Monday, May 31, 2010

Pro-Life Heroine Linda Gibbons — 500 Days Behind Bars & Counting

What kind of violent crime one would have to commit to be sentenced to 1.5 years in prison? Linda Gibbons spent all that time behind bars for merely trying to speak to women outside of an abortion clinic:
TORONTO, Ontario, May 31, 2010 ( - Pro-life prisoner of conscience and grandmother, Linda Gibbons, has served nearly 500 consecutive days in prison during the latest of her many lengthy imprisonments of the past fifteen years. Arrested for peaceful attempts to speak to women considering abortion in front of Toronto's Scott abortion facility, her next court date is set for June 2nd. Gibbons' biographer Gordon Truscott is organizing a peaceful protest Wednesday to show support for Linda outside the court house where her case will be heard.

Rather than confronting women entering the facility, Linda tries to talk to them on the sidewalk. But the abortion centre's employees have repeatedly called police to remove her - in order to protect their "economic interests," says Truscott - causing Linda to spend more than a total of seven years in prison since September 1994. (see Linda's earlier arrest history)
Truscott visited Linda on May 25, 2010. "She wants to go and visit her elderly mother," he said, "but because of the delayed court date is prevented from doing so." Truscott is worried that the strain of prison has taken a considerable toll on Linda. He discovered that Linda's health had been neglected; she had a cold for three months before seeing a doctor.

Truscott is organizing the protest to "expose this flagrant breach of justice" and hopefully ensure a date for Linda's release. The demonstration will be an all-day event, not to protest abortion, says Truscott, "but to pray peacefully for the protection of all such innocent people subject to injustice by the state."

Truscott is encouraging signs with wordings such as "Let Grandma Go Free", "Grandma Wrongly Charged", "Grandma Denied Justice", "We Love Grandma", "Why Hurt Grandma?" and "Attorney General Should Resign."

The protest will be held on Wednesday, June 2nd at 8 a.m. at Yonge and College streets in downtown Toronto.

To contact Gordon Truscott
Overall Linda has spent about 7 years in jail for violating "temporary" injunction that outlaws any kind of protests within 60 feet of an abortion clinic - including peaceful prayer and sidewalk counseling. Apparently, those pro-abort thugs that run the law enforcement in Ontario just can't find another way to satisfy their desire for vengeance.

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Demographic Suicide

Here's an interview with Mark Stain, the author of "America Alone". (H/t SoCon or Bust.)
And here's an article about an Italian bishop who says exactly the same thing: that the culture of "choice" is killing the Western nations. The governing elite may not allow a public debate on subjects that represent their key beliefs, but some of the facts are becoming self-evident...

Saturday, May 29, 2010

No, They Were Not Debating Abortion...

They were just blaming each other for reviving the abortion debate:
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government says it does not wish to reopen the abortion debate. Cardinal Ouellet candidly admitted yesterday that he was raising the abortion issue now because the Conservative government had revived the debate by excluding abortion from its maternal health policy for developing countries.

Does the Prime Minister realize that because of him and his refusal to include abortion in his maternal health policy for foreign nations the abortion debate is again raging in Canada and Quebec?
So, does Gilles Duceppe believe that if he keeps pushing the abortion funding issue, the debate will go away? Or maybe he hopes that if the government caves in and agrees to reinstate funding to pro-abortion groups, the pro-life side will concede defeat, the debate will stop, Cardinal Ouellet will apologize for his statements and we'll all be back to what Duceppe believes is "normal"?

But wait, this heated discussion wasn't really about abortion. This was about whether or not Catholics should be allowed to hold office in the Conservative party. By raising the abortion funding issue for the umpteenth time, Duceppe was merely making yet another attempt to link Stephen Harper to the "religious right". Yep, it's 2010 already and they still try to portray Harper as "scary" - as if someone is going to believe them.

Oh, well, let them try. Maybe, as result of their efforts, Stephen Harper finally realizes that he better puts up effort to re-energize his own voting base, including the non-voting Social Conservatives, instead of appealing to the "progressives" of all stripes, most of whom have never voted Conservative and certainly never will. Meanwhile, the debate is going on:
In the past few months, both sides of the issue have accused their opponents of raising issues that should not be discussed because they are “divisive.” The idea that political debate should avoid topics on which there are disagreements is odd, especially when the parties are eager to manufacture disagreement on all other matters, even where none exists.

What drives the hostility to the government’s motherhood issue? Motherhood. The heart of the opposition to the initiative is its starting point – expectant mothers. To a certain cast of mind, considering women as mothers constitutes something of a retrograde step. Hence the objection that helping mothers to have safe deliveries is somehow illegitimate unless similar help is offered to women to avoid becoming mothers at all.

In most elite circles, the great social liberation of the past generations has been the liberation of women from the expectation, to say nothing of the reality, of motherhood. Indeed, liberation from the fear of motherhood due to easy contraception and unlimited abortion is considered perhaps the greatest item of social progress in the last half-century. Consequently, for a program to explicitly favour motherhood, even at the minimal level of ensuring safe deliveries, causes howls of outrage from those who think that African villagers should behave more like liberal society matrons – if one might use that pregnant word, figuratively speaking of course.
The more the opposition parties push for abortion to be included in the maternal health package, the more of their pro-abort agenda will be exposed to the public. And, much to their surprise, some of their voters may actually not like it.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Is Having Many Children — A Sin?

The General Synod of the Anglican Church believes, it is. They even go as far as equating having children with... stealing:
The Anglican Church wants Australians to have fewer children and has urged the federal government to scrap the baby bonus and cut immigration levels.

The General Synod of the Anglican Church has issued a warning that current rates of population growth are unsustainable and potentially out of step with church doctrine - including the eighth commandment "thou shall not steal", Fairfax newspapers say.
Forget about "go forth and multiply", not to mention Psalm 127 or the Sermon on the Mount. It's the holy Gaia that matters. So the Anglican Public Affairs Commission is calling on the Australian government to scrap baby bonuses.

"If this is true the Anglican Church has gone mad", suggests Matthew Archbold, the author of the Creative Minority Report blog. I can't agree more.

Piss off a lefty, have another child :)

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Politics And Abortion Debate

Harper believes that voting against the bill to criminalize coerced abortions, is going to help him avoid the abortion debate.
A senior government official also says that while the prime minister will not "whip" or demand Conservative MPs vote as he votes, it will be "very strongly recommended" that Conservatives vote to defeat the bill.

Meanwhile, Mr. Harper's communications director, Dimitri Soudas, says that recommendation is consistent with Harper's position since 2002 on any bill dealing with abortion: He and his government will neither introduce nor support any such legislation.
Someone should tell him that sticking to his promise not to allow abortion debate, after reneging on so many other election promises (such as - not to run a deficit, or not to tax income trusts etc,) is not going to make him look like a promise-keeper. Not to mention that those who believe that coerced abortion should remain legal are not going to vote Conservative anyway.

Oh, well, at least Harper is not going to whip his cabinet into voting against the bill. Probably he realized that having a few high-profile resignations (or having to deal with a few high-profile dissenters) is the last thing he needs. Yet his efforts to avoid debating a subject that keeps being thrown at him, are at the very least, pathetic:
In most years, there are more members of pro-life groups in Canada than there are people enrolled in the political parties.

So what has changed? Why is there more attention to the issue now? I think there are a number of things going on:

1) Abortion became a political issue after Michael Ignatieff tried to make a big deal that the government’s maternal health initiative didn’t include baby-killing;

2) The media thinks it can score points against the Conservative government by highlighting the growing Religious Right in Canada (see saturation coverage of Marci MacDonald’s book);

3) The renewed student campus activism that is highlighted when student unions and school administrations clamp down on their free speech/free association rights;

4) Pro-lifers don’t need the legacy media to get out their message anymore — blogs and websites help deliver pro-life news and information in a way that was not possible before;

5) Young people know that the licentious culture in which their parents grew up is a raw deal and many are not going to accept the low expectations that today’s “adults” have for high school and university students; youth are rebelling against the Culture of Death in unexpected ways and won’t stand for the semi-official censorship that has been in place for the past two decades — see points 3&4 which are tied to point 5.
It's time for Harper to send his "Red Tory" advisers packing and start listening to what his electorate really wants. Unless he wants his party to be stuck in mid-30s for a couple more years - until the voters simply get fed up with him.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Oh, No! The Planet Is Warming Up!

Except that the planet in question might as well be Mars, Triton, Pluto, Jupiter... Someone should slap a carbon tax on all those gaz-guzzling outer space-polluting UFOs :)
NASA scientists have observed that temperatures on Mars have increased by about 0.5°C since the 1970s, which is similar to the warming on Earth over the same period. Moreover, the polar caps on Mars have also been melting. Good grief, too many SUVs on Mars too! Those irresponsible Martians! (Is that a racist statement? Will some Human Rights Commission be on my case for “hating” Martians?)

But wait, it gets worse!

According to NASA, the temperature on Triton, one of Neptune’s moons, increased dramatically between 1989 and 1998. Temperatures rose by 5% over nine years. To put that into perspective, such an increase would mean a whopping 12°C increase on Earth! Could somebody please mail them some CFL bulbs! Does The Home Depot ship to Triton?

A few years ago, we also learned that Pluto was warming up dramatically even as it moves farther from the Sun on its elliptical orbit.
And yet the defenders of the man-made climate change myth are not willing to give up. They'll cheat, they'll ignore or try to silence their opponents, but they'll never admit that their theory has no scientific basis and that the science is by no means settled:
Go here to see the two pictures. Mark Shea reminds us that this open letter was signed by 250 mostly non-climate scientists. When the letter about 31,000 scientists who objected to Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is brought up there usually a lot of nitpicking about how many of them are not actually climate scientists. Yet they do exactly the same thing in reverse.

And they snif about the difference between climate and weather and how one isolated weather event does not indicate a shift in climate in this letter. (Dumb deniers.) Yet, every time there is a warm weather event the media shouts "Climate Change!"

For months after Climategate last November all we heard was that the IPCC only relies on peer-reviewed papers for its Report. The chairman Mr. Pachauri assured us that anything other than peer-reviewed papers is "thrown in the garbage." Now a citizen's audit conducted by 40 people from 12 countries has analyzed all 7000 pages and found that 5,600 (nearly 30%) of all citations in the Nobel prize winning report were from non-peer reviewed sources. Did Pachauri actually think that no one would check up on him? Especially after he was defensive, derisive and haughty about it? And, why is he still in charge of the IPCC again?

Look, all I want is real science and honest debate. I don't want dogma or opinion. And I don't want lies and deceit. It seems to me that if the evidence were as clear cut as they say it is, they wouldn't have to resort to deception, there would not be so many skeptical scientists and nobody would talk about "believing in climate change." Do you ever hear them talk about "believing" in gravity or relativity or other established scientific theories? No, and there is a good reason for that.
Well, there is such thing as "doublethink". That will help everyone believe in what the eco-crooks want us to believe, won't it?

Sunday, May 23, 2010

A Homeschooler's Response

Deborah Markus has posted a few quick responses to those who keep asking her stupid questions about homeschooling. These are just a few of many:
1 Please stop asking us if it's legal. If it is — and it is — it's insulting to imply that we're criminals. And if we were criminals, would we admit it?
3 Quit interrupting my kid at her dance lesson, scout meeting, choir practice, baseball game, art class, field trip, park day, music class, 4H club, or soccer lesson to ask her if as a homeschooler she ever gets to socialize.
11 Please stop questioning my competency and demanding to see my credentials. I didn't have to complete a course in catering to successfully cook dinner for my family; I don't need a degree in teaching to educate my children. If spending at least twelve years in the kind of chew-it-up-and-spit-it-out educational facility we call public school left me with so little information in my memory banks that I can't teach the basics of an elementary education to my nearest and dearest, maybe there's a reason I'm so reluctant to send my child to school.

12 If my kid's only six and you ask me with a straight face how I can possibly teach him what he'd learn in school, please understand that you're calling me an idiot. Don't act shocked if I decide to respond in kind.
18 If you can remember anything from chemistry or calculus class, you're allowed to ask how we'll teach these subjects to our kids. If you can't, thank you for the reassurance that we couldn't possibly do a worse job than your teachers did, and might even do a better one.
BTW - Deborah's website is titled "Secular Homeschooling". Sounds weird? Believe it or not, every homeschooler has different reasons for educating their children at home and not all homeschoolers are religious. Being able to educate the children without having to gear the lessons to the lowest common denominator, that too is a great advantage of homeschooling.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Feminism — Lies, Despair, Devastated Lives

They claim to be representing all women and they believe that their ideology is there to make women's lives better. The reality however is much different. They've been around for decades and the results are grim to say the least:
If you look just at test scores and grades, you get the notion that girls are doing great and boys are struggling. But if you look at the literature, you see that more than one in five girls is cutting herself and/or burning herself with matches. More than one in four high-school girls is binge drinking. Today, one in eight females in the U.S. takes anti-depressants. There’s been an enormous escalation in anxiety and depression among girls and young women.
Jean Twenge, a professor at San Diego State University, compared how kids from roughly the same demographic have answered those questions over time, and she found that 40 years ago, it was rare for teenage girls to answer yes to questions like “Are you ever so anxious you can’t concentrate or focus?” and “Do you ever find yourself waking up in the middle of the night?” Today, it’s very common for girls to say yes. In fact, she found that the average teenage girl today is more anxious than the average girl admitted to a psychiatric unit for in-patient treatment 50 years ago. In 1966, a popular show in the U.S. was Gidget, about a giggly teenage girl. Today it just wouldn’t resonate. Now girls watch Gossip Girl, which is about anxious teens trying to present a sexual persona, who have all kinds of obsessions and neuroses. A whole lot of girls find solace in the notion that anxiety is now the norm.
How could that happen? How come such good intentions led to such an outcome? Well, let's take a closer look at their "achievements":
• To end dependence on men, they’ve pushed for women in the workplace. Any woman not choosing career over family is seen as a traitor and failing to achieve their potential. As such, women end up depending on the government for survival and likely forcing them and their child to live in poverty. Feminists then push for government-run daycare where some women are paid low wages to care other people’s children while the added tax burden to single income families forces more women into the workforce. More working women also means that lazy men are now sponging off the woman’s income.

• They have been harsh critics of marriage, viewing the role of “wife” and “mother” to be oppressive. Forget the fact that marriage is the primary stabilizing factor that leads to greater physical, psychological and financial health for all family members. Marriage is known to have a civilizing effect on men and provides stability and security that most benefits women.

• They have been advocates of easing divorce laws and promoting co-habitation, thus making it far easier for men to walk out on their responsibilities and get sex without commitment...
And it turns out more and more that they're not really acting in women's best interest. That not only they have become slaves to their own ideology, (especially when it comes to such issues as coerced abortions, gender selected abortions and assaults on pregnant women that result in loss of a child,) but it often seems like some of them are driven by... envy:
The fact is that the old guard feminists of today don’t really believe in true emancipation or happiness for women much younger than they are. The feminists want their “daughters” to drudge through the same misery, bitterness, and loneliness that they are now experiencing. Their goal has never been about true gender rights. If it were, they would oppose abortion on the basis of gender – which they don’t. And they would be disburbed by the fact that contraception is really for irresponsible men and not ultimately for women who have to settle for some loser later on in life because that’s the “sex economy” which contraception has created.

Why would a heathen man want to get married with all of the responsibilities and duties that that entails, when he can get sex for “free”, by playing the younger market now? And when he gets older, he can parachute into marriage with a younger woman in her mid to late 30s because the 20-year olds won’t look at him any more. As we see in society today, there are more and more marriages between an older man and a younger woman. This confirms Reichart’s thesis in spades. If it wasn’t for lads like yours truly, there wouldn’t be any equitable marriages around. What the feminist fools did not realize is that marriage was there to protect women, not men!
And it's not like they are learning from past mistakes. They still try to present myths as facts, peddling chemical contraception in spite of the side effects. They're still try to hide from reality behind Orwellian slogans such as "abortion is love". Yes, imagine this. They welcome women to celebrate mother's day at the abortion clinic, without mentioning that this is the place where a woman becomes an orphaned mother, a mother of a dead baby.

Should anyone wonder then why some half-a-century of radical feminist domination in the public square resulted in nothing but more emptiness, despair and devastated lives?

Friday, May 21, 2010

The Ugly Face Of The Pro-Abort Movement

Or - "when the pro-aborts can't argue, part 999999". Here's a video of yet another angry pro-abort guy yelling at the pro-life protesters, kicking signs, trying to rip the sign from the hands of a protester and trying to draw a swastika on the other.
Someone must have been troubled by his guilty conscience. Or - by the mere thought that maybe abortion is not really the easy, clean and harmless procedure he thought it to be. Note this guy screaming "why do you hate women?" What does he think is more hateful - telling women the truth about what abortion really does to them and to their babies, (even if it is the unpleasant "in your face" type of truth,) or spreading the myth about abortion being an easy way out of an "unplanned" pregnancy?
Pro-aborters don’t discuss the issue calmly and rationally.

They do what this thug does: threaten, intimidate, and try and destroy property. They simply have no self-control and hate anyone who has a different opinion than they do.

They lash out like this, of course, because the truth of what they believe is hard to take, or – as is probable with this man in the video – they have been directly involved in an abortion somehow.

That’s the face of pro-abort Canada today: angry and violent. Have they no shame?
And here's another peaceful message from the "pro-choice" movement:
The incident occurred just three days after Rev. Anthony van Hee was threatened with broken bones and death for protesting abortion on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. On the morning of May 11, Fr. van Hee was approached by a man identified as Malcolm Miller, 53, who threatened to kill the priest if he was still there at noon. Miller was subsequently arrested.
Yep, that's the kind of choice they offer. Paraphrasing an old Soviet joke - feel free to agree with us or be shot if you don't.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Abortion Debate — Like It Or Not

You may try to run away from it, just like Joe Clark did, but it can't be avoided:
Abortion is in the news again – much to the chagrin of those who like to keep their baby-killing quiet, publicly-funded and beyond criticism. It is more than twenty years since the courts bowed to Henry Morgantaler and his followers and introduced the universal right to abortion in Canada, making this country unique in the democratic world in having no laws whatsoever to protect the life of an unborn child at any time during pregnancy.
In those two decades almost 2 million babies have been killed in what is supposed to be humanity’s safest place, the womb. It has also cost more than one billion public dollars, in that the taxpayer is obliged to finance this elective surgery. In that same period numerous necessary medical procedures have been de-funded by governments that would not dream of removing a penny from state funded abortion, no matter how wealthy the woman who demanded the procedure.

The last twenty years have also seen a curious twisting of the debate around the issue and a monumentally successful campaign to marginalize pro-life opinion. Politicians are told that to even discuss the policy would lose them votes – though polls repeatedly show Canadians as being divided on the subject – and opponents of abortion, whatever their views on other issues, are portrayed as wide-eyed zealots.
The pro-aborts already feel threatened - and they have all the reasons for that: they know that their moral relativism is powerless against the truth, that their myths (such as "one body") have no chance against facts and that their euphemisms are meaningless. Babies don't "choose" to die, and "reproductive health" in their understanding means - no reproduction and no health.

The debate is already going on. So let's step up our efforts so that it couldn't be ignored.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

You Were A Liability. You Should Have Died

It's hard to believe, but pro-aborts actually have the audacity to say something like that to a young girl who miraculously survived an attempted abortion.
Ohden delivered the keynote address, sharing her story about living as one who had been slated for death at the request of her own mother and father.

“I couldn’t help but be so moved by all of you today,” she said, choking back tears. “To see 12,500 people marching for children just like me inspired me and made me feel so loved.”

Ohden is a victim of an attempted saline infusion abortion, which involves injecting a saline and salt solution into the amniotic fluid to scald the child to death within the mother’s womb. Doctors then induce labor to remove the child’s body.

In Ohden’s case, however, she was still alive after being delivered, so the medical staff left her aside to die. But then “by the grace of God,” she said, she began making small movements and grunts. In response the medical personnel stepped in to save her life.

Ohden revealed how she has faced discrimination from pro-abortion advocates who believe she should have died. She said that doctors and nurses have told her that they don’t understand why the medical professionals intervened to save her life. “You were a liability,” they said.
And another thing: note how the medical personnel was reluctant to save Melissa's life after she was born. She was delivered alive; according to the law - that's when life (and personhood) starts. But the hospital personnel didn't care about Melissa's life after birth, just as they didn't care about her life before birth. For them, Melissa was neither a human nor a person - in spite of having been born and breathing. And they saw nothing wrong in saying that right in her face several years later.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Abortion, "Sex Ed" And Euthanasia — One Source, One Industry, One Goal

And the goal is - to make death a marketable solution to social problems.

Meet Dr. Carolyn Barry. Carolyn began her medical career volunteering in Papua, New Guinea for 2 years before becoming a family practitioner in Fredericton for the next 32 years. Retiring from medicine in 2008, she now teaches full time and is a principal of a Catholic school which she founded in 2002. Here's the speech she gave at the Sussex Right to Life fundraiser:

Carolyn talks about the abortion industry, how they have a virtual monopoly on women's minds through our public healthcare system. And she talks about the sex education industry, that, by encouraging children to seek sexual pleasure at early age with infinite number of partners, practically brings up new customers for the abortion industry. Our system of public education grants those industries a virtual monopoly on young minds.

Carolyn shares her experience as a pro-life family practitioner who wouldn't refer women to abortions and she outlines the challenges that a pro-life person would face if he chooses to pursue a career in healthcare. Carolyn mentions the euthanasia issue as well. As someone who worked in healthcare, she dispels the myth that this is about "compassionate" or "mercy" killing. Euthanasia is about killing - period.

But the culture of death hasn't won out yet. In fact, it's losing ground - and Carolyn talks about that too. Let's not forget - the truth is on our side. Because all children are by nature pro-life.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

National March For Life 2010 — Even The Media Admits Its Success

Not only they're no longer downplaying our numbers, but sometimes they overestimate them. According to various sources, the turnout for the March in Ottawa was about 12,500. The Toronto Star has reported 15,000:
The debate that Harper says he doesn’t want to reopen in Canada arrived literally on his doorstep on Thursday, with high spirits and demands for the Conservative government to do much more to discourage abortion in this country.

Around 15,000 pro-life campaigners, clearly buoyed by what they see as last month’s victory on the foreign-aid front, cheered loudly when numerous speakers talked about the next steps in what one called bringing a “culture of life” to Canada.
Again, those are by no means our sympathizers. And to think that it's been just three years since the CBC referred to about 7500 participants of the March as "some 1500 anti-abortion protesters", that were "greeted by a handful of MPs, mostly - Conservatives, none of them - in Cabinet".

Heck, back then they didn't even bother to make it a separate story. First, the news anchor took his time to give us quite an overview of the abortion debate someplace in the South America and only then did he mention that here, in Canada, we too had had a handful of pro-life protesters rallying on the Parliament Hill along with a few Conservative back-benchers. (Move along folks, nothing to see here.) Again, it was just three years ago.

Now, suddenly they're willing to take the highest estimate - 15 thousands, not 10 or 12, as other sources suggest. How come? Did we reach the point at which the media realizes that if the group is that powerful then they better not get them angry? Or is it just a new scare tactics - to give the highest number so that the pro-abortion side starts calling in its troops? "They're coming! All 15 thousands of them! Do something to stop them before it's too late! Right wing is marching on!"

Talking about the right wing - check out Suzanne's photo report on the March - and you'll see that our March was attended not just by the right-wing folks. Even among anarchists there are those who understand that human life is precious; that being pro-life is common sense. One guy took his time to do the math and to show that the "rape" objection has been blown out of proportion. Way to go fellows!

On the other end of the political spectrum, we have yet another embarrassing moment for Joe Sixpack Sixmonths:
And last but not least, the Best quote of the day comes from former Prime Minister Joe Clarke. As we were heading into 240 Sparks St. to get a bite to eat we traversed through Holt Renfrew when we saw him. The three of us introduced ourselves, and Mr. Clark, always the politician asked us where we were from and where were we going. We told him we were going to the Pro-Life March. You know, the one against abortion? He started to look kind of uncomfortable and he said to us: "We're not going to have this debate right here" and he was gone.

I should have asked him, when would be a good time to have this debate? How about my people call your people?
Yeah, Joe, it's not the right time - for you. Your time is over. And it looks like the pro-aborts' time is running out too.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Speeches From The New Brunswick March For Life

At the start of the rally, the organizers estimated the crowd at about 320 people. Apparently, some more people joined us later (after all, the rally did start earlier than in the previous years,) so the Gleaner reports that there were about 400 of us. That's even better. And hopefully - that's not the maximum turnout we can look forward for.
"Abortions are being performed on demand in these two hospitals," said Peter Ryan, executive director of the association, Thursday.

"We think there is a violation of the law."

He said that according to the Department of Health, in 2009 there were 341 medically necessary abortions performed at the Georges Dumont Hospital in Moncton and the Chaleur hospital in Bathurst.

That compares to three at the Dr. Everett Chalmers Regional Hospital in Fredericton, one in Saint John and none at the other hospitals in the province, said Ryan.

The medicare system in New Brunswick won't pay for an abortion unless it's declared medically necessary by two physicians.

"We just compare the statistics," said Ryan.

"They have obviously a very, very different sense of what medically necessary means.

"They are basically abusing that term."
Here's Peter Ryan's speech in full.
And here are a couple more speeches from our rally:

This one is by Cathy Jensen, our vice-president and a pro-life mother of four adorable children. She talks about... choice. How those who claim to be "pro-choice" actually deny informed choice to their followers.

And here's a speech by pastor Bob Emrich - a pro-life pro-family leader, who came all the way from Maine to join our protest against the wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn babies.

Due to YouTube 10-minute limit, I had to remove the part where Bob speaks about how dignified Canadians are. But the rest of the speech is here including - why should we keep fighting and praying, no matter what; even if seems like the odds are against us.

Please excuse the shaking picture, and the wind, which sometimes makes it quite difficult to make out the words, was obviously not something I could control. But at the very least - the speeches have been recorded, so now they can be embedded, replayed, quoted... And that's what I believe is the most important.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

New Brunswick March For Life 2010

The New Brunswick legislature has been prorogued for the upcoming election and the building itself was under repairs. That however didn't stop over 300 concerned New Brunswickers from gathering at the legislature building to speak up for the voiceless unborn babies.

Our March coincided with the national March for Life in Ottawa and shared the same theme - Abortion is a crime against humanity. No, unlike what our opponents claim, we were there not to condemn the young women who seek abortions, but to condemn the system that allows abortions; to condemn the legal vacuum that allows every 4th baby in Canada to be brutally slaughtered before he gets a chance to take his first breath.

The Legislature wasn't in session, but MLAs from both major political parties came to our rally. Even the leader of the opposition took his time to pay us a brief visit. The Premier was unable to be there, but one of the Liberal MLAs who spoke at our rally greeted us on his behalf.

The politicians however had to brace themselves for some criticism. Yes, both major political parties in New Brunswick have taken a commendable stand against funding abortions on demand in Morgentaler's "clinic". But what about the same abortion on demand that are being performed in the province's hospitals at taxpayers' expense?

221 abortions took place in the George Dumont hospital in Moncton. 119 - in the Chaleur hospital in Bathurst. Could all of them be medically necessary - in a province with a population of 750,000? Is there be some extraordinary crisis in maternal health in those two hospitals? Or is it that a few doctors in those hospitals are abusing the system, taking advantage of the vague definition of "medical necessity" to perform abortions on demand? What do you think?

It's time to get abortion out of our hospitals.

The final part of our march was - laying roses at the abortion sites, in memory of the unborn babies that died there. 24 roses were taken to Moncton, to be laid at the George Dumont Hospital, each rose representing 10 unborn babies. 12 roses were taken to Bathurst, to be laid at the Chaleur hospital. And there was a large cross with 60 roses on it. That cross was laid at the wall of the Morgentaler's abortion "clinic" in Fredericton. Almost a 1000 babies a year - that's the gruesome toll of the abortion on demand in New Brunswick.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Visualizing Unrestricted Abortion

That's what it looks like in the Netherlands, where abortion claims about 30,000 babies a year. In Canada, with its 100,000 abortions a year, this graveyard of plastic fetuses would be more than three times larger.
How would you feel if the government wiped out an entire city the size of Kingston, and everyone in it every single year? The majority of Canadians would probably not agree with this idea. In fact there would probably be riots in the streets. Yet that is precisely what is happening in hospitals and clinics all throughout Canada each year on a much smaller level.
You don't even need the "graphic" pictures of what is left of each of those babies after the act of "choice". Just look at the thousands upon thousands of plastic unborn babies - the grim memorial to those who were brutally slaughtered before they had a chance to see daylight. Let's remember that. And let us not be silent.

Join the March for Life - in Ottawa and in other major cities across Canada. Including Charlottetown.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Double Standards At Calgary University

If they want to find you guilty of breaching their rules - they will. Even if you don't break any.
CALGARY, Alberta, May 10, 2010 ( - Eight members of the University of Calgary's pro-life club, Campus Pro-Life (CPL), have been found guilty after closed-door hearings late last month over their presentation of a pro-life display on campus, says the group.

U of C's Acting Associate Vice-Provost Meghan Houghton told the students that she was issuing “a formal written warning” that if the students “fail to comply with directives of Campus Security staff in the future” it will “result in more severe sanctions.” Houghton conducted the hearings, at which the students were denied legal representation, and was the sole decision-maker in the guilty verdict.
“That’s blatant content-based discrimination,” responded Peter Csillag, CPL Vice-President (Internal). “Why weren’t abortion advocates, or Falun Gong supporters, forced to place their messages inwards when they protested on campus? You can’t have debate if everyone is pointed inwards on themselves. As far as I’m concerned, this verdict against us pro-lifers is not legitimate, and it reveals U of C to be an institute of censorship and double standards — not of higher learning.”

In 2006 and 2007, during the first four displays of GAP on campus, the university defended the students’ right to expression under the Charter, but in 2008 the University reversed its policy without explanation.
Targeting student groups because of their views, conducting closed door hearings... They must have learned from the HRCs. Shame on you, Calgary U!

Monday, May 10, 2010

The Big Lie Of Multiculturalism

Check out this Toronto Sun article. Salim Mansur explains how multiculturalism fails Canada:
The recent comments by Ujjal Dosanjh, former NDP premier of British Columbia and present Liberal MP for Vancouver South, in reference to multiculturalism and political correctness are politically significant and commendable.

The high value of Dosanjh asking tough and relevant questions on a subject that is near taboo among the political and media elite is partly because he represents liberal-left thinking in the country.

In a column for the National Post on April 23, Dosanjh contended minority communities — immigrants of non-European origin — threaten the social fabric of Canada by an obsession with injustices in their “homelands” in the recent or distant past. The result is excessive emphasis “placed on the differences that keep us apart from each other” and “diminishing emphasis on commonalities and values that bind us.”
Multiculturalism as a doctrine stipulates all cultures are of equal merit and deserve equal treatment. What remain unspecified — perhaps deliberately — in this formula are the criteria by which the equality of cultures is assessed.

Moreover, since the multicultural doctrine is untenable and easily falsified, it can only be sustained by the heavy-handed political correctness of the Canadian state promoting this balderdash at much expense and increasing public dismay.

The idea that Canada has been multicultural since the first Europeans arrived on its shores is a recent invention. It was devised out of necessity and bad faith to mitigate the challenge that Quebec nationalism and separatism presented to English Canada.

It could be said that Canada with its aboriginal population was multicultural. But once the English and the French engaged to wrestle control over this vast country, the Canada that eventually emerged as a dominion was bicultural and bilingual.
Well said! And it's quite encouraging to see articles like that making their way into the mainstream media. The more of them get published, the sooner we see the end of the big lie known as multiculturalism.

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Community Alternative To Government Schooling

When staying home full time to educate the children poses a challenge, a community-run school could be a solution. Just like it was for a group of concerned parents in St. John:
Saint John -- In NB the Catholic school system dwindled away into nothingness in 1967 as a result of the amalgamation of school boards. Since then the province has had neither Catholic boards nor Catholic private schools.

Thanks to the initiative of a group of determined parents, the Divine Mercy School, which aims to "provide a rich Catholic education with a high standard of academic excellence," will open its doors in St. John in September, 2003. The nonprofit school will charge a tuition fee of $250 per month, well below any other Canadian private school...
Unfortunately, the old Catholic Insight article is no longer available online. But the "our history" page on the Divine Mercy Catholic School website gives out a lot more details:
Early in the Jubilee year 2000, several concerned parents began to meet regularly to discuss the possibility of starting a Catholic school. Although there were no private Catholic schools in New Brunswick at the time, these parents were confident that a school could be formed that would provide small classes, Christian values and a positive learning environment.

The more the parents met, the more they realized that this endeavor was a real possibility. The long hours of preparation were inevitable but everyone was willing to work hard to investigate and discuss legal implications, financial possibilities, charitable status, curriculum choices, mission statements, teachers, Board of directors, location, students, class sizes and a host of other pertinent issues.
Note that the tuition is just $250 per month. That's roughly three times less than what the government spends on an average public school student. Somehow, a group of concerned parents can offer education at much lower price, yet of better quality than government-run schools. And, you may be surprised, but private schooling works not just for Catholics:
We asked the Black Business and Professional Association, which sponsors the gala, to fill the Toronto Sun’s table with young people, so they could see what the evening, honouring outstanding black achievers, is all about.

You’d be hard-pressed to find a more impressive group of young people than the BBPA chose for us.

They were from a private, Seventh-day Adventist school, the Crawford Academy, located near Finch Ave. and Bathurst St. Founded in 1953, it has classes from kindergarten to Grade 12 and is one of four affiliated Adventist schools in the GTA.

Crawford has 480 students, 70-80% black, and almost all from visible minority groups.

An astounding 98% of its graduates are accepted into their first choice of university.

Talking to these impressive young people, in Grades 9 to 12, it wasn’t hard to see why. They were polite, articulate, confident — all planning careers as lawyers, doctors, engineers, physiotherapists and media professionals, many involved in extra-curricular activities, including student council, music, sports, film-making, volunteerism.
I bet it has something to do with the school not including victimhood lessons of all sorts in its curriculum, preferring instead to give students more hours of the subjects of their choice, to have them better prepared for the university. And, teaching faith and family values instead of moral relativism and "multisexualism" must have also contributed to the students' success. At least - you won't see many teens there contracting STDs or getting pregnant in an attempt to "explore their sexuality".

Could such schools be a solution to the parents in Hamilton, which had to pull their kids from public schools, because the local school board didn't even want to wait for the McGuinty’s sex ed extremist curriculum to become mandatory, establishing their own rules for teaching sexually perverse behavior under the guise of "inclusiveness"?

Obviously, they are not likely to see any help from the government. Obviously they'd be still forced to pay twice - for the public system they can't use, through their taxes, and for the private school - out of pocket (or, maybe, by skipping a day of work to volunteer at the classroom). But giving children a high-quality education and true values is worth the extra effort. And, with the right efforts, we may eventually get voucher-funded home- and community schooling system from coast to coast.

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Nancy Ruth: A Living Argument For An Elected Senate

A former "Progressive Conservative", appointed by a Liberal Prime Minister, she expresses her views in a manner that would have kept her from ever winning her seat in a an election:
Unfortunately for the Conservatives, Ms. Ruth has a history of making odd remarks and embracing equally odd causes. When senior officials of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency appeared at the Senate finance committee in 2009 to discuss the agency's budget, Ms. Ruth took the occasion to complain that "the Canada goose is a health hazard" because its excrement pollutes lakes, and to propose that a number of geese be shot and fed "to the poor" in Toronto. Ms. Ruth also lobbied for five years to have throw pillows on the couches in the foyer of the Senate, a "campaign" which she won earlier this year, posing for pictures in Maclean's magazine with the aforementioned cushions.

How, might one ask, did Ms. Ruth acquire a $130,000-a-year seat in the Canadian Senate? Courtesy of former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, who appointed her in 2005. A cynic might ask whether he did this on purpose, as she is certainly proving to be a thorn in the side of her party, while proving an asset to his.

But Mr. Harper may find a silver lining in this debacle after all. Ms. Ruth's faux pas comes at a time when Bill S-8, legislation calling for senators to be elected, has just been introduced in the Upper Chamber. If anything makes the case for why the people are better suited to choose their senators than the government, this is it.
Meanwhile, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach chose not to hold a Senate Nominee election this year, preferring to merely extend the terms of the existing-Senators in-waiting by three more years. The reason for the decision is obvious - the Progressive "Conservative" leader is afraid of losing the election to the Wildrose Alliance. Hmmm... I wonder what made him believe that flip-flopping on elected Senate could actually strengthen his position. (Especially if bill S-8 passes.)

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Pro-Abort Professor: Abortion Involves Deliberate Killing? That's Still Not A Reason To Be Morally Troubled.

That's Mark Mercer; a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Saint Mary's University. He acknowledges the fact that a new human being comes at conception but then he suggests that there's absolutely no reason to be morally troubled by abortion. Because the life it destroys is, in his opinion, not worthy of living:
The question when human life begins gains no purchase because nowhere in the process of reproduction does anything non-living come to life. The egg is alive, the sperm is alive, and, should the sperm fertilize the egg, the zygote is alive. At conception comes a new human being.

Abortion, then, involves the killing of a human being. But that abortion involves the deliberate killing of a human being is no reason for abortion to be illegal. Nor should one be morally troubled by it.

To kill a reader of this newspaper would be to kill a creature richly aware of its environment and full of beliefs and desires, including the desire to continue living. To kill him or her would be to kill a self-conscious creature. Thus, to kill a reader of this paper would be to destroy a self-aware locus of experience, one, moreover, that prefers not to die.

That is why only extremely strong, ethically sound reasons could justify killing a reader of this paper. Absent such reasons, we're enjoined to let her live.

A human fetus, on the other hand, though human, has only a rudimentary awareness of its environment and lacks self consciousness entirely. It has no interest in living, for it can have no interests at all.

Because a fetus is not a person, killing a fetus is not killing a person.
Applying his own logic, killing a newborn is not a big deal either, because the newborn too, doesn't have much self consciousness, not to mention - being richly aware of his environment. And, if we look at it from M.Mercer's point of view, then there's nothing morally troubling with killing a two- or three-year-old. After all, what self-consciousness could a child have at that age, when he can barely be aware of the environment around him? And what about senile old men, who can no longer have all the self-consciousness and self-awareness? Oh, we know the answer to that one; after all, it's been just two weeks or so, since the euthanasia bill was debated by the House of Commons...

M.Mercer claims that an unborn baby "has no interest in living". This is nothing but a blatant lie:
When performing surgical abortions at 12-14 weeks of pregnancy [it] is recommended ultrasound monitoring in real time. That is on the screen [it] shows how [the fetus is dying].

[That's it,] no more abortions. Never again.

It's a pity that it took 13 years to come to this.
Unborn baby's brain waves could be detected as early as 10-12 weeks after conception. The unborn too has desires, interests and even memories from before birth. If hurt, he can feel pain and he has as much interest in living as M.Mercer himself. If M.Mercer knows that and yet continues to assert his position as true - he is a crook. If not - he's an ignoramus. Either way, it's shocking that a latter day Hitlerist like M.Mercer could actually become a philosophy professor in a university.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

University of Victoria Pro-Life Students Are Tired Of Discrimination

They are suing the "student union" - an organization, which is supposed to represent all students, which charges hefty fees for membership, (of which it allows no opt-out,) but which uses its usurped authority to silence students it disagrees with:
Pro-Life Students take Legal Action Against their Student Union

VICTORIA, B.C., May 3, 2010 ‑ Youth Protecting Youth (YPY), the University of Victoria pro‑life student’s club, today filed a petition in the BC Supreme Court initiating legal proceedings against the University of Victoria Students’ Society (UVSS).

The lawsuit seeks various court orders all to the effect that the UVSS has acted unlawfully in denying YPY club funding since September 2008, and recently upped the ante by refusing to ratify YPY as an official club for the Spring 2010 semester. In addition, the Clubs Policy has now been amended to specifically target pro‑life advocacy.

University of Victoria student, UVSS member, and YPY president, Anastasia Pearse commented:
“We have watched pro‑life student groups throughout the province, and across the country, face the stifling and discriminatory decisions of Student Societies that deny them funding or club status.
Our aims are to promote choices that protect unborn human beings and their mothers from the harm of abortion. We should be granted equal opportunity to share our message.”
Or if the so called "Students' Society" can't tolerate pro-life views in their ranks, they should allow pro-life students to opt-out of union membership and organize their own union, that would have the same rights on campus as the "Students' Society". Then, the "Society" wouldn't be compelled to recognize a club that challenges their ideology and pro-life students won't be forced to pay membership dues to an organization that wouldn't allow them to express their views.
Imagine this hypothetical situation:

Several students at a Canadian university share a concern about the welfare of an endangered species of owl. They apply for club status with their local student's union in order to use the facilities that they all pay for through their dues. Though they meet the definition for club status, the union at first denies their request. Their reason? They cite their impression that the student body in general, and the union council in particular, doesn't care much about the threatened owl.

The student group persists, and receive some media coverage on the controversy. Confronted by accusations of bias and prejudice, the union finally backs down. They allow the club, but slap on several pages of restrictions to the club's activities. They are as follows:

1) The club may not advocate for any sort of government ban on owl-killing. "Students who enjoy hunting owls are concerned that a club supported by their dues may be trying to take away their rights", a union representative states.

2) Stringent restrictions are placed on the club with respect to publishing photographs. "We don't want them to be going around shaming or shocking students with graphic imagery," the union says, including any depiction of a dead owl as graphic imagery. "The way you present your views must be respectful."
I could imagine the outcry if a student union actually imposed such conditions on an "animal rights" club. But when it comes to fetal rights - unborn babies turn out to be less worthy of protection than animals and those students who speak up for those unborn babies become less equal than others.

Monday, May 3, 2010

Abortion: The Debate Politicians Are Afraid To Reopen

What are they so afraid of? Asks Kevin Libin in his National Post article.
Opposition MPs denounced as "extreme" International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda's announcement that the government would promote its plan to get the G8 behind maternal - and child-health initiatives in the developing world, but would not include abortion funding. It was imposing an "ideological pro-life agenda" on the world, Liberal critic Glen Pearson said. The Tories were, according to a Montreal columnist, "reigniting the abortion debate," as if that were, by definition, a bad thing.

In reality, for 20 years, there has been no meaningful debate over abortion law in this country, and this tempest over the Tories' decision not to add new funding for foreign abortions seems unlikely to change that. Canada is the only democratic country on Earth with nothing to say, legislatively, about abortion, and all major federal parties have vowed to leave it that way.

In a country with no rules, and a political class evidently terrified of even considering any, the status quo silence seems bound to persist, even if a large number of voters preferred it didn't. If Canadians, at least publicly, are incapable of even tolerating an edifying discussion about something like Mr. Harper's maternal health initiative, so loosely connected to Canadian abortion rights, without falling into predictably paralyzing positions and rhetoric, there seems little hope of us ever seriously confronting it at all.
Perhaps a more instructive poll, however, was Angus Reid's last year, which found 92% of Canadians unaware that the country had no laws at all regulating the roughly 90,000 abortions that occur annually. With only paralysis and ignorance to go by, it's impossible to know how certain policies might resonate were our governments to consider them.
Opponents of the abortion debate claim that abortion is a "woman's right", a right which they believe is absolute and therefore - should not be debatable. But what about the baby's right to life?
They don't just dismiss the unborn child and its rights, they pretend that the children who are the victims of abortions don’t exist at all. Like some kind of fairy tale dream world where women have "procedures" but let's not talk about what the "procedure" is doing, or how it is done. And please, please, whatever you do, don't show us any pictures of the "procedure".
That's why the pro-aborts are so afraid of the debate. The debate will make it clear that there are two people involved - the mother and the baby. Once fetal rights are brought into the spotlight, how can they maintain their position that the baby's life is not valuable enough, that the personal convenience of the mother should prevail? They know that their ideology has no chance against scientific facts, which make it clear that the unborn is not a "blob of tissue", but a living human being, just like any of us.

They know that once those who are unaware of the status-quo start finding out the ugly truth about what abortion really is - their cause is lost. So they do their best to keep the politicians afraid of reopening the debate. But even that strategy of theirs can't really last for much longer.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Pro-Life, Pro-Faith Comic Book

Yes, it's fun to be pro-life. If you've missed our pro-life T-shirt week - how about a pro-life, pro-faith comic book?
UNITED STATES, April 29, 2010 ( – Professional illustrators come in all shapes and sizes, but very few of them have a pro-life or Christian perspective. But that is something that Dan Lawlis, a professional illustrator for over 20 years who has created comic book art for companies like Marvel and DC Comics, wants to change.

Lawlis is endeavoring to use the internet to bring a new comic book vision to the world, and has made his first go at the effort with the comic called “Orange Peel” – a story set in a technologically advanced future, where evil aliens plot to take-over the neighboring planet Godderth for conquest. However, they first plan to make conquest easy by getting the inhabitants of Godderth to abandon their morality, destroy the family unit, and become so morally impoverished that they will welcome their would-be conquerors with open arms.

The premise of the book is that somewhere in the future, human beings learned how to transport themselves to distant planets, but the transportation led to transformations in their appearance, making them alien-like.

The comic’s artwork is visually stunning and appealing, and little wonder: Lawlis has worked on characters like Spiderman, the Hulk, X-Men and more.
Go Orangepeel Go! Let Paul Roman and the culture of life become more popular than Harry Potter and whatever demonic things he deals with. And, judging from the bible images on the website, we can look forward for a few bible comics too :) Hopefully we see them on paper soon.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

March for Life 2010 — Be There

Come to the March for Life - rain or shine:
In Canada, at this time in history, a serious attack on human dignity continues to take place. Babies in the womb are being killed without regard, by a society which considers them as less than human. What kind of society ends the lives of its unborn children with such disregard? Babies are dying because they are inconvenient, the "wrong" sex, less than perfect, too costly … and they are given no protection by our laws. Three hundred children die each day through abortion. And if the child survives the abortion, they are left at the mercy of others. Will they be allowed to live or will they be left to die?
The theme of the 2010 March for Life is: Abortion — a Crime against Humanity. Let's be there to raise our voice for the voiceless unborn babies. And, if Ottawa is too far away, check out the local March for Life in your province: