Saturday, December 31, 2011

Barren New World

Who celebrates a birth nowadays, asks Mark Steyn in his article titled "Elisabeth’s Barrenness and Ours":
We now live in Elisabeth’s world — not just because technology has caught up with the Deity and enabled women in their 50s and 60s to become mothers, but in a more basic sense. The problem with the advanced West is not that it’s broke but that it’s old and barren. Which explains why it’s broke. Take Greece, which has now become the most convenient shorthand for sovereign insolvency — “America’s heading for the same fate as Greece if we don’t change course,” etc. So Greece has a spending problem, a revenue problem, something along those lines, right? At a superficial level, yes. But the underlying issue is more primal: It has one of the lowest fertility rates on the planet. In Greece, 100 grandparents have 42 grandchildren — i.e., the family tree is upside down. In a social-democratic state where workers in “hazardous” professions (such as, er, hairdressing) retire at 50, there aren’t enough young people around to pay for your three-decade retirement. And there are unlikely ever to be again.
...
If the problem with socialism is, as Mrs. Thatcher says, that eventually you run out of other people’s money, much of the West has advanced to the next stage: It’s run out of other people, period. Greece is a land of ever fewer customers and fewer workers but ever more retirees and more government. How do you grow your economy in an ever-shrinking market? The developed world, like Elisabeth, is barren. Collectively barren, I hasten to add. Individually, it’s made up of millions of fertile women, who voluntarily opt for no children at all or one designer kid at 39. In Italy, the home of the Church, the birthrate’s somewhere around 1.2, 1.3 children per couple — or about half “replacement rate.” Japan, Germany, and Russia are already in net population decline. Fifty percent of Japanese women born in the Seventies are childless. Between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of Spanish women childless at the age of 30 almost doubled, from just over 30 percent to just shy of 60 percent. In Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, 20 percent of 40-year-old women are childless. In a recent poll, invited to state the “ideal” number of children, 16.6 percent of Germans answered “None.” We are living in Zacharias and Elisabeth’s world — by choice.
Craig Carter, the author of The Politics of the Cross Resurrected, sums it up plain and simple:
The fact is that as societies cast off the Christian beliefs of their ancestors and embrace selfish hedonism as the meaning of life, those societies die. This is not an argument for the "usefulness" of Christianity, however. One thing is clear: people cannot believe in Christianity just because it is useful. You either believe it or you don't.

But it is also clear that when a culture or a country or a nation decides to reject Christianity, the only alternative is the culture of death. The truth of Christianity can be seen in the fact that those who reject it do not find life, vigor and joy, but long, slow, economic and demographic decline into extinction.
We see that happening already. The CPP, the alternative-to-children retirement safety net is struggling to make ends meet. With the premiums having hit the psychological barrier of 5% (10% for the self-employed) they now have to change the rules, trying to encourage people to postpone their retirement beyond the age of 65.

But it's even worse in Quebec. There, simply encouraging people to stay in the workforce for a few more years is not enough - they also have to raise premiums. By 2016 (which happens to be the program's 50th anniversary,) QPP premiums are scheduled to reach 5.4% (10.8% for the self-employed) - which is exactly 3 times higher than what they were when CPP and QPP were introduced back in 1966.

No wonder, so many Quebec politicians (including many in the provincial government) are at the forefront of pushing for legal euthanasia. That too is the price to pay for abandoning the nation's Christian values for the hedonistic culture of death.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Cargo Cult Science Triumphs

Here's the difference between a real science and a cargo cult science, as described by the physicist Richard Feynman during his commencement address at the California Institute of Technology in 1974:
...But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science... It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty - a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid - not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked - to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can - if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong - to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.
So, it's not like we haven't been warned. Well, it's been 40 years since and, looking at our universities, which resemble totalitarian states, witnessing climate "scientists" twisting data that doesn't fit their alarmist theories, looking at what has been done to the education system, at poor kids being used as guinea pigs in social experiments, looking at diversity and multiculturalism, political correctness and "positive" discrimination - the obvious question is - which "progressive" theory is not in fact a cargo cult science?

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Canada's 'Human Development Plan' Is Called 'The Family'

Check out this National Post article by Tasha Kheiriddin:
This week, Canadians were confronted with yet another report extolling the benefits of Early Childhood Education (ECE), this time as early as age two. The Early Years Study 3 focuses heavily on the gains of ECE for children and the economy. It hyperbolically warns that “Our survival as a species will depend on our children acquiring the skills they will need to cope with the social and environmental revolutions of the 21st century”, implying that if we don’t properly educate Junior cradle-to-grave, we are not just letting down our kids, but the entire planet.

But the report does not talk about what is lost in ECE – and that is critical. Every benefit has a cost, and I don’t just mean financial. For every extra word a child may learn in ECE, he or she will trade something else, and those tradeoffs have to be taken into account when weighing the benefits of ECE.

The first loss is creativity. In addition to observing my toddler, let me cite two recent studies by MIT and Berkeley University, which found that direct instruction can actually limit young children’s learning. They noted that, as reported in Slate magazine and reprinted in the National Post, that “Teaching is a very effective way to get children to learn something specific… But it also makes children less likely to discover unexpected information and to draw unexpected conclusions.”

The second loss is attention. A soon-to-be published study by the University of Notre Dame shows that birth spacing – the number of years between kids – increases reading and math scores for first-born children. Why? Because the parents have more time to devote to the child before a sibling comes along. So why would parents then put their children into group care and force them to compete with a classroom of other toddlers for a teacher’s attention?
Talking about attention - if a child is tossed into a daycare from 9 to 5 (if not from 8 to 6) - how much time does he have left to spend with his family in an average weekday? Maybe, an hour or so in the morning and some two hours, three at most before bed... This may be a desired outcome for some hardcore Marxist who strongly believes in communal upbringing of children, but as a parent - is that what one would wish for a child as young as two or three?

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Quebecers Oppose Euthanasia - Despite Fancy Wording

The fancy wording, of course being the name of the committee, set up by the government of Quebec to study the issue. They could have used the medical therm - Euthanasia or even "assisted suicide", which at least remotely describes the actual subject being discussed - termination of a human life. Not to mention that they could have decided to be straightforward with the people, choosing a name that would leave no doubt about what exactly is being studied... And yet they chose a fancy euphemism such as "dying with dignity". By doing so they not only tried to put some positive light on procedures that intentionally cause another person's death. This was a clear attempt to twist the debate.

Just like the ill-famous "choice" or s-s-"marriage", the expression "dying with dignity" answers the question for us. Instead of discussing whether or not the elderly and the terminally ill should be allowed to live until natural death, we're told that to be put to death by a physician or a relative means "death with dignity" and the question is now whether or not this should be made legal. By choosing to use this "... with dignity" lie in the committee name, the Quebec government made it clear what side they are on and what exactly they wanted to hear. And yet it looks like they still didn't get what they wanted:
A study of submissions to Quebec’s public hearings on euthanasia, the Special Commission on Dying with Dignity, shows clearly that Quebecers overwhelmingly opposed legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The independent analysis of the 427 oral presentations and written submissions to the commission was conducted by Vivre dans la Dignité (Living With Dignity), a grassroots anti-euthanasia group.

The report found that only about a third (34 per cent) of those who submitted to the commission were either somewhat or strongly in favor of euthanasia. “This is a far cry from the inflated survey numbers often used in the media by advocates for legalizing or decriminalizing euthanasia in Quebec,” said Linda Couture, director of Living With Dignity. “The numbers are black and white. In the presentations to the commission there was 99 per cent agreement that palliative care is the dignified choice Quebecers want available at the end of life,” she said. “At the same time, 60 per cent of the submissions opposed any opening for euthanasia. The government’s democratic direction should be clear.”

Living with Dignity also pointed out that a further analysis of the content of the submissions of those who apparently favored euthanasia showed significant confusion between directly taking a patient’s life – outlawed under the Criminal Code – and ceasing futile treatment, which is universally acknowledged as ethical.
But, as the committee name suggests, confusing the people to get the results they wanted (or at least - those that could be interpreted as such) - was in fact their objective.

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Christmas Is For The Unborn Too

Here's another important Christmas message:
Christmas is universal.

“Behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people…A Savior has been born for you” (Luke 1:10-11).

Christ the Savior becomes man precisely for all who share human nature. He excludes nobody. The good news of Christmas is for all people of all times and places. “Joy to the world.”

In fact, so universal is this joy, that even nature shares in it: “Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion shall browse together, with a little child to guide them” (Isaiah 11:6).

All of this leads to an inescapable conclusion: Christmas is also for the unborn. The Savior has come also for the children yet living in their mothers’ wombs. The Gospel message is addressed also to our youngest brothers and sisters.

In fact, we can say it is addressed especially to them, because they are the most helpless.
That's true, and not just for Christmas. Let this Slovak monument to the child who was never born remind us, that not just Christmas, but every single day of the year is for the unborn too.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Merry Christmas

Let's remember - the first gift of Christmas was a child.


The gift of Christmas - the gift of life. Protect it. Cherish it.

Merry Christmas!

Ezra Levant & Mark Steyn: Christmas

Check out this video interview titled Christian America - Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn talk about the war on Christmas and some of the great Christmas songs.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Abortion Makes Lonely Toys Cry

Now, isn't this a touching way to reach out to people's hearts? Interestingly, this isn't a new billboard (in fact, the image was first run on the back cover of National Right to Life News on December 7, 1981). Nevertheless Niagara Region Right to Life should be commended for displaying it, for not letting such a brilliant, touching message vanish in the archives.
I am not kidding when I say that over the years the billboard has evoked some of the worse responses from our benighted opposition that I’ve ever read. Why do pro-abortionists rage against the Toy soldier?…

As a friend described it to me, “The billboard drives the pro-choice side crazy and makes pro-lifers smile because of the implicit message that children are delightfully winsome creatures who play with toys and bring joy and innocence into this jaded and materialistic world.”
Sometimes, an indirect approach works better - and this billboard is a great example. Instead of pounding the viewers yet again with a message they'd rather ignore, the billboard appeals to the emotional side; making people think back to their own childhood, remember their own old toys (those that must have been lonely for a long, long while) and - feel for those other toys, those that are to remain lonely this Christmas, because the children that could be playing with them simply weren't allowed to be born...

Thursday, December 22, 2011

No Peace For Baby Jesus

Attacks on nativity scenes become more and more widespread. Not just the opposition to having nativity scenes on public display, but real attacks:
ST. CATHARINES, Ont. - It's become something of an annual tradition in the city.

For the third straight year, the nativity display on the front lawn of city hall has been vandalized. The statues of the infant Jesus, Mary and Joseph were spray-painted red and a cardboard sign was left beside the display with the phrase, "Keep the state separate from religion" written on it.
...
Vandals have attacked the display several times over the last few years, damaging the statues of animals and wise men, and even stealing a baby Jesus statue.

McMullan said whoever is responsible has mistaken the display as an endorsement of a particular religion by the city. The holiday displays at city hall, which include displays for other religious festivals and a large Christmas tree, are meant to reflect the multicultural nature of the city, he said.
Judging from a similar attack that took place earlier in another Ontario town, even when a nativity scene is on private property (including church lawn) - that doesn't protect it from being vandalized. So it's not about using public property for a religious display. It's about public display of Christian faith, Christian traditions and Christian culture - that's what is being targeted nowadays.

If such an attack was carried out against a display, a parade or an exhibit of some other culture or lifestyle choice - this would be regarded as a "hate crime". But when it comes to Christianity - it's presumed that, being a religion of the majority, it can never be a target of "hate crimes" and therefore - doesn't need such protection.

If anything - the twisted logic of multiculturalism suggests that, for the sake of "equality", nation's founding religion, culture and heritage should be held back to make room for others. Vandalism against Christian displays as well hijacking of public spaces by "devout atheists" (with the sole purpose of keeping the nativity scenes out,) derive from the very same principles.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Hearing The Heartbeat

Check out this Life Site News article:
The heartbeat I will hear resounds from a heart that began forming two or three weeks after conception. By the fifth week it started to beat and pump blood through much of the body. When we hear it, twenty weeks into Cindy’s pregnancy, his or her tiny heart will beat at roughly twice the rate of my wife’s – a rate that was jarring and even frightening when I first heard Joseph’s heart beat five years ago. I remember tears welling up in my eyes as I wondered aloud, how could something so tiny and so young beat so quickly, with such strength, and so perfectly?

I’d been dwelling upon this sound and these memories when I encountered the opening remarks from Ann Furedi at the “Battle of Ideas” meeting in the United Kingdom. Furedi, CEO of the largest abortion provider in the UK, stated, “I accept that abortion stops a beating heart and I accept that abortion ends a potential human life, even in the very earliest weeks of pregnancy”
...
Furedi’s quote, however, uses the dehumanizing phrase often employed by supporters of abortion, “potential human life.” On the contrary, that which is in the womb is a human being in the embryonic or fetal stage and a human life with great potential.
Exactly. An unborn baby is not a "future child", but a child with the future. This is not a "potential life", but a life with potential.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

More Censorship From So Called "Student Unions"

Again, pro-life students are denied official club status on campus - this time, in Fredericton, NB. The official reason cited by the "student union" was lack of information. But, considering that one of the union councilors also happens to be an "escort" at the Morgentaler's abortuary, the real reason for rejection is quite obvious:
The pro-life students stated in their application that they were “committed to proclaiming, celebrating, and defending the dignity of all human beings from conception to natural death,” adding that their club would look to educating the “students and faculty of UNB and the public on current life issues, directing them to pro-life resources such as crisis pregnancy and post abortion counselling centres.”

However, Student Union council members criticized the pro-life group, calling their beliefs “controversial,” “touchy,” and “negative.”

“This group is negative and should not be recognized. Being an escort at the clinic and dealing with these groups on a weekly basis, I do not think they should have support because of the harassment on a weekly basis,” said Councillor Glenwright during the Student Union’s November 6th meeting.

Their application was stalled at that time until additional information could be provided.
And again there's a question not just about freedom of speech on campuses (which, as we've already learned, is barely existing,) but also about the freedom of association and whether or not it includes the right NOT to associate. Why should students be forced to be members of a union that marginalizes them? Not to mention that these so called "student unions" are in itself redundant entities, with no real purpose other than their own existence. Without the union, or, if the students could simply opt-out of membership and transfer their dues directly to their own club, they would be much better off.

Monday, December 19, 2011

Christmas Cards To Linda Gibbons

A woman who's never caused any harm, is to spend yet another Christmas in jail. Please consider supporting the pro-life heroine:
Linda has been arrested again on Friday, Dec 17 and will spend Christmas in jail. I am sure that she would appreciate cards. The address is below. Please be sure not to include anything with your card, do not use mailing labels, both Linda's address and your return address must be written out. Do not ask questions about what jail is like or what goes on in jail. This only has the effect of making life harder for Linda, as all correspondence is opened and read.

With that in mind, your tone of encouragement and support may have an effect upon prison administration, so be aware of that. We don't want to make this harder for Linda. Bless all those involved in this situation.

Linda Gibbons
c/o Vanier Center for Women
655 Martin Street, Box 1040
Milton, Ontario L9T 5E6, Canada
If mailed tonight, there's still a chance it will be received before Christmas.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Is Conservative New Media Worth As Much As The Occupods?

Think about it:
Conservative Bloggers, despite their massive success at wrecking up the leftist narrative, are the chopped liver, ugly unwanted stepchildren, of the American right. What else could explain the stunning lack of support for the dextrosphere by the very people who directly benefit from the largely thankless work that Conservative Bloggers do every single day?

Datechguy explains that the #occupy mobs raked in tens of thousands of dollars from liberals, just so that they could squat in parks (often enjoying gourmet food, at least in NYC anyway) and publicly defecate while wailing about how unfair their lives are, but Conservative Bloggers (who exposed all the #occupy crimes and depravity that the media tried to bury) can barely pay their bills. Hell, I can't even buy a can of fricken coffee right now and traffic here is at an all time high!

Is conservative new media worth as much as the occupods?
Here's an awkward question. We don't have to go far for an example, just look at the Life Site News struggling to raise money that is needed to merely keep the website going. And it isn't any easier for professional journalists, who face extra challenges all the way from high school and college where being a Conservative - that alone means swimming against the current.

It's a tough choice - either to stay faithful to your convictions and remain a part-time blogger, practically, an amateur who's got nothing but evening and weekends left for his writing - or - to overstep your convictions just a little bit (start with playing devil's advocate and take it further) - and to become a respected professional journalist, reporter, writer... If it's the left that pays the piper - is it surprising that so many choose to play to the tune?

Saturday, December 17, 2011

New Stage Of The War On Christmas

As Michael Coren reports in his Toronto Sun article, things have gone far beyond merely re-branding Christmas as a secular festival. Now, even Santa often faces exclusion, as christophobic fanatics seek to abolish even the cultural cosmetics of Christmas:
This is nothing compared to the school district in Forth Worth, Texas, that banned Santa from its premises, and disallowed Christmas celebrations, including the giving of presents by students.

Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee has steadfastly and proudly refused to call the decorated tree in the State Capitol a Christmas tree, and instead refers to it as a Holiday tree.
...
One thing to stress in all this is that it’s not always a case of expunging God, Jesus, and Christianity from December 25, but also eliminating Santa and Frosty.

So the attack on religion was joined long ago by an outright blitzkrieg against even the cultural cosmetics of Christmas. It’s partly anti-Christian, but also anti-western, and this should not be forgotten.

And it’s incredibly powerful.
In Soviet Union they re-branded the New Year's Eve to incorporate some of the Christmas traditions, including Christmas tree (which became the New Year's Tree) and Santa (Grandfather Frost) who brings presents. But even that would be way too European, too exclusive of other cultures for the self-hating zealots that seek to airbrush not just Christianity, but all memories of their nations' European heritage.

PEI Stands Firm Against Pro-Abort Lobbying

So far, both major political parties are committed to keep abortion off the Island:
CHARLOTTETOWN, December 16, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The health minister of the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island, Doug Currie, has again told a newly formed pro-abortion group that is agitating for expansion of abortion services in Canada’s only abortion-free province, that the existing status quo will not be changed.
...
In November, Currie pledged to keep the province abortion-free, telling The Guardian newspaper, “Right now, I see no reason to veer off the current status. I see nothing changing and the status quo is in place and that’s my position on it right now.”

Prince Edward Island’s Opposition health critic, James Aylward, endorsed the government’s position as well, telling the media, “We are in agreement with the government that, at this time, their position on this issue is not changing.”
Obviously, the story doesn't end here. Hopefully the PEI government stays firm even in spite of a lawsuit or a "human rights" complaint, as the pro-aborts will most likely pursue legal action to get what they want.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Oh, What Would We Do Without The Liberals

From the tone of Jean Chretien's fundraising letter, it almost looks like he believes that we owe everything that makes Canada great, to the modern Liberal party:
Mr. Chrétien notes that he was first elected in 1963 when there was no medicare or Canada Pension Plan, Canadian flag or Charter of Rights. Nor was there a Clarity Act – which his government brought in to define the rules around holding a referendum should Quebec contemplate separation.
It almost sounds as if Canada didn't even exist as a nation back in 1963. Yet, much to the surprise of Mr. Chretien & Co, it did; Canada has been a nation since 1867, not since 1965. And, believe it or not, Canada did have a national flag back in 1963 - the Canadian Red Ensign, which used to incorporate Canadian symbols (including the Maple Leaf) as well as references to Canada's British roots and even its French heritage. That the Red Ensign was later replaced, doesn't necessarily mean it was any less of a Canadian flag than the Maple Leaf.

Same with the Charter - it too didn't come out of thin air. Remember - "I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong...". That was said by John Diefenbaker, in 1960, about the Canadian Bill of Rights, enacted that year. While dismissed by many as having limited effect, the Canadian Bill of Rights was in fact an effective means of protecting real rights and fundamental freedoms.

It included property rights - something you won't find in the Charter. It stood for real equality, without labeling any sort of discrimination "positive" or "affirmative". And the preamble of the Canadian Bill of Rights mentioned the dignity and worth of the human person, the position of the family in a free society, the respect for moral and spiritual values... All these noble principles were stricken out by Pierre Trudeau's government two decades later.

Yes, the more time passes, the more obvious it becomes that under the guise of patriating the Constitution, Trudeau practically rewrote Canada's fundamental Human Rights law of the time, enshrining his own party principles and entitlements for his support groups while leaving behind everything that didn't fit the Trudeaupean vision of Canada. So, when it comes to protecting our rights, not only it wasn't the Liberal party that initiated the move, but, if anything, the Liberals' contribution is actually negative, they actually took away from what we used to have three decades ago.

What else is there? Healthcare? Wrong again! In 1957, the Diefenbaker federal government passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. By 1961, all ten provinces had agreed to start HIDS Act programs. The CPP? Oh, yeah, that mandatory plan, which has nearly tripled the premiums (and they're going even higher in Quebec) over the last 25 years, without increasing the benefits. The RRSPs were introduced in early 1950s and the Old Age Security has been around since 1920s.

Oh, yes, and eliminating the deficit. That is an accomplishment. Unless we mention that it was Trudeau who got Canada into runaway deficits in the first place. Public debt went up from $19B in 1968 to $157B in 1984 and, since the interest rates were at all-time high - that's what brought us these enormous deficits of the Mulroney era.

It's also worth mentioning that it was Joe Clark who first sounded the idea of gradually eliminating the deficits - a task his government could have accomplished by late 1980s - if it had stayed in power. Or that it was Mulroney who planted seeds for the long-term growth (not only with NAFTA, but also with his tax reform that eased the burden on the economy by merely simplifying the system) which allowed Chretien's government to end the deficits, while Chretien himself left behind Kyoto - well knowing that its targets could not be achieved without severely damaging the economy.

So, contrary to Chretien assertions, it's not like Canada really benefited from electing the Liberals into power back in 1963. (Rather the opposite.) Chretien probably realizes that too, so he resorts to that decade-old "hidden agenda" myth in his fundraising letter. And, by the way, here's a good question: why did a fundraising letter become a newspaper article? Has the Globe and Mail become the official fundraising agent of the Liberal Party of Canada?

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Want To Be Canadian Citizen? Don't Hide Your Face!

It might be a symbolic gesture, but it's a step in the right direction. And an important message to all those who defy Canada's founding culture and values, demanding instead special accommodation for whatever culture they brought with them: maybe they picked the wrong country to call home.
QMI Agency reported Monday that new regulations require Muslims to unveil themselves of niqabs and burkas to obtain citizenship.

"We are all coming together as Canadians at that moment in a public ceremony and -- you know what? -- if you don't like it, if you feel uncomfortable, then maybe you chose the wrong country in the first place," said Kenney.

The minister scoffed at suggestions that Muslim women could be taken to a side room for a mini ceremony where they could wear the niqab with a female bureaucrat present.

"I said, 'No, no, no, no, no.' We're not going to have two tiers of citizens, we're not going to treat people differently," he said on The Source, a Sun News TV program.
It's a great start. Now it's about time to reintroduce the bill that would ban veiled voting - for the very same reason. After all, if people should no longer be allowed to hide their faces while making a citizenship oath - while should we allow them to hide their faces at the polling station?

Monday, December 12, 2011

Finally - Canada Withdraws From Kyoto

This is surely a good news, although I find the future tense quite disturbing:
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada will formally withdraw from the Kyoto protocol on climate change, Environment Minister Peter Kent said on Monday.

"As we've said, Kyoto for Canada is in the past ... We are invoking our legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto," he told reporters.
Sun News Network is using the present tense, so hopefully, Canada's withdrawal from Kyoto is after all a "fait accompli". Well, I'm glad Canada is about to officially withdraw from this Orwellian war on hot air. It's about time we dump the faulty "protocol" that fights relatively harmless Carbon Dioxide, instead of addressing real air and water pollution, that excludes such key emitters as India and China and that practically penalizes Canada for its population growth.

Let me reiterate - Kyoto targets for Canada are set as if its population was still 27 million; Canada gets no credit for resettling millions of immigrants from Kyoto-exempt nations, let alone for its natural population increase. Trying to achieve these targets will result in nothing but a sharp reduction in standards of living, not to mention the transfer of at least $14 billion from Canadian taxpayers to other countries. And for what?

The opposition is upset that our government "is abdicating its international responsibilities". What "international responsibilities"?! Our government government must be responsible first and foremost to its citizens. In fact, that's what it was originally called - responsible government. And it's about time our government starts to act as such. Sure, we may not yet see a full-scale return to the principles of a responsible national government, but this move shows one clear advantage of a Conservative government over that led by any other major party.

As for the "the science of climate change" - first of all, that "science" has to prove that there is actually a climate change, that the climate doesn't merely return to what it used to be before the "Little Ice Age". And then, the burden is on them to prove that this climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions and not by solar activity. There are way too many scientists that challenge the theory of man-made global warming to consider the science settled.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Canadian Universities Given Failing Grade On Free Speech

Pro-Life groups most affected:
The 2011 Campus Freedom Index rates 18 public universities, and their student unions, in terms of their commitment to upholding the rights of students to express their beliefs, opinions and philosophy on campus.

No Canadian university was found to rate “good” in all categories, however the University of New Brunswick, the University of British Columbia, and Simon Fraser University received the best marks.

Carleton University, the University of Western Ontario, and the University of Calgary were ranked the worst.

The introduction to the Index states that one of the biggest threats to free speech in Canada comes from universities which condone illegal activities on the part of people who interfere with, and effectively shut down the events and speeches of people they disagree with. It notes that universities in Ottawa, Montreal, Waterloo, Halifax, Vancouver, and Calgary have turned a blind eye to people physically obstructing and disrupting speech with which they disagree.
No surprise here, especially when so many universities believe that their campuses are somehow exempt from the constitutional provisions that guarantee freedom of speech. And even when the university doesn't mind the debate on a controversial subject - there are so called student unions, which are by all means redundant bodies, with no real purpose but playing useless politics and censoring opinions they don't like.

I believe it's time for a law that would affirm freedom of speech on campuses and make "student union" membership voluntary (on an "opt-in" rather than "opt-out" basis). These should be the first steps to ensure that universities no longer pose one of the biggest threat to freedom of speech in Canada.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Letter From LifeCanada to PEI Health Minister

Natalie Hudson Sonnen, executive director of LifeCanada writes to Douglas Currie, PEI Minister of Health and Wellness, responding to the resent barrage of demands to bring abortion back to PEI:
Dear Minister Currie,

I am writing to you on behalf of our 84 member groups across Canada regarding the recent issue of abortion access on Prince Edward Island.

LifeCanada is a national educational organization that is dedicated to the promotion and protection of human dignity at all stages of human life. We firmly believe that elective abortion has nothing to do with health or wellness and that the wisdom of previous governments to keep it off the Island should be upheld and respected.

We are concerned by the erroneous assumption, as stated in a CBC News article on Nov. 24th by Dr. Richard Wedge, executive director of medical affairs for Health PEI that, "The Supreme Court has said that access to legal abortions is a medically necessary service.” This is not, in fact, true. The Supreme Court of Canada never made any such statement, because it is strictly under provincial jurisdiction to decide what is or isn’t medically necessary. Elective abortion is neither medically necessary, nor does it treat a disease. Rather, it is a personal choice that ends a healthy pregnancy.

The plethora of medical and scientific evidence show that abortion is a detrimental personal choice that increases the risk of physical and psychological harm to the mother and is obviously fatal to the child, who ought to be considered a second patient. (The research compiled in the DeVeber Institute's book Women's Health After Abortion is evidence of this fact. http://www.deveber.org/womens-health-after-abortion)

Let me remind you that LifeCanada’s annual Environics polls consistently show that the majority of Canadians (72%) do not support the current status quo in Canada whereby there is no legal protection for the unborn until birth. Our polling also indicates that a majority of Canadians (67%) do not want to pay for abortions either.

We urge you to continue to keep a procedure off the Island that is not only highly contentious due to its very nature (that it kills a new human being), but that it is egregiously harmful to the women who choose to undergo it.

We urge PEI and the other provinces of Canada to put tax dollars towards helping mothers and their babies who are in difficult situations through the funding of pregnancy care centres, housing and other programs.

Please honour the wishes of Canadians and keep abortion off the Island.

Sincerely,

Natalie Hudson Sonnen
Executive Director
LifeCanada/VieCanada

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Carleton University Applies To Strike Pro-Life Lawsuit A Second Time

Censorship case at Carleton University heats up:
December 8, 2011. Carleton University has brought a second motion to strike the lawsuit against them put forward by two pro-life Carleton students, Ruth (Lobo) Shaw and John Nicholas McLeod in February 2010. In October 2011, Carleton University had (Lobo) Shaw and McLeod arrested for attempting to exhibit a pro-life display thereby violating the rights of the students to freedom of expression, freedom from discrimination and freedom of security. The Statement of Claim, which is the document initiating the lawsuit, claims that Carleton University is acting as a delegate of the Province of Ontario in providing post-secondary education to the general public.

The University is attempting to strike the claim that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the University and its actions in the context of this litigation. They are also attempting to strike the claim that the University and members of its administration were negligent.
...
If Carleton University is successful in their motion, Carleton Lifeline’s claims of negligence and violation of Charter rights will be dismissed.

“We are dismayed that the University is continuing with this aggressive approach” said John Nicholas McLeod, current President of Carleton Lifeline and a Plaintiff in the lawsuit. “We had our rights violated and our voices censored. We decided to fight for our rights and Carleton University has employed tactics which are delaying a trial and increasing legal costs. In fact, in October, we were ordered to pay over $18,000 towards Carleton University’s legal costs for the first motion they brought.
Looks like this is the university's strategy - to keep delaying the trial, until pro-life students just can't afford legal fees to counter all these motions - and then have the case dismissed. They wouldn't want the judge to start digging into their censorship policies.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

It's The Reserve System That Failed Attawapiskat

What happens in Attawapiskat is just the symptom. The problem is with the reserve system that fails the people who live there:
When NDP MP Charlie Angus brought his video camera to the Attawapiskat Native Reserve in Northern Ontario, he probably didn’t want to begin a national debate on the reserve system in Canada but he may well have done that. Charlie may have had some good intentions when he toured this piece of land that more resembles no man’s land between the trenches of the Great War than it does Canada in 2011. He was also hoping no doubt to embarrass the government and specifically Stephen Harper for not doing enough in the area of aboriginal affairs. To the wheezing outrage of Liberal leader Bob Rae, Harper responded that the government has funded the reserve with $90 million since 2006. The government has also placed Attawapiskat under “third party management,” meaning there might finally be some accountability as to where those millions of dollars have gone – certainly not to the natives living in freezing construction trailers.

There are just 2,100 residents living at this reserve. Can you imagine if your community received an envelope of $90 million in taxpayer funding over the last five years? One should surely ask, “Where did the money go?” But if that question is asked, then one is also obliged to wonder where has the money been going on a score of reserves for the past three, four or five decades. This query makes Rae’s latest volley at the government very intriguing: “Are you going to put the entire North of Canada under trusteeship, because Attawapiskat is not the only community that has this level of a problem,” he asked during Question Period on Wednesday.

Well, maybe the government should, because clearly the reserve system in Canada is not working.
Ezra Levant does some number crunching here. See for yourself if it's the government that should be blamed for not providing enough support for the community or if it's the people who run the community that should be held accountable for mismanagement and corruption:
There actually is a lot of wealth in Attawapiskat. You can't spread 34 million bucks a year around without it landing in some people's pockets.

Like all the very important people who work with the chief.

Chiefs, that is. The former chief, the acting chief and the deputy chief are all on the payroll. So are 19 councillors.

Could you imagine a town of 2,000 people with three mayors and nineteen aldermen?
The government can certainly be blamed for being reluctant to address the real problem, preferring instead to fight the symptoms (such as poverty) with multimillion subsidies. But the ones to blame for the third world style poverty on reserves are none other than the local chiefs and their third world style management.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Winning Pro-Life Video

Action Life "Censored For Life" 2011 Video Contest Winner
And here's another amazing pro-life video: From Conception to Birth

"So perfectly organized a structure it
was hard not to attribute divinity to it..."

H/t The Politics of the Cross Resurrected

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Atheism And Britain's Decline

Or Canada's decline. (Our situation isn't much different.)
Check out this video - Michael Coren interviews Peter Hitchens:

Friday, December 2, 2011

The Common Sense Alternative To Kyoto

Check out this video: Lorrie Goldstein presents his top ten ways to protect the environment while respecting freedom. These are real solutions, as opposed to carbon credit scams (which amount to nothing but paying some other country or business to take the blame for your emissions) and there's much more common sense in them, than in imposed scarcity, proposed by the mainstream environmentalists.

And of course, one of these common sense proposals is to dump Kyoto:
This annual opposition/environmental activist allegation that Canada, responsible for 2% of global emissions (the oil sands account for one/tenth of 1%) is the key to success or failure of Kyoto and efforts to save the planet from runaway climate change, is absurd.

Kyoto failed not because Canada didn't meet its emission targets.

It failed because it didn't require the vast majority of the world's nations - including China and the U.S. which are responsible for a combined 40% of global emissions - to reduce their emissions at all.

Canada failed to meet its Kyoto targets because the Liberals under Jean Chretien recklessly signed us up for them, without having any idea of the huge economic hit it would mean for a big, cold, northern, sparsely populated, oil and natural gas producing nation like Canada.
An important flaw of Kyoto, which is rarely mentioned, is that it doesn't take into account population changes. Since 1990, Canada's population went up from 26 million to over 34. Reducing nation's emissions to 94% of where they were back when Canada's population stood at 26 million, would therefore require more than 30% cut in per capita emissions - which is impossible to achieve even if Kyoto is extended for 20 more years.

Moreover - some 5 million immigrants came to Canada during these 20 years; most of them - from the countries that are considered to have achieved their Kyoto target and therefore could sell their "emission credits" to Canada. Does Kyoto protocol credits Canada in any way for resettling all these people on its territory? What do you think? And that's another reason to dump Kyoto.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Act Now To Stop Euthanasia Before It’s Too Late

An urgent appeal by the Campaign Life Coalition:
On November 14th, the Supreme Court of British Columbia began hearing the Carter vs. Attorney General of Canada case. The suit was launched by the BC Civil Liberties Association on behalf of the family of Kay Carter, who died by assisted suicide at the Swiss Dignitas suicide center in January 2010, claiming that Canada’s provisions against euthanasia and assisted suicide are unconstitutional since they violate the “right” to die.

“Let me be clear. When we say ‘euthanasia’ and ‘assisted suicide’ we are not talking about pulling the plug on someone who is being kept alive artificially, with no hope of recovery,” Hughes explained.

“When you hear the terms ‘euthanasia’ and ‘assisted suicide’, we are talking about lethally injecting people. Legalizing euthanasia will empower doctors to kill their patients. That is, to murder them.”
Here's a video that shows how the legalization of euthanasia & assisted suicide in some European countries has led to killing the elderly without consent and to the euthanasia of children.
Is this the future we want for Canada? It's time to speak up. Sign this petition to the Attorney General of Canada or contact Mr. Rob Nicholson directly by email (rob.nicholson@parl.gc.ca) or by phone at 613-995-1547, urging him to make the strongest possible opposition to the legalization of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide in Canada.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

40 Days Works: 19th Abortion Facility Closes

Among the latest updates on the fall's 40 Days for Life vigil: At least 732 babies (that we know of) were spared from abortion, (bringing the cumulative total of lives saved to more than 5,000 since 40 Days for Life began four years ago) and a few more abortion facilities closing. Watch the video release about the most recent one, the 19th abortion facility to close following a 40 Days for Life campaign outside its doors:
Over the Thanksgiving weekend, my cell phone rang with the exciting news from Brian Gibson (head of Pro-Life Action Ministries and Minneapolis/St. Paul 40 Days for Life campaign leader) that Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota was closing down its abortion facility!

This closure follows SEVEN 40 Days for Life campaigns held in the right-of-way outside the hospital, publicly exposing their deadly side business.

In news stories over the weekend, hospital officials admitted that abortions at their facility had declined by 40% over the past few years and that abortion was no longer economically viable.
...
This makes the 19th abortion facility to close following a 40 Days for Life campaign outside its doors.
Can't wait for a similar closure to take place here in Canada...

Monday, November 28, 2011

The Trap Of Public Funds - Quebec To Ban Prayer In Home-Based Daycares

It starts with the notion that paying for a service most of us need should not be our responsibility, but that of the government. But once we let the government assume these responsibilities, once government subsidies (and the artificially low prices they create) become the norm, we shouldn't be surprised that the government starts imposing its own rules on all businesses, including home-based, family-run enterprises:
QUEBEC, November 24, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Nearly a year after the Quebec government banned religion from the province’s subsidized daycares, they have signaled that they will extend the directive into daycares run in private homes.

Jean Charest’s Liberal government issued a directive last December stipulating that government-funded daycares must not offer any activity that aims to teach a belief, dogma, or practice of a particular religion.

The directive, which took effect June 1st, banned religious prayers, crafts, and songs – including many Christmas carols. Religious symbols, such as Christmas trees, crucifixes, and menorahs were allowed as cultural expressions, but staff cannot explain their religious significance.

Now the Ministry of Families and Seniors has indicated they will extend the ban into home-run daycares that are subsidized by the government.
I wonder if daycare owners can sue the government. Not so much for discrimination (although, what we witness is a blatant case of religious discrimination,) but against unfair business practices. There's simply no other name to the situation when the government first uses subsidies to bring the prices down to ~15% of the market price (or no more than one third of the actual cost of doing business) and then withdraws these subsidies from businesses that don't adhere to specific religious (secular fundamentalist) values, leaving them with the choice of complying or trying to survive when their own tax money is used by the government to price them out of business.

If the government chooses to subsidize an entire industry - it should be all or none. And it should be up to the parents and daycare owners, not up to the government to decide whether or not religion they want religion in their daycares and to what extent.

P.S. There's no better argument against government-subsidized daycares than Quebecers' own experience. If anyone believes this wouldn't happen with government subsidized daycares in any other province - he is way too naive.

Homosexual Activist To Sun News: Accept Our Censorship - Or Else

They are quite upset with the Sun News Network agreeing to run the Stop corrupting our children ad:

Basically, they want to compel Sun News to do everything that the National Post did voluntarily: to find the one responsible for running the ad (and deal with him appropriately,) to stop accepting any more ads from the organization dared to speak out against homosexualist indoctrination in schools, to donate the proceeds to a "charitable" organization that promotes perverse lifestyles, to undergo "sensitivity" training, to provide free ad space in compensation for the network's "misdeed"... Well, I'm glad to hear that, unlike the Post (which went as far as altering their apology to please militant perverts,) Sun News is determined to stand up for freedom of speech.
Diefenbaker said, “I am Canadian, free to speak without fear.”

I say we embrace Diefenbaker’s way, not the way of Michael Erickson and his ilk.
Well said, Brian Lilley! Way to go Sun News Network!

P.S. Here's the ad that caused the controversy:
video
Don't forget to sign the petition at Stop Corrupting Children .ca.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

What Socialism, Pacifism and Sex Have in Common

Some nice Sunday reading from The Politics of the Cross Resurrected blog:
What do these three things have in common? It is a very simple principle:
"each can be very good in its proper place,
but highly destructive when allowed to flow
into contexts for which it was not designed."
Let's take them one at a time.

First, sex is easy. Natural reason tells us that sexual activity is oriented to and leads to procreation and that marriage naturally is the best context for procreation to occur. A child is best off with its biological parents. So it is hardly surprising that every culture has some form of marriage based on the mother-father-child triangle. Sex belongs in marriage and every serious form of natural law or religious morality affirms this conclusion. But sex outside marriage is destructive of personal communion, social stability and children.

So we have in human sexuality a very good thing as long as it remains in its proper context. Yet that very good thing can become perverted, twisted and destructive as soon as it bursts its channels and floods into promiscuity or adultery.

Second, socialism is in many ways a high and noble ideal. As practiced by small, disciplined, voluntary communities, for example, monastic ones, it can be a good way of life. Socialism is not bad except when it bursts its natural bonds and becomes an ideology which is imposed by coercion on society as a whole. I would go so far as to say that coercive socialism is as bad as coercive sex.

Socialism is utopian in the sense that it is incompatible with the fact of original sin. The reason that socialism always leads to tyranny, poverty and atheism in this world is because of the tragic flaw in human nature - not because of the idea of socialism itself. As an idea, it is wonderful. But when implemented in a society of fallen sinners, it becomes horribly destructive.

Third, pacifism is also in many ways a high and noble ideal. As practiced by small, disciplined, voluntary communities, for example, the Amish or monastic orders, it can be a good way of life. Pacifism is not bad except when it bursts its natural bonds and becomes an ideology which is imposed by coercion on society as a whole. I would go so far as to say that coercive pacifism (i.e. the government adopting a pacifist stance on behalf of a population containing both pacifists and non-pacifists) is as bad as coercive sex or coercive socialism.
...
One other feature that all three of these things have in common is that they are all highly attractive to sentimentalists...

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Global Warm-Mongers Unite

Check out this video report by Ezra Levant for some disturbing facts about one multinational corporation with the carbon footprint of a small city, which nevertheless is one of the key participants at the global warm-mongers' gathering in Durban. Well, we can't have a big environmentalist convention without Greenpeace, can we?

And, of course, it's quite easy to believe in man-made global warming at a comfy beach resort someplace in the Southern hemisphere, especially if it's thanks to these believes that one gets a free five-star sunny vacation in the middle of winter in the first place. But what happens if a warm-monger has a hard time defending his point of view in a scientific debate? Well, the answer is obvious:
Almost exactly two years since damning email messages were released from Great Britain's University of East Anglia showing a pattern of deception and collusion between scientists involved in spreading the global warming myth, a new batch of such correspondence has emerged that seems destined to get as little press coverage as the original ClimateGate scandal did in November 2009.

James Delingpole reported in Britain's Telegraph Tuesday:
Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the "scientists" at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they'd like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower 'FOIA 2011' (or "thief", as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.
The BBC is reporting that these email messages also come from UEA, and number around 5,000. The entire set is available at MegaUpload.
This kind of discourse, has gone beyond the academic circles and is being widely used by governments to silence opposition to their "green" tax schemes:
THE whitewash begins. Now that the carbon tax has passed through federal parliament, the government's clean-up brigade is getting into the swing by trying to erase any dissent against the jobs-destroying legislation.

On cue comes the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which this week issued warnings to businesses that they will face whopping fines of up to $1.1m if they blame the carbon tax for price rises.
...
There will be 23 carbon cops roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that "choose to link your price increases to a carbon price".

Instead, the ACCC suggests you tell customers you've raised prices because "the overall cost of running (your) business has increased".
Outrageous, isn't it? But let's look at it from the environmentalist prospective: the science is settled, the debate is over, all we have to do now is pay those carbon taxes, carbon offsets and other eco fees to save the planet from warming up even further...

Friday, November 25, 2011

Free Speech Bill Debated In Parliament

Bill C-304, that repeals the offensive section 13 of the Human Rights Act, received its first hour of debate last Tuesday. Here are a few quotes:

Mr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC):
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act eats away at this fundamental freedom. Most people are shocked when I explain to them that in Canada, right here in our own country, a person can be investigated under a section 13 complaint for having likely exposed a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that the person or persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The key word is “likely” to have exposed. I think we can all agree that this is a very subjective and unnecessarily vague definition, not one of the narrowly defined legal definitions that would be far more appropriate for this clause. This is where section 13 truly fails to make a distinction between real hate speech and what I often term as “hurt speech”, or speech that is simply offensive.

This means that if someone has offended somebody and is investigated under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, intent is not a defence. Truth is no longer a defence. The person would no longer have the right to due process, the right to a speedy trial, or even the right to a lawyer to defend himself or herself. In fact, in 90% of the human rights investigations under the Canadian Human Rights Act under section 13, the defendants do not even have legal advice, because they simply cannot afford it. When the people of Westlock--St. Paul hear about this, they are shocked. This is simply not the Canadian way.
Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC):
For a clear example of section 13 hindering free speech here in Canada, we do not have to look far. As the member for Westlock—St. Paul previously alluded to, the Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator, Mr. Dean Steacey, was asked what value he gave freedom of speech in his investigations. To me it was shocking that Mr. Steacey replied, “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value. It's not my job to give value to an American concept”.

I take umbrage with that. Freedom of speech is very much a Canadian concept, one that we should be very proud of and, most importantly, in this second week after Remembrance Day, let us never forget the ultimate sacrifice made by thousands of Canadians from the trenches of Europe to the hills of Afghanistan so that we could enjoy so many freedoms, not the least of which is the freedom of speech but also so millions suffering in Europe during the two world wars and in other conflicts since could also be free.

The list of those affected and stifled by section 13 is long and encompassing. Every journalist, writer, webmaster, blogger, publisher, politician, and private citizen in Canada can be subject to a human rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth on any given issue.
Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC):
There is no doubt that members are aware of the already workable remedies and workable limits with respect to freedom of speech. There are laws against perjury, the torts of libel and slander and, most important and most germane to this debate, sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code. Those are all real hate speech protections.

A distinction must be drawn between hate speech and hurt speech or the so-called counterfeit right of hurt feelings. One does not have a right against having his or her feelings hurt. I am sorry but that is not a right that exists in common law and it is not a right that exists in free and democratic societies.

The Criminal Code sanctions regarding free speech found in sections 318 to 320 require something more than hurt feelings. They require real and actionable hatred. If a person advocates genocide, destruction of a group's property or harm or damage to the person of that group, then that person has fallen offside the hate provisions of the Criminal Code, and, I would submit, rightfully so. However, that is something quite different than the so-called freedom not to be offended, or what my friend referred to as hurt speech.

Free speech, if it is to exist, cannot be subject to some bureaucracy. There is no such thing as government regulated free speech. Either there is free speech or there is not.
But what about the opposition? If there is an opposition MP that supports the bill - we haven't heard of him yet. All 3 speakers from the opposition (Irwin Colter from the Liberals and Françoise Boivin and Charmaine Borg from the NDP) spoke against the bill. Irwin Colter suggested that the Parliament first lets the Supreme Court have its say and then tries to reform the system rather than repealing section 13 altogether. As for the two NDP MPs, their major argument was that the Criminal code doesn't go far enough in prosecuting hate speech, because it's based on a different system of evidence - as opposed to the freedom-snatching committees in which the standard rules of evidence simply don't apply.

Yes, believe it or not, what is an integral part of every person's right to a fair trial, is regarded to them as a drawback. Charmaine Borg doesn't trust the criminal code to address "hate speech" because "a criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while a case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal requires proof on a balance of probabilities". Françoise Boivin not only agrees with her, but she is also certain that "there have not been tons of grievances", that "it is not as though everyone is running to the Human Rights Commission to file a grievance against someone for hate speech under section 13" and that the Conservatives are merely "scaring people and leading them to believe that good citizens will be cheerfully brought before the courts to have their right to freedom of expression challenged and that it will cost them a fortune" - as if there were no frivolous hurt feelings claims filed against Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Rev. Stephen Boissoin, Ron Gray and many others. What a disgrace!...

P.S. It's interesting that in her speech, Ms. Boivin repeatedly mentioned the Charter, when the bill deals the Human Rights Act. At one point she even went as far as claiming that Bill C-304 was about repealing section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, of course, has nothing to do with prosecuting opinions "likely" to be seen as hate speech. (Section 13 of the Charter deals with protections against self-incrimination and is not in any way affected by bill C-304.) What was it - a a deliberate attempt to mislead her fellow MPs (let alone the general public) into believing that the Conservatives are about to strike out a section from the Charter or Ms. Boivin simply didn't know what piece of legislature she was talking about?

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Pro-Family Citizens Stand Firm Against Occupiers

Finally - a grassroots response to the occupiers' bullying and intimidation:
Religious believers to left-wing activists: We’re not taking it anymore!

Christian believers and activists with signs and American (and Israeli) flags didn’t give an inch outside of the Holy Grounds Coffee House in Springfield, Mass., as a loud, well-organized “Occupy Springfield” protest converged to harass and intimidate them, targeting Pastor Scott Lively and his inner-city Christian mission. Christian activists also counter-picketed the nearby storefront of the “Occupy” organization with the message that they weren’t backing down.

It’s believed to be the first time in the U.S. that any Occupy harassment action has been met with resistance by those they were targeting.

The demonstration brings to the forefront what many have observed since the beginning of the “Occupy” movement: That along with its socialist and anarchist economic philosophy, at its core it is anti-American, pro-Muslim, and particularly hostile to Christianity and traditional values.
As if that wasn't obvious from the very beginning:
Case in point: The "Occupy D.C." protesters, who have squatted – in more ways than one – at Washington's McPherson Square, have posted a list of rules by which "occupants" are expected to abide. Rule No. 10 requires that folks not "assume anyone's gender," but, instead, "go with gender-neutral pronouns" like "comrade." (Who knew that a so-called "99 percent" of Americans were gender-bending commies?)
Here's a video of the stand-off. Lots of chanting and screaming (especially when the occupiers try to shout down Pastor Scott Lively with their drum and their chants) and a bold message to the internazi-sozi thugs: Occupy a job!

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

PEI Will Remain Abortion Free

Abortion 'clinic' free, to be precise, as the province does pay for women to obtain abortions off-island. But at least, the governing PEI Liberals are nowhere near as radical as their Federal counterparts, and they have no intention to usher abortion into the province:
CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I., November 21, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Prince Edward Island’s Opposition health critic has said neither the Tories nor the ruling Liberals are interested in re-opening a debate on having abortions committed on the island.

“We are in agreement with the government that, at this time, their position on this issue is not changing,” Conservative health critic James Aylward told the CBC.

Aylward endorsed Health Minister Doug Currie’s position that the island’s status as Canada’s only abortion-free province will continue. “Right now, I see no reason to veer off the current status,” Currie had told The Guardian newspaper. “I see nothing changing and the status quo is in place and that’s my position on it right now.”
Special kudos to all those who took part in the pro-life counter-demonstration on Saturday. It's sure encouraging to find out that there were more participants at the pro-life counter-demonstration than at the pro-abort rally. Great job!

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Quebec Follows The Path Of Europe’s Decline

That's the price of being not so much the most European, but the most "progressive" (e.g. socialist, secularist, moral-relativist) part of North America:
For a long time, visitors to Montreal and Quebec City have commented upon their European character — a touch of the Danube or the Tiber on the shores of the St. Lawrence. That used to be a good thing. But the sound of rushing water heard now is that of Europe’s future swirling down the drain, and regrettably for Quebec, it is the most European part of North America.

The European future is rapidly disappearing, or perhaps it is better to say that the European past has raided the future for so long that there is nothing left for the present. Europe gave up on its future long ago, most fundamentally by not having children, which is the single most enduring tie to the future. A nation that chooses not to replace itself does not intend to stick around.

Once the decision is taken to live in the present, why not defer to the future the cost of as much of the present as possible? It was once accepted that one generation should not burden future generations, but that argument is far less persuasive when the future generations comprise fewer and fewer people.

Thus the Mediterranean model was born (pardon the pun for a continent without babies): low birthrate, generous welfare, rampant tax evasion, early retirement, expansive pensions, rigid labour markets and low productivity. How to pay for this? Borrow recklessly. And hope you die before the pillaged future arrives. Alas, sometimes the future arrives sooner than one thinks. The future arrived for Greece last month and Italy last week. It’s due to arrive in Spain shortly.
And no, the rest of Canada isn't much better off...

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Finally - The Government Addresses Section 13 Abuse

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson urges all MPs to support bill C-304:
“Our government believes Section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combating hate propaganda. We believe the Criminal Code is the best vehicle to prosecute these crimes,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told the House of Commons during question period.
In case you are not sure what exactly is wrong with section 13 of the "human rights" Act and why is it more about abusing human rights than about protecting them, check out this video report by Ezra Levant:
So, for now, the government supports repealing section 13. The key word however is - for now, when they haven't yet faced any considerable pressure from the opposition. Which, of course, won't just stand idly by and let the government de-fang an institution that has "human rights" in its name. (Even if this institution is in fact a freedom-snatching committee.)

Expect the supporters of the HRC censorship to wage a fierce campaign, not so much in defense of section 13, but about "evil" "far-right" "CONservatives" that "breed hate" and that want to "roll back human rights". And, if the pressure from the vocal special interest groups is strong enough, if the opposition parties succeed in positioning themselves as staunch defenders of human rights against "Harper's tyranny", if the (predominantly left-wing) mainstream media convinces the Conservatives that most Canadians either support the "human rights" Act in its current form or don't consider the abuse caused by section 13 to be much of a concern -- the government may cave in and just let the "controversial" bill die in a committee.

So, it's not yet the time to consider the bill "as good as passed". The debate over the bill is going to be long and fierce and our side, the free speech side, too, should be vocal. ARPA Canada offers an "easy-mail" tool to contact MPs - let's use it to express our support for bill C-304, to thank MPs for their efforts and to encourage them not to give up. We shall not rest until bill C-304 receives Royal Assent. And then it will be the time for the remaining sections of the so called "human rights" Act.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

P.E.I.'s Status As Pro-Life 'Sanctuary' Challenged

Pro-abortion groups are mounting the pressure on the provincial government, demanding local abortion facilities:
For 30 years, Prince Edward Island has been known among pro-life groups as a "life sanctuary," the lone province in Canada that refuses to perform abortions.

Since the last abortion was performed on P.E.I. in 1982 - after the merger of Catholic and Protestant hospitals in Charlottetown came with the proviso that the new hospital not perform the procedure - women who wished to end their pregnancies have had to leave the island.

Those who have two doctors' referrals can have their abortions performed at a hospital in Halifax and paid for by the province. Women without referrals pay as much as $800 for the procedure at the private Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton. Last year, as many as 140 women left P.E.I. to have an abortion, about 60 to the hospital in Halifax and as many as 80 to the Morgentaler Clinic.

But a newly formed prochoice movement on Prince Edward Island is hoping to reignite the debate over what activists say is the last government standing against universal access to abortion in Canada.
Let's put our best efforts to help our PEI friends to counter this assault on babies' right to life.

P.S.
If anything - it should be us, the pro-lifers, protesting at the PEI legislature. Because, if some 40% of PEI's abortions are paid for by the province (a share similar to that of NB) that means the province still uses public funds to pay for abortions on demand; even if these abortions are performed outside of PEI.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Social Contract And The "Occupation" Movement

Here's an interesting rebuttal to the "99-percenters" and their claims that they somehow have a share in business people's income:
Also check out this video interview - Ezra Levant discusses
the hypocrisy of the "occupation" movement with Andrew Breitbart. The statistics and the facts about these "occupation" protests and their organizers make it clear, that it's not about the greedy business people neglecting the social contract, but about spoiled brats (who've never learned to care for themselves) complaining that they're not getting enough goodies from the society.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Video: Right To Life Debate At University Of Ottawa

What happens when pro-aborts don't chant or heckle or find some other way to drown out the pro-life speaker? They lose the debate. The recent debate on whether physicians should provide or refer for abortion, which took place last week at the University of Ottawa, proves just that.

Here's the video of the debate: Stephanie Gray, from the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform versus Jovan Morales from Atheist Community of University of Ottawa. Watch and see for yourself who is the one that makes a convincing case.

Even the pro-aborts admit that they lost. (Although they blame the outcome on speaker and the organizers.)
A "pro-choice" commenter to my blog said that:
"this debate was a total set-up. no one from the pro-choice community in ottawa was asked to participate in the debate. while it was nice that Jovan accepted the non-invitation, he did not have the background or experience to argue from the perspective of the pro-choice movement and ended up making some pretty oppressive and ineffectivley thought-out arguments. stephanie spends her entire career articulating these issues, of course she "won". but the pro-life side certainly didn't gain any credibility for such a poorly run event."
Well, judging from the video it certainly doesn't look like Stephanie was preaching to the choir. You can hear some guy yelling out "bull####", "liar" and similar remarks, which were greeted with cheering and clapping from quite a few students. So the pro-abort public certainly was there. As for that commenter's assertion that Jovan Morales "did not have the background or experience" to defend the pro-abortion position - it looks like all those that supposedly have the background and the experience, simply chose not to participate. Their experience and background must have told them that they had no chance of winning the debate in the first place.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Backdoor Push To Overturn Euthanasia Laws - Court Case Begins Today

Euthanasia supporters didn't get what they want from the Parliament, so they look forward for unelected, unaccountable judges to rule their way:
Canada’s Parliament had rejected a bill introduced by Bloc Québécois MP Francine Lalonde to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2010, by a vote of 228 to 59. Subsequently, Canada’s Justice Minister, the Hon. Rob Nicholson, stated that the Conservative government will not reopen the issue in Parliament.

However, BCCLA lawyer Joe Arvay, representing the family of Kay Carter and co-litigant Gloria Taylor, argues that the courts rather than Parliament have the “last word” in the creation of laws.

“Parliament obviously has an important role to play in the political process, but when it comes to determining what our fundamental rights and freedoms are, the court has the last word because the constitution is the supreme law of the land and not Parliament,” Arvay told the media in August. “Obviously [Mr. Nicholson] knows Parliament does not have the last word.”
Actually, the Parliament does have the last word. I'm talking about the notwithstanding clause. The MPs didn't have the guts to use it to protect the unborn, let alone - to preserve the true marriage. But now, when it's obvious that should euthanasia or "assisted suicide" (e.g. direct actions that intentionally cause patient's death) become legal, their lives too will be at risk - I doubt they'll be willing to let someone else have the last word. Way too much is at stake:
"All the protections (in Oregon's law) end after the prescription is written. (The proponents) admitted that the provisions in the Oregon law would permit one person to be alone in that room with the patient. And in that situation, there is no guarantee that that medication is self-administered."

Elder abuse includes physical, psychological and financial abuse. Financial abuse is the most commonly reported type. Elder abuse is, however, largely unreported and can be difficult to detect. This is due in part to the reluctance of victims to report.

Elders' vulnerabilities and relative wealth have led to murder, with the perpetrators often being family members. An example is Melissa Friedrich, the Internet Black Widow. She killed her first husband and is accused of poisoning her second husband and another elderly man to get their money.

If assisted suicide were to be legalized via Carter, new paths of abuse would be created against the elderly...
Well, before the court hearing has even started, we already have some "experts" "admitting that organ donors are often alive when their organs are harvested" and arguing that "the medical community should not require donors to be declared dead, but instead adopt more “honest” moral criteria that allow the harvesting of organs from “dying” or “severely injured” patients". Imagine what it will be like if the official ban on euthanasia is overturned.

So let's make sure it doesn't come to this. Please sign this petition and support the Attorney General's strongest possible opposition to the legalization of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide.