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.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

At Last - The Liberation

Well, if these internazi-sozi thugs call their actions "the occupation" - then, when the police finally intervenes and drives them out - that's nothing but liberation. Halifax has been liberated and Regina is apparently next, not to mention several cities in the US. Hopefully, officials in many more cities realize that it's better to be among the liberators than among the collaborators:
Way back in 1968, after the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, Mayor Daley declared that his forces were there to "preserve disorder." I believe that was one of Hizzoner's famous malapropisms. Forty-three years later, Jean Quan, mayor of Oakland, and the Oakland City Council have made "preserving disorder" the official municipal policy. On Wednesday, the "Occupy Oakland" occupiers rampaged through the city, shutting down the nation's fifth-busiest port, forcing stores to close, terrorizing those residents foolish enough to commit the reactionary crime of "shopping," destroying ATMs, spraying the Christ the Light Cathedral with the insightful observation "F**k", etc. And how did the Oakland City Council react? The following day they considered a resolution to express their support for "Occupy Oakland" and to call on the city administration to "collaborate with protesters."

That's "collaborate" in the Nazi-occupied France sense: the city's feckless political class are collaborating with anarchists against the taxpayers who maintain them in their sinecures. They're not the only ones. When the rumor spread that the Whole Foods store, of all unlikely corporate villains, had threatened to fire employees who participated in the protest, the Regional President David Lannon took to Facebook: "We totally support our Team Members participating in the General Strike today – rumors are false!" But, despite his "total support", they trashed his store anyway, breaking windows and spray-painting walls.
Sure, it hasn't come to that here in Canada, not yet, but who would like to be harassed by a bunch of violent brats whose intention (as their very name suggests) is to make their presence felt?
Rath said police have received upwards of 50 complaints about the protesters, some about noise and drug use, and others alleging assault in the park.

"One citizen was spat on. Another person in a wheelchair was unable to take their regular route through the park," said Rath. "We respect the right to protest peacefully, but this really goes beyond that."
Well done, Halifax Regional Police. In light of all the lawlessness that has run rampant at these "occupation" protests, the police forces that don't stand idly by, but actually intervene and bring back law and order, deserve to be cheers as liberators.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Environmentalist ‘Science’ Is The Blind Faith Cult Of The Decade

For the umpteenth time, what's being positioned as climate science is nothing but a blind faith cult of "mother Gaia":
But Science! There’s an institution we can still believe in. And most of us still do-as if fallen, sinful human beings turn into angels the moment they don lab coats.

Thanks to Science we have learned to believe in some of the most preposterous and malignant notions ever dreamed up in this poor, sin-laden world. We believe, for instance, in Evolution, or in Man-made Global Warming-because we are told, over and over and over again, that we must believe in it.

Unhappily for Science, but happily for us, Global Warming scientists have been caught cheating more times than all the convicts on Riker’s Island put together; so we now have insight into the magical process that transforms 100% pure humbug into “settled science” that no one is allowed to question.
And to make things worse, this Gaia cult twists basic social values inside out, branding large families - "unfair" and "selfish" and proclaiming having children "a sin". (The fact that they actually use this word makes it clear what environmentalism truly is.)

That alone would be convincing enough to detest the global warm-mongering cult, even if all other reasons to be a "global warming skeptic" didn't exist. And here are some disturbing facts about the green cult and it's key prophet. We may even call that - an inconvenient truth...

Friday, November 11, 2011

In Flanders Fields The Poppies Blow

Let's remember to whom we owe our rights, our freedoms and everything else we have.

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
John McCrea

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Showing What The Sex Ed Teacher Won't

...The consequences of abortion, that is:
OTTAWA, NOV. 10/11 – The Ottawa based pro-life group “Ottawa Against Abortion” will be holding signs of aborted children outside of Immaculata Catholic High School. This will be the fourth high school in Ottawa that the group has visited since September as a part of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform’s new EndTheKilling strategy.
...
Displays outside of high schools have occurred across the country including Calgary, Chilliwack, Lethbridge and Airdrie. Protest organizer Raphael Deketelle said “I am proud to stand with pro-life activists from across the country who are showing students that abortion is an act of violence that kills a child.” The protest, named “Choice” Chain, displays multiple 4X3 foot signs of aborted fetuses in the first trimester of pregnancy.
More >>>
(From Carleton Lifeline e-mail release)
And to all those concerned that such "graphic" pictures are "inappropriate" for teenagers, I say - if this kind of sex "education" is somehow "appropriate" (to the extent that parents are not even allowed to pull their children from these classes) - then "graphic" pictures of aborted babies are not only appropriate - they are necessary.

These "teachers" and "experts" tell our children that "in the operating room it takes about five minutes, and then you go home, you’re fine". It's about time we started countering these lies - right where they are told.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Pro-Life Students Refuse To Be Censored

Despite the objections from the university, the the Genocide Awareness Project display at Simon Fraser University went on as planned:
BURNABY, British Columbia, November 7, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life students at Simon Fraser University set up a display on campus depicting the horror of abortion without incident Monday morning, despite the university’s disapproval.

SFU administration said they would not approve the event, organized by campus club SFU Lifeline, because the club would not agree to turn their signs so that passing students would not see them inadvertently.

But club president Mary-Clare Turner told LifeSiteNews the event was on despite the lack of official approval. “The university hasn’t threatened us with anything at all. They just told us that they were disappointed that we had not set up the signs the way they had requested us to. But that’s all,” she explained.

“I take that as implied permission to continue the display tomorrow as we had planned,” she added.
And it's the same rhetorical question once again - imagine if the university told the organizers of occupiers rally to turn their "99%" signs inwards, so that nobody except the participants could see them. Or, if an anti-war protest was only allowed on condition that no images of death and destruction would be visible to the public. I bet, all the newspapers and TV channels would be screaming discrimination within minutes.

Somehow, not many notice the discrimination when such restrictions are imposed on pro-lifers. And I'm afraid that the university hasn't yet had its final say; we may yet see some reprisals from their end - anything from denying SFU Lifeline its official club status and all the way to trespassing or misconduct charges, if not arrests and expulsions. There have been way to many precedents set already.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Raising Large Family - Not As Difficult As It Looks

Just go for it - without looking for reasons why you shouldn't:
A few months back, I told you how to raise eight children without even trying. Today, I'm going to tell you why I never should have had eight children in the first place. Had I listened to the devil and modern conventional wisdom, that is.

When I was a happy mother of four, seriously considering and deeply desiring another child, an odd feeling overcame me. Over several days, my excitement at the idea of a new little soul became mixed with feelings of discouragement and fear. It began to dawn on me that I was barely good enough "mommy material" for the four treasures I already had, and that any further parenting would be irresponsible. It came to a head one evening: I remember standing in my kitchen, full of fear and anxiety, telling myself that I had no business -- no business! -- having another baby. Not now, not ever.
...
As I stood there in the kitchen that night, a moment of grace overtook the moment of discouragement. How many times had I told others, "Discouragement is not from Christ, as Christ only encourages. Discouragement is from the devil!" I remembered it then, and my fears and anxieties were banished. Only the devil himself, the one who hates human beings to his rotten core, would taunt me with the notion that my lack of gourmet skills should preclude new life in my marriage.
...
That my family exists as it does is living proof that "with God, all things are possible"...
Well said. And this makes much more sense than the green cult and its adherents who preach that having children (or as they call them - "gurgling genetic replicas") is a sin. Yes, believe it or not, they actually use the word "sin"...

Sunday, November 6, 2011

40 Days for Life in Moncton - Looking Back

This year, we held two 40 Day vigils - in Moncton and in Fredericton; and we had enough volunteers to keep both vigils going. It wasn't always easy to find at least one spare hour to attend the vigil and the weather was not always favorable, but we made it. 40 days, 480 vigil hours, over 150 committed volunteers who participated at least once.

Unlike the previous year, this year's vigil got some publicity in the newspapers, as an angry letter from a feminist city councilor from Dieppe (who complained about those evil Bible-thumpers that push their religious beliefs on poor women) and then our numerous rebuttals (surprisingly, most of them did get published) led to quite a discussion. Obviously, this got the pro-abort gang up and ready for their counter-protests. But it also got the message out to those pro-lifers who otherwise wouldn't be aware of our vigil. Several times during the vigil I saw a passer-by coming to us, asking if we were the 40 Days for Life group and how does one join...

And, since it was after all a prayer vigil, I decided to try the 54 Day Miracle Rosary Novena to Our Lady. The idea was welcomed by many committed vigil keepers. We started saying these novenas from the very first day and, since the vigil is only 40 days, we better not forget about the remaining 2 weeks.

The 40 Days for Life website mentions 465 babies saved from abortion during this past vigil. Was there at least one life saved in Moncton? Statistically - that was quite probable. But we never know. When a vigil is held at a general hospital, we can never spot a client that has cancelled the deadly appointment and turned back. We have to walk by faith, not by sight. Just be there and pray. Pray to end abortion.

PS.
Special thanks to Dr. Joe who took the trouble to manage a special blog for the Moncton 40 Days where vigil keepers could share their thoughts, their stories, their concerns...

Saturday, November 5, 2011

So Where's This "Choice" The Pro-Aborts Keep Talking About?

We know that pro-aborts don't like the concept of informed choice, because it leaves no room for the kind of "choice" they'd like to see. But what if a woman changes her mind and chooses life at the very last moment? Where's her right to choose then?
MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, November 3, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life sidewalk counselors outside a Milwaukee abortion clinic Thursday morning say that a preteen girl asking pro-lifers for help was forced into the clinic by escorts and a guardian, and that police have responded saying that they could do nothing.

Tobey Neuberger, a sidewalk counselor from Cedarburgh, said the incident occurred just before 10 a.m. outside Affiliated Medical Services, where she and two other female pro-life counselors gave a “very young” African-American girl literature as she entered the clinic, and told her that she could get more information at a pro-life center across the street. Witnesses said the girl looked anywhere between 11 and 14 years old.

Neuberger says she and her companions were “just incredulous” as they watched the girl come back out and ask for help from the counselors, only to be physically blocked by the escort staff.
Looks like their understanding of "choice" means abortion, at first thought, with no right to reconsider.

Friday, November 4, 2011

No Weapons Means No Remembrance Day?!

Ottawa school uses this lame excuse to cancel Remembrance Day symposium.
The 20th anniversary of an educational Remembrance Day event is being cancelled at a west Ottawa Catholic high school after the teacher organizing it was told "no tanks or guns" are allowed in the school.

Notre Dame High School history teacher Gene Michaud sent an e-mail to friends last Friday, sadly announcing the end of the Remembrance Day Symposium -- shocking many in the military community.

"There's a huge difference between some kid with a grudge bringing a weapon that's loaded into a school, and veterans putting on a Remembrance display with non-functioning historical replicas," said Wayne Mac Culloch, a retired major who spent more than 40 years in the Canadian Forces, including five missions overseas.

"What we've got going on here is a warped perspective of no weapons in schools."
It's hard to picture a group of (supposedly) sane people who can't distinguish between a hate-filled murderer with a gun and a veteran bringing in a harmless museum replica for Remembrance Day display. Most likely there must be someone on the school board who despises the military, who is ashamed of our history, who sees himself as a "world citizen" rather than as a Canadian - and who does not approve of an event that honors war veterans. Especially since this year's symposium was actually going to include some veterans from Afghanistan...

We've seen something similar happening in NB a couple years ago: A school principal banned O Canada citing "sensitivity" concerns when the real reason for banishing the national anthem had to do with the principal's radical "Green internationalist" views. Now we most likely have yet another self-hating peacenik using the first excuse he could think of to sanitize Remembrance Day event if not to ban it outright.

P.S.
All of this so ironic. As veterans are pushed out a school, professional protestors are breaking a dozen municipal laws everyday as they “occupy” Confederation Park. While the legalities are ignored, we are even providing these squatters with free electricity, which will only encourage long term camping on public land. Veterans be damned and professional protestors who cannot even articulate a coherent political message are welcome.
That says it all, doesn't it?

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Carleton University vs Pro-Life Students: Trespass Charges Withdrawn

Finally, some common sense in this appalling case of censorship and power abuse:
OTTAWA, ON. November 1, 2011- Trespassing charges that were filed against members of Carleton Lifeline, the pro-life student club at Carleton University, were withdrawn by the Crown yesterday.

On October 4, 2010, members of Carleton Lifeline, a pro-life club at Carleton University, were arrested for attempting to peacefully display the Genocide Awareness Project, an exhibit which compares abortion to other forms of genocide. The University deemed the Genocide Awareness Project to be “offensive” and directed the Ottawa Police Service to arrest and charge four Carleton University tuition-paying students and a Queen’s University student with trespassing. The charges were scheduled to proceed to trial today and tomorrow (November 2nd, 2011).
But here's the bad news: In a subsequent decision, the judge ordered the students to pay Carleton University over $18,400 in legal costs associated with the students' motion to strike the case against them as frivolous. Hopefully this can still be appealed. After all, the fact that the charges didn't last, proves just that - that the arrest was wrongful and the case against the students was frivolous.