Friday, April 30, 2010

Being Pro-Life — It's Just Common Sense

You don't have to be religious to be pro-life. Kelly McParland explains why in his National Post article:
A reader e-mailed recently to suggest I must be a religious fanatic, because I don’t support abortion.

He explained that the vast majority of people who oppose abortion are fundamentalist religious whackos who believe there’s a “spirit” in the fetus, and that’s why they object to aborting it.

News to me. I told him I hadn’t been to church in years, and religion had nothing to do with it. I just think it’s wrong to take someone else’s life without their consent. And I can’t convince myself that the roundish tendency you’ll notice among pregnant women results from something other than a life growing inside them. You don’t have to be the pope to believe a person’s life is their own, and the rest of us should keep our hands off.

He wasn’t buying. He’d convinced himself anyone opposed to abortion is a religious nut, and that’s all there was to it.
They wouldn't want to admit that they were wrong, would they? But they'll have to - eventually, in light of all the scientific evidence that keeps piling up:
For years, religious people have been called backward and anti-science while pro-lifers actually couldn't wait for scientific and technological breakthroughs so we could all get a better look inside the womb and understand better what it is to be human. I think everyone must remember the first time they saw a 4-d ultrasound. It changes you. It's changed lots of people.
The unspoken message of the ultrasound is clear to all with an open heart: “I'm human—just like you.”
So, who turns out to be the backward and anti-science crowd after all?

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

New Senate Election Bill — Bottom-Up Approach

Let each province decide if they want to elect their Senators; if they do - their decision should be respected. That's pretty much the idea behind the new Senate bill (S-8) that would make provincial and territorial Senate nominee elections binding.

To make it even simpler, the "schedule", which sets up guidelines for the future Senate elections, just copies the Alberta model: Block voting, (as opposed to earlier bills which proposed STV,) provincial (rather than Federal) political party affiliations, provincially regulated campaign contribution limits and a 6-year "wait" limit for those nominees that for some reason don't get summoned to the Senate. (They are then free to run again in a subsequent election.)

Overall - this is the very minimum that could be done to bring at least some democracy and accountability to the Senate. And, unfortunately, this is as close to the Elected Senate as we can get without a full-scale constitutional amendment. But that too is a great start. At least, no future Prime Minister will be allowed to defy the outcome of a province-wide election and appoint his own proteges instead. (Let Paul Martin be the last PM to do so.) And, once the provincial initiatives to elect their own Senators get legitimized by the Federal Parliament, it will be easier to lobby the remaining 8 provinces to follow suit.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

HD Poll — Final Warning For Harper?

Re-energize your base - or else. That's pretty much the message from the recent Harris/Decima poll. The Conservatives are at 29%, the Liberals - at 27% and the NDP - at 20%. The provincial breakdown looks even worse - as if the Liberal lead in Ontario and the Maritimes wasn't bad enough, the Conservatives are trailing the NDP in British Columbia and they are not that far ahead of the dippers in the Prairies (39% to 31%). Translated to seats, this breakdown would result in a three-way split between the moderate centrists, the left and the ultra-left: 104 for the Conservatives, 101 for the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc end up 46 and 56 seats respectively.

Now what about the right wing? Those just wouldn't vote. If the HD poll results translated into an actual vote, we'd probably see voter turnout plummeting to below 50%, with most of those getting out and voting being opposition supporters, eager to finally get rid of Stephen Harper's government. As for the Conservatives - at least one in three of them would just stay home, joining those 4 in 10 registered voters who didn't bother to vote in any of the past Federal elections.

The Conservative voter base is apathetic to say the least. They don't yet see the Christian Heritage Party as a viable alternative and even if they do have a CHP candidate on the ballot - many will be reluctant to support him. (Somehow they believe that it's better not to vote at all than to vote their conscience and "split the vote".) But, unless the Liberals come up with yet another controversial tax hike proposal, something the Conservative base could be energized against, they'd see no point in supporting the party that has moved so far to the left in a pathetic attempt to attract the former PC and the disgruntled Liberal voters.
Noting that the Prime Minister's spokesman, Andrew MacDougall, has said the PM would compel his cabinet ministers to vote against Mr. Bruinooge's private member's bill, Mr. Hnatiuk mused, "Perhaps we need legislation to protect MPs from coercion, too."

"This was supposed to be a 'conservative' government. But we usually associate such high-handed action with those on the left," said Hnatiuk. "The Prime Minister's dictatorial stance denies 36 ridings a free vote for their MPs."

That some Conservative members have difficulty with such an attitude is apparent by former executive members of Conservative Electoral District Associations (EDAs) now joining CHP Canada. In eastern Canada, past Alliance EDA executive Hilda Stevens has joined CHP Canada and serves as Interim President for Nova Scotia; in central Canada, G.J. Rancourt, former candidate hopeful and member of the Conservative executive of his EDA, is now candidate and CEO for CHP Canada in his EDA; in western Canada, past executive member in his Conservative EDA, Frank Hilliard, is now energetically building for CHP Canada.
That may not be enough to bring the CHP to the level of a major national party, but that should still be a warning sign for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. They better not take the small-c Conservative vote for granted. After all, we know that even when there's no viable alternative on the ballot, so many right-wing voters tend to simply abstain from voting. If Harper goes ahead and alienates pro-life voters even further - he's guaranteed to lose the next election whenever it may come.

BTW - it may surprise Stephen Harper and his red Tory advisers, but during the maternal health debate, when the Conservative party stood firm against including abortions in maternal health funding for the third world, its poll numbers were much higher. If that doesn't show the party executives what side they should be on - I don't know what does.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Calgary U Pro-Life Students: "We Will Not Abandon the Unborn Child"

Despite being threatened with expulsion, with arrest and trespassing charges, pro-life University of Calgary students are determined to keep displaying the Genocide Awareness Project on campus.
We of Campus Pro-Life have been told countless upon countless occasions that the Genocide Awareness Project, and the pictures contained therein, are offensive and hurtful to look at. But if an action is too terrible to look at, how then can it be tolerated? Why should we leave unchallenged and undebated a practice so horrific that words alone fail to describe it?
Same question to everyone who believes that abortion is a "choice", but doesn't want others to see what exactly is being chosen. If they believe it's ok to "choose" abortion, how come they don't want others to see the direct consequences of such a "choice"?

Way to go, University of Calgary Campus Pro-Life for making a stand for the unborn:
We simply wish to deliver a message to the University of Calgary about their suppression of our freedoms which we but used to defend society’s weakest elements.

Our message to the University is this: do unto us whatever you desire, punish us however you wish; but our convictions shall not change, and we shall not alter our actions based on intimidation.

We shall not abandon the unborn child to be murdered.
We shall not desert the single mom in crisis.
We shall not allow the evil of abortion to remain unexposed.
We shall not be intimidated by the threat of force.
We shall not be scared by the threat of expulsion.
We shall not back down from the stand we have made.

If they are to punish us, then we are content to let history revile them for their suppression of liberty.
If they are to punish us, then let the blood of the unborn child be upon their heads.
If they are to punish us then let the pain of the suffering mom be upon their conscience.
History will not remember what illegitimate excuse they used, other than as a derogative footnote; but history will remember their transgression against freedom, and it is upon this that posterity shall judge them.
So let the university do whatever action their twisted worldview sees fit, for we fear not the judgment of tyranny.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

This Is A Child, Not A Choice

It's as simple as that. Love life!
If this baby were just a few minutes younger, it would be entirely legal to kill her, and for just about any reason at all.
And another thing: ugly truth about "safe" abortions:
(h/t The Politics of the Cross Resurrected)

Friday, April 23, 2010

Pro-Life T-shirt Week — Join The Fun

Yes, raising awareness of the unborn babies' right to life can be (and is) fun. Check out this photo contest:
Last year we upgraded National Pro-Life T-Shirt Week with our Yo! Where's the Shirt!? Photo Contest. With over 2,000 photos submitted we considered it a success for our first year trying it. This year we are out to top that number and there is a new twist on how we are going to do it!

This year we have two shirts. A RED shirt that says "Abortion Kills a Person" and a BLUE shirt that says "It's ok to be Pro-Life". Whichever shirt you wear, there are going to be hundreds of tasks for you to complete! Good luck to everyone!

Every abortion kills a living human being - that is a fact. From the moment of creation, when that human being is but a single cell, all the way to the moment of birth, there is a child that is undergoing a period of remarkable growth and development. Abortion stops that miraculous growth cold and robs the world of all that child would have accomplished. That child is just gone.

NPLTW is organized by American Life League with the intent to increase awareness of abortion and the reality of how many innocent babies are murdered every day.
Register for the contest and you can win an iPod Touch. Or, just consider supporting the American Life League by buying a few pro-life T-shirts. They're just $6.50(US).

Thursday, April 22, 2010

"Earth Day" or Lenin Day?

Here's what Google logo should have looked like today. Neither however is worth celebrating. Why would we want to celebrate oppressive ideologies?
A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched in the UK. The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins. The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.
The new constitution of Ecuador has already proclaimed the rights of nature to be equal to those of humans. That's the same constitution that has abrogated the human right to life by empowering abortion. That shows what their priorities are, doesn't it? It may not yet have come to Lenin's famous "turds! shot them!", but it's getting there.
Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.
Of course. Once the very right to life has been abrogated, who cares about freedom of speech? And how else could the eco-fascist silence their opponents, considering that global warm-mongering has nothing to do with peer-reviewed science?
From Donna Laframboise's blog "No Frakking Consensus" and the website "" comes the results of a citizen's audit of the Nobel Prize winning 2007 IPCC Report on Global Warming. After the highly publicized discovery of numerous errors and unsubstantiated alarmist claims in this report, Donna Laframboise decided to go through it line by line to see just how much of it actually is based on peer-reviewed scientific papers.

For years, the AGW alarmists have been taunting the skeptics by saying that anti-AGW viewpoints do not depend on peer-reviewed science. Turns out, neither do pro-AGW viewpoints. Oh dear.
Facts contradict the Gaia-worshiping cult? Too bad for the facts. When the eco-crooks can't find scientific proof to their theory, they have one more trick beside threatening and silencing their opponents: They make movies which make it look as if their theory was right. Here's the list of seven stupidest environmentalist propaganda movies that you better don't take seriously. Remember - those movies are as factual as the Soviet movies about Lenin.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Bill C-384 — Kevorkian's Solution

It's symbolic that just days before the House resumed its debate on the euthanasia bill, the New York Times Magazine had published its interview with Jack Kevorkian. This time the murderer (aka Dr. Death) doesn't talk about easing the pain and suffering. His vision is much broader now:
[Y]ou see this last crisis we went through that scared everybody, there was a solution, but nobody would like it. I could solve it in a minute by cutting the population in half, and now you’d have a job for everybody.
Killing the unemployed? Reducing the population in half to combat unemployment? Even Hitler didn't came to that. Yep, death does tend to be Kevorkian’s solution to things. Can't find a job? Lethal injection. Getting too old to work? Lethal injection it is. Seriously ill and can't bear the pain? Here's some anesthetics. Some tenfold dose of it, to be precise.

The latter was debated yesterday in the House of Commons. For now - it's mostly about the pain and suffering. But some MPs could see beyond the fancy words; they could see that if euthanasia becomes legal, people with disabilities (and then - just the elderly) could be pressured into euthanasia and treated as a burden to others if they choose to live their natural life to the last day. Even those MPs who spoke in favor of the bill (like Bill Siksay) mentioned that as a possible consequence.

In Mr. Siksay's opinion that's not serious enough a threat to reject legal euthanasia. Is that so? After all, the oldest "baby boomers" are going to start retiring as early as next year and the CPP is losing money on the stock market. Who can guarantee that once euthanasia is legal, the politicians don't resort to Kevorkian's solution to reduce pension and healthcare expenses and to free up hospital beds?

The vote on bill C-384 is today. Judging from the number of opposition MPs, who spoke against the bill, (including 2 from the NDP,) it will be defeated. But it's yet too early to consider the debate to be over. Let's not forget how quickly the Parliament went from voting 216:55 in favor of the traditional marriage to ramming through the legislation that redefined marriage and parenthood to suit the homosexual lobby. We must make sure this never happens with euthanasia; that direct and intentional actions that cause another person's death never become legal.

Even once the bill is defeated, the debate will continue and we're likely to see the euthanasia supporters using the backdoor approach, trying to bring Kevorkian's solution through the courts, UN declarations and "human rights" commissions. We must be ready to fight those attempts. We must make sure that the politicians can't claim that "the society has evolved" and that our right to life, from conception to natural death, does not devolve into an implied "right to die".

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Euthanasia Debate Resumes, Vote On Bill C-384 Tomorrow

Looks like Francine Lalonde, the sponsor of the euthanasia bill C-384, is not going to delay the vote yet another time. The bill is expected to finally receive its second hour of debate in the House of Commons today, with the second reading vote scheduled to take place tomorrow.
“Yesterday, [Lalonde] had an article that was published in Le Devoir, a french language newspaper, where she explains that Bill C-384 will have its second-hour of debate on Tuesday, April 20th and go to the Second reading vote on Wednesday, April 21st,” said Alex Schadenberg, EPC's executive director. “We expected Lalonde to trade with another MP and delay the vote, but this confirms that the vote is coming now.”

“We must soundly defeat Bill C-384 to discourage other MP's from also attempting to legalize euthanasia in Canada,” said Schadenberg.

The coalition provided basic text as a suggested letter to send to MPs. The text reads, “I am concerned that if euthanasia or assisted suicide were legalized in Canada that it would become the ultimate form of elder abuse and people with disabilities would often experience subtle pressures to ‘choose’ to die. Please vote against Bill C-384.”
There's still time to contact your MP. We must do our best to ensure that direct and intentional actions that cause another person's death (also known as euthanasia and assisted suicide) never become legal in Canada.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Scrapping "Human Rights" Tribunal, Restoring Our Right To Fair Trial

Could this be happening? Saskatchewan is considering to scrap the "human rights" tribunal, transferring the case load to the court of law.
This is the best idea we’ve heard all week: Saskatchewan’s Justice Minister says his province could soon dissolve its Human Rights Tribunal and move its caseload over to the Court of Queen’s Bench. There, defendants would enjoy something that human rights Star Chambers have long denied the accused: due process, including a proper hearing in front of a judge fully trained in Canada’s constitutional traditions.

Human rights, of course, has long been the mother’s milk of Canadian political life. But in recent years, it has become clear that the provincial and federal tribunals that operate under the human rights banner are even more problematic than the waning social ills — racism, sexism, homophobia — they are meant to address. Unlike in a proper civil trial, the accuser in a human rights tribunal proceeding gets his prosecution paid for by the government: He merely has to scrawl out a complaint to get the process going, and then watch his prey squirm under years of costly, often Kafkaesque, prosecution. In censorship cases — involving, most famously, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn — human rights mandarins have made it clear that they have scant regard for free speech.
I only hope they don't backtrack on this. If we can't prevent those freedom-snatching committees from persecuting people for merely expressing their views, the very least we can do is to give the accused back his right to a fair trial - in the court of law, where the rules of evidence do apply, where truth is a defense, where the presumption is innocent until proven guilty and not vice-versa...

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Anti Coercion = "Anti Choice"?

That's what the pro-aborts claim. Check out the blog report by Suzanne.

When I suggested in my previous blog post that it would make sense for everyone who respects woman's choice to support bill C-510, I got the following comment from Osumashi Kinyobe:
Pro-lifers make this mistake- there is NOTHING "pro-choice" about people who name themselves thus. They are pro-abortion. That is what they want. If they think such a term is odious and only exposes the evil they support, use it even more. There is no choice in death.
Now we see that Osumashi was perfectly right: for the pro-aborts, "choice" means "abortion" and only abortion. When a woman chooses life - that's not really a choice from the pro-aborts' perspective.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Free Speech — As Our Opponents See It

Here's what Mr. Dominic LeBlanc, a Liberal MP from Beauséjour believes free speech is all about:
April 12, 2010 — Mr. LeBlanc (Beauséjour) — That, in the opinion of the House, the 25th anniversary of the coming into force of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on April 17, 1985, should serve as a reminder that the fundamental freedom of speech must also always ensure the freedom from hate speech or speech that incites violence, particularly when it involves minority communities.
(Last item before the Ways and Means)
But wait. Where in the Charter does it say that freedom of speech also implies freedom from so called "hate speech"? Could Mr. Leblanc please quote the appropriate section or, at the very least, name it?

Mr. Leblanc mentions speech that incites violence - that's already a criminal offense. Anyone suspected of that doesn't need a special reminder from Mr. Leblanc, that's what the police is for. The problem however is that there are groups that consider anything they don't agree with to be "hate speech". I understand that Mr. Leblanc didn't follow the trials of Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant, so he is unaware that there are special interest groups that use any legal means possible if not to silence their critics then at least to punish them by the undue process; to hurt them financially by having to pay for their own legal defense. But how come Mr. Leblanc fails to see the difference between civilized criticism and direct incitements to violence?

And another thing - Mr. Leblanc elaborates, that we ought to prevent hate speech and incitements to violence "particularly when it involves minority communities". Now it's me who just can't see the difference. Why is it so important for Mr. Leblanc to highlight the wrongness of hate speech "when it involves minority communities" as opposed to hate speech that doesn't involve minorities? If hate speech is wrong - it's wrong no matter what group is the one to be targeted. But if Leblanc believes that it's ok for group A to say some things against group B while group B can't respond in kind - maybe we should remind him of the section 15 of the Charter which proclaims that every individual is equal before the law - at least theoretically.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Pro-Choice? Then How About Supporting THIS Kind Of Choice?

Bill C-510, a bill to ban coercing women to have an abortion, was introduced on Wednesday by a Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge.
OTTAWA, April 14, 2010 ( - This afternoon Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, the chair of the pro-life caucus in the Canadian Parliament, introduced a private members bill seeking to stop intimidation and pressure on women to have abortions against their will. Bruinooge said he was inspired to draw up the bill based on the case of a woman from his home town whose boyfriend attempted to coerce her into an abortion.

“We hear stories of women being pressured and threatened and intimidated into having abortions against their will,” explained Bruinooge. “When a woman submits to ending the life of her unborn child because someone else pressured her into, then that abortion is coerced.”

Bruinooge warned that, “Coercion can escalate into violence. Many women have been forced into unwanted abortions; others have been injured or killed for resisting, like Roxanne Fernando, in whose memory I have named this bill.”
The bill makes it a crime to coerce or attempt to coerce a woman to have an abortion against her will. It specifically excludes physicians that, in their best medical judgment, propose an intervention which may result in loss of a baby, as a necessary step to avoid serious threat to mother's health. And it has NOTHING, absolutely nothing about personhood of the unborn, or about the legal status of the abortion itself.

Section 3 of the bill defines coercion as follows:
(a) committing, attempting to commit, or threatening to commit physical harm to the female person, the child or another person;

(b) committing, attempting to commit or threatening to commit any act prohibited by any provincial or federal law;

(c) denying or removing, or making a threat to deny or remove, financial support or housing from a person who is financially dependent on the person engaging in the conduct; and

(d) attempting to compel by pressure or intimidation including argumentative and rancorous badgering or importunity;
Is there any reason why any of the above mentioned actions should not be prohibited?

Again, we're not talking about criminalizing or restricting abortions in any way. We're not talking about trying in any way to legislate personhood of the unborn baby. We're not talking about preventing physicians from recommending an abortion to those women who seek it. The bill merely ensures that if a woman chooses abortion - that's actually her choice, not her parent's choice, not her lover's choice, not her employer's or landlord's choice - her choice.

So there's absolutely no need for Stephen Harper to try to distance himself and his government from bill C-510. If anything - a bill like that should be accepted unanimously by all 4 parties. Because if the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc declare themselves "pro-choice" - they should also support a woman's choice not to have an abortion.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Immigration And Freedom — At Least One Party Says It The Way It Is

Too bad, this party holds no seats in either chamber of our Parliament. Yes, I'm talking about the Christian Heritage Party:
The position of CHP Canada is very clear. The very essence of citizenship implies an oath of loyalty and unity of all people who desire to become citizens of Canada. Immigrants, although proud of their own cultural heritage, have a duty to pledge allegiance to the land which they have chosen to call home.

A clear understanding must exist and be communicated that new citizens are accepted on our terms and not theirs. Patriotism and loyalty to Canada, and our democratic values and morals, demand that previously held traditions and legal systems alien to Canada must be considered a thing of the past.
Immigrants and refugees must abide by Canadian laws and agree to forego or abandon practices and traditions that are contrary to ours such as:
  1. Sharia Law — e.g. honour killings.
  2. Bondage — e.g. enforced wearing of burqa or face covering when applying for or receiving public services.
  3. Gang violence — e.g. Mexican drug wars.
  4. Religious beliefs that run contrary to the Charter in that they demean individuals, jeopardize people's safety, etc.
  5. Terrorism — e.g. promoting and supporting subversive terrorist groups (like al-Qaeda and its many offshoots, or the Tamil Tigers) in their country of origin and/or worldwide.
All such practices that constitute a violation of the signed pledge and must be considered serious enough to warrant deportation back to the country of origin.
This was published just a day or two after a machete attack on a Jewish student at Carleton University; an attack that the mainstream media refused to cover. But that must be just an overreaction. It's not like some groups tend to bring their ethnic clashes and hatred with them to Canada, isn't it? It is? Then it must be our fault. It must be because we weren't tolerant and accommodating enough. Oh, if we could just join hands and accept others!
Moreover, I was guilty of "democratic racism" -- by which we apply ostensibly race-neutral principles such as "due process," constantly demanding clear "evidence" of wrongdoing, rather than confronting prima facie instances of racism head-on. "It seems we're always looking for more proof," said the instructor, an energetic left-wing activist who's been teaching this course for several years. "When it comes to racism, you have to trust your gut."
Here's another vision of how we should overcome the challenges of multiculturalism. Well, it's up to you to choose which one you like better; which approach sounds like common sense to you...

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Mary Wagner — Another Pro-Life Prisoner Of Conscience

Linda Gibbons has spent years behind bars for trying to speak up for unborn babies. Now, another pro-life woman has been thrown into the very same prison, for the very same thoughtcrime:
TORONTO, April 13, 2010 ( - Mary Wagner from the Vancouver, British Columbia area has spent the past four years in a Catholic convent in France, which she says she felt called to leave in order to share Jesus' love with those involved with abortion – a calling that has most recently landed her in a Toronto prison.

On Monday, March 29, during Holy Week, Mary entered the "Woman's Care" abortion facility where she said she was able to "speak to a few grieving Dads, whose partners had already gone in for their abortions, and let them know about project Rachael, a support system for post abortion parents."

She also had opportunity to talk to some of the waiting mothers, but she said they seemed already committed in their hearts to the deed they had undertaken.

"The darkness there was palpable," Mary observed.

After 45 minutes Mary said the police arrived and escorted her away from the facility.

On Tuesday, March 30, Mary again went to witness to life, this time to the "Choice in Health" abortion center, where she said she was able to talk directly to the owner of the abortuary and to counsel women, abortion workers, and police for nearly 45 minutes before she was carried away by officers.
She is now detained as a pro-life prisoner of conscience at the Vanier Women's Detention Center. This is the same location where Canadian pro-life heroine Linda Gibbons is being held on similar charges.

Readers are encouraged to write letters of support to Mary Wagner, as well as continuing to write to Linda Gibbons.

The address is:
Vanier Centre for Women
665 Martin St.
Milton Ontario
L9T 5E6
No wonder why Ontario fails to battle violent crime. Their police force is too busy fighting pro-life women, so they just don't have the time and manpower for the tough guys with guns and knives.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Free Speech On Campus? Only If The University Agrees With What You Say

If they do - they may even make a stand for your right to express your thoughts. If they don't - the very same university could threaten you with arrest and trespassing charges:
CALGARY, April 9, 2010 ( - Two weeks after the University of Calgary defended a presentation by controversial American conservative Ann Coulter by touting its status as a haven for free speech, the university has threatened a group of pro-life students with arrest and sanctions for expressing their views on abortion.

On Thursday, Campus Pro-life, the University of Calgary’s pro-life club, set up a pro-life display on campus - the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP).

Last year, the university charged the pro-life students with trespassing for erecting the same display, which has been displayed on campus peacefully and without incident twice per year since 2006. The crown prosecutors withdrew the charges prior to trial, however.

But in an e-mail sent to the students' lawyer Thursday, the university against stated that it “requires that Campus Pro-Life turn the Genocide Awareness Project signs inward so that the University community does not have to view them," and threatened the students with sanctions for non-academic misconduct.
So, what about other groups that stage controversial presentations? Does the same rule, which requires controversial displays to be turned inwards, apply to let's say a homosexual club and its presentations? Or is this something that applies exclusively to pro-lifers?

Somehow, I believe it's the latter. After all, if there was actually a by-law on the books that forbade controversial presentations - the university authorities wouldn't need to resort to trespassing charges, they could merely quote the by-law to prove their point. And yet, that's exactly what they've never done.

And here's another similar story from another part of the country: the so called "student society" of the McGill university, out of great kindness, has agreed to reinstate the club status of the pro-life group Choose Life. With plenty of strings attached:
In particular, the document stipulates that "Choose Life will not advocate or lobby for the criminalization of abortion through the use of SSMU resources."

"It's really important that resources from student fees are allocated in a way that reflects our policies, constitution, and ethical practices," said VP University Affairs Rebecca Dooley. "However, if a group wants to take a position, we cannot prevent them from taking that position as long as they are not using our resources to do so."
Paraphrasing the old saying about the Model T Ford, sure, you can have a pro-life group on campus. As long as it doesn't speak up against abortion.

And, if the "student society" is that concerned about its members' fees (now, that's a rare occasion,) then what about the pro-life students? Don't they too pay membership dues? If they are forced to be members of this Komsomol-like organization, (simply because it's mandatory for all full-time students,) then don't they have the right to have at least some of their own money directed towards a campaign that they support? So what right does the so called "student society" have to single them out and impose gag rules?
"At some level this is a double standard," Cernek said. "Other groups on campus use displays of graphic images in open, public spaces to further their points. Not even that anyone [from Choose Life] had an overwhelming desire at this moment to mount one of these displays. We just thought that we should have the right to."

Olle, however, emphasized that in this situation the Equity Committee was acting as a regulator.
Cernek said he is hopeful that this appendix will help strengthen relations between SSMU and Choose Life next year.
In other words - forget about any more Genocide Awareness Project presentations on McGill campus. Because you see, when it comes to free speech in our universities, pro-life students are less equal than others.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

UN Official Wants The Pope Arrested

The anti-Catholic hate campaign has reached new highs:
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) In London last Friday, a high ranking United Nations (UN) jurist called on the British government to detain Pope Benedict XVI during his upcoming visit to Britain, and send him to trial in the International Criminal Court (ICC) for “crimes against humanity.”

Geoffrey Robertson touted his status as a UN judge in an article he published last week claiming that jurists should invoke the same procedures that have been used to indict war criminals such as Slobodan Milosevic. To try the Pope as head of the Roman Catholic Church who is ultimately responsible for sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests.
Another human rights lawyer told the Friday Fax that the article could be part of a broader campaign. Robertson has long campaigned to strip the Holy See of its permanent observer status at the UN, and has publicly referred to the Holy See “the world’s largest NGO.”
That explains it. Obviously it's not the abuse that concerns G.Robertson and his fellow anti-Catholic bigots. They know that the accusations against the Pope are so ridiculous that they won't withstand even in this self-proclaimed mondialist Star Chamber which Robertson has the dishonor to represent. But if they keep repeating those lies - that may contribute to their efforts to discredit and marginalize the Catholic Church:
Practically speaking, this marginalization will mean that the Pope will not be welcome in certain countries as the political pressure to exclude him, based on the lies and distortions like the one we have seen with the New York Times article, will mount exponentially. They’ve already tried at the U.N. The Catholic Church has been the opposing force for decades in scuttling the Western nations’ frantic attempts to get abortion included in the language of “reproductive rights”. With the Catholic Church out of the way, so many roads become unobstructed for the brave new world and socialist utopia of the population controllers.

It will be a collaborative effort, beginning with a few of the more anti-Catholic countries in Europe. If the Pope is able to visit these countries, it will be merely as a pastoral visit and not as a head of state. But this will be practically impossible to do in any case.

The shepherd will be struck and the sheep will scatter. Once our Shepherd has been isolated among many of the western nations, the persecution of the Church in these countries will then grow exponentially. The Church will lose many of its benefits and even rights. In some cases, the Church will be driven underground, with Catholics unable to worship in public. After the institutional church is attacked, individual Catholics will be targeted. This attack will be concurrent with the attack on other Christian churches and communities as well, to the extent that they refuse to abandon traditional moral principles.

That is why Catholics need to understand clearly what is at stake with the new anti-Catholic bigotry. It’s nothing less than our right to worship and to be free from discrimination and persecution.
The Pope knew this was coming. But he still needs our support. The Knights of Columbus invite everybody to join a novena prayer for the Pope. Please consider sacrificing a few minutes of your time to pray for Our Holy Father.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Oregon Doctor Warns Canadians to Reject Euthanasia Legislation

He knows what legal euthanasia / assisted suicide looks like. And he warns Canadians against falling into the same trap:
Dr. Toffler writes that, "Since assisted suicide has become an option in my state of Oregon, I have had at least a dozen patients discuss this choice with me in my practice. Most of the patients who have broached this issue weren’t even terminal."

"Many studies show that assisted suicide requests are almost always for psychological or social reasons," Dr. Toffler observes. "In Oregon there has never been any documented case of assisted suicide used because there was actual untreatable pain. As such, assisted suicide has been totally unnecessary in Oregon."

Furthermore, "the legislation passed in Oregon does not require that the patient have unbearable suffering, or any suffering at all for that matter."

In his practice Dr. Toffler has found that requests for suicide are very often cries for help rather that demands for death.

"How physicians respond to the patient’s request has a profound effect, not only on a patient’s choices, but also on their view of themselves and their inherent worth."

"When a patient says, 'I want to die'; it may simply mean, 'I feel useless.' When a patient says, 'I don’t want to be a burden'; it may really be a question, 'Am I a burden?' When a patient says, 'I’ve lived a long life already'; they may really be saying, 'I’m tired. I’m afraid I can’t keep going.' And, finally, when a patient says, 'I might as well be dead'; they may really be saying, 'No one cares about me.'"
Some euthanasia supporters want it to be legalized on the grounds that it's already being practiced illegally. If anything - that's an argument against them. If that's the way those doctors act while euthanasia and assisted suicide are still illegal, we can only imagine the slaughter that is going to take place should they succeed in their attempt to legalize direct and intentional actions that cause another person's death.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Don't Do It, New Brunswick!

N.S. bets N.B. will jack up taxes, too - reads the headline in The Chronicle Herald. Don't do it, NB! - says one of the commenters to my previous blog post. He has a point - don't do it, NB! Don't backtrack from your tax reform plan.

New Brunswick tried raising taxes already. Back in 2007, the government announced a 5% personal income tax hike to avoid a possible deficit, boosting middle-income tax rate to over 15% - the highest in Canada. The consequences were immediate; some people just voted with their feet, moving to other provinces where taxes were lower. Luckily, the provincial government was quick to realize that they had made a mistake - and in the following year they came up with the plan to lower personal and business income taxes to 12% and 8% respectively.

It's a great plan that will restore business-friendly climate in the province, making it attractive to entrepreneurs. It will contribute to job creation and eliminate punitive taxation on hard-working individuals and single-income families. I sincerely hope that in the general election (which is just 5 months away,) both major parties resist the temptation to backtrack from the plan in an attempt to make room for more costly campaign promises. I hope, both parties commit to continue the tax reform unabated.

But what about the deficit? There are other ways to balance the books beside raising taxes. The government should take advantage of the low interest rates and try to restructure at least some of the provincial debt - that could slash roughly $300M from the deficit. Then there's the zero based budgeting that would make it easier to spot and eliminate wasteful program expenses. And, of course, the government needs to set its priorities straight. Offering a $50M bailout for a failing business, (on top of the business tax cuts that have already been implemented,) when the province has a $624M deficit - that's not a good idea.

But raising taxes is a far worse idea. Right now, NB is expecting to balance its books by 2014/15 - in spite of all the tax cuts that are still planned for 2011 and 2012. NS is expecting to eliminate the deficit a year earlier - in 2013/14. As we can see, those tax hikes don't make that much of a difference. Moreover, it turns out that in spite of all the tax hikes, NS is actually going to have a bigger deficit in 2011-12 than they're going to have this year ($370M vs $222M). And if some of those 7000 Nova Scotians whose marginal tax rate is going to exceed 52% choose to move some 300-400km to the west and take their businesses with them - we may even see New Brunswick balancing its books sooner than Nova Scotia.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

"Status Of Women" Against Crisis Pregnancy Centers

SOW bureaucrats paid radical pro-aborts $27,400 for a report discrediting Crisis Pregnancy Centers:
Patricia Maloney's Run with Life is new to the blogosphere, but she has an interesting scoop.

She has discovered, through an Access to Information Request that Status of Women Canada funded Pro-Can to write a report panning CPC's (Crisis Pregnancy Centres).

The grant was for $27 400.

Check out this quote from the application:
[The goal of this project is to] ..publicly expose the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPCs..
It's about time someone told the feminists that their ideology is not the Gospel truth to what is or is not pro- or anti-women.

Just because they say they are for equality doesn't make them so!
Here's a brief description of the Crisis Pregnancy Centers and their functions. Judge for yourself if these organizations are "anti-woman":
CPCs are organizations that provide support and information to pregnant women who choose to keep their unborn child or decide to give the child up for adoption. These centers are alternatives to abortion clinics, both for the support they provide and for the information they give. These centers don't just help women who choose to give birth, but even those who haven't made a decision yet whether to abort or not. Many of these centers also help women who have already had abortions and are grieving.

Now these centers (CPCs also exist in the US) are under attack as radical feminist organizations try to maintain their any-time, any-reason, publicly funded access to abortion.
So, if Crisis Pregnancy Centers save lives, and abortion destroys lives; why did our government fund these radical feminists, but not crisis pregnancy centres? Patricia Maloney asks that question on her blog. And the answer is - most likely they just didn't notice what exactly they were funding. Just like they didn't notice that one of their "tourism" grants actually went towards funding a perverse "pride" parade in Toronto. It was on the list - a nameless item with some 4- or 5-digit serial number...

That however doesn't mean that we should excuse the respective cabinet minister for failing to notice and block the grant. After all, once the uproar over the $400K grant to a perverse "pride" event in Toronto reached a certain magnitude, a reorganization in some form took place. Next time, when a group from Montreal applied for a similar grant, the grant was rejected. In other words, if we give James Moore the same scolding Diane Ablonczy got last year, we can look forward for the next $27,400 SOW grant to go to an organization that actually saves babies' lives, not to the one that takes them away for the sake of some radical ideology.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

It's Tough To Be A Taxpayer

Especially in Quebec and Nova Scotia. Both provinces have not only taken away the tax breaks, brought in by the Conservative government, but they've also added a few tax hikes on top of that.

In Quebec, they're adding yet another percentage point to the QST, effective 2012 (on top of the previously budgeted increase from 7.5% to 8.5% in 2011). The province raises gas taxes, (allowing big cities to add their own levy on top of that,) increases user fees and tuition fees and, here's the nastiest of them all - introduces healthcare premiums; up to $200 a year by 2012. It looks like Quebecers are getting the worst of the two worlds. They get both higher taxes and higher user fees. And they can look forward for even more cash grab - this time, in form of a health deductible - with no trade-offs such as income tax cuts.

In Nova Scotia, the government chose not to bother with the two-year phase-ins. The HST goes from 13% to 15% effective July 1st. Plus, the government is creating a 21% income tax rate "for the rich". (23.1%, if you factor in the 10% surtax.) With the 29% federal income tax on top of that, this amounts to a 52.1% marginal tax rate (something we haven't seen since mid 1990's) on those making over $150,000 a year. (Which is not that much for a single-income family in Halifax.) Nova Scotia thus becomes the only jurisdiction in Canada, where every extra dollar above a certain threshold yields more to the government than to the person who has actually earned it. Anyone else is willing to experiment with an NDP government?

Both provinces use the deficit as an excuse for this barrage of tax hikes. But nowhere does it say that those tax hikes will be reversed once the deficit is gone. Moreover - if the governments are unwilling to exercise fiscal restraint when the revenues are down and the deficit is soaring, can we trust them to start cutting taxes when the economy is good and everybody is looking forward for more freebies from the government? One of the Nova Scotia NDP's campaign promises was to cut program spending by 1% to avoid tax hikes. What happened to that promise?

But the provinces still need the extra revenue, don't they? Well, how much of that extra revenue will have to be spent on "solidarity credits" and all other tax breaks and rebates, designed to ease the effect of the recent tax hikes on the low income earners? And then - how much revenue will be lost, because the taxpayers just don't like the idea of having to pay more in taxes than they are allowed to keep?
We reported in May that after passing a millionaire surtax nearly one-third of Maryland’s millionaires had gone missing, thus contributing to a decline in state revenues. The politicians in Annapolis had said they’d collect $106 million by raising its income tax rate on millionaire households to 6.25% from 4.75%. In cities like Baltimore and Bethesda, which apply add-on income taxes, the top tax rate with the surcharge now reaches as high as 9.3%-fifth highest in the nation. Liberals said this was based on incomplete data and that rich Marylanders hadn’t fled the state.

Well, the state comptroller’s office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.
The same is going to happen in Nova Scotia and Quebec. Think about it: why would someone want to run a business in Nova Scotia, where the corporate tax is 16%, sales tax is 15% and the top income tax rate is 23.1% (21%+10% surtax), when in the neighboring New Brunswick, the sales tax is 13%, the corporate tax is 11%, the top income tax rate is 14.3% and the government is on its way to reducing income taxes even further?

Monday, April 5, 2010

Easter March For Life In St.John's, NL

No, it's not an early version of Canada's annual March for Life, it's a separate event:
Today I attended a pro-life march at the Health Sciences Centre Hospital in St. John's, Newfoundland. There were around 300 people, many of whom make this pilgrimage every Good Friday. We were there to show our support to the pro-life cause and to walk peacefully against abortion.
The event seems to get larger every year. The weather was beautiful for the event, which contrasts last year where there was rain and cold. Many young families came out with children and pets. It was a very peaceful protest. We said prayers, sang songs, and conversed with each other. It was not a time to condemn those who have had abortions, but rather a time to embrace life.
We should have more marches like that from coast to coast.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Decisively Poor Choice, You Say?

Depends on how you word the question:
An Ekos poll released today trumpets that Canadians are “decisively” pro-choice. On the rather straight-forward question of “Thinking about your general views on abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or pro-choice.” I consider that a non-leading question and yet it allows for ambiguity. It says nothing about policy or restrictions. Indeed, other polls show a majority of Canadians to be “pro-choice” but favouring many limits on abortion (see my previous post and this Environics poll). For a poll that purports to show a country is “decisively” behind one position, the reality is that just over one-half of respondents think of themselves as more pro-choice than pro-life; in other words, the respondents may be accepting the typical Canadian default position of supporting “choice” although they may personally still have reservations about abortion or dislike (but tolerate) the practice. The headline implies strong support for abortion, but reading between the lines and knowing what other polls show, Canadians take a more nuanced view of abortion than Frank Graves’ outfit seems to acknowledge.
When the question is worded differently, the results too are much different. And, as this Globe and Mail poll shows, only 16% of the respondents believe that abortion is always morally acceptable. Other 26% answered "sometimes". The rest (about 59%) believe that abortion is never morally acceptable. Some of them may not yet be ready to abolish it altogether, but they don't consider it an acceptable moral choice either.

As for the question whether access to "safe abortions" should be part of a maternal health plan, the CBC online poll shows that Ignatieff and others who supported his motion are at odds with Canadians. Only 31% agree with including abortions in maternal health plan - in spite of an attempt to sugarcoat the proposal by using the words "access" and "safe". If the question simply read "should abortions be part of a maternal health plan", the number of affirmative answers would be even lower.

So, it all depends on the question you ask. Looks like some people still believe that when "choice" is mentioned - it probably means something good. That's why we have the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform whose volunteers are working hard to show what exactly the pro-aborts mean when they say "choice".

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Media War Against The Pope — Libel And Smear

First The New York Times, then the MSNBC:
“Go to the home page of MSNBC and click on ‘World News.’ From there click on ‘Americas.’ Next click on the article, ‘Losing Their Religion? Catholicism in Turmoil.’ Scroll down and in the ‘Click for Related Content’ section there is an article entitled, ‘Pope Describes Touching Boys: I Went Too Far.’ Clicking on this piece takes the reader to an article about a homosexual German priest who had sex with males in the 1980s. It says absolutely nothing about the pope. Yet MSNBC paints Pope Benedict XVI as a child molester in the tease to the article.
Sure they'll publish a retraction sooner or later. But who is going to notice the retraction and among those who notice - how many will actually be willing to accept the truth and let go of the "I went too far" lie?

Interestingly enough, according to a little-remembered study, physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests. But why would the mainstream media want to bash schools? The Pope and the Catholic church, on the other hand - that's a different story:
Deal Hudson of asked Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, "Why do media like the New York Times and the Washington Post hate the Catholic Church and the pope? What's the source of the animus?"

Donohue replied, "it stems from three issues: abortion, gay marriage, and women's ordination. So, when they can nail the Church on promiscuity, they love it. The goal is to weaken the moral authority of the Church so it won't be as persuasive on issues like health care."
That explains it, doesn't it?

Friday, April 2, 2010

Pension Reform: Liberal Delusions vs Common Sense

Let's say you have a choice between two pension plans. One is flexible - you can choose how much to invest - up to a certain limit. The other one is mandatory - the contributions are deducted from your paycheck and your employer must remit the same amount. (If you're self-employed, you have to pay for both.) The first one is directed by you and your financial adviser. It's up to you to decide the security level and the anticipated rate of return on your investments. The other plan is directed by the government. Their appointed investment board chooses where to invest the money without asking for your permission and is known to have made bad investment decisions at least twice in the past decade.

Plan one has a tax advantage: all contributions to it could be deducted at your marginal tax rate (up to 29% federally). Contributions to the second plan can only be credited at the lowest tax rate (15% federally). The first plan allows you to withdraw some (or all) of your savings if you need the money that bad - as long as you pay income tax on your withdrawals. The other plan allows no withdrawals until you turn sixty and even then - you better wait at least 5 more years unless you want your benefits to be prorated.

Finally, if you choose to increase your contributions to the first plan - you can look forward for higher benefits when you retire. If however you are mandated to contribute more to the other plan - your benefits won't increase. Moreover, you can look forward for your benefits to go down, (despite the near threefold increase in mandatory contributions since 1986,) because too many contributors are expected to start drawing for the plan all at once.

Now, imagine someone gives you the right to contribute more - not to the first plan, but to the second one; promising you that this time you could (probably) expect higher benefits when you retire. Will you be eager to invest your hard-earned money there? Will you consider this to be a good idea? Well, that's exactly what has been proposed at the Liberal 150 conference:
Former Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge is adding his voice to the debate over pension reform, calling today for a voluntary component to the Canada Pension Plan.
Nortel workers and others workers who have lost pension savings as their companies went “bust” during the recession, Mr. Dodge said reforms will not likely help them.

But there is still time to help other workers.

“Much really can be done to improve the policy framework for these plans going forward,” he said, “possibly we could have a voluntary component for the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan.”
If anything, Mr. Dodge's example speaks in favor of letting each individual manage his own retirement fund, rather encouraging people to expect someone else to do the job for them. After all, let's not forget that the CPP Investment board too used to be among those investing in Nortel - and they too ended up losing money. So, if instead of contributing directly to Nortel-managed pension plan, the employees were allowed to make voluntary contributions to the CPP, which would then invest the money in Nortel - what difference would it make?

If however, employees had been allowed to direct the very same funds that their employer was investing on their behalf to their own personal retirement plans or, if they had been allowed to opt-out of the plan altogether, so that at least their RRSP contribution room wouldn't be reduced by the "pension adjustment" factor - that would have made a difference. That would have prevented at least those who knew that they shouldn't trust someone else to take care of their pension for them, from losing their retirement savings.

So if we want to help the people put some money aside for their retirement, then, instead of trying to siphon more cash into the one-size-fits-all (-delivers-pennies) retirement plan, we better implement some real solutions that would encourage people to take control over their own retirement savings. Among them:
  1. Increase the RRSP contribution room for middle income earners by raising the percentage limit from 18% of an earned income, to 20%-22% or even higher.
  2. Allow people to opt-out of their employer's pension plan so that at least their RRSP contribution room wouldn't be reduced by the "pension adjustment" factor. Ideally it would be better if the employees were simply allowed to redirect the funds invested on their behalf to their own RRSP accounts - which would then count as a standard contribution.
  3. Instead of the bureaucracy-breeding TFSAs, implement a a full-scale tax reform, that would turn every single saving account into a TFSA by taxing dividends, interest and other investment income at business level, making those sources of income 100% tax free for individual taxpayers.
  4. Reform the CPP, gradually transforming it from a "pay as you go" plan to a set of Personal Security Accounts.
The government is launching cross-country consultations on pension reform. This is our opportunity to voice our support for the real solutions to the pension crisis and for the real alternatives to the "voluntary" increase in mandatory payroll deductions, proposed by the Liberals.