Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Numbers that don't add up

Here's a mathematical question:
You have a province where only 13% would approve abortions for financial reasons and 18% are ok with abortion if a woman is not ready to raise a child. The province is located in a region where only 21% believe that abortions should be tax-funded. So, if you were a mathematician, how would you come up with a claim that 57% of New Brunswickers want "better access to abortion services"?

What is impossible for a mathematician appears to be an easy job for the pollsters and CBC news reporters. Not sure how they did it, but I could guess they've just added the numbers together. That's what it looks like judging by their opening paragraph. They start by saying that 57% want abortions to be available in clinics and that another 40% would agree under certain strict conditions. CBC doesn't specify how many didn't agree. They leave it for us to do the math and they expect us to conclude he number is just 3%.

3% disagree with "better access to abortions" in a province where nearly 80% wouldn't want abortions tax-funded? In a province where 82% reject the claim that killing the unborn should be a "choice" just because a woman is "not ready" to have a child? Where 87% believe that poverty shouldn't justify abortion either? The numbers clearly do not match.

But how does the rest of the text explain these numbers? It doesn't. After the opening statement we find two paragraphs which tell us how difficult it is to get an abortion in New Brunswick and then another paragraph concludes with the number of people surveyed and the possible margin of error. Then there is an advertisement which takes up the rest of the space, making it look like the article is over. Those curious enough to see if there's anything else under the advertisement need to scroll the page down to see that there are still 5 paragraphs left. The article yet again repeats the 57% statement (this time without the extra 40% agreeing under certain conditions) and only then it reveals the true numbers. Only then we see that Atlantic Canadians are most hesitant to approve abortions when the woman says she's not ready to have a child, at 18 per cent, according to the poll. Only 13 per cent say they would approve an abortion for someone who is financially unable to afford the child. Thanks to the creative design of the page, this will remain unnoticed by most of the readers.

Why? Because CBC management doesn't want to picture pro-lifers as majority. No matter what the poll results are, they'll twist the numbers, trying to prove that most of the people believe what the left-leaning elite wants them to believe and that those who think otherwise are a minority so tiny it might as well be ignored. CBC math tricks could certainly fool some of the readers. But I doubt they could fool Mike Murphy, NB Health Minister when he meets with women's groups later this week to discuss the issue.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Where's the Alberta flag?

Talking about the Charter of Rights homepage - just look at header, which shows the provincial and territorial flags. Notice anything wrong? Right, there are only 12 flags shown. Where's the Alberta flag? How come it's the only one missing? Did the webmaster have a grudge against Alberta or what?

Update as of Jan.26, 0:30 AST Alberta flag has been added... after the word was spread through the blogosphere and media started picking up the story. Shows once again that even a small group of determined bloggers can make a difference.

Human Rights — Then and now

I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and for all mankind.
(PM John G. Diefenbaker, 1960)

It's been 47 years since then. Is Canada still as free as it used to be? Hardly. Are Canadians still free to speak without fear? Only if what they say complies with the official ideology. Others may end up being fined into bankruptcy by the so called "human rights tribunal".

Free to worship God in your own way? Forget it! Churches that dare to speak out on abortion and marriage may lose their charitable status. Religious organizations that refuse to host events which go against the worshipers' beliefs are forced to compensate the perverts for "hurting their feelings". The Defense of Religions Act, which the government promised in late October, has not been introduced.

Free to stand for what one thinks is right? Free to oppose what one believes is wrong? Not anymore. Just look at this long list of people who lost their jobs, were forced to shut down their businesses or got fined by the truth bashing judges for doing just that. They stood up for family values. They opposed perversive behavior which is now promoted by the media and the political elite as "norm". They found out they no longer have the rights to do that.

Suzie Ryan, a mother of seven was arrested for showing an image of an aborted child outside of an abortion clinic in Fredericton, NB. The image was found "obscene" by the city police, so over half a dozen dauntless police officers approached Mrs. Ryan and, without warning, forcibly put her in a paddy wagon. No it wasn't a blitz operation to protect public morals since all the trash magazines like the "cosmopolitan" are still widely available and clearly visible not just to the adults but also to the children. This was yet another reminder to the pro-life and pro-family Canadians that they are less equal than others and that the right to oppose what's wrong does not apply to them.

But what about the freedom to choose who shall govern your country? Isn't that something Canadians still have? Yes, technically we can still come to the polls and cast our ballots. But what if you want to persuade others to vote for a particular candidate? You must register as a "third party" and make sure you don't spend too much money on the flyers you distribute in your community. If your flyers look offensive to some - well, you already know what happens.

The Charter of Rights is widely promoted as a cornerstone of Canadian freedom and democracy. There's a website dedicated to the charter. The statement made by Diefenbaker is quoted there. But how could the former PM John Diefenbaker who died in 1979, praise the charter which was adopted in 1982? He didn't. The statement which is quoted on a website was made in 1960, referring to the Canadian Bill of Rights. The original Bill of Rights, adopted that year, which included property rights rather than affirmative action. The Bill that had put an end to the separate minimum wages for men and women yet didn't give the judges the legal base to unilaterally deny the right to life and dismantle the institution of family and marriage.

Back in 1960, John Diefenbaker was proud of Canada's heritage of Freedom. Apparently this wasn't something Pierre Trudeau was proud of back in 1982, when the Charter was adopted. (Otherwise we would've seen Trudeau's statement quoted, not Diefenbaker's.) As decades went by, we've seen the heritage of freedom gravely eroded. It's time therefore to rebuild it. It's time for us once again to become Free Canadians. It's time to bring back the rights that used to be available back in 1960.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Apology for free speech.

His barber shop was vandalized by a gang of sick perverts. He was bombarded with hate mail. Yet Kamloops city councillor John DeCicco was forced to pay $1000 to a couple of sodomites and... apologize for hurting their feelings.

What was his crime? Refusing to endorse the so called "gay pride proclamation". Expressing his views in a TV interview. Saying that sodomite lifestyle is neither normal nor natural and while people can do what they like in the privacy of their own homes, perverts shouldn't go out and flaunt their lifestyle in front of people who don't necessarily agree. That was enough for a couple of perverts to decide that their feelings are hurt. They filed a complaint to the modern day inquisition called the "human rights tribunal".

As the case of Bill Whatcott shows, this tribunal is far from being fair and unbiased. Hurt feelings of a few perverts usually outweigh one's right to free speech. John DeCicco had to agree on a settlement which required him to pay the accusers $1000 and admit in his apology statement that his comments were "inappropriate and hurtful to some". He says the settlement doesn't change his veiws on the so called "pride" but he promises that his public comments "have to be a little more refined". Is there however a politically correct way to say that abnormal lifestyles are nothing to be proud of?

John DeCicco came to Canada from Italy when he was 15. He is fiercely proud of the country that became his home. "In this great nation of ours," he said in his interview to Life Site News, "we can express our opinions and when you can't there's something wrong." Too bad that his own life experience proves once again that there is something wrong in today's Canada; that free speech is only available to those agreeing with ideology of the governing elite. But there's still some hope left. John DeCicco describes the phone calls and e-mails he received as 85% positive. It means that despite all the indoctrination from the government and the mass media, vast majority of Canadians are on the right side.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

No baby - no problems?!

Looks like supporters of publicly funded abortions in New Brunswick simply have no other arguments. That was my impression from the radio debate on "The Afternoon News with Tom Young" yesterday afternoon. Yes, I must admit, it is a rare occasion when a pro-life speaker like Beth Crouchman, former president of the New Brunswick Right To Life is given the opportunity to speak on the radio and the microphone is cut after the most important has been said, not before. Let alone that since I was lucky to be among those three callers who had the opportunity to comment on the issue, it brings the total number of pro-life speakers to two.

At the same time I could hardly say that Tom Young was neutral during the discussion. Not sure if he wanted to trick Beth Crouchman into saying something which most of the listeners would find controversial or if he just wanted to find a question to which she couldn't give a straight answer. But the interview sounded more like an exam with a strict professor that is just looking for an excuse to give the student a failing grade.

Tom Young concluded by mentioning that according to Michelle Caron, most New Brunswickers support publicly funded abortions on demand. This wasn't something for Beth Crouchman to comment on. This was a closing statement - one which is usually the most remembered. So I decided to comment on it in my call. I decided to speak his language and I asked whether there is any particular reason why should an elective injurious procedure such as abortion on demand be paid with the taxpayer's money.

Instead of answering, Tom Young asked me back whether a knee replacement is medically necessary in my opinion. I didn't expect that. So I asked once again, why should the province pay for 600 or so abortions that couldn't pass as medically necessary even under the watered down rules set by the government of New Brunswick. And why should the pro-abortionists be entitled to publicly funded abortions on demand while lets say someone who's got a sore tooth has to pay the full amount out of his pocket? I got mostly questions in response. "So you don't think the government should be paying for abortion?", was the final question. "Absolutely not", I replied and Tom Young ended the call.

The person who did answer my questions was the third caller. Too bad I didn't write down his name. He was clear - it's better for a child to be aborted than "unwanted". It's better for the government to spend $750 on abortion than spending $100,000 on raising and supporting someone who's not going to succeed in life. His views didn't see much opposition from Tom Young who's mentioned earlier (while he was still interviewing Beth Crouchman) that he is glad his wife had a miscarriage so they didn't have to care for a disabled child. So there was none of the exam attitude anymore and there were no tricky questions. Tom Young let the caller reiterate a few times that it's better for the child to be dead than miserable -- and then went on to another subject.

So it looks like their only argument is that killing an unborn child solves the problem. At least they believe it does, so they want abortion to be publicly funded without restrictions. Stalin often said that if there's no human -- there's no problem. The "pro-choicers" believe that such "troublemakers" better be destroyed before they even born.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

The battle is far from over.

Just weeks after the Federal government decided it won't force New Brunswick to pay for abortions in private clinics, a pro-abortion lawyer from Moncton has announced she'll try to do just that. Michélle Caron, a radical feminist, plans to sue the province if it doesn't agree to pay for every single abortion including abortions on demand performed at Morgentaler's clinic in Fredericton. She links abortion funding restrictions to a conspiracy between the government of New Brunswick and the Catholic Church. Her claim is that refusal to pay for abortions on demand is not only "discriminatory" and "unconstitutional" but it also violates the principle of "separation of the church and state" which Caron wants to see enforced.

Michélle Caron knows all the magic words. She counts on words like "discrimination" and "conspiracy" to outweigh the arguments in defense of human life and convince the judges that "separation of the church and state" also means separation of government from morals and ethics, that killing the unborn should be easier than visiting a family doctor.

As Caron told the CBC the lawsuit will be launched this spring if the New Brunswick health minister Michael Murphy rejects her demand to lift funding restrictions on abortion. Apparently she'll be meeting Mr. Murphy sometime in February to present her ultimatum. Therefore we must make sure the minister hears from the pro-life side as well. And if the case goes to the court - we must demand our right to there too. The fight is not going to be easy. Yet keeping the government policy which effectively argues that abortion is not a "right" but elective injurious procedure is worth the fight.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

Your Political Profile:
Overall: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal
Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

I found this quiz at Big Blue Wave. Not that I liked the idea of having to choose the lesser of the two evils in many of their questions but I agree with the final results. 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal. Never going to compromise on social issues. But may accept a fiscally progressive solution if it's there to benefit the family, not to substitute it with a "nanny state". Obviously not "red" but not quite "blue" either. Most likely -- purple :)

Kyoto credits - now you can buy them online :)

Welcome to my blog :) I wonder if many bloggers started their blogs by offering guests a lovely certificate, just like the one above... Isn't that a great idea -- just for $5 you could get a real Kyoto Credit certificate, put it on the wall (the frame is going to cost you couple bucks plus tax at the nearest dollar store) and be prould that you, yes, you have personally contributed to the fight against global warming. You may as well purchase some more credits and send them to your friends which neglect the issue of Global Warming. Let them see what just one committed man can do! Let them be ashamed of themselves!

But will it actually reduce emissions? Of course it won't! Just like the real Kyoto credits. After all -- what do these credits actually represent? They represent our right to pollute. The idea is simple: if Canadian companies can't reduce emissions they can just purchase emission credits from countries that have already achieved (if not overachieved) their Kyoto targets so they can keep polluting at some other country's expense. But will it actually reduce the number of smog days in Toronto? If we pay some other country to take the blame for air pollution from Canadian cities, will it make the air any cleaner?

But maybe that will permit us to implement the "revenue neutral tax shift" which is proposed by the Green party? Not really. The funds spent on Kyoto credits will not go to Ottawa; they'll go to the developing world, to the countries that have little or no industries, giving these countries some more incentives not to become self-sufficient. There will be no increase in the federal government revenues. Moreover -- as businesses face higher production costs (and as they pass them to the consumers) we'll see decline in production, sales and exports. The government revenues will shrink and instead of the "revenue neutral tax shift" we might as well face a tax hike.

Another thing that must be remembered -- the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Kyoto don't take into consideration the population increase. Since 1990 Canada has accepted ~3 million immigrants from all over the world. They live in Canada yet Canada gets no credit for them. About 1.3 million immigrants are expected to come by 2012 and hundreds of thousands of children will be born. Canadain population which used to be ~27 millions back in 1990 will reach 34 millions or so. That's why Canada's greenhouse gas emissions go up, not down. A "6% reduction from 1990 level" would mean nearly 25% GHG reduction per capita. Does someone still believe that could be achieved in just 5 years?

Many politicians want Canada to commit to Kyoto targets and make up the difference by buying emission credits. They are eager to waste billions on useless green certificates. But why should we let them?