Friday, July 31, 2009

Rein In The "Human Rights" Provocateurs (Not Just Bureaucrats - Provocateurs)

Peter Worthington refers to them as the "human rights bureaucracy" in his Toronto Sun article. But we're not talking about a bunch of bureaucrats who get back at their clients by forcing them to wait months for an answer. We're talking about provocateurs who try to trick others into saying something incriminating:
In a column in the National Post Ezra Levant, who has been battling Alberta human rights zealots, identified seven individuals who work for the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) who also joined neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, or white hate groups.

It's not that these individuals are Nazi sympathizers or racists who've infiltrated the hallowed halls of human rights activists. They aren't. What they are, are provocateurs, using the Internet to join suspect hate groups in order to collect evidence against them.

In other words, it's a form of entrapment.

Intelligence agents joining (penetrating) a group to assess possible treason or subversion, is vastly different from enticing, provoking or encouraging a racist reaction by pretending to be more extreme than the extremists -- which is what CHRC provocateurs do.
One gets the feeling the CRHC sets up targets to knock down, thereby justifying its existence. For more details on CRHC mischief, try going to the blog, or other sites giving details about provocateurs pretending to be racists in hopes of catching racists.
So - we're talking about provocateurs, not bureaucrats. But apart from that - it's hard to disagree with Peter Worthington: It's time to rein in those jackboots. HRCs should be disbanded; cases that currently fall under its jurisdiction (human rights, hate mongering, discrimination etc) should be adjudicated in the court of law.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Live Free Or... Fight!

Ignite Our Culture 2009 Halifax Conference.

From the ECP website:

The ECP CENTRE's first Eastern Canada conference - in Halifax - is going to be an exciting event.

Canada's pre-eminent Freedom Fighter Ezra Levant will be our feature speaker on Saturday.

You will also hear from two other champions of freedom: Connie Fournier of freedom blog, Free Dominion, and Scott Brockie, an entrepreneur who was dragged through Ontario's human rights system by a homosexual activist, but who has lived to tell the story.

At this conference, you will learn about the ongoing assault against our fundamental liberties in Canada. You will learn about the necessary link between our Judeo-Christian heritage and our tradition of liberty. You will learn about the link between the love of one's child and a parent's commitment to pick up his sword in this battle.

If you are a freedom fighter, this conference will encourage and strengthen you in this difficult battle. You will hear from motivating speakers and you will be able to network with other like-minded attendees.

If you aren't active in the battle for freedom in Canada, but you want to learn more about the need for more people working to advance Judeo-Christian ethics and culture in Canada, you will also want to be a part of this conference.

This two-day conference will include workshops. Christian Heritage Party leader, Nova Scotian Jim Hnatiuk, will be speaking. Al Siebring, a long-time broadcaster and now a municipal politician in B.C. will also provide a workshop, providing some very practical ideas for Christians who want to serve the people in their communities and honour God at the same time as a Canadian politician. We are waiting for responses from other invited speakers. A Conservative MP has also been invited to address the conference.

Christian and conservative organizations will be represented. We have other exciting plans that we hope to add as they become confirmed.

If you live in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, we look forward to meeting you at our ECP Centre Live Free or... Fight "Ignite Our Culture" Conference on Sept. 25-26.

No, this is not a video from the conference. The video was recorded at the Liberty Summer Seminar in Orono, Ontario.

You Have /Insert Name Here/ In Your Facebook Friends List?! You're Fired!!!

Now, this is just plain outrageous:
Until recently the Bozeman, Montana municipal government demanded that job applicants disclose any and all of their involvement on social networking sites like Facebook , Myspace and YouTube as part of a background check. This included login names and passwords. The following excerpt is from a city waiver form, applicants are asked to sign:

“Please list any and all, current personal or business Web sites, Web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo,, MySpace, etc.,”

City manager Chris Kuluski said, "The City of Bozeman believes we have a responsibility to ensure candidates hired for positions of public trust are subject to a thorough background check.”. This requirement for disclosure did not apply to current employees or elected officials. Following the public opposition ranging from news sources, privacy rights groups and bloggers, the City of Bozeman has ended this requirement.
Well, at least they abolished that policy after all. But darn, this could have set a dangerous precedent. What's next? Job applicants being compelled to disclose the PINs for all their debit and credit cards, so that prospective employer could make sure they haven't written any bad checks? Whoever came up with the idea deserves to be fired or, at the very least - demoted.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

"Unconscious Racism" — Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Now, what does one need to do to prove that he's not an "unconscious racist"? Especially if the organization that demands proof doesn't accept the defense of truth, not to mention - common sense...
In March, 2005, Constable Michael Shaw was on patrol in the Bridle Path, an ultra-affluent Toronto neighbourhood he knew well. He was showing a female trainee the ropes. Down the street, he spotted an unfamiliar letter-carrier delivering the mail. He asked him for ID, ran his name through the computer, thanked him for his trouble and verified with a regular postie that the new guy was a fill-in. The letter-carrier was not insulted, detained or charged with any crime.

Innocuous? Not to Ronald Phipps, the fill-in letter-carrier. He is black. The cop is white. Mr. Phipps decided he'd been a victim of racial profiling, and took his case to the Human Rights Tribunal. In a ruling last month, the adjudicator agreed.

The decision makes for scary reading, because it says someone can be found guilty just for making someone else feel bad. “There is no need to establish an intention or motivation to discriminate,” it says. “[T]he focus of the enquiry is on the effect of the respondent's action on the complainant.”

According to the tribunal, “unconscious” discrimination is no different from “conscious” discrimination. And the onus is on the accused to prove he's innocent. “Once a prima facie case of discrimination has been established, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a rational explanation which is not discriminatory. ... The respondent must offer an explanation which is credible on all the evidence.”

Community policing is a big deal in Toronto these days. Its essence is getting to know the people in the neighbourhood. Mr. Phipps was a stranger there. But the adjudicator didn't buy Constable Shaw's rationale. A white cop had stopped an African-Canadian in an affluent neighbourhood, and “on a balance of probabilities,” that made the cop guilty of discrimination.
If Constable Shaw broke the law - let him be tried in a criminal court, where truth is a defense and where the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If he violated the police officer's code of conduct - then he should be disciplined by his superior for something that he did, not just nailed for "unconscious racism" for something that might have happened.

Once again, we witness those quasi-judiciary tribunals being first and foremost - irrelevant; the case could have been dealt with without their needless intervention. Once again, a "human rights" body is being used as a tool to settle the scores with someone who has merely hurt the complainer's feelings. And, as always, we witness those committees and tribunals with "human rights" in their name, becoming nothing but a threat to our human rights and to the rule of law in Canada.

"Human rights" committees must be abolished. Their records - publicly destroyed. Their rulings must be declared unenforceable. And all those who believe that one has broken the law by hurting their precious feelings, are welcome to have their dispute settled in the court of law; where both the plaintiff and the defendant are treated equally.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Overpopulation Is A Myth

Check out this website for videos and articles that disprove the overpopulation myth:
FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, July 27, 2009 ( - The Population Research Institute (PRI) has released the first in a series of educational videos intended to disprove what it calls the "myth" of overpopulation.

The brief feature "Overpopulation: the Making of a Myth" refutes common misconceptions about world population, poverty, resource consumption, and the United Nations.
"The idea of a world with no room or food is terrifying, but all it takes is checking the facts see how silly the whole thing is. We hope this video will do that for people."

The video, available at PRI's YouTube page, is also available at its accompanying website, "Overpopulation is a Myth." The site presents more facts and figures behind the video in an accessible fashion. It also features downloadable content and links to scientific sources.

If anything, there's a threat of global aging and massive depopulation, resulting from the plummeting birth rates.
Childlessness among European and U.S. women aged 65 in 2005 ranged from less than 8 percent in the Czech Republic to 15 percent in Austria and Italy, the study noted. Twenty percent of women aged 40-44 in the United States in 2006 had no biological children. The study suggested that these data raise questions about the provision of care when that group of women reaches advanced ages.

"The world's population of people over age 65 is growing rapidly, and with it will come a number of challenges and opportunities," said NIA Director Richard J. Hodes, M.D.

The number of people worldwide age 65 and older was estimated at 506 million as of midyear 2008; by 2040, that number will be 1.3 billion. Thus, in just over 30 years, the proportion of older people will double from 7 percent to 14 percent of the total world population, according to the report.
Yeah, I can really see the threat of ever increasing wourld's population overwhelming the Earth... Don't overpopulation alarmists get tired of being wrong all the time?

Monday, July 27, 2009

Legalized Euthanasia Empowers No One

An assumption that, at some point, life is not worthy of living, can backfire when one least expects.
Mr. McKay does not wish to see his life "cruelly extended" (assumption: suffering and pain are unnatural add-ons to life, not as much a part of life as youth and vigour). He says, "life is for the living" (assumption: the terminally ill no longer hold the moral status of "living"). And, of course, "Canada's medical system is for those who need it" (assumption: medical "need" is an entirely fungible notion).

His trump card -- or so he believes -- is his final flourish: "What possible exercise in logic or morality (my emphasis) would deny me my dignity and force me to suffer against my will?" (assumption plus corollary: dignity is a quality that only attaches to health and personal autonomy; those who willingly suffer pain and suffering with a view to a naturally prescribed death have no dignity).

All right-thinking people, religious and secular, already believe that in cases where there is no hope of recovery and a life is seeking its own natural end, life should not be unnecessarily prolonged through artificial or heroic measures. As to the deliberate, state-sanctioned and/or state-activated termination of a life because it is no longer pleasurable, or because it involves chronic caretaking and/or is burdensome to loved ones, or for any other reason we squeeze under the benign umbrella of "quality of life," that's a whole other subject: Mr. McKay's in fact.
We have up until recently assumed that we cannot control life's end. When that was the case -- just as when we used to think we could not control life's beginning -- caretaking for those at the heart of the drama was accepted as everyone's responsibility. But now we would view late-life sufferers, as we used to consider unwed mothers, as having gotten themselves "in trouble" and in need of a termination to that trouble...
Legalizing euthanasia will devalue every human life; not just those lives that euthanasia supporters find not worthy of living. In the end, euthanasia supporters too, may find themselves being coerced to take the suicide pill, rather than continue their treatment. But then - it will be too late to complain.

To find out more on euthanasia and on the threats it brings - follow this link. (It's a 30-minute speech by Alex Schadenberg, the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.)

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Where Have All The Fiscal Conservatives Gone?

Kevin Gaudet tries to find an answer to that question in his National Post article:
Harper has a strong history as a fiscal conservative; and, to be fair, his government has made many good fiscally conservative decisions. To name a few: reduced business taxes, a lower GST, tax-free savings accounts, the new Employment Insurance tribunal and the partial privatization of Atomic Energy Commission Ltd. On the other hand, even before the recent budget, spending had been growing at unsustainable rates — more than twice the rate of inflation and population growth combined. The recent federal budget ushered in the largest deficit in history, new and increased spending on regional development programs and a massive increase in corporate welfare.

Harper is not the only fiscal-conservative backtracker: The current government caucus contains many MPs who were once elected representatives or staff members of parties with strong fiscally conservative stances, including Reformers and former Harrisites. The Harper caucus has 143 Members of Parliament. Of those, 18 were elected Reform party MPs in 1993 and 1997, four were Reform party staff members, three were Cabinet ministers in the Mike Harris government and one is a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

These 26 MPs hold a great deal of power in the Harper government — they include Harper himself, seven Cabinet ministers, the government House leader, one minister of state, three parliamentary secretaries and the chairman of the standing committee on finance. As well, many of the key roles in the Prime Minister's Office are occupied by former Reform party or Harris staff, including the chief of staff, principal secretary, director of communication, deputy chief of staff, press secretary, director of policy and director of issues management. Clearly, the Prime Minister and his staff have the needed bench strength to get back to their balanced-budget roots. But they haven't.
They may have the roots, but they don't have the guts. If only they had the courage to defend their policies during the last campaign, instead of backtracking on arts funding, tax subsidies for porn movies and other fiscally Conservative initiatives... But Harper and his team chose to stick to their dream of attracting left-leaning voters (especially in Quebec) - and they ended up losing more than 160,000 votes as result.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Multiculturalism Or Ghettoization?

Apart from "more pavilions at Folkfest", Canadian multiculturalism has also brought with it self-contained ethnic enclaves, where people live their lives in voluntary isolation from the rest of the society.
Have a swing through the Greater Toronto Area and you will see multiple ethnic enclaves. Like some European and American cities, the GTA is dotted with different ethnic quarters.

If you call it diversity, that is fine. But what one sees is these ethnic groups have become self-contained communities. Their sheer numbers have obviated the need for any interaction -- economic, social and cultural -- with other ethnic groups.
As mentioned earlier, there are no compulsions for people in these ethnic enclaves to leave their comfort zones. In addition, the Canadian government has given them enough incentives to stay in their ghettos with a beautiful thing called multiculturalism.

This well-meaning policy may have been aimed at helping newcomers preserve their language, religious traditions and culture, but it seems to have served the opposite purpose.

Basically this policy says: Be the way you are, and stay in your ghetto. Bluntly speaking, it breeds isolation.
But then self-contained enclaves make great safe ridings for our "progressive" politicians. And perpetuating the community's social and economic problems by encouraging self-isolation ensures that the people in the community keep voting as they're told - under the threat of losing the dole if "their man" is defeated.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Recession Is Over. Time To Get Ready To Balance The Books.

OTTAWA - The Bank of Canada is declaring the recession essentially over, saying Canada's economy will begin growing this summer after nine months of stagnation and lead most of the industrialized world next year.
Earlier, the bank had dropped its April call for a one per cent contraction this quarter and now says the economy will instead expand by 1.3 per cent annualized.
That will be followed by a three per cent advance in the last three months of this year, and three per cent growth next year.

But Carney also issued a caution that recovery "is not a foregone conclusion," and that the economy remains dependent on massive government stimulus and his own conditional pledge to keep the policy interest rate at the historic low of 0.25 per cent until mid-2010.
While more optimistic than most forecasts, Carney concedes the bounce-back is modest by historical standards. In fact, he does not have the economy returning to full capacity until mid-2011.

Currently, the bank estimates the Canadian economy is operating 3.5 per cent below capacity.
Ok. So we're not talking about 2010/11. But mid-2011, when the economy is expected to return to full capacity - that's the beginning of fiscal 2011/12. By then - it should be possible to make hard decisions. So 2011/12 should be the fiscal year when Canada returns to balanced budgets.

According to the recent budget documents, the government expects to raise $259.4B in the fiscal year 2011/12. Program spending, budgeted for that year amounts to $235.1B. With $37.2B in projected public debt charges on top of that, we have a $13B deficit. Unless we want to wait two or three more years for the revenues to finally catch up with the expenses, or unless we want to give the government an excuse to raise taxes, the deficit amount must come off the inflated program spending. Instead of $235.1B, program spending for 2011/12 should be capped at $222B. That's a 5.9% reduction.

Is such a reduction achievable? Yes. Since 2000/01, an average increase in program spending was almost double the rate of inflation and population growth combined. Had the program spending been capped at the rate of inflation, adjusted to population growth, the "base" program expenses budgeted for 2011/12 would have been $167B. The actual amount budgeted, however is $235.1B. Thus, in order to get rid of the $13B deficit, the government doesn't even need to eliminate overspending completely. All they need is to roll back some of the past excess spending increases, bringing the amount overspent down from $68B to $55B. Just trim the fact - and you get the books balanced in 2011/12.

After all - isn't that what the government planned to in the first place?
Hard decisions will be needed to keep federal spending under control and focused on results. Grants, contributions and capital expenditures will be placed under the microscope of responsible spending. Departments will have the funding they need to deliver essential programs and services, and no more. Our Government will engage Parliament and encourage members to take a more active role in scrutinizing spending and suggesting areas for restraint.
That's from the Throne Speech. So how about acting on these words for a change? How about introducing zero-base budgeting at least as a pilot project for the non-essential programs? The time is plenty, the government has more than half of 2009/10 and all of 2010/11 to prepare its plan to bring back fiscal restraint. And, if the government succeeds in bringing program spending under control, that will allow them to:
  • Balance the books in 2011/12
  • Phase in mandatory debt repayments (1% of the GDP each year) in 2012/13
  • Start offering new tax cuts in 2013/14
Now, isn't that a better way to manage nation's finances than just throwing money around and waiting for the revenues to catch up sometime in 2013/14, if not later?

Abortion Never Was, And Never Will Be, A Pretty Sight

Show The Truth has brought the true image of the murderous "choice" to a few Southern Ontario cities. And, as always, some residents are upset with the graphic pictures of aborted unborn babies; they claim those images are disturbing and inappropriate for children. Well, how appropriate is it to turn a blind eye on a procedure that makes preborn babies look like they've been through a meat grinder?
Connell said she understands why parents would be upset with the images, “but parents often have their own issues with abortion and use their children as an excuse to get angry,” she said.

“Most children we see in the back of cars are not paying attention. With older children, parents should be able to explain what abortion is. A pro-choice parent would have a lot harder time with that than a pro-life parent would.”
On July 12, Matters blogged about the group’s arrival in Burlington on Halton Prolife’s website. She wrote: “Abortion never was, and never will be, a pretty sight. Surgical abortion always involves the dismemberment of a fully-formed, tiny human being who has legs and arms and whose heartbeat has been present since three weeks after conception … on the busy streets of Burlington today, the general public will have the opportunity to see the awful truth of abortion. It will invoke strong emotions and some viewers will want to accuse the messenger of making them feel uncomfortable.”
What's that saying about liking sausage and watching it being made? Sure, many find this approach controversial. I've seen a few commenters saying that they support the pro-life cause, but they don't approve of graphic displays because children may see them... Well, what's more important - ending the wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn babies or preventing one's children from seeing it?

But let's say a child does see the picture of a dismembered unborn baby - would any pro-life parent have a hard time explaining his child why does a baby look like that? Rosemary Connell is right, it's a lot easier than for a pro-abortion parent to claim that abortion is a "choice" and that the unborn is merely a "blob of tissue" even if it looks like a baby...

And another thing - speaking of things that are inappropriate for the children to see - here's a great rebuttal:
“Critics of the displays argue the images of aborted unborn children are too graphic to post in public settings.”
I wonder if these are the same people who okay the Pride Parades where naked people are running around frolicking in the streets?
Double standard???? To me it doesn’t seem appropriate for grown men to walk naked in front of innocent children’s eyes!
Well said! And what about all those gruesome TV shows and commercials that are a lot more likely to be viewed by children than the above mentioned graphic pictures? If it's ok for a child to see a horror movie commercial, (those usually come without warning and they are quite difficult to avoid,) how come a poster, depicting the consequences of what's being promoted as "choice" is inappropriate?

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Legal Vacuum On Abortion — That's Not What The Court Intended

Here's another great review of the abortion policy in Canada (or lack of thereof) - by Andrew Coyne. Among other things, this 5-page review shows that even the Supreme Court had no intention to fully legalize abortion on demand though the 9 months of pregnancy, when it struck down the old abortion law back in 1988.
What, first, did the Court decide? Did it establish a constitutional right to abortion? Did it find that any legal restriction on abortion was a violation of women's rights? It did not. It's difficult, indeed, to say what the Court wanted with any precision: the 5-2 decision is split into no fewer than four separate judgments. But what is clear is that no member of the Court intended theirs to be the last word on the subject. It was only the law in front of them they found unconstitutional — Section 251 of the Criminal Code, the 1969 abortion law that, liberally for its time, first set out the conditions for a lawful abortion.

What the court objected to most was the provision requiring that women obtain the assent of a three-member "therapeutic abortion committee" in an "accredited" hospital that "continuation of the pregnancy… would or would be likely to endanger her life or health." As a practical matter, the court found, this often put an abortion out of reach, even where a women's life or health was in danger. Many hospitals did not have a therapeutic abortion committee. Many more were not accredited for the purpose. Committees often took their time deciding, and operated without clear guidelines, notably as to how "health" was to be interpreted.
Parliament had a legitimate interest, they wrote, in protecting the fetus, and was "justified in requiring a reliable, independent and medically sound opinion as to the 'life or health' of the pregnant woman." The present law was overbroad, but "it is possible that a future enactment by Parliament that would require a higher degree of danger to health in the latter months of pregnancy, as opposed to the early months" would achieve a more acceptable balancing of interests.
Yes, the Parliament did have a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus, and they tried to do just that; Unfortunately, they gave up one bill C-43 was defeated in the Senate, leaving Canada with a legal vacuum on abortion.

Now, when the pro-life groups are trying to raise awareness of the lack of legal protection for the unborn, their ads are rejected as "misleading" or "political". Hopefully, in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, advertisers will have fewer means to reject an ad that highlights those two simple facts:
  1. The human heart begins to beat 22 days after conception.
  2. Currently in Canada, that heartbeat can be stopped up until birth. No medical reason needed.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Finally - Some Common Sense For A Change

After the Toronto "pride" funding scandal, the government has apparently decided not to make the same mistake again.
MONTREAL (CBC) - The fate of this years Divers/Cité festival in Montreal was up in the air on Wednesday after the federal government said it would not approve funding for the event.

Divers/Cité, Montreals gay pride arts festival, was counting on $155,000 in new funding from Ottawa.

In an email from Industry Canada, spokeswoman Christiane Fox said there are just too many worthwhile events to allow government funding for all of them.
$155,000 in new funding? Does it mean that those perverts already receive some government funding and they want $155,000 on top of what they blow every year? Well, if it won't be possible to implement a zero-base budgeting for the entire Federal government - how about trying it as a pilot project, for all those arts and multi-cult spending? That would warrant some 90% saving, if not 99.99%. And, judging from the recent CNews poll, slashing funds for art groups (especially when it comes to perverse art) is supported by nearly 3 out of 4 voters.

Not sure however if we can look forward for the government to slash most of the funding for art groups, but at least we can hope that in light of the recent scandal the government stands firm on its decision and doesn't backpedal in a pathetic attempt to "win back" Quebec and its arts community. After all - it's about time for Stephen Harper to realize that Quebec lefties won't trust his government, no matter how hard he tries. He might as well march in that parade himself - that won't increase his party's chances in Quebec. But it will certainly ruin the Conservative support everywhere else.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Why Canada Needs An Abortion Policy

In this essay Joseph C. Ben-Ami shows how out of step Canada is with the international community on the subject of abortion and explains how, moral and ethical issues aside, the lack of a coherent policy in Canada is seriously undermining practical efforts to control a re-emerging eugenics industry and end discriminatory practices such as gender-selection abortion.
From a biological point of view, individual human life begins at conception. This is not a moral argument, but a scientific fact. There may be those who argue that a microscopic cluster of cells cannot reasonably be called human, and that therefore “human life” cannot be said to begin until sometime later in fetal development, but this objection has more to do with the philosophical question of what is human life, rather than the empirical question when does human life commence. Even then, all agree that “human life” begins at the latest when a fetus becomes viable, i.e. capable of survival outside of its mother’s womb. The point is that there is virtually no dispute regarding the value (in contrast to rights) of a fetus as an individual human being, albeit in the early stages of growth and development.

Society regularly enacts laws to protect things of value when it is deemed in the public interest to do so. To cite a few crude examples, we protect localized wetlands from development even when there is no danger to the survival of any species of wildlife or threat of significant damage to the environment. We protect privately owned buildings to preserve the heritage of our cities. We even protect trees on private property to preserve the character of individual neighbourhoods – all in the name of public interest. Why not unborn children? Surely an unborn child is at least as valuable to society as a frog in a local swamp or a brick façade on an old building?
(Published on the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies website.)

Monday, July 20, 2009

Statistical Falsehoods And Wasteful Spending

Sheila Copps believes there's nothing wrong with the government providing a $400,000 grant to homosexual "pride" event which she claims attracts 1.2 million spectators. Cecilia Forsyth, National President of the REAL Women of Canada responds to those claims, dispelling the "million plus turnout" myth among other things:
To argue that this grant has an economic and tourism benefit is to naively accept the homosexual propaganda that over a million individuals actually attend the event. This is not possible because, if this figure were correct, the crowds would have had to be 80 deep along the 3.1 kilometer parade route. This is an absurdity. The crowd density was, on average 4-6 people deep and the total number of people can be generously set, at most, at approximately 154,000 persons: far fewer than attend Toronto’s annual Caribana Parade each August. It is also highly questionable that the “celebrations” that week contribute millions to the economy, as alleged, as this figure again appears to be part of the air of unreality surrounding the event.

There can be no long-term stimulus by giving taxpayers’ money to homosexual groups. Such individuals do not make a substantive contribution to society by producing and raising children – essential for the future of our country. Instead, their high medical and social costs are not a public benefit. Canadian families are struggling in these difficult economic times, and a grant of this magnitude, to promote a hedonistic lifestyle, serves only to devalue their struggle.
As the Life Site News release shows, the ill-famous $400,000 grant to a perverse event was by no means a one-time occurrence. Sure, all those grants put together won't even amount to $1 million - which is peanuts compared to a $50 billion deficit. (And it's probably a lot less than a Liberal/NDP coalition government would have given to them.) Still, in a recession, when a budget deficit breaks one record after the other, it's quite frustrating to see the government missing the opportunity to cut back on wasteful ideologically-driven spending. Not to mention that a socially and medically hazardous lifestyle is not something that should be promoted with taxpayers' money.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Two-Tier Policing

If saying something controversial is a crime - it should fall under a jurisdiction of a criminal court, not of a quasi-judicial tribunal where truth is not a defense:
At the federal level, we have what amounts to two-tier policing of racism and hate speech in Canada -- one through the courts applying Criminal Code and the other through a human rights act.

Critics say the Code is all that's needed. They contend that the CHRC, with a bar set far below criminal standards, often adjudicates trivial complaints and serves as a censor of ideas that are not intended to provoke hatred or violence, but to promote controversy and debate. As well, the commission has an almost never lost a case it's prosecuted.
However, the problem is that the CHRC is essentially the investigator, prosecutor and judge of complaints of racism and hate speech. The burden of proof under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is also subject to interpretation. It says it's an offence to communicate anything "likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt."
The Criminal Code, meanwhile, has clear sanctions to deal with true hate speech -- which must clearly encourage or incite hatred and violence. This is far different than making individuals account for expressions of thought that are controversial, offensive or deemed to be politically incorrect.

Last year, an independent report by the University of Windsor's Richard Moon said the Canadian Human Rights Commission should be stripped of its power to investigate online hate messages. That job, says the free speech expert, is best left to police, prosecutors and Internet service providers.
If you're the complainer - you get Tier 2 service. If you're the defendant - you get Tier 0 justice.
Anybody or any group can file a complaint. Complaints may be filed in multiple jurisdictions concurrently. While complainants need not retain a lawyer or incur any legal expenses, the subject of a complaint would be foolish not to do so. Having launched a complaint, complainants need not appear at or testify at any subsequent hearing. There is no effective screening process to eliminate complaints with no reasonable prospects of success. Only complaints shown to be trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith may be disposed of expeditiously. There is no fixed time period within which a complaint must be investigated or brought to a hearing.

The subject of a complaint can be left twisting for years as B'nai Brith Canada discovered when it became the subject of a complaint in Manitoba. There is no defence of truth, fair comment or lack of intent. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has wide powers including the power to award monetary damages and fines to an aggregate of $30,000.
The motion M-153 (to have subsection 13.1 deleted from the Canadian Human Rights Act) was re-introduced last fall. It should be put in the order of precedence and voted on as soon as the Parliament resumes. It's time to bring back the one-tier policing and one-tier justice.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Too-Open-Door Policy — Time To Reform The Refugee System

Instead of burdening tourists with useless paperwork, it's time to reform the abuse-prone refugee determination system:
Mr. Kenney can hardly be blamed for wanting to call a halt to what amounts to a cynical game that exploits the hopes of foreign citizens while undermining the chances of those who authentically deserve refugee consideration, and Canada's legitimate desire to help them. He can be criticized for the means in which the visa requirement was imposed: the immigration minister gave just 48 hours notice, claiming a longer lead-in would produce a last-minute rush. But rumours of the move have been around for at least a week, suggesting Ottawa could have given more consideration to the inconvenience caused to legitimate travellers and still achieved its goal.

When the legislation establishing the IRB came into effect, however, the refugee lobby was successful in pressuring the government into not declaring any other countries to be "safe." The objective was to ensure that our door would be left as wide open as possible. As a result, our refugee-determination system has been constantly clogged, and at times overwhelmed, by thousands of claims from people whom no other country would permit to register an asylum application. In 2007, for example, Canada allowed into our system thousands of claimants from democratic countries such as Thailand, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Israel, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Guyana and the United States.
The only step in the right direction was a Safe Third Country agreement with the US, signed by Chretien government in 2002. The agreement compels potential refugee claimants in either country to file their claim in a country where they arrive first, rather than coming to the US because it's easier to obtain a visa and then moving to Canada to claim refugee status, because Canada's acceptance rate is higher and so is the social assistance for refugee claimants. (Not to mention that successful claimants are granted permanent residence almost automatically.)

So, instead of slapping visas on Czech citizens, Canada could have signed a similar Safe Third Country Agreement with EU as well as with other democratic nations from which no credible refugee claim is likely. And, of course, Safe Third Country agreements should also exclude citizens of those safe countries from claiming refugee status in Canada. It's just common sense.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Memories From Before Birth

Even if nobody can recall what life in the womb was like, baby's capabilities to memorize things develop well before birth.
July 16, 2009 ( - 30-week-old babies in the womb already have short-term memory capabilities, a new study from the Netherlands, published in the July/August 2009 issue of the journal Child Development, has found.

Researchers at Maastricht University Medical Centre and the University Medical Centre St. Radboud examined 93 healthy pregnant Dutch women and their unborn children, measuring changes in how the child responds to repeated stimulation. The children were tested at 30, 32, 34, and 36 weeks, and again at 38 weeks gestation.
The scientists found that at thirty weeks, the child in the womb has a short-term memory of about ten minutes. At 34 weeks, the child can store information and retrieve it up to four weeks later. The younger children who had been tested at 34 and 36 weeks were later able to habituate much faster than children at 38 weeks who had never been tested.
Yet another scientific proof to the known fact that an unborn baby is a living human being. With a unique DNA. With an autonomous circulatory system and a beating heart. With his tiny fingers and toes each having a unique fingerprint already engraved... And now we know that at later stages, a baby in the womb acquires short-term memory capabilities as well...

A "future child"? No, it's a child with a future!

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Why Should A Government Body Intervene In A Religious Dispute?

Wally Keeler from Cobourg, ON asks this question in his letter to the editor:
I am an atheist. What is my stake in this internecine quarrel between one group of Catholics with an agenda represented by Jim Corcoran and Father Allan Hood and another group of Catholics with an agenda represented by the 12 parishioners?

The majority of Ontarians are not Catholic. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for a costly and lengthy investigation and adjudication by the Ontario Human Rights Commission of a ceremonial rite conducted within a non-taxpaying private international organization that proselytizes The Only One?

And, by the way, whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

Human Rights Commissions, whether federal or provincial, have become something quite the opposite of what their name implies. If you believe that a Human Rights Commission is about human rights, then you are likely to believe that the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s novel, 1984, is about truth.

Will those calling for the bureaucrazy of the Human Rights Commission to have more power, next be calling for major revisions and amendments to the Torah, Bible, Koran and similar odious books to conform to the political correctmess zeitgeist?
Here's another look at the case - from a different prospective. And the conclusion is similar - when a government body like the OHRC assumes the authority to rule on Catholic liturgy (something which is clearly beyond the scope of its mandate) - it abuses its powers and wastes taxpayers' money.

Keep The Taxes Low; Cut Program Expenses To Balance The Books

Terence Corcoran, a Financial Post columnist, weighs in on the Globe and Mail article which calls Stephen Harper's views on taxes "scary".
...In a new book just published by MIT, The Marginal Cost of Public Funds, University of Alberta economist Bev Dahlby -- a world expert in taxation --makes exactly the point Mr. Harper makes about the negative impact of taxes.

Taxes -- all taxes -- destroy economic activity in one way or another. In a market economy, Prof. Dahlby writes, the invisible hand of the market produces an efficient allocation of resources. "Taxes," he says, "will result in a less efficient allocation of resources to the extent that they alter households' and firms' decisions. We can think of this efficiency loss as a decline in the size of the 'economic pie' -- the value of the goods and services produced and consumed in the economy."
But what is really going on here is a mounting Liberal campaign to set the state for tax increases to cover future deficits. Liberals cannot officially plant this idea, and they would much rather have Mr. Harper bear the burden by forcing him to raise taxes. As Rev. Simpson says, donning his economic hat, "economic growth alone will not restore Canada's balanced budget."

If that's true, then the real alternative is is to cut spending. Now that, in Rev. Simpson's Liberal church, is really, really scary, scary.
Program expenses have nearly doubled over the last 10 years - from $118B in 1999/2000 to over $230B for 2009/10. (The amount originally budgeted was $229B but with all the extra stimulus spending, the actual number is expected to be a lot higher than that.) At the same time, Canada's tax burden is 33% of the GDP. That's at least 40% higher than the optimum level (17 to 23% of the GDP). Higher taxes and more program spending will burden the economy, diminishing future growth, if not eliminating it completely. Canada just can't afford that.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

OHRC vs The Bishop — Stephen Boissoin's Case Taken To A New Level

For those who aren't familiar with Stephen Boissoin's story: He spoke up against the propagation of homosexuality to young people and the Alberta HRC made an example of him. Apart from being fined $7000 (not to mention having to pay the legal expenses, while the complainer was getting a free ride,) Rev. Stephen Boissoin was ordered to publish a letter of apology in the very same newspaper that had published his letter to the editor which triggered the complaint. And on top of all that - the ruling forbade Rev. Stephen Boissoin from criticizing homosexual lifestyle ever again. Somehow, the "human rights" act allows those jackboots to impose a lifetime ban on what they believe is "hate speech".

A similar story is now unfolding in Ontario on a much larger scale. This time, the defender is a Catholic bishop that chose to dismiss a controversial altar server and the 12 parishioners who were the whistle-blowers in the case. As more details become public, it turns out, that there was more to it than the controversial altar server's lifestyle choices. It turns out that the man in question also likes to associate with an excommunicated priest, rewarding him with a lucrative job, making him an "unofficial chaplain" at his business. Sure, it's his business, but then he shouldn't complain if a Catholic church doesn't want him as an altar server.

Yet, the complainer believes he was unfairly singled out. Here's what he wants on top of the hefty $265,000 compensation:
He has also requested six other "remedies." First, he indicates that he "would like the group of 12 parishioners to be held accountable for their un-Christian actions, in front of their peers in a public forum, by the Bishop or the Bishop's superior." Second, he wants the Bishop to preach at his parish "on the consequences of practicing discrimination and the slanderous spreading of rumours, hate and innuendo."

Third, he wants to be restored as an altar server, and fourth, for the bishop to apologize for having removed him. Fifth, he wants the bishop to write an article for the diocesan newspaper "on the rights of persons with same sex attractions to practice their faith within the Catholic Church without fear of threats, recrimination or discrimination." And finally, sixth, he wants the diocese to develop policies "that support the human rights of all people within the church."
In other words - he wants anyone who finds his lifestyle and his views too controversial, to be publicly shamed, to be forced to apologize on their knees for hurting his precious feelings. And, since no church authority as well as no court of law would back him, he resorts to a quasi-judiciary tribunal where truth is not a defense and where hurt feelings matter more than facts. Just like in Stephen Boissoin's case, we have a self-disillusioned thug who knows that he can't win an argument, so he wants to silence his opponents by all means possible.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

PM Bashes Taxes? How Scary!

A Globe and Mail columnist finds Stephen Harper's anti-tax rhetoric "very, very scary":
Think about it: The prime minister of a country is saying, “I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes.”

There is no “school,” to use Stephen Harper's word, anywhere in economics that says “no taxes are good taxes.” Not even Milton Friedman and the Chicago school think that. Nor do Mr. Harper's former mentors at the University of Calgary.

They, like right-wing politicians, might think taxes are too high, maybe way too high. They might think the private sector can do lots of things better than the public sector. They might believe taxes should be lower. But anyone who says “no taxes are good taxes” and “I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes” is wrong economically, and very, very scary socially and politically.
If anything - there's absolutely no reason for Jeffrey Simpson to be scared. Judging from the budgets, tabled by Harper government (20% spending increase over the first three years and then another ~10% increase for 2009/10,) his anti-tax rhetoric is nothing more than a figure of speech. Even if Stephen Harper truly believes that no taxes are good taxes (oh, I wish he did!) - he certainly lacks the courage to defend those beliefs in Parliament. So it's time to let go of this 6 year-old "Harper is scary" mantra.

Then - if there are good taxes - then how come the Liberals too used to oppose certain taxes, be that the GST back in early 1990s or the new taxes on income trusts in more recent days? And, when they did come up with their carbon tax proposal (which they tried to position as some sort of a "good tax") - how come it was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters? Let's face it - people hate taxes and Stephen Harper is no exception. Most likely, when he said "I don't believe that any taxes are good taxes" - he meant just that - that he personally hates taxes. That doesn't mean we can look forward for a truly Conservative budget anytime soon.

Monday, July 13, 2009

"Roe" of Roe v. Wade Arrested For Vocally Opposing A Pro-Abort Judge

About 40 years ago, she was campaigning for unrestricted abortions. But she is "Roe" no more:
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 13, 2009 ( - Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade who now is a leading opponent of abortion, was arrested for disrupting the hearing of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor today along with several other pro-life protesters.

Sgt. Kimberly Schneider of the Capitol Police said McCorvey and one other protester were charged with unlawful conduct for disrupting Congress, making a total of four arrests related to abortion protests during the hearing, reports the Washington Post.

McCorvey had at first stayed outside the Hart Senate Office building with a small group of pro-life activists protesting Sotomayor's confirmation. She then gained admittance to the building as one among the crowd of citizens regularly admitted in brief intervals to listen in on the hearing.

"You're wrong Sotomayor, you're wrong about abortion," McCorvey declared to the Supreme Court hopeful before being quickly escorted out.
McCorvey, whose Supreme Court victory in 1973 unleashed legalized abortion in America, became an active opponent of the procedure following a conversion experience in 1994. Her 2005 petition to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade was rejected.
Of course, nobody likes to be told that he's wrong. But a witness like Norma McCorvey is worthy of attention. Too bad that apparently there was no opportunity for Norma to meet the soon-to-be judge in person and to share her experience in all the details - instead of merely yelling "you're wrong"...

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Supreme Court of Canada: Buses Cannot Refuse Political Ads

OTTAWA, July 10, 2009 ( - In an important defense of freedom of expression, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today that busses cannot refuse ads of a political nature, rejecting the appeal of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (Translink) and B.C. Transit in a case brought against them by the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) and the B.C. Teachers' Federation (BCTF).

Legal experts have suggested that this decision will be important in the pro-life cause, as the principles of the case will be transferable for advertising of pro-life and other related issues on busses, bus stops, and other areas.

There has been controversy over pro-life advertising in Canada during the past year after LifeCanada launched a national education campaign in over 50 communities using a pro-life ad on busses. The ad featured a pregnant woman with the line: "Nine months. The length of time abortion is allowed in Canada. Abortion: Have we gone too far?" reported in January 2008 that the ad had been pulled by city officials in Hamilton, Fredericton, and St. John's, claiming inaccuracies in the ad, and "controversy."
Logically speaking - if those political ads comply with all the applicable laws (be that the laws that restrict campaign spending by political parties and lobby groups or the laws and by-laws that prohibit obscenity, hate mongering, libel, copyright violations etc) - what reason could there be for an advertising agency to refuse them?

And, if it's ok for the unions and student groups to use bus advertising in their campaign - why should the same service be denied to pro-lifers? After all - if, according to the OHRC decision, a Christian printer does not have the right to refuse a printing job that violates his conscience - shouldn't the same rule apply to other businesses as well?

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Late-Term Abortion Statistics — Only The Tip Of The Iceberg

Not all late-term abortions are reported. Some of them are reported as "stillbirths", others are not reported at all.
The “less-than-one percent” statistic is cited with much authority. But in fact, the statistics on abortion are shadowy, and leave much to the imagination. According to data available at the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada website, in 2003, approximately 46,000 abortion records collected by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) contained the gestational ages of the pregnancy. Of these, 0.7% reported abortions performed later than 20 weeks. That comes to a total of 325 of which we are certain took place.

Over 57,000 records contained no information on gestation.
Besides the lack of reporting on gestational age, we must also contend with the phenomenon of late-term abortions being coded as stillbirths. As I mentioned in my first column in this series, many late-term abortions are coded as stillbirths in medical databases instead of abortions and, as a result, those numbers are not collected by CIHI. Even if those induced stillbirths are marked off in a separate category, they will not be added to abortion statistics, because StatsCan, which publishes abortion numbers, does not have the mandate to collect that data.

Another point to consider is that the abortion questionnaire that CIHI distributes to clinics across the country is voluntary. Clinics are not under any obligation to tell the government about their activities. According to Deby Copes, the medical director of the Choice in Health abortion clinic, an estimated 10,000 procedures are not being counted in the City of Toronto alone (Globe and Mail, Mar. 30, 2009). Although Canadian abortion clinics tend not to perform late-term procedures (elective cases are often sent to the States), the inadequate coverage of the numbers leads us to speculate that many late-term abortions are not identified.
The attempt to downplay late-term abortion numbers minimalizes the tragedy of the deaths of unborn children. It harkens back to Stalin’s famous quote of one death being a tragedy, and a million deaths being a statistic.

That these deaths were intentional makes it even more appalling.
And then let's not forget that every abortion (be that first trimester or a late-term abortion) - is a tragedy. It kills the baby, it injures and traumatizes the mother and the fathers too, often feel the pain:
Personally, knowing the sting of abortion in my life, I can speak from experience, indeed how painful it was and even still is. I can see in hind sight (not saying hind sight is 20/20) what lack of care on my part and selfish disinterest cost: lament, regret and the full knowing of a life taken can never be given back.

Before this event, I had no stance on abortion, cared very little about the subject, but of course thinking myself high minded and liberal about the matter. Post abortion, was a crash into reality about the matter, as I sought to make sense of the event, and events that had transpired in our lives. Looking full in the face of it all brought me to the conclusion, that I had aided, conspired and taken, premeditatedly the life of my daughter/son.
And yet there are pro-abort activists who believe that... we don't have enough late-term abortions in Canada...

"Human Rights" Commissions — A Supreme Religious Authority?!

An openly homosexual man has filed a "human rights" complaint against the church that chose not to have him as an altar server. He claims he was "discriminated" against and he demands as much as $265,000 - that's the price tag he puts on his hurt feelings.
PETERBOROUGH, ON, July 7, 2009 ( - Jim Corcoran ... has launched a human rights complaint against the Bishop of Peterborough Ontario for refusing him permission to continue to serve as an altar server.

Corcoran admits that he is homosexual and lives with another homosexual man, but says that he follows the Church's teaching and lives a chaste lifestyle. According to the Catholic Register, Bishop Nicola De Angelis asked Corcoran to accept his decision that he not serve on the altar based upon the bishops' desire to avoid public scandal.

Corcoran is seeking monetary damages of $25,000 from the bishop and $20,000 each from 12 parishioners who complained to the bishop about Corcoran and his roommate having been invited by the local priest to serve on the altar at Masses.
According to The Catholic Register, both sides "have opted for mediation". But who gave a quasi-judiciary institution like the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission the authority to rule on Catholic liturgy?

Friday, July 10, 2009

Suppressing Climate Skeptics

How do you "settle" a scientific discussion when the facts are against your theory? Just don't give your opponents the opportunity to prove you wrong:
Still, if anything, the rhetoric of global warming and climate change has become even more frenzied since 2006, not less, even to the point where scientists skeptical of the warming theory are being gagged by the Obama administration and the UN.

At a time when lawmakers in the United States and Canada are considering new regulations on energy use, new taxes on its consumption and new controls on carbon dioxide emissions -- all of which could compound our economic woes -- they are hearing mostly just from one side of the debate.
The reason is obvious: all this global warming hysteria has never had anything to do with a scientific debate. It's been nothing but a socialist plan to redistribute wealth on a global scale.
"To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country."
Well, George Orwell could see that coming. The only difference is that instead of using continuous warfare as a way to destroy the products of human labor (to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the people,) the green socialists came up with the idea of "fighting global warming". The result is pretty much the same: people have to work harder, pay more taxes, buy all those phony "carbon credits" just to get nothing in return. Except the moral satisfaction of doing their share to "save the planet".

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Feminist Hate Mongering — Al-Qaeda Would Be Proud

From the World Congress of Families press release:
The anti-family left in the Netherlands is mobilizing against World Congress of Families V (Amsterdam, August 10-12) in ways intended to intimidate participants.
To illustrate its anti-family message, Feminist Action has posted a menacing drawing of a man and a woman, with a child and a cross between them. There’s a dotted line going through the necks of the couple and a pair of scissors ready to cut off their heads!

Larry Jacobs, Managing Director of the World Congress of Families, responded, “Clearly, the social left is terrified of the Congress bringing a pro-family message to what it considers its turf.”
Well, here's a picture that's worth a thousand words. So, if those radical feminists are upset that me and some other Conservative bloggers call them feminazis - they have only themselves to blame.
Source: No Apologies.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

"Bubble Zones" — Protecting What?

According to one Sandra Thomas, the bubble zones are needed to protect abortion providers from violence.
"Kansas abortion doctor killed."

"Buffalo abortion doctor killed by sniper."

"Vancouver abortion doctor hospitalized after shooting."

A quick search on the Internet pulls up dozens of similar headlines from the past decade from across North America. But a recent search of blogs and websites created by anti-abortion crusaders shows these murders and attacks are rarely mentioned. In reading comments posted by anti-choice protesters regarding "bubble zones," that lack of information was glaringly absent.
Many anti-choice bloggers argue protesters' civil rights are being violated because they're no longer allowed to stand directly in front of abortion clinics in B.C. and approach women and staff as they enter. But rarely do they mention the shootings, stabbings and physical and verbal assaults that happened before the law came into effect.
Just like S. Thomas herself isn't eager to mention the acts of violence committed by the pro-abortion activists. Even though the latter are far more numerous than those isolated incidents from the pro-life side (which are condemned first and foremost - by the pro-lifers themselves). Instead, she prefers to quote a pro-abortion activist Joyce Arthur, who claims that "a lot of people in the anti-choice movement have mental health problems". The bubble zones, she concludes, are needed to protect the abortion providers from the "crazies".

But can a "bubble zone" actually provide such protection? Not really. Banning protests within 50 meters can ensure that none of the protesters gets close enough to be able to smash the windows or to spray-paint graffiti on the walls or to splash red paint on customers' fur coats. But pro-life protesters could hardly be accused of doing any of that. Even a large wooden cross with a sign that reads "You shall not murder", no matter how terrifying it looks to S. Thomas, is not something that a pro-life protester would ever use for poking or window smashing. So, it turns out, the "bubble zone" law protects abortion facilities from a threat that isn't even there.

Sure, their primary concern is - shootings. But how could a "bubble zone" protect one from being shot? One of the headlines quoted by S.Thomas reads "Buffalo abortion doctor killed by sniper" - a sniper can shoot from several hundred meters away, "bubble zone" or no "bubble zone". Then - a ban on protests only applies to clinics. But Tiller was shot in his church - no "bubble zone" law would have protected him there.

Finally - when a man has decided to commit a first degree murder - he doesn't care about violating a minor law such as a ban on protests. The police could be there, keeping the protesters away, but he's not a protester; he's a murderer. He'll come in disguised as a journalist or as a mailman; he'll put on women's clothes to pass as one of the patients or he'll come in wearing a gas company robe and sabotage the pipeline... And he'll do his crime while the police is busy chasing away peaceful protesters with their rosaries and plastic fetus dolls.

So what the "bubble zone" laws are for? To keep the sidewalk counselors away. "The protesters can still do their thing, they just have to do it across the street." - S. Thomas suggests in her article. Yes, a sign with a picture of an unborn baby could still be visible from across the street, so there's still a chance that a woman who enters the abortion facilities could see what her baby looks like. But no information brochures, no eye contact, let alone - answering questions...

And that's the way pro-aborts want it to be. Because of the legal vacuum on the abortion issue, there aren't many regulations and safety rules with which abortion providers must comply. It takes more paperwork, more informed consent and malpractice waiver forms to remove a wart than to have an unborn baby sucked out of the womb and ripped to pieces during the process. Informed consent? What informed consent? She came here at her own will, didn't she?
Nobody assesses her for risk factors for poor psychological adjustment and informs her if she is at high risk for being traumatized by the abortion experience. The risk factors are well known; but nobody screens for them and nobody informs the woman of what risk factors she has and what the possible negative outcomes may be.

Nobody informs her of the risk that she might not be able to carry a future pregnancy to term -- despite decades of evidence linking abortion to future pregnancy complications. Instead, she's assured repeatedly that she can have a baby later, when the time is right.
That's how abortion business works in North America. That's the status-quo which the pro-aborts want to keep. Sidewalk counselors, that provide women with information, so they could make a truly informed decision - that's the last thing abortion providers need. They don't want to lose their business. So they need a "bubble zone" law to keep anyone who doesn't agree with them at least 50 meters away.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Government Funding For Perverse Parade - A Costly Mistake?

That's what they say now. Someone in the Ministry has merely overlooked a $400,000 expense...
SASKATOON, July 6, 2009 ( - The revelation of $400,000 in funding from the federal Conservatives for the recent Toronto Gay Pride parade, which is notorious for its inclusion of full frontal nudity and public sex acts by homosexuals, came as a shock to most social conservatives in the nation. According to Conservative MP Brad Trost, however, the decision to fund the event also came a shock to most of the Conservative caucus, even those inside the Prime Minister's office.

Speaking to from his riding office in Saskatoon today, the 36-year-old Conservative said, "The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by - I think it's safe to say by a large majority - of the MPs. This was a very isolated decision."
The MP attributed the move to "sloppiness."

"Canadian taxpayers, even non-social-conservative ones, don't want their tax dollars to go to events that are polarizing or events that are more political than touristic in nature," he said.
When a supposedly "fis-con" government doesn't have the guts to cut all the ideologically-driven spending, don't be surprised, when they make a $400,000 "mistake". (It's not a big deal when you got billions to waste.) Now they're conducting a spending review (oh, well, better late than never).

Here is a better idea - implement zero-based budgeting. Let every single program expense expire at the end of the fiscal year, so that departments have to justify all their expenditures, not just the extra money they get on top of last year's spending. If that had been done back in 2006 - not only none of those costly "mistakes" would have been possible, but also the government could have kept program expenses within reasonable limits, rather than allowing them to swell from $175B in 2005/6 to over $215B or so (not counting the "stimulus") in 2009/10.

Even now it's not too late. If zero-based budgeting is implemented, if the burden of proof is on the departments to explain why they still need those funds (rather than on the government to explain the reason behind spending cuts,) the government could easily find $15B to slash from the budget to get the books balanced by 2011/12 and to legislate mandatory debt repayments in the following fiscal years.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Like It Or Not, But Canada Needs Babies

According to the C.D. Howe Institute, immigration alone cannot offset demographic trends such as population aging, that threaten our future living standards:
As it stands, Canada's population, faced with longer life expectancies and low fertility rates, is producing fewer young people to replace the older people leaving the workforce, the report says. That, in turn, means a smaller population of working-age people to make money, pay taxes and support the pension and health-care needs of a burgeoning older population.

"I was surprised by how weak immigration is, on its own, as a tool to affect these things," Robson says. "People in Canada generally feel very positively about immigration, so it would be nice if something that we like turned out to be the answer to some of these things that otherwise can look a little threatening."
Despite some popular commentary, offsetting or even noticeably mitigating these trends through increased immigration alone would require unrealistic increases in total immigration levels.
Is even more immigration the answer? Definitely not. Banerjee and Robson project that if Parliament were to rely on an increase in the current pattern of immigration to stop population aging, Canada would have to take in such a colossal number of additional immigrants that the total national population would reach 210 million in 2058.

That’s out of the question. No conceivable amount of immigration can prevent a rapid and burdensome growth in the aging of Canada’s population.
There can be no lasting solution to the multiplying difficulties posed by Canada’s aging population short of dealing with the fundamental underlying problem – namely, the devastating collapse in the national fertility rate over the past 40 years. In 2005, the average number of children per woman in Canada was just 1.54—far below the ratio of 2.1 that is necessary to sustain the population.
Call it "Demographic Winter" or just "Population Aging" - the threat is real and immigration can't even delay the crisis, let alone - preventing it. Canada needs babies, otherwise there will be no Canada in the quite foreseeable future.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

"Dealing With An Unwanted Pregnancy" — Poor Choice Advise For Selfish Men

A columnist at gives men some tips on how to convince a pregnant girlfriend to suppress her maternal feelings and agree to an abortion. Ironically, this "advise" comes from a woman.
This particular article lays out a guide for men who don't want their partners to give birth to their preborn children. Written by a woman, Isabella Snow, it purports to be an inside look at how women think and act in such situations.

"For some women, getting pregnant can start clocks ticking and make them suddenly want to be mothers, despite previous agreements," warns Snow. In other words, she's not in her usual state of mind: you are going to have to do your utmost to convince her to deny new maternal feelings.

The entire article is geared against innocent preborn life and instead focuses on wants and lifestyles, primarily of the father....
Ultimately, according to Snow, if a man has made it clear he has no desire for the pregnancy to continue, he is freed from any obligation to stick with the relationship.
With attitudes like that, no wonder some guy in Arizona was so eager to drag his girlfriend to an abortuary that he pulled a gun on a sidewalk counselor. Apparently that couple too had some sort of a "previous agreement"...

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Share The Pro-Life Message!

From Life Site News:
Wednesday is Canada Day and Saturday Independence Day.
Let us leave you with a thought for these two auspicious occasions. It comes from the preaching of a 38-year-old priest on Wednesday - Canada Day - on the subject of patriotism. "Who," he said, "do we honor as patriots but those who sacrifice themselves and even their blood to save the lives of their fellow Canadians?" "And therefore," he continued, "who are the true patriots today but those who sacrifice themselves to save the lives of their fellow Canadians - unborn Canadians."

There are 100,000 unborn Canadians killed every year, 1,000,000 unborn Americans killed every year. Let us be true patriots and fight for the lives of our fellow Canadians and Americans. Even if that means sacrificing our wealth, our reputation, our time, or even one day our very lives.

Stand tall this Canada Day and Independence Day dear pro-life Canadians and Americans. You are the true patriots.
From Island Breezes blog:
2,889,679 Canadians have been 'therapeutically' eliminated via abortion from 1970 - 2005. (Stats Can)

Share the Love. Make abortion your 'area of interest' and inform your MP. He needs to know you care whether Canadians live or die.
And let's not forget those who make a difference; those who lead by example:
Pro-life has many meanings and we often speak of it only relating to our opposition to abortion. But there is another side to pro-life, the side of women that help young mothers in trouble by raising their children and giving them a chance at a fulfilling life.

I have a friend that adopted a daughter about 5-6 years ago from Russia. I have not been in touch with him in about 3 years and ran into him this week and found out they have just adopted their third child from Russia. They have two children of their own, older than the adopted children. It seems they have found such love in rescuing these innocent children and providing them with a good life. I immediately thought of Theresa.

What greater love for life is there than giving of yourself in this way? Raising children is the hardest job I ever did. It's very rewarding but it's also very difficult and emotionally draining at times.

I just have to applaud Theresa and any other women here that go beyond posting on message boards about pro-life. Holding a sign at a street corner protesting abortion is admirable (and even sometimes dangerous) but doing something real about saving children is what angels are made of.
(Posted on Free Dominion)

Friday, July 3, 2009

"Rights" Commission Threatens Our Liberty

The Montreal Gazette gets it right:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission appears to have learned little from its adventures of the last few years. In its latest report to Parliament it stubbornly defends its authority to police the Internet - or any other electronic medium - for opinions that are "likely to" expose people to hatred or contempt.

This is, as we have said previously in this space, an unacceptable assault on free speech.

With frightening eagerness to rein in Canadians' free expression, the commission finds the authority to restrict honest opinion in Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, a notoriously vague bit of legal writing that forbids transmissions "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." The subjective power of that "likely to" makes everyone vulnerable to bureaucratic whim, malice, or distemper.
But it would be far better for Parliament simply to repeal Section 13, and leave the question of hate speech to the criminal courts where it belongs - if it belongs anywhere. If a citizen's liberties are to be threatened, that citizen deserves the full protection of the law.
And here's another great article on the HRCs by Mark Steyn - "Statist Fat Cats vs Blazing Cat Fur":
In Canada, it is now apparently reflexive to shriek: “You can’t say that!” Ms Evans was careful to observe the niceties – “This is not a statement about daycare” – and she would certainly have no difficulty producing studies and statistics in support of her assertion. To be sure, other studies say other things. Obviously, her view is – what’s the word? – “debatable”. But in the decayed Dominion why bother debating? It’s easier just to get dissident views rendered unsayable.

In a previous incarnation, David Swann was fired for his support of the Kyoto treaty. So you’d think he’d be less quick off the trigger in demanding from Ms Evans full-blown formal recantation or expulsion from public life. I see the Liberal leader lists as his principal leisure activity “peace and justice work”. Perhaps he’d have a more temperate demeanor if he took up hunting or cage-wrestling.

Needless to say, he got his way. Ed Stelmach, the Premier of Alberta, pronounced Ms Evans’ words “regrettable”, and a day or two later the minister apologized. Whether it was sincere or not is of no consequence. Young, ambitious politicians eager to climb the greasy pole will get the message. You will still, from time to time, hear such totally stunningly outrageous opinions but only whispered furtively between the like-minded, in the dead of night, far from the corridors of power. That wet farting sound you hear is the bounds of Canadian public discourse shriveling just a little more.
Well said. Hopefully, as the debate goes on, and, as some of that makes its way to the mainstream media, there will be more people realizing that those freedom snatching committees, with "human rights" in their name, have nothing to do with human rights.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Business Tax Cuts Start Paying Off

Declining corporate tax rates make Canada more attractive to businesses:
OTTAWA -- In a clear indication that Canada is starting to be considered a low-tax place to do business, Tim Hortons Inc. announced Monday plans to shift its base of operations from Delaware to Canada for tax purposes.

Further, analysts indicate this is also a sign of unease among corporations regarding the U.S. business environment, where taxes are likely heading upward to deal with trillion-dollar deficits and proposed health-care reforms; and the White House is looking to crack down on companies that invest abroad.
In the United States, the top corporate tax rate is in the mid-30% range. As a result, the U.S. now has about the highest combined corporate tax rate, second only to Japan among industrialized countries.
In Canada, the federal corporate tax rate is headed to 15% in 2012, and the federal Conservative government has called on the provinces to get to a 10% business levy by the same timeframe – for a combined 25% rate on corporate income. Alberta is already at 10%, British Columbia will be there in 2011, Ontario by 2013, and New Brunswick will go down further, to 8%, in 2012.
Now, this is a real economic stimulus. It may not have the same PR effect as announcing billions in new spending or buying out stock of a bankrupt company at face value "to save jobs", but it turns out a lot more beneficial on a long run.

Ironically - it may actually not be Stephen Harper to reap the political benefits of Canada's tax competitiveness. We've seen that happening to Brian Mulroney - his reforms (simplifying and lowering the personal income taxes, signing a free trade agreement with the US and replacing the 13.5% hidden tax on manufacturers with a broad-based 7% value added tax) were quite unpopular with the voters. But they were the ones that warranted higher economic growth on a long run, which in turn resulted in higher revenues that the next governments could use to get rid of the deficit, to cut taxes and to buy votes with inflated spending.

Now, something similar may happen to Stephen Harper. If there is an election - it's obvious that the opposition will try to portray Harper as the only one to blame for the economic downturn and the runaway deficit. (As if the opposition parties with their constant threats to bring down the government, unless their demands are met, have nothing to do with it.) Then, once in power, the Liberals will be quick to take the credit for balancing the budget without reducing spending - as soon as all the measures to revive and strengthen the economy (brought in by Harper's government) once again result in tax revenues outpacing program spending.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Happy Canada Day :)

Have a happy Dominion Day and let's remember: Canada is a nation since 1867, not since 1968. Let's stand up for Canada, for its heritage of freedom and for the traditional values on which our nation was founded.
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.
Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker,
July 1, 1960.