming “racist, racist, racist” at the University of Waterloo to prevent Christie Blatchford from talking about her new book. Student unions routinely decertify pro-life clubs, and administrators frequently cater to the demands of a handful of vocal socialist anarchists.

But when right-of-centre student groups attempt to protest the censorship they face, or demonstrate against leftist speakers and those they believe are hateful, they are met with threats of lawsuits or expulsion by administrators or student unions.

The most recent example of this double-standard came Monday, when the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) banned a pro-life club from operating on campus or even using campus meeting rooms. The CUSA said Carleton Lifeline could regain its official status — if it renounced pro-life beliefs.

We doubt CUSA would ask campus Marxists to renounce socialism, or require Muslim groups to convert to Judaism, yet they are demanding the equivalent backflip from pro-lifers.
Something is very wrong - indeed. And it's only getting worse. With all the censorship, intimidation and violence on the rise, we may soon witness something similar to what was taking place some 80 years ago in Germany.

The German Student Association fell under national socialist control some two years before Hitler took power. It then became the major driving force behind the ill-famous book burnings under the nazi rule. They too, were determined not to allow politically incorrect opinions to be expressed - same as the international socialists today.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Work Harder, Youth Criminals Need Your EI Dollars

4.15% of your paycheck well spent:
The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP banded together yesterday at HUMA committee and supported and passed Bloc Bill C-343 that would reward youth criminals.

Bill C-343 would provide thousands of dollars from EI for parents to stay home and take care of youth criminals who are injured while committing a crime, such as robbery, arson, gang activity, or other criminal acts. This bill would result in increased EI premiums for law-abiding Canadian families and business owners who would be forced to pay even more money to these criminals. It is shocking.
Well, if our bleeding-heart-liberal judges are convinced that elderly inmates have the right to Old Age Security benefits, it's only logical for the left-wing MPs to extend EI benefits to youth criminals who got injured while committing a crime. After all, they may argue, crime is these youngsters' job, so this should be regarded as a job-related disability benefit...

Gladly, there are now enough Conservatives in the Senate to stop the bill if it passes the third reading.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

"Students Association" To Pro-Life Students: Renounce Your Views Or Lose The Club Status

You can express any views you like on campus - as long as they are pro-abortion:
OTTAWA, Ontario, November 16, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Carleton Lifeline, the campus pro-life group that made headlines last month after several of its members were arrested by Ottawa’s Carleton University, now faces decertification unless they renounce the pro-life beliefs expressed in the club’s constitution.
Khaldoon Bushnaq, Vice-President of Internal Affairs for the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA), wrote the club by e-mail on Thursday saying they would not be recertified because their constitution violates CUSA’s Discrimination on Campus Policy, which purports to uphold “a woman’s right to choose.”

The offending paragraph in the club's constitution, which Bushnaq quoted, states that the club “believes in the equal rights of the unborn and firmly believes that abortion is a moral and legal wrong, not a constitutional right. Therefore, Carleton Lifeline shall work to promote the legal protection of the unborn and their basic human rights to life.”

Bushnaq gave the club until November 18th to submit an amended constitution.
What Carleton Lifeline should submit on November 18th is a lawsuit against Bushnaq and the other pro-abort parasites in the so called "student association" that pocket students' money but deny them the freedom to express their views. The next step should be a class action suit by all the student groups that were denied freedom of speech on campus for the right to disaffiliate themselves completely with the official association and for their own, independent student union of so they wish.

P.S. Check out this National article by Charles Lewis:
John Carpay, a civil liberties lawyer from Calgary, who has dealt with similar bans on anti-abortion groups, said CUSA's offer to reinstate the club if it agrees to endorse abortion rights can only be laughed at.

"That's awfully generous of them to offer an opportunity for repentance," said Mr. Carpay. "But it is truly alarming that CUSA would so easily suppress free speech. It's tragic."

Monday, November 15, 2010

Death Threats For A Letter Condemning Abortion

Some pro-aborts must be really insecure about their chances to defend their position in an open debate:
DEN BOSCH, Netherlands, November 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life journalist Mariska Orbán de Haas says that she has received hundreds of death threats and more than ten threats of torture following the publication of an open letter she wrote to a pro-abortion parliamentarian asking her to reconsider her position on the subject.
After Hennis-Plasschaert called the letter from the bishop "disgusting," Orbán wrote to her publicly, pointing out that both she and Hennis-Plasschaert have experienced the suffering of miscarriages, and that the fetal model she received from Bishop De Jong would resemble their lost children at the time of their deaths.

"In that light," asked Orbán, "is it not 'disgusting' that our society permits us to abort more than thirty thousand babies in the Netherlands every year?" She noted that children who die by abortion are "exactly the same as the mysterious little lives that we expectantly carried within us."

The letter, published on October 27, sparked outrage in the largely liberal, pro-abortion Netherlands. Orbán soon offered a public apology, but that has not prevented her from receiving an avalanche of angry responses. French journalist Jeanne Smits reports that the letter has generated 350,000 tweets on Twitter, and various sites have created distorted pictures of her face, portraying her as a devil.
Public apology for what? For telling the truth? For exercising one's fundamental right to free speech? And, as we can see, that didn't help. (It never does.) For the pro-aborts, anything that makes abortion look bad is a heresy which must be eradicated at all costs. The few moderates who actually believe in choice and agree with pro-life movement on things like informed consent, are a vanishing minority.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Legislating Morality — There's No Avoiding That

The question is just - whose morality is to be legislated.
“You can’t legislate morality” has become a common turn of phrase. The truth, however, is that every law and regulation that is proposed, passed, and enforced has inherent in it some idea of the good that it seeks to promote or preserve. Indeed, no governing authority can in any way be understood to be morally neutral. Those who think such a chimerical understanding is possible could hardly be more wrong. For, in fact, the opposite is true: You cannot not legislate morality.
The Soconvivium has an example of what secularist morality is like. Here's another great example, provided by Andrew Lawton from Strictly Right. Again it narrows down to a question of whose vision of morality will be enforced and by what sort of government.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

MP Keith Martin To Retire From Politics

H/t Soconvivium blog:
Longtime MP Keith Martin, who was first elected for Reform and most recently as a Liberal, won't seek re-election in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca in the next federal election.
He told the president and the executive of his riding association about his decision Monday night.
Keith Martin is the author of the famous motion M-446 (now M-153,) to have Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Act repealed. While the motion was never voted on (Keith Martin is still 80th or 90th in line for the Order of Precedence,) it did draw some attention to the abuse of power by the freedom-snatching committees. As result, a similar resolution was adopted at the Conservative Party policy convention in 2008 and Parliamentary hearings on HRCs were subsequently held.

The Interim however describes Martin as "staunch abortion supporter" and (unfortunately) - rightfully so. Too bad Keith Martin's libertarian views don't extend to babies in the womb, whose rights he keeps denying. I commend Keith Martin for his stand for our freedom of speech, but in order to be able to use his freedom of speech one has to be born first.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Remembrance Day — The Islamist Way

While some useful idiots were handing out white poppies and planning to desecrate the National War Memorial, their multicultural friends took anti-military protests to a whole new level:
But three miles across London from the Armistice Day ceremony at the Cenotaph, another face of Britain was on display. It was contorted with hatred, poisoned by politics, and fuelled by flames from a giant, burning poppy.

These were the Muslim extremists who brought shame to the memory of the dead yesterday by breaking the traditional two-minute silence with chants of ‘British soldiers burn in hell’.

Ironically, it was the freedom for which thousands fought that allowed them to stage their demonstration at the stroke of 11am – the exact moment the nation came to a halt at the Cenotaph, across the country, and after parallel services at British bases in Afghanistan.
Not to mention that it was the freedom for which thousands fought, that made the UK (or Canada or the US or any other nation of the free world,) the great prosperous nation it is now. None of those jihadis would ever consider immigrating to the UK, if it was a poverty-ridden, tyranny and corruption-driven wasteland like their home country. If anything - they'd be the first to run off to any remaining decent nation, where their civil rights, personal freedoms and social assistance checks could be guaranteed. To say that while living off someone else's generosity, these folks tend to act like the very animal they don't eat would be an insult to that particular animal.

If the UK had anything that even remotely resembled a responsible national government, these poppy-burning jihadi thugs would be already on the planes, back to their countries - without their ill-gotten British passports. It would be obvious that if someone who came as a refugee from an oppressive Islamic regime, demands the same "sharia" regime to be established in his adopted country - that, at the very least, is an immigration fraud. Ditto if he takes a citizenship oath without really meaning it. It would be common sense to demand that these people either renounce their medievalist ideology and assimilate or just go back to one of the countries where "sharia" is already the law of the land. Too bad that a responsible national government is apparently way too much to ask for nowadays.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Standing Strong And True For Tomorrow

New Remembrance Day song (h/t Family Matters)
Before we start our Christmas shopping, let's take a few minutes to remember those who sacrificed their lives defending Canada, fighting for their loved ones and for our families, defending freedom - ours and theirs...

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Global Warming Hoax Stinks

Literally. The UK Guardian discusses cutting down on daily showering "for the planet's sake". Instead of spending precious water - just use baby wipes to freshen up... They must be forgetting their own country's history:
The Minister of Fuel and Power, Hugh Gaitskell, later Attlee's successor as leader of the Labour Party, advocated saving energy by taking fewer baths: "Personally, I have never had a great many baths myself, and I can assure those who are in the habit of having a great many that it does not make a great difference to their health if they have less."

This was too much for Churchill, a renowned bather: "When Ministers of the Crown speak like this on behalf of HM Government, the Prime Minister and his friends have no need to wonder why they are getting increasingly into bad odour. I have even asked myself, when meditating upon these points, whether you, Mr. Spekaer, would admit the word 'lousy' as a Parliamentary expression in referring to the Administration, provided, of course, it was not intended in a contemptuous sense but purely as one of factual narration."

— House of Commons, 28 October 1947
Well said. Except that modern-day warm-mongers will probably demand that they be referred to as "alternatively-odored". And, obviously, we'll see a massive "anti-discrimination" campaign with plenty of "human rights" complaints against employers and property owners that dare to insist on basic standards of personal hygiene.

Oh well, if there are already as many as 826 evil consequences of "global warming", then I guess, having to encounter dirty, sweaty and smelly warm-mongers in stores, malls, offices or any other crowded places, might as well be the 827th. Maybe that way, people will realize that being a "denier" makes a lot more sense...

Monday, November 8, 2010

10 Reasons Why Liberal Catholics Are Doomed

Great essay by the Last Papist Standing:

Those who welcomed and enforced the heresy and rupture foisted on the Church in the name of Vatican II are the very people who should have known better (and should have resisted). Catholics knew their faith much better two generations ago than they do today. Instead, the faithful in the pews surrendered because the “new church” told them whatever they wanted to hear. The trouble is, when you don’t have scripture and Sacred Tradition as backup, your agenda never lasts. How ironic that it is the young Catholics who are restoring what you have trashed.


The bishops and cardinals who tolerated (and sometimes promoted) liturgical abuse, clerical abuse, “seamless garment” arguments for voting for pro-aborts, homosexual rights and other such rot are retiring, dying and getting out of the way. The Holy Father and his new prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Ouellet, are showing a marked preference for bishops who put truth and fidelity before politics. Then again, when your agenda is political and not God-centered, concepts like "power" and "authority" become much more important.
It's becoming more and more obvious that the "post-Christian" civilization is headed for disaster - and so is "Christianity-lite". Not coincidentally, the most liberal denominations have the highest median age. The young parishioners are not interested in "lite" - they want the real deal, be that religion or social justice. That's why we have many young Catholics joining the traditional groups, while those who put the illusion of equality and "social justice" first simply turn to social movements and activism.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Tea Party Success — Hope To Us All

Their electoral success has been acknowledged even in the UK. Some UK observers now believe that only the Tea Party can save them from the creeping nanny state. And, as Craig Carter comments on The Politics of the Cross Resurrected blog, we too can learn something from our neighbors to the south:
Our ancestors fought and died to preserve Western freedom against the hard totalitarianism of the fascist and communist regimes of the mid twentieth century. But now we, their decadent children, are in mortal danger of surrendering to the soft totalitarianism of the nanny state. But this is to narrowly avoid Animal Farm only to fall into Brave New World.
In fact, we've already seen a Tea Party-like victory, in a city that is considered to be a Liberal stronghold. Yes, I know that Rob Ford did not associate himself directly with the US Tea Party movement, but he used some of their tactics - and won. Let this be an inspiration to the Conservative movement from coast to coast.

And let this also be a lesson to the Federal Conservatives, whose choice is obvious: They can become more like the Tea Party movement - and finally break out of the statistical deadlock with the Liberals. Or they can keep pandering to the left, demoralizing their own voting base - and suffer a crushing defeat in the next election.

Friday, November 5, 2010

Trial Delayed, Linda Gibbons Still In Jail

Again, justice has been denied to Canada's prisoner of conscience:
TORONTO, Ontario, November 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A development that the presiding judge described as having the potential for “dire implications” scuttled an expected trial of Linda Gibbons last week. The judge made the decision to delay the trail on the morning of October 29, when the long-time pro-life demonstrator appeared in a downtown Toronto courtroom to answer a charge of disobeying a court order.

At issue is a meeting held in 2001 between representatives of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney-General and lawyers for 18 pro-life demonstrators who were named in a 1994 temporary court injunction prohibiting pro-life activity within certain zones around specified Toronto abortion sites.
Gibbons has been imprisoned continuously since January 20, 2009 on the latest and other charges. About a half-dozen of her supporters were in the courtroom for the October 29 hearing, who stood as she entered and left the room.

Another conviction for disobeying a court order is being pursued to the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis that Gibbons was improperly prosecuted in a criminal, rather than civil court for violating terms of the 1994 court injunction.
Today is November 5, 2010. Linda has been in jail awaiting trial for 1 year, 9 months and 16 days. Her "crime" was merely praying peacefully by an abortion mill. Apparently the Ontario judiciary considers that to be far more threatening than robbery, assault or whatever else can get a person locked up for almost 2 years with no right to early release, automatic parole and other perks that our justice system offers so generously... Unless you are a harmless pro-life protester.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Saskatchewan To Abolish "Human Rights" Tribunal

Great news reported by the Leader-Post:
The provincial government plans to introduce human rights legislation that will dissolve the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in favour of having a court hear the complaints.
It's about time. Obviously, it's not easy to oppose an establishment that has "human rights" in its name, yet, abolishing the freedom-snatching tribunal and letting the court of law handle human rights cases, will actually strengthen human rights in the province:
In human rights tribunal cases, truth is not a defence, defendents are treated as guilty before being proven innocent – in fact it’s essentially impossible to be found innocent due to the way the system is stacked, and by virtue of the operational definition of discrimination. Defendents are not guaranteed a speedy trial. They are also required to pay all their own expenses while the taxpayer covers the costs for the complainant, in one of the most offensive examples of inequity in the operation of justice. There are also no provisions to prosecute complainants who persecute defendents and waste taxpayers’ money with frivolous complaints.

Canada’s human rights system would bring shame to a banana republic. It’s inexcusable and contemptible for a democratic country like Canada. Saskatchewan should, therefore, be commended for taking this move to abolish their tribunal, directing all human rights prosecutions to the legitimate court system.
Hopefully, other provinces follow suit. Especially New Brunswick where the government is about to learn from its own experience that "human rights" committees and tribunals have nothing to do with human rights.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

NB Pro-Aborts Turn To "Human Rights" Commission Over Abortion Funding

They still have a court case in the works, but that apparently takes way too long. So they file a "human rights" complaint against the government which refuses to pay for abortions on demand, performed in private "clinics".

Yes, they believe that not funding an elective injurious procedure, performed in a private facility constitutes a human rights violation. Plus they probably know that in the "human rights" tribunal, it's not the truth that matters, but hurt feelings and the complainer's status as a member of a designated victim group. Not to mention that with the "human rights" complaint they get all their legal expenses paid - something you don't get with an ordinary law suit. So they'll be demanding the government to give them what they want - at government's own expense. (Or - at taxpayers' expense to be precise.)

Fortunately we have many strong pro-lifers in the Legislature, so we can look forward for the government to keep on fighting. And, hopefully, once they've been through a "human rights" complaint they'll realize that these Orwellian institutions just can't be reformed; that there's no way something sensible could ever be made of them and that the best way to address "human rights" issues - is through the court of law. Where the truth is the defense, where the standard rules of evidence apply, where one's right to a fair trial is respected and where the presumption is - innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Criminalizing Coerced Abortions - "Restricting Access To Freedom Of Choice"?

That's what the opponents of Roxanne's Law say. The words I quoted in the title, were actually said by Nicole Demers, Bloc MP for Laval. Other MPs that spoke against the bill (two New Democrats and a Liberal) used similar arguments. "I urge all members of the House to recognize this bill for what it is, an underhanded attack on women's choice", said Irene Mathyssen, NDP MP for London—Fanshawe. To that, her colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan, Jean Crowder, adds: "Part of the reason that women are so distressed and angry about this private member's bill is that they see it as undermining women's equality."

So, protecting woman's choice to keep her baby from coercive pressure actually restricts that woman's choice... Making it a crime to threaten a woman with violence, eviction, dismissal or loss of financial support, because she doesn't agree to abort her baby, actually undermines women's equality... Sounds quite Orwellian, unless we realize that by the word "choice" those folks mean abortion and only abortion. As for equality - that apparently means access to abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, in a hospital or clinic of the woman's choice and, of course, at taxpayers' expense. Obviously, that kind of "equality" doesn't apply to much smaller women, who are about to see daylight in just a few weeks time.

Marlene Jennings, Liberal MP from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, chose to cite a legal precedent:
The Supreme Court of Canada already issued a ruling in a case that was famous in Quebec. A woman wanted to have an abortion, and her spouse at the time tried to prevent it by taking her to court. The Supreme Court ruled that he, or anyone else, did not have the right to force a woman to have an abortion or to stop her from having one, through threats, assault or extortion.
So, she claims, Roxanne's law is redundant, because, she believes, the ruling protects woman's decision to keep her baby as much as it protects her decision to abort him. In reality however, the ruling is more about disallowing the baby's father to intervene when the mother wants to abort the baby, than it is about protecting women from coercion and threats. Ironically, a deadbeat father who wants to pressure his girlfriend or wife to abort the baby, has a lot more chances to achieve his goal than a devoted, pro-life father who wishes to convince his wife to save the baby's life. But for those to whom the word "choice" only means "abortion", that apparently is an ideal situation.

Thankfully, we had Kelly Block, a Conservative MP from Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, presenting her testimony:
Whether or not the pregnancy is planned, who has the right to tell that woman that what she is carrying inside her is a burden and must be disposed of? Who has the right to coerce her into ending her pregnancy, thereby ending her chance to give birth to her baby? No one has that right. That is why we need Roxanne's law. We need to protect pregnant women, especially when they are at their most vulnerable, from being coerced into having abortions they do not want.

It is well documented that women can suffer tremendously after having a miscarriage. When a woman loses a wanted pregnancy, she can experience intense feelings of sadness, anger, and guilt for not having been able to keep her unborn child safe. Many people cannot fully comprehend the extent of the grief a woman suffers after a miscarriage, because they do not understand the bond that has already begun to develop between her and her unborn child.

I can imagine that a woman who has been forced to have an abortion would suffer at least as much and perhaps more, because the loss would not be accidental. Instead, the loss results from a cruel and deliberate exploitation of her vulnerability by someone she should be able to trust and depend on.
When enacted into law, Bill C-510 will send a clear message that coercing a woman to end her pregnancy against her will is wrong. It will send a message to women that the law is there to protect them, so that if someone attempts to coerce a woman to have an abortion she does not want, she can press charges before it is too late for her and her baby.

When Roxanne's law comes to a vote next month, I will stand up for pregnant women and for motherhood. I will remember Roxanne and be grateful for the small part I have played to bring some good out of her tragedy.
Too bad that Kelly's voice of reason appears to be the voice calling in the wilderness, as Roxanne's law met some opposition even from the Conservative ranks. Daniel Petit, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, criticized the bill for being "difficult to interpret and subject to charter challenges".

Not sure, how long will it take for Roxanne's law to be back at the top of the Order of Precedence - for the remaining hour of debate and the second reading vote. According to Kelly, that could happen as early as next month. If so - we must act as soon as possible. Roxanne's law website has all the information about the bill, including detailed explanation why it's not redundant and by no means difficult to interpret. Please communicate this information to your MPs. We can still turn the tide on Roxanne's law if we put enough effort into it.