Thursday, December 30, 2010

Why Do Feminists Keep Defending Violence Against Women?

They oppose legislation that would ban coerced abortions and protect women's choice to keep their babies. When they need it, they may defend back-alley abortions or they can even go as far as defending... rape.
We’ve seen this woman-on-woman cannibalism before. Wolf and other feminists took the 1990s off when Bill Clinton was in the White House. Despite a parade of victims from Paula Jones to Monica Lewinsky, America’s feminists decided they’d forgive a sexual predator as president if he was a Democrat — the same way they did for Teddy Kennedy ever since Chappaquiddick.

And then there’s Roman Polanski, the Hollywood filmmaker. Polanski drugged and repeatedly raped a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house in the 1970s. The girl testified that she repeatedly begged Polanski to stop, and was afraid of him, but that he forced himself on her. As he raped her again and again, she continued to say “no,” but he didn’t give a damn.

But Polanski makes movies, and he’s an impeccable liberal. So feminists rush to his rescue, too. Whoopi Goldberg told America “it wasn’t ‘rape-rape’. It was something else.” Got it? A 13-year-old girl who is drugged and repeatedly raped isn’t really raped if it’s a great artist doing the raping.

A philandering president who preys on secretaries and interns isn’t a bully or a sexual harasser, if he’s a liberal...
In other words - it's more about ideology than about women's rights and equality. If Ezra Levant's article still doesn't make it clear - check out this video at Real Clear Politics (h/t Sacramouche,) which makes it clear what feminism is all about.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Pro-Abort Jackboots (aka Toronto Police) Arrest Pro-Lifer, Seize Camera, Delete Videos

Looks like that arrest at Carleton University has taught them a valuable lesson - always destroy the evidence:
TORONTO, Ontario, December 23, 2010 ( - Pro-life witness Mary Wagner was arrested again by Toronto police this morning as she spoke to women waiting to obtain abortions. One of the officers seized a reporter’s video camera, deleted its contents, and refused to identify himself.

When Wagner arrived at the Bloor West Village Women’s Clinic at 8:30 this morning, she entered the facility’s waiting room and began encouraging women to keep their babies.

She handed out crystal angel ornaments with a card reading, “When you take off the wrapping, you will see a little gift…when you give birth to your child, you will see a priceless treasure.”
After Wagner had been dragged to the police car, a male officer seized Golob’s camera.

“He grabbed the camera out of my hands and proceeded to delete all my videos,” she said. “Becoming immensely infuriated I demanded to know what his badge number was, to which he replied by storming away without acknowledging my existence, other than to hand me back my empty camera.”
There was once such thing as honor, including the honor of the uniform one wore - not anymore. At least, that concept is foreign to the Toronto police force. See for yourself how low they went just to prevent an innocent young girl from sharing the message of life.

Well, that's Toronto police for you. They can't protect you from being robbed in broad daylight, they won't bother to uphold the rule of law during protests (if they try, they end up disgracing themselves even further,) but when it comes to protecting abortion clinics from a young girl who hands out comfort cards to women that are about to lose their babies, you can be sure that Toronto police will be there in full force. Heck, it's their opportunity to finally show themselves heroes - you think they'd miss it? I can only wonder how come none of those brave men wanted their pretty faces to be caught on camera...

Note to Torontonians - next time you have a prayer vigil at the abortion mill, make sure you invite a few "bullyish"-looking middle-school kids to guard your vigil. That will keep those cops at a nice distance...

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Scrooge, Our Favorite Population Controller

Looks like I'm not the only one to whom Scrooge's words about "decreasing the surplus population" remind of the modern-day population control freaks, all those tree-hugging fanatics who complain about overpopulation, who want us to have less children, who wish to have the population reduced more than tenfold and who recommend abortions, "selective reductions" and sterilizations "for planet's sake" as a solution.
Whether it’s for the “green” crusade or some other guess at the common good, top ethicists today have embraced Scrooge’s insight that there’s a shortcut to achieving that good: do away with the people who aren’t benefiting from it. Voila!

Scrooge makes a fine population controller because they are the very definition of Scrooge. It’s just that these days, when such characters show up in the flesh instead of a film, society’s anti-Scrooge alarm - a repulsion towards those who say others should do us a favor by not existing - sadly fails to go off.
And here's another great quote:
The way in which a society treats the little gestating child that we call an embryo will become the measure of its degree of civilization.
(Cardinal André Vingt-Trois,
Vigil for Nascent Human Life,
Paris, November 27, 2010.)

H/t Big Blue Wave
Consider this. Especially today, on the Feast of the Holy Innocents.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Pope's Christmas Warning: The Future Of The World Is At Stake

Something worthy of thinking about as we celebrate Christmas.
VATICAN, December 20, 2010 ( – In his traditional Christmas greeting to Vatican officials this morning, the Pope drew a link between the times of the fall of the Roman Empire and our own times, arguing that “the future of the world is at stake.”

Describing the decline of the Roman Empire he said, “The disintegration of the key principles of law and of the fundamental moral attitudes underpinning them burst open the dams which until that time had protected peaceful coexistence among peoples.

“The sun was setting over an entire world,” he continued. “Frequent natural disasters further increased this sense of insecurity. There was no power in sight that could put a stop to this decline.“

Comparing those times to our own he said: “For all its new hopes and possibilities, our world is at the same time troubled by the sense that moral consensus is collapsing, consensus without which juridical and political structures cannot function. Consequently the forces mobilized for the defence of such structures seem doomed to failure.”
He also called on political leaders to “put a stop to Christianophobia,” and noted that “healing can only come from deep faith in God’s reconciling love.”

In the final analysis, he suggested that “only if there is … a consensus on the essentials can constitutions and law function.” The Pope explained that the public agreement on essential truths which is “derived from the Christian heritage” is at risk from an approach where morality is ignored in the pursuit of certain goals.
Here's the full text of the Holy Father's speech. Read it and see for yourself who makes more sense - the Pope or all those who dismiss his words as "bigoted" and "reactionary".

Friday, December 24, 2010

Merry Christmas

In spite of the rampant political correctness, people still enjoy Christmas music. Well, here's some more... Enjoy and have a merry Christmas!

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

For The Umpteenth Time — Life Begins At Conception

Some basic facts - a primer on pro-life arguments from Life Site News:
At conception something new comes into existence that didn’t exist before, and the process through which it develops and matures is an extremely gradual one extending through and even after birth. That it is alive is shown by the fact that it takes in nutrients and secretes wastes. That it is human is shown by its DNA, and any biologist could identify it as a human zygote or embryo. This individual combines the genetic heritage of two different lineages. We can say, for example, that if allowed to develop normally, this individual will have its grandmother’s red hair and blue eyes, its mother’s good ear for music and its father’s tall lanky build. It is not just a distinct individual, but also a family member.

We would all agree that a newborn infant is a person. But if look back at its development in the womb, there is no point at which it undergoes any sort of radical change that could make it become a person at that point when it had not been one before. Birth is just a change of location. Breathing air hardly seems to make a big moral difference. At a certain point in the pregnancy the baby becomes able to survive outside the womb. This point is called the point of viability, and it is constantly getting earlier in pregnancy as medical technology improves. But whether it can live outside the womb or not does not change the basic kind of thing it is. Already in its earliest stages of development the implanted zygote exhibits an inner-directed process of growth and development which will ordinarily culminate in a fully developed human infant unless somehow interfered with. Although we can’t know for sure what its inner conscious states are, the unborn individual is sensitive to touch as early as 7 weeks, and is certainly capable of feeling pain quite early on.
Looks like even the courts are starting to acknowledge the biological reality. The Ontario Court of Appeal recently mentioned in its ruling that "a foetus becomes a child when it (the foetus) has reached a stage in its development when, but for some external event or other circumstances, it would likely have been born alive". So, it's a child, concealing his body is illegal, but somehow he's neither a person nor a human under our legal system. Hopefully it doesn't take another 20 years for the courts to notice the inconsistency of their point of view and to realize that every human being is a person and every human life must be protected from conception to natural death.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Atheists or Christophobes? Again, The Answer Is Obvious

Why would someone bother spending money on ad campaign to denounce something he doesn't believe in? Would anyone who doesn't believe in Santa bother paying for "there's no Santa" ads? Would a group of skeptics pitch in to finance an ad campaign against magic - just to spite Harry Potter fans? For someone who doesn't believe in any form of supernatural being, those beliefs should be all alike. And yet many of those who regard themselves as atheists, seem to be excessively troubled with Christianity:
It’s Christmas time, and that can only mean one thing. A group of atheists and secular humanists are trying once again to place ads on the sides of city buses explaining that God is a myth, religion is pointless, and UFOs and Jesus have equal credibility.
That they occasionally mention Yahweh or Allah is little more than window-dressing; it is Christ, Christianity and the Christian God they are opposed to. Of course they are; Christianity is what mummy and daddy believed, and so it must be wrong and it must be cool to be nasty about it.
And here's another essay, posted on the American Power blog, which exposes the secular religion of radical progressivism:
Rhetorically they are secularists and avatars of tolerance, but in fact they are religious fanatics who regard their opponents as sinners and miscreants and agents of civil darkness. Therefore, when they engage an opponent it is rarely to examine and refute his argument but rather to destroy the bearer of the argument and remove him from the plain of battle.
As it turns out, those secular fanatics can even go as far as praying for a politician they hate to have a heart attack. That shows what kind of secularists and atheists they are, doesn't it?

Sunday, December 19, 2010

On The First Day Of... Winter

We can't have Nativity scenes...
It can't be any more politically correct than that. Or can it? 8 years ago, the Royal Canadian Mint actually tried to replace the Twelve Days of Christmas with 12 "days of giving". The idea was widely criticized back them, but I won't be surprised if it becomes mainstream in just a few years time. After all, we don't really want to upset the Atheists, do we? It's bad enough they are sadder than ever this Christmas.

So, to cheer them up - here's another great piece of Christmas humor. For those who are unaware of the hidden meaning of the code words in the Twelve Days of Christmas carol and take them literally...

P.S. Just in case some of those Christmas-hating folks happen to be overpopulation fans - here's a special one for them :) Enjoy :)

Friday, December 17, 2010

Canadian 'Tea Party' — Missing In Action

The US Tea Party has become quite a powerful movement. Where's ours?

Kevin Gaudet, from the Canadian Taxpayer Federation has a few suggestions:
Barack Obama and Stephen Harper have something important in common – both have misunderstood what helped to get them elected. On the surface, they both seemed sincere. They both had a vision, albeit two very different visions, but each seemingly borne of conviction for change. Since being elected, both now have come to represent exactly that thing their supporters wanted them not to be – establishment politicians who, in effect, represent the status quo.

Unlike in the US, where the Tea Party movement is largely about opposing run-away spending and big government, in Canada the growing restlessness is also about citizens wanting to take back their governments. If it was only about taxes and spending in Canada, then BC’s NDP wouldn’t be leading in the polls.
Also, please don't forget to sign the CTF Balanced Budget Petition. We, the taxpayers, have scored some success lately, ending seniors' entitlements for prisoners like Clifford Olson, but that's just a drop in the $50 billion bucket. We need to make it clear, that runaway spending is not going to result in more votes; rather the opposite. After all, it's our money, not theirs.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Fetal Rights Debate Goes On

Even if the Prime Minister himself opposes it.
I support efforts to encourage a calm and respectful discussion about abortion law reform in Canada, as Canadians have passionately differing views over whether our existing abortion law, which declares that a child is not a human being until fully born, should be reformed.

Many Canadians have decided that this question is too unpleasant to think about, much less talk about. This is because people on both sides have made it unpleasant with heated rhetoric. Until we convince Canadians that it's not a burden to deal with this issue, people will continue to recoil from what is really a healthy discussion. There is plenty of medical and scientific evidence that can help us to answer the question whether or not our law is correct to say that a child is not a human being before birth, and therefore not deserving of human rights. There are modern principles of human rights which can be brought to bear. Difficult truths can always be tempered with sensitivity.

The alternative is to perpetuate a chill on national dialogue that will serve to perpetuate the status quo. Whose goal is that?
How much longer will the pro-aborts be able to keep the debate under wraps? Especially if their typical censorship measures, such as shutting down student clubs, blocking and shouting down their presentations, imposing restrictions that don't apply to other groups, pressing phony charges etc just don't work any longer, so they have to resort to harsher measures such as arrests and prolonged detentions without trial in an attempt to prevent pro-lifers from speaking up.

They know that the day both sides are put in equal conditions will be the day the pro-aborts will suffer a crushing defeat. They know that all they can do is to try delaying the inevitable, hoping that the issue may just go away. But it won't. Niki Ashton, NDP MP from Churchill is upset that such a debate is still taking place "in the year 2010". Well, that's just the beginning. And I won't be surprised if the pro-aborts, with their "all or nothing" approach will in effect speed up their own demise - as it happened with the pro-slavery crowd some 150 years ago.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Canadian Women Support Roxanne's Law

One of them, Mrs. Kelly Block, a Conservative MP for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, took the courage to speak in defense of the bill for the second time:
Mrs. Kelly Block (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, since I stood in the House last month to speak in support of Roxanne's Law, I have heard from countless Canadians across the country, especially women, expressing their strong support for the bill, which would give Canadian women much needed protection against unwanted abortions.

The evidence completely dispels the notion expressed last month in this chamber that women do not want this protection. Nothing I have seen, heard or read could be further from the truth.

The sad reality is that abortion coercion does take place in Canada. We all know about Roxanne Fernando who was murdered by the father of her unborn child after refusing to end her pregnancy. A recent case involving abortion coercion in Calgary also had a fatal outcome. Melinda Morin was convicted of manslaughter for killing her boyfriend in a fit of rage after he attacked her during an argument about her pregnancy. He wanted her to have an abortion but she refused.

Those two examples tell us that if a women is feeling threatened into an unwanted abortion, she may be either the victim or the perpetrator of violence. Both are extreme and tragic examples of what can happen when others try to impose unwanted abortions on pregnant women. I am certainly not saying that all cases involving abortion coercion will end in violence but those stories do illustrate this tragic and deadly outcome that can result when we, as a society, do not take abortion coercion seriously and when we do not condemn it loudly and clearly, as Roxanne's Law would surely do.
It's a shame however that Kelly's female colleagues from the opposition, were too concerned about loss of funding for feminist groups and about vague threats that the bill might pose to the abortion industry than about the safety of their fellow women.

Not every coerced abortion involves severe beating or murder. Most often, a woman just gets dragged into an abortion mill - in broad daylight, in front of the passers-by who hardly realize what's actually happening. Thousands of women lose their babies and are left permanently scarred because someone else has made the fatal "choice" for them. But Canada's pro-abort MPs would rather turn a blind eye on their suffering than let abortion industry be threatened in any way.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Wikileaks: Not Wiki, Not Leaks, Not Journalism

Here's an interesting article by Ezra Levant. I was quite surprised to find out that "WikiLeaks" doesn't work on the same free editing principle as the Wikipedia. Let alone - that the website has been turned into an opposite of its former self:
Take the word WikiLeaks itself. Wiki is a Hawaiian word that means quick. But its meaning on the Internet is different. A wiki is a website that allows many people to collaborate on something quickly - like Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone in the world can edit.

So it doesn't just mean quick. It means quick and democratic.

Which is the opposite of WikiLeaks.

Only Assange, the unelected boss of WikiLeaks, gets to decide what's published.

Wikileaks' original mandate was to expose repressive countries such as China, Russia and Iran. But Assange vetoed that. He's all about being anti-American.
In a related article, Craig Carter from The Politics of the Cross Resurrected blog, explains that in its present form, WikiLeaks has become a threat to our freedom of speech, rather than an outpost thereof.

Still, if someone should go to jail for what happened - that should be the guy who stole the classified information, rather than the guy who published it. After all, if it wasn't for the scumbags like that self-centered, egotistical, psychotic pervert (the poor guy was in "an awkward place" both "emotionally and psychologically", his precious feelings were hurt, boohoo!) - Assange & co wouldn't be in business.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Too Many Immigrants, Too Few Want To Fit In

Something is definitely wrong with our immigrant selection system if not only half of the country believes there are too many immigrants, but even among those born outside of Canada, 2/3 believe that newcomers don't want to fit in.
The poll by Ottawa's Abacus Data found that 49% of Canadians think there are too many immigrants coming to Canada each year, compared to 32% who think we hit the right number annually, 7% who think there are too few and 13% who don’t know.

When asked if Canada should increase or decrease the number of immigrants each year, 50% said decrease while only 8% said increase.
The Abacus poll also showed that Canadians have strong opinions on the question of integrating immigrants. A majority of those born in Canada (71%) and those born outside of the country (65%) agree with the statement: “Too many recent immigrants don’t want to fit into Canadian society.”

"One reason Canadians want fewer immigrants entering Canada is a perception that immigrants don't want to fit in. These attitudes extend to those born in and outside of Canada and are consistent across the country,” said Coletto.
It's not a perception, it's a known fact. People who've gone through the immigration system are well aware of the agencies that can easily supply you with fake diplomas and job references, who can vouch for you in front of an immigration officer and who can provide you with fictitious Canadian address for the time you're away - so that your absence doesn't disqualify you from getting the citizenship.

They've also seen more than enough of those those who've been here for a decade or two, but who've spent all that time voluntarily isolated in an ethnic community, who don't speak English and who couldn't care less about the country they live in and the people who let them come to their country. (Unless, of course, these people, for one reason or another, dare to deny them social assistance or their passport of convenience...)

Long story short - immigrants too, notice how twisted the immigration system has become in the past 10-15 years, what kind of people it lets in and what kind of people it leaves behind. And, if the government follows through with its plan to "change the mix... with a greater emphasis on family class immigrants rather than skilled workers", then someone who arranges a phony marriage through his community will have even more advantage over a skilled professional who wishes to come here honestly and become Canadian, not some hyphenated Canadian.

So, this has nothing to do with weaker economy or fewer job prospects. People just want Canada to remain Canada, instead of becoming a clone of some other country - be that the country they (or their parents) left behind or the country they've never been to. After all - if people have been leaving those countries and choosing Canada, doesn't that mean that Canada, as it's been so far - is better, and that we better keep Canada the way it's always been? And before you tell me that "Canada was built by immigrants" - let me remind you that those were self-sufficient immigrants who assimilated.

Friday, December 10, 2010

Right To "Choose" — Unless You Choose Life

The pro-aborts often complain about pro-life doctors who do their best trying to encourage women to keep their babies. But what about a pro-abort doctor who just won't stop trying to convince a woman to have an abortion?
After she rushed to the hospital, a team of the best doctors told her there was no hope for her child. No baby had ever survived with such little amniotic liquid at such an early point in the pregnancy, they told her.

They insisted that she abort.

"I asked, 'Is the child alive?' They said, "Yes, he's still alive, but not for long.' I said, 'Look. I don't agree with the abortion.'"

The doctors recognized they could not talk Irina into the abortion, so they gave her papers to sign in which she agreed to legally accept the risks for her child. Then a doctor handed her a pill, which he said would help her to relax.
When Monica, who has training as a nurse, learned the pill was called Cytotec, she said, "Do not take this pill because it's going to induce the labor and provoke uterine rupture and severe hemorrhage."
So, what happens to "her body, her choice" then? (Not to mention the baby's body of course.)

Ok, one could claim that the doctor was just too worried about Irina, so he kept repeating his recommendations, insisting on the treatment which he believed was necessary. But what do you call an abortifacient pill disguised as a sedative? How is that for "woman's choice", let alone, an informed one?

No wonder there's so much opposition to the bill against coerced abortions...

Update: And here's one of so many related stories; this one doesn't involve doctors, but it clearly shows what kind of "choice" abortion really is:
I approached a young couple just as they were nearing the door of 65 Bank. The young woman looked back at me intently, but before she had a chance to take a brochure or say anything, the man she was with just yanked her into the building as if trying to prevent her from speaking to me. The new sidewalk counsellor and I were aghast. Clearly, this young woman had the intention to speak to me, but that “choice” was taken away from her. I wonder how many other “choices” she was prevented to make in the days and weeks leading to this appointment.
Yeah, we are the "anti-choice" ones, right... Coerced abortions take place all over the world and, unfortunately, Canada is not an exception.

The very least we can do is contact our MPs, encouraging them to support Roxanne's law. It's still not too late to do so.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Losing Your Child At The Flip Of A Coin

The last update on the "Birth-or-not" is in and, with the fraudulent votes removed, the results are strongly in favor of letting the baby live. Plus, as Life Site News reports, the baby's mother, who considered abortion at first, has since grown closer to the baby and would likely choose life. So we can hope that this whole story is over and that the child, known as "Baby Wiggles", will be allowed to see daylight.

But this story also shows us how twisted the current situation is. First of all - the whole idea of trusting a life or death question to an online poll. Can you imagine someone whose cat has had kittens asking the public in an online poll whether he should drown those kittens or just give them away? Yet that's pretty much the test to which a pro-abortion mother put her baby's life. She might as well just have flipped a coin - the outcome wouldn't be any less reliable than that of an online poll.
The online poll was widely deemed to be a hoax after Mr. Arnold revealed that he was pro-life; however, Mrs. Arnold later revealed that she is pro-abortion, and contradicted her husband’s claims that they had never really considered an abortion. Alisha said she considered aborting the child, but has since grown closer to the baby and would likely choose life.

Mrs. Arnold wrote in a Dec. 3 post that she found the number of fake votes in favor of aborting the baby “astounding.” “I have no idea why people would go to the lengths that they did to submit fraudulent votes towards abortion,” she said. “But this all leads back to the reason for voting and how many people don’t take it seriously.”
Including you, Mrs. Arnold. If you took it seriously, you would never trust the life of your baby to an online poll.

And, at the same time, the baby's father should consider himself lucky that his wife agreed to an online poll or to a coin flip or that she even bothered to listen to someone else's opinion, including her husband's. Because, thanks to the current legal vacuum on fetal rights, father's opinion doesn't count. She could have just gone to the nearest abortion facility, have her baby ripped to pieces there and only then let her husband know that he had lost a child.

Yes, that's the way the laws (or - the court rulings and "read-ins" that replaced them) work nowadays. The law may turn a blind eye on a pro-abort family member who escorts the woman to an abortion mill at gunpoint or coerces her to abort in some other way; but if a woman "chooses" to abort her baby in spite of her partner's wish, there's absolutely nothing a pro-life father can do to save his baby from being put to death.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Linda Gibbons May Spend Another Christmas Behind Bars

Please send her a Christmas card:
TORONTO, December 7, 2010 ( - Pro-life heroine Linda Gibbons may spend another Christmas in jail this year if her next court appearance, scheduled for December 13, does not result in a ruling to free her.

Linda’s friend and supporter Gordon Truscott has asked that people pray that she be released before Christmas, but in the meantime to send her Christmas cards to bolster her spirits and sustain her at this time.

“Judging by the number of issues before the court she may not be home for Christmas,” Truscott told LifeSiteNews.

Linda has been imprisoned continuously since Jan. 20, 2009, when she was arrested outside the downtown “Scott Clinic,” which is protected by a 1994 “temporary” court injunction banning pro-life activity within a specified zone.
Please note that there are rules concerning mail items sent to prisons, for example, stickers and laminated items are not allowed. Check Life Site News for detailed instructions. Linda's mailing address is:

Linda Gibbons
Vanier Center for Women
655 Martin Street, Box 1040,
Milton, Ontario  L9T 5E6

Monday, December 6, 2010

Christianity — The Most Persecuted Religion

At least 200 million Christians suffer from discrimination, and yet you won't see any national government (let alone the UN) concerned about Christophobia.
ROME, November 30, 2010 ( - The 2010 “Report on Religious Freedom in the World” by the Catholic organization Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) states that Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world, with at least 200 million people suffering from discrimination.
Noting that persecution that comes from other religions is particularly acute in some countries with a Muslim majority, Williams pointed to “places like Saudi Arabia where it’s impossible for any Christian or indeed any other group, non-Muslim group, to organize and to have open public prayer. We think of places like Somalia, or we think of Sudan.”

Marie-Claude Lalonde, National Director of Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) Canada, recalled the massacre of Syrian Catholic Christians in Baghdad on October 31, calling it “a reality that is sadly growing all over the world: religious freedom is more and more threatened.”

“While terrorists blasted through the group of faithful gathered for mass, witnesses of the attack reported a child, three years of age, crying out: ‘Enough, enough!’ He was shot at point blank range by the assailants, just as were 44 other people and two priests,” Lalonde said.
The ACN report also reveals that religious freedom has declined in the United States and Europe by the radicalization of secularism.

Spain is cited for its prohibition of religious symbols in public places, while France and Germany are mentioned for discrimination against Islamic communities and hostility toward the Catholic Church because of their position on family issues and defense of life.
So, one may argue, Christianity is not the only persecuted religion. But here's the catch: Somehow, in spite of all that alleged discrimination against Muslims and all the "islamophobia" that the left keeps talking about, Muslim schools in Britain are free to train teenage students to perform sharia-mandated amputations. Christians however better not count on the neighbors or the city hall to respect their religious feelings.

Dec. 8 Update: Nativity scene has been vandalized - again. In Pakistan? In China? Nope. In Canada, in Toronto. If this was a mosque or some other religious shrine - everyone would be crying "hate crime". But lashing out against Christianity is apparently nothing but a mere sign of discontent; a socially acceptable act of rebellion against the "bad religion".

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Silencing Pro-Life Students — New Threats By Carleton U

Just like the University of Calgary, Carleton University trying to accuse outspoken pro-life student of "academic misconduct".
The University subsequently sent the students’ club, Carleton Lifeline, correspondence threatening them with arrest and disciplinary action. They said these could be consequences if the students did not comply with a strict set of rules which only applied to them; these provisions surround a designated zone created for Lifeline where few students travel in the winter, where they are not able to offer pamphlets or initiate conversations with students, and not being permitted to move if protestors block the signs.

“This act of ‘compromise’ on the part of the University is nothing more than an intimidation tactic limiting our expression on campus,” said club president Ruth Lobo, a Human Rights Major. “The definition of discrimination is differential treatment and that is what Lifeline is receiving.”

The university is no stranger to graphic images. In the past month, Holocaust imagery was displayed as part of an Awareness Campaign. Further, Animal Rights activists have also been seen on campus multiple times erecting large, graphic displays in the busiest parts of campus showing slaughtered animals with slogans such as “SHAME ON YOU.” Neither of these events were surrounded by warning signs or held in ‘restricted’ areas.

These campaigns did not result in non-academic misconduct threats or arrest-threats like the anti-abortion signs did.
Meanwhile, the student association, that has revoked Carleton Lifeline's official club status, now tries to block Carleton Lifeline Legal Counsel from representing the group at internal appeal meeting. If that doesn't show the true nature of all those "student bodies" to which students are forced to belong, then I don't know what does.

Check out the videos of the "choice?" chain; see for yourself what kind of arguments the other side can come up with.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Political Correctness Is Immoral; Profiling Based On Facts Is Just

Great essay by Craig Carter from the The Politics of the Cross Resurrected blog:
Last week I traveled to Atlanta for the annual meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society. A friend and I drove to Buffalo and flew from there to Atlanta. At the border, we were asked where we were going, for how long etc. and then waved through. A couple of white, middle-aged, Canadian passport-holding guys were not perceived as much of a threat to national security.
But when we got to the airport, we were forced to endure an electronic strip search after having removed our shoes, belts, watches etc.. We were treated exactly the same way as a middle eastern man between 18 and 35 would be treated. Nuns, grandmothers, children - all are treated as being just as likely to be terrorists as young Muslim men. As Peggy Noonan rightly says in her Washington Post column today, this is not an inconvenience but a humiliation. It also means that we are letting the terrorists win because they sin and our people pay the price.
The problem with political correctness is that it requires us to pretend; it requires that we deny reality. Angela Merkel made this point a few days ago when she said that multiculturalism isn't working in Germany. Of course it isn't; the Muslim populations is never going home and it is not being assimilated. Everyone knows that but no one is allowed to say it. We must pretend. At airports, everyone knows that no elderly nun or white, eight year old boy traveling with his Southern Baptist mother has yet brought down an airliner or even tried. But we must pretend that they are just as much a threat as the people who have done so.
The single most shocking thing I read about this whole airport security issue does not relate to the humiliation and ineffectiveness of the "pat downs for all" approach. It was this paragraph from Deroy Murdock:
At a Monday night Intelligence Squared debate on this topic at New York University, one of my interlocutors was Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles Burlingame, the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, which al-Qaeda smashed into the Pentagon. She cited her conversation with an American Airlines customer-service agent who worked on September 11. He checked in Nawaf and Salem al-Hazmi, two of those who hijacked that Boeing 757. While American's seasoned employee found these two suspicious, Burlingame says he told her he did not flag them for further scrutiny "because I didn't want my colleague to think that I was a racist and a bigot."
He didn't want his colleague to think he was a racist and bigot - and the result was that innocent people died. It is not just that political correctness might result in the inadvertent deaths of innocent people: it already has.
That pretty much says it all. Our opponents claim that profiling doesn't work because not every terrorist is a Muslim / middle eastern man between 18 and 35. Yet we all know where most of the violence comes from.

Currently, in order to check one suspicious person, the airport security workers have to subject at least a dozen of innocent people to a humiliating pat-down or electronic strip-search, just so that one suspicious person doesn't feel singled out because of his origin. If security workers are allowed to do their job and screen the relatively small group of passengers which is responsible for nearly all the violence without fear of being accused of racism, that will free up more than enough manpower to intercept those remaining few that may still pose a threat to airline security.

And, when it comes to hurt feelings - whose feelings matter most? Feelings of a small minority that self-identifies with those who put us in a situation when we have to check every baby bottle to ensure there are no explosives in it or the feelings of millions of innocent law-abiding airline passengers, who merely want to go from one city to another?

Friday, December 3, 2010

Manitoba Small Business Rate Falls To Zero

Manitoba set a new standard by slashing its small business rate to nothing:
It's official. On December 1st, Manitoba became the first province with a zero per cent small business tax rate. Thanks to effective lobbying from CFIB and your involvement, the rate has been declining for years and now it is officially at zero.
No, that doesn't mean that people can now shelter their incomes behind the corporate seal. That money will still be taxed when passed to individuals in form of dividends, wages or benefits. (Plus, let's not forget the 11% Federal small business tax that will still apply.) Still, that's a significant help for the province's small businesses:
In 1999, Manitoba had a tax rate of 8 per cent - the second highest in the country. Today it's the lowest.

"It's a significant saving for small business owners," said Rosann Wowchuk, Manitoba's Finance Minister and the province's Deputy Premier. "We pleased to be taking a lead in the country."

“This move is about supporting entrepreneurship. It allows small businesses to keep more of their profits and reinvest in their companies, their employees and their communities," said Catherine Swift, president of the CFIB.
Several years ago, New Brunswick was on its way towards achieving a 1% small business rate by July of 2007. But then came Shawn Graham, who hiked the rate to 5%, as a prelude to boosting program spending. Now, amid all the deficits his government left behind, New Brunswick entrepreneurs are unlikely to see the small business rate going back to 1%, let alone being eliminated completely. The most that the new government promises is to reduce it to 2.5% by 2014.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

It's Called CHRISTmas :)

Not just some nameless culture-neutral "holiday".
ORLANDO, FL, November 10, 2010 ( – The Florida based pro-life, Christian legal organization Liberty Counsel has officially launched its eighth annual “Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign” aimed at combating the censorship of Christmas in today’s secularist culture.

In an announcement, Liberty Counsel highlighted its work over the past several years in educating people about their freedom to celebrate “Christmas” instead of the generic “winter holiday.” According to the group, it has overturned a number of “grinch-like” decisions, including rulings against nativity scenes on public property, the singing of Christmas carols by elderly members of nursing homes, and the censoring of words from Christmas carols by school officials.
Here's just one of the examples of what can happen when political correctness tramples tradition and common sense. Here's a similar example of a city trying to rename Christmas Village "holiday village", but apparently backing down, after the people started expressing their outrage en masse. Hopefully, the ill-famous Florida school too ends up backing down and bringing back Christmas - if there are enough people to demand just that.

Yes, it is possible to fight the absurdity of political correctness. If you have any doubts - take a look at this story: Disney and Wal-Mart now recognize Christmas. So - it's just a matter of speaking up. Or even - singing along, like these folks at the mall. Now, isn't that lovely? Whoever feels "offended", is free to get a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia.