Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Why I Am Still Supporting Conservatives

I know, many would suggest that we shouldn't support them after Stephen Harper reaffirmed his pledge not to reopen the abortion debate. Still, what other option do we have? What other option do I have in Moncton - Riverview - Dieppe, where there's no CHP candidate? Supporting a pro-abortion Liberal candidate Brian Murphy? Staying home and letting Murphy win agiain?

Let's look at the Federal Party Leader Report Cards, brought to us by the Campaign Life Coalition. The only leader that gets an A in life and family issues is Ron Gray, the leader of the Christian Heritage Party. Does he have any chance to form a government? Not even if every single CHP candidate gets elected. (There are only 59 of them.) I'd love to see the CHP getting a party status and holding a balance of power in a Conservative minority government but looks like we can't even have that. So what can we have?

Let's look at the report card again, shall we? Ron Gray has no chance - who else then? Stephane Dion? Strongly pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, strong supporter of redefinition of marriage, legalization of marijuana, safe-injection sites, mac-daycares, freedom-snatching committees... Life issues - F. Family issues - F. Democracy issues - F. Is that what we want?

Or maybe we want Layton? The guy whose party not only proclaims abortion on demand as "women's right" but also campaigns for "increased abortion access" - e.g. government-funded abortion at any stage of pregnancy in a clinic across the street. Is that what we'd rather support? Harper is nowhere near a straight A SoCon, but at least he's got something other than all Fs.

Yes, Harper won't reopen the abortion debate. But at least he won't try to enshrine abortion in the Charter - something that was a part of the Liberal platform in the last election. At least he won't try to force New Brunswick to pay for clinic abortions on demand - his government has already dropped the law suit initiated by Paul Martin's Liberals. And there's more to that:
Under the Harper government a series of highly qualified and conservative judges have been appointed, most of whom would never have been thus elevated under a Liberal administration.

For the first time in generations the law is open to less activist lawyers and legal theories.

Harper has taken most of the funding away from the court challenge program, which financed out of the public purse a whole variety of radical special interest groups and allowed them to challenge the courts on issues of no interest to the mass of people.

This was a make-work scheme for leftist lawyers and an enabler mainly for radical feminist and gay groups.

The government removed the tax grab enjoyed by extremist film makers, who were forgiven the taxes all of the rest of us are obliged to pay so they could make sexually perverse and grotesquely violent movies and television shows -- seen, by the way, mainly by their weird friends.
He's done just enough to show the right that he's more than worth voting into further years of power. Perhaps an increased number of MPs would allow him to institute more of what some of us had hoped for. Even if not, the alternative is ugly.
Exactly. No I'm not saying that we should stick to the Conservative party no matter what. But at the same time - it's not yet the time for voting them out of power. Not until we have a strong SoCon alternative to Harper's FisCons.

How Do We Define "Extreme"?

Should Bill Whatcott be required to pay $17,500 to four individuals who were offended by the flyers he distributed?
In a Regina courtroom last Friday, the lawyer for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission repeatedly asserted that the content of the flyers was "extreme" and "hateful." She also admitted citizens opposed to teaching school children about homosexuality do have the right to speak out and can even use "strong" language to do so, but not "extreme" or "hateful" language. She spoke as though the difference between "strong" and "extreme" is obvious; as though Canadians are unanimous in where they draw the line. But as this court case and others demonstrate, Canadians draw the line in many different places. Which begs the question: why should the government take sides in public policy debates by prosecuting those who advocate politically incorrect views? As long as the expression is peaceful, why not let Canadians listen to all views (even "extreme" ones) and make up their own minds on matters of politics, religion and morality?
Since most Canadians can't afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves against human rights prosecutions, and since most citizens are not capable of handling the stress of a prosecution that can drag on for years, and since most people would be horrified to see themselves publicly branded as "bigoted" or "hateful" by the process, people do what appears wise under the circumstances: they censor their own speech. Any subject that might involve race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or religion (eg. immigration, same-sex marriage, Islamist terrorism) is now clouded by the spirit of fear because saying something "discriminatory" may well land you in hot water with human rights commissions.
John Carpay's article is titled - "Politicians, not courts, at fault for assault on free speech". I would say - both are at fault. Yes, the politicians are responsible for refusing to repeal the oppressive "human rights" laws, let alone - for passing them in the first place. But what about the activist judges which continuously uphold the quasi-judiciary tribunal's decisions and dismiss any constitutional challenges against them? Sure they didn't pass those laws and they didn't appoint the committee members. But they could have ruled the gag laws and freedom-snatching committees unconstitutional long ago. If they wanted, of course.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Behind Bars For Saving Babies' Lives

Linda Gibbons, Toronto pro-life apostle is awaiting trial for preaching the gospel of life outside of an abortuary. Her trial is scheduled to resume on September 30th. Up until then, Linda is securely locked behind bars - no release on bail, no right to go home on weekends - nothing that would be available to a teenage purse-snatcher with multiple counts of parole violations is available to Linda. So far Linda has spent almost 6 years behind bars for nothing but speaking up for the unborn babies' right to life. So why is she being treated even worse than a rapist or an armed robber? Here's why:
Talking to Show the Truth leader Rosemary Connell from prison on Sunday, Gibbons noted that a piece of pro-life literature sent to her in a letter saved a baby's life. "Linda said women will often sit down with her as she opens her mail," Connell told LifeSiteNews.com. "A woman watching her one day last week saw the pamphlet and told Linda that she was pregnant and planning an abortion because 'the CAS would take the child anyway'."

Connell concluded, "Linda talked to her and gave her the pamphlet. The next morning she told Linda that she had changed her mind and is letting the baby live"

The pro-abortion lobby knows that there's no way they could win the argument on fetal rights. So they don't even try. They just push ahead with their "bubble zone" laws which allow them to simply imprison pro-lifers rather than arguing with them.

REAL Women Of Canada — Strong Even Without Government Funding

The REAL Women of Canada got some recognition from Barbara Kay:
Until REAL Women began, no one in Canada questioned the feminist claim that all women shared a commonality of experience, even though it should have been obvious that feminist activists were mainly speaking for an elite, urban, liberal enclave of women from the same socio-economic background as themselves.

From Day One of its existence, feminists portrayed REAL Women as Stepford wives, intellectual hicks in thrall to the patriarchy. Yet, in the course of its work, REAL Women carried out groundbreaking research that, amongst other successes here and internationally, led to the happy demise of the federal government’s odiously discriminatory Court Challenges Program in 2006.
Remember all those feminists crying foul about last year's cuts to the "status of women"? As it turned out, even a slightest cut (some 10% out of ~$200M budget) was enough for some SOW-supported organizations to close their doors. Well, here's an organization that hasn't received a dime from the public purse since the day it was founded. And yet somehow the REAL Women have managed to keep their organization going for quarter of a century, growing their membership to 55,000 strong. I believe, when it comes to the question - who is there actually representing women - those facts speak for themselves...

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Look At All Those Honorary Greens

Elizabeth May appeared at a terrorist rally in Toronto, on Aug.12, 2006. The Green party denies that; suggesting that Elizabeth May attended a "peace rally" that day. Somehow that "peace rally" took place at the same day, same time and at exactly same location as the rally organized by a terrorist group "hezballa".

People who came to the counter-protest noticed that one of the speakers at that rally resembled Ms. May quite closely. But wait... The Green party press-release states she wasn't there. That must be some unidentified Sierra Club activist. Or maybe - a Liberal candidate for Central Nova, what's her name... But not Elizabeth May, that's for sure. She was speaking at the peace rally...

...And those were the listeners. Peaceful environmentalists. Or maybe they were just "honorary Greens". Why not? If those allahnazis succeed in their attempt to destroy Israel, slaughter or expel all the Jews and force a middle-age lifestyle on whoever remains - wouldn't that lead to a sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? So here they are - environmental green meets "jihadi" green...

Now, imagine Ellie May getting a cabinet position in Dion's NDP-supported government. If I had no other reason to support the Conservatives this election, that would be more than enough.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Plenty Of Reasons To Vote Liberal & Other Humor

Ever wondered why would anyone vote Liberal?
I’m voting Liberal because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

I’m voting Liberal because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep inmates who should be on death row, alive.

I’m voting Liberal because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I’m voting Liberal because I believe Liberal judges need to interpret the Constitution to suit fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.

I’m voting Liberal because I believe that illegal refugees and government give-aways to foreigners is a great way to grow a nation.
Find more reasons to vote Liberal on the Officially Screwed blog. If you want a lawn sign - the Marginalized Action Dinosaur Blog has a wide selection of "vote Dion" signs. And don't forget to tune in for the new shows brought to you by the CBC this fall. Check the Blazing Cat Fur Blog for a complete list:
(5) Canadian Civil War Crimes: the brutal repression of the FLQ Francophone freedom fighters

(4) Ottawa Report: running the country and designing society is a job for the ivy-walled university clique. 1 hour a week we make you feel disempowered and insignificant.

(3) Canadian War Crimes III: from Ethopia to Afghanistan CBC expose’ Canadian Forces links to US Imperialism

(2) DeGrassi High: The multicultural social problem of the week resolved in a teen drama by the collective left-wing consciousness of CBC staff writers.

(1) Little Jihad on the Prairie: The zany antics of sleeper cell- redneck culture clash.

The Most Pointless "Human Rights" Complaint Ever

B'nai Brith, a Jewish group is being accused of... antisemitism. Could it get any crazier?
Another CHRC complaint is apparently going to a Tribunal hearing. This one is against B’nai Brith, the Jewish rights organization, and a website it runs. The site, Nizskor, is dedicated to exposing and fighting Holocaust denial and antisemitism.
As part of that, the site reproduces some incredibly vile racist and anti-Semitic remarks. Now someone - they’ve pleaded anonymity for security reasons - has filed a complaint over the reproduction of those remarks, calling them “extremely vile and contemptuous to predominantly blacks, homosexuals and Jews.”
There’s no word on a hearing date on this yet. The case is being discussed in some considerable detail at FreeDominion.ca.
It almost looks like those "human rights" complaints are now being generated by an automatic content filter, without anyone even bothering to read what's being sent to the HRCs for investigation. No wonder the complainer is pleading anonymity; once people get to know his name - it will become a synonym for moron.

Of course the complaint will be dismissed. Still, it will take years for the HRC bureaucrats to realize that accusing a Jewish organization of antisemitism makes absolutely no sense. And, by the time that finally happens - B'nai Brith will have spent tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves; the investigation will have cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands. But the coward that can't be named, who've filed the complaint will never have to pay a dime for playing this costly prank.

Friday, September 26, 2008

"Social Justice" Course - Don't Censor It, Drop It!

A BC school board apparently thought they could improve the provincially approved course in "social justice" by removing all references to perverse behavior. They probably thought they could make something decent out of it this way; something that would actually be beneficial for grade 12 students. They failed in every way possible.

Obviously, such initiative angered the homosexual lobby, which hints that a legal action is possible unless the school board backs down. (The course was brought as result of an agreement which gave homosexual activists the right to force "gay-friendly" curriculum on BC schools.) But even if there was no threat of a law suit - such action would be at the very least pointless.

Let's take a closer look at the course. It's a provincially recommended course and it's named "social justice". What do you think is in there? What kind of "social justice" could a strictly secular humanist provincial ministry of education preach to students? Do you think there would be anything in it about personal responsibility to the family, to the community and to the nation? You wish! Here's what Edward Michael George have found in the course curriculum:
... Identify and describe specific practices of solving conflict and promoting social justice, including ... coups [and] revolutions ...

... Identify a range of ways in which social injustice is manifested (e.g. ... reduced self-worth) ...

... Demonstrate an understanding of the role of language in oppression (e.g. non-gender inclusive language, use of euphemism) ...
So that's what their "social justice" is all about. Thou shalt never use euphemisms or such gender-exclusive words as wife or husband. Thou shalt never tell a failing student that he's failing, never hint an underqualified job applicant that he's not qualified for the job, as you'll be committing a mortal sin of reducing one's self-worth. And if one of those language-oppressed people, whose self-worth have been continuously reduced by the oppressive middle-class white men, chooses to go on a killing spree - thou shalt be compassionate, for it's not them but "social injustice" that is to blame...

In the end of the course, the student must be able to: "Demonstrate an understanding of the need to undertake informed action while at the same time not necessarily waiting until having "all the information."" Being able to take informed action without having all the information - isn't that genius? And really, why would the students need "all the information" if our intellectual secular humanist folks from the ministry of education have already done the thinking for them? Just follow the standard cliche: Terrorists are good, soldiers are bad. Feminists are heroes, men are pigs. A serial killer deserves compassion, but an unborn baby deserves to die. It's simple, isn't it?

So what did the school try to achieve by removing just one twisted notion from the course but leaving all others intact? What kind of middle ground were they seeking? Didn't they realize that there's no way something sensible could ever be made out of that course? Instead of trying to censor a useless course, the Abbotsford school board should have dropped it altogether. That would free up some manpower and classroom space for teaching our children math and science, classic arts and literature - so they could have the information to make informed decisions on their own...

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Can We Get Rid Of Income Tax?

Couldn't we just replace income tax with consumption taxes? Imagine - working for an hour and getting paid for an hour, not for 38 minutes - wouldn't it be great? Wouldn't it be fair if everyone paid the same tax and if there was a single rate for everybody? And, if we taxed shopping instead of working - wouldn't that encourage families to save more? Some even say the tax will be so simple that we could disband the CRA...

Yes, the idea is worth looking into. In fact, the idea must be properly looked into, because there are many details that are hard to notice at the first glance. And, as we know, the devil is in the details.

First of all - what about corporate income taxes? Are we going to abolish them too or are we going to tax business income but not personal income? Sales taxes paid on business expenses are usually get refunded back to the businesses. So if we abolish corporate income taxes - we'll have to find a way to tax business transactions without driving up the costs of raw materials or equipment repairs. (Otherwise we leave the manufacturing sector seriously disadvantaged.)

Then - what rate will it be? The US Fair Tax Proposal suggests a 30% hidden tax (prices are posted "tax included", so every $100 out of pocket expense contains a $23 tax on a $77 purchase), as well as ~$200 monthly rebates per adult - to ease the effect of the tax on the low income families. Their proposal apparently doesn't factor in state income taxes. So what could be the rate for Canada, if we factor in the provincial taxes?

According to the recent budget, the government is expecting to raise $118,595M in personal income taxes and $27,565M in GST. If we want to raise all those funds ($146.16B) with GST alone, the rate should be 26.5%. To compensate for the higher rate, GST credit checks should be made monthly and the amount should go up from $30.75 to $163. With the provincial taxes on top of that we should add 8% (existing provincial portion of the HST) and then another 12% which would compensate for the lost provincial income tax revenues. That adds up to a 46.5% tax. Or, if we make it a hidden tax - that would be $32 tax on a $68 purchase for every $100 out of pocket expense.

Of course, if we cut all the wasteful spendings, we can bring the rate down by 5-6% on the federal level and by 3-4% - on the provincial level. Still - even a 37% sales tax (or a hidden tax of $27 on a $73 purchase) would result in massive tax evasion through online and cross-border shopping. How can we prevent that if the lion share of our population lives within 2- or 3-hour drive from the US border? And what can we do with online shopping? Even if we're going to check every single package and slap a 37% (if not 47%) duty to compensate for the lost sales tax revenue - still, people will find a way to cheat; instead of lowering their income, they'll try to lower the value of their purchases...

So even though the idea itself seems to be fair and reasonable - we're simply not ready to implement it. Not until we get the government spendings under control - so we could end up with lower rate than 46.5% or 37%. Not at least our next door neighbor starts implementing a similar tax shift - so that prices stay the same at both sides of the border. Not until we restructure our economy so it could handle the inevitable decline in retail sales... Not now (unfortunately) - that's for sure.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

TV Debates For All?

The CHP wants minor parties to be included in the television debates. And they are ready to go as far as suing the consortium of broadcasters organizing the debates, so that all registered parties are allowed to participate. With all my respect to Mr. Ron Gray and the CHP, it's a bad idea. Not only because it makes the party look like an bunch of activists who run to the courts every time things don't go their way. And not only because it would be quite difficult to organize an actual debate (and a civilized one) with as many as 19 political party leaders participating. There's more to the problem than that.

First and foremost - there's nothing easier nowadays than getting a political party registered. The old rule which required a political party to nominate 50 candidates in each election is gone. All you need is 250 signatures, 1 candidate (just one!) and a few officials, including a financial agent. That's it! So we have 19 registered parties. 9 of them are running less than a dozen candidates. Even if each one of those candidates gets elected - the party won't have enough MPs to have an official status in the Commons. So what's the point of even registering those parties, let alone - allowing their leaders to participate in the televised debates?

I understand the reasoning of Ron Gray. I agree - allowing a political party leader to participate in the debate is a valuable campaign contribution. If we take his example ($63,000 for a 30-second prime time ad) - we're talking about a $15M value which is shared evenly among the leaders of 4 or 5 largest political parties while others get nothing. But should the Western Block or the Work Less Party leader, who waited until the very last moment to become the party's only candidate be entitled to an equal share of the pie? I don't think so. Should some of that airtime be available to the CHP - which has 59 candidates? The BQ runs 75 and Gilles Duceppe is in. But then the Bloc has 48 sitting MPs...

During the 1993 election campaign, CBC Newsworld organized a special televised debate between the leaders of the minor parties. Maybe we could implement similar debates for the parties that don't have a sitting MP and that don't enjoy noticeable support in the polls. But still we can't have all 14 minor party leaders in there. We may set a minimum number of candidates or we may simply select the top 5 or 6. But I don't think that every single activist who can't even find a second candidate to run for his party should be allowed to appear on a nationally broadcast event.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

A Father Is No Longer A "Legal Parent"

According to some government departments (Canada Revenue Agency in particular) a child can only have one parent who is authorized to make decision on his behalf - which is the mother. So even though the law still mentions "parents", rather than just "parent" - the father is no longer considered as such; not even as a "legal parent".
Today, my husband had an unpleasant experience.

Canada Revenue Agency got the name of my third daughter wrong.

My husband is working on getting this corrected.

So he phoned up Canada Revenue Agency.

And during a nasty conversation, they told him that they will not discuss the files of any of our three daughters.

It's illegal.

Because he's not the mother.

He's the dad.
Apparently in the eyes of the CRA bureaucrats, a father is no different than a mere boyfriend or a sperm donor. Sure they could check their files and see that Suzanne and her husband are officially married. Still - why would they risk it? They know what those "civil marriages" are worth nowadays. So, just to play it safe they won't let the father access any of his children's information.

Interestingly enough, parenthood was redefined by the very same bill which finalized the redefinition of marriage. Apart from rubber-stamping the courts, Paul Martin's bill C-38 amended few other pieces of legislation, replacing "natural parents" with "legal parents". Since then - not only we no longer have brides and grooms, wives and husbands (we have "spouses" and "conjugal partners" instead,) but fatherhood too has apparently become thing of the past.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Come Speak Up For The Unborn!

Canadian 40 Days For Life Vigil begins tomorrow with a kick-off rally at the Parliament Hill.
The 40 Days for Life Kick-off Rally will take place between 7 and 9 PM on Parliament Hill on next Tuesday September 23rd. There will be speeches, music and much more. It will end with a candlelight Procession from Parliament Hill to the Abortion facility where the 40-day-around-the-clock vigil will begin. This will be a truly awesome event!
This year we'll have pro-life vigils going on in Ottawa, Toronto and Halifax, with New Brunswick pro-life groups doing their best to get a similar vigil organized in Fredericton. Spread the word and PLEASE DO YOUR BEST TO ATTEND.

Also check out our documentary entitled Being HUMAN. Too bad we missed the EWTN TV broadcast of an enhanced version, which included interviews with leaders such as Fr. Frank Pavone, former abortionists and others on how 40 Days for Life is renewing hope across North America. Hopefully, EWTN puts a link to it in their archives.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Yes, Post-Abortion Grief IS Real

Here's a great article by Chelsea Schilling:
Is abortion psychologically safe for would-be mothers and fathers?

While the American Psychological Association claims the answer is "yes," men and women who have experience with abortion are speaking out about their emotional torment following the procedure.

At Chicago's Reclaiming Fatherhood conference this week, psychologists, counselors, academics, clergy and people who have been impacted by abortion revealed APA claims may not be true after all.
Rather than attributing emotional grief to the abortion itself, the APA suggested psychological trauma may coincide with poverty, exposure to violence, history of emotional problems, drug and alcohol abuse and previous unwanted births.

The idea that abortion does not negatively impact the health of would-be parents has even been accepted by politicians. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign went so far as to suggest denying women abortions could jeopardize their health. A recent radio ad approved by his campaign cautioned against voting for the Republican ticket because, "[I]f Roe v Wade is overturned, the lives and health of women will be put at risk."

However, psychologist Dr. Vincent Rue, a psychotherapist for more than 30 years and former faculty member at California State University at Los Angeles and San Diego International University, disputed the claims. In a statement, he said regardless of the APA's stance, abortion has devastated the emotional health of men and women.
Here in Canada there's a Silent No More group which represents women who were misled by the pro-aborts into believing that the unborn is merely a "clamp of cells"; who had an abortion and who regret it now. Just read their testimonies. Their personal experience proves the existence of post-abortion grief better than any professor would ever do. Their pain and suffering should be a lesson to all of us: abortion doesn't make a woman "unpregnant". It makes her a mother of a dead baby.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Liberals — Spending Money That's Not Theirs

Federal Liberals are on a spending spree. Their election promises top $80-billion and it hasn't even been two weeks since the campaign began. But where will the money come from? The "green shaft" was supposed to only amount to $15.4B and there's nothing in it about "infrastructure bank" or any other spendings which the Liberals have recently announced. So where will they get the cash?

Since Dion has no intention to use the Bank of Canada for infrastructure projects, there are only two options left: raise the taxes or borrow the money. Both would turn out to be quite costly to an average taxpayer. Even if the Liberals make no more costly promises for the rest of the campaign, a tax hike to pay for what's been promised already, will cost an average of $3600 per taxpayer. If they borrow the money - that will be even worse.

Borrowing $80 billion, even over the course of several years will nullify all the efforts to reduce the Federal debt that were made during the last decade by Chretien's, Martin's and Harper's governments. The interest alone (at least $4 Billion) would plunge Canada into deficit - and guess who is going to pick up the cost. And, since the principal will have to be repaid sooner or later - we're talking about the same $3600 per taxpayer merely being passed to the next generation. I doubt they'll thank us for that kind of legacy.

So let's not risk it. Let's make sure we don't trust the nation's finances to a bunch of left-wing intellectuals who master in spending money that's not theirs.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Policing Internet For Hatred? Even The Adjudicator Doubts It!

Here's a great National Post Editorial:
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) adjudicator Athanasios Hadjis performed a valuable service on Monday by raising doubts about whether there is any purpose in having agencies like his police the Internet for hatred. Mr. Hadjis is currently refereeing a controversial Charter of Rights battle between far-right Web portal operator Marc Lemire and activist Richard Warman. It is all part of a complaint first launched by Mr. Warman as long ago as 2003 -- which goes to show why Mr. Hadjis may be experiencing some skepticism, nay, even exasperation, over the possibility of battling Web hate by means of a dilatory, complaint-driven, quasi-judicial, often-Kafkaesque bureaucratic procedure.
So even the CHRT adjudicator doubts whether using freedom snatching commissions against people who says something controversial on the internet is the way to go. Hopefully this is another step towards dismantling the Orwellian tribunals. Let the issues involving human rights and constitutional freedoms be settled in the court of law, not in a quasi-judiciary tribunals with 100% conviction rate, where truth is not a defense.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Freedom Of Conscience — Somewhat Safer In Ontario, Under Threat In Alberta

Good news: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario backed off a controversial proposal that would have forced doctors to "check their consciences at the door". In a revised version of the proposed code of conduct, the part that would deny doctors the right to conscientious objection is gone. (Although the threat of a "human rights" action from OHRC is still there.)

Bad news: Now it's the Alberta Collge of Physicians and Surgeons which tries to take away physicians' freedom of conscience. Their new draft document entitled the "Health Professions Act Standards of Practice" would force doctors to refer their patients for abortions, even if they are personally opposed to the practice.
The specific line - under a section entitled “Termination of Pregnancy and Birth Control” - states:
”Even if a physician’s religious or personal convictions prevent the physician from advising or offering care regarding birth control or termination of a pregnancy, the physician must ensure that the patient who seeks such advice or medical care is offered access to information and assistance in making an informed decision and access to available medical options.“
It may seem at first that the purpose of those regulation is merely to ensure that the patient is provided with enough information to make an informed decision. But is it really the case?
If that were truly the case, abortion providers would inform their "clients" (what most are in fact) that abortion is linked to elevated risks of pre-term delivery -- and multiple abortions to Cerebral Palsy -- in future pregnancies, not to mention an elevated risk for future mental dysfunction, including suicide.

But they don't. Again, their ideological commitment to abortion's political symbolism outweighs their professional ethical obligation to ensure "informed consent."
So this turns out to be yet another attempt to shove abortion down doctors' throat. Nothing else.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

CBC Sugarcoats $36Billion Tax Hike

The Green party election platform, unveiled today proposes a GST hike and a $50 per tonne carbon tax. (Which is $10 higher than what's proposed by the Liberals.) Overall, the tax impact is projected to be $36 to $37 Billion. Compared to that even the Liberal $15.4B "green shaft" looks like nothing. But what does the CBC headline say? "Elizabeth May pledges surpluses".

Looks like someone at the CBC really wants May to get elected. Well, why wouldn't they help a Sierra Club activist and a Liberal Candidate for Central Nova? Especially if she took her time to reaffirm her strong support for abortion and if she not only promises to legalize marijuana, but also goes as far as apologizing for never having smoked it before?

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Now The Choice Is Even More Obvious

So far it's been Liberal "green shaft" versus common sense. Now it's Liberal "green shaft" versus low-cost, family-friendly policies proposed by the Conservatives.

Among the new initiatives: extending EI maternity/paternity benefits to self-employed Canadians as well as introducing a new tax credit for first-time home buyers. Not bad, isn't it? To me it makes much more sense than "we'll tax you into poverty and your boss - into bankruptcy for the sake of mother Earth and then we'll give you a small refund check at the end of the year".

It's interesting to watch the CTV coverage of the EI proposal. A Liberal MP blasts it, and at the same time both experts say it's brilliant. A Liberal MP warns about possible EI hike, the expert counters that by reminding us that EI is currently over-funded. (Plus, those willing to opt-in for the benefits, will also have to start paying the premiums.)

What's more interesting - it turns out that a similar proposal was once considered by Jean Chretien's government. But they back-tracked when the proposal was denounced by feminists as "regressive". Well, if the Liberals continuously drop (if not openly oppose) family-friendly policies just because a special interest group that is afraid of strong successful women tells them to - here's another good reason to do our best to keep them in the opposition.

Monday, September 15, 2008

NCC: Stop the Free Speech Police

Orwellian tribunals ironically named "human rights commissions" erode our constitutional freedoms at an annual cost of $68,000,000:
An 80 year-old man is jailed for having an objectionable answering machine message.

A weekly magazine is brought before a legal tribunal because of an editorial cartoon.

A pastor is given a gag order and is forced to renounce his religious beliefs.

This sort of thing can’t happen in Canada, right?

Think again!

Everyday Canada’s Human Rights Commissions hear ludicrous case that have nothing to do with the basic rights and freedoms provided to us under the Charter.

Instead of hearing cases of true discrimination, our Human Rights Commissions have evolved into absurd theatre productions designed to protect people’s feelings and censor free speech at the taxpayers expense.

Annually, these commissions cost Canadian taxpayers approximately $68 million. That is $68 million of your money creating an atmosphere of political correctness gone mad.
With the leadership debates slightly more than two weeks away, we still have the opportunity to e-mail the debate organizer and submit our question. So let's make sure the freedom of speech issue is in. Let's ask the party leaders - what steps (if any) are they willing to take to defend our freedom of speech as well as our right to a fair trial?

Let's see if at least one of the major party leaders is willing to stand up to those freedom-snatching commissions. Let's see if we have at least one true statesman who is ready to what's right: to abolish the HRCs and to rewrite the Human Rights Act, so that disputes involving human rights and constitutional freedoms get settled in the court of law, not in a quasi-judiciary tribunal where truth is not a defense.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Newfoundland: Campaign Of Intimidation

Is Newfoundland politics out of control? Or is it actually under control of the provincial Premier Danny Williams and his PC party? Here is a CTV report by Robert Fife, followed by an interview with a former Newfoundland Fisheries Minister Jim Morgan.

Both talk about "heavy fear" amongst people from Danny Williams and his team; that people are being told not to support the federal Conservative candidates, not to contribute any money and not to show up to the events organized by the federal Conservatives. Among other things, a would be candidate was threatened by Danny's people that they'd ruin his father's business if he accepted the Conservative nomination in Saint John's West.

Is this Canada or is this Cuba? - asks Hunter, the author of Climbing Out Of The Dark blog. That's a good question. If what's reported by CTV is true - it's not the Elections Canada, it's the RCMP that must take a good look at what's going on in Newfoundland.

And I have another question - what exactly is Danny Williams trying to achieve? According to the CTV - he still has a grudge against federal Conservatives for not letting him have both the new equalization formula and uncapped equalization payments. If so then what's his alternative? Dion's liberals with their Carbon tax? Not a good choice for a province that has just started getting back on their feet thanks to the oil industry. Plus - if the Conservatives still win, Newfoundland will be shut out of the governing party - just like PEI was last time. Is that what they want? What else then?

There is a new party - Newfound and Labrador First Party. But they only have 1 candidate so far and it's not likely that Danny Williams & Co will endorse them as an alternative for both Liberals and Conservatives. But even if they ran candidates in all 7 ridings, winning them all - that won't even be enough for an official party status. And, unless one of the major parties comes just a few seats short of a majority government, those 7 MPs will make no difference in a 308-seat House.

Correct me if I'm wrong but to me it looks like Danny Williams & Co are purposely trying to worsen the situation for Newfoundland; that they are trying to revive the separatist attitude in the province, so they could have a sovereignty referendum on their own. If Newfoundland's oil industry gets a kick in the crotch with the new carbon tax, a slogan such as "once we have oil we don't need Canada" will become an easy sell, ensuring a solid Yes on the referendum and then granting Putin-like powers for Danny Williams and his people in a newly independent Newfoundland.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Was It "I" or "They"?

So the Green party is no longer threatening to sue Leftdog blogger for reporting on a YouTube video of Elizabeth May's unfortunate speech. The Green Party communications director John Bennett apologized to Leftdog for his hasty email and then stated the following:
In the TVO clip, Elizabeth May clearly says "they" think Canadians are stupid, referring to the opinions of some politicians. She then turns to the questioner and agrees with HIS assessment that a carbon tax is essential. No spin can change that.
Well, let's listen to it again, shall we?

Sure, the "ey" does sound quite ambiguous. But the biggest problem is with the other sentence. It's neither "this assessment" nor "his assessment". The sentence goes "and I fundamentally agree with that assessment". So, even if "ey" is really a fragment of the word "they" - what difference does it make? "They" think Canadians are stupid, but Elizabeth May fundamentally agrees with that assessment, so she's no better than "them".

Mr. Bennett suggests that the second sentence was unrelated to the first; that Ms. May turned to the questioner and talked about "his" assessment. Well, maybe it would have made sense for her to finish the sentence before changing the subject.

Friday, September 12, 2008

But They Said It Wouldn't Affect Our Marriages

We've heard that often during the marriage debate. Every time we spoke out against redefining marriage, there was always someone on the anti-marriage side suggesting that we shouldn't really care because recognizing perverse relationships as marriages wouldn't affect our marriages in any way. Then, once the issue had been "settled" (e.g. once bill C-38 had been forced through the Commons and the Senate), the Ontario Liberal government had officially abolished such politically incorrect terms as "wife" and "husband", "bride" and "groom", replacing them with gender-neutral "spouses" or "partners"...

Same thing now happens in California. Couples that are biologically incapable of forming marital relationships are now being recognized as officially "married". At the same time, the state no longer recognizes traditional couples as brides and grooms or as wives and husbands. They are now "party A" and "party B".
A pastor in Roseville, California says he was shocked to find that the government no longer uses - and no longer recoginizes - the words “bride” and “groom” on that licence. Pastor Doug Bird of the Abundant Life Fellowship says a couple he was marrying wants to be legally recognized as husband and wife, but when they pencilled in the words “bride” and “groom” next to the words “Party A” and “Party B” as printed on the new form, the paperwork was returned to him. Bird says the he also received a letter from the County Clerk saying that the alteration was “unacceptable”, and that the licence “does not comply with California State registration laws.”
Ironically, if the couple sues the county clerk, the very same court which ruled to change the definition of marriage for the sake of "inclusiveness" would most likely dismiss their case; be that on the grounds that their desire to be officially recognized as husband and wife is "based on religious beliefs" - or that words "bride" and "groom" are "offensive" to those who are more comfortable with gender-neutral "party A" and "party B".

Luckily, Californians will soon have the opportunity to vote on a proposition that would override the court decision and reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. The governing elite did their best to turn the public opinion against the proposition by adding the words "eliminating rights" to both the title and the summary. Hopefully this case makes it clear that unless people support the proposition which allegedly eliminates someone's implied rights, the state will eliminate their rights to be recognized as husbands and wives, demeaning their own marriages to mere partnerships between "party A" and "party B".

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Seven Years Ago Today

Remember the people who died - not on the battlefield, without bearing arms...
The echoes of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks continue to reverberate seven years later.

We hear them every time we get news of a terrorist cell being discovered in a Western nation.

We hear them with every suicide bombing, with every unprovoked terrorist attack anywhere in the world.

With each of those echoes, we continue to mourn the 2,752 people who lost their lives when a co-ordinated terrorist attack on the United States felled the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, tore a hole in the wall of the Pentagon in Washington, D. C. and resulted in a plane crashing in a Pennsylvania field before it could reach its intended target. In particular, the repercussions of 9-11 rise every time a Canadian soldier loses his or her life fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Almost forgotten in the mists of time is that the NATO mission in Afghanistan is a direct result of 9-11.

The al-Qaida terrorists who hijacked passenger jets and piloted them into landmarks of U. S. financial and military might were based in Afghanistan, with the blessing -covert if not overt -of the radical Taliban government.

The attacks of 9-11 were an act of war, and NATO responded in kind.
America attacked - a Flash animation commemorating the victims. Too bad it's can't be shared, so I can't embed it here. Please spare 10 minutes of your time to watch it.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Time To Bring Up Freedom Of Speech

Could there be a better time to talk about freedom of speech than a Federal election campaign? Here's what Rob Breakenridge suggests in his Calgary Herald article:
Let's take advantage of the opportunity presented to us, and use this election campaign to find out how committed all of the parties are to the issue of freedom of expression, and what if anything needs to change.

It's not as though the politicians need to be dragged kicking and screaming into a debate over freedom of speech -- it's right there beneath the surface:

The national critical issues survey sent out to Conservative candidates includes this question: "Do you agree that some of these 'human rights tribunals' have overstepped their bounds?" Sounds like the perfect question to ask during the leaders debate.

Earlier this year, a Liberal MP brought forward private member's motion M-446, which would eliminate Section 13(1) from the federal human rights legislation, thus removing the ability of human rights commissions to take on complaints regarding speech. How do the various parties feel about M-446? Or about Section 13 itself?
It's not easy to campaign against freedom-snatching commissions that have the words "human rights" in their name. Many are simply afraid to speak out against those Orwellian tribunals, because they know that their opponents would immediately accuse them of trying to roll back human rights.

But a Federal election campaign offers a unique opportunity to fight back. Just raise the question in the televised debates and get the true nature of those commissions exposed to millions of Canadian voters. Once it becomes clear to everybody that those commissions are there not to protect our rights, but to take them away, who is going to believe our opponents' claims that anyone opposed to HRC is secretly plotting to roll back human rights? And, without their fear-mongering, what other arguments will our opponents have in defense of those quasi-judiciary tribunals where truth is not a defense?

They Were Voted Out Of Power - Now They Endorse Carbon Tax

Dion's carbon tax proposal is getting some reinforcement. Believe it or not - 4 (four!) former Prime Ministers have endorsed a report which calls for a $30-a-tonne carbon tax as one of the measures to combat what's claimed to be climate change. Want to know who the four former PMs are?
The document has been signed by four former prime ministers, Joe Clark and Kim Campbell, both Progressive Conservatives, and Liberals Paul Martin and John Turner.

"We simply can't afford another round of posturing and denial in this next election," said Clark in a news release Monday.
Wow! With endorsements from those guys the report just can't fail... Or can it? After all, two of the above named former PMs ended up reducing their parties from a majority government to the lowest number of seats ever - 40 for the Liberals and 2 (two!) for the PCs. The remaining two weren't much better, both failed to stay in power after what had looked like a promising start. Their combined tenure as Prime Ministers amounts to about 42 months (26 of them - for Paul Martin) - not even a full term. Shows how powerful their endorsements are.

And while the three nobodies and Mr. Dithers endorse Dion's tax hike, Stephen Harper is offering us a tax cut. His proposal to cut excise tax on diesel fuel in half will reduce the strain on farmers, truckers, airlines... Even if it won't result in lower prices - at least we won't have yet another "fuel surcharge" when booking a trip or mailing a package. This proposal haven't yet been endorsed by a single former Prime Minister. But voters will have their chance to endorse it come election day.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Can We Trust Dion On GST?

So, it looks like Dion has changed his mind on GST cuts, so he says that he's not going to raise the GST if elected. The question is - can we take his word for it? Can we actually trust Dion not to reverse a tax cut which he's been fiercely opposing up until now?

Dion promised to rescind the GST cuts if elected as soon as the Conservatives released their mini-budget about a year ago. During the past year, Dion repeatedly referred to the GST cut as "ill-advised choice", suggesting that he would consider "revisiting it". So, which Stephane Dion should we trust? The one that hates the GST cut and wishes to reverse it or the one that agrees to let it be?

But maybe Stephane Dion did realize that reducing the GST wasn't such an ill-advised choice after all? Maybe. But how can we be sure he won't change his mind again if circumstances change? Can we trust Dion to defend the GST cuts even if the choice is between raising the GST and cutting spending to Liberal priorities? I doubt it. When it comes to Dion - we can't even trust him to defend his point of view (whichever it is) when most of his party executives pressure him to change his position. Dion may still hold the top job in the Liberal party but he's hardly an actual Liberal leader.

We've witnessed that already. Dion was against carbon tax back in March of 2007. And yet at the very same time, his fellow Liberal MPs joined the NDP and the Block and voted in a carbon tax proposal into the Conservative Clean Air Act. Every time Dion tried to reassure Canadians that there would be no carbon tax, his own party MPs suggested that there would - until Dion finally gave in.

Now, Dion is promising us that there will be no GST hike. Even if he actually means it this time, how can we be sure that some prominent Liberal isn't already drafting their first mini-budget that would rescind the recent tax cuts so that more money could be allocated towards Liberal spending priorities? Even if Dion has truly changed his mind on reversing the GST cut - the Liberal caucus on which Dion has no control still remains a triple threat to Canadian families.

Monday, September 8, 2008

40 Days For Life Campaign Makes Inroads Into Canada

In a little more than two weeks, the 40 Days for Life Campaign will begin. So far there are three Canadian cities where the 40 Days for Life vigils will be held: Ottawa, Toronto and Halifax. The Campaign, as the name suggests, runs 40 days from September 24th to November 2nd, and seeks to end abortion through directed prayer, fasting, vigil, and community outreach.
40 Days for Life is a focused pro-life campaign that over the past three years has generated measurable lifesaving results in every community where it has been experienced. So far, 40 Days for Life campaigns have been conducted in more than 130 communities in the US. More than 500 children have been confirmed as saved from abortion. Some cities have reported as much as a 28% drop in local abortion numbers, numerous post-abortive women (and men) finding healing and forgiveness, and from several hundred to over 1,000 new people getting involved with local lifesaving ministry efforts.
Don't forget to come and make sure you tell everyone you know. The Halifax vigil is within my reach, so I'll do my best to be there at least a couple of times even if the bus schedule allows no more than a 4-hour stay.

And another thing: the 40 Days For Life vigil now falls in the middle of an election campaign. So if you happen to attend all-candidate debates in your riding - ask the candidates whether or not they're planning to attend the vigil. Don't forget to ask those who won't attend to explain their decision. Let's see what kind of excuse they'll come up with to justify their decision not to show up at a peaceful vigil in defense of the unborn babies.

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Not Bad For A Minority Government

Governments that are 20 or 30 seats short of the majority usually don't last more than a few months - unless they form a coalition with a minor party. Stephen Harper's minority government had no minor party to form a coalition with. And yet not only the Conservative minority government lasted more than two and a half years, but it also has a lot to show for it.

Most observers mention the GST cut as a major accomplishment of the Conservative government. But there's much more to it. Even when we only mention tax cuts - each of the three budgets (which the Conservatives miraculously managed to pass through a minority parliament) included some tax cuts for Canadians, be that higher personal exemption or new tax breaks for families with children. Business taxes too are now lower than they were during Paul Martin's tenure.

Then let's not forget the anti-crime measures. The government did succeed in passing most of their initiatives - from raising the from raising the age of consent to tougher sentences for gun crimes. It's also worth mentioning the Softwood Lumber dispute (does anyone still remember that?) which had been going on for some 5 years until we finally got a government capable of resolving it...

So it would be easier to name the issues where the Conservative government didn't have much success. Those are - social issues, democratic reform and the environment.

When it comes to social issues - the party's largest achievement is that by defeating the Liberals, it put an end to such Liberal initiatives as enshrining abortion in the Charter or creating a universal McDaycare where kids would be brainwashed into Liberal social views. Not much more could be expected from a party which has "progressive social policy" enshrined in the constitution and where a Quebec lieutenant is a former Liberal who is proud of his socially perverse views. If we want anything to change in this area - we better start organizing, so that we could show some political strength behind us.

As for the democratic reform and the environment - the Conservatives were simply outnumbered by the opposition parties, none of which was interested in changing the status-quo. The left-wing parties didn't want to let go of their "global warming" myth. So they kept blocking real measures against air and water pollution, using every opportunity to push through a private member bill on "climate change" or voting in Kyoto targets and carbon taxes into any Conservative environmental bill which went beyond the second reading.

Same with the democratic reform. Why would the Liberals support Senate elections or term limits if they're looking forward to form the next government and fill all the vacant seats themselves? Why would they let the government legislate more restrictions on loans to political parties when their own Liberal party is drowning in debt? Or - why would the Bloc support a bill to grant more seats to the most populous provinces if Quebec already has more seats than its population warrants?

Even when it came to minor initiatives such as denying film credits to porn movies, disqualifying strippers from getting work permits in Canada as "skilled workers" or demanding voters to show their faces and photo IDs before being allowed to vote - the opposition parties weren't willing to allow that. The lefties need every stripper, every pervert, every Muslim fanatic they can get...

In the end the opposition filibustering brought the Parliament to a near halt, forcing the Prime Minister to seek new mandate from the voters. (If it wasn't for the upcoming by-elections, Stephen Harper could let the opposition defeat one of his bills and trigger an election, but why would we force some 300,000 voters to come to the polls twice in just 10-week time?) Many great initiatives died on the order paper when the Parliament was dissolved. But what has been achieved is certainly not bad for a minority government.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

CRTC Favors Porn Over Christian Broadcasting

CRTC would not allow a Christian radio station on the air even if they have 10 times the support than other stations competing for the same broadcasting spot. But CRTC wouldn't mind authorizing a porn channel.
The CRTC -- the same agency that recently gave two thumbs-up to a homegrown Canadian porn TV network -- has nixed two applications for Christian radio stations in the Ottawa area, and that has left some supporters of the religious proposals very unhappy.
Just a few weeks ago, the CRTC approved Northern Peaks, a porn cable channel based in Alberta, leaving many to wonder about its values as a government regulator.

"The approval of (Northern Peaks) was quite offensive," said Don Hutchison, director of law and public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. "The CRTC has, for the past 15 years, sent a strong message they don't like Christian broadcasting, but they will allow it with heavy restrictions."
The restrictions usually require that Christian talk programs must be countered with discussion about other faiths; a Christian radio station cannot promote the right to life and the sanctity of marriage without bringing in a speaker from an ultra-liberal denomination that would praise abortion and preach acceptance to perverse lifestyles. None of those restrictions apply to any other radio stations, which aren't required to allocate some broadcasting time to a Social Conservative speaker, if they wish to praise secular fundamentalist social engineering.

And of course, the newly authorized porn channel is also free from any "content balancing" restrictions. You won't see them being forced to broadcast information about the dangerous of promiscuous and perverse lifestyles. Let alone - it's easier for them to get the broadcasting license. Once again, socially conservative Christians end up being less equal than others.

Friday, September 5, 2008

What Exactly Makes Bill Casey "An Honourary Green?"

The Red-Green show goes on. This time however it's a "Red Tory - Green". Green Party is not going to run a candidate against Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey.
NEW GLASGOW – Green Party leader Elizabeth May announced that her party considers Independent Member of Parliament Bill Casey "an honourary Green". The Green Party of Canada and its Electoral District Association in Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley will not be opposing the re-election of Mr Casey. The nominated candidate for the Green Party in Casey's riding, Darryl Whetter, has decided to step aside and is now the Green candidate in Halifax.
But what exactly makes Bill Casey "an honourary Green"? Is he a hard-line environmentalist? I doubt it. Has he ever expressed his intention to join the Green party? No, that never happened; since his expulsion from the Conservative caucus, Bill Casey has been sitting as "Independent Progressive Conservative", not as "Independent Green". But maybe Mr. Casey was expelled from the caucus because of his disagreement with the government's position on Kyoto? No, the question was whether or not offshore oil revenues should affect the equalization transfers to the province. That's hardly a "green" issue...

So why did Elizabeth May decide not to run a Green candidate against him? Alberta Ardvark blogger suggests that by yielding another constituency, she may try to convince Dion not to run a Liberal candidate against the recently turned Green MP Blair Wilson. But Bill Casey is not a Liberal. Come election, he's going to be still opposed by the actual Liberal candidate. Endorsing him won't help Blair Wilson in any way.

Then why was Bill Casey named "an honourary Green"? Most likely - just because he had voted against Harper. That's the only thing what makes him valuable to Elizabeth May, who is still acting as a Sierra Club activist, not as a political party leader. Instead of trying to get as many Green MPs elected as possible, all she wants is to elect more anti-Harper MPs - even if they don't support the Green party policies. She may succeed in getting Bill Casey re-elected, but I doubt that her own party will thank her for that.

Another Attempt To Sugarcoat Carbon Tax

Stephane Dion is once again trying to sugarcoat his "green shift" plan. This time he's pledging more funds to help farmers cope with higher prices of diesel fuel:
WINNIPEG — Anticipating an election call within days, Stephane Dion says he'll "strengthen" the Liberal Green Shift plan by pledging more money — up to $1 billion — to help farmers and others cope.

The Liberal leader, in Winnipeg for a two-day caucus meeting, said he'll tweak the proposal to focus on encouraging better agricultural practices. The modified plan will "help our farmers to be less dependent on fossil fuels, more energy-efficient and then more competitive."
Wouldn't it be easier just not to overtax farmers in the first place? Or is it that important to create extra jobs for bureaucrats that would collect the carbon tax and then calculate and distribute the handouts?

And another thing - where is that extra $1B actually going to come from? The article mentions some mysterious fund named "contingency offset", initially designed "to allay the effects of a carbon tax on not-for-profit groups or charities". What kind of fund is that? And where will the fund (the "contingency offset") get all that money?

Also - what about the non-profit groups and charities, for which the funds were originally allocated? Does that mean they won't get any money now, once those same funds were pledged to "farmers and others"? Or is Dion looking forward to get another billion from some other sources? It almost looks like they're trying to spend the same money twice... Well, don't blame them. Do you think it's easy to sugarcoat snake oil?

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Avant-Garde Of Death

Finally some good news - Raymond Gravel is retiring from politics.
OTTAWA, September 3, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Controversial Catholic priest and MP, Raymond Gravel, an adamant supporter of abortion and same-sex "marriage", has announced that he will be stepping down as Bloc MP of Repentigny in Quebec after being issued an ultimatum by the Vatican.

"My bishop received instructions from Rome and in effect I had to choose between the priesthood and my role as an MP. There was a threat of laicization and I could have been defrocked," Gravel told Cyberpresse.

He then explained that the Vatican's actions were influenced by several English-Canadians who complained to his superiors about his support for Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada and his opposition to the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill, saying, "They complained about my positions that were avant-garde."
Avant-garde? What exactly is so "avant-garde" in refusing to recognize a wanted unborn baby as a separate object that is valuable to the mother and that deserves to be protected? In his speech against bill C-484 he claimed that an unborn baby is a part of woman's body - a statement that not only contradicts the teachings of the Catholic church, but is also biologically untrue. If there is a word to describe his views that would be "ignorant", not "avant-garde".

Now this guy is returning to priesthood. Not sure how is he looking forward to remain a spiritual leader in an organization whose views he openly opposes. What kind of sermon is he going to give on the Feast Of The Holy Innocents? Will he be praising king Herod for saving thousands of women the trauma of raising "unwanted" children, conceived in forced/arranged marriages - just like he praises Morguentaler for "fighting for women who are living through the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy"? Or is he just going to forget about the Holy Innocents and preach some PC nonsense like "global warming"? If he chooses to avoid thorny issues, that could hardly be considered "avant-garde"...

So far we've seen Gravel refusing to uphold women's right to give birth and praising political activism which claimed the lives of 1 in 6 in my generation. If his positions are "avant-garde" as he claims - that must be the avant-garde of death.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Implied "Rights" Trample Constitutional Freedoms

Ontario's human rights police seek to slap the cuffs on doctors - that's how Lorne Gunter titles his National Post article. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happens in Canada's largest province. The new code of conduct, proposed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and endorsed by the Ontario "human rights" commission will strip physicians of their right to conscientious objection. Those who refuse to conform to the secular fundamentalist concept of "rights" (even if the latter means performing elective injurious procedures that go against one's beliefs) would face disciplinary actions as well as "human rights" complaints.
The commission truly believes that "the freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them," especially when religious beliefs come in conflict with causes for which the commission sees itself as chief cheerleader, such as gay rights and reproductive choice. On today's trendy ladder of rights, freedom of religion is on the bottom rung. It is the first to get stepped on by ambitious rights climbers.

The commission's submission is full of talk about the need to accommodate -- everyone should try to accommodate everyone else's beliefs. But the commission doesn't believe its own bumph. Over and over again it states (rather than merely advising) that the obligation to accommodate falls only on religious-minded doctors in this case. The commission has never sought to balance the beliefs of the faithful with the demands of advocates for causes it itself champions.

Nearly a decade ago, the OHRC showed its true colours in the Scott Brockie case. Mr. Brockie was a Christian and a printer. A gay rights organization sought to prove a point by seeking out Mr. Brockie and demanding he print their stationery. Even though there were many printers closer to the gay organization's offices --and therefore both their printing needs and Mr. Brockie's beliefs could have been easily accommodated if the group had obtained printing services conveniently elsewhere --the OHRC said religious rights could be exercised only in the private sphere. When they entered the public realm, they were secondary to gay rights.
But persecution in the name of "human rights" is not something which is exclusive to Ontario. Ontario may be one of the champions, but other provinces are doing their best to catch up. In Saskatchewan, the Court of Appeal will decide whether a man should be forced to pay $17,500 to a group of perverts who felt offended by the flyers he distributed.
When a man is ordered to pay $17,500 to people offended by flyers that he peacefully distributed, it sends a chilling message to all citizens: “Be very, very careful about what you say, and when in doubt, remain silent. Avoid the risk of a human rights prosecution that publicly brands you as ‘hateful’ or ‘bigoted,’ and avoid the risk of paying a hefty fine, and incurring massive legal bills.” This chilling effect on citizens freely expressing themselves undermines the quest for truth, the marketplace of ideas and democracy itself.
And that's exactly what the secular fundamentalists who run the Orwellian tribunals (known as "human rights" commissions) are trying to accomplish.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Homeschooling: A Learning Experience For The Whole Family

Great article by Mary Cooney. The advantages of homeschooling are obvious, but Mary also mentions the challenges which homeschooling families often face:
And so it was with great anticipation that I began homeschooling my daughter last year. Having been a piano teacher and a high school teacher, I assumed that teaching one little five-year-old would be quite simple. Much to my surprise, it was more difficult than I could have imagined. At times it was so challenging that I found myself asking, “Now why are we doing this? And is it really worth it?”

This summer, as I prepared for another year of homeschooling, I took the time to reflect deeply upon the difficulties we had and to examine our reasons for homeschooling. Why are we homeschooling? What are the challenges, and how can we overcome them? This is what I would like to share.
If you have ever had any concerns about the environment and the quality of education provided by the public schools, if you've ever considered taking full control over your children's education - the article is sure worth reading.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Humor: Leaders' Debate 2008

"With a Green MP sitting in the House of
Commons, it will now be impossible to
exclude the Green party from the televised
leaders' debates in the next election,
(Elizabeth May)

Good evening. We begin our live coverage of the leaders' debate 2008. You've probably noticed that the place is somewhat crowded... Well, because of the last minute changes in the party standings, many more political parties are now qualified to participate in the debates. Since you may not know some of the party leaders, allow me to introduce them to you.

Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton... Those guys have been bothering us for the last few years, so I guess I don't need to bother introducing them, do I? Let's go straight to Elizabeth May, Green party leader and a Liberal candidate for Central Nova. Here she is right next to Stephane Dion.

Let me remind you that Green party became eligible to participate in the debates once Blair Wilson, a former Liberal MP from Vancouver area joined the party and became the first sitting Green MP. There were a few objections to that, since Blair Wilson wasn't actually elected under the Green party banner. But in the end it was decided that any MP who is a member of the party at the time the writs are dropped, counts as a sitting MP. Especially since Mr. Wilson had to sit most of his term as Independent...

...So here's Elizabeth May! Oh, Ms. May, you may want to watch those wires... We're no longer using wireless mikes because we want to conserve some energy, so make sure you don't trip on the wires. Hello!... Ms. May?...

While our crew is fixing the wires, I'd like to use the opportunity to introduce Ron Gray, a leader of the Christian Heritage Party. Yes, believe it or not the CHP actually made it to the debates; all thanks to a group of Christian MPs who left their parties and formed the very first CHP caucus in the House of Commons. Some believed that this shouldn't qualify them for the debate, since the CHP doesn't run full slate, but neither does the Bloc, so the party was allowed to participate...

So, good evening Mr. Gray! What was that?! Good evening and God bless you?! Mr. Gray, let me warn you, we are on CBC! If you say one more prayer - you're out of the debates and a human rights complaint will be filed against you! (Whispering) - Just give his mike to Elizabeth May and let him have the broken one!

All right, let's proceed, shall we? The Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe won't honor the English language debates with his presence. Instead we have Barbara Wardlaw, the leader of the First Peoples National Party of Canada and Thomas V. Hickey, the leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador First Party. Both parties made it to the debates, because a group of aboriginal MPs and a Senator from Newfoundland changed their party affiliation just hours before the writs were dropped.

Yes, that's right, a Senator counts as a sitting MP. That's why we also have Sinclair Stevens, the leader of the Progressive Canadian party. The rump PC caucus in the Senate agreed to a name change so that another anti-Har... I mean, another progressive political party could participate in the debates, even if they only run 2 candidates. Finally we have Conrad Schmidt from the Work Less Party. Wait a minute... Where is Mr. Schmidt? On vacation? Watching us live in a hotel room? But how is he going to answer questions? Text messaging? No way, I'm not paying those fees! Ok, let him use MSN...

What's that? Sorry, we're out of time. Tune in for the next round of debates in four weeks, when I'll be introducing the remaining party leaders...