Jim Hnatiuk - Leader of the Christian Heritage Party
Communiqué Vol 16, No 07 Mar 03, 2009
The 'Tug-of-War' of GLB demands
Jim Hnatiuk, leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, points out two recent developments within the gay, lesbian or bisexual (GLB) community that demand further investigation.
The first is a recent GLB complaint against Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada, submitted to the Canadian Human Rights Commission last month.
In the complaint, available here, the complainants say they don't receive equitable levels of programming support from Health Canada, compared with support for the general population or other minorities. The GLB complaint reveals a significant increase in health problems within the GLB communities. To quote only a few from their submission:
· "... gay/bisexual men have a life expectancy 20 years less than the average man in Canada";
· "..lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer"; and
· "within the area of HIV/AIDS that the inequities in Health Canada and Public Health Agency of Canada policies and programs vis-à-vis GLB people are most clearly illustrated... If one uses Statistic Canada's figure of 1.7% for the percentage of the population that is GLB..., the infection rate is 26 times higher than the general population."
Hnatiuk says it's important to place this within the context of a second recent development: a "Social Justice conference" staged by the BC Teachers' Federation at University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford Feb. 20-21, 2009.
Although the stated purpose of that conference was to help teachers implement the Social Justice 12 curriculum adopted under BC's Corren Settlement Agreement, a disturbing hidden purpose was revealed by a graphic, (see left) distributed by the BCTF in its information packages: the real goal is to move students' attitude towards LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and questioning) people beyond "tolerance" to "acceptance"-and then to "support," "admiration," "appreciation" and finally "celebration".
Should Canadian students be taught to celebrate behaviour that the GLB community itself links to shorter life expectancy, higher rates of breast cancer, and an HIV/AIDS infection rate 26 times higher than the general population?
Demands for so-called 'gay rights' continue to have an enormous social impact on our nation. Therefore, CHP Canada believes Parliament must devote adequate time to examining the facts.
Both Liberal and Conservative governments broke their promises to Canadians, as neither ever authorized any real enquiry into the facts surrounding same-sex 'rights' demands. The Liberal government told Parliament "this government will never legalize same-sex marriage." (Justice Minister Anne McLellan, speaking in Parliament in 1999.) But they did exactly what they promised they would never do. The Conservatives promised to re-examine the issue. They didn't.
As in France, CHP Canada would appoint a Royal Commission, with the authority to do a thorough examination of all the issues related to the GLB community. If they suffer from shorter life expectancy and higher disease rates--and they do, as their own CHRC complaint states--no school or other government agency should be allowed to promote "acceptance" of this lifestyle... let alone "celebration" of behaviour that constitutes a serious health threat!
CHP Canada also wants to point out that there are those who have been forgotten: the many who want to leave, and have left, that dangerous lifestyle. Rather than discrediting or demonizing their experiences, wishes, and dreams, there should be professional assistance and resources available for them and their families--at public expense--in every community.
Radical 'gay' activists, who clamour for the banning of reparative therapy, do their own community a grave disservice. The CHP believes the choice to leave homosexuality should be available to whomever wants it, truly satisfying Canada's dream of civil liberty.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
CHP Canada - Affirms Israel's Right to Defend its Civilians!
January 06, 2009
For immediate release
For years the Israelis have exercised restraint against Hamas terrorists who vow Israel's destruction. The Christian Heritage Party of Canada affirms the universal right of all nations, including Israel, to enjoy peace and national security within their borders. Today there is overwhelming evidence that Israel has had no choice but to restore safety for its civilians through the use of strength. When it can be verified that the Hamas missile attacks will cease and that monitoring agreements can be reached, then the CHP agrees with other nations that have called for both sides to move to a ceasefire.
As with all conflict, the CHP regrets the loss of innocent lives and would ask those opposing the Israeli invasion to focus their anger and frustration not against the Israeli army but against the illegal actions of Hamas. Hamas is in fact committing double war crimes, but no national leader will say this. The Hamas offensive has been launched against innocent Israeli civilians; Hamas then imperils their own civilian population by both launching an offensive from within a civilian enclave and seeking protection from retribution by hiding within that same civilian enclave. The CHP strongly condemns these Hamas war crimes.
The CHP agrees with the statement made by Canadian Foreign Affairs minister Mr. Cannon in that: "Israel has a clear right to defend itself against the continued rocket attacks by Palestinian militant groups which have deliberately targeted civilians. First and foremost, those rocket attacks must stop."
The CHP hopes that the military action will be short term, and suggests that Canada offer to assist in the establishment and the post diplomatic monitoring of agreements.
The CHP does not believe in dealing with organisations which engage in terrorist activities aimed deliberately against innocent civilians, therefore agreements must only be made with a legitimate government body in Gaza.
For immediate release
For years the Israelis have exercised restraint against Hamas terrorists who vow Israel's destruction. The Christian Heritage Party of Canada affirms the universal right of all nations, including Israel, to enjoy peace and national security within their borders. Today there is overwhelming evidence that Israel has had no choice but to restore safety for its civilians through the use of strength. When it can be verified that the Hamas missile attacks will cease and that monitoring agreements can be reached, then the CHP agrees with other nations that have called for both sides to move to a ceasefire.
As with all conflict, the CHP regrets the loss of innocent lives and would ask those opposing the Israeli invasion to focus their anger and frustration not against the Israeli army but against the illegal actions of Hamas. Hamas is in fact committing double war crimes, but no national leader will say this. The Hamas offensive has been launched against innocent Israeli civilians; Hamas then imperils their own civilian population by both launching an offensive from within a civilian enclave and seeking protection from retribution by hiding within that same civilian enclave. The CHP strongly condemns these Hamas war crimes.
The CHP agrees with the statement made by Canadian Foreign Affairs minister Mr. Cannon in that: "Israel has a clear right to defend itself against the continued rocket attacks by Palestinian militant groups which have deliberately targeted civilians. First and foremost, those rocket attacks must stop."
The CHP hopes that the military action will be short term, and suggests that Canada offer to assist in the establishment and the post diplomatic monitoring of agreements.
The CHP does not believe in dealing with organisations which engage in terrorist activities aimed deliberately against innocent civilians, therefore agreements must only be made with a legitimate government body in Gaza.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Re:MP aims to reopen abortion debat
The abortion issue is a hot topic of late and has been in the news almost constantly since the spring of 2007. This causes one to wonder why some pro-choicers seem to think this is a dead issue.
One in particular is Joyce Arthur, who constantly uses rhetoric from the '60s and cannot accept the findings of science and technology. These have proven that life begins at conception, and Canadians are smart enough to recognize this. Arthur's use of antiquated words such as "anti-choice" shows her reluctance to move into the 21st century as well.
The statement that Conservative MPs are "out of touch" with the average Canadian and don't want to go back to an abortion debate shows she is afraid of the educated Canadian because we do want a debate on abortion.
The abortion issue is not over and will never go away. It took the anti-slavery movement many decades to rid society of that terrible injustice; pro-life advocates will certainly fight on for many more years.
Cliff Pyle, Saskatoon, Sask.
source
One in particular is Joyce Arthur, who constantly uses rhetoric from the '60s and cannot accept the findings of science and technology. These have proven that life begins at conception, and Canadians are smart enough to recognize this. Arthur's use of antiquated words such as "anti-choice" shows her reluctance to move into the 21st century as well.
The statement that Conservative MPs are "out of touch" with the average Canadian and don't want to go back to an abortion debate shows she is afraid of the educated Canadian because we do want a debate on abortion.
The abortion issue is not over and will never go away. It took the anti-slavery movement many decades to rid society of that terrible injustice; pro-life advocates will certainly fight on for many more years.
Cliff Pyle, Saskatoon, Sask.
source
Sunday, November 16, 2008
BC’s new homosexual curriculum blasted by Civil Rights League
By Jonquil Frankham
VANCOUVER, November 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)—BC’s new aggressively pro-homosexual, heavily left-leaning curriculum hasn’t got its facts straight, says Catholic Civil Rights League director Sean Murphy in an in-depth analysis of the curriculum.
And this, indicates Murphy, is only the beginning of the problems with the curriculum.
In his article Murphy points out that Making Space, Giving Voice, the new curriculum guide for B.C. schools, mistakenly teaches that Canada, not America, deported Maher Arar—a Canadian citizen who was suspected of terrorism by US authorities—to Syria, where he was tortured. Murphy, however, counters that while Canadian officials “bear considerable responsibility for what happened to Mr. Arar” the fact is that “the United States—not Canada—sent him to Syria.
“The first step in making progress towards social justice is getting the facts right, particularly when the facts are in dispute,” continues Murphy. “Thus, it is disturbing to find that Making Space, Giving Voice gets facts wrong, not only when they are not in dispute, but when they are publicly available and familiar to well-informed citizens.”
The new curriculum was formed under the guidance of Murray and Peter Corren, a “married” homosexual couple who were given an unprecedented level of control over the development of the curriculum by the BC Ministry of Education. Murray Corren, who is a teacher in the Surrey school board, aired complaints of “systemic sexual discrimination” in BC schools before the Ministry in 1999. His complaints led to a complete overhaul of the province’s curriculum, from Kindergarten to Grade 12, to include homosexual propaganda in every subject.
From a human rights perspective, the greatest problem with the curriculum is the “no opt-out” policy the Correns insisted on when planning their new guidelines, says Murphy. Under the curriculum guidelines, parents are not permitted to remove their children from objectionable classes.
As of this past June, however, only two BC school boards had said they would enforce the “no opt-out” policy.
A leftist, homosexualist ideological dogmatism is evidenced throughout the overhauled curriculum, charges Murphy. “Tolerance” is no longer considered sufficient by the homosexual ideologues, he says. In Making Space, Giving Voice it is instead “expected that students will ‘accept’ (i.e., affirm the moral and social acceptability of) any and all sexual lifestyles presented to them, excepting only those that are illegal. ‘Acceptance’ is to be presented to students as a moral, social and legal obligation imposed by the requirements of social justice.”
Meanwhile, suggests the director of the CCRL, there is to be no “acceptance” of any viewpoint on sexuality other than the Correns’.
“The approach taken by Making Space, Giving Voice is openly authoritarian… On the grounds that students must be kept ‘safe’, it advocates the suppression of contrary views by controlling student expression, and the silencing of critics with accusations of bigotry. Parents are to be denied the opportunity to prevent morally objectionable materials or ideological instruction from being forced upon their children, or to prevent them from being coerced by oppressive instructional or classroom management practices.
“Making Space, Giving Voice is really not meant to make space for all, nor to give voice to all,” writes Murphy. “For all the cant about welcoming ‘diversity,’ and the importance of ‘inclusiveness,’ some voices are not welcome, and some views are to be excluded…The mask of neutrality is coming off.”
Murphy points out the irony that while Making Space, Giving Voice suggests that students should critique “unflinching observance of tradition” and asks them to consider “what old ways of thinking or behaving are still slavishly adhered to,” this skeptical attitude seems to apply only to the values held by their parents—not those of the Correns.
“Certainly,” he says, “it is nowhere suggested that students should critique the unflinching observance of the current establishment’s norms, or consider what new ways of thinking or behaving are slavishly adhered to.”
To read Sean Murphy’s article from the CCRL, go to:
http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=4932
For more coverage on the Corren case, see:
New Vancouver School Policy: Parents Refused Right to Pull Kids from Pro-Homosexual Lessons
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062512.html
B.C. Gay Couple Seeks Mandatory Homosexual School Curriculum Without Parental Opt-Out
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05071106.html
Homosexual Activists Consider Targeting Private Christian Schools for “Homophobia” Want provincial ministry of education to exert “more control” over curriculum and staff hiring
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07022706.html
VANCOUVER, November 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)—BC’s new aggressively pro-homosexual, heavily left-leaning curriculum hasn’t got its facts straight, says Catholic Civil Rights League director Sean Murphy in an in-depth analysis of the curriculum.
And this, indicates Murphy, is only the beginning of the problems with the curriculum.
In his article Murphy points out that Making Space, Giving Voice, the new curriculum guide for B.C. schools, mistakenly teaches that Canada, not America, deported Maher Arar—a Canadian citizen who was suspected of terrorism by US authorities—to Syria, where he was tortured. Murphy, however, counters that while Canadian officials “bear considerable responsibility for what happened to Mr. Arar” the fact is that “the United States—not Canada—sent him to Syria.
“The first step in making progress towards social justice is getting the facts right, particularly when the facts are in dispute,” continues Murphy. “Thus, it is disturbing to find that Making Space, Giving Voice gets facts wrong, not only when they are not in dispute, but when they are publicly available and familiar to well-informed citizens.”
The new curriculum was formed under the guidance of Murray and Peter Corren, a “married” homosexual couple who were given an unprecedented level of control over the development of the curriculum by the BC Ministry of Education. Murray Corren, who is a teacher in the Surrey school board, aired complaints of “systemic sexual discrimination” in BC schools before the Ministry in 1999. His complaints led to a complete overhaul of the province’s curriculum, from Kindergarten to Grade 12, to include homosexual propaganda in every subject.
From a human rights perspective, the greatest problem with the curriculum is the “no opt-out” policy the Correns insisted on when planning their new guidelines, says Murphy. Under the curriculum guidelines, parents are not permitted to remove their children from objectionable classes.
As of this past June, however, only two BC school boards had said they would enforce the “no opt-out” policy.
A leftist, homosexualist ideological dogmatism is evidenced throughout the overhauled curriculum, charges Murphy. “Tolerance” is no longer considered sufficient by the homosexual ideologues, he says. In Making Space, Giving Voice it is instead “expected that students will ‘accept’ (i.e., affirm the moral and social acceptability of) any and all sexual lifestyles presented to them, excepting only those that are illegal. ‘Acceptance’ is to be presented to students as a moral, social and legal obligation imposed by the requirements of social justice.”
Meanwhile, suggests the director of the CCRL, there is to be no “acceptance” of any viewpoint on sexuality other than the Correns’.
“The approach taken by Making Space, Giving Voice is openly authoritarian… On the grounds that students must be kept ‘safe’, it advocates the suppression of contrary views by controlling student expression, and the silencing of critics with accusations of bigotry. Parents are to be denied the opportunity to prevent morally objectionable materials or ideological instruction from being forced upon their children, or to prevent them from being coerced by oppressive instructional or classroom management practices.
“Making Space, Giving Voice is really not meant to make space for all, nor to give voice to all,” writes Murphy. “For all the cant about welcoming ‘diversity,’ and the importance of ‘inclusiveness,’ some voices are not welcome, and some views are to be excluded…The mask of neutrality is coming off.”
Murphy points out the irony that while Making Space, Giving Voice suggests that students should critique “unflinching observance of tradition” and asks them to consider “what old ways of thinking or behaving are still slavishly adhered to,” this skeptical attitude seems to apply only to the values held by their parents—not those of the Correns.
“Certainly,” he says, “it is nowhere suggested that students should critique the unflinching observance of the current establishment’s norms, or consider what new ways of thinking or behaving are slavishly adhered to.”
To read Sean Murphy’s article from the CCRL, go to:
http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=4932
For more coverage on the Corren case, see:
New Vancouver School Policy: Parents Refused Right to Pull Kids from Pro-Homosexual Lessons
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062512.html
B.C. Gay Couple Seeks Mandatory Homosexual School Curriculum Without Parental Opt-Out
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05071106.html
Homosexual Activists Consider Targeting Private Christian Schools for “Homophobia” Want provincial ministry of education to exert “more control” over curriculum and staff hiring
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07022706.html
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Jim Hnatiuk new Christian Heritage Party leader
From ChristianGovernment.ca received by email...
A key aspect of this year's Christian Heritage Party convention was its leadership vote. Ron Gray, the Party Leader for the past 13 years is passing the torch to Jim Hnatiuk, a zealous candidate and party recruiter in Nova Scotia. CHP delegates gave their resounding support with the first ballot win for Mr. Hnatiuk, who held the party's Deputy Leader position since 2005. Mr. Hnatiuk was one of three candidates to run for the leadership of the party. The party wants to thank Harold Ludwig and Rod Taylor for their candidacies.
Jim Hnatiuk has been a dynamic member of the CHP ever since he first joined in 2002. He became the Interim Nova Scotia President prior to being named the Deputy Leader. The party's only candidate in Atlantic Canada in the 2004 election (against incumbent Scott Brison) and 2006 election (against incumbent Gerald Keddy), he has worked tirelessly to expand the CHP's presence in Eastern Canada. As a result, the party ran five candidates in Nova Scotia in the recent election.
"I am absolutely encouraged by the overwhelming support I received," Jim Hnatiuk said. "It gives me the confidence to move forward with the goals and focus that I brought forward in my campaign."
Hnatiuk, who has spent a great deal of time thinking about improving the quality of the CHP's image, experimenting with various strategies in his own campaigns, is looking forward to strengthening the party's recruiting methods and building the membership across Canada, from coast to coast to coast. Hnatiuk also wants to fill what he sees as a gap in the CHP's platform by developing policy to deal with the various concerns of the poor and low-income Canadians.
Hnatiuk was thrilled to see the increased number of delegates at this convention. "Many of the delegates here are young people," he said, "and they are the ones at the microphones, debating the resolutions."
Hnatiuk has been married to Ellen for 35 years They have two children and two grandchildren. He operates the largest hunting, fishing and taxidermy business in Nova Scotia. He retired from the Canadian Forces in 1995 after 25 years of service having attained the rank of Chief Petty Officer 1st Class.
- 30 -
A key aspect of this year's Christian Heritage Party convention was its leadership vote. Ron Gray, the Party Leader for the past 13 years is passing the torch to Jim Hnatiuk, a zealous candidate and party recruiter in Nova Scotia. CHP delegates gave their resounding support with the first ballot win for Mr. Hnatiuk, who held the party's Deputy Leader position since 2005. Mr. Hnatiuk was one of three candidates to run for the leadership of the party. The party wants to thank Harold Ludwig and Rod Taylor for their candidacies.
Jim Hnatiuk has been a dynamic member of the CHP ever since he first joined in 2002. He became the Interim Nova Scotia President prior to being named the Deputy Leader. The party's only candidate in Atlantic Canada in the 2004 election (against incumbent Scott Brison) and 2006 election (against incumbent Gerald Keddy), he has worked tirelessly to expand the CHP's presence in Eastern Canada. As a result, the party ran five candidates in Nova Scotia in the recent election.
"I am absolutely encouraged by the overwhelming support I received," Jim Hnatiuk said. "It gives me the confidence to move forward with the goals and focus that I brought forward in my campaign."
Hnatiuk, who has spent a great deal of time thinking about improving the quality of the CHP's image, experimenting with various strategies in his own campaigns, is looking forward to strengthening the party's recruiting methods and building the membership across Canada, from coast to coast to coast. Hnatiuk also wants to fill what he sees as a gap in the CHP's platform by developing policy to deal with the various concerns of the poor and low-income Canadians.
Hnatiuk was thrilled to see the increased number of delegates at this convention. "Many of the delegates here are young people," he said, "and they are the ones at the microphones, debating the resolutions."
Hnatiuk has been married to Ellen for 35 years They have two children and two grandchildren. He operates the largest hunting, fishing and taxidermy business in Nova Scotia. He retired from the Canadian Forces in 1995 after 25 years of service having attained the rank of Chief Petty Officer 1st Class.
- 30 -
Monday, November 10, 2008
Netherlands Bill Would Force "Unfit" Mothers to Use Birth Control Two Years
The Hague, Netherlands (LifeNews.com) -- Women in the Netherlands who are deemed by the state to be unfit mothers should be sentenced to take contraception for a prescribed period of two years, according to a draft bill before the Dutch parliament. The proposed legislation would further punish parents who defied it by taking away their newborn infant. "It targets people who have been the subject of judicial intervention because of their bad parenting," explained the author of the bill Marjo Van Dijken of the socialist PvDA. "If someone refuses the contraception and becomes pregnant, the child must be taken away directly after birth." London Guardian columnist Khaled Diab responded to the bill this way: When I see how some parents treat their children and come across adults who wish they'd never been born because of the abuse they endured as kids, I get some idea of where Van Dijken is coming from, but her proposed solution strikes me as far too draconian. Have we got the right to exercise pre-emptive "justice" – and could this be the first step towards a "minority report" approach to parental "precrime"? And, perhaps, given the Dutch penchant for social engineering, this could prove to be the prelude for the professionalisation of parenting, where in the distant future only certified and trained "fathers" and "mothers" would be allowed to raise children in special facilities.
(Received by email)
(Received by email)
Netherlands Bill Would Force "Unfit" Mothers to Use Birth Control Two Years
The Hague, Netherlands (LifeNews.com) -- Women in the Netherlands who are deemed by the state to be unfit mothers should be sentenced to take contraception for a prescribed period of two years, according to a draft bill before the Dutch parliament. The proposed legislation would further punish parents who defied it by taking away their newborn infant. "It targets people who have been the subject of judicial intervention because of their bad parenting," explained the author of the bill Marjo Van Dijken of the socialist PvDA. "If someone refuses the contraception and becomes pregnant, the child must be taken away directly after birth." London Guardian columnist Khaled Diab responded to the bill this way: When I see how some parents treat their children and come across adults who wish they'd never been born because of the abuse they endured as kids, I get some idea of where Van Dijken is coming from, but her proposed solution strikes me as far too draconian. Have we got the right to exercise pre-emptive "justice" – and could this be the first step towards a "minority report" approach to parental "precrime"? And, perhaps, given the Dutch penchant for social engineering, this could prove to be the prelude for the professionalisation of parenting, where in the distant future only certified and trained "fathers" and "mothers" would be allowed to raise children in special facilities.
(Received by email)
(Received by email)
COALITION ASKS BISHOPS TO TAKE POLITICIANS TO TASK IN BALTIMORE
ADDRESS 'CATHOLIC' PRO-ABORT LAWMAKERS; ENFORCE CANON LAW 915
Baltimore, MD (6 November 2008)
WHEN: Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2008, 7 p.m.
WHERE: Promenade outside the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel, 700 Aliceanna St., Baltimore, MD, 21202
WHO: American Life League, Maryland Right to Life, Defend Life and the Catholic Media Coalition will gather in prayer for the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB).
WHAT: Prayer vigil and press conference to address the USCCB's Fall Assembly and the Nov. 11 full-page ad in USA Today entreating the bishop's to enforce Canon 915. The bishops will discuss the practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion at the meeting.
WHY: Over 123 U.S. bishops spoke out against abortion in the 2008 presidential election, yet pro-abortion Catholic politicians continue to shape abortion policy while receiving Holy Communion in dioceses across the country. Are Catholics heeding the words of their bishops? How will the Catholic bishop's enforce the Church's teaching on abortion?
On Nov. 11, American Life League will run a full-page advertisement in USA Today imploring the bishops to stop allowing pro-abortion politicians like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Joe Biden to politicize Catholicism's most sacred Eucharist and to enforce Canon 915, which states:
"Those… obstinately persevering in grave and manifest sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Later that evening, a prayer vigil and press conference outside the USCCB's conference at the Baltimore Marriot Waterfront Hotel will herald an emerging and powerful lay outcry within the U.S. Catholic Church that demands accountability and leadership from the Catholic hierarchy with the belief that Catholics can end abortion in this country.
American Life League was co-founded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
# # #
_______________________________
Katie Walker
Director of Communication
American Life League
1179 Courthouse Road
Stafford, Virginia 22554
540.659.4942
kwalker@all.org
http://www.all.org/
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Baltimore, MD (6 November 2008)
WHEN: Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2008, 7 p.m.
WHERE: Promenade outside the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel, 700 Aliceanna St., Baltimore, MD, 21202
WHO: American Life League, Maryland Right to Life, Defend Life and the Catholic Media Coalition will gather in prayer for the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB).
WHAT: Prayer vigil and press conference to address the USCCB's Fall Assembly and the Nov. 11 full-page ad in USA Today entreating the bishop's to enforce Canon 915. The bishops will discuss the practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion at the meeting.
WHY: Over 123 U.S. bishops spoke out against abortion in the 2008 presidential election, yet pro-abortion Catholic politicians continue to shape abortion policy while receiving Holy Communion in dioceses across the country. Are Catholics heeding the words of their bishops? How will the Catholic bishop's enforce the Church's teaching on abortion?
On Nov. 11, American Life League will run a full-page advertisement in USA Today imploring the bishops to stop allowing pro-abortion politicians like Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Joe Biden to politicize Catholicism's most sacred Eucharist and to enforce Canon 915, which states:
"Those… obstinately persevering in grave and manifest sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Later that evening, a prayer vigil and press conference outside the USCCB's conference at the Baltimore Marriot Waterfront Hotel will herald an emerging and powerful lay outcry within the U.S. Catholic Church that demands accountability and leadership from the Catholic hierarchy with the belief that Catholics can end abortion in this country.
American Life League was co-founded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
# # #
_______________________________
Katie Walker
Director of Communication
American Life League
1179 Courthouse Road
Stafford, Virginia 22554
540.659.4942
kwalker@all.org
http://www.all.org/
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Dawkins Delusion
Dawkins ... Oxford University biologist ... and he does not understand statistics as applied to biology? When I was at Oxford, there was a much higher and more rigorous level of intelligence.
Even assuming molecules exist of themselves and with no questioning where they come from - of how they, in their complexity, were created and excluding the complexity which exists in the atom, the statistical odds, of molecules being in the right place at the right time to form the amoeba DNA with its 6 BILLION discrete bits of information, are supra astronomical. [I cannot even choose a measly 6 numbers from 49 to win the 649 Lottery!!]
There are many problems with this assumption. While, in theory, anything that can happen will happen in an infinite system ... we clearly have not approached "infinite time" yet, so an infinite system does not yet exist.
"Anything that can happen will happen" needs to be examined for its objective truth: namely that if the amoeba DNA did occur, then as well there would also be trillions and trillions of other DNA formed through the same random process. This is really 101 Statistics: amoeba DNA being randomly formed would only be one occurrence in a extremely large population of statistical occurrences.
Dawkins not only has his statistical blinkers on, he has his tunnel vision on: focussing on one DNA and - conveniently - ignoring the immense number of other DNA which would have precisely equal statistical opportunities of occurrence.
Dawkins is a very unscientific scientist. Likely needs to go back to school?
Science (unadulterated, of course) is the friend of Religion.
David A. Hogg B.Sc., D.I.C., P.Eng., C.G.A.
Even assuming molecules exist of themselves and with no questioning where they come from - of how they, in their complexity, were created and excluding the complexity which exists in the atom, the statistical odds, of molecules being in the right place at the right time to form the amoeba DNA with its 6 BILLION discrete bits of information, are supra astronomical. [I cannot even choose a measly 6 numbers from 49 to win the 649 Lottery!!]
There are many problems with this assumption. While, in theory, anything that can happen will happen in an infinite system ... we clearly have not approached "infinite time" yet, so an infinite system does not yet exist.
"Anything that can happen will happen" needs to be examined for its objective truth: namely that if the amoeba DNA did occur, then as well there would also be trillions and trillions of other DNA formed through the same random process. This is really 101 Statistics: amoeba DNA being randomly formed would only be one occurrence in a extremely large population of statistical occurrences.
Dawkins not only has his statistical blinkers on, he has his tunnel vision on: focussing on one DNA and - conveniently - ignoring the immense number of other DNA which would have precisely equal statistical opportunities of occurrence.
Dawkins is a very unscientific scientist. Likely needs to go back to school?
Science (unadulterated, of course) is the friend of Religion.
David A. Hogg B.Sc., D.I.C., P.Eng., C.G.A.
Friday, October 24, 2008
President Barack Obama's To-Do List
If Barack Obama becomes president, what will be on his 'To Do' list?
1. Making America a socialist country.
2. Enacting a major distribution of wealth - in other words, taking from some Americans and giving it to others (including people here illegally).
3. Increasing the capital gains tax, which will reduce investments and new jobs.
4. Increasing the estate (death) tax, leaving more to the government and less for your children and grandchildren.
5. "Allowing" the Bush tax cuts to expire, thereby increasing taxes on most Americans.
6. Removing the cap on Social Security payroll taxes.
7. Increasing taxes on seniors who continue to work after retirement age.
8. Enacting huge taxes to fight "global warming," such as higher taxes on gasoline.
9. Merging the tax and welfare systems, disguising welfare checks as "tax cuts."
10. Creating more "welfare" programs for corporations using taxpayer money.
11. Instituting more taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street and other big corporations.
12. Imposing rules that require nearly all workers to join unions, even against their wishes.
13. Instituting a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would cause broadcast stations to eliminate radio talk shows (no more Rush Limbaugh, Jim Dobson, Laura Ingraham, etc.).
14. Issuing government mandates that increase the cost of health insurance, and making patients wait longer to see their doctors, dentists, and other health care providers.
15. Rationing health care for all, especially seniors.
16. Rationing health care for premature infants.
17. Rationing health care for people with rare diseases.
18. Rationing health care for people when doctors guess that they are terminally ill.
19. Rationing health care that uses new or expensive medicine or medical technology.
20. Having the government determining who will be your doctor.
21. Having the government deciding which hospital you will use.
22. Having the government deciding what medicines you can take.
23. Increasing welfare payments for illegal aliens.
24. Increasing taxpayers' health care spending on illegal aliens.
25. Eliminating rules that prevent vote fraud, such as requiring voter identification, and providing voting rights for felons.
26. Imposing government control over political content on the Internet.
27. Passing "hate crime" laws that would put ministers and others in jail for criticizing homosexual behavior.
28. Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would require de facto quotas for homosexuals in every business and non-profit organization.
29. Requiring taxpayers to pay for all abortions and providing additional federal support to organizations that perform abortions.
30. Allowing all abortions, including partial-birth abortions.
31. Removing all state restrictions on abortion, including late-term abortions and requirements that health care be given to infants who survive abortions.
32. Voiding state laws on parental consent and informed consent.
33. Appointing judges who make decisions based on their political beliefs, instead of the Constitution and statutory law.
34. Ending restrictions on plaintiff lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits.
35. Signing and ratifying treaties that transfer U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations and other international organizations.
36. Making the District of Columbia the 51st state (with two Senators and a House member in Congress).
37. Making Puerto Rico the 52nd state (with two Senators and six House members in Congress).
38. Increasing federal government spending by a trillion dollars a year ($13,000 per family).
Please broadly publish this. Add your own if need be.
1. Making America a socialist country.
2. Enacting a major distribution of wealth - in other words, taking from some Americans and giving it to others (including people here illegally).
3. Increasing the capital gains tax, which will reduce investments and new jobs.
4. Increasing the estate (death) tax, leaving more to the government and less for your children and grandchildren.
5. "Allowing" the Bush tax cuts to expire, thereby increasing taxes on most Americans.
6. Removing the cap on Social Security payroll taxes.
7. Increasing taxes on seniors who continue to work after retirement age.
8. Enacting huge taxes to fight "global warming," such as higher taxes on gasoline.
9. Merging the tax and welfare systems, disguising welfare checks as "tax cuts."
10. Creating more "welfare" programs for corporations using taxpayer money.
11. Instituting more taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street and other big corporations.
12. Imposing rules that require nearly all workers to join unions, even against their wishes.
13. Instituting a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would cause broadcast stations to eliminate radio talk shows (no more Rush Limbaugh, Jim Dobson, Laura Ingraham, etc.).
14. Issuing government mandates that increase the cost of health insurance, and making patients wait longer to see their doctors, dentists, and other health care providers.
15. Rationing health care for all, especially seniors.
16. Rationing health care for premature infants.
17. Rationing health care for people with rare diseases.
18. Rationing health care for people when doctors guess that they are terminally ill.
19. Rationing health care that uses new or expensive medicine or medical technology.
20. Having the government determining who will be your doctor.
21. Having the government deciding which hospital you will use.
22. Having the government deciding what medicines you can take.
23. Increasing welfare payments for illegal aliens.
24. Increasing taxpayers' health care spending on illegal aliens.
25. Eliminating rules that prevent vote fraud, such as requiring voter identification, and providing voting rights for felons.
26. Imposing government control over political content on the Internet.
27. Passing "hate crime" laws that would put ministers and others in jail for criticizing homosexual behavior.
28. Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would require de facto quotas for homosexuals in every business and non-profit organization.
29. Requiring taxpayers to pay for all abortions and providing additional federal support to organizations that perform abortions.
30. Allowing all abortions, including partial-birth abortions.
31. Removing all state restrictions on abortion, including late-term abortions and requirements that health care be given to infants who survive abortions.
32. Voiding state laws on parental consent and informed consent.
33. Appointing judges who make decisions based on their political beliefs, instead of the Constitution and statutory law.
34. Ending restrictions on plaintiff lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits.
35. Signing and ratifying treaties that transfer U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations and other international organizations.
36. Making the District of Columbia the 51st state (with two Senators and a House member in Congress).
37. Making Puerto Rico the 52nd state (with two Senators and six House members in Congress).
38. Increasing federal government spending by a trillion dollars a year ($13,000 per family).
Please broadly publish this. Add your own if need be.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Advances in stem cell research
Is choosing between good science and good ethics a debate of the past?
By Derek Miedema, Researcher, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
As Canadians contemplated the pending election last week, an important study was published in the science journal Nature Biotechnology. Quietly overlooked, it has the capacity to fundamentally alter how we conduct stem cell research. [1] Such research has been the subject of much controversy. Embryonic stem cells, some scientists claim, hold the cure for many difficult diseases, like spinal paralysis, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. [2] Yet creating human life, only to destroy it, even for admirable goals, creates an ethical dilemma. Does this recently published study make that debate a thing of the past?
Embryonic stem cells used for research are obtained through the destruction or cloning of human embryos. The ethical dilemma inspired researchers to find a new way to access the potential of embryonic stem cells without destroying human life. In 2006, two Japanese scientists announced the discovery of a process to do just this—by inserting human genetic material into adult stem cells. [3] The genetic material reprograms the adult stem cells so that they have the properties of embryonic stem cells. The new stem cells are called induced Pluripotent stem cells (iPS).
The new October 2008 study shows that reprogramming can be accomplished with half the genetic material previously required and an acid to treat the adult stem cells. They write:
Our results raise the question of whether, or how soon, it will be possible to find small molecules to replace OCT 4 and SOX2 [the two human genes inserted] and thereby achieve reprogramming through purely chemical means, making therapeutic use of reprogrammed cells safer and more practical. [4]
In short, this research opens the way for an eventual method of reprogramming that does not require human material, but rather chemical matter.
The background on stem cell research
Stem cells are like the building blocks of the human body. The Stem Cell Network, an Ottawa-based group that brings stem cell experts together, defines stem cells as those “occur[ing] at the earliest stages of development and provide the starting material for every organ and tissue.” [5]
In theory, stem cells could be used to repair or rebuild wounded or broken parts of the body—inject them into a severed spinal cord, for example, and they could become spinal cord cells and repair the break. [6]
There are two forms of stem cells (to simplify some very complex science). Embryonic stem cells come from embryos, the earliest stage of human development. [7] Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in infants, children and adults alike. These cells exist to repair and maintain the human body.
What’s happening in stem cell research today
Currently, stem cell research on human subjects uses adult stem cells. Adult stem cells can be harvested from such things as cord blood, bone marrow and many other human cells. The potential for the rejection of implanted cells is also greatly reduced when a patient’s stem cells are isolated and then reinserted back into their own body.
Still, some maintain that embryonic stem cells are a great hope for cures, and so research on them continues as well. It’s worth noting that the National Institutes of Health, the national medical research agency of the United States government, indicates that no treatments exist as a result of embryonic stem cell research, however, adult stem cell research has already produced successful treatments for human patients. [8]
Those intimately involved with stem cell research admit there’s an ethical issue at stake. Dr. James Thomson, the first person to isolate human embryonic stem cells, highlighted the difficulties associated with his decision to begin his research. He told the New York Times in 2007 “[i]f human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” [9]
The possible implications
Does the October 2008 study mean choosing between science and ethics on this topic is a thing of the past? Some experts in ethics and biotechnology say the reprogramming research process could eventually mean a safe source of stems cells for research. [10]
Recent iPS cell research seems in its early stages to provide a positive alternative to embryonic stem cell research. This study points to another avenue for stem cell research, which takes ethical concerns seriously while forging ahead with fruitful scientific endeavours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
[1] Huangfu, D., Osafune, K., Maehr, R., Guo, W., Eijkelenboom, A., Chen, S., Muhlestein, W., Melton, D. A. (October 12, 2008) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from primary human fibroblasts with only Oct4 and Sox2. Nature Biotechnology. Article abstract can be retrieved at http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nbt.1502.html
[2] Health Canada. (2008) About Biotechnology, Stem Cells. Retrieved October 20, 2008 at
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/biotech/about-apropos/stem_cells_souches-eng.php
[3] Takahashi, K. and Yamanaka, S. (2006) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126, 663-676.
[4] Huangfu, D. et al.
[5] Stem Cell Network. What are stem cells? Retrieved October 20, 2008 at http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/science.php
[6] Health Canada. (2008) About Biotechnology, Stem Cells. Retrieved October 20, 2008 at
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/biotech/about-apropos/stem_cells_souches-eng.php
[7] These embryonic cells have the capability of becoming any cell in the human body.
Giesbrecht, G. (Spring/Summer 2006) When Does It All Begin? IMFC Review, 20-22. Retrieved October 20, 2008 at
http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/When_does_it_all_begin.pdf
[8] National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008) FAQs. Stem Cell Information. Bethesda, MD. Retrieved October 21, 2008 at http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs
[9] Kolata, G. (November 22, 2007) Man Who Helped Start Stem Cell War May End It. The New York Times. Retrieved October 20, 2008 at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html
[10] See Cohen, C.B., Brandhorst, B.P. (2008) Getting Clear on the Ethics of iPS Cells. Bioethics Forum. Retrieved October 20, 2008 at
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=710
For further study of the ethical implications of iPS, see Kaebnick, G. (2008) Embryonic Ethics. Bioethics Forum. Retrieved October 20, 2008 at
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/bioethicsforum/post.aspx?id=706 to which Cynthia Cohen and Bruce Brandhorst and Francoise Baylis respond. All articles are found under author name at http://www.thehastingscenter.org/bioethicsforum/byauthor.aspx
Permission is granted to reprint or broadcast this information with appropriate attribution to the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
(Received by email)
By Derek Miedema, Researcher, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
As Canadians contemplated the pending election last week, an important study was published in the science journal Nature Biotechnology. Quietly overlooked, it has the capacity to fundamentally alter how we conduct stem cell research. [1] Such research has been the subject of much controversy. Embryonic stem cells, some scientists claim, hold the cure for many difficult diseases, like spinal paralysis, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. [2] Yet creating human life, only to destroy it, even for admirable goals, creates an ethical dilemma. Does this recently published study make that debate a thing of the past?
Embryonic stem cells used for research are obtained through the destruction or cloning of human embryos. The ethical dilemma inspired researchers to find a new way to access the potential of embryonic stem cells without destroying human life. In 2006, two Japanese scientists announced the discovery of a process to do just this—by inserting human genetic material into adult stem cells. [3] The genetic material reprograms the adult stem cells so that they have the properties of embryonic stem cells. The new stem cells are called induced Pluripotent stem cells (iPS).
The new October 2008 study shows that reprogramming can be accomplished with half the genetic material previously required and an acid to treat the adult stem cells. They write:
Our results raise the question of whether, or how soon, it will be possible to find small molecules to replace OCT 4 and SOX2 [the two human genes inserted] and thereby achieve reprogramming through purely chemical means, making therapeutic use of reprogrammed cells safer and more practical. [4]
In short, this research opens the way for an eventual method of reprogramming that does not require human material, but rather chemical matter.
The background on stem cell research
Stem cells are like the building blocks of the human body. The Stem Cell Network, an Ottawa-based group that brings stem cell experts together, defines stem cells as those “occur[ing] at the earliest stages of development and provide the starting material for every organ and tissue.” [5]
In theory, stem cells could be used to repair or rebuild wounded or broken parts of the body—inject them into a severed spinal cord, for example, and they could become spinal cord cells and repair the break. [6]
There are two forms of stem cells (to simplify some very complex science). Embryonic stem cells come from embryos, the earliest stage of human development. [7] Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in infants, children and adults alike. These cells exist to repair and maintain the human body.
What’s happening in stem cell research today
Currently, stem cell research on human subjects uses adult stem cells. Adult stem cells can be harvested from such things as cord blood, bone marrow and many other human cells. The potential for the rejection of implanted cells is also greatly reduced when a patient’s stem cells are isolated and then reinserted back into their own body.
Still, some maintain that embryonic stem cells are a great hope for cures, and so research on them continues as well. It’s worth noting that the National Institutes of Health, the national medical research agency of the United States government, indicates that no treatments exist as a result of embryonic stem cell research, however, adult stem cell research has already produced successful treatments for human patients. [8]
Those intimately involved with stem cell research admit there’s an ethical issue at stake. Dr. James Thomson, the first person to isolate human embryonic stem cells, highlighted the difficulties associated with his decision to begin his research. He told the New York Times in 2007 “[i]f human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” [9]
The possible implications
Does the October 2008 study mean choosing between science and ethics on this topic is a thing of the past? Some experts in ethics and biotechnology say the reprogramming research process could eventually mean a safe source of stems cells for research. [10]
Recent iPS cell research seems in its early stages to provide a positive alternative to embryonic stem cell research. This study points to another avenue for stem cell research, which takes ethical concerns seriously while forging ahead with fruitful scientific endeavours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
[1] Huangfu, D., Osafune, K., Maehr, R., Guo, W., Eijkelenboom, A., Chen, S., Muhlestein, W., Melton, D. A. (October 12, 2008) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from primary human fibroblasts with only Oct4 and Sox2. Nature Biotechnology. Article abstract can be retrieved at http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nbt.1502.html
[2] Health Canada. (2008) About Biotechnology, Stem Cells. Retrieved October 20, 2008 at
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/biotech/about-apropos/stem_cells_souches-eng.php
[3] Takahashi, K. and Yamanaka, S. (2006) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126, 663-676.
[4] Huangfu, D. et al.
[5] Stem Cell Network. What are stem cells? Retrieved October 20, 2008 at http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/science.php
[6] Health Canada. (2008) About Biotechnology, Stem Cells. Retrieved October 20, 2008 at
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/biotech/about-apropos/stem_cells_souches-eng.php
[7] These embryonic cells have the capability of becoming any cell in the human body.
Giesbrecht, G. (Spring/Summer 2006) When Does It All Begin? IMFC Review, 20-22. Retrieved October 20, 2008 at
http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/When_does_it_all_begin.pdf
[8] National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008) FAQs. Stem Cell Information. Bethesda, MD. Retrieved October 21, 2008 at http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs
[9] Kolata, G. (November 22, 2007) Man Who Helped Start Stem Cell War May End It. The New York Times. Retrieved October 20, 2008 at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html
[10] See Cohen, C.B., Brandhorst, B.P. (2008) Getting Clear on the Ethics of iPS Cells. Bioethics Forum. Retrieved October 20, 2008 at
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=710
For further study of the ethical implications of iPS, see Kaebnick, G. (2008) Embryonic Ethics. Bioethics Forum. Retrieved October 20, 2008 at
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/bioethicsforum/post.aspx?id=706 to which Cynthia Cohen and Bruce Brandhorst and Francoise Baylis respond. All articles are found under author name at http://www.thehastingscenter.org/bioethicsforum/byauthor.aspx
Permission is granted to reprint or broadcast this information with appropriate attribution to the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
(Received by email)
Monday, October 20, 2008
URGENT prayer request from Northern Ireland
Dear Suzanne,
I have just returned from Northern Ireland and the amazing Rally for Life on Saturday in Belfast held by Precious Life, the country's foremost pro-life group.
The Rally was originally intended to celebrate recent pro-life victories there, but switched focus because of a new threat coming from the U.K. Parliament in Westminster.
Several pro-abortion Members of Parliament are trying to extend the Abortion Act of 1967 to Northern Ireland, where until now abortion has remained illegal (just as it is in the Republic of Ireland).
This WEDNESDAY, Parliament will take up the question of legalizing abortion in Northern Ireland, and our pro-life friends there are asking for our urgent prayers.
PLEASE PRAY that the Parliament will respect the convictions of the vast majority of citizens of Northern Ireland -- including all the major political parties and churches -- and keep abortion out.
You can get a full report on the Rally this past Saturday and more background on abortion in Ireland right here:
http://prolifeaction.org/#nireland
I also want to make sure you know about my father's talk at St. Francis de Sales Church in Lake Zurich, IL on Sunday:
EVENT: Pro-Life Talk by Joe Scheidler
WHEN: Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.
WHERE: St Francis de Sales, 135 S Buesching Rd, Lake Zurich, IL
MAP: http://tinyurl.com/stfrancislz
My dad promises to say something about Northern Ireland at the talk (by then we'll know the results of Wednesday's vote in Parliament).
But whether or not you can make it Sunday, please keep the situation in Northern Ireland in your prayers over the critical next three days.
Yours for Life,
-- Eric
Eric Scheidler
Communications Director
Pro-Life Action League
Tel: 630-896-1200
Pro-Life Action League
6160 N Cicero Ave, Ste 600
Chicago, IL 60646, USA
(Received by email)
I have just returned from Northern Ireland and the amazing Rally for Life on Saturday in Belfast held by Precious Life, the country's foremost pro-life group.
The Rally was originally intended to celebrate recent pro-life victories there, but switched focus because of a new threat coming from the U.K. Parliament in Westminster.
Several pro-abortion Members of Parliament are trying to extend the Abortion Act of 1967 to Northern Ireland, where until now abortion has remained illegal (just as it is in the Republic of Ireland).
This WEDNESDAY, Parliament will take up the question of legalizing abortion in Northern Ireland, and our pro-life friends there are asking for our urgent prayers.
PLEASE PRAY that the Parliament will respect the convictions of the vast majority of citizens of Northern Ireland -- including all the major political parties and churches -- and keep abortion out.
You can get a full report on the Rally this past Saturday and more background on abortion in Ireland right here:
http://prolifeaction.org/#nireland
I also want to make sure you know about my father's talk at St. Francis de Sales Church in Lake Zurich, IL on Sunday:
EVENT: Pro-Life Talk by Joe Scheidler
WHEN: Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.
WHERE: St Francis de Sales, 135 S Buesching Rd, Lake Zurich, IL
MAP: http://tinyurl.com/stfrancislz
My dad promises to say something about Northern Ireland at the talk (by then we'll know the results of Wednesday's vote in Parliament).
But whether or not you can make it Sunday, please keep the situation in Northern Ireland in your prayers over the critical next three days.
Yours for Life,
-- Eric
Eric Scheidler
Communications Director
Pro-Life Action League
Tel: 630-896-1200
Pro-Life Action League
6160 N Cicero Ave, Ste 600
Chicago, IL 60646, USA
(Received by email)
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Family Coalition Party Leader on our electoral system
Straight thoughts 173
October 15th, 2008
Major election twist
The Block gained 50 seats, with 10% of the votes. That is enough to determine which legislation will or will not pass.
However, the Green, who obtained an average of 7% across Canada (8% in Ontario) gained 0 seats: ZERO.
The most important election outcome is this: We have a system that promotes regionalism winning seats, political machines and the cult of leader’s personality, instead of a system reflecting what voters think of party programs and policies.
I am not a Green supporter, but I am for a fair system of democracy.
Giuseppe Gori
Leader, Family Coalition Party of Ontario
(Received by email)
October 15th, 2008
Major election twist
The Block gained 50 seats, with 10% of the votes. That is enough to determine which legislation will or will not pass.
However, the Green, who obtained an average of 7% across Canada (8% in Ontario) gained 0 seats: ZERO.
The most important election outcome is this: We have a system that promotes regionalism winning seats, political machines and the cult of leader’s personality, instead of a system reflecting what voters think of party programs and policies.
I am not a Green supporter, but I am for a fair system of democracy.
Giuseppe Gori
Leader, Family Coalition Party of Ontario
(Received by email)
Thursday, October 9, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Former abortion patients denounce Order going to Morgentaler
Women who have experienced the pain and anguish of legal abortion in Canada are outraged that the Governor General, the Director of Honours and the committee have ignored our voices and request to Terminate the Order of Canada going to an abortionist. They have also ignored thousands of letters and signatures of opposition to Henry Morgentaler getting the Order of Canada. Furthermore, they have ignored the fact that 9 former recipients of the Order of Canada have returned their medals in protest to Morgentaler being a recipient. This man immigrated to Canada and began doing illegal abortions. For years he totally ignored the laws of the land and has profited, making millions of dollars. He/his clinics have been sued for damages to women, and he has lost his medical license for inappropriate behaviour.
Canada Silent No More is collecting declarations from women hurt and injured by legal abortion for lawsuits against abortion doctors for irreparable damages and for failure to provide 'informed consent' on all of the risk factors. 'We were never told about the mountain of studies linking Breast Cancer to induced abortion since 1957(1) We were never informed that induced legal abortion would cause deep sorrow, remorse and guilt. We weren’t told it could cause depression, suicidal thoughts, self-loathing, sleeping, eating and anxiety disorders, that some of us would have irreversible cervical and uterine damage and scarring(2). We were never informed about the 48 studies linking pre-term births in subsequent pregnancies, miscarriages, and for some who would abort the only baby they could ever conceive.' states Mountenay, founder and president of CSNM. (3)
Canada Silent No More regularly receives calls from post abortive women who suffer deep physical and emotional pain. “Approximately 10% of women suffer immediate complications, of which about 2% are life threatening. (4)We get calls from women injured physically and emotionally and who suffer in silence and grieve,” Mountenay points out. “Not only that but, research confirms that women who abort are SIX TIMES more likely to commit or attempt suicide afterwards. Women who abort are also SIX TIMES more likely to turn to substance abuse and self destructive behaviour.” She explains. “A 1997 Finnish record based Study found that women who aborted were almost FOUR TIMES more likely to die in the following year, than women who gave birth to their babies. (3) It can affect their bonding with born children, because one is alive, and the other one isn’t…it can affect her sexually, because abortion is connected to sex. (4) It is certainly not a ‘safe' procedure according to the studies.” www.afterabortion.org and www.abortionbreastcancer.com
“Dr. Morgentaler has created an abortion on demand culture, where every day over three hundred babies are aborted in our nation”, states Mountenay. Abortion is not ‘real health care’ for pregnant women. For decades now, Canadian children have been exterminated in the womb, Canadian women are suffering, and we have a population dirge. It is unthinkable to assign Canada’s highest honour to a medical doctor who destroys lives. That is why, Mountenay concludes, “Canada Silent No More urges the Deputy Secretary to Terminate The Order of Canada to Morgentaler immediately on behalf of our unborn children.”
Contact: Denise Mountenay
780-939-5774
Cell: 780-267-5714
See references for studies below
Canada Silent No More is collecting declarations from women hurt and injured by legal abortion for lawsuits against abortion doctors for irreparable damages and for failure to provide 'informed consent' on all of the risk factors. 'We were never told about the mountain of studies linking Breast Cancer to induced abortion since 1957(1) We were never informed that induced legal abortion would cause deep sorrow, remorse and guilt. We weren’t told it could cause depression, suicidal thoughts, self-loathing, sleeping, eating and anxiety disorders, that some of us would have irreversible cervical and uterine damage and scarring(2). We were never informed about the 48 studies linking pre-term births in subsequent pregnancies, miscarriages, and for some who would abort the only baby they could ever conceive.' states Mountenay, founder and president of CSNM. (3)
Canada Silent No More regularly receives calls from post abortive women who suffer deep physical and emotional pain. “Approximately 10% of women suffer immediate complications, of which about 2% are life threatening. (4)We get calls from women injured physically and emotionally and who suffer in silence and grieve,” Mountenay points out. “Not only that but, research confirms that women who abort are SIX TIMES more likely to commit or attempt suicide afterwards. Women who abort are also SIX TIMES more likely to turn to substance abuse and self destructive behaviour.” She explains. “A 1997 Finnish record based Study found that women who aborted were almost FOUR TIMES more likely to die in the following year, than women who gave birth to their babies. (3) It can affect their bonding with born children, because one is alive, and the other one isn’t…it can affect her sexually, because abortion is connected to sex. (4) It is certainly not a ‘safe' procedure according to the studies.” www.afterabortion.org and www.abortionbreastcancer.com
“Dr. Morgentaler has created an abortion on demand culture, where every day over three hundred babies are aborted in our nation”, states Mountenay. Abortion is not ‘real health care’ for pregnant women. For decades now, Canadian children have been exterminated in the womb, Canadian women are suffering, and we have a population dirge. It is unthinkable to assign Canada’s highest honour to a medical doctor who destroys lives. That is why, Mountenay concludes, “Canada Silent No More urges the Deputy Secretary to Terminate The Order of Canada to Morgentaler immediately on behalf of our unborn children.”
Contact: Denise Mountenay
780-939-5774
Cell: 780-267-5714
See references for studies below
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
USA: If you think things are bad now, just wait
The upcoming election is the most critical election in the history of our nation. The very future of our nation’s foundation is at stake. Every person will be affected. If the liberals win, then our foundation will no longer be based on the traditional Judeo-Christian morality. It will gradually but assuredly be based on an ever shifting, ever moving foundation. If the liberals win, the damage can’t be stopped with elections two, four or forty years from now. America will forever be changed. We will keep seeing a gradual and growing hostility toward people of faith, especially Christians. The morals of our nation will continue to decline. Our children and grandchildren will pay the price.
In case you may think I’m a “the sky is falling” type of person, you should know: When it comes to predictions, I am a very reserved person. But not on this one. I cannot overstate the damage a liberal victory will do to our country. The upcoming election is the most important in the history of our nation. Yes, if the liberals win you will lose some of your religious freedoms and free speech rights. Churches and pastors will not be exempt. You will not be allowed to say certain things about a particular group. Every item of the homosexual agenda will be approved. All the laws protecting the unborn will be wiped away.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of the Nov. 4 election. That is why I urge you to vote and encourage your family members, friends, Sunday School class and church members to vote. America’s future – the future of your children and grandchildren – is at stake.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
(Received by email)
In case you may think I’m a “the sky is falling” type of person, you should know: When it comes to predictions, I am a very reserved person. But not on this one. I cannot overstate the damage a liberal victory will do to our country. The upcoming election is the most important in the history of our nation. Yes, if the liberals win you will lose some of your religious freedoms and free speech rights. Churches and pastors will not be exempt. You will not be allowed to say certain things about a particular group. Every item of the homosexual agenda will be approved. All the laws protecting the unborn will be wiped away.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of the Nov. 4 election. That is why I urge you to vote and encourage your family members, friends, Sunday School class and church members to vote. America’s future – the future of your children and grandchildren – is at stake.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
(Received by email)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Family Coalition Party Leader on Government and Poverty
Forwarded by Giuseppe Gori, leader of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario
Straight thoughts 172
September 30th, 2008
Why so many?
Why so many good people going to church with you (and many church leaders) vote for socialist parties?
Because generally they think that “socialism” does more for the poor than capitalism. Thus, even when they are well off themselves, they think they are more compassionate (i.e.: feel less guilty) by voting for left wing parties.
Mostly because of lack of information and biased media reports, they believe that the poor will suffer less under left wing parties who develop more social programs with tax money (that the poor do not pay anyway).
However, the above conclusion it is not morally superior and is not true.
Morally, we are all called to help the poor personally, not collectively, by imposition of taxes.
To understand why the above conclusion is not true, two concepts need to be clarified:
1. The poor are suffering most in a poor economy. We can cite examples of countries around the world, but even better, people can understand that when the salary (cash in hand) of a “rich” person is cut in half, this person can do without some unessential goods, but when the salary of a poor person is cut in half, this person will have to do without essential items, such as food and shelter.
2. More government (Total Investment in Government infrastructures and programs) does not mean a better economy or a more compassionate government:
This second point needs to be further explained:
There are two extremes: No government and Total government (everyone works directly or indirectly for the government).
When there is no government at all, then some investment in government (e.g.: police, roads) is a investment for all.
When there is too much government (e.g.: nobody has a productive job), then everyone starves.
Thus, there IS and optimum level of investment in government, in between the two extremes.
Before that optimum point, when investment in government is very low, more government social programs will raise the standard of living of the poor (by taxing most of the others), but
After that optimum point, when investment in government is very high, more government social programs will lower the standard of living of the poor (as well as everyone else’s).
This has been explained in graphical form in the article: The STING curve. For reference, click here.
Conclusion:
According to our best modeling (and a corroborating study1), the optimum point (measured in total amount of taxation) is about 20% to 35%2.
In today’s Canada the total level of taxation has risen to over 50%3 (without alleviating governments deficits4).
Thus, with today’s Canadian size of government (federal, provincial and local) any MORE investment in social programs (while maintaining the same old programs and priorities) is deleterious to the economy and lowers the standard of living of the poor (contrary to the very objective of those new programs).
Can compassionate “good people” (including many preachers) understand the negative implications of "more government" on the poor, in today's society?
Finally, they should also study what the role of government is: They should not confuse our personal call to help the poor with enforced government policies (which do not secure anyone a better place in Heaven).
Giuseppe Gori
Leader, Family Coalition Party of Ontario
NOTES
1. Georgios Karras, “The Optimal Government Size: Further International Evidence on the Productivity of Government Services,” Economic Inquiry, Vol. 34, (April 1996), p. 2
2. No previous government has tried to quantify its “size” with an econometric model, thus more studies will be required to identify the parameters and obtain a more precise definition of the “optimum point” in the STING curve.
3. Including Income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, capital taxes, business taxes and a list of hundreds of other taxes.
4. A misconception, very common in left wing circles, is that more taxes generate more government revenue. Of course, this is true when the Total Investment in Government is low (BEFORE the optimum point), but is preposterous in today’s reality, with our Total Investment in Government is well AFTER the optimum point. The fact that after the optimum point lowering taxes increases government revenue has been demonstrated (e.g.: During the presidency of Ronald Reagan).
Straight thoughts 172
September 30th, 2008
Why so many?
Why so many good people going to church with you (and many church leaders) vote for socialist parties?
Because generally they think that “socialism” does more for the poor than capitalism. Thus, even when they are well off themselves, they think they are more compassionate (i.e.: feel less guilty) by voting for left wing parties.
Mostly because of lack of information and biased media reports, they believe that the poor will suffer less under left wing parties who develop more social programs with tax money (that the poor do not pay anyway).
However, the above conclusion it is not morally superior and is not true.
Morally, we are all called to help the poor personally, not collectively, by imposition of taxes.
To understand why the above conclusion is not true, two concepts need to be clarified:
1. The poor are suffering most in a poor economy. We can cite examples of countries around the world, but even better, people can understand that when the salary (cash in hand) of a “rich” person is cut in half, this person can do without some unessential goods, but when the salary of a poor person is cut in half, this person will have to do without essential items, such as food and shelter.
2. More government (Total Investment in Government infrastructures and programs) does not mean a better economy or a more compassionate government:
This second point needs to be further explained:
There are two extremes: No government and Total government (everyone works directly or indirectly for the government).
When there is no government at all, then some investment in government (e.g.: police, roads) is a investment for all.
When there is too much government (e.g.: nobody has a productive job), then everyone starves.
Thus, there IS and optimum level of investment in government, in between the two extremes.
Before that optimum point, when investment in government is very low, more government social programs will raise the standard of living of the poor (by taxing most of the others), but
After that optimum point, when investment in government is very high, more government social programs will lower the standard of living of the poor (as well as everyone else’s).
This has been explained in graphical form in the article: The STING curve. For reference, click here.
Conclusion:
According to our best modeling (and a corroborating study1), the optimum point (measured in total amount of taxation) is about 20% to 35%2.
In today’s Canada the total level of taxation has risen to over 50%3 (without alleviating governments deficits4).
Thus, with today’s Canadian size of government (federal, provincial and local) any MORE investment in social programs (while maintaining the same old programs and priorities) is deleterious to the economy and lowers the standard of living of the poor (contrary to the very objective of those new programs).
Can compassionate “good people” (including many preachers) understand the negative implications of "more government" on the poor, in today's society?
Finally, they should also study what the role of government is: They should not confuse our personal call to help the poor with enforced government policies (which do not secure anyone a better place in Heaven).
Giuseppe Gori
Leader, Family Coalition Party of Ontario
NOTES
1. Georgios Karras, “The Optimal Government Size: Further International Evidence on the Productivity of Government Services,” Economic Inquiry, Vol. 34, (April 1996), p. 2
2. No previous government has tried to quantify its “size” with an econometric model, thus more studies will be required to identify the parameters and obtain a more precise definition of the “optimum point” in the STING curve.
3. Including Income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, capital taxes, business taxes and a list of hundreds of other taxes.
4. A misconception, very common in left wing circles, is that more taxes generate more government revenue. Of course, this is true when the Total Investment in Government is low (BEFORE the optimum point), but is preposterous in today’s reality, with our Total Investment in Government is well AFTER the optimum point. The fact that after the optimum point lowering taxes increases government revenue has been demonstrated (e.g.: During the presidency of Ronald Reagan).
Monday, September 29, 2008
HLI Launches Campaign for Conversion of Abortionists
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: John Mallon, 405-720-2575
September 29, 2008 jmallon@hli.org
HLI Launches Campaign for
Conversion of Abortionists
FRONT ROYAL, VA — The Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, STL, president of Human Life International, (HLI) today launched an international campaign to promote praying the St. Michael prayer after every Mass. The grassroots campaign is designed to encourage the laity to pray for St. Michael’s intercession for the conversion of abortionists. It is also a call to priests and bishops to include the St. Michael prayer after the final blessing at all Masses.
“The fight against the culture of death is primarily a spiritual battle,” Euteneuer said, “and Human Life International knows that with the aid of St. Michael, abortionists around the world will convert from their cooperation with evil.”
Euteneuer said, “Nowhere are the words of St. Paul that ‘our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens’ (Ephesians 6:12), more evident or obvious than in the abortion battle.”
He continued, “As a pro-life organization we are naturally concerned with the babies killed by abortion and their mothers who are ravaged by it. But we are also concerned with the eternal souls of those caught up in this evil, the abortionists, and others who promote it. We want to see them in Heaven, and as a priest that is of ultimate concern to me.”
HLI is asking people to sign a pledge of support for the campaign and pray the St. Michael prayer daily, especially after each Mass, and send copies of the pledge to parishes to be inserted in the weekly bulletins.
HLI has produced St. Michael prayer cards in five languages: English, Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese. A link to sign the pledge online, information on ordering the prayer cards and the text of the prayer in 19 different languages can be found at: www.hli.org/st_michael_prayer.html.
-30-
September 29, 2008 jmallon@hli.org
HLI Launches Campaign for
Conversion of Abortionists
FRONT ROYAL, VA — The Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, STL, president of Human Life International, (HLI) today launched an international campaign to promote praying the St. Michael prayer after every Mass. The grassroots campaign is designed to encourage the laity to pray for St. Michael’s intercession for the conversion of abortionists. It is also a call to priests and bishops to include the St. Michael prayer after the final blessing at all Masses.
“The fight against the culture of death is primarily a spiritual battle,” Euteneuer said, “and Human Life International knows that with the aid of St. Michael, abortionists around the world will convert from their cooperation with evil.”
Euteneuer said, “Nowhere are the words of St. Paul that ‘our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens’ (Ephesians 6:12), more evident or obvious than in the abortion battle.”
He continued, “As a pro-life organization we are naturally concerned with the babies killed by abortion and their mothers who are ravaged by it. But we are also concerned with the eternal souls of those caught up in this evil, the abortionists, and others who promote it. We want to see them in Heaven, and as a priest that is of ultimate concern to me.”
HLI is asking people to sign a pledge of support for the campaign and pray the St. Michael prayer daily, especially after each Mass, and send copies of the pledge to parishes to be inserted in the weekly bulletins.
HLI has produced St. Michael prayer cards in five languages: English, Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese. A link to sign the pledge online, information on ordering the prayer cards and the text of the prayer in 19 different languages can be found at: www.hli.org/st_michael_prayer.html.
-30-
Saturday, September 20, 2008
'beingHUMAN' special to air on EWTN network Sunday, Sept. 21 at 9 pm ET
WASHINGTON, DC, September 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - This Sunday, a brand-new, world premiere documentary about 40 Days for Life - filmed by an Emmy-winning director - will be airing in 128 million homes around the world. The program airs Sunday on the EWTN global network at 9 PM Eastern.
The program, part of the beingHUMAN series, will help launch the fall 40 Days for Life campaign, which is scheduled in communities from coast to coast beginning next Wednesday, September 24 and continuing through November 2.
"We are overwhelmed with the outpouring of involvement in 40 Days for Life," said David Bereit, director of 40 Days for Life, noting that more than 170 communities in 47 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa and two Canadian provinces are participating this fall, making this campaign the largest and longest coordinated pro-life mobilization in history. The full list of locations is online at http://www.40daysforlife.com/location.cfm.
40 Days for Life is a community-based campaign that features 40 days of prayer and fasting, round-the-clock peaceful vigil outside an abortion facility and grassroots educational outreach. Simultaneous campaigns will be conducted coast-to-coast - and internationally - as part of a unified outreach.
Sunday's episode of beingHUMAN interviews volunteers, national leaders, and former abortionists on how 40 Days for Life is renewing hope in communities across the nation. "It focuses on the stories and successes that prayer, fasting, and peaceful vigil have accomplished through 40 Days for Life campaigns that have spread hope around the globe," said Bereit. "This show is a great opportunity to get new people involved in this life-saving initiative."
The first installment of the beingHUMAN series helped launch the first national 40 Days for Life campaign in the fall of 2007. The program was honored with a Telly Award for television excellence. "The documentary helped to spread the word about a new approach to pro-life outreach," said Bereit, "an approach that relied on prayer, fasting and peaceful action. It's an approach that has been successful in reducing abortion numbers and bringing more people into pro-life work."
Previews of the new program, as well as additional information about the production of the documentary, are available online at http://www.beinghumanshow.com.
The program, part of the beingHUMAN series, will help launch the fall 40 Days for Life campaign, which is scheduled in communities from coast to coast beginning next Wednesday, September 24 and continuing through November 2.
"We are overwhelmed with the outpouring of involvement in 40 Days for Life," said David Bereit, director of 40 Days for Life, noting that more than 170 communities in 47 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa and two Canadian provinces are participating this fall, making this campaign the largest and longest coordinated pro-life mobilization in history. The full list of locations is online at http://www.40daysforlife.com/location.cfm.
40 Days for Life is a community-based campaign that features 40 days of prayer and fasting, round-the-clock peaceful vigil outside an abortion facility and grassroots educational outreach. Simultaneous campaigns will be conducted coast-to-coast - and internationally - as part of a unified outreach.
Sunday's episode of beingHUMAN interviews volunteers, national leaders, and former abortionists on how 40 Days for Life is renewing hope in communities across the nation. "It focuses on the stories and successes that prayer, fasting, and peaceful vigil have accomplished through 40 Days for Life campaigns that have spread hope around the globe," said Bereit. "This show is a great opportunity to get new people involved in this life-saving initiative."
The first installment of the beingHUMAN series helped launch the first national 40 Days for Life campaign in the fall of 2007. The program was honored with a Telly Award for television excellence. "The documentary helped to spread the word about a new approach to pro-life outreach," said Bereit, "an approach that relied on prayer, fasting and peaceful action. It's an approach that has been successful in reducing abortion numbers and bringing more people into pro-life work."
Previews of the new program, as well as additional information about the production of the documentary, are available online at http://www.beinghumanshow.com.
Friday, September 12, 2008
OMA Urges CPSO to Abandon Draft Policy on Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code
Received by forwarded email:
----- Original Message -----
Subject: President's Update
OMA President's Update
Volume 13, No. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 12, 2008
OMA Urges CPSO to Abandon Draft Policy on Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code
Dear Colleague:
In recent weeks, the OMA has heard from many members expressing very serious concerns about the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) draft policy on "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code."
The OMA Board of Directors has reviewed this issue and prepared an official response to the College, which is now posted in the Recent Issues area on the Members Home Page (www.oma.org).
In short, the OMA has advised the College to abandon the proposed policy.
We believe that it may interfere with the rights and freedoms of Ontario physicians, and we object to the notion that a charge of professional misconduct could arise from an Ontario physician acting in accordance with his or her religious or moral beliefs.
Our response emphasizes, "It is the OMA's position that physicians maintain a right to exercise their own moral judgment and freedom of choice in making decisions regarding medical care and that the CPSO not insert itself into the interpretation of human rights statutes."
Also, "the vast majority of physicians will provide patients with appropriate advice without a CPSO policy in this regard."
I would like to thank those members who contacted us to provide input on this issue.
Dr. Ken Arnold
OMA President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMA Response to CPSO Draft Policy “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code”
September 11, 2008 - The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) thanks the College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) for the opportunity to comment on the CPSO draft policy entitled, “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code”. The OMA appreciates the CPSO’s effort to offer physicians assistance in understanding their professional duties in dealing with human rights issues. In particular, the OMA agrees with the CPSO’s statement that physicians may exercise professional judgment in relation to their own clinical competence. However, the OMA is concerned that this draft policy may interfere with physicians existing rights and freedoms. The OMA urges the CPSO to abandon this policy.
First, the section of the policy entitled “Moral or Religious Beliefs” does not adequately inform physicians that their right to freedom of religion is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CPSO acknowledges that “the law in this area is unclear”, however, any policy that the CPSO publishes in this regard has the potential to misstate the law in this area. The CPSO’s interpretation of the Ontario Human Rights Code may conflict with publications of the Ontario Human Rights Commission or could be superseded by the developing case law and Tribunal decisions. The CPSO should refer physicians to the Ontario Human Rights Code when physicians are faced with a moral or religious conflict in the care of a patient.
Second, the draft policy introduces a professional misconduct clause, whereby a physician could be disciplined for withholding information about the existence of a procedure or treatment because providing that procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs. We believe that the vast majority of Ontarian physicians will provide patients with appropriate advice without a CPSO policy in this regard. We believe that it should never be professional misconduct for an Ontarian physician to act in accordance with his or her religious or moral beliefs.
It is the OMA’s position that physicians maintain a right to exercise their own moral judgment and freedom of choice in making decisions regarding medical care and that the CPSO not insert itself into the interpretation of human rights statutes.
Statement posted at:
http://www.oma.org/health/rights.asp
----- Original Message -----
Subject: President's Update
OMA President's Update
Volume 13, No. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 12, 2008
OMA Urges CPSO to Abandon Draft Policy on Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code
Dear Colleague:
In recent weeks, the OMA has heard from many members expressing very serious concerns about the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) draft policy on "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code."
The OMA Board of Directors has reviewed this issue and prepared an official response to the College, which is now posted in the Recent Issues area on the Members Home Page (www.oma.org).
In short, the OMA has advised the College to abandon the proposed policy.
We believe that it may interfere with the rights and freedoms of Ontario physicians, and we object to the notion that a charge of professional misconduct could arise from an Ontario physician acting in accordance with his or her religious or moral beliefs.
Our response emphasizes, "It is the OMA's position that physicians maintain a right to exercise their own moral judgment and freedom of choice in making decisions regarding medical care and that the CPSO not insert itself into the interpretation of human rights statutes."
Also, "the vast majority of physicians will provide patients with appropriate advice without a CPSO policy in this regard."
I would like to thank those members who contacted us to provide input on this issue.
Dr. Ken Arnold
OMA President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMA Response to CPSO Draft Policy “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code”
September 11, 2008 - The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) thanks the College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) for the opportunity to comment on the CPSO draft policy entitled, “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code”. The OMA appreciates the CPSO’s effort to offer physicians assistance in understanding their professional duties in dealing with human rights issues. In particular, the OMA agrees with the CPSO’s statement that physicians may exercise professional judgment in relation to their own clinical competence. However, the OMA is concerned that this draft policy may interfere with physicians existing rights and freedoms. The OMA urges the CPSO to abandon this policy.
First, the section of the policy entitled “Moral or Religious Beliefs” does not adequately inform physicians that their right to freedom of religion is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CPSO acknowledges that “the law in this area is unclear”, however, any policy that the CPSO publishes in this regard has the potential to misstate the law in this area. The CPSO’s interpretation of the Ontario Human Rights Code may conflict with publications of the Ontario Human Rights Commission or could be superseded by the developing case law and Tribunal decisions. The CPSO should refer physicians to the Ontario Human Rights Code when physicians are faced with a moral or religious conflict in the care of a patient.
Second, the draft policy introduces a professional misconduct clause, whereby a physician could be disciplined for withholding information about the existence of a procedure or treatment because providing that procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs. We believe that the vast majority of Ontarian physicians will provide patients with appropriate advice without a CPSO policy in this regard. We believe that it should never be professional misconduct for an Ontarian physician to act in accordance with his or her religious or moral beliefs.
It is the OMA’s position that physicians maintain a right to exercise their own moral judgment and freedom of choice in making decisions regarding medical care and that the CPSO not insert itself into the interpretation of human rights statutes.
Statement posted at:
http://www.oma.org/health/rights.asp
OMA Urges CPSO to Abandon Draft Policy on Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code
Received by forwarded email:
----- Original Message -----
Subject: President's Update
OMA President's Update
Volume 13, No. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 12, 2008
OMA Urges CPSO to Abandon Draft Policy on Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code
Dear Colleague:
In recent weeks, the OMA has heard from many members expressing very serious concerns about the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) draft policy on "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code."
The OMA Board of Directors has reviewed this issue and prepared an official response to the College, which is now posted in the Recent Issues area on the Members Home Page (www.oma.org).
In short, the OMA has advised the College to abandon the proposed policy.
We believe that it may interfere with the rights and freedoms of Ontario physicians, and we object to the notion that a charge of professional misconduct could arise from an Ontario physician acting in accordance with his or her religious or moral beliefs.
Our response emphasizes, "It is the OMA's position that physicians maintain a right to exercise their own moral judgment and freedom of choice in making decisions regarding medical care and that the CPSO not insert itself into the interpretation of human rights statutes."
Also, "the vast majority of physicians will provide patients with appropriate advice without a CPSO policy in this regard."
I would like to thank those members who contacted us to provide input on this issue.
Dr. Ken Arnold
OMA President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMA Response to CPSO Draft Policy “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code”
September 11, 2008 - The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) thanks the College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) for the opportunity to comment on the CPSO draft policy entitled, “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code”. The OMA appreciates the CPSO’s effort to offer physicians assistance in understanding their professional duties in dealing with human rights issues. In particular, the OMA agrees with the CPSO’s statement that physicians may exercise professional judgment in relation to their own clinical competence. However, the OMA is concerned that this draft policy may interfere with physicians existing rights and freedoms. The OMA urges the CPSO to abandon this policy.
First, the section of the policy entitled “Moral or Religious Beliefs” does not adequately inform physicians that their right to freedom of religion is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CPSO acknowledges that “the law in this area is unclear”, however, any policy that the CPSO publishes in this regard has the potential to misstate the law in this area. The CPSO’s interpretation of the Ontario Human Rights Code may conflict with publications of the Ontario Human Rights Commission or could be superseded by the developing case law and Tribunal decisions. The CPSO should refer physicians to the Ontario Human Rights Code when physicians are faced with a moral or religious conflict in the care of a patient.
Second, the draft policy introduces a professional misconduct clause, whereby a physician could be disciplined for withholding information about the existence of a procedure or treatment because providing that procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs. We believe that the vast majority of Ontarian physicians will provide patients with appropriate advice without a CPSO policy in this regard. We believe that it should never be professional misconduct for an Ontarian physician to act in accordance with his or her religious or moral beliefs.
It is the OMA’s position that physicians maintain a right to exercise their own moral judgment and freedom of choice in making decisions regarding medical care and that the CPSO not insert itself into the interpretation of human rights statutes.
Statement posted at:
http://www.oma.org/health/rights.asp
----- Original Message -----
Subject: President's Update
OMA President's Update
Volume 13, No. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 12, 2008
OMA Urges CPSO to Abandon Draft Policy on Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code
Dear Colleague:
In recent weeks, the OMA has heard from many members expressing very serious concerns about the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) draft policy on "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code."
The OMA Board of Directors has reviewed this issue and prepared an official response to the College, which is now posted in the Recent Issues area on the Members Home Page (www.oma.org).
In short, the OMA has advised the College to abandon the proposed policy.
We believe that it may interfere with the rights and freedoms of Ontario physicians, and we object to the notion that a charge of professional misconduct could arise from an Ontario physician acting in accordance with his or her religious or moral beliefs.
Our response emphasizes, "It is the OMA's position that physicians maintain a right to exercise their own moral judgment and freedom of choice in making decisions regarding medical care and that the CPSO not insert itself into the interpretation of human rights statutes."
Also, "the vast majority of physicians will provide patients with appropriate advice without a CPSO policy in this regard."
I would like to thank those members who contacted us to provide input on this issue.
Dr. Ken Arnold
OMA President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMA Response to CPSO Draft Policy “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code”
September 11, 2008 - The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) thanks the College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) for the opportunity to comment on the CPSO draft policy entitled, “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code”. The OMA appreciates the CPSO’s effort to offer physicians assistance in understanding their professional duties in dealing with human rights issues. In particular, the OMA agrees with the CPSO’s statement that physicians may exercise professional judgment in relation to their own clinical competence. However, the OMA is concerned that this draft policy may interfere with physicians existing rights and freedoms. The OMA urges the CPSO to abandon this policy.
First, the section of the policy entitled “Moral or Religious Beliefs” does not adequately inform physicians that their right to freedom of religion is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CPSO acknowledges that “the law in this area is unclear”, however, any policy that the CPSO publishes in this regard has the potential to misstate the law in this area. The CPSO’s interpretation of the Ontario Human Rights Code may conflict with publications of the Ontario Human Rights Commission or could be superseded by the developing case law and Tribunal decisions. The CPSO should refer physicians to the Ontario Human Rights Code when physicians are faced with a moral or religious conflict in the care of a patient.
Second, the draft policy introduces a professional misconduct clause, whereby a physician could be disciplined for withholding information about the existence of a procedure or treatment because providing that procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs. We believe that the vast majority of Ontarian physicians will provide patients with appropriate advice without a CPSO policy in this regard. We believe that it should never be professional misconduct for an Ontarian physician to act in accordance with his or her religious or moral beliefs.
It is the OMA’s position that physicians maintain a right to exercise their own moral judgment and freedom of choice in making decisions regarding medical care and that the CPSO not insert itself into the interpretation of human rights statutes.
Statement posted at:
http://www.oma.org/health/rights.asp
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Camille Paglia on abortion
She says:
I'm thrilled she admits that abortion is murder.
But doesn't the "powerless" human being also have a right to his biological processes?
Or does that only apply to adult women?
I like Paglia's honesty, but if she thinks investigating the issue of abortion and its consequences will further the pro-abortion cause, well history shows otherwise. It's because Americans have been shown the truth about abortion that they've turned against it.
The Canadian feminists have it right when it comes to protecting the so-called right to abortion. It's a rule in business: when you have what you want-- shut up.
That's why they want to silence pro-lifers on campus. That's why they talk about "a woman's right to choose" and never address the issue of the unborn child. Because when they do, they expose a convoluted, contradictory and illogical attitude about him.
See, feminism is rooted in post-modern thought. In post-modernism, everything is a question of perception, everything can be subjective, and therefore feminists can admit of blatant contradictions and illogical thoughts without batting an eye. They can say things like: a woman can think that her fetus is a human being with full human rights but that's her opinion; I happen to think that a fetus is a blob of tissue. But we can still disagree and agree abortion should be legal. She should not impose her views on society.
Now, of course, nobody likes having opposing views imposed on them. But most feminists genuinely believe that it's perfectly logical and morally acceptable to a posit that a fetus is a human being with rights, but that abortion should remain legal.
To people who believe in moral absolutes and in the equality of all human beings, this can seem quite shocking. They see the cognitive dissonance in this stance, but feminists do not.
Why?
Because in their worldview, morality is not black and white. It's "complicated" and the circumstances of a situation sometimes compel people to do things that are regrettable, violent or morally wrong in order to survive or behave in an ethical fashion-- I know, it's contradictory to be immoral in order to be moral (killing an innocent person for a greater purpose)-- but that's the kind of contradiction that is admissible in the feminist worldview.
Feminists don't generally argue about the fetus. Joyce Arthur says that because there will never be a consensus on the moral status of the fetus, his status should not be legislated.
What feminists look at first is the result. The result they want is that women be able to compete with men in every sphere of activity, and women's fertility can often impede them in this pursuit. In order for a woman to be as free as a man, she has to be able to control whether or not she will carry a pregnancy to term. If she does not have that control, she cannot compete with a man. It's like a handicap for them.
That's why abortion is necessary. If abortion is not in the picture, then women cannot compete with men. If a woman is not free to abort, she cannot act freely; she is at the mercy of others; she cannot fulfill her aspirations.
This is the necessary result for women. That is their starting point.
Then they work backwards.
So long as the end result is that abortion is considered completely legal and accessible, it is irrelevant what else you happen to believe about the fetus. Legally recognizing a fetus' right to life would undermine the very heart of feminist belief. If women must respect the right to life of the unborn, then they are at the mercy of people and forces that interfere with their aspirations. Their autonomy would be illusory.
Most people don't think that way. Most people believe that killing innocent human beings is wrong. Some people go along with the abortion ideology to conform with mainstream opinion. But there is some black-and-white thinking in their moral analysis, especially when it comes to fundamental rights like the right to life.
In the media-driven public discourse on abortion, The "woman's right to choose" meme has rested on the belief that a fetus is not a human being, that he's just a blob of tissue, and does not merit human rights. It's about empowering what is considered to be a long-oppressed "minority" (or at the very least, preventing more oppression, but letting them get a "safe and legal" abortion rather than dying from a coathanger abortion, which is completely preventable).
If Canadians were called to examine their views on abortion, I strongly doubt that they would come to Camille Paglia's conclusion. Her conclusion is a feminist conclusion based on an extreme moral relativism that very few people espouse, save for perhaps those who inhabit ivory-towers, or their acolytes.
Moral relativism wreaks havoc, but it cannot and will not survive. Why? Because it leads to human devastation on the scale of the Holocaust, and although the human individual is quite capable of ignoring morality in the moment, humanity on a collective scale cannot live with that level of violence and degradation over the long term. Accepting moral relativism means implicitly accepting extreme violence and potential self-destruction. Once you allow that people can kill innocent lives for a "greater purpose"-- that the ends justify the means, then you implicitly allow for people to self-justify the killing of any human being. Camille Paglia said so herself: abortion is the killing of the powerless by the powerful. Well that's the law of the jungle, isn't it? That's the law of the strong over the weak, and they get to make the rules. And eventually the lack of standards leads to a lack of means to mediate social conflict. There are no moral rules to make people stop fighting.
Most people have some crude understanding that there's right and wrong. Post-modernism is a fancy, "nuanced" way of making people seem sophisticated for not accepting basic morality. The elites have adopted that view to seem acceptable. But in day-to-day life, we know that you cannot live without "black-and-white" morality.
And it's this rootedness in right and wrong that would lead to Canadians rejecting abortion should a serious and protracted investigation of the procedure ever take place in Canada. From a strategic perspective, Canadian feminists are perfectly right in shutting up about abortion and trying to silence their opponents. They know full well that once we start talking about abortion and the moral of the fetus, it's game over for them.
H/T Kathy Shaidle
But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.
Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.
I'm thrilled she admits that abortion is murder.
But doesn't the "powerless" human being also have a right to his biological processes?
Or does that only apply to adult women?
The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences. I have written about the eerie silence that fell over campus audiences in the early 1990s when I raised this issue on my book tours. At such moments, everyone in the hall seemed to feel the uneasy conscience of feminism. Naomi Wolf later bravely tried to address this same subject but seems to have given up in the face of the resistance she encountered.
I like Paglia's honesty, but if she thinks investigating the issue of abortion and its consequences will further the pro-abortion cause, well history shows otherwise. It's because Americans have been shown the truth about abortion that they've turned against it.
The Canadian feminists have it right when it comes to protecting the so-called right to abortion. It's a rule in business: when you have what you want-- shut up.
That's why they want to silence pro-lifers on campus. That's why they talk about "a woman's right to choose" and never address the issue of the unborn child. Because when they do, they expose a convoluted, contradictory and illogical attitude about him.
See, feminism is rooted in post-modern thought. In post-modernism, everything is a question of perception, everything can be subjective, and therefore feminists can admit of blatant contradictions and illogical thoughts without batting an eye. They can say things like: a woman can think that her fetus is a human being with full human rights but that's her opinion; I happen to think that a fetus is a blob of tissue. But we can still disagree and agree abortion should be legal. She should not impose her views on society.
Now, of course, nobody likes having opposing views imposed on them. But most feminists genuinely believe that it's perfectly logical and morally acceptable to a posit that a fetus is a human being with rights, but that abortion should remain legal.
To people who believe in moral absolutes and in the equality of all human beings, this can seem quite shocking. They see the cognitive dissonance in this stance, but feminists do not.
Why?
Because in their worldview, morality is not black and white. It's "complicated" and the circumstances of a situation sometimes compel people to do things that are regrettable, violent or morally wrong in order to survive or behave in an ethical fashion-- I know, it's contradictory to be immoral in order to be moral (killing an innocent person for a greater purpose)-- but that's the kind of contradiction that is admissible in the feminist worldview.
Feminists don't generally argue about the fetus. Joyce Arthur says that because there will never be a consensus on the moral status of the fetus, his status should not be legislated.
What feminists look at first is the result. The result they want is that women be able to compete with men in every sphere of activity, and women's fertility can often impede them in this pursuit. In order for a woman to be as free as a man, she has to be able to control whether or not she will carry a pregnancy to term. If she does not have that control, she cannot compete with a man. It's like a handicap for them.
That's why abortion is necessary. If abortion is not in the picture, then women cannot compete with men. If a woman is not free to abort, she cannot act freely; she is at the mercy of others; she cannot fulfill her aspirations.
This is the necessary result for women. That is their starting point.
Then they work backwards.
So long as the end result is that abortion is considered completely legal and accessible, it is irrelevant what else you happen to believe about the fetus. Legally recognizing a fetus' right to life would undermine the very heart of feminist belief. If women must respect the right to life of the unborn, then they are at the mercy of people and forces that interfere with their aspirations. Their autonomy would be illusory.
Most people don't think that way. Most people believe that killing innocent human beings is wrong. Some people go along with the abortion ideology to conform with mainstream opinion. But there is some black-and-white thinking in their moral analysis, especially when it comes to fundamental rights like the right to life.
In the media-driven public discourse on abortion, The "woman's right to choose" meme has rested on the belief that a fetus is not a human being, that he's just a blob of tissue, and does not merit human rights. It's about empowering what is considered to be a long-oppressed "minority" (or at the very least, preventing more oppression, but letting them get a "safe and legal" abortion rather than dying from a coathanger abortion, which is completely preventable).
If Canadians were called to examine their views on abortion, I strongly doubt that they would come to Camille Paglia's conclusion. Her conclusion is a feminist conclusion based on an extreme moral relativism that very few people espouse, save for perhaps those who inhabit ivory-towers, or their acolytes.
Moral relativism wreaks havoc, but it cannot and will not survive. Why? Because it leads to human devastation on the scale of the Holocaust, and although the human individual is quite capable of ignoring morality in the moment, humanity on a collective scale cannot live with that level of violence and degradation over the long term. Accepting moral relativism means implicitly accepting extreme violence and potential self-destruction. Once you allow that people can kill innocent lives for a "greater purpose"-- that the ends justify the means, then you implicitly allow for people to self-justify the killing of any human being. Camille Paglia said so herself: abortion is the killing of the powerless by the powerful. Well that's the law of the jungle, isn't it? That's the law of the strong over the weak, and they get to make the rules. And eventually the lack of standards leads to a lack of means to mediate social conflict. There are no moral rules to make people stop fighting.
Most people have some crude understanding that there's right and wrong. Post-modernism is a fancy, "nuanced" way of making people seem sophisticated for not accepting basic morality. The elites have adopted that view to seem acceptable. But in day-to-day life, we know that you cannot live without "black-and-white" morality.
And it's this rootedness in right and wrong that would lead to Canadians rejecting abortion should a serious and protracted investigation of the procedure ever take place in Canada. From a strategic perspective, Canadian feminists are perfectly right in shutting up about abortion and trying to silence their opponents. They know full well that once we start talking about abortion and the moral of the fetus, it's game over for them.
H/T Kathy Shaidle
DISABLED CALIFORNIA WOMAN SAVED FROM GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED STARVATION
Washington, D.C. (10 September 2008) – Heart attack victim Janet Rivera, who, like Terri Schiavo, was denied food and water for 11 days in July, was saved from the specter death by starvation Sep. 9 when her brother was named her permanent conservator.
"Praise God, this woman was snatched from such an excruciating death," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "Janet was spared the fate of Terri Schiavo, but still we hope this case exposes the threat that hangs over us all - government euthanasia for the sick, elderly and disabled."
The victory marks the final win for the Rivera family who has fought unceasingly for her life since she was placed in the hands of Fresno, California government officials in June. Rivera's public guardian ordered her death by starvation in July and had her feeding tube removed.
Public outcry ensued and Rivera's feeding tube was reinserted.
The 46-year-old woman suffered a heart attack in 2006. According to Judge Debra Kazanjian, Rivera's husband, Jesus Rivera, relinquished custody as he was unable to provide for Rivera's medical care. When doctors indicated Rivera might never recover, the public guardian ordered her feeding tube removed.
Rivera's brother Michael Dancoff plans to take his sister back to her San Francisco family where he hopes she will awaken and recover.
"We hope this case will shed light on the other victims of government abuse. Janet's case is not an isolated incident. Sick people all over the country are in serious danger of being denied their basic needs under the guise of compassion," Brown said. "None of us should feel safe while our right to food and water, ordinary care, is viciously trampled on. No one should die by starvation."
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or media inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
American Life League: Disabled California Woman Saved (10 September 2008)
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11583
CBS-47: Conservatorship Granted to Janet Rivera's Brother (9 September 2008)
http://www.cbs47.tv/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=ac538e5c-57b7-4c36-9021-4f1e4ac05326
Fresno Bee: Borther May Be Sister's Conservator (13 August 2008)
http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/796768.html
Fresno Bee: Don't Take Away Basic Care from the Disabled (23 August 2008)
http://www.fresnobee.com/283/story/816672.html
# # #
"Praise God, this woman was snatched from such an excruciating death," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "Janet was spared the fate of Terri Schiavo, but still we hope this case exposes the threat that hangs over us all - government euthanasia for the sick, elderly and disabled."
The victory marks the final win for the Rivera family who has fought unceasingly for her life since she was placed in the hands of Fresno, California government officials in June. Rivera's public guardian ordered her death by starvation in July and had her feeding tube removed.
Public outcry ensued and Rivera's feeding tube was reinserted.
The 46-year-old woman suffered a heart attack in 2006. According to Judge Debra Kazanjian, Rivera's husband, Jesus Rivera, relinquished custody as he was unable to provide for Rivera's medical care. When doctors indicated Rivera might never recover, the public guardian ordered her feeding tube removed.
Rivera's brother Michael Dancoff plans to take his sister back to her San Francisco family where he hopes she will awaken and recover.
"We hope this case will shed light on the other victims of government abuse. Janet's case is not an isolated incident. Sick people all over the country are in serious danger of being denied their basic needs under the guise of compassion," Brown said. "None of us should feel safe while our right to food and water, ordinary care, is viciously trampled on. No one should die by starvation."
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or media inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
American Life League: Disabled California Woman Saved (10 September 2008)
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11583
CBS-47: Conservatorship Granted to Janet Rivera's Brother (9 September 2008)
http://www.cbs47.tv/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=ac538e5c-57b7-4c36-9021-4f1e4ac05326
Fresno Bee: Borther May Be Sister's Conservator (13 August 2008)
http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/796768.html
Fresno Bee: Don't Take Away Basic Care from the Disabled (23 August 2008)
http://www.fresnobee.com/283/story/816672.html
# # #
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Cardinal Pell to members of the XT3 Catholic Social Networking site
Greetings to all on Xt3.com,
For those of you who were pilgrims and those who participated from afar, I greet you in the name of Jesus Christ.
Xt3.com is just one of the fruits from World Youth Day 2008 and I am pleased to see that there are already more than 30,000 users of this online Christian community. I join you today, 50 days after World Youth Day to continue to walk with you on your journey.
During our week together we experienced much joy and celebration, connection with a faithful fellowship of pilgrims, and unprecedented excitement and enthusiasm. This powerful experience can be very difficult to sustain after you return to your home, parish, study and work. It is not expected that you could continue in this state of celebration and nor is it feasible to stage the kind of events we hosted in Sydney everyday. However, it is possible - and very important - that we sustain our relationship with Jesus Christ. For those of you who are flagging or finding some difficulty after your pilgrimage here are some thoughts that might be helpful:
Search; Pray and Listen – WYDs are notoriously noisy and involve a hyperactive schedule of events. It is important to spend time in prayer, and seek the grace of the Holy Spirit that we learned so much about with our theme “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you and you will be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8). If you are not used to prayer, start with something simple each day, talk to your parish priest or prayerful people that you know.
Seek; the Sacraments - through our Church we have access to the Power that Christ teaches to the Apostles. In particular, I encourage you to regularly seek out the Eucharist, the means in which our WYD Fellowship is held in Communion with Jesus Christ. You can also experience the power of the Holy Spirit through the mercy and compassion of forgiveness in the beautiful sacrament of Reconciliation. Seek your vocation and do not be afraid, for through this commitment we find life.
Act; as the apostle you know you are - Pope Benedict XVI reminded us that our life is not governed by chance. Our existence is not random – it has been willed by God, blessed and given a purpose. Make use of your gifts and build the civilization of love starting with your family, friends and parish. We have prepared a 10 chapter guide to supporting you called Activ8 Witness: Mission and Love and made this available at www.xt3.com/activ8
I look forward to continuing our friendship as we walk together as one body. Stay strong and keep close to the Lord!
In Christ
Cardinal George Pell
To join the 50 Day Reunion group on Xt3, follow this link:
http://www.xt3.com/group/view.php?id=323
Per rispondere a questo messaggio o per leggerne la traduzione in italiano clicca qui:
http://www.xt3.com/discussion/thread.php?id=3954
Sent by Cardinal George Pell yesterday at 9:03am
(Received throught Xt3 private messaging system).
For those of you who were pilgrims and those who participated from afar, I greet you in the name of Jesus Christ.
Xt3.com is just one of the fruits from World Youth Day 2008 and I am pleased to see that there are already more than 30,000 users of this online Christian community. I join you today, 50 days after World Youth Day to continue to walk with you on your journey.
During our week together we experienced much joy and celebration, connection with a faithful fellowship of pilgrims, and unprecedented excitement and enthusiasm. This powerful experience can be very difficult to sustain after you return to your home, parish, study and work. It is not expected that you could continue in this state of celebration and nor is it feasible to stage the kind of events we hosted in Sydney everyday. However, it is possible - and very important - that we sustain our relationship with Jesus Christ. For those of you who are flagging or finding some difficulty after your pilgrimage here are some thoughts that might be helpful:
Search; Pray and Listen – WYDs are notoriously noisy and involve a hyperactive schedule of events. It is important to spend time in prayer, and seek the grace of the Holy Spirit that we learned so much about with our theme “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you and you will be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8). If you are not used to prayer, start with something simple each day, talk to your parish priest or prayerful people that you know.
Seek; the Sacraments - through our Church we have access to the Power that Christ teaches to the Apostles. In particular, I encourage you to regularly seek out the Eucharist, the means in which our WYD Fellowship is held in Communion with Jesus Christ. You can also experience the power of the Holy Spirit through the mercy and compassion of forgiveness in the beautiful sacrament of Reconciliation. Seek your vocation and do not be afraid, for through this commitment we find life.
Act; as the apostle you know you are - Pope Benedict XVI reminded us that our life is not governed by chance. Our existence is not random – it has been willed by God, blessed and given a purpose. Make use of your gifts and build the civilization of love starting with your family, friends and parish. We have prepared a 10 chapter guide to supporting you called Activ8 Witness: Mission and Love and made this available at www.xt3.com/activ8
I look forward to continuing our friendship as we walk together as one body. Stay strong and keep close to the Lord!
In Christ
Cardinal George Pell
To join the 50 Day Reunion group on Xt3, follow this link:
http://www.xt3.com/group/view.php?id=323
Per rispondere a questo messaggio o per leggerne la traduzione in italiano clicca qui:
http://www.xt3.com/discussion/thread.php?id=3954
Sent by Cardinal George Pell yesterday at 9:03am
(Received throught Xt3 private messaging system).
Richard Viguerie: “Sarah Palin is the next Ronald Reagan”
(Manassas, Virginia) With her acceptance speech, “Now we know why liberal Democrats hate and fear Sarah Palin,” Richard A. Viguerie said.
“A week ago, conservatives and most Republicans were down-in-the-dumps, listless, unengaged. That lack of enthusiasm is a thing of the past. Tonight, thanks to Senator McCain and Governor Palin, conservatives and Republicans are fired up as they have not been since Ronald Reagan was president,” he said.
“Sarah Palin is the next Ronald Reagan,” Viguerie, the Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, said.
“In less than a week, Governor Sarah has captured the heart and soul of this convention, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement. She brings together social conservatives, and economic conservatives and libertarians, and people who are fed up with the Culture of Corruption that infests our nation’s politics,” he said.
“From this moment forward, there’s no limit on where Sarah Palin might go,” Viguerie concluded.
-- 30 --
(Received by email)
“A week ago, conservatives and most Republicans were down-in-the-dumps, listless, unengaged. That lack of enthusiasm is a thing of the past. Tonight, thanks to Senator McCain and Governor Palin, conservatives and Republicans are fired up as they have not been since Ronald Reagan was president,” he said.
“Sarah Palin is the next Ronald Reagan,” Viguerie, the Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, said.
“In less than a week, Governor Sarah has captured the heart and soul of this convention, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement. She brings together social conservatives, and economic conservatives and libertarians, and people who are fed up with the Culture of Corruption that infests our nation’s politics,” he said.
“From this moment forward, there’s no limit on where Sarah Palin might go,” Viguerie concluded.
-- 30 --
(Received by email)
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
ECP Centre Fall 2008 Update
What a great time to be a Canadian. And it’s even a better time to be a Canadian Christian.
I bet you don't hear too many Canadians talking like that these days. I know, with so many Canadian Christians continuing to face threats from secularists it can be hard to focus on the positives but the beauty in being a Christian is that we can and we must believe in the power of God's grace.
Some might find my view a little too "platitudinous". I wouldn't blame them. Far too many people have a cavalier view of God's grace these days. But my positive outlook isn't grounded in a platitude. It's based both on faith and in the results I've witnessed over the first five years of the ECP Centre's existence.
As you know the ECP Centre is committed to defending the free and public expression of Christian thought and speech in Canada. To that end we have been fighting to defend our freedoms and the freedoms of all Canadians against the aspirations of "human rights" activists.
We've done this primarily by raising awareness, and raising lots of money to help support brothers who found themselves victimized for practicing their faith in the public square -- friends like Scott Brockie, the Toronto printer who surprisingly discovered that his faith had no business influencing his business practices, and Chris Kempling, the BC school
teacher who discovered that being an employee of the state meant he had to check his Christian morality at the door, and Rev. Stephen Boissoin, who has discovered that he has no right ever to communicate in speech or writing his undoubted belief in the Bible's view of human sexuality. And now Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage Party Canada have joined the rest of the stalwart defenders of the faith, discovering that even our political freedoms are no longer guaranteed if the HRC gets involved.
We in the ECP Centre believe that it is absolutely essential to join in solidarity with these fine friends and to be numbered among those who are fighting to defend the freedom of speech in Canada because, in the end, freedom of speech isn’t just an important democratic principle, it is by far the best avenue for ministry that we Christians have.
Consider the options. Given the choice, would you rather be involved in ministry and attending Church in an environment where the government respects freedom of speech and therefore, freedom of worship, or in an environment where the government doesn't recognize this principle and where you are subject to arbitrary inquisition and the brutal repression of religious freedom -- you know, the kind of environment Christians experience every day in countries like the Sudan, North Korea and Indonesia. Given these options, where would you prefer to live, pay your taxes, raise your children?
I think the answer is clear. In a country that respects freedom of speech.
Because freedom of expression is our primary concern, we have determined to focus on three specific measures.
1. An Alternative Media: we want to motivate Christians with new and informative media - No Apologies - (which has gained national notoriety) - is produced with the idea of informing you about important international and national news items from a Christian perspective.
2. Legal Defence: Because we advocate on behalf of Christians who are facing the Human Rights Commissions and other legal challenges, we are dedicating considerable resources to help fellow Christians who are suffering for the sake of the faith in Canada. This will be an on-going initiative.
3. Equipping and Training: Our name says, "Equipping Christians for the Public Square" and we are taking that seriously. Presently we are developing two market place seminars designed to train Christians in the area of apologetics and Canadian citizenship. These will be ready for your edification this fall.
However, these initiatives take commitment not only for us at the Centre but from you our generous supporters. Many of you have been faithful supporters of the Centre’s work and vision for several years now. Some of you have discovered the ECP Centre more recently and have found an organization that resonates with your vision for this great country.
We have been quiet over the summer months when many other organizations are asking for help to get through the summer slump, but we have experienced the same downturn in donations that other non-profit groups experience, so we are asking you again today if you would dip in to your pockets once again to send us the best donation you can as we hit the ground running again this fall.
Please consider partnering with us today to build these projects – this Alternative Meida, our Legal Defence fund and our vital apologetics training programs. As you know, we need funds to pursue each of these commitments. If you believe in the work of the ECP Centre, we ask you to support this work and send in your best donation today. Many of you have already donated to the work of the Centre, more than once, and we truly thank you for your commitment to this work and to the support of your Christian brothers and sisters who are at the forefront of Canada's culture wars.
Take a few moments to consider what you can give today to help expand our No Apologies media site, to fund the legal appeals against outrageous human rights commission decisions and to build our training tools. Whatever gift you are able to send today will go towards this important work in strengthening our ability as Christians to advance our faith in Canada's public square.
Thank you in advance for partnering with us.
May God bless your service in the advancement of His Kingdom,
Tristan Emmanuel
ECP Centre, President
You can make your donation to the ECP Centre today online at: http://www.ecpcentre.org/products.php?Category=7
Or send it in to: ECP Centre PO Box 112, Jordan Station, ON L0R1S0
I bet you don't hear too many Canadians talking like that these days. I know, with so many Canadian Christians continuing to face threats from secularists it can be hard to focus on the positives but the beauty in being a Christian is that we can and we must believe in the power of God's grace.
Some might find my view a little too "platitudinous". I wouldn't blame them. Far too many people have a cavalier view of God's grace these days. But my positive outlook isn't grounded in a platitude. It's based both on faith and in the results I've witnessed over the first five years of the ECP Centre's existence.
As you know the ECP Centre is committed to defending the free and public expression of Christian thought and speech in Canada. To that end we have been fighting to defend our freedoms and the freedoms of all Canadians against the aspirations of "human rights" activists.
We've done this primarily by raising awareness, and raising lots of money to help support brothers who found themselves victimized for practicing their faith in the public square -- friends like Scott Brockie, the Toronto printer who surprisingly discovered that his faith had no business influencing his business practices, and Chris Kempling, the BC school
teacher who discovered that being an employee of the state meant he had to check his Christian morality at the door, and Rev. Stephen Boissoin, who has discovered that he has no right ever to communicate in speech or writing his undoubted belief in the Bible's view of human sexuality. And now Ron Gray and the Christian Heritage Party Canada have joined the rest of the stalwart defenders of the faith, discovering that even our political freedoms are no longer guaranteed if the HRC gets involved.
We in the ECP Centre believe that it is absolutely essential to join in solidarity with these fine friends and to be numbered among those who are fighting to defend the freedom of speech in Canada because, in the end, freedom of speech isn’t just an important democratic principle, it is by far the best avenue for ministry that we Christians have.
Consider the options. Given the choice, would you rather be involved in ministry and attending Church in an environment where the government respects freedom of speech and therefore, freedom of worship, or in an environment where the government doesn't recognize this principle and where you are subject to arbitrary inquisition and the brutal repression of religious freedom -- you know, the kind of environment Christians experience every day in countries like the Sudan, North Korea and Indonesia. Given these options, where would you prefer to live, pay your taxes, raise your children?
I think the answer is clear. In a country that respects freedom of speech.
Because freedom of expression is our primary concern, we have determined to focus on three specific measures.
1. An Alternative Media: we want to motivate Christians with new and informative media - No Apologies - (which has gained national notoriety) - is produced with the idea of informing you about important international and national news items from a Christian perspective.
2. Legal Defence: Because we advocate on behalf of Christians who are facing the Human Rights Commissions and other legal challenges, we are dedicating considerable resources to help fellow Christians who are suffering for the sake of the faith in Canada. This will be an on-going initiative.
3. Equipping and Training: Our name says, "Equipping Christians for the Public Square" and we are taking that seriously. Presently we are developing two market place seminars designed to train Christians in the area of apologetics and Canadian citizenship. These will be ready for your edification this fall.
However, these initiatives take commitment not only for us at the Centre but from you our generous supporters. Many of you have been faithful supporters of the Centre’s work and vision for several years now. Some of you have discovered the ECP Centre more recently and have found an organization that resonates with your vision for this great country.
We have been quiet over the summer months when many other organizations are asking for help to get through the summer slump, but we have experienced the same downturn in donations that other non-profit groups experience, so we are asking you again today if you would dip in to your pockets once again to send us the best donation you can as we hit the ground running again this fall.
Please consider partnering with us today to build these projects – this Alternative Meida, our Legal Defence fund and our vital apologetics training programs. As you know, we need funds to pursue each of these commitments. If you believe in the work of the ECP Centre, we ask you to support this work and send in your best donation today. Many of you have already donated to the work of the Centre, more than once, and we truly thank you for your commitment to this work and to the support of your Christian brothers and sisters who are at the forefront of Canada's culture wars.
Take a few moments to consider what you can give today to help expand our No Apologies media site, to fund the legal appeals against outrageous human rights commission decisions and to build our training tools. Whatever gift you are able to send today will go towards this important work in strengthening our ability as Christians to advance our faith in Canada's public square.
Thank you in advance for partnering with us.
May God bless your service in the advancement of His Kingdom,
Tristan Emmanuel
ECP Centre, President
You can make your donation to the ECP Centre today online at: http://www.ecpcentre.org/products.php?Category=7
Or send it in to: ECP Centre PO Box 112, Jordan Station, ON L0R1S0
Thursday, August 28, 2008
CHP urges Canadians to dump Tories
NEWS RELEASE
August 28, 2008
For immediate release
CHP urges Canadians to dump Tories
Blasts Prime Minister Harper & Justice Minister Nicholson as ‘protectors of the abortion industry’
OTTAWA, August 28, 2008 (CHPNews) — With a federal election looming, the Christian Heritage Party has seized on the Conservative government’s move to kill its own MP’s Unborn Victims of Violence Act as a reason to urge Canadians to dump the Conservative Party and join the CHP.
In a strongly-worded statement, CHP leader Ron Gray today noted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson “have promised to protect the abortion industry against the risk of legislation on abortion coming before Parliament.”
“They have made their party the protector of the abortion industry,” Gray said.
The Prime Minister said at the 2005 policy convention: “I will use whatever influence I have to ensure that no legislation on abortion comes before Parliament.” And in a recent statement announcing a government bill to replace Tory MP Ken Epp’s Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said, “Let me be clear, our government will not reopen the debate on abortion… the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights.”
Gray retorted: “That’s patently absurd. The pre-born child is a full human being. If left undisturbed, it will be born as a human being. The pregnant woman is not ‘going to become a mother’—she is a mother. That child will emerge from the womb. The only question is whether it emerges alive and healthy, or dead and dismembered.
“The fact that courts and legislatures decree that the pre-born child ‘is not a person’ is irrelevant, illogical—and wrong. There was a time when courts and legislatures said people of African ancestry were ‘not persons’; they were wrong. There was a time when the Supreme Court of Canada said women were ‘not persons’; they were wrong.
“The pre-born child is as much a member of the human family as you or I.
“We believe that if we can ever get an honest debate going in Parliament on this issue, the vast majority of Canadians will agree with us on four important points:
• Abortion deliberately takes the life of an innocent human being—and that’s the definition of murder;
• Adoption is the humane and rational alternative to killing the baby.
• A woman facing an unanticipated pregnancy should be given full information, counsel, comfort, and material aid to help her realize that there are non-lethal solutions to her dilemma;
• Canada urgently needs the 105,000 young lives we carelessly snuff out each year.
“We can do better than ‘death as the solution to inconvenient pregnancy’,” Gray said. “We must—our humanity demands it!
“The Conservative Party has every right to join the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, Greens and Marxists as defenders of the abortion industry,” Gray said. “But 70 percent of Canadians consistently say they want restrictions on abortion; about 40 percent believe abortion is the murder of an innocent human being.
“That vast number of Canadians now have no one left to speak for them in the political arena—except the CHP. That’s why we’re urging all pro-life Canadians to abandon the sinking ship of the morally bankrupt left—which includes the Tories—and come to the CHP: it’s the only pro-life, pro-family federal political party in Canada.”
The full statement can he read on the CHP website at www.chp.ca/news
=30=
Contact: Ron Gray 1-888-868-3247
_________________
August 28, 2008
For immediate release
CHP urges Canadians to dump Tories
Blasts Prime Minister Harper & Justice Minister Nicholson as ‘protectors of the abortion industry’
OTTAWA, August 28, 2008 (CHPNews) — With a federal election looming, the Christian Heritage Party has seized on the Conservative government’s move to kill its own MP’s Unborn Victims of Violence Act as a reason to urge Canadians to dump the Conservative Party and join the CHP.
In a strongly-worded statement, CHP leader Ron Gray today noted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson “have promised to protect the abortion industry against the risk of legislation on abortion coming before Parliament.”
“They have made their party the protector of the abortion industry,” Gray said.
The Prime Minister said at the 2005 policy convention: “I will use whatever influence I have to ensure that no legislation on abortion comes before Parliament.” And in a recent statement announcing a government bill to replace Tory MP Ken Epp’s Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said, “Let me be clear, our government will not reopen the debate on abortion… the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights.”
Gray retorted: “That’s patently absurd. The pre-born child is a full human being. If left undisturbed, it will be born as a human being. The pregnant woman is not ‘going to become a mother’—she is a mother. That child will emerge from the womb. The only question is whether it emerges alive and healthy, or dead and dismembered.
“The fact that courts and legislatures decree that the pre-born child ‘is not a person’ is irrelevant, illogical—and wrong. There was a time when courts and legislatures said people of African ancestry were ‘not persons’; they were wrong. There was a time when the Supreme Court of Canada said women were ‘not persons’; they were wrong.
“The pre-born child is as much a member of the human family as you or I.
“We believe that if we can ever get an honest debate going in Parliament on this issue, the vast majority of Canadians will agree with us on four important points:
• Abortion deliberately takes the life of an innocent human being—and that’s the definition of murder;
• Adoption is the humane and rational alternative to killing the baby.
• A woman facing an unanticipated pregnancy should be given full information, counsel, comfort, and material aid to help her realize that there are non-lethal solutions to her dilemma;
• Canada urgently needs the 105,000 young lives we carelessly snuff out each year.
“We can do better than ‘death as the solution to inconvenient pregnancy’,” Gray said. “We must—our humanity demands it!
“The Conservative Party has every right to join the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, Greens and Marxists as defenders of the abortion industry,” Gray said. “But 70 percent of Canadians consistently say they want restrictions on abortion; about 40 percent believe abortion is the murder of an innocent human being.
“That vast number of Canadians now have no one left to speak for them in the political arena—except the CHP. That’s why we’re urging all pro-life Canadians to abandon the sinking ship of the morally bankrupt left—which includes the Tories—and come to the CHP: it’s the only pro-life, pro-family federal political party in Canada.”
The full statement can he read on the CHP website at www.chp.ca/news
=30=
Contact: Ron Gray 1-888-868-3247
_________________
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Brian Rushfeldt Answers Colby Cosh on the judicial complaint
Received by email...
We thank Colby Cosh for re-clarifying comments judge McLachlin made regarding her role on the Order of Canada Advisory Council. However, notably absent in his column were several key facts.
Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC) operated with the best evidence available to us on August 13 when we filed the complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council. Some information came from news stories (one from the National Post); some from past council decisions, and some from the Constitution of the Order. All attempts we made to confirm the accuracy of information were stonewalled. We were stonewalled by the governor general’s office and the justice. Requests for information under the Freedom of Access to Information failed. We were informed the Governor General is exempt from requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, which allows her to operate in a code of secrecy. Additionally, a one-liner on GG webpage states, “All deliberations of the Advisory Council for the Order of Canada, as well as for any Canadian honour, are confidential.”
The major concern for CFAC and others who supported the letter is what was missing from the selective writing of Colby Cosh, the selective public response of McLachlin, and what seems to be an avoidance of facts by some media and academics defending McLachlin.
The letter of complaint’s point one and two are based upon the Policy Section 3 (b) (i) and (ii) of the Constitution which says:
3. The Advisory Council shall consider the termination of a person's appointment to the Order of Canada if (b) the conduct of the person
(i) constitutes a significant departure from generally-recognized standards of public behaviour which is seen to undermine the credibility, integrity or relevance of the Order,or
(ii) has been subject to official sanction, such as a fine or a reprimand, by an adjudicating body, professional association or other organization.
The conduct in 3 b(i) may be debated. Cosh and some others argue Morgentaler’s conduct did not seem to depart from generally recognized standards. But Morgentaler himself admitted to violating the laws of Canada for some 18 years before he was exonerated and the law struck down by a court. Surely the chief judge and Advisory Council don’t approve of that conduct to change laws ?
The conduct in 3 b(ii) is certainly not open to debate. It is a legal fact that Morgentaler was sanctioned by the Disciplinary Committee of the Professional Corporations of Physicians in Quebec. His medical license was revoked for one year and not because he was doing abortions.
So at issue is conduct of the Advisory Council which ignored the law that it operates under. McLachlin said her role “is to make sure the meeting runs well and fairly and that the vote is taken fairly - and not to weigh in for, or against, any particular candidate.” Surely as chair and judge her role would also include ensuring the Council obeyed the law.
Judge McLachlin Chairs the Council, Chair’s the Canadian Judicial Council, and is Chief Justice. To have a code of secrecy around her conduct is not acceptable. The public needs to be reassured of judicial impartiality and fairness. That happens with transparency not secrecy. Hence the need for investigation.
Since Morgentaler was wrongly awarded the honor, termination of the award should now occur. Reprimands for those involved for not following the Policy and law should also occur. Asking people to obey the law is not a “ludicrous attack” as stated in the Cosh piece.
(To clarify , the link on CFAC’s website was broken for one day)
Brian Rushfeldt
Executive Director
Canada Family Action Coalition
For Immediate Release - Dejavu - Advertising group says ads are "deceptive"
Edmonton Pro-Life - August 25, 2008
In a bizarre - yet anticipated - ruling last week, Advertising Standards Canada (ASC), rejected fact based evidence from Stats Canada, confirming, abortions do occur throughout all nine months of pregnancy and a ruling from the Supreme Courts, which shows that there are no laws against abortion in Canada.
Corry Morcos, president of Edmonton Prolife, the group behind the billboards, said the decision was "unbelievable, but expected" given the previous ruling regarding the Life Canada ads. "Governments have failed to enact any legislation as requested by the Supreme Court in the 1988 Morgentaler decision, and that is why today we have no protection for the unborn in Canada. Abortions are totally unrestricted by any laws. But apparently educating, through advertising, about this truth is not allowed."
The ad "9 Months, that is the amount of time the government say it is legal to have an abortion. Abortion. Have we gone too far? "has been running for two years and one complaint has been received. The ad is speaking solely to the legal status of abortion in Canada, yet ASC wanted the ads to include various medical guidelines. Women will be
interested to note that according to ASC women may not be assured an abortion simply upon request particularly after the first trimester.
In the appeal ruling, Ad standards was silent on many of the grounds for appeal issues raised by Edmonton Prolife. In particular the issue of competing interests. "Council did not do its due diligence in looking for "competing interest". The complainant in the case is an activist in the "pro choice" movement and clearly has a "competing interest".
The ASC, a self-regulating body of Canada's advertising industry, wants to appear to be the gatekeeper for consumers, to make sure we are receiving the truth. Their website states: "ASC is the industry body committed to creating and maintaining community confidence in advertising." Confidence? The very media organizations that the Ad Standard represents have written numerous articles deriding the Ad standard council's prior decisions against similar ads. When your own membership questions your integrity, the confidence that the general public has in the ASC is compromised. When ASC calls facts deceptions, the authority of the ASC to be keeper of all that is "truthful, fair and accurate" in advertising rings hollow to many.
It is completely mind boggling for Edmonton Prolife to be held to the ruling of a self-regulating, unnamed complaints panel of anonymous people who can claim anything they want, without providing a shred of documentation. Yet when Edmonton Prolife, provides documentation, including government statistics, and legal rulings, those facts are dismissed as false, misleading and inaccurate.
Prolife groups and their messages of facts and truth are being censored, that is the bottom line.
For more information, contact Corry Morcos at 780-455-5249 or Edmonton
Prolife at 780-425-1637
In a bizarre - yet anticipated - ruling last week, Advertising Standards Canada (ASC), rejected fact based evidence from Stats Canada, confirming, abortions do occur throughout all nine months of pregnancy and a ruling from the Supreme Courts, which shows that there are no laws against abortion in Canada.
Corry Morcos, president of Edmonton Prolife, the group behind the billboards, said the decision was "unbelievable, but expected" given the previous ruling regarding the Life Canada ads. "Governments have failed to enact any legislation as requested by the Supreme Court in the 1988 Morgentaler decision, and that is why today we have no protection for the unborn in Canada. Abortions are totally unrestricted by any laws. But apparently educating, through advertising, about this truth is not allowed."
The ad "9 Months, that is the amount of time the government say it is legal to have an abortion. Abortion. Have we gone too far? "has been running for two years and one complaint has been received. The ad is speaking solely to the legal status of abortion in Canada, yet ASC wanted the ads to include various medical guidelines. Women will be
interested to note that according to ASC women may not be assured an abortion simply upon request particularly after the first trimester.
In the appeal ruling, Ad standards was silent on many of the grounds for appeal issues raised by Edmonton Prolife. In particular the issue of competing interests. "Council did not do its due diligence in looking for "competing interest". The complainant in the case is an activist in the "pro choice" movement and clearly has a "competing interest".
The ASC, a self-regulating body of Canada's advertising industry, wants to appear to be the gatekeeper for consumers, to make sure we are receiving the truth. Their website states: "ASC is the industry body committed to creating and maintaining community confidence in advertising." Confidence? The very media organizations that the Ad Standard represents have written numerous articles deriding the Ad standard council's prior decisions against similar ads. When your own membership questions your integrity, the confidence that the general public has in the ASC is compromised. When ASC calls facts deceptions, the authority of the ASC to be keeper of all that is "truthful, fair and accurate" in advertising rings hollow to many.
It is completely mind boggling for Edmonton Prolife to be held to the ruling of a self-regulating, unnamed complaints panel of anonymous people who can claim anything they want, without providing a shred of documentation. Yet when Edmonton Prolife, provides documentation, including government statistics, and legal rulings, those facts are dismissed as false, misleading and inaccurate.
Prolife groups and their messages of facts and truth are being censored, that is the bottom line.
For more information, contact Corry Morcos at 780-455-5249 or Edmonton
Prolife at 780-425-1637
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Spain - Aborting the Disabled May Breach UN Convention
More than nine out of every 10 unborn babies diagnosed with Down's syndrome in Spain is aborted. The Women's Help Line Foundation of Madrid reportedly says that aborting the disabled breaches the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which Spain has signed. Article 10 of the convention says: "States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others."
Source: SPUC (information@spuc.freeserve.co.uk) via Dave's Digest (email)
Source: SPUC (information@spuc.freeserve.co.uk) via Dave's Digest (email)
Killed in Darkness, Remembered in Light
Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life
On the afternoon of Sunday, July, 27, 2008, close to five hundred of the faithful filled the tremendous Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament that Mother Angelica built in Hanceville, Alabama. They were gathered for the funeral of three children Karen Esther, Enoch, and Rebekah.
The three children were all in the same small white casket. All had been killed just weeks earlier by abortion, and discarded in the trash outside of an abortion mill in Livonia, Michigan. Dr. Monica Miller, Director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society, transported the children to Alabama.
I conducted the funeral ceremony. Mother Angelica's community of sisters sang. The People of Life prayed, worshipped, mourned, and rejoiced in the hope of resurrection. As they honored the dead, they recommitted themselves to protect the living.
I have done funerals like this in various parts of the country. It was especially important, however, that this funeral took place at Mother Angelica's Shrine. I remember when she first told me, years ago, that at the heart of her vision for that Shrine was the unborn child. This was to be a place dedicated to the Divine Child, and a place where children in the womb "so easily forgotten and discarded in this culture of death" would be remembered and celebrated.
That's what we did on July 27.
I reminded the congregation of the funeral that Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago conducted back in 1988, when he buried two thousand aborted babies. When asked about the legal implications of the burial, he responded that such concerns paled to insignificance in comparison to the evil of taking innocent human life. He said he was doing a corporal work of mercy to bury the dead.
That's what the People of Life do. They protect the living, and they bury the dead. They are not ashamed or afraid to honor in public those who are dishonored in secret by the hidden violence of abortion. By gathering in large numbers to bury aborted children, and by letting as many people as possible know about it, they make up in some small way for the callous disregard in which these children are held by many in our society.
That's why the 16,500 babies found in a large container in the Los Angeles area in the mid-1980's had to wait for three years before they were buried, as abortion supporters launched a legal battle to block the burial. They did not want society to acknowledge in any way that there was any humanity there to be honored. Just throw them away and the more secret, swift, and private the better. So the abortion advocates believe.
But the Church believes different, and as we believe, so we worship. The congregation "including children holding their parents' hands" filed by the casket, which was open, and viewed the remains of these babies. There were tears of sorrow, but full of hope.
Each person left that church more committed than ever to bring the killing to an end.
Blessings and prayers,
Fr. Frank Pavone, M.E.V.
National Director, Priests for Life
Source: Priests for Life (pfl@priestsforlife.org) via Dave's Digest
On the afternoon of Sunday, July, 27, 2008, close to five hundred of the faithful filled the tremendous Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament that Mother Angelica built in Hanceville, Alabama. They were gathered for the funeral of three children Karen Esther, Enoch, and Rebekah.
The three children were all in the same small white casket. All had been killed just weeks earlier by abortion, and discarded in the trash outside of an abortion mill in Livonia, Michigan. Dr. Monica Miller, Director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society, transported the children to Alabama.
I conducted the funeral ceremony. Mother Angelica's community of sisters sang. The People of Life prayed, worshipped, mourned, and rejoiced in the hope of resurrection. As they honored the dead, they recommitted themselves to protect the living.
I have done funerals like this in various parts of the country. It was especially important, however, that this funeral took place at Mother Angelica's Shrine. I remember when she first told me, years ago, that at the heart of her vision for that Shrine was the unborn child. This was to be a place dedicated to the Divine Child, and a place where children in the womb "so easily forgotten and discarded in this culture of death" would be remembered and celebrated.
That's what we did on July 27.
I reminded the congregation of the funeral that Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago conducted back in 1988, when he buried two thousand aborted babies. When asked about the legal implications of the burial, he responded that such concerns paled to insignificance in comparison to the evil of taking innocent human life. He said he was doing a corporal work of mercy to bury the dead.
That's what the People of Life do. They protect the living, and they bury the dead. They are not ashamed or afraid to honor in public those who are dishonored in secret by the hidden violence of abortion. By gathering in large numbers to bury aborted children, and by letting as many people as possible know about it, they make up in some small way for the callous disregard in which these children are held by many in our society.
That's why the 16,500 babies found in a large container in the Los Angeles area in the mid-1980's had to wait for three years before they were buried, as abortion supporters launched a legal battle to block the burial. They did not want society to acknowledge in any way that there was any humanity there to be honored. Just throw them away and the more secret, swift, and private the better. So the abortion advocates believe.
But the Church believes different, and as we believe, so we worship. The congregation "including children holding their parents' hands" filed by the casket, which was open, and viewed the remains of these babies. There were tears of sorrow, but full of hope.
Each person left that church more committed than ever to bring the killing to an end.
Blessings and prayers,
Fr. Frank Pavone, M.E.V.
National Director, Priests for Life
Source: Priests for Life (pfl@priestsforlife.org) via Dave's Digest
Planned Parenthood Supporters Vandalize Yards in Cincinnati
Anti-Planned Parenthood protesters in Cincinnati have been waking up to empty yards that once displayed signs poignantly expressing opposition to Planned Parenthood's desire to move into a residential neighborhood. Signs that said "Save Our Children, Stop Planned Parenthood" have been stolen from all but a few yards. However, the action of what appear to be Planned Parenthood's supporters did not stop there. A facility where the anti-Planned Parenthood campaign stored extra signs, T-shirts and brochures has been vandalized and looted.
Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Ohio has been implementing Planned Parenthood's current strategy of acquiring new property under a different name, to avoid arousing opposition. PPSW purchased property at 2016 Ferguson Road in Western Hills under the name Mount Auburn Parking LLC. The facility will be located within a block of a local high school that is predominantly African- American, which is not surprising, since Planned Parenthood aggressively targets minorities.
Source: Stop Planned Parenthood (stopp@all.org) via Dave's Digest (email)
Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Ohio has been implementing Planned Parenthood's current strategy of acquiring new property under a different name, to avoid arousing opposition. PPSW purchased property at 2016 Ferguson Road in Western Hills under the name Mount Auburn Parking LLC. The facility will be located within a block of a local high school that is predominantly African- American, which is not surprising, since Planned Parenthood aggressively targets minorities.
Source: Stop Planned Parenthood (stopp@all.org) via Dave's Digest (email)
California Passes Reproductive Rights Law Enforcement Act
California is allowing Planned Parenthood to continue its aggressive fight against the pro-life movement. Last week, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill that means that California pro-lifers are going to have a tougher time protesting against abortion mills. The new law extends the "Reproductive Rights Law Enforcement Act" into the year 2014 and requires the state to gather data on crimes against abortion providers. Planned Parenthood is also trying to create a tougher law enforcement stance against what they consider "aggressive protesting." Planned Parenthood has complained that the statistics on crimes against abortion providers are misleading because many police officers are not properly trained to deal with protesters and that law enforcement is systematically underreporting such crimes. However, it is actually Planned Parenthood that has often bullied pro-life protesters outside of its clinics.
Source: Stop Planned Parenthood (stopp@all.org) via Dave's Digest (email)
Source: Stop Planned Parenthood (stopp@all.org) via Dave's Digest (email)
Where Are The Chinese Brothers And Sisters?
"Television commentators have been dutifully telling Olympics watchers that China is changing and becoming modern," said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League. "Yet, none of them speak of the horror of China's one-child policy and its numerous forced abortions."
China's one-child policy took effect in 1979. The Chinese government employs coercion and infant abandonment to enforce it. It is estimated that it has caused over 100 million forced abortions. The United Nations Population Fund has supported the one-child policy.
"As the world watched 15,000 individual Chinese performers during the Olympic opening ceremonies on August 8, it was sobering to think that probably not one of these performers has a living brother or sister," Sedlak observed. "With China's one-child per family policy in existence for decades, it is likely many of these young performers' brothers and sisters were sacrificed, often brutally, to China's Communist regime."
Source: Pro-Life Wisconsin (info@prolifewisconsin.org) via Dave's Digest (email)
China's one-child policy took effect in 1979. The Chinese government employs coercion and infant abandonment to enforce it. It is estimated that it has caused over 100 million forced abortions. The United Nations Population Fund has supported the one-child policy.
"As the world watched 15,000 individual Chinese performers during the Olympic opening ceremonies on August 8, it was sobering to think that probably not one of these performers has a living brother or sister," Sedlak observed. "With China's one-child per family policy in existence for decades, it is likely many of these young performers' brothers and sisters were sacrificed, often brutally, to China's Communist regime."
Source: Pro-Life Wisconsin (info@prolifewisconsin.org) via Dave's Digest (email)
Friday, August 15, 2008
Proposed policy could severely limit freedom of Ontario physicians to practice according to conscience
Ottawa) - In a letter today to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the president of Canadian Physicians for Life, Dr. Will Johnston, expressed concern over a draft policy relating to freedom of conscience and the lack of sufficient notice given by CPSO to all interested stakeholders that a consultation process, which officially ends today, has been underway since the end of June.
Canadian Physicians for Life is asking the College for a 90-day extension on the deadline “due to the importance of the issues at stake and the lack of opportunity interested stakeholders were given to comment on the proposal.”
The draft policy, that CPL only learned of late yesterday, would appear to severely limit the freedom of Ontario physicians to practice according to their conscientious/religious beliefs. The College apparently posted the draft policy document, “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code” on its website at the end of June and had set a deadline of today for input on the proposal.
In his letter, Dr. Johnston expressed surprise that the College would not have been more proactive in soliciting input on a policy that could have profound impact on both individual doctors and on the profession as a whole. CPSO does not appear to have issued a news release on the consultation process, and pro-life physicians have been taken by surprise.
Dr. Johnston wrote, “The College must have been aware that groups such as Canadian Physicians for Life -- which represents doctors from across Canada who respect the dignity of all human life, regardless of age or infirmity -- would have concerns with the College’s view that “decisions to restrict medical services offered….that are based on moral or religious belief may contravene the [Ontario Human Rights] Code, and/or constitute professional misconduct.”
“Refusal on conscientious or religious grounds to refer a woman for an abortion could be deemed professional misconduct under this new policy,” Dr. Johnston said.
A similar requirement (that doctors must make abortion referrals regardless of their conscientious beliefs) was put forward in a July 2006 guest editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It triggered such a firestorm of controversy, that the Journal was compelled to publish a letter from CMA’s Director of Ethics stating that CMA policy did not require physicians to refer for abortions if it would violate their conscientious or religious beliefs.
Dr. Johnston concluded, “There could be serious problems with what the Ontario College is proposing and we need time to study the implications of this policy in detail. If doctors feel coerced into compromising their deepest convictions as a result of this policy, certainly that’s a problem—not only for the integrity of physicians, but also for the welfare of their patients.”
- 30 -
CPSO's draft policy, "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code" can be found at this link: http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies/consultation/HumanRightsDRAFT_08.pdf
For further comment, please contact:
Will Johnston, MD, President
Canadian Physicians for Life
ph: 613-728-5433
email: info@physiciansforlife.ca
Canadian Physicians for Life is an educational organization representing physicians who hold that reverence for every human life lies at the root of all medical tradition. Through the ages, this tradition has been expressed in the Oath of Hippocrates. It was rephrased in modern times in the Declaration of Geneva (1948), which says in part, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”
Canadian Physicians for Life is asking the College for a 90-day extension on the deadline “due to the importance of the issues at stake and the lack of opportunity interested stakeholders were given to comment on the proposal.”
The draft policy, that CPL only learned of late yesterday, would appear to severely limit the freedom of Ontario physicians to practice according to their conscientious/religious beliefs. The College apparently posted the draft policy document, “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code” on its website at the end of June and had set a deadline of today for input on the proposal.
In his letter, Dr. Johnston expressed surprise that the College would not have been more proactive in soliciting input on a policy that could have profound impact on both individual doctors and on the profession as a whole. CPSO does not appear to have issued a news release on the consultation process, and pro-life physicians have been taken by surprise.
Dr. Johnston wrote, “The College must have been aware that groups such as Canadian Physicians for Life -- which represents doctors from across Canada who respect the dignity of all human life, regardless of age or infirmity -- would have concerns with the College’s view that “decisions to restrict medical services offered….that are based on moral or religious belief may contravene the [Ontario Human Rights] Code, and/or constitute professional misconduct.”
“Refusal on conscientious or religious grounds to refer a woman for an abortion could be deemed professional misconduct under this new policy,” Dr. Johnston said.
A similar requirement (that doctors must make abortion referrals regardless of their conscientious beliefs) was put forward in a July 2006 guest editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It triggered such a firestorm of controversy, that the Journal was compelled to publish a letter from CMA’s Director of Ethics stating that CMA policy did not require physicians to refer for abortions if it would violate their conscientious or religious beliefs.
Dr. Johnston concluded, “There could be serious problems with what the Ontario College is proposing and we need time to study the implications of this policy in detail. If doctors feel coerced into compromising their deepest convictions as a result of this policy, certainly that’s a problem—not only for the integrity of physicians, but also for the welfare of their patients.”
- 30 -
CPSO's draft policy, "Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code" can be found at this link: http://www.cpso.on.ca/Policies/consultation/HumanRightsDRAFT_08.pdf
For further comment, please contact:
Will Johnston, MD, President
Canadian Physicians for Life
ph: 613-728-5433
email: info@physiciansforlife.ca
Canadian Physicians for Life is an educational organization representing physicians who hold that reverence for every human life lies at the root of all medical tradition. Through the ages, this tradition has been expressed in the Oath of Hippocrates. It was rephrased in modern times in the Declaration of Geneva (1948), which says in part, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”
Saturday, June 28, 2008
CLC says Morgentaler will receive Order of Canada July 1st
Attention News Editors:
Campaign Life Coalition is appalled that Henry Morgentaler should even be considered for the Order of Canada
TORONTO, June 28 /CNW/ - It has come to the attention of Campaign Life
Coalition (CLC) that the Governor General intends to bestow the Order of
Canada on abortionist Henry Morgentaler on July 1st.
"It is dreadful that this honour should even be considered for a man
who's only claim to fame is that he is a professional killer of defenseless
babies in their mothers' wombs," said Jim Hughes, National President of
Campaign Life Coalition. "Those who have received this prestigious medal
should return it because it will have been devalued and disgraced," he
continued.
"If Morgentaler had any integrity he would refuse the medal", said Mary
Ellen Douglas, National Organizer of CLC. "This presentation should be given
to people who have made Canada a better place to live and the elimination of
thousands of human beings who would have contributed to the future of Canada
is a disgrace not an honour."
Campaign Life Coalition calls on the Federal Government to address the
Governor General stating the inappropriateness of this action. Concerned
people should contact the Governor General's office and express their disgust.
For further information: Media Contact: Mary Ellen Douglas, National
Organizer CLC, (613) 389-4472 (phone and message)
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2008/28/c8830.html
Campaign Life Coalition is appalled that Henry Morgentaler should even be considered for the Order of Canada
TORONTO, June 28 /CNW/ - It has come to the attention of Campaign Life
Coalition (CLC) that the Governor General intends to bestow the Order of
Canada on abortionist Henry Morgentaler on July 1st.
"It is dreadful that this honour should even be considered for a man
who's only claim to fame is that he is a professional killer of defenseless
babies in their mothers' wombs," said Jim Hughes, National President of
Campaign Life Coalition. "Those who have received this prestigious medal
should return it because it will have been devalued and disgraced," he
continued.
"If Morgentaler had any integrity he would refuse the medal", said Mary
Ellen Douglas, National Organizer of CLC. "This presentation should be given
to people who have made Canada a better place to live and the elimination of
thousands of human beings who would have contributed to the future of Canada
is a disgrace not an honour."
Campaign Life Coalition calls on the Federal Government to address the
Governor General stating the inappropriateness of this action. Concerned
people should contact the Governor General's office and express their disgust.
For further information: Media Contact: Mary Ellen Douglas, National
Organizer CLC, (613) 389-4472 (phone and message)
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2008/28/c8830.html
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Press release from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities
Tracy Latimer – the Victim
Robert Latimer – the Murderer
Robert Latimer served seven years in prison for killing his disabled daughter. Now the Saskatchewan farmer is determined to clear his name, and to prove he did nothing wrong. The 54-year-old from Wilkie, Saskatchewan, is emerging from jail a man transformed -and not the way corrections officials generally like to see. Missives penned by Latimer over the last four years to everyone from cabinet ministers to the Supreme Court itself seethe with language belying his popular image as a stolid farmer befuddled by the tempest around him.
The venom practically drips from the pages. Prosecutors have employed "slander, trickery and deceit" against him. The courts have swallowed "fabricated" evidence "fraudulently designed" by police and the Crown to secure a conviction. Critics who worry that mercy killings leave the definition of mercy in the eye of the killer are "parasites" who "regurgitate" false information purveyed by legal authorities bent on winning a landmark case.
Latimer does not see his case as closed, and the bitterness he feels is not the sort to be mollified by early release from prison. And recently, with the eyes of the country once again glued to his case, he made good on his rhetoric. No sooner had an appeal panel ruled that he should receive day parole, overturning a previous parole board decision in December, than Latimer confirmed an earlier stated wish to live in a halfway house in Ottawa -not in Saskatchewan near his wife and two kids. Being in the capital, his supporters explain, will enable him to make his case to federal politicians and justice officials in one last long shot at clearing his name.
Whatever the explanation, the man's sudden determination to wage polemics is no minor development. The 2001 Supreme Court decision affirming Latimer's life sentence with no chance of full parole for 10 years had given temporary closure to the frightening debate on how the legal system should treat people who think they're doing the right thing by ending the lives of those in pain. Now, with Latimer's story back on the front burner, advocates for the disabled fear a renewed push to relax the laws surrounding so-called mercy killings.
THAT THE LAW took eight years to put Latimer behind bars is a measure of the contradictory feelings he and his case unleash. From the day he loaded Tracy into the cab of his pickup, ran a length of tubing from the tailpipe to the cab and turned on the ignition, Latimer said he was practicing mercy, and more importantly, acting out of necessity.
He never quite persuaded a jury to trust his judgment on that, as ultimately he was convicted of second-degree murder. Prosecutors successfully argued that the Latimers did have options, in the form of better pain management or institutional care. Unfortunately, neither the jurors nor most other Canadians seemed keen to lump him in with common killers. The jury of his second trial asked for leniency in sentencing. The judge agreed, exempting him from the minimum and imposing a sentence of one year in jail and one served in the community.
The higher courts were less interested in the defendant's intentions than in the high-handedness of his actions. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal set aside the exemption, reinstating the mandatory life sentence, and its decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. Subsequently, on Jan. 18, 2001, Latimer began his prison sentence.
For disabled activists, the decision was manna, reining in what they saw as an increasingly permissive attitude toward mercy killing. They were relieved to see that one of the central institutions of our society -the one that bestows equality- saw this for what it was, and there was a huge sense of relief.
The degree to which that now changes is up to Latimer, and there are conflicting signals about exactly what his "advocacy" will entail. One source close to Latimer, who sought anonymity because the person has not been authorized to speak, said the parolee is intent on refuting the Supreme Court's conclusion that there were alternative pain medications available to Tracy. Again and again, Latimer has complained that neither Saskatchewan prosecutors, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, nor the Supreme Court has identified those alternatives. "The biggest reason why this court cannot give me an answer to my frequently asked question is that the claim of such a medication is a fraudulent fabrication of the Saskatchewan Justice Department prosecutors to bolster the charges against me," Latimer wrote in one letter. "Honest people would not continue to endorse bogus claims that generate such slander."
What kind of reception this kind of hyperbole will get on Parliament Hill is, to say the least, uncertain. While Latimer has received quiet moral support from individual MPs -especially those from Saskatchewan, the response to his letters to officials in Ottawa has thus far been cool. Four different federal justice ministers have rebuffed his entreaties over the years, issuing responses like: "I cannot speak for the Supreme Court by explaining the reasons for a decision it has rendered:" Staff of the Supreme Court itself wrote to him in July 2003, advising him, "There's nothing further the Court can do for you:"
As for the general debate about euthanasia, assisted suicide and mercy killing, political support has been tepid and individualistic. In May 2005, Bloc Québécois MP Francine Lalonde introduced a private member's bill to legalize assisted suicide but it died when an election was called the following winter.
SO WHY are persons with disabilities expressing concern about Latimer’s release and stated intentions? The answer lies not in any fear that Latimer will get a new trial, but in his potential to act as a catalyst, mobilizing public sentiment that has been dormant since the Supreme Court sent him to prison back in 2001. Any climate of permissiveness is frightening for persons with disabilities because they worry it would leave them at the mercy of caregivers who think they know best.
For Latimer's critics, the best weapon will undoubtedly be the Supreme Court decision itself. In its 7-0 decision, the court rejected all of Latimer's grounds for appeal, saying his sentence was not, as he maintained, cruel and unusual punishment, and that Latimer's altruistic motivations were outweighed by the fact he was in a position of trust. What's more, they ruled out the notion that what he did was a merciful way out of a dire situation. "Tracy's situation was not an emergency," the judges added in one particularly devastating passage. "The appellant can be reasonably expected to have understood that reality." It was, in short, a starkly different impression of Latimer's actions than the one painted by his supporters.
In the 1990’s a Senate Committee concluded that mercy killing should remain a punishable offence – and so it must. There is no one among us who should presume to judge the quality of another’s life and fate. Tracy Latimer’s life and death is the best example of this tenet as we know her father, Robert Latimer, judged his twelve year old daughter’s life and found it wanting – and so he murdered her.
Murder is not mercy.
Let there be no more murders of people with disabilities.
Marie White, National Chairperson
Laurie Beachell, National Coordinator
Robert Latimer – the Murderer
Robert Latimer served seven years in prison for killing his disabled daughter. Now the Saskatchewan farmer is determined to clear his name, and to prove he did nothing wrong. The 54-year-old from Wilkie, Saskatchewan, is emerging from jail a man transformed -and not the way corrections officials generally like to see. Missives penned by Latimer over the last four years to everyone from cabinet ministers to the Supreme Court itself seethe with language belying his popular image as a stolid farmer befuddled by the tempest around him.
The venom practically drips from the pages. Prosecutors have employed "slander, trickery and deceit" against him. The courts have swallowed "fabricated" evidence "fraudulently designed" by police and the Crown to secure a conviction. Critics who worry that mercy killings leave the definition of mercy in the eye of the killer are "parasites" who "regurgitate" false information purveyed by legal authorities bent on winning a landmark case.
Latimer does not see his case as closed, and the bitterness he feels is not the sort to be mollified by early release from prison. And recently, with the eyes of the country once again glued to his case, he made good on his rhetoric. No sooner had an appeal panel ruled that he should receive day parole, overturning a previous parole board decision in December, than Latimer confirmed an earlier stated wish to live in a halfway house in Ottawa -not in Saskatchewan near his wife and two kids. Being in the capital, his supporters explain, will enable him to make his case to federal politicians and justice officials in one last long shot at clearing his name.
Whatever the explanation, the man's sudden determination to wage polemics is no minor development. The 2001 Supreme Court decision affirming Latimer's life sentence with no chance of full parole for 10 years had given temporary closure to the frightening debate on how the legal system should treat people who think they're doing the right thing by ending the lives of those in pain. Now, with Latimer's story back on the front burner, advocates for the disabled fear a renewed push to relax the laws surrounding so-called mercy killings.
THAT THE LAW took eight years to put Latimer behind bars is a measure of the contradictory feelings he and his case unleash. From the day he loaded Tracy into the cab of his pickup, ran a length of tubing from the tailpipe to the cab and turned on the ignition, Latimer said he was practicing mercy, and more importantly, acting out of necessity.
He never quite persuaded a jury to trust his judgment on that, as ultimately he was convicted of second-degree murder. Prosecutors successfully argued that the Latimers did have options, in the form of better pain management or institutional care. Unfortunately, neither the jurors nor most other Canadians seemed keen to lump him in with common killers. The jury of his second trial asked for leniency in sentencing. The judge agreed, exempting him from the minimum and imposing a sentence of one year in jail and one served in the community.
The higher courts were less interested in the defendant's intentions than in the high-handedness of his actions. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal set aside the exemption, reinstating the mandatory life sentence, and its decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. Subsequently, on Jan. 18, 2001, Latimer began his prison sentence.
For disabled activists, the decision was manna, reining in what they saw as an increasingly permissive attitude toward mercy killing. They were relieved to see that one of the central institutions of our society -the one that bestows equality- saw this for what it was, and there was a huge sense of relief.
The degree to which that now changes is up to Latimer, and there are conflicting signals about exactly what his "advocacy" will entail. One source close to Latimer, who sought anonymity because the person has not been authorized to speak, said the parolee is intent on refuting the Supreme Court's conclusion that there were alternative pain medications available to Tracy. Again and again, Latimer has complained that neither Saskatchewan prosecutors, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, nor the Supreme Court has identified those alternatives. "The biggest reason why this court cannot give me an answer to my frequently asked question is that the claim of such a medication is a fraudulent fabrication of the Saskatchewan Justice Department prosecutors to bolster the charges against me," Latimer wrote in one letter. "Honest people would not continue to endorse bogus claims that generate such slander."
What kind of reception this kind of hyperbole will get on Parliament Hill is, to say the least, uncertain. While Latimer has received quiet moral support from individual MPs -especially those from Saskatchewan, the response to his letters to officials in Ottawa has thus far been cool. Four different federal justice ministers have rebuffed his entreaties over the years, issuing responses like: "I cannot speak for the Supreme Court by explaining the reasons for a decision it has rendered:" Staff of the Supreme Court itself wrote to him in July 2003, advising him, "There's nothing further the Court can do for you:"
As for the general debate about euthanasia, assisted suicide and mercy killing, political support has been tepid and individualistic. In May 2005, Bloc Québécois MP Francine Lalonde introduced a private member's bill to legalize assisted suicide but it died when an election was called the following winter.
SO WHY are persons with disabilities expressing concern about Latimer’s release and stated intentions? The answer lies not in any fear that Latimer will get a new trial, but in his potential to act as a catalyst, mobilizing public sentiment that has been dormant since the Supreme Court sent him to prison back in 2001. Any climate of permissiveness is frightening for persons with disabilities because they worry it would leave them at the mercy of caregivers who think they know best.
For Latimer's critics, the best weapon will undoubtedly be the Supreme Court decision itself. In its 7-0 decision, the court rejected all of Latimer's grounds for appeal, saying his sentence was not, as he maintained, cruel and unusual punishment, and that Latimer's altruistic motivations were outweighed by the fact he was in a position of trust. What's more, they ruled out the notion that what he did was a merciful way out of a dire situation. "Tracy's situation was not an emergency," the judges added in one particularly devastating passage. "The appellant can be reasonably expected to have understood that reality." It was, in short, a starkly different impression of Latimer's actions than the one painted by his supporters.
In the 1990’s a Senate Committee concluded that mercy killing should remain a punishable offence – and so it must. There is no one among us who should presume to judge the quality of another’s life and fate. Tracy Latimer’s life and death is the best example of this tenet as we know her father, Robert Latimer, judged his twelve year old daughter’s life and found it wanting – and so he murdered her.
Murder is not mercy.
Let there be no more murders of people with disabilities.
Marie White, National Chairperson
Laurie Beachell, National Coordinator
Friday, May 23, 2008
Angus Reid: Canadians Support Unions, But Many Think They Are Too Political
Many Think They Are Too Political
More than a third of respondents would amend the Labour Code to prohibit
employers from hiring replacement workers.
[TORONTO – May 1, 2008] – Canadians perceive labour unions as an essential part of our society but think they have become too entangled in political activities, a new Angus Reid Strategies poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, more than half of all respondents (59%) say labour unions are a necessary and important part of Canadian society, and 69 per cent think they effectively improve the salaries and working conditions of employees.
However, 49 per cent of respondents say unions have too much influence in Canadian life, while 25 per cent believe they have about the right amount of influence. The vast majority of respondents (72%) consider unions are too involved in political
activities.
Most respondents are not at ease with workers exercising their right to strike. At least 83 per cent of Canadians say emergency workers and health workers should “some of the time” or “never” go on strike, while at least 70 per cent feel the same way
about public school teachers, public transit employees, city and municipal workers, and federal civil servants. Employees in the telecommunications industry and provincial civil servants have slightly more leeway on this issue.
Despite some discomfort, Canadians are not in favour of changing existent legislation regarding labour unions. Two-thirds of respondents (67%) think Canada has adequate labour laws, both at the provincial and federal levels, to protect workers. In addition, 46 per cent of Canadians think the country should not change its Labour Code to prohibit employers from hiring so-called strike-breakers (replacement workers
that perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out).
The provincial breakdown shows that more people in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (82%) than elsewhere see unions as being too involved in politics. Quebec (74%), Ontario (73%) and Alberta (72%) are behind. Notably, respondents in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (66%) are also the most prone to say that unions are an essential part of Canadian society.
Atlantic Canadians (57%) are the least inclined to say that Canadian labour laws are adequate and effectively protect workers. On the other hand, Quebec holds the highest number of respondents (75%) who think that labour unions successfully improve the salaries and working conditions of Canadian
employees.
In Ontario—where a brief transit strike occurred this past weekend in Toronto—more than half of respondents (55%) think transit workers should never exercise their right to strike, and 26 per cent say they should only do it sometimes. These numbers are higher than in any other region.
A breakdown of the results by income reveals that a high salary goes hand in hand with the perception that labour unions have too much influence in Canadian life. While 43 per cent of respondents living in households earning $50,000 or less see unions as having too much influence, the number hikes to 48 per cent amongst respondents making between $50,000and $99,000 a year, and to 57 per cent in the
subsequent income bracket (households earning $100,000 a year or more).
Related releases:
07.30.07
Angus Reid Poll: Canadians see unions as essential, but have little support for strikes
http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&newsid=93
KEY FINDINGS
» Two-thirds of Canadians say workers should seldom or never exercise their right to strike
» 49% say unions have too much influence in Canadian life
» 72% see unions as too involved in politics
» 69% say unions effectively improve salaries and working conditions of
Canadian employees
» 59% say unions are necessary and important in Canadian society
From April 28 to April 29, 2008, Angus Reid Strategies conducted an online survey among a randomly selected, representative sample of 1,007 adult Canadians. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.
CONTACT Lucas Marshall, Senior Research Manager, 416-644-4042, lucas.marshall@angus-reid.com
source
More than a third of respondents would amend the Labour Code to prohibit
employers from hiring replacement workers.
[TORONTO – May 1, 2008] – Canadians perceive labour unions as an essential part of our society but think they have become too entangled in political activities, a new Angus Reid Strategies poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, more than half of all respondents (59%) say labour unions are a necessary and important part of Canadian society, and 69 per cent think they effectively improve the salaries and working conditions of employees.
However, 49 per cent of respondents say unions have too much influence in Canadian life, while 25 per cent believe they have about the right amount of influence. The vast majority of respondents (72%) consider unions are too involved in political
activities.
Most respondents are not at ease with workers exercising their right to strike. At least 83 per cent of Canadians say emergency workers and health workers should “some of the time” or “never” go on strike, while at least 70 per cent feel the same way
about public school teachers, public transit employees, city and municipal workers, and federal civil servants. Employees in the telecommunications industry and provincial civil servants have slightly more leeway on this issue.
Despite some discomfort, Canadians are not in favour of changing existent legislation regarding labour unions. Two-thirds of respondents (67%) think Canada has adequate labour laws, both at the provincial and federal levels, to protect workers. In addition, 46 per cent of Canadians think the country should not change its Labour Code to prohibit employers from hiring so-called strike-breakers (replacement workers
that perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out).
The provincial breakdown shows that more people in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (82%) than elsewhere see unions as being too involved in politics. Quebec (74%), Ontario (73%) and Alberta (72%) are behind. Notably, respondents in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (66%) are also the most prone to say that unions are an essential part of Canadian society.
Atlantic Canadians (57%) are the least inclined to say that Canadian labour laws are adequate and effectively protect workers. On the other hand, Quebec holds the highest number of respondents (75%) who think that labour unions successfully improve the salaries and working conditions of Canadian
employees.
In Ontario—where a brief transit strike occurred this past weekend in Toronto—more than half of respondents (55%) think transit workers should never exercise their right to strike, and 26 per cent say they should only do it sometimes. These numbers are higher than in any other region.
A breakdown of the results by income reveals that a high salary goes hand in hand with the perception that labour unions have too much influence in Canadian life. While 43 per cent of respondents living in households earning $50,000 or less see unions as having too much influence, the number hikes to 48 per cent amongst respondents making between $50,000and $99,000 a year, and to 57 per cent in the
subsequent income bracket (households earning $100,000 a year or more).
Related releases:
07.30.07
Angus Reid Poll: Canadians see unions as essential, but have little support for strikes
http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&newsid=93
KEY FINDINGS
» Two-thirds of Canadians say workers should seldom or never exercise their right to strike
» 49% say unions have too much influence in Canadian life
» 72% see unions as too involved in politics
» 69% say unions effectively improve salaries and working conditions of
Canadian employees
» 59% say unions are necessary and important in Canadian society
From April 28 to April 29, 2008, Angus Reid Strategies conducted an online survey among a randomly selected, representative sample of 1,007 adult Canadians. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.
CONTACT Lucas Marshall, Senior Research Manager, 416-644-4042, lucas.marshall@angus-reid.com
source
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
VIDEO: Peaceful Pro-Life Display Vandalized by Student Senator on Wisconsin Campus
Arlington, VA - On Thursday, May 1, 2008, a peaceful Cemetery of the Innocents display at the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point (UWSP) was vandalized by a Student Senator, Roderick King.
After having their display vandalized on the night of April 30th, several members from the UWSP pro-life group, Pointers for Life, were repairing the display around 11am on the morning of May 1st when a group of angry students, lead by UWSP Student Senator Roderick King, began to walk though the rows, taking crosses from the ground and throwing them.
King began to voice his complaints and said that Pointers for Life had "no right" to display the crosses, and that it was "his duty as a paying student" to take it down.
When the campus Protective Services officer arrived, most of the students stopped vandalizing the display, however, Senator King did not stop. He claimed, "The freedom of speech does not cover these signs and symbols!" Only after the Protective Services officer threatened to make him pay for damages, Senator King finally stopped.
WATCH: See the video of the vandalism here.
Bob Tomlinson, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, apologized to Pointers for Life for the disrespect and vandalism by the students. And Student Senators Katie Kloth and Erica Wardle came to the display and clearly defined the policies, asserting that Pointers for Life had correctly reserved the space and were allowed to host the display.
That night, Pointers for Life submitted a complaint to the Student Government Association (SGA) and asked for Senator King to resign or be disciplined appropriately under the student government Constitution. However, the student government has yet to force Senator King to resign.
Jackie Kryzkowski, the Pointers for Life President, said, "Student Senators should be helping to defend our freedom of speech, not trying to take it away because of personal beliefs. If students had a problem with the display, they could exercise their freedom of speech maturely by protesting it peacefully, not by defacing our display."
Ryan Wrasse, another member of the group pointed out: "As we filed our official complaint with the UWSP Student Government Association, we also issued a strong ultimatum: The SGA could either vote to retain Senator King and condone this type of behavior, or remove him from Senate and send a clear message to UWSP students and faculty that this type of behavior will not be tolerated."
Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life of America, remarked: "This event shows that our country is not immune to the situation going on in Canada right now, where campus pro-life groups are being singled out and excluded from the guaranteed freedom of speech and expression on college campuses. This is not the first time that a student group has had this same type of peaceful display vandalized or has faced discrimination on a college campus. SFLA is here to make sure all college pro-lifers are guaranteed their rights to demonstrate on behalf of those who have no voice."
ACTION: Call the University of Wisconsin -Stevens Point Chancellor of Student Affairs, Linda Bunnell, at 715-346-2123 or email her at lbunnell@uwst.edu to let her know you want the school to remove Roderick King from the Student Senate for vandalizing a legal, peaceful display.
WATCH: See the video of the vandalism here.
Students for Life of America is a non-profit organization dedicated to equipping the pro-life generation with the resources they need to end abortion in America. There are 3500 colleges and universities nation-wide and there are currently 412 pro-life groups. For more information on SFLA and its historic college recruitment program please visit www.studentsforlife.org.. For more information on this announcement, or this organization, you can contact Kristan Hawkins at 240-678-9620 or through e-mail at kristan@studentsforlife.org.
###
Students for Life of America
4141 N. Henderson Rd., Suite 4
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703.351.6280 Fax: 866.582.6420
www.studentsforlife.org
After having their display vandalized on the night of April 30th, several members from the UWSP pro-life group, Pointers for Life, were repairing the display around 11am on the morning of May 1st when a group of angry students, lead by UWSP Student Senator Roderick King, began to walk though the rows, taking crosses from the ground and throwing them.
King began to voice his complaints and said that Pointers for Life had "no right" to display the crosses, and that it was "his duty as a paying student" to take it down.
When the campus Protective Services officer arrived, most of the students stopped vandalizing the display, however, Senator King did not stop. He claimed, "The freedom of speech does not cover these signs and symbols!" Only after the Protective Services officer threatened to make him pay for damages, Senator King finally stopped.
WATCH: See the video of the vandalism here.
Bob Tomlinson, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, apologized to Pointers for Life for the disrespect and vandalism by the students. And Student Senators Katie Kloth and Erica Wardle came to the display and clearly defined the policies, asserting that Pointers for Life had correctly reserved the space and were allowed to host the display.
That night, Pointers for Life submitted a complaint to the Student Government Association (SGA) and asked for Senator King to resign or be disciplined appropriately under the student government Constitution. However, the student government has yet to force Senator King to resign.
Jackie Kryzkowski, the Pointers for Life President, said, "Student Senators should be helping to defend our freedom of speech, not trying to take it away because of personal beliefs. If students had a problem with the display, they could exercise their freedom of speech maturely by protesting it peacefully, not by defacing our display."
Ryan Wrasse, another member of the group pointed out: "As we filed our official complaint with the UWSP Student Government Association, we also issued a strong ultimatum: The SGA could either vote to retain Senator King and condone this type of behavior, or remove him from Senate and send a clear message to UWSP students and faculty that this type of behavior will not be tolerated."
Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life of America, remarked: "This event shows that our country is not immune to the situation going on in Canada right now, where campus pro-life groups are being singled out and excluded from the guaranteed freedom of speech and expression on college campuses. This is not the first time that a student group has had this same type of peaceful display vandalized or has faced discrimination on a college campus. SFLA is here to make sure all college pro-lifers are guaranteed their rights to demonstrate on behalf of those who have no voice."
ACTION: Call the University of Wisconsin -Stevens Point Chancellor of Student Affairs, Linda Bunnell, at 715-346-2123 or email her at lbunnell@uwst.edu to let her know you want the school to remove Roderick King from the Student Senate for vandalizing a legal, peaceful display.
WATCH: See the video of the vandalism here.
Students for Life of America is a non-profit organization dedicated to equipping the pro-life generation with the resources they need to end abortion in America. There are 3500 colleges and universities nation-wide and there are currently 412 pro-life groups. For more information on SFLA and its historic college recruitment program please visit www.studentsforlife.org.. For more information on this announcement, or this organization, you can contact Kristan Hawkins at 240-678-9620 or through e-mail at kristan@studentsforlife.org.
###
Students for Life of America
4141 N. Henderson Rd., Suite 4
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703.351.6280 Fax: 866.582.6420
www.studentsforlife.org
Saturday, April 19, 2008
BILL MAHER REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE
MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
19 April 2008
CONTACT: Michael Hichborn
540.226.9178 | mhichborn@all.org
BILL MAHER REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE
--American life League Demands HBO Fire Maher--
WASHINGTON, D.C. (19 April 2008) – After announcing that he was going to apologize to Catholics on Friday night’s show “Talking Points,” Bill Maher offered no apology or remorse for his statements. Earlier this week, American Life League spearheaded a unified effort among Catholics to cancel HBO subscriptions and demand that Maher be fired.
“Not only did Maher fail to apologize, he stepped up his insult of Pope Benedict XVI by saying that he swore an oath directly to Hitler,” said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. “Maher made no apology and persists in his slander of the pope and the entire Catholic Church, and for that he must be fired.”
American Life League's website, www.FireBillMaher.com, contains the offending video clip of Maher's more than three minute rant, calling Pope Benedict XVI a "Nazi" and "the leader of a pedophile cult." A petition to have Maher fired, a call for HBO subscribers to cancel their subscriptions until Maher is fired, and a summary of Maher's history of anti-Catholic hate-speech is also available on the website.
“Since last night’s non-apology, signatures on our petition to fire Bill Maher have doubled,” said Brown. “Maher’s hate-speech cannot go unanswered, and that’s why American Life League will not stop until Maher is no longer on the air.”
American Life League was co-founded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Michael Hichborn at 540.659.7900.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
American Life League: Fire Bill Maher (19 April 2008)
http://www.FireBillMaher.com
CNS News: 'Nazi' Pope Runs 'Child-Abusing Cult,' Says HBO's Maher (15 April 2008)
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080415b.html
News Busters: Bill Maher: Pope ‘Used to be a Nazi’; Compares Church to Cult, Bear Stearns (14 April 2008)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/04/14/bill-maher-pope-used-be-nazi-compares-church-cult-bear-stearns
Denver Post: Don Imus Fired by CBS (12 April 2007)
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5652023
Washington Post: 'Seinfeld' Comic Richards Apologizes for Racial Rant (21 November 2006)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100242.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
19 April 2008
CONTACT: Michael Hichborn
540.226.9178 | mhichborn@all.org
BILL MAHER REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE
--American life League Demands HBO Fire Maher--
WASHINGTON, D.C. (19 April 2008) – After announcing that he was going to apologize to Catholics on Friday night’s show “Talking Points,” Bill Maher offered no apology or remorse for his statements. Earlier this week, American Life League spearheaded a unified effort among Catholics to cancel HBO subscriptions and demand that Maher be fired.
“Not only did Maher fail to apologize, he stepped up his insult of Pope Benedict XVI by saying that he swore an oath directly to Hitler,” said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. “Maher made no apology and persists in his slander of the pope and the entire Catholic Church, and for that he must be fired.”
American Life League's website, www.FireBillMaher.com, contains the offending video clip of Maher's more than three minute rant, calling Pope Benedict XVI a "Nazi" and "the leader of a pedophile cult." A petition to have Maher fired, a call for HBO subscribers to cancel their subscriptions until Maher is fired, and a summary of Maher's history of anti-Catholic hate-speech is also available on the website.
“Since last night’s non-apology, signatures on our petition to fire Bill Maher have doubled,” said Brown. “Maher’s hate-speech cannot go unanswered, and that’s why American Life League will not stop until Maher is no longer on the air.”
American Life League was co-founded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Michael Hichborn at 540.659.7900.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
American Life League: Fire Bill Maher (19 April 2008)
http://www.FireBillMaher.com
CNS News: 'Nazi' Pope Runs 'Child-Abusing Cult,' Says HBO's Maher (15 April 2008)
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080415b.html
News Busters: Bill Maher: Pope ‘Used to be a Nazi’; Compares Church to Cult, Bear Stearns (14 April 2008)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/04/14/bill-maher-pope-used-be-nazi-compares-church-cult-bear-stearns
Denver Post: Don Imus Fired by CBS (12 April 2007)
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5652023
Washington Post: 'Seinfeld' Comic Richards Apologizes for Racial Rant (21 November 2006)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112100242.html
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Exposure of The Failures of Vancouver Drug Injection Site
REAL Women of Canada
"Women’s Rights Not at the Expense of Human Rights"
NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
M E D I A R E L E A S E
Exposure of The Failures of Vancouver Drug Injection Site
Ottawa, Ontario April 16, 2008
The Final Report of an Expert Advisory Committee summarizing evidence-based research on the injection site in Vancouver has exposed it as a failure. It has also exposed the fallacy of the arguments used to support the site when it was first established in 2003.
The federal government should immediately withdraw its support for the site to indicate its willingness to learn from past mistakes, and to deal with the reality of the situation made apparent by the Advisory Committee’s report.
This report on the Vancouver site, which latter costs the taxpayers $3 million annually to operate, includes the following findings:
Only 5% of injections take place at this site and 95% of drug injections take place outside the site;
The site prevented only one death from overdose last year. (According to the Government of British Columbia Selected Vital Statistics and Health Status Indicators, Annual Report, 2005, the number of deaths from drug overdose has increased each year since the site was opened, going from 49 in 2002, to 50 in 2003, to 64 in 2004 and to 77 in 2005).
There is no evidence that this site has reduced rates of HIV or other infections.
There is no evidence that the crime rate has decreased in the downtown east side of Vancouver where the site is located.
There is no evidence that the site has reduced the rate of drug addiction.
In view of the failure of the Vancouver Injection site, it is time now to focus on that which has been proven to be effective against drug addiction: prevention and treatment. That is where our tax dollars should be expended.
The federal government should withdraw support from the Vancouver Site so that the money spent on the site can now be moved to funding projects that are effective, such as prevention and treatment.
-30-
Contact:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt, Vice President, Drug Prevention Network of Canada and
National Vice President, REAL Women of Canada
(905) 731-5425, (905) 889-1993
(613) 236-4001
"Women’s Rights Not at the Expense of Human Rights"
NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
M E D I A R E L E A S E
Exposure of The Failures of Vancouver Drug Injection Site
Ottawa, Ontario April 16, 2008
The Final Report of an Expert Advisory Committee summarizing evidence-based research on the injection site in Vancouver has exposed it as a failure. It has also exposed the fallacy of the arguments used to support the site when it was first established in 2003.
The federal government should immediately withdraw its support for the site to indicate its willingness to learn from past mistakes, and to deal with the reality of the situation made apparent by the Advisory Committee’s report.
This report on the Vancouver site, which latter costs the taxpayers $3 million annually to operate, includes the following findings:
Only 5% of injections take place at this site and 95% of drug injections take place outside the site;
The site prevented only one death from overdose last year. (According to the Government of British Columbia Selected Vital Statistics and Health Status Indicators, Annual Report, 2005, the number of deaths from drug overdose has increased each year since the site was opened, going from 49 in 2002, to 50 in 2003, to 64 in 2004 and to 77 in 2005).
There is no evidence that this site has reduced rates of HIV or other infections.
There is no evidence that the crime rate has decreased in the downtown east side of Vancouver where the site is located.
There is no evidence that the site has reduced the rate of drug addiction.
In view of the failure of the Vancouver Injection site, it is time now to focus on that which has been proven to be effective against drug addiction: prevention and treatment. That is where our tax dollars should be expended.
The federal government should withdraw support from the Vancouver Site so that the money spent on the site can now be moved to funding projects that are effective, such as prevention and treatment.
-30-
Contact:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt, Vice President, Drug Prevention Network of Canada and
National Vice President, REAL Women of Canada
(905) 731-5425, (905) 889-1993
(613) 236-4001
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
HBO’s BILL MAHER DEFAMES POPE;CMI CALLS FOR APOLOGY,CORPORATE ACTION
Received by email...
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: TIM SCHEIDERER
APRIL 14, 2008 OR COLLEEN O’BOYLE AT 703.683.5004
HBO’s BILL MAHER DEFAMES POPE;
CMI CALLS FOR APOLOGY, CORPORATE ACTION
Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute calls upon Bill Maher to apologize for his lies about the Pope and calls upon Time Warner to take action against its bigoted show host.
Alexandria, VA-- On April 11, Bill Maher mischaracterized and defamed Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church. On his weekly HBO program, Maher stated in his monologue, “Whenever a cult leader sets himself up as God’s infallible wingman, here on Earth, lock away the kids. … When the current pope was in his previous Vatican job as John Paul’s Dick Cheney, he wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the statute of limitations ran out. And that’s the Church’s attitude: 'We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.’”
The Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute has released the following statements by MRC President Brent Bozell and CMI Director Robert Knight:
“Bill Maher has spent the last decade hurling hate and obscenities at the Catholic Church. His lies about Pope Benedict are just his latest barrage. Time Warner needs to take action. The late, great Charlton Heston once confronted the Time Warner leadership at a stockholders’ meeting by reading the foul lyrics from rapper Ice-T’s “Cop Killer.” The management moved swiftly to fix the problem. They need to hear Maher’s transcript out loud, verbatim, and be asked directly why they provide a platform for this kind of hateful, defamatory rhetoric,” Brent Bozell said.
Robert Knight said, “Anti-religious zealots in the media have a field day every time a Pope visits the United States. They showcase self-described Catholic dissidents who would perform an Oprahfication on the church or they give time to vile, hateful celebrities like Bill Maher, who delight in offending millions.
“It’s not a question of whether Bill Maher or Time Warner has the right to freedom of expression. The question is whether they have enough editorial discretion and decency to know when someone has gone over the line and that they need to act,” Knight concluded.
To schedule an interview with Bob Knight or another CMI executive about this media defamation, please contact Tim Scheiderer (x. 126) or Colleen O’Boyle (x. 122) at 703.683.5004.
-30-
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: TIM SCHEIDERER
APRIL 14, 2008 OR COLLEEN O’BOYLE AT 703.683.5004
HBO’s BILL MAHER DEFAMES POPE;
CMI CALLS FOR APOLOGY, CORPORATE ACTION
Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute calls upon Bill Maher to apologize for his lies about the Pope and calls upon Time Warner to take action against its bigoted show host.
Alexandria, VA-- On April 11, Bill Maher mischaracterized and defamed Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church. On his weekly HBO program, Maher stated in his monologue, “Whenever a cult leader sets himself up as God’s infallible wingman, here on Earth, lock away the kids. … When the current pope was in his previous Vatican job as John Paul’s Dick Cheney, he wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the statute of limitations ran out. And that’s the Church’s attitude: 'We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.’”
The Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute has released the following statements by MRC President Brent Bozell and CMI Director Robert Knight:
“Bill Maher has spent the last decade hurling hate and obscenities at the Catholic Church. His lies about Pope Benedict are just his latest barrage. Time Warner needs to take action. The late, great Charlton Heston once confronted the Time Warner leadership at a stockholders’ meeting by reading the foul lyrics from rapper Ice-T’s “Cop Killer.” The management moved swiftly to fix the problem. They need to hear Maher’s transcript out loud, verbatim, and be asked directly why they provide a platform for this kind of hateful, defamatory rhetoric,” Brent Bozell said.
Robert Knight said, “Anti-religious zealots in the media have a field day every time a Pope visits the United States. They showcase self-described Catholic dissidents who would perform an Oprahfication on the church or they give time to vile, hateful celebrities like Bill Maher, who delight in offending millions.
“It’s not a question of whether Bill Maher or Time Warner has the right to freedom of expression. The question is whether they have enough editorial discretion and decency to know when someone has gone over the line and that they need to act,” Knight concluded.
To schedule an interview with Bob Knight or another CMI executive about this media defamation, please contact Tim Scheiderer (x. 126) or Colleen O’Boyle (x. 122) at 703.683.5004.
-30-
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Commission Issues Statement on Decision in Maclean’s Cases
Received by email...
Commission Issues Statement on Decision in Maclean’s Cases
For immediate publication
April 9, 2008
Toronto - The Ontario Human Rights Commission has decided not to proceed with complaints filed against Maclean’s magazine related to its publication of an article “The future belongs to Islam.” The complainants alleged that the content of the article and Maclean’s refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights. The decision means that the complaints will not be referred to a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Denying a service because of race or creed can form the basis for a human rights complaint. However, the Ontario Human Rights Code does not give the Commission the jurisdiction to deal with the content of magazine articles through its complaint process.
Even though the Commission is not proceeding with these complaints, it still has a broader role in addressing the tension and conflict that such writings cause in the community and the impact that they have on the groups that are being singled out.
While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean’s article and others like them, as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes. Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.
“Clearly more debate on this issue is required in Canada,” commented Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall. “That’s why we issued a statement today.”
To read the full statement, please visit our website: OHRC.on.ca
- 30 -
Jeff Poirier
Manager, Communications
Ontario Human Rights Commission
(416)314-4539
jeff.poirier@ohrc.on.ca
Commission Issues Statement on Decision in Maclean’s Cases
For immediate publication
April 9, 2008
Toronto - The Ontario Human Rights Commission has decided not to proceed with complaints filed against Maclean’s magazine related to its publication of an article “The future belongs to Islam.” The complainants alleged that the content of the article and Maclean’s refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights. The decision means that the complaints will not be referred to a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Denying a service because of race or creed can form the basis for a human rights complaint. However, the Ontario Human Rights Code does not give the Commission the jurisdiction to deal with the content of magazine articles through its complaint process.
Even though the Commission is not proceeding with these complaints, it still has a broader role in addressing the tension and conflict that such writings cause in the community and the impact that they have on the groups that are being singled out.
While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean’s article and others like them, as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes. Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.
“Clearly more debate on this issue is required in Canada,” commented Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall. “That’s why we issued a statement today.”
To read the full statement, please visit our website: OHRC.on.ca
- 30 -
Jeff Poirier
Manager, Communications
Ontario Human Rights Commission
(416)314-4539
jeff.poirier@ohrc.on.ca
Statement by Art Hanger MP, Chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
Received by email...
April 8, 2008
OTTAWA – Statement by Art Hanger MP, Chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights:
"As observers of this committee will note, this committee is meeting for the second time in camera to discuss committee business.
"We now have had five consecutive meetings in which certain members of the committee insisted on pressing their point before we could do the work that this committee had already agreed should proceed. In three of these meetings witnesses who had travelled from across the country were unable to testify because of these opposition antics. It is my opinion that these actions do not show proper respect to the witnesses. I will not allow witnesses at my committee to be treated in this manner.
"I have been blamed, both here and in the media, for ending these meetings. This simply is not true. Marleau and Montpetit (Chapter 20, page 829) makes it clear that when a Chair of a committee is not available, a Vice-Chair is fully authorized to take his or her place and conduct the committee’s business. When I left the room the meeting did not end. Either of the Vice-Chairs who were in the room were free to preside over the vote and were certainly free to preside over the hearing of the witnesses on C-27. But that is not what occurred. Instead of taking the vote, or continuing our C-27 study, the Vice-Chair simply adjourned the meeting, leaving the witnesses high and dry. I can only assume that until this issue is resolved by the committee the same thing will continue to happen. As Chair, I will not put witnesses in that position.
"Now, if the Liberals and the Bloc wish to proceed with their motion, I have no issues saying that I will not preside over that vote. I will not preside over an overturning of a correct procedural ruling that I have made, nor over a mockery of parliament in clear violation of the rules – as warned against by the Speaker. Nonetheless, if the Liberals and Bloc want to take the vote in my absence that is their prerogative.
"As chair it is my job to protect the committee for its stated purpose under routine order 108-2. It’s an important purpose. As a former police officer, I understand the need for firm and fair criminal justice legislation. My life’s work has been dedicated to the pursuit of justice. We have in bill C-27 important legislation that will protect Canadians from identity theft. I want to see it passed.
"We now have a backlog of very important business to process by this committee: we have not dealt with the confirmation of the nomination of the Director of Public Prosecution, with Bill C-27 as already mentioned, with Bill C-25 which updates the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Impaired Driving Study report, and private members’ bills C-426, C-484, S-207 and S-213 which have been referred to this committee.
"I would like to turn everyone’s attention to a recent and almost unprecedented statement by the Speaker of the House which is aimed directly at our committee. On March 14th, he said, and I quote: ‘Inherent in the power the House grants to its committees is the basic principle that each committee will respect its mandate….’
"He goes on to describe the problem. He says: ‘because decisions of the Chair are subject to appeal, decisions that were procedurally sound have been overturned by the majority.’
"He continues, ‘appeals of decisions by chairs appear to have proliferated, with the result that having decided to ignore our usual procedures and practices, committees have found themselves in situations that verge on anarchy…’
"‘the first principles of our parliamentary tradition… [is] to protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority.’
"Finally, the Speaker says, ‘neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations.’
"My job is to protect this committee. Which is why, if certain members want to move that motion again, I am telling you now that I will not preside over it. But if I do vacate this chair again in the interest of upholding our parliamentary rules, let me be clear that there is nothing – absolutely nothing – stopping a Vice-chair from holding the vote once I walk out of the room, just as there was nothing stopping the Vice-chair from hearing witnesses at any of the previous meetings.
"So to the members of this committee I would say, we are clearly at a crossroads. I would like to see the proper functioning of the Justice Committee restored within the rules that govern Parliament. We have done a lot of work of which we can be proud of. But as the speaker said, we are on the verge of anarchy. And I will not allow this anarchy to prevail under my watch."
- 30 -
For more information, contact: Ryan Sparrow (613) 755-2199
April 8, 2008
OTTAWA – Statement by Art Hanger MP, Chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights:
"As observers of this committee will note, this committee is meeting for the second time in camera to discuss committee business.
"We now have had five consecutive meetings in which certain members of the committee insisted on pressing their point before we could do the work that this committee had already agreed should proceed. In three of these meetings witnesses who had travelled from across the country were unable to testify because of these opposition antics. It is my opinion that these actions do not show proper respect to the witnesses. I will not allow witnesses at my committee to be treated in this manner.
"I have been blamed, both here and in the media, for ending these meetings. This simply is not true. Marleau and Montpetit (Chapter 20, page 829) makes it clear that when a Chair of a committee is not available, a Vice-Chair is fully authorized to take his or her place and conduct the committee’s business. When I left the room the meeting did not end. Either of the Vice-Chairs who were in the room were free to preside over the vote and were certainly free to preside over the hearing of the witnesses on C-27. But that is not what occurred. Instead of taking the vote, or continuing our C-27 study, the Vice-Chair simply adjourned the meeting, leaving the witnesses high and dry. I can only assume that until this issue is resolved by the committee the same thing will continue to happen. As Chair, I will not put witnesses in that position.
"Now, if the Liberals and the Bloc wish to proceed with their motion, I have no issues saying that I will not preside over that vote. I will not preside over an overturning of a correct procedural ruling that I have made, nor over a mockery of parliament in clear violation of the rules – as warned against by the Speaker. Nonetheless, if the Liberals and Bloc want to take the vote in my absence that is their prerogative.
"As chair it is my job to protect the committee for its stated purpose under routine order 108-2. It’s an important purpose. As a former police officer, I understand the need for firm and fair criminal justice legislation. My life’s work has been dedicated to the pursuit of justice. We have in bill C-27 important legislation that will protect Canadians from identity theft. I want to see it passed.
"We now have a backlog of very important business to process by this committee: we have not dealt with the confirmation of the nomination of the Director of Public Prosecution, with Bill C-27 as already mentioned, with Bill C-25 which updates the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Impaired Driving Study report, and private members’ bills C-426, C-484, S-207 and S-213 which have been referred to this committee.
"I would like to turn everyone’s attention to a recent and almost unprecedented statement by the Speaker of the House which is aimed directly at our committee. On March 14th, he said, and I quote: ‘Inherent in the power the House grants to its committees is the basic principle that each committee will respect its mandate….’
"He goes on to describe the problem. He says: ‘because decisions of the Chair are subject to appeal, decisions that were procedurally sound have been overturned by the majority.’
"He continues, ‘appeals of decisions by chairs appear to have proliferated, with the result that having decided to ignore our usual procedures and practices, committees have found themselves in situations that verge on anarchy…’
"‘the first principles of our parliamentary tradition… [is] to protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority.’
"Finally, the Speaker says, ‘neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations.’
"My job is to protect this committee. Which is why, if certain members want to move that motion again, I am telling you now that I will not preside over it. But if I do vacate this chair again in the interest of upholding our parliamentary rules, let me be clear that there is nothing – absolutely nothing – stopping a Vice-chair from holding the vote once I walk out of the room, just as there was nothing stopping the Vice-chair from hearing witnesses at any of the previous meetings.
"So to the members of this committee I would say, we are clearly at a crossroads. I would like to see the proper functioning of the Justice Committee restored within the rules that govern Parliament. We have done a lot of work of which we can be proud of. But as the speaker said, we are on the verge of anarchy. And I will not allow this anarchy to prevail under my watch."
- 30 -
For more information, contact: Ryan Sparrow (613) 755-2199
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Joyce Arthur versus Ken Epp and Bill C-484
Received from LifeSiteNews.com:
Commentary by John Hof, President Campaign Life Coalition BC
In the last two days the National Post has raised both sides of the issue of protecting the rights of wanted unborn children. (Bill C-484)
Bill C-484 can in no way be called a "Pro-life" Bill. It falls far short of any bill that would reflect the type of protection unborn children need in this country. For me C-484 is pure and simply a "common sense" piece of legislation meant to address what is clearly a huge hole in our justice system. More and more pregnant mothers are being attacked because they are just that, pregnant. They are frequently being targeted because they refuse to have an abortion. More often than not the perpetrator is the father of the unborn. There is no place in our law books for any charges against these people.
I take sides with Mr. Epp in this discussion. In fact Joyce Arthur should actually be doing the same. In an online brochure, which she authored, entitled "How to think about the fetus" ( http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations/fetusposter.pdf ) she states and I quote, "A fetus becomes a person when the woman carrying it decides it does." Not at birth, or at four months or even at two weeks but when "the woman carrying it decides it" is a person.
Clearly the women and persons Mr. Epp's bill is trying to protect fall under Joyce's definition. The women decided they wanted to keep their unborn children. They did not want to abort them. They had "decided" therefore their fetuses had become "persons". Unfortunately, someone other than the mother then took it upon themselves to kill those newly formed persons. The perpetrators need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Mr. Epps bill seeks to do just that. Joyce must join hands with Mr. Epp because by not doing so, she abandons both her principles and the very women she purports to speak for.
She claims that there is no need for such a bill as there are already charges that could be laid in these cases. The only charges available however are for crimes against the mother. She also claims that this bill would not result in any more jail time for the convicted perpetrator as Canada has no ability to do consecutive sentencing. That logic would have our system only charge Willy Picton and Clifford Olson with only one murder. Willy Picton stands convicted and sentenced of six murders and the Crown is still considering proceeding with the other twenty charges.
I believe we are just seeing the tip of an iceberg with the growing number of cases surfacing where pregnant women and their unborn have been targeted. I also believe that the more we fail to protect these pregnant women and and their children, the more they become at risk of attack and death.
I hope Joyce comes to her senses and does not throw the wanted babies out with the bath-water just so she can cling to her pro-abortion agenda. She stands to lose a lot more than her credibility as a spokesperson for the Pro-choice movement.
Commentary by John Hof, President Campaign Life Coalition BC
In the last two days the National Post has raised both sides of the issue of protecting the rights of wanted unborn children. (Bill C-484)
Bill C-484 can in no way be called a "Pro-life" Bill. It falls far short of any bill that would reflect the type of protection unborn children need in this country. For me C-484 is pure and simply a "common sense" piece of legislation meant to address what is clearly a huge hole in our justice system. More and more pregnant mothers are being attacked because they are just that, pregnant. They are frequently being targeted because they refuse to have an abortion. More often than not the perpetrator is the father of the unborn. There is no place in our law books for any charges against these people.
I take sides with Mr. Epp in this discussion. In fact Joyce Arthur should actually be doing the same. In an online brochure, which she authored, entitled "How to think about the fetus" ( http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations/fetusposter.pdf ) she states and I quote, "A fetus becomes a person when the woman carrying it decides it does." Not at birth, or at four months or even at two weeks but when "the woman carrying it decides it" is a person.
Clearly the women and persons Mr. Epp's bill is trying to protect fall under Joyce's definition. The women decided they wanted to keep their unborn children. They did not want to abort them. They had "decided" therefore their fetuses had become "persons". Unfortunately, someone other than the mother then took it upon themselves to kill those newly formed persons. The perpetrators need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Mr. Epps bill seeks to do just that. Joyce must join hands with Mr. Epp because by not doing so, she abandons both her principles and the very women she purports to speak for.
She claims that there is no need for such a bill as there are already charges that could be laid in these cases. The only charges available however are for crimes against the mother. She also claims that this bill would not result in any more jail time for the convicted perpetrator as Canada has no ability to do consecutive sentencing. That logic would have our system only charge Willy Picton and Clifford Olson with only one murder. Willy Picton stands convicted and sentenced of six murders and the Crown is still considering proceeding with the other twenty charges.
I believe we are just seeing the tip of an iceberg with the growing number of cases surfacing where pregnant women and their unborn have been targeted. I also believe that the more we fail to protect these pregnant women and and their children, the more they become at risk of attack and death.
I hope Joyce comes to her senses and does not throw the wanted babies out with the bath-water just so she can cling to her pro-abortion agenda. She stands to lose a lot more than her credibility as a spokesperson for the Pro-choice movement.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
UPDATE: Child Protection - Citizen, Government and Law Enforcement Responsibility
Received by email:
Thanks for signing the Child Safe petition on our website www.familyaction.org .
I want to update you on the issue of internet servers and their allowing child sex images to be broadcast via their networks.
We have approached servers to ask that they voluntarily block child "porn" sex sites and even emails addresses that use or frequent such sites. The response we received from one such server was they are working with several organizations to come up with a plan to do something.
Our response is that is not good enough. We do not need a plan - we need ACTION. They have the technology so why will they not do it NOW? Is it because they are making money off those accounts? Do they regard children that little?
So we have taken this issue to the Minister of Justice and some other MPs whom we have a relationship with asking they introduce legislation to require ISPs to block sites and emails. There was some receptiveness but as yet no action.
However a Liberal MP Karen Redman from Ontario has written Bill C506, (a brief summary of it below) seems to be a good step toward protecting children.
Summary: This enactment provides for the licensing of Internet service providers by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (C.R.T.C.) on conditions to be set by the Minister of Industry by regulation. It also requires service providers to co-operate in minimizing the use of the Internet for the publication or proliferation of child pornography or the facilitation of a sex offence involving a child.
Anyone who uses the Internet to facilitate any of the designated sex offences involving children is guilty of an offence.
Internet service providers may be required to block access to identified portions of the Internet that carry child pornography.
We asked that the word "may" be removed and replaced with "shall except when that action would hinder an active investigation".
We are asking that ALL parties support this Bill and pass it without partisanship and without delay. The explosion of child sex images on the net is frightening and dangerous. ISPs have the capability so use it - NOW.
We will advise you of the right timing to call and write MPs to support Bill C 506. It has not yet been introduced.
Again thanks for signing this petition (some of you would have signed several months ago). We will continue to work to have children protected.
Brian Rushfeldt
Canada Family Action Coalition
Thanks for signing the Child Safe petition on our website www.familyaction.org .
I want to update you on the issue of internet servers and their allowing child sex images to be broadcast via their networks.
We have approached servers to ask that they voluntarily block child "porn" sex sites and even emails addresses that use or frequent such sites. The response we received from one such server was they are working with several organizations to come up with a plan to do something.
Our response is that is not good enough. We do not need a plan - we need ACTION. They have the technology so why will they not do it NOW? Is it because they are making money off those accounts? Do they regard children that little?
So we have taken this issue to the Minister of Justice and some other MPs whom we have a relationship with asking they introduce legislation to require ISPs to block sites and emails. There was some receptiveness but as yet no action.
However a Liberal MP Karen Redman from Ontario has written Bill C506, (a brief summary of it below) seems to be a good step toward protecting children.
Summary: This enactment provides for the licensing of Internet service providers by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (C.R.T.C.) on conditions to be set by the Minister of Industry by regulation. It also requires service providers to co-operate in minimizing the use of the Internet for the publication or proliferation of child pornography or the facilitation of a sex offence involving a child.
Anyone who uses the Internet to facilitate any of the designated sex offences involving children is guilty of an offence.
Internet service providers may be required to block access to identified portions of the Internet that carry child pornography.
We asked that the word "may" be removed and replaced with "shall except when that action would hinder an active investigation".
We are asking that ALL parties support this Bill and pass it without partisanship and without delay. The explosion of child sex images on the net is frightening and dangerous. ISPs have the capability so use it - NOW.
We will advise you of the right timing to call and write MPs to support Bill C 506. It has not yet been introduced.
Again thanks for signing this petition (some of you would have signed several months ago). We will continue to work to have children protected.
Brian Rushfeldt
Canada Family Action Coalition
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
ABORTION DEBATE TO GO AHEAD DESPITE STUDENT UNION SHUT DOWN
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MARCH 18, 2008
Contacts: Stephanie Gray (403-200-0777) or Jose Ruba (403-689-5890)
ABORTION DEBATE TO GO AHEAD DESPITE STUDENT UNION SHUT DOWN
ONTARIO-An abortion debate shut down by York University's student union has
been re-scheduled to occur today, March 18, at York University in Toronto.
Tomorrow, a similar debate will occur at Carleton University in Ottawa.
Tuesday's debate at York is the latest development since pro-"choice"
students took it upon themselves to suppress free-speech. Last month,
leaders of York's student centre executive held an emergency meeting and
voted unanimously to cancel an abortion debate between Michael Payton of
York's Freethinkers, Skeptics and Atheists group and Jose Ruba of the
pro-life Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR). Their action caused
a national furor resulting in negative headlines for the union across the
country. It did not take long for the university to step in and disassociate
itself from the intolerant actions of the student union, and to welcome the
debate on property that it controls.
Ruba expressed appreciation for the university's openness to dialogue, but
disgust at the student union. He explained that all students, including
those who disagree with the union's decision, are forced to pay membership
fees. "It is appalling that pro-life students have to give their money to a
union that censors them," he said. "If the SU believes so strongly in
choice, why doesn't it give students a choice whether or not to be members?"
Student unions in Canada are becoming notorious for opposing pro-life
groups. In 2006, Ruba participated in an abortion debate at Carleton
University which caused a backlash from the student union there.
Carleton University Students' Association (CUSA) subsequently declared
itself pro-choice and passed a policy affirming that "actions such as
campaigns, distributions, solicitations, lobbying efforts, displays, events,
etc. that seek to limit or remove a woman's options in the event of
pregnancy will not be supported."
Undeterred, the pro-life club, Carleton Lifeline (CL), is going ahead with
another abortion debate, this time on March 19. They're bringing in Ruba's
colleague, Stephanie Gray, to take the stage opposite a representative from
the campus debate society. Finding an opponent for Gray, however, has been
a difficult task.
"We contacted more than 10 pro-choice individuals and organizations but no
one came forward to debate," said Heidi Los of CL. One person they
approached, Patricia LaRue, declined participation stating, "Canadians for
Choice has decided not to engage in debate surrounding abortion services.
We feel that the provision of basic human rights is not open to debate."
"The idea that abortion isn't debatable seems to be a matter of
convenience," commented Gray. "After all, I hardly think Canadians for
Choice would hold the position they do if the status quo wasn't in their
favour. Would they decline debating abortion if we were back in 1969?"
Gray and Ruba are founders of CCBR, a controversial group that has drawn
national headlines by driving a truck covered with bloody abortion photos as
well as exhibiting the Genocide Awareness Project, a graphic display that
compares abortion with the Holocaust. Their website is unmaskingchoice.ca.
Debate Details:
*TUESDAY, March 18, 5:30-7:00pm @ York University (Toronto), Curtis Lecture
Hall E, Keele Campus (near Scott Library) *WEDNESDAY, March 19, 7:00-9:00pm
@ Carleton University (Ottawa), Room 103, Stacie Building
For further information contact:
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform: Stephanie Gray (403-200-0777) or
Jose Ruba (403-689-5890)
PDF version of press release is attached.
-30-
--
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) Box 123 5-8720 Macleod Trail
SE Calgary, AB, T2H 0M4
403-668-0485
See it. Believe it. Change it. http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca
Contacts: Stephanie Gray (403-200-0777) or Jose Ruba (403-689-5890)
ABORTION DEBATE TO GO AHEAD DESPITE STUDENT UNION SHUT DOWN
ONTARIO-An abortion debate shut down by York University's student union has
been re-scheduled to occur today, March 18, at York University in Toronto.
Tomorrow, a similar debate will occur at Carleton University in Ottawa.
Tuesday's debate at York is the latest development since pro-"choice"
students took it upon themselves to suppress free-speech. Last month,
leaders of York's student centre executive held an emergency meeting and
voted unanimously to cancel an abortion debate between Michael Payton of
York's Freethinkers, Skeptics and Atheists group and Jose Ruba of the
pro-life Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR). Their action caused
a national furor resulting in negative headlines for the union across the
country. It did not take long for the university to step in and disassociate
itself from the intolerant actions of the student union, and to welcome the
debate on property that it controls.
Ruba expressed appreciation for the university's openness to dialogue, but
disgust at the student union. He explained that all students, including
those who disagree with the union's decision, are forced to pay membership
fees. "It is appalling that pro-life students have to give their money to a
union that censors them," he said. "If the SU believes so strongly in
choice, why doesn't it give students a choice whether or not to be members?"
Student unions in Canada are becoming notorious for opposing pro-life
groups. In 2006, Ruba participated in an abortion debate at Carleton
University which caused a backlash from the student union there.
Carleton University Students' Association (CUSA) subsequently declared
itself pro-choice and passed a policy affirming that "actions such as
campaigns, distributions, solicitations, lobbying efforts, displays, events,
etc. that seek to limit or remove a woman's options in the event of
pregnancy will not be supported."
Undeterred, the pro-life club, Carleton Lifeline (CL), is going ahead with
another abortion debate, this time on March 19. They're bringing in Ruba's
colleague, Stephanie Gray, to take the stage opposite a representative from
the campus debate society. Finding an opponent for Gray, however, has been
a difficult task.
"We contacted more than 10 pro-choice individuals and organizations but no
one came forward to debate," said Heidi Los of CL. One person they
approached, Patricia LaRue, declined participation stating, "Canadians for
Choice has decided not to engage in debate surrounding abortion services.
We feel that the provision of basic human rights is not open to debate."
"The idea that abortion isn't debatable seems to be a matter of
convenience," commented Gray. "After all, I hardly think Canadians for
Choice would hold the position they do if the status quo wasn't in their
favour. Would they decline debating abortion if we were back in 1969?"
Gray and Ruba are founders of CCBR, a controversial group that has drawn
national headlines by driving a truck covered with bloody abortion photos as
well as exhibiting the Genocide Awareness Project, a graphic display that
compares abortion with the Holocaust. Their website is unmaskingchoice.ca.
Debate Details:
*TUESDAY, March 18, 5:30-7:00pm @ York University (Toronto), Curtis Lecture
Hall E, Keele Campus (near Scott Library) *WEDNESDAY, March 19, 7:00-9:00pm
@ Carleton University (Ottawa), Room 103, Stacie Building
For further information contact:
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform: Stephanie Gray (403-200-0777) or
Jose Ruba (403-689-5890)
PDF version of press release is attached.
-30-
--
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) Box 123 5-8720 Macleod Trail
SE Calgary, AB, T2H 0M4
403-668-0485
See it. Believe it. Change it. http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Unborn Victims of Crime Act passes Second Reading in the House of Commons
Ken Epp, MP
Edmonton-Sherwood Park
For Immediate Release
March 5, 2008
Unborn Victims of Crime Act passes Second Reading in the House of Commons
(OTTAWA) – “This is a victory for Canadian women and children, for victims’ families, and indeed for all Canadians,” said MP Ken Epp, reacting to today’s vote in the House of Commons on his Private Members Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act.
Members of Parliament voted 147 to 132 in support of allowing the Bill to proceed to Committee Stage. "Since 72% of Canadians support this legislation, I will continue to work hard to persuade my Parliamentary Colleagues that I have no sinister motives, and that they should support the Bill at further stages," Mr. Epp said. "Canadian women who choose to give birth when they are pregnant should not have to stand alone to protect the child within that they are eagerly awaiting."
“I want to thank my Colleagues in the House today for doing the right thing, for standing up for pregnant women and the babies they want to protect from violence,” said Mr. Epp. “It is so encouraging to see the outpouring of support from thousands of Canadians right across the country who have urged their MPs to support this legislation, who have signed petitions, and who have spoken out in defense of pregnant women who have chosen life for their children.”
Mr. Epp continued, “In the midst of their grief, I hope Mary Talbot and Aydin Cocelli and others who have lost loved ones to this type of crime, can experience some measure of consolation today, knowing that many, many Canadians are united with them in the quest for justice for unborn victims of crime. Although justice will never be served for the crimes committed against their own family members, there is real hope today that other families in future will be spared the injustice of being told that the child they loved and wanted to live never even existed in the eyes of the law.”
Mr. Epp concluded, “I look forward to continuing to work with these families, with my Colleagues in the House from all parties, and with Canadians to move this cause forward in the weeks and months ahead.”
-30-
For More Information, contact
Ken Epp, (613) 995-3611 or (780) 467-4944;
Or visit www.kenepp.com
Edmonton-Sherwood Park
For Immediate Release
March 5, 2008
Unborn Victims of Crime Act passes Second Reading in the House of Commons
(OTTAWA) – “This is a victory for Canadian women and children, for victims’ families, and indeed for all Canadians,” said MP Ken Epp, reacting to today’s vote in the House of Commons on his Private Members Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act.
Members of Parliament voted 147 to 132 in support of allowing the Bill to proceed to Committee Stage. "Since 72% of Canadians support this legislation, I will continue to work hard to persuade my Parliamentary Colleagues that I have no sinister motives, and that they should support the Bill at further stages," Mr. Epp said. "Canadian women who choose to give birth when they are pregnant should not have to stand alone to protect the child within that they are eagerly awaiting."
“I want to thank my Colleagues in the House today for doing the right thing, for standing up for pregnant women and the babies they want to protect from violence,” said Mr. Epp. “It is so encouraging to see the outpouring of support from thousands of Canadians right across the country who have urged their MPs to support this legislation, who have signed petitions, and who have spoken out in defense of pregnant women who have chosen life for their children.”
Mr. Epp continued, “In the midst of their grief, I hope Mary Talbot and Aydin Cocelli and others who have lost loved ones to this type of crime, can experience some measure of consolation today, knowing that many, many Canadians are united with them in the quest for justice for unborn victims of crime. Although justice will never be served for the crimes committed against their own family members, there is real hope today that other families in future will be spared the injustice of being told that the child they loved and wanted to live never even existed in the eyes of the law.”
Mr. Epp concluded, “I look forward to continuing to work with these families, with my Colleagues in the House from all parties, and with Canadians to move this cause forward in the weeks and months ahead.”
-30-
For More Information, contact
Ken Epp, (613) 995-3611 or (780) 467-4944;
Or visit www.kenepp.com
Monday, February 18, 2008
ALERT: Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR), Winnipeg, Manitoba
Received by email...originally from REAL Women...
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in April 2007 that the federal government will contribute 100 million dollars toward the building of the Human Rights Museum in Winnipeg.
He also stated that the federal government would contribute $22 million annually to cover its operating costs.
The Advisory Committee for the Museum, selected by the former Liberal government, consisted mainly of feminist, homosexual and regular Liberal stand-bys, such as a former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner, former Liberal MPs, Cabinet Ministers and some Senators. The museum was intended to be a monument to former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his Charter of Rights.
This has raised concerns that the museum, with its left-wing Advisory Board, would be used as a powerful tool to champion the Liberal government’s interpretation of human rights, such as abortion rights, feminism, homosexuality, etc. with only some legitimate exhibits sprinkled here and there to give the museum the appearance of legitimacy.
Fortunately the Conservative government changed the Advisory Committee in October to include individuals, mostly business men and women, with no known bias on human rights issues.
This new Advisory Committee now wishes to take the views of the public into account in reaching its decisions on the scope and content of the Museum. As a result, a public consultation on the Museum is being carried out between February 5th and March 15, 2008. To further this project, the Advisory Committee has prepared a public consultation document that can be found at: http://www.pch.gc.ca/index_e.cfm. In the left bar, under the heading, Department, please click Public Consultations. The document includes a number of questions which are intended to stimulate ideas for the Museum for Human Rights. The Committee also invites views not covered by the questions.
It is important that as many of us as possible, with a conservative perspective, provide input into this Museum as it will remain a part of the Canadian culture for many years to come. We want it to reflect basic human rights, not the trendy rights contributed by recent court decisions.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Why I am not an abortion doctor
Received by email...
Paul Ranalli, National Post Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008
On Monday, the National Post printed the transcript of a speech delivered recently by Garson Romalis, a Canadian abortion doctor who has shown remarkable personal courage in pursuing the practice of his choice -- abortion -- despite two violent physical attacks against him in 1994 and 2000. Dr. Henry Morgentaler, similarly, has endured many public protests and several jail terms in his successful quest to change the face of medicine and Canadian society. I am not certain I would be so steadfast in my belief in the face of such trauma.
I happen to disagree with what they are doing. I also condemn the personal threats and attacks on them by a radical few whose actions are the antithesis of promoting life and have left a blot on the mainstream pro-life movement. This is a blot that abortion advocates -- and their supporters in much of the media -- have exploited repeatedly to try to silence the reasonable moral arguments against abortion and its unrestrained practise in Canada today. The "violence" has stopped. Indeed, recent uncivil actions all seem to be on the pro-choice side: the trashing of a peaceful pro-life display at a B.C. university, and the recent defacing of pro-life bus shelter posters in Hamilton, Ont., which had the audacity to show a pregnant woman.
Following the 1988 Supreme Court Morgentaler decision that struck down Canada's old abortion law, abortion advocates imagined a new medical nirvana in which fired-up young doctors, including the many women who now form a majority of many medical school classes, would flood to the clinics and hospitals to fill the abortion doctor vacancies. After all, the Romalis and Morgentaler generation is now greying and could use an infusion of troops. But that never happened.
To explain this fact, abortion proponents often cite the threat of violence. But this tactic is becoming increasingly threadbare. Moreover, doctors' reluctance to become abortion specialists can no longer be traced to any legal threat, as there is no law against the practice. In fact, most Canadian abortions are covered by medicare.
No, the pro-choice movement refuses to confront the main reason doctors do not gravitate to performing abortions: They don't like to kill. Even putting aside "pro-life" doctors, many of those physicians who would nominally sign off as "pro-choice" would prefer that someone else per-form abortions.
Abortion advocates bemoan a "lack of access" to abortion. Some of it is a less than honourable attempt to politicize the well-known limitations of our public health system. (For example, they point to a lack of access to abortion in P.E.I., a largely rural province that lacks many different types of specialized services.) No, the real concern behind the lack of access talk is that they know there are not enough young doctors with the unique zeal of the old lions like Romalis and Morgentaler.
Even if many young doctors do not possess strong moral qualms about killing the unborn, they likely see abortion as outside the medical mainstream in a number of other ways. Doctors who exclusively practise abortion are still not popular within the profession. And the procedure is used as a weapon of genocide against female fetuses in a number of ethnic communities in Canada, an especially bitter truth for feminists to swallow.
While I realize the practise of abortion is not going to go away anytime soon, the real question now is why there are no limits on the practise in this country. To put it in the language of "rights," so favoured by those who oppose any limits on abortion, why is there no right to fetal protection at any stage in pregnancy? Dr. Romalis hearkens back to the 1960 complications of septic abortion. I would go back a little further, to 1490, when our current legal understanding of fetal personhood (the "born-alive" rule) was encoded.
Dr. Romalis closes by recounting the story of a female medical student who came up to him to thank him for performing an abortion on her some years earlier. She said, "If it weren't for you I wouldn't be here now." For balance, I would ask about the many future women doctors who were aborted in the womb. To quote Robert Kennedy: "I dream of things that never were, and ask why not."
pjranalli@aim.com
-Paul Ranalli, MD, is an advisor to the deVeber Institute for Bioethics.
Paul Ranalli, National Post Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008
On Monday, the National Post printed the transcript of a speech delivered recently by Garson Romalis, a Canadian abortion doctor who has shown remarkable personal courage in pursuing the practice of his choice -- abortion -- despite two violent physical attacks against him in 1994 and 2000. Dr. Henry Morgentaler, similarly, has endured many public protests and several jail terms in his successful quest to change the face of medicine and Canadian society. I am not certain I would be so steadfast in my belief in the face of such trauma.
I happen to disagree with what they are doing. I also condemn the personal threats and attacks on them by a radical few whose actions are the antithesis of promoting life and have left a blot on the mainstream pro-life movement. This is a blot that abortion advocates -- and their supporters in much of the media -- have exploited repeatedly to try to silence the reasonable moral arguments against abortion and its unrestrained practise in Canada today. The "violence" has stopped. Indeed, recent uncivil actions all seem to be on the pro-choice side: the trashing of a peaceful pro-life display at a B.C. university, and the recent defacing of pro-life bus shelter posters in Hamilton, Ont., which had the audacity to show a pregnant woman.
Following the 1988 Supreme Court Morgentaler decision that struck down Canada's old abortion law, abortion advocates imagined a new medical nirvana in which fired-up young doctors, including the many women who now form a majority of many medical school classes, would flood to the clinics and hospitals to fill the abortion doctor vacancies. After all, the Romalis and Morgentaler generation is now greying and could use an infusion of troops. But that never happened.
To explain this fact, abortion proponents often cite the threat of violence. But this tactic is becoming increasingly threadbare. Moreover, doctors' reluctance to become abortion specialists can no longer be traced to any legal threat, as there is no law against the practice. In fact, most Canadian abortions are covered by medicare.
No, the pro-choice movement refuses to confront the main reason doctors do not gravitate to performing abortions: They don't like to kill. Even putting aside "pro-life" doctors, many of those physicians who would nominally sign off as "pro-choice" would prefer that someone else per-form abortions.
Abortion advocates bemoan a "lack of access" to abortion. Some of it is a less than honourable attempt to politicize the well-known limitations of our public health system. (For example, they point to a lack of access to abortion in P.E.I., a largely rural province that lacks many different types of specialized services.) No, the real concern behind the lack of access talk is that they know there are not enough young doctors with the unique zeal of the old lions like Romalis and Morgentaler.
Even if many young doctors do not possess strong moral qualms about killing the unborn, they likely see abortion as outside the medical mainstream in a number of other ways. Doctors who exclusively practise abortion are still not popular within the profession. And the procedure is used as a weapon of genocide against female fetuses in a number of ethnic communities in Canada, an especially bitter truth for feminists to swallow.
While I realize the practise of abortion is not going to go away anytime soon, the real question now is why there are no limits on the practise in this country. To put it in the language of "rights," so favoured by those who oppose any limits on abortion, why is there no right to fetal protection at any stage in pregnancy? Dr. Romalis hearkens back to the 1960 complications of septic abortion. I would go back a little further, to 1490, when our current legal understanding of fetal personhood (the "born-alive" rule) was encoded.
Dr. Romalis closes by recounting the story of a female medical student who came up to him to thank him for performing an abortion on her some years earlier. She said, "If it weren't for you I wouldn't be here now." For balance, I would ask about the many future women doctors who were aborted in the womb. To quote Robert Kennedy: "I dream of things that never were, and ask why not."
pjranalli@aim.com
-Paul Ranalli, MD, is an advisor to the deVeber Institute for Bioethics.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Charles McVety: Block Child Porn
Received by email...
I would like to ask you to work together to block child porn from the Internet in Canada. It is shameful that ISP’s such as Rogers, Telus, Bell, Shaw and other big corporations are allowed to distribute this criminal material. If each of us run our own initiatives to put pressure on the government and the corporations we can be victorious. Please consider doing the following:
1. Add your organization’s name to the supporting organizations list with a link to your site at www.blockchildporn.ca
2. Run your own campaign or use our material.
3. Post an article on the topic on your website. Samples at http://www.blockchildporn.ca/articles.html
4. Place on your website a link to www.blockchildporn.ca
5. Send an email to your list asking them to call their Member of Parliament and sign the petition at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/child-safe-internet-services.html
Momentum is beginning to build and is having an effect. The ISP’s are now saying they are willing to block child porn but have not yet done so. If we keep up the pressure we will win.
I enjoyed working with you on the Defend Marriage Campaign and look forward to victory on this one.
Dr. Charles McVety
President
Institute for Canadian Values
I would like to ask you to work together to block child porn from the Internet in Canada. It is shameful that ISP’s such as Rogers, Telus, Bell, Shaw and other big corporations are allowed to distribute this criminal material. If each of us run our own initiatives to put pressure on the government and the corporations we can be victorious. Please consider doing the following:
1. Add your organization’s name to the supporting organizations list with a link to your site at www.blockchildporn.ca
2. Run your own campaign or use our material.
3. Post an article on the topic on your website. Samples at http://www.blockchildporn.ca/articles.html
4. Place on your website a link to www.blockchildporn.ca
5. Send an email to your list asking them to call their Member of Parliament and sign the petition at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/child-safe-internet-services.html
Momentum is beginning to build and is having an effect. The ISP’s are now saying they are willing to block child porn but have not yet done so. If we keep up the pressure we will win.
I enjoyed working with you on the Defend Marriage Campaign and look forward to victory on this one.
Dr. Charles McVety
President
Institute for Canadian Values
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
From the Canada Family Action Coalition
Received by email:
Dear Friends and Supporters,
Greetings from the local chapter of Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC). We wish to thank all for your prayers and financial support, during the past years. You may wonder what the current issues are that need to be addressed in our country. The definition of marriage, which absorbed much of our time, is currently a silent item, however we will endeavor to have the biblical view of marriage maintained in our laws, whenever the opportunity arises to speak out in this regard.
For two years we have tried to address the sin of pornography, especially Internet Service Providers (ISPs) responsibility, as corporate citizens to block illegal child sex sites and to be obligated to cooperate with law enforcement units to apprehend those who exploit our children in this horrific way. In order to bring this to light, we have made presentations to local councils, asking them to enact by- laws to have local ISPs comply with blocking and apprehending those who made use of these illegal sites. We were aware that locally, little could be done, but we used this approach to raise awareness. At least one local council has passed a resolution requesting the federal government to pass such legislation, and another council forwarded the material to their police services board that sent a resolution to the CRTC requesting stricter regulations, after the presentations made by Wilma Jansen.
Last spring we received a request to join in a national partnership, with the RCMP, United Mothers and Fathers, Real Women, CASE and CFAC to work nationally on ISP laws. In Niagara we met with Dean Allison MP and the Hon. Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Also with MPs Art Hanger and Jason Kenney in Alta. Correspondence and encouragement was received from Joy Smith MP in MB and Preston Manning former MP and leader of the Canadian Alliance. After our presentation with Mr. Nicholson we ere invited to write the proposed policy. A professional policy writer is currently working that this, in our behalf and we will present our initial proposal to Mr. Nicholson by the end of January 2008. D.V.
Dear friends, our reason for informing you of this is to request your continued prayers, not only for this issue, but that there may be a full revival in our nation and a return to the laws that the Lord has given us. We were encouraged by our MPs to continue and by their dedication. Mr. Nicholson commented “ it is a sad reality that pornography has become an accepted thing in our society, but we need to protect our children from sexual predators”.
On a positive note, the age of protection bill has been retabled in the house and is back to the senate, included in Bill C2, as promised by the Justice Minister.
On Behalf of Niagara CFAC
Jake Sinke chair
Rob Sinke vice chair
Fred Vrugteveen secretary
Wilma Jansen treasurer
Dear Friends and Supporters,
Greetings from the local chapter of Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC). We wish to thank all for your prayers and financial support, during the past years. You may wonder what the current issues are that need to be addressed in our country. The definition of marriage, which absorbed much of our time, is currently a silent item, however we will endeavor to have the biblical view of marriage maintained in our laws, whenever the opportunity arises to speak out in this regard.
For two years we have tried to address the sin of pornography, especially Internet Service Providers (ISPs) responsibility, as corporate citizens to block illegal child sex sites and to be obligated to cooperate with law enforcement units to apprehend those who exploit our children in this horrific way. In order to bring this to light, we have made presentations to local councils, asking them to enact by- laws to have local ISPs comply with blocking and apprehending those who made use of these illegal sites. We were aware that locally, little could be done, but we used this approach to raise awareness. At least one local council has passed a resolution requesting the federal government to pass such legislation, and another council forwarded the material to their police services board that sent a resolution to the CRTC requesting stricter regulations, after the presentations made by Wilma Jansen.
Last spring we received a request to join in a national partnership, with the RCMP, United Mothers and Fathers, Real Women, CASE and CFAC to work nationally on ISP laws. In Niagara we met with Dean Allison MP and the Hon. Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Also with MPs Art Hanger and Jason Kenney in Alta. Correspondence and encouragement was received from Joy Smith MP in MB and Preston Manning former MP and leader of the Canadian Alliance. After our presentation with Mr. Nicholson we ere invited to write the proposed policy. A professional policy writer is currently working that this, in our behalf and we will present our initial proposal to Mr. Nicholson by the end of January 2008. D.V.
Dear friends, our reason for informing you of this is to request your continued prayers, not only for this issue, but that there may be a full revival in our nation and a return to the laws that the Lord has given us. We were encouraged by our MPs to continue and by their dedication. Mr. Nicholson commented “ it is a sad reality that pornography has become an accepted thing in our society, but we need to protect our children from sexual predators”.
On a positive note, the age of protection bill has been retabled in the house and is back to the senate, included in Bill C2, as promised by the Justice Minister.
On Behalf of Niagara CFAC
Jake Sinke chair
Rob Sinke vice chair
Fred Vrugteveen secretary
Wilma Jansen treasurer
Monday, January 28, 2008
20 Lawless Years of Abortion: Can't We Do Better?
Received by email...
For Immediate Release
January 28, 2008
20 Lawless Years of Abortion: Can't We Do Better?
OTTAWA - Since the Supreme Court's Morgentaler decision in 1988, Canada remains the only civilized country in the world with no legal restraint on abortion.
Abortion advocates in and out of the medical profession continue to falsely claim a consensus on this open practice, yet polls repeatedly show that 2/3 of Canadians want some legal protection for the unborn child, and the Morgentaler justices themselves stated the state's interest in this goal.
As physicians, we see how our justice system lags behind science:
- there is no medical indication for abortion;
- there is no biological difference between a "wanted" and an "unwanted" child in the womb;
- a fetus born prematurely at 24 weeks becomes a “baby” with the full protection of Canadian law, while a fetus 4 months older, still in the womb at full term, has no legal rights at all;
- genocide against female babies in the womb, with ultrasound and abortion as the weapons, are a reality in certain cultures in Canada, yet cannot be questioned (unless hypocritically) by an uncompromising pro-choice ideology.
Abortion is not only fatal for the unborn child, but dangerous for the pregnant woman who makes this choice. The only true choice is an informed choice, yet we question the validity of a woman's informed consent for abortion when its advocates deny or attempt to cover up the true complication rate.
An independent Ontario study revealed that in the first 3 months after abortion, a woman falls victim to:
* a 4 times rate of hospitalization for infection
* a 5-times rate of hospitalization for another surgical procedure
* a 5-times rate of hospitalization for psychiatric care, in a health care system when only the most dire psychological cases can get a hospital bed.
The world literature is replete with the reported increased risk of infertility, breast cancer, and subsequent premature delivery and its associated higher rate of cerebral palsy after an earlier abortion.
Abortion advocates are frustrated by the dearth of new young physicians required to perform abortions. They are organizing radical new plans to indoctrinate medical school curricula with their agenda, and defy any alternate voice. Most sinister of all, they cry out to punish doctors of conscience who resist plans to force them to be part of the abortion referral network.
They cannot accept the real reason why most doctors do not go into abortion: very few young, intelligent and caring medical students go into the wonderful field of medicine to kill.
Has it all gone too far?
We see another pressing social need that rarely commands much media attention: the long, heartbreaking lineup of couples who want to adopt a newborn baby. When the adoption option is considered, there need be no such thing as an "unwanted" child, and therefore no need for abortion. That is a society we'd like to see, and care for.
Can Canada do better? Twenty years after Morgentaler, we think so.
- 30 -
For more information, please contact:
Will Johnston, MD
President, Canadian Physicians for Life
ph: 613-728-5433
email: info@physiciansforlife.ca
Canadian Physicians for Life is an educational organization representing physicians who hold that reverence for every human life lies at the root of all medical tradition. Through the ages, this tradition has been expressed in the Oath of Hippocrates. It was rephrased in modern times in the Declaration of Geneva (1948), which says in part, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”
For Immediate Release
January 28, 2008
20 Lawless Years of Abortion: Can't We Do Better?
OTTAWA - Since the Supreme Court's Morgentaler decision in 1988, Canada remains the only civilized country in the world with no legal restraint on abortion.
Abortion advocates in and out of the medical profession continue to falsely claim a consensus on this open practice, yet polls repeatedly show that 2/3 of Canadians want some legal protection for the unborn child, and the Morgentaler justices themselves stated the state's interest in this goal.
As physicians, we see how our justice system lags behind science:
- there is no medical indication for abortion;
- there is no biological difference between a "wanted" and an "unwanted" child in the womb;
- a fetus born prematurely at 24 weeks becomes a “baby” with the full protection of Canadian law, while a fetus 4 months older, still in the womb at full term, has no legal rights at all;
- genocide against female babies in the womb, with ultrasound and abortion as the weapons, are a reality in certain cultures in Canada, yet cannot be questioned (unless hypocritically) by an uncompromising pro-choice ideology.
Abortion is not only fatal for the unborn child, but dangerous for the pregnant woman who makes this choice. The only true choice is an informed choice, yet we question the validity of a woman's informed consent for abortion when its advocates deny or attempt to cover up the true complication rate.
An independent Ontario study revealed that in the first 3 months after abortion, a woman falls victim to:
* a 4 times rate of hospitalization for infection
* a 5-times rate of hospitalization for another surgical procedure
* a 5-times rate of hospitalization for psychiatric care, in a health care system when only the most dire psychological cases can get a hospital bed.
The world literature is replete with the reported increased risk of infertility, breast cancer, and subsequent premature delivery and its associated higher rate of cerebral palsy after an earlier abortion.
Abortion advocates are frustrated by the dearth of new young physicians required to perform abortions. They are organizing radical new plans to indoctrinate medical school curricula with their agenda, and defy any alternate voice. Most sinister of all, they cry out to punish doctors of conscience who resist plans to force them to be part of the abortion referral network.
They cannot accept the real reason why most doctors do not go into abortion: very few young, intelligent and caring medical students go into the wonderful field of medicine to kill.
Has it all gone too far?
We see another pressing social need that rarely commands much media attention: the long, heartbreaking lineup of couples who want to adopt a newborn baby. When the adoption option is considered, there need be no such thing as an "unwanted" child, and therefore no need for abortion. That is a society we'd like to see, and care for.
Can Canada do better? Twenty years after Morgentaler, we think so.
- 30 -
For more information, please contact:
Will Johnston, MD
President, Canadian Physicians for Life
ph: 613-728-5433
email: info@physiciansforlife.ca
Canadian Physicians for Life is an educational organization representing physicians who hold that reverence for every human life lies at the root of all medical tradition. Through the ages, this tradition has been expressed in the Oath of Hippocrates. It was rephrased in modern times in the Declaration of Geneva (1948), which says in part, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Straight Thoughts: on the anniversary of the Morgentaler Decision
Received by email:
Straight thoughts 162
January 22nd, 2008
Yesterday it was Martin Luther King day. His dream of equal dignity with respect to the colour of one’s skin was realized within a generation.
Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and I have a dream of my own.
I have a dream that within my life time truth shall prevail, and abortion shall cease to be called a “procedure” and be recognized for what it is, the killing of a human being.
I have a dream that one day we will look back at our society, and our judges and our politicians and ask: “How could they?”
“How could a few judges affect all of society for two generations?”
"How could politicians not be moved to action?"
“How could they allow the killing of millions of their own children and continue with their daily business?”
“How could they destroy human life, when their knowledge of biology was so advanced as to know exactly when life begins?”
Just as today we look back at the Russians, and Stalin and his army and ask, “How could they?”
Just as we look back at the Germans, and Hitler and his Gestapo and ask: ”How could they?”
I shall not rest until cultural leaders like King will emerge, and set aside their own ambitions of fame and power, and dream of a world of justice and dignity for all.
Giuseppe Gori, Leader
Family Coalition Party of Ontario
Straight thoughts 162
January 22nd, 2008
Yesterday it was Martin Luther King day. His dream of equal dignity with respect to the colour of one’s skin was realized within a generation.
Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and I have a dream of my own.
I have a dream that within my life time truth shall prevail, and abortion shall cease to be called a “procedure” and be recognized for what it is, the killing of a human being.
I have a dream that one day we will look back at our society, and our judges and our politicians and ask: “How could they?”
“How could a few judges affect all of society for two generations?”
"How could politicians not be moved to action?"
“How could they allow the killing of millions of their own children and continue with their daily business?”
“How could they destroy human life, when their knowledge of biology was so advanced as to know exactly when life begins?”
Just as today we look back at the Russians, and Stalin and his army and ask, “How could they?”
Just as we look back at the Germans, and Hitler and his Gestapo and ask: ”How could they?”
I shall not rest until cultural leaders like King will emerge, and set aside their own ambitions of fame and power, and dream of a world of justice and dignity for all.
Giuseppe Gori, Leader
Family Coalition Party of Ontario
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Abortion: Have we gone too far?
As seen on facebook...
For Immediate Release
January 22, 2008
Abortion: Have we gone too far?
January 28 marks the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that removed all legal restrictions on abortion in Canada. In those 20 years, during which abortion has been allowed throughout all nine months of pregnancy, almost 2 million Canadian babies have been aborted.
LifeCanada, a national educational pro-life group, has launched a media campaign asking Canadians, “Have we gone too far?” by allowing unrestricted abortion. There are over 100,000 abortions each year in Canada and taxpayers pay for almost all of them.
“This isn’t health care,” said LifeCanada President Joanne Byfield. “It isn’t life saving or life giving. It takes a human life and increases a woman’s risk of many subsequent health problems. It is time we re-examined unrestricted abortion.”
Provincial and local groups across the country have sponsored billboards, transit ads and radio and newspaper ads asking Canadians to re-think their position on abortion. The ads promote a website, www.AbortionInCanada.ca, which includes statistics, history, medical research and other information on the issue.
Byfield says a pro-abortion attitude has infected our politics, our media and our national psyche. “Have we gone too far?” she asked. “Let’s look at the evidence.”
• Abortions can be performed throughout all nine months of pregnancy for no medical reason and data show that hundreds are performed each year after 20 weeks gestation, the point of viability.
• Pro-life people who protest or pray near abortion facilities can be arrested, charged and jailed for expressing their opinions.
• Campus pro-life groups across Canada are denied club status because student governments don’t want to hear pro-life opinions and don’t want others to hear them either.
• To date, the cities of Fredericton and Hamilton have refused to allow our ads to run in their transit shelters. One city councillor in Hamilton found them “offensive.”
• A bill currently before Parliament to allow the killer of a pregnant woman to be charged with two deaths is opposed on the basis that it threatens abortion rights even though the bill includes an exception for abortion. Some Canadians would rather ignore the murder of a “wanted” child than risk some notional threat to abortion rights.
Byfield said a majority of Canadians believe there should be legal protection for the unborn. In an October 2007 poll by Environics Research, 62% of Canadians said they supported legal protection at some stage of pregnancy. Women and young people aged 18 to 30 were even more supportive at 67%.
“Despite 20 years of unrestricted abortion and the suppression of a public debate on the issue, there is still strong support for protection of the most fundamental of human rights---the right to life for all human beings,” said Byfield.
“After 20 years, it is time to reassess the policy,” said Byfield. “We hope Canadians will go to the website, read the material and think carefully about the question we pose: ‘Abortion: Have we gone too far?’ Canada is the only western country with no legal restriction on abortion and we think it is time for a national discussion on this issue. Questioning Canada’s abortion policy should not be a taboo subject.”
-30-
For more information, call Joanne Byfield at 780-939-6365 or780-445-0344 (cell) or Gudrun Schultz at 613-722-1552. For interviews in French, contact Nicole Pyle at 306-683-0829.
For Immediate Release
January 22, 2008
Abortion: Have we gone too far?
January 28 marks the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that removed all legal restrictions on abortion in Canada. In those 20 years, during which abortion has been allowed throughout all nine months of pregnancy, almost 2 million Canadian babies have been aborted.
LifeCanada, a national educational pro-life group, has launched a media campaign asking Canadians, “Have we gone too far?” by allowing unrestricted abortion. There are over 100,000 abortions each year in Canada and taxpayers pay for almost all of them.
“This isn’t health care,” said LifeCanada President Joanne Byfield. “It isn’t life saving or life giving. It takes a human life and increases a woman’s risk of many subsequent health problems. It is time we re-examined unrestricted abortion.”
Provincial and local groups across the country have sponsored billboards, transit ads and radio and newspaper ads asking Canadians to re-think their position on abortion. The ads promote a website, www.AbortionInCanada.ca, which includes statistics, history, medical research and other information on the issue.
Byfield says a pro-abortion attitude has infected our politics, our media and our national psyche. “Have we gone too far?” she asked. “Let’s look at the evidence.”
• Abortions can be performed throughout all nine months of pregnancy for no medical reason and data show that hundreds are performed each year after 20 weeks gestation, the point of viability.
• Pro-life people who protest or pray near abortion facilities can be arrested, charged and jailed for expressing their opinions.
• Campus pro-life groups across Canada are denied club status because student governments don’t want to hear pro-life opinions and don’t want others to hear them either.
• To date, the cities of Fredericton and Hamilton have refused to allow our ads to run in their transit shelters. One city councillor in Hamilton found them “offensive.”
• A bill currently before Parliament to allow the killer of a pregnant woman to be charged with two deaths is opposed on the basis that it threatens abortion rights even though the bill includes an exception for abortion. Some Canadians would rather ignore the murder of a “wanted” child than risk some notional threat to abortion rights.
Byfield said a majority of Canadians believe there should be legal protection for the unborn. In an October 2007 poll by Environics Research, 62% of Canadians said they supported legal protection at some stage of pregnancy. Women and young people aged 18 to 30 were even more supportive at 67%.
“Despite 20 years of unrestricted abortion and the suppression of a public debate on the issue, there is still strong support for protection of the most fundamental of human rights---the right to life for all human beings,” said Byfield.
“After 20 years, it is time to reassess the policy,” said Byfield. “We hope Canadians will go to the website, read the material and think carefully about the question we pose: ‘Abortion: Have we gone too far?’ Canada is the only western country with no legal restriction on abortion and we think it is time for a national discussion on this issue. Questioning Canada’s abortion policy should not be a taboo subject.”
-30-
For more information, call Joanne Byfield at 780-939-6365 or780-445-0344 (cell) or Gudrun Schultz at 613-722-1552. For interviews in French, contact Nicole Pyle at 306-683-0829.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Ezra Levant's Opening Statement at the Alberta HRC hearing
Received by email...
Ezra Levant before the Alberta HRC earlier today at 2pm....
Alberta Human Rights Commission Interrogation
Opening remarks by Ezra Levant, January 11, 2008 ? Calgary
My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government interrogation begins, I
will make a statement.
When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of
Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest
moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do
it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer
publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my
website, ezralevant.com.
I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my
position that the government has no legal or moral authority to
interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures.
That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of
speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and
the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a
bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would
be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call
those bureaucrats "the commission? or "the hrc?, since to call the
commission a "human rights commission? is to destroy the meaning of
those words.
I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The
commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate
squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a
complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were
discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds,
not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular
government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is
taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam.
So much for the separation of mosque and state.
I have read the past few years' worth of decisions from this
commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk
that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a
male hair salon student complained that he was called a "loser? by the
girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this.
Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained
that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually
agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900. In other
words, the commission is a joke ? it's the Alberta equivalent of a
U.S. television pseudo-court like Judge Judy ? except that Judge Judy
actually was a judge, whereas none of the commission's panellists are
judges, and some aren't even lawyers. And, unlike the commission,
Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech.
It's bad enough that this sick joke is being wreaked on hair salons
and restaurants. But it's even worse now that the commissions are
attacking free speech. That's my first point: the commissions have
leapt out of the small cage they were confined to, and are now
attacking our fundamental freedoms. As Alan Borovoy, Canada's leading
civil libertarian, a man who helped form these commissions in the 60's
and 70's, wrote, in specific reference to our magazine, being a censor
is, quote, "hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights
commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the
impugned cartoons.? Unquote. Since the commission is so obviously out
of control, he said quote "It would be best, therefore, to change the
provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of
interpretation.? Unquote. The commission has no legal authority to act
as censor. It is not in their statutory authority. They're just making
it up ? even Alan Borovoy says so. But even if the commissions had
some statutory fig leaf for their attempts at political and religious
censorship, it would still be unlawful and unconstitutional. We have a
heritage of free speech that we inherited from Great Britain that goes
back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta. We have a heritage of eight
hundred years of British common law protection for speech, augmented
by 250 years of common law in Canada. That common law has been
restated in various fundamental documents, especially since the Second
World War.
In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to
which Canada is a party, declared that, quote:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.? The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights guaranteed,
quote
1. " human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of
assembly and association; and (f) freedom of the press.
In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed, quote:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of
conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression, including freedom of the press and other media of
communication; Those were even called "fundamental freedoms? ? to
give them extra importance.
For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an
interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious
expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal
Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This
commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.It is also
deeply procedurally one-sided and unjust. The complainant ? in this
case, a radical Muslim imam, who was trained at an officially
anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, and who has called for sharia
law to govern Canada ? doesn't have to pay a penny; Alberta taxpayers
pay for the prosecution of the complaint against me. The victims of
the complaints, like the Western Standard, have to pay for their own
lawyers from their own pockets. Even if we win, we lose ? the process
has become the punishment. (At this point, I'd like to thank the
magazine's many donors who have given their own money to help us fight
against the Saudi imam and his enablers in the Alberta government.)It
is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply
for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence
don't apply. Rules of court don't apply. It is a system that is part
Kafka, and part Stalin. Even this interrogation today ? at which I
appear under duress ? saw the commission tell me who I could or could
not bring with me as my counsel and advisors.I have no faith in this
farcical commission. But I do have faith in the justice and good sense
of my fellow Albertans and Canadians. I believe that the better they
understand this case, the more shocked they will be. I am here under
your compulsion to answer the commission's questions. But it is not I
who am on trial: it is the freedom of all Canadians.
You may start your interrogation.
Ezra Levant before the Alberta HRC earlier today at 2pm....
Alberta Human Rights Commission Interrogation
Opening remarks by Ezra Levant, January 11, 2008 ? Calgary
My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government interrogation begins, I
will make a statement.
When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of
Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest
moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do
it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer
publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my
website, ezralevant.com.
I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my
position that the government has no legal or moral authority to
interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures.
That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of
speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and
the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a
bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would
be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call
those bureaucrats "the commission? or "the hrc?, since to call the
commission a "human rights commission? is to destroy the meaning of
those words.
I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The
commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate
squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a
complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were
discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds,
not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular
government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is
taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam.
So much for the separation of mosque and state.
I have read the past few years' worth of decisions from this
commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk
that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a
male hair salon student complained that he was called a "loser? by the
girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this.
Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained
that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually
agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900. In other
words, the commission is a joke ? it's the Alberta equivalent of a
U.S. television pseudo-court like Judge Judy ? except that Judge Judy
actually was a judge, whereas none of the commission's panellists are
judges, and some aren't even lawyers. And, unlike the commission,
Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech.
It's bad enough that this sick joke is being wreaked on hair salons
and restaurants. But it's even worse now that the commissions are
attacking free speech. That's my first point: the commissions have
leapt out of the small cage they were confined to, and are now
attacking our fundamental freedoms. As Alan Borovoy, Canada's leading
civil libertarian, a man who helped form these commissions in the 60's
and 70's, wrote, in specific reference to our magazine, being a censor
is, quote, "hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights
commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the
impugned cartoons.? Unquote. Since the commission is so obviously out
of control, he said quote "It would be best, therefore, to change the
provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of
interpretation.? Unquote. The commission has no legal authority to act
as censor. It is not in their statutory authority. They're just making
it up ? even Alan Borovoy says so. But even if the commissions had
some statutory fig leaf for their attempts at political and religious
censorship, it would still be unlawful and unconstitutional. We have a
heritage of free speech that we inherited from Great Britain that goes
back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta. We have a heritage of eight
hundred years of British common law protection for speech, augmented
by 250 years of common law in Canada. That common law has been
restated in various fundamental documents, especially since the Second
World War.
In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to
which Canada is a party, declared that, quote:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.? The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights guaranteed,
quote
1. " human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of
assembly and association; and (f) freedom of the press.
In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed, quote:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of
conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression, including freedom of the press and other media of
communication; Those were even called "fundamental freedoms? ? to
give them extra importance.
For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an
interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious
expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal
Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This
commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.It is also
deeply procedurally one-sided and unjust. The complainant ? in this
case, a radical Muslim imam, who was trained at an officially
anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, and who has called for sharia
law to govern Canada ? doesn't have to pay a penny; Alberta taxpayers
pay for the prosecution of the complaint against me. The victims of
the complaints, like the Western Standard, have to pay for their own
lawyers from their own pockets. Even if we win, we lose ? the process
has become the punishment. (At this point, I'd like to thank the
magazine's many donors who have given their own money to help us fight
against the Saudi imam and his enablers in the Alberta government.)It
is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply
for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence
don't apply. Rules of court don't apply. It is a system that is part
Kafka, and part Stalin. Even this interrogation today ? at which I
appear under duress ? saw the commission tell me who I could or could
not bring with me as my counsel and advisors.I have no faith in this
farcical commission. But I do have faith in the justice and good sense
of my fellow Albertans and Canadians. I believe that the better they
understand this case, the more shocked they will be. I am here under
your compulsion to answer the commission's questions. But it is not I
who am on trial: it is the freedom of all Canadians.
You may start your interrogation.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
2007 in Review: How Canadians Did Marriage and Family
Received by email...
2007 in Review: How Canadians Did Marriage and Family
By Kate Fraher, Researcher, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
JANUARY
Triple the love, triple complications
On the second day of 2007, the Ontario Court of Appeal made legal history by granting a boy three legal parents. A lesbian couple wanted both of their names plus the biological father’s name on the child’s birth certificate. This new precedent just made family law a whole lot more complicated (don’t even think about children’s rights).
FEBRUARY
The limits of Canadian diversity
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada called for more screening of younger expectant moms for fetal abnormalities in February. More women, they say, ought to be given the screening so they can terminate their pregnancies should they discover their child has a fetal abnormality such as Down Syndrome. Dr. Andre Lalonde told the National Post on January 6, 2007, "Yes, it's going to lead to more terminations, but it's going to be fair to these women who are 24 who say, 'How come I have to raise an infant with Down Syndrome, whereas my cousin who was 35 didn't have to?' …We have to be fair to give women a choice.”
We think we have to be fair and call a spade a spade. Eugenics is alive and well in Canada.
MARCH
Deconstructing gender- one washroom at a time…
University campuses in Manitoba, Winnipeg and Toronto advocated for gender-neutral washrooms this year to accommodate transgendered students. VP of student services for the University of Winnipeg Students’ Association told the National Post “Gender-neutral washrooms are important because it deconstructs the idea of gender as a whole.” Wiping out genders altogether is a daunting task—but not to the intrepid stalwarts of the student unions.
We think this whole policy needs to be flushed.
APRIL
Nothing says love like these e-cards
Torontonians diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infections can now send anonymous e-cards to past sexual partners. In April, Toronto joined inspot.org, an online partner notification system. Toronto Public Health received $59,220 to sign on to the service, which lets users pick one of six e-cards to notify past sexual partners that they may have been exposed to an STI.
One reads: “Who? What? When? Where? It doesn’t matter. I got an STI; you might have too. Please get checked out.” And the sex isn’t to blame, inspot.org counsels, “STIs are part of life. One reason they’re so common has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with silence.”
Sending an e-card instead of talking to someone kind of sounds like silence to us. Thank you, Toronto Public Health, for this brave, albeit anonymous, battle against the spread of STIs.
MAY
Jilted fiancé can keep $49,000 engagement ring
Jilted men will be glad to know: Engagement rings are the property of the buyer, not the receiver, if the engagement ends, according to a BC Supreme Court ruling this May. Justice Ian Pitfield ruled that an ex-groom-to-be could keep the $49,000 sparkler he gave his Vancouver fiancée. According to the judge, “the ring was given as evidence of the mutual promise to marry…The contract has been terminated. The parties should be restored to their pre-contract positions.”
Good thing things didn’t work out: A woman who breaks off an engagement and then takes her ex-fiancé to court over the ring sure ain’t worth marrying.
JUNE
No Spanking in the Senate
In June the Senate moved to eradicate Section 43, which allows parents to spank their children, from the Criminal Code of Canada with Bill S-207. Testifying before the Senate Committee on Human Rights, IMFC executive director Dave Quist said that a no-spanking law would be difficult to enforce and spawn a kind of “neighbour spy upon neighbour” mentality. He went on: “[w]orst of all, this bill is a slap in the face to children truly suffering abuse…[w]ith this current Bill in the Senate, select senators are trivializing parenthood by micromanaging how good parents discipline, while turning attention away from real abuse.”
JULY
Baby TV
For better or worse, BabyFirstTV entered Canadian homes this July. The channel is advertised as being “designed to enhance baby’s development in a delightful and engaging way.” Better or worse than daycare? Class size is certainly smaller. Chalk one up for Baby TV.
AUGUST
Web site details government licensed daycare conditions
In May the Toronto Star broke the news that certain licensed daycares in Ontario were running under substandard conditions—information that was only made public thanks to access to information requests.
In August, the Ontario government launched a web site for parents to be able to check on whether or not licenses centres have provisional licenses, and why.
Is launching a web site the very best they can do when they’ve overseen dysfunctional daycares for years? It’s enough to make all of us instant libertarians.
SEPTEMBER
Our marriage is extremely important, honey
An Aug/Sept 2007 poll by the Canadian Press- Harris-Decima, found 53 percent of Canadians think marriage is less important to society than in years past, but only 17 percent say it is less important to them personally.
Of the 83 per cent who said marriage is just as important to them today as in years past, fully 100 per cent had their spouse standing behind them, telling them how to answer that question.
OCTOBER
Drug wars
On October 4, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the National Anti-Drug Strategy with an additional injection of $63.8 million to the existing $385 million spent on drug programs. Of the new money, $10 million will go to prevention aimed at youth and their parents. Over the next two years, $21.6 million will go to law enforcement and $32.2 million will go to funding treatment.
Drug prevention begins with parents. “A good drug policy for families must confront permissive cultural apathy towards drug abuse with current and accurate information,” wrote the IMFC’s Peter Jon Mitchell. Smoking up is as bad as smoking, for example, not necessarily a message teens today are getting: Canadian teens use marijuana at higher rates than other countries.
NOVEMBER
Adult stem cells just as viable
Two scientific papers confirmed in November that adult human cells can be reprogrammed to function in the same way as embryonic stem cells .The author of one of these cutting edge studies was also the first scientist to isolate human embryonic stem cells in 1998. Now in 2007, his latest study shows it is possible to produce “induced pluripotent state cells” (iPSCs) with all the characteristics of human embryonic stem cells from adult human cells.
DECEMBER
Remembering Tracy Latimer
Robert Latimer was denied parole on December 5 for the murder of his daughter, Tracy.
Born on November 23, 1980, Tracy loved spending time with her family. She preferred meat and potatoes to spaghetti, which she would eat only slowly. She enjoyed playing dress up with her sisters, and would choose red nail polish over all other colours.Her father killed her by carbon monoxide asphyxiation in the family garage in 1993.
Elite opinion has shown a reverent compassion, not for the little girl, but rather, for the father who killed her. We can debate whether he is a threat to society forever, as did a Globe and Mail editorial on December 6—but clearly this is not the only reason why we incarcerate criminals. Robert doesn’t deserve a shorter sentence. Tracy deserved far better than she received.
2007 in Review: How Canadians Did Marriage and Family
By Kate Fraher, Researcher, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
JANUARY
Triple the love, triple complications
On the second day of 2007, the Ontario Court of Appeal made legal history by granting a boy three legal parents. A lesbian couple wanted both of their names plus the biological father’s name on the child’s birth certificate. This new precedent just made family law a whole lot more complicated (don’t even think about children’s rights).
FEBRUARY
The limits of Canadian diversity
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada called for more screening of younger expectant moms for fetal abnormalities in February. More women, they say, ought to be given the screening so they can terminate their pregnancies should they discover their child has a fetal abnormality such as Down Syndrome. Dr. Andre Lalonde told the National Post on January 6, 2007, "Yes, it's going to lead to more terminations, but it's going to be fair to these women who are 24 who say, 'How come I have to raise an infant with Down Syndrome, whereas my cousin who was 35 didn't have to?' …We have to be fair to give women a choice.”
We think we have to be fair and call a spade a spade. Eugenics is alive and well in Canada.
MARCH
Deconstructing gender- one washroom at a time…
University campuses in Manitoba, Winnipeg and Toronto advocated for gender-neutral washrooms this year to accommodate transgendered students. VP of student services for the University of Winnipeg Students’ Association told the National Post “Gender-neutral washrooms are important because it deconstructs the idea of gender as a whole.” Wiping out genders altogether is a daunting task—but not to the intrepid stalwarts of the student unions.
We think this whole policy needs to be flushed.
APRIL
Nothing says love like these e-cards
Torontonians diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infections can now send anonymous e-cards to past sexual partners. In April, Toronto joined inspot.org, an online partner notification system. Toronto Public Health received $59,220 to sign on to the service, which lets users pick one of six e-cards to notify past sexual partners that they may have been exposed to an STI.
One reads: “Who? What? When? Where? It doesn’t matter. I got an STI; you might have too. Please get checked out.” And the sex isn’t to blame, inspot.org counsels, “STIs are part of life. One reason they’re so common has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with silence.”
Sending an e-card instead of talking to someone kind of sounds like silence to us. Thank you, Toronto Public Health, for this brave, albeit anonymous, battle against the spread of STIs.
MAY
Jilted fiancé can keep $49,000 engagement ring
Jilted men will be glad to know: Engagement rings are the property of the buyer, not the receiver, if the engagement ends, according to a BC Supreme Court ruling this May. Justice Ian Pitfield ruled that an ex-groom-to-be could keep the $49,000 sparkler he gave his Vancouver fiancée. According to the judge, “the ring was given as evidence of the mutual promise to marry…The contract has been terminated. The parties should be restored to their pre-contract positions.”
Good thing things didn’t work out: A woman who breaks off an engagement and then takes her ex-fiancé to court over the ring sure ain’t worth marrying.
JUNE
No Spanking in the Senate
In June the Senate moved to eradicate Section 43, which allows parents to spank their children, from the Criminal Code of Canada with Bill S-207. Testifying before the Senate Committee on Human Rights, IMFC executive director Dave Quist said that a no-spanking law would be difficult to enforce and spawn a kind of “neighbour spy upon neighbour” mentality. He went on: “[w]orst of all, this bill is a slap in the face to children truly suffering abuse…[w]ith this current Bill in the Senate, select senators are trivializing parenthood by micromanaging how good parents discipline, while turning attention away from real abuse.”
JULY
Baby TV
For better or worse, BabyFirstTV entered Canadian homes this July. The channel is advertised as being “designed to enhance baby’s development in a delightful and engaging way.” Better or worse than daycare? Class size is certainly smaller. Chalk one up for Baby TV.
AUGUST
Web site details government licensed daycare conditions
In May the Toronto Star broke the news that certain licensed daycares in Ontario were running under substandard conditions—information that was only made public thanks to access to information requests.
In August, the Ontario government launched a web site for parents to be able to check on whether or not licenses centres have provisional licenses, and why.
Is launching a web site the very best they can do when they’ve overseen dysfunctional daycares for years? It’s enough to make all of us instant libertarians.
SEPTEMBER
Our marriage is extremely important, honey
An Aug/Sept 2007 poll by the Canadian Press- Harris-Decima, found 53 percent of Canadians think marriage is less important to society than in years past, but only 17 percent say it is less important to them personally.
Of the 83 per cent who said marriage is just as important to them today as in years past, fully 100 per cent had their spouse standing behind them, telling them how to answer that question.
OCTOBER
Drug wars
On October 4, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the National Anti-Drug Strategy with an additional injection of $63.8 million to the existing $385 million spent on drug programs. Of the new money, $10 million will go to prevention aimed at youth and their parents. Over the next two years, $21.6 million will go to law enforcement and $32.2 million will go to funding treatment.
Drug prevention begins with parents. “A good drug policy for families must confront permissive cultural apathy towards drug abuse with current and accurate information,” wrote the IMFC’s Peter Jon Mitchell. Smoking up is as bad as smoking, for example, not necessarily a message teens today are getting: Canadian teens use marijuana at higher rates than other countries.
NOVEMBER
Adult stem cells just as viable
Two scientific papers confirmed in November that adult human cells can be reprogrammed to function in the same way as embryonic stem cells .The author of one of these cutting edge studies was also the first scientist to isolate human embryonic stem cells in 1998. Now in 2007, his latest study shows it is possible to produce “induced pluripotent state cells” (iPSCs) with all the characteristics of human embryonic stem cells from adult human cells.
DECEMBER
Remembering Tracy Latimer
Robert Latimer was denied parole on December 5 for the murder of his daughter, Tracy.
Born on November 23, 1980, Tracy loved spending time with her family. She preferred meat and potatoes to spaghetti, which she would eat only slowly. She enjoyed playing dress up with her sisters, and would choose red nail polish over all other colours.Her father killed her by carbon monoxide asphyxiation in the family garage in 1993.
Elite opinion has shown a reverent compassion, not for the little girl, but rather, for the father who killed her. We can debate whether he is a threat to society forever, as did a Globe and Mail editorial on December 6—but clearly this is not the only reason why we incarcerate criminals. Robert doesn’t deserve a shorter sentence. Tracy deserved far better than she received.
The Free Thinking Film Society Presents "Indoctrinate-U:Our Education, Their Politics"
Received by email...
Press Release
For Immediate Release
The Free Thinking Film Society Presents "Indoctrinate-U:Our Education, Their Politics"
Date: February 18, 2008, 7:00 PM
Place: National Archives/Library of Canada, 395 Wellington Str Ottawa
Admission: $6.00
Press passes available upon request
On February 18, 2008, Ottawa will have opportunity to see the powerful new film, "Indoctrinate-U - a film about left-wing indoctrination at Universities in the United States.
Speech codes. Censorship. Enforced political conformity. Hostility to diversity of opinion. Sensitivity training. We usually associate such things with the worst excesses of fascism and communism, not with the American universities that nurtured the free speech movement. But American higher education bears a disturbing resemblance to the totalitarian societies that are anathema to our nation's ideal of liberty. Evan Coyne Maloney's documentary film, Indoctrinate U, reveals the breathtaking institutional intolerance you won't read about in the glossy marketing brochures of Harvard, Berkeley, Michigan, Yale, and hundreds of other American colleges and universities.
Evan Coyne Maloney spent two years traveling to campuses across the country, interviewing students, professors, and administrators to find out what life on campus is really like. Instead of the vibrant debate, intellectual diversity, and academic freedom we like to associate with universities, Maloney found violent protests at UC Santa Cruz and San Francisco State, persecution of student members of a conservative club at Cal Poly and the University of Tennessee, divisive racial and ethnic politics at the University of Michigan and Yale, doctrinaire teaching at Duke and Columbia, and much more.
"We are delighted at being able to show this film in Ottawa. Even though this film is American, it is every bit as relevant to what goes on at Canadian Universities," said Fred Litwin, President of the Free Thinking Film Society.
The Free Thinking Film Society was established in 2007 in Ottawa to provide an alternative to the dominant narrative provided by regular art-house fare.
To that end, The Free Thinking Film Society is dedicated to showing challenging conservative/libertarian films - films that would otherwise NEVER play in Ottawa.
From the website: "Tired of documentaries that always seem to blame the west and want bigger government as a solution to every problem? If so, you've come to the right place. We will be presenting alternative conservative/libertarian films that really make you think"
For more info: www.freethinkingfilms.com
See the trailer: http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html
Reviews: http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/reviews.html
Contact: Fred Litwin:
Ph: 613-261-9060
info@freethinkingfilms.com
Press Release
For Immediate Release
The Free Thinking Film Society Presents "Indoctrinate-U:Our Education, Their Politics"
Date: February 18, 2008, 7:00 PM
Place: National Archives/Library of Canada, 395 Wellington Str Ottawa
Admission: $6.00
Press passes available upon request
On February 18, 2008, Ottawa will have opportunity to see the powerful new film, "Indoctrinate-U - a film about left-wing indoctrination at Universities in the United States.
Speech codes. Censorship. Enforced political conformity. Hostility to diversity of opinion. Sensitivity training. We usually associate such things with the worst excesses of fascism and communism, not with the American universities that nurtured the free speech movement. But American higher education bears a disturbing resemblance to the totalitarian societies that are anathema to our nation's ideal of liberty. Evan Coyne Maloney's documentary film, Indoctrinate U, reveals the breathtaking institutional intolerance you won't read about in the glossy marketing brochures of Harvard, Berkeley, Michigan, Yale, and hundreds of other American colleges and universities.
Evan Coyne Maloney spent two years traveling to campuses across the country, interviewing students, professors, and administrators to find out what life on campus is really like. Instead of the vibrant debate, intellectual diversity, and academic freedom we like to associate with universities, Maloney found violent protests at UC Santa Cruz and San Francisco State, persecution of student members of a conservative club at Cal Poly and the University of Tennessee, divisive racial and ethnic politics at the University of Michigan and Yale, doctrinaire teaching at Duke and Columbia, and much more.
"We are delighted at being able to show this film in Ottawa. Even though this film is American, it is every bit as relevant to what goes on at Canadian Universities," said Fred Litwin, President of the Free Thinking Film Society.
The Free Thinking Film Society was established in 2007 in Ottawa to provide an alternative to the dominant narrative provided by regular art-house fare.
To that end, The Free Thinking Film Society is dedicated to showing challenging conservative/libertarian films - films that would otherwise NEVER play in Ottawa.
From the website: "Tired of documentaries that always seem to blame the west and want bigger government as a solution to every problem? If so, you've come to the right place. We will be presenting alternative conservative/libertarian films that really make you think"
For more info: www.freethinkingfilms.com
See the trailer: http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html
Reviews: http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/reviews.html
Contact: Fred Litwin:
Ph: 613-261-9060
info@freethinkingfilms.com
Friday, December 28, 2007
Stand with Silent No More on January 24th
Received by email....
Dear Silent No More Women and Friends for Life:
January 28th, 2008 marks the 20 year anniversary when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion law in Canada, giving us NO law or restrictions on abortions. As you can see in the articles below, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, a Jewish immigrant who survived Dachau and Aushwitz came to Canada and began to break the laws, to change the laws in order for him and others to legally abort Canadian babies without question.
He runs the most abortion clinics across Canada and has done over 70,000 abortions with his own hands.
Already, several newspapers are heralding him a hero for women's rights and feature columns in the Sun chain newspapers hail this 20th anniversary as a victory for women. Sadly, we know the truth that abortion killed our children, and hurt us deeply. Most of us were lied to, and decieved about the fetal development and were told it was a "safe" procedure. However, many women aborted the only child or children they could ever have! Some of us have suffered irreparable damage to our cervix, uterus and reproductive health. Most of us have suffered the great anguish, guilt, remorse and regret of this diabolical procedure.
And it is TIME to BREAK the SILENCE!
Jesus took our shame and guilt on the cross at Calvary. We have been forgiven, and we are to be the salt and light of the earth. It is time for them to hear our voices, and to testify about the pain of abortion, exposing the lies and rhetoric. We must be a voice for the voiceless, Proverbs 31:8 says that we are to "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves and for the rights of the needy." I believe that as we come out in numbers, together, out of the ashes of pain and remorse, humbly, in humility that God will bless us, that people will hear our testimonies and know what we, as expert witnesses are saying is TRUE. I believe that teens who are pregnant, afraid and thinking of aborting their babies, will hear our voices and change their minds...and BABIES will LIVE! Let us stand together in unity, in one accord and denounce these last 20 years of abortion on demand, and declare that abortion is a wrong, and not a right! Abortion HURTS women and killed our children...it is child sacrifice and should be unthinkable.
Stand with us on JANUARY 24th, 2008 at 10:AM in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, in Ottawa, Ontario and mourn with us for the hundreds of thousands of babies murdered in our land, almost 3 million. Please dress in BLACK to represent the deaths of these children and ours. Please prepare to give a 3 minute impact statement on how you were affected by your abortion(s), if you are not ready to speak publicly, thats okay, but please stand with us, pray for the others who will speak.
I believe that GOD is going to use our testimonies to change hearts, minds, laws and HISTORY for such a time as this. Please ask your Pastors/Women's Ministry Leaders, friends, family to help send you to Ottawa on Jan. 23rd, to join us for Jan. 24th. We are making arrangements to stay one night at the National House of Prayer in Ottawa Jan. 23rd to pray and prepare for this timely assembly for justice for the unborn, to warn women of the dangers of abortion and to denounce 20 years of abortion on demand.
Please read the info below to get an idea of the legal history. Please pray about this historical event, and be a part of changing hearts, minds, laws and history. Hope to see you there. Do not be afraid, fear not, for the Lord our God is with us. If you have any questions or concerns please call or contact me. If you cannot go, but could help support others to go, please send donations to 'Canada Silent No More' and mail to address below. "We defeat Satan by the Blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony..." Rev. 12:11
PLEASE JOIN US IN SUPPORT OF THIS HISTORICAL EVENT!
Sincerely,
Denise Mountenay
Canada Silent No More
www.canadasilentnomore.com
Dear Silent No More Women and Friends for Life:
January 28th, 2008 marks the 20 year anniversary when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion law in Canada, giving us NO law or restrictions on abortions. As you can see in the articles below, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, a Jewish immigrant who survived Dachau and Aushwitz came to Canada and began to break the laws, to change the laws in order for him and others to legally abort Canadian babies without question.
He runs the most abortion clinics across Canada and has done over 70,000 abortions with his own hands.
Already, several newspapers are heralding him a hero for women's rights and feature columns in the Sun chain newspapers hail this 20th anniversary as a victory for women. Sadly, we know the truth that abortion killed our children, and hurt us deeply. Most of us were lied to, and decieved about the fetal development and were told it was a "safe" procedure. However, many women aborted the only child or children they could ever have! Some of us have suffered irreparable damage to our cervix, uterus and reproductive health. Most of us have suffered the great anguish, guilt, remorse and regret of this diabolical procedure.
And it is TIME to BREAK the SILENCE!
Jesus took our shame and guilt on the cross at Calvary. We have been forgiven, and we are to be the salt and light of the earth. It is time for them to hear our voices, and to testify about the pain of abortion, exposing the lies and rhetoric. We must be a voice for the voiceless, Proverbs 31:8 says that we are to "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves and for the rights of the needy." I believe that as we come out in numbers, together, out of the ashes of pain and remorse, humbly, in humility that God will bless us, that people will hear our testimonies and know what we, as expert witnesses are saying is TRUE. I believe that teens who are pregnant, afraid and thinking of aborting their babies, will hear our voices and change their minds...and BABIES will LIVE! Let us stand together in unity, in one accord and denounce these last 20 years of abortion on demand, and declare that abortion is a wrong, and not a right! Abortion HURTS women and killed our children...it is child sacrifice and should be unthinkable.
Stand with us on JANUARY 24th, 2008 at 10:AM in front of the Supreme Court of Canada, in Ottawa, Ontario and mourn with us for the hundreds of thousands of babies murdered in our land, almost 3 million. Please dress in BLACK to represent the deaths of these children and ours. Please prepare to give a 3 minute impact statement on how you were affected by your abortion(s), if you are not ready to speak publicly, thats okay, but please stand with us, pray for the others who will speak.
I believe that GOD is going to use our testimonies to change hearts, minds, laws and HISTORY for such a time as this. Please ask your Pastors/Women's Ministry Leaders, friends, family to help send you to Ottawa on Jan. 23rd, to join us for Jan. 24th. We are making arrangements to stay one night at the National House of Prayer in Ottawa Jan. 23rd to pray and prepare for this timely assembly for justice for the unborn, to warn women of the dangers of abortion and to denounce 20 years of abortion on demand.
Please read the info below to get an idea of the legal history. Please pray about this historical event, and be a part of changing hearts, minds, laws and history. Hope to see you there. Do not be afraid, fear not, for the Lord our God is with us. If you have any questions or concerns please call or contact me. If you cannot go, but could help support others to go, please send donations to 'Canada Silent No More' and mail to address below. "We defeat Satan by the Blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony..." Rev. 12:11
PLEASE JOIN US IN SUPPORT OF THIS HISTORICAL EVENT!
Sincerely,
Denise Mountenay
Canada Silent No More
www.canadasilentnomore.com
Monday, December 10, 2007
REAL Women: Dishonesty and Duplicity by the Standing Committee On the Status of Women
Received by email...
Media Release
Ottawa, Ontario December 10, 2007
Dishonesty and Duplicity by the Standing Committee
On the Status of Women
Even though three other opposition-dominated House of Commons Committees have recently reviewed the de-funding of the Court Challenges Program (CCP), the opposition dominated Standing Committee on the Status of Women was eager to review it once again. In doing so, the Committee decided that integrity, honesty and proper ethics should not stand in the way of its obvious objective of recommending that the CCP be re-established.
This was apparent from it’s hearing held on Tuesday, December 4, 2007. At this hearing there were seven witnesses, all but one of which had a conflict of interest in regard to the CCP. That is, the witnesses either held prominent positions on the now disbanded CCP, or were members of the largest beneficiary of the CCP, LEAF (Women’s Legal Education Action Fund). In some cases, the witnesses held both positions. The only witness at the hearing without a conflict of interest was the one representing REAL Women of Canada.
It was significant that this conflict of interest of the witnesses was never disclosed during the proceedings.
The hearing was chaired by NDP MP Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshaw) whose actions as chair were appalling. She twice posed questions of the panelists without vacating the chair, and ignored the witness REAL Women of Canada countless times but permitted the feminist activists on the panel to speak for extended periods of time without interruption. The witnesses at this hearing were as follows:
Shelagh Day: Ms. Day represented the organization on the panel, the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA).
In her presentation, Ms. Day did not disclose the significant fact that she was the former chairperson of the Equality Rights Panel of the CCP. Ms. Day also is the formed vice-president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC); former chair of the lesbian caucus at the UN Beijing Conference on Women, as well as a member of the Steering Committee of FAFIA.
During the Committee proceedings, Ms. Day stated that she was a proud feminist and lesbian, but she failed to disclose that during her appointment as chairperson of the CCP, that is, between 1994 and 2005 (according to CCP’s 2004-2005 Annual Report) the CCP provided resources for 41 homosexual cases as well as the 140 cases for LEAF. The promotion of one’s personal views, both feminist and homosexual, as chairperson of the Equality Panel of the CCP, was a betrayal of her responsibilities, as well as that of the Canadian taxpayers, who funded the CCP.
Sharon McIvor Ms. McIvor was listed on the panel only as an "individual". In fact, she was also a former member of the Equality Rights Panel of the CCP. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of FAFIA, already represented on the panel by Ms. Day. In her testimony before the Committee, Ms. McIvor claimed she had no other support for her legal challenge of the status of Aboriginal Women case except that of the CCP. In fact, according to her website, Ms. McIvor’s case is receiving resources from the British Columbia government and the Service Employee’s Union which is presently also calling on its allies to contribute additional resources for her case.
Martha Jackman, National Association of Women and the Law: Ms. Jackman did not disclose in her testimony before the Committee that she was also a former member of the Equality Panel of the CCP. She is also currently a member of the Board of Directors of LEAF.
Doris Buss: Represented LEAF on the panel, although there is nothing on the website of Ms. Buss to state that she is actually a member of LEAF. Ms. Buss is the author of several papers on feminism and international law, including a paper criticizing the "Christian Right" in international politics (2003).
Elizabeth Atcheson: Although described on the witness list only as an "individual", Ms. Atcheson failed to disclose that she, in fact, is the current chair of the Board of Directors of LEAF, in addition to being one of its founding members. In fact, Ms. Atcheson was one of the co-authors of a paper written in 1984 recommending the principles behind the establishment of LEAF.
Carmela Hutchison: Ms. Hutchison, although representing the Disabled Women’s Network of Canada (DAWN) on the panel, is also a member of the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, already represented on the panel by Ms. Day.
In short, a handful of feminists who had previously had control of the CCP and who have been the largest beneficiary of that Program, have masqueraded at this Status of Women hearing as independent feminist groups to give the false impression that they represented a large cross section of women. They, in fact, represent only a handful of interchangeable individuals operating under different hats in order to push for the re-establishment of the CCP of which they have been its largest beneficiaries.
Bias of NDP MP, Chairperson Irene Mathyssen
As stated above, without vacating the Chair, the Chairperson NDP Mathyssen posed several questions to only the feminist panel on behalf of the NDP party. She asked whether the disbanding of the CCP was detrimental to Canada’s international obligations and reputation under the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This question was obviously pre-arranged since both Ms. Day and Ms. McIvor as members of FAFIA had appeared before the CEDAW Monitoring Committee in 2003 and 2005 with complaints about Canada’s failure to supposedly promote equality for women. Based on their complaints, CEDAW issued a report criticizing the Canadian government. It should be pointed out that the CEDAW Committee is largely a committee of feminist NGO’s whose membership is comprised mainly of representatives of international radical feminist groups. CEDAW’s criticism therefore does not carry any weight (its recommendations are unenforceable) except for propaganda purposes as occurred at this hearing.
Further sittings of the Status of Women Committee
on the Court Challenges Programme
The Status of Women Committee plans to have one further sitting on the CCP on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 with three witnesses. These include:
The National Anti Racism Council of Canada
Represented by Estella Muyinda, Executive Director
Native Women’s Association of Canada
Represented by Beverley Jacobs, President, and Mary Eberts, Legal Counsel. Ms. Eberts is yet another member of LEAF who has, over the years, argued many cases on LEAF’s behalf before the courts. Ms. Eberts together with Ms. Atcheson (above) wrote a paper which led to the establishment of LEAF.
Regroupement québécois des Centre d’aide et de lutte contre les aggressions à caractère sexuel
Represented by Carole Tremblay, Liaison officer
Objectivity, honesty and integrity were clearly lacking on the Status of Women Committee proceedings on the CCP. The purpose of the hearing was to further feminist objectives in Canada by way of renewed federal funding of the CCP. As such, these proceedings were a disgrace to Parliament and the democratic process.
- 30 -
Contact:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt Diane Watts
National Vice President Researcher
(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425 (613) 236-4001
(905) 889-1993
Media Release
Ottawa, Ontario December 10, 2007
Dishonesty and Duplicity by the Standing Committee
On the Status of Women
Even though three other opposition-dominated House of Commons Committees have recently reviewed the de-funding of the Court Challenges Program (CCP), the opposition dominated Standing Committee on the Status of Women was eager to review it once again. In doing so, the Committee decided that integrity, honesty and proper ethics should not stand in the way of its obvious objective of recommending that the CCP be re-established.
This was apparent from it’s hearing held on Tuesday, December 4, 2007. At this hearing there were seven witnesses, all but one of which had a conflict of interest in regard to the CCP. That is, the witnesses either held prominent positions on the now disbanded CCP, or were members of the largest beneficiary of the CCP, LEAF (Women’s Legal Education Action Fund). In some cases, the witnesses held both positions. The only witness at the hearing without a conflict of interest was the one representing REAL Women of Canada.
It was significant that this conflict of interest of the witnesses was never disclosed during the proceedings.
The hearing was chaired by NDP MP Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshaw) whose actions as chair were appalling. She twice posed questions of the panelists without vacating the chair, and ignored the witness REAL Women of Canada countless times but permitted the feminist activists on the panel to speak for extended periods of time without interruption. The witnesses at this hearing were as follows:
Shelagh Day: Ms. Day represented the organization on the panel, the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA).
In her presentation, Ms. Day did not disclose the significant fact that she was the former chairperson of the Equality Rights Panel of the CCP. Ms. Day also is the formed vice-president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC); former chair of the lesbian caucus at the UN Beijing Conference on Women, as well as a member of the Steering Committee of FAFIA.
During the Committee proceedings, Ms. Day stated that she was a proud feminist and lesbian, but she failed to disclose that during her appointment as chairperson of the CCP, that is, between 1994 and 2005 (according to CCP’s 2004-2005 Annual Report) the CCP provided resources for 41 homosexual cases as well as the 140 cases for LEAF. The promotion of one’s personal views, both feminist and homosexual, as chairperson of the Equality Panel of the CCP, was a betrayal of her responsibilities, as well as that of the Canadian taxpayers, who funded the CCP.
Sharon McIvor Ms. McIvor was listed on the panel only as an "individual". In fact, she was also a former member of the Equality Rights Panel of the CCP. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of FAFIA, already represented on the panel by Ms. Day. In her testimony before the Committee, Ms. McIvor claimed she had no other support for her legal challenge of the status of Aboriginal Women case except that of the CCP. In fact, according to her website, Ms. McIvor’s case is receiving resources from the British Columbia government and the Service Employee’s Union which is presently also calling on its allies to contribute additional resources for her case.
Martha Jackman, National Association of Women and the Law: Ms. Jackman did not disclose in her testimony before the Committee that she was also a former member of the Equality Panel of the CCP. She is also currently a member of the Board of Directors of LEAF.
Doris Buss: Represented LEAF on the panel, although there is nothing on the website of Ms. Buss to state that she is actually a member of LEAF. Ms. Buss is the author of several papers on feminism and international law, including a paper criticizing the "Christian Right" in international politics (2003).
Elizabeth Atcheson: Although described on the witness list only as an "individual", Ms. Atcheson failed to disclose that she, in fact, is the current chair of the Board of Directors of LEAF, in addition to being one of its founding members. In fact, Ms. Atcheson was one of the co-authors of a paper written in 1984 recommending the principles behind the establishment of LEAF.
Carmela Hutchison: Ms. Hutchison, although representing the Disabled Women’s Network of Canada (DAWN) on the panel, is also a member of the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, already represented on the panel by Ms. Day.
In short, a handful of feminists who had previously had control of the CCP and who have been the largest beneficiary of that Program, have masqueraded at this Status of Women hearing as independent feminist groups to give the false impression that they represented a large cross section of women. They, in fact, represent only a handful of interchangeable individuals operating under different hats in order to push for the re-establishment of the CCP of which they have been its largest beneficiaries.
Bias of NDP MP, Chairperson Irene Mathyssen
As stated above, without vacating the Chair, the Chairperson NDP Mathyssen posed several questions to only the feminist panel on behalf of the NDP party. She asked whether the disbanding of the CCP was detrimental to Canada’s international obligations and reputation under the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This question was obviously pre-arranged since both Ms. Day and Ms. McIvor as members of FAFIA had appeared before the CEDAW Monitoring Committee in 2003 and 2005 with complaints about Canada’s failure to supposedly promote equality for women. Based on their complaints, CEDAW issued a report criticizing the Canadian government. It should be pointed out that the CEDAW Committee is largely a committee of feminist NGO’s whose membership is comprised mainly of representatives of international radical feminist groups. CEDAW’s criticism therefore does not carry any weight (its recommendations are unenforceable) except for propaganda purposes as occurred at this hearing.
Further sittings of the Status of Women Committee
on the Court Challenges Programme
The Status of Women Committee plans to have one further sitting on the CCP on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 with three witnesses. These include:
The National Anti Racism Council of Canada
Represented by Estella Muyinda, Executive Director
Native Women’s Association of Canada
Represented by Beverley Jacobs, President, and Mary Eberts, Legal Counsel. Ms. Eberts is yet another member of LEAF who has, over the years, argued many cases on LEAF’s behalf before the courts. Ms. Eberts together with Ms. Atcheson (above) wrote a paper which led to the establishment of LEAF.
Regroupement québécois des Centre d’aide et de lutte contre les aggressions à caractère sexuel
Represented by Carole Tremblay, Liaison officer
Objectivity, honesty and integrity were clearly lacking on the Status of Women Committee proceedings on the CCP. The purpose of the hearing was to further feminist objectives in Canada by way of renewed federal funding of the CCP. As such, these proceedings were a disgrace to Parliament and the democratic process.
- 30 -
Contact:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt Diane Watts
National Vice President Researcher
(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425 (613) 236-4001
(905) 889-1993
Friday, November 30, 2007
Japan in the Death Spiral
From Human Life International, Received by email...
By Brian Clowes, PhD)
For years, Catholic pro-lifers have been warning that abortion,
sterilization and contraception cause the collapse of an individual's
morality and the destruction of families.
Now, demographers are indirectly telling us that these evils are
destroying entire nations and continents. Unfortunately, governments do
not even acknowledge the root cause of the problem of the "demographic
death spiral."
An impending white paper by the Japanese government tells us that the
"foundations of communities" - police, fire and other basic services -
will be threatened by the country's declining birthrate and aging
population.
This paper correctly identifies the source of the problem - that
Japanese are simply not having enough children. For a nation to replace
its population, each woman must have an average of 2.1 children per
family. Japanese women average a disastrously low one child.
Japan's population peaked in 2005, and will plunge from its current 127
million to just 89 million in 2050 - a decline of thirty percent. Japan
is currently the oldest nation on Earth (median age 43, twice the age of
many African nations). Japan will continue to hold this dubious title
through the year 2050, when the average Japanese will be 61 years old.
Inevitably, more and more Japanese leaders are looking for the easy way
out of the dilemma of "over-aging." On October 18 of this year, the
Japanese Association of Acute Medicine became the first organization to
recommend euthanasia for the terminally ill.
Melancholy signs of a declining population are everywhere in Japan.
During Japan's 2007 Children's Day, the government soberly noted that
the number of children in Japan has declined for the 26th consecutive
year. Over the past decade, more than 2,000 junior and senior high
schools have closed due to lack of children, but many are enjoying new
life as elderly care centers. More than 60,000 teachers have lost their
jobs because they have no children to teach. Elders of villages who
traditionally call out the names of newborns at autumn festivals often
have no names to call. More than 90 Japanese theme parks catering to
children have closed. More and more pediatricians are switching
specialties and becoming geriatricians.
Saddest of all is the sight of elderly Japanese women cuddling
Takara-Tomy's talking Yumel robotic dolls. These women buy these
expensive dolls because they have no children or grandchildren to lavish
their attentions on. The dolls, which are selling very well, tell their
owner how much they love her and welcome her when she walks back into
the room. Yuko Hirakawa of Takara-Tomy says that "many elderly people
think the dolls are actual grandsons and granddaughters."
Some prefectures and cities have tried just about everything to entice
young couples to have children. They have offered substantial cash
bonuses to couples who have more than one child, and have even sponsored
dances and "speed dating" parties to get young singles together. In
2006, the Year of the Dog, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi urged women
to "do as dogs do" and have large litters!
Unfortunately - and predictably - none of this has worked.
After all, if a government promotes "family planning" for decades, if it
drills into the people's heads the idea that children are messy, noisy,
expensive, and bad for the environment, once it has promoted and funded
millions and millions of abortions, there is really no way back. As
proof, an amazing 70 percent of young Japanese single women say they
have no intention of getting married.
Babies are just too much trouble.
What is the solution to the vexing and lethal trend of "country-cide"?
Some suggest massive immigration, but Japanese society is 99 percent
ethnically homogenous and very xenophobic. It is not an exaggeration to
say that many Japanese leaders would rather allow their culture to die
than to be diluted or assimilated.
The only solution to the plague of depopulation is to rekindle the love
of God and children in the people's hearts. The Japanese must undo three
decades of anti-natalist propaganda with an intensive program of
teaching the people the value of family, the beauty and joy that
children provide, and the satisfaction of fidelity to a husband or a
wife until death.
These are not religious values, these are human values, and they are the
only answer to the death of a nation.
Japan must learn this lesson if it does not wish the Rising Sun to set -
forever.
By Brian Clowes, PhD)
For years, Catholic pro-lifers have been warning that abortion,
sterilization and contraception cause the collapse of an individual's
morality and the destruction of families.
Now, demographers are indirectly telling us that these evils are
destroying entire nations and continents. Unfortunately, governments do
not even acknowledge the root cause of the problem of the "demographic
death spiral."
An impending white paper by the Japanese government tells us that the
"foundations of communities" - police, fire and other basic services -
will be threatened by the country's declining birthrate and aging
population.
This paper correctly identifies the source of the problem - that
Japanese are simply not having enough children. For a nation to replace
its population, each woman must have an average of 2.1 children per
family. Japanese women average a disastrously low one child.
Japan's population peaked in 2005, and will plunge from its current 127
million to just 89 million in 2050 - a decline of thirty percent. Japan
is currently the oldest nation on Earth (median age 43, twice the age of
many African nations). Japan will continue to hold this dubious title
through the year 2050, when the average Japanese will be 61 years old.
Inevitably, more and more Japanese leaders are looking for the easy way
out of the dilemma of "over-aging." On October 18 of this year, the
Japanese Association of Acute Medicine became the first organization to
recommend euthanasia for the terminally ill.
Melancholy signs of a declining population are everywhere in Japan.
During Japan's 2007 Children's Day, the government soberly noted that
the number of children in Japan has declined for the 26th consecutive
year. Over the past decade, more than 2,000 junior and senior high
schools have closed due to lack of children, but many are enjoying new
life as elderly care centers. More than 60,000 teachers have lost their
jobs because they have no children to teach. Elders of villages who
traditionally call out the names of newborns at autumn festivals often
have no names to call. More than 90 Japanese theme parks catering to
children have closed. More and more pediatricians are switching
specialties and becoming geriatricians.
Saddest of all is the sight of elderly Japanese women cuddling
Takara-Tomy's talking Yumel robotic dolls. These women buy these
expensive dolls because they have no children or grandchildren to lavish
their attentions on. The dolls, which are selling very well, tell their
owner how much they love her and welcome her when she walks back into
the room. Yuko Hirakawa of Takara-Tomy says that "many elderly people
think the dolls are actual grandsons and granddaughters."
Some prefectures and cities have tried just about everything to entice
young couples to have children. They have offered substantial cash
bonuses to couples who have more than one child, and have even sponsored
dances and "speed dating" parties to get young singles together. In
2006, the Year of the Dog, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi urged women
to "do as dogs do" and have large litters!
Unfortunately - and predictably - none of this has worked.
After all, if a government promotes "family planning" for decades, if it
drills into the people's heads the idea that children are messy, noisy,
expensive, and bad for the environment, once it has promoted and funded
millions and millions of abortions, there is really no way back. As
proof, an amazing 70 percent of young Japanese single women say they
have no intention of getting married.
Babies are just too much trouble.
What is the solution to the vexing and lethal trend of "country-cide"?
Some suggest massive immigration, but Japanese society is 99 percent
ethnically homogenous and very xenophobic. It is not an exaggeration to
say that many Japanese leaders would rather allow their culture to die
than to be diluted or assimilated.
The only solution to the plague of depopulation is to rekindle the love
of God and children in the people's hearts. The Japanese must undo three
decades of anti-natalist propaganda with an intensive program of
teaching the people the value of family, the beauty and joy that
children provide, and the satisfaction of fidelity to a husband or a
wife until death.
These are not religious values, these are human values, and they are the
only answer to the death of a nation.
Japan must learn this lesson if it does not wish the Rising Sun to set -
forever.
Planned Parenthood is losing the battle
From American Life League, received by email...
Giving Thanks to God For All of the Victories Against PP in 2007
Here at American Life League, we are in the process of conducting ourannual survey of Planned Parenthood locations across the United States. The survey will be completed in December and we'll let you know the results. But, it now appears that, once again, despite a clear emphasis by Planned Parenthood to open new clinics in 2007, it will have closed more than it opened.
That fact led us to thank God for directing our efforts against Planned Parenthood. On this Thanksgiving, we look back to some of the victories in the battle against Planned Parenthood this year. A total list is much too long for this weekly report, but we bring you below some of the significant ones in the various areas where we fight Planned Parenthood. The victories, of course, are not those of any one group, but of pro-life people all across the nation who come together to fight the evil that is Planned Parenthood.
To God goes all the glory.
Planned Parenthood has always tried to gain a positive public image,but its failure to do so became readily apparent as it worked to sneak into cities of Oregon, Illinois and Colorado. Admitting that if the public knew that these facilities were owned by Planned Parenthood it would be the subject of much opposition by the communities.
a.. The 22,000 sq. ft. Planned Parenthood abortion facility was delayed in its opening thanks to the pro-lifers in Aurora, Illinois Special thanks to Eric Scheidler and the Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood as they continue to mobilize thousands of people to fight against this killing
center.
b.. The pro-lifers in Portland, Oregon are putting up a fight against the Planned Parenthood abortion mill that is scheduled to be built there. Bill Diss and the Precious Children of Portland have put together what many visitors are calling the most ecumenical fight against Planned Parenthood in the country. Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals and Muslims are all working together to stop this clinic from being built in a predominantly African-American neighborhood.
c.. Planned Parenthood in Denver, Colorado is facing incredible opposition to its plans to build a 50,000 sq. ft abortion facility that is scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2008. Will Duffy and Colorado Families Against Planned Parenthood are working hard to keep PP out of Denver. Archbishop Chaput and the Colorado Catholic Conference have issued a statement condemning Planned Parenthood and imploring citizens to fight against this clinic using "every legal and ethical means at their disposal."
Planned Parenthood's image problem is affecting its bottom line. According to Planned Parenthood's 2005-2006 annual report, its clinic income actually went down $1.7 million from the previous year. Although this is not a very large decline, it is the first year-to-year decline for Planned Parenthood in over 50 years.
Since American Life League is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, we do not endorse or oppose any candidates for public office, but we are happy to report the following successes in the battle against Planned Parenthood.
a.. Congress takes vote on Planned Parenthood funding. In July of this year, 45percent of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to deny all Title X funds to Planned Parenthood, by name. It was the first time ever that PP had faced such a vote. To come so close to losing is evidence of the growing political problems facing PP.
a.. Illinois governor takes some Planned Parenthood dollars out of state budget.
Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich used his veto power to remove a total of $463 million from the state budget that had been passed by lawmakers. As part of the cuts, a $65,000 grant to Planned Parenthood in east central Illinois was axed.
b.. California legislature denies PP a $24 million budget increase.
On August 24, California's $145.5 billion state budget for 2007-2008 passed, but it did not include an increase in reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal services. This was a major defeat for PP.
Planned Parenthood's legal and other problems
More evidence of Planned Parenthood's public relations woes include:
a.. Planned Parenthood must defend itself against criminal charges
In Overland Park, Kansas, the local district attorney, Phill Kline, has
filed 107 criminal charges against Planned Parenthood for violating
provisions of the state's abortion laws.
a.. Federal appellate court rules against Planned Parenthood in
contraceptive coverage suit
The New York Times reported that the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
ruled that Union Pacific's health plans did not violate the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act and the company would not be required to cover
contraception.
a.. Hannity's America exposes Planned Parenthood's lies and deceit
The Hannity's America program on the Fox News Channel aired a story
that focused on the lies and deceit being practiced across the country by
Planned Parenthood.
b.. Planned Parenthood denied United Way funds in upstate New York
Planned Parenthood of Buffalo and Erie County in New York asked
United Way for $3,000 to help cover moving expenses due to its merger and United Way
said no.
c.. Planned Parenthood event brings in only one teen
The first attempt for Planned Parenthood's "Real Life. Real Talk."
workshop in Texas was a failure for Planned Parenthood. No one showed up.
The second attempt, held at the Church of the Heavenly Rest, an Episcopal
church in Abilene, brought in only one teen.
d.. A Catholic University stops running Planned Parenthood ads
President Charles J. Dougherty of Duquesne University has ordered the
campus radio station WDUQ to stop running Planned Parenthood
advertisements.
e.. Planned Parenthood Federation of America pleads for help
Planned Parenthood Federation of America's President Cecile Richards
has sent out e-mail blasts pleading for help for PP in an effort to tread
water as the pro-lifers continue to fight this evil organization!
Source: Stop Planned Parenthood (stopp@all.org)
Giving Thanks to God For All of the Victories Against PP in 2007
Here at American Life League, we are in the process of conducting ourannual survey of Planned Parenthood locations across the United States. The survey will be completed in December and we'll let you know the results. But, it now appears that, once again, despite a clear emphasis by Planned Parenthood to open new clinics in 2007, it will have closed more than it opened.
That fact led us to thank God for directing our efforts against Planned Parenthood. On this Thanksgiving, we look back to some of the victories in the battle against Planned Parenthood this year. A total list is much too long for this weekly report, but we bring you below some of the significant ones in the various areas where we fight Planned Parenthood. The victories, of course, are not those of any one group, but of pro-life people all across the nation who come together to fight the evil that is Planned Parenthood.
To God goes all the glory.
Planned Parenthood has always tried to gain a positive public image,but its failure to do so became readily apparent as it worked to sneak into cities of Oregon, Illinois and Colorado. Admitting that if the public knew that these facilities were owned by Planned Parenthood it would be the subject of much opposition by the communities.
a.. The 22,000 sq. ft. Planned Parenthood abortion facility was delayed in its opening thanks to the pro-lifers in Aurora, Illinois Special thanks to Eric Scheidler and the Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood as they continue to mobilize thousands of people to fight against this killing
center.
b.. The pro-lifers in Portland, Oregon are putting up a fight against the Planned Parenthood abortion mill that is scheduled to be built there. Bill Diss and the Precious Children of Portland have put together what many visitors are calling the most ecumenical fight against Planned Parenthood in the country. Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals and Muslims are all working together to stop this clinic from being built in a predominantly African-American neighborhood.
c.. Planned Parenthood in Denver, Colorado is facing incredible opposition to its plans to build a 50,000 sq. ft abortion facility that is scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2008. Will Duffy and Colorado Families Against Planned Parenthood are working hard to keep PP out of Denver. Archbishop Chaput and the Colorado Catholic Conference have issued a statement condemning Planned Parenthood and imploring citizens to fight against this clinic using "every legal and ethical means at their disposal."
Planned Parenthood's image problem is affecting its bottom line. According to Planned Parenthood's 2005-2006 annual report, its clinic income actually went down $1.7 million from the previous year. Although this is not a very large decline, it is the first year-to-year decline for Planned Parenthood in over 50 years.
Since American Life League is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, we do not endorse or oppose any candidates for public office, but we are happy to report the following successes in the battle against Planned Parenthood.
a.. Congress takes vote on Planned Parenthood funding. In July of this year, 45percent of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to deny all Title X funds to Planned Parenthood, by name. It was the first time ever that PP had faced such a vote. To come so close to losing is evidence of the growing political problems facing PP.
a.. Illinois governor takes some Planned Parenthood dollars out of state budget.
Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich used his veto power to remove a total of $463 million from the state budget that had been passed by lawmakers. As part of the cuts, a $65,000 grant to Planned Parenthood in east central Illinois was axed.
b.. California legislature denies PP a $24 million budget increase.
On August 24, California's $145.5 billion state budget for 2007-2008 passed, but it did not include an increase in reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal services. This was a major defeat for PP.
Planned Parenthood's legal and other problems
More evidence of Planned Parenthood's public relations woes include:
a.. Planned Parenthood must defend itself against criminal charges
In Overland Park, Kansas, the local district attorney, Phill Kline, has
filed 107 criminal charges against Planned Parenthood for violating
provisions of the state's abortion laws.
a.. Federal appellate court rules against Planned Parenthood in
contraceptive coverage suit
The New York Times reported that the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
ruled that Union Pacific's health plans did not violate the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act and the company would not be required to cover
contraception.
a.. Hannity's America exposes Planned Parenthood's lies and deceit
The Hannity's America program on the Fox News Channel aired a story
that focused on the lies and deceit being practiced across the country by
Planned Parenthood.
b.. Planned Parenthood denied United Way funds in upstate New York
Planned Parenthood of Buffalo and Erie County in New York asked
United Way for $3,000 to help cover moving expenses due to its merger and United Way
said no.
c.. Planned Parenthood event brings in only one teen
The first attempt for Planned Parenthood's "Real Life. Real Talk."
workshop in Texas was a failure for Planned Parenthood. No one showed up.
The second attempt, held at the Church of the Heavenly Rest, an Episcopal
church in Abilene, brought in only one teen.
d.. A Catholic University stops running Planned Parenthood ads
President Charles J. Dougherty of Duquesne University has ordered the
campus radio station WDUQ to stop running Planned Parenthood
advertisements.
e.. Planned Parenthood Federation of America pleads for help
Planned Parenthood Federation of America's President Cecile Richards
has sent out e-mail blasts pleading for help for PP in an effort to tread
water as the pro-lifers continue to fight this evil organization!
Source: Stop Planned Parenthood (stopp@all.org)
FCP Leader Denounces Increased Use of Taxpayer Money for Abortion
Received by Email...
Straight thoughts 160
November 30th, 2007
At a time when in the US the number of abortions is at an all-time low since 1974 and most Republican candidates are eager to appear as much pro-life as they possibly can, the Ontario Premier is still beholden to the policies of false feminism.
The Ontario Premier is increasing the funding for abortion with the excuse that waiting times for this “service” in Ottawa have increased, as some doctors performing abortions in the Ottawa Hospital were on vacation during the summer.
In reality, many women regret having abortions and many suffer physical and psychological problems as a result of abortion.
Instead of spending more of our money for an immoral cause, McGuinty should work on reducing abortions by informing women of the risks of abortion, informing them of the humanity of the unborn and proposing alternatives to abortion.
The Family Coalition Party has policies that would support pregnant women, provide health coverage for children in the womb; give tax credits for adoptions; promote abstinence in schools; require pro-life information to be provided to women requesting abortions; require a mandatory cooling period before abortions; require parental consent for minors; require the reporting of complications due to abortions; allow the freedom to health care workers to opt-out from performing or helping perform abortions and restore freedom of speech of pro-lifers to peacefully demonstrate in front of abortion “clinics”.
As a result, we would reduce the number of abortions; stop using public funds for abortions; stop extra billing for elective procedures, such as abortion, and stop using public funds for private abortion “clinics”.
The problem is not “waiting times for abortions”, but the killing of human beings!
For more information, please click on: www.FamilyCoalitionParty.com
Giuseppe Gori, Leader
Family Coalition Party of Ontario
Straight thoughts 160
November 30th, 2007
At a time when in the US the number of abortions is at an all-time low since 1974 and most Republican candidates are eager to appear as much pro-life as they possibly can, the Ontario Premier is still beholden to the policies of false feminism.
The Ontario Premier is increasing the funding for abortion with the excuse that waiting times for this “service” in Ottawa have increased, as some doctors performing abortions in the Ottawa Hospital were on vacation during the summer.
In reality, many women regret having abortions and many suffer physical and psychological problems as a result of abortion.
Instead of spending more of our money for an immoral cause, McGuinty should work on reducing abortions by informing women of the risks of abortion, informing them of the humanity of the unborn and proposing alternatives to abortion.
The Family Coalition Party has policies that would support pregnant women, provide health coverage for children in the womb; give tax credits for adoptions; promote abstinence in schools; require pro-life information to be provided to women requesting abortions; require a mandatory cooling period before abortions; require parental consent for minors; require the reporting of complications due to abortions; allow the freedom to health care workers to opt-out from performing or helping perform abortions and restore freedom of speech of pro-lifers to peacefully demonstrate in front of abortion “clinics”.
As a result, we would reduce the number of abortions; stop using public funds for abortions; stop extra billing for elective procedures, such as abortion, and stop using public funds for private abortion “clinics”.
The problem is not “waiting times for abortions”, but the killing of human beings!
For more information, please click on: www.FamilyCoalitionParty.com
Giuseppe Gori, Leader
Family Coalition Party of Ontario
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
From REAL Women:Ontario Progressive Conservatives Will be Defeated in the 2011 Provincial Election If John Tory Remains Party Leader
Received by email...
In September 2004, REAL Women wrote to members of the then Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus stating that unless there were substantial changes in the party platform, as well in the leader, we predicted that the party would be defeated in the 2007 provincial election.
REAL Women was prescient in this regard. There was little in the Progressive Conservative 2007 election platform to distinguish it from that of the Liberal Party. This led to the Progressive Conservative Party’s electoral defeat.
REAL Women has again written to the present Progressive Conservative caucus in a letter dated November 28, 2007 advising it that the REAL Women can, with some assurance, predict a Liberal victory in the 2011 provincial election unless there are substantial changes to the Progress Conservative platform and its leader John Tory.
That is, Ontario has changed since the era of Premier William Davis in that the province has moved by incremental stages to the right. The result of this is that there can no longer be a Conservative victory in this province without the support of social conservatives.
The voter turnout for the October election hit a record low, breaking the record set in 1923 of 54.7%. In fact, only 52.6% of the eligible voters in Ontario went to the polls in October 2007. One can be certain that many of the no-shows at the polling booths were social conservatives who believed there was no major party for which they could cast their vote.
It is realized that the proposed funding of faith-based schools was a contributing factor to the Progressive Conservative defeat. To our certain knowledge, however, many Jewish and Christian supporters of faith-based schools did not accept the proposal of Mr. Tory on faith-based schools, because of the strings attached to it. Many believed that the funding was a step toward the integration of the denominational schools into the public school system. Conservative strategists ignored the fact that less than half of the faith-based schools would consider its funding proposal (November 2007 issue of Policy Options Magazine).
Another concern arose over Mr. Tory’s failure to promote and support the traditional family of mother, father and children – so necessary for the continuation of society. Instead, Mr. Tory continued to promote homosexuality and same-sex marriage as equivalent to marriage of a man and a woman. The fact that same-sex marriage has been legalized – albeit by undemocratic means – does not make it either right or acceptable to social conservatives.
Mr. Tory’s apparent lack of concern for traditional values was also exemplified by his marching in the Gay Parade in Toronto in 2007. He had little understanding that this action sealed his political doom.
Further, it has not gone unnoticed that Mr. Tory has just appointed as his Chief of Staff Andy Pringle, a former member of the Fundraising Advisory Committee for the homosexual 519 Community Centre in Toronto.
Mr. Tory’s support of homosexual behavior (not just homosexuals as individuals) was apparent by his comments reported in the homosexual newspaper Capital Xtra (September 6, 2007 issue). Mr. Tory indicated in his interview, that he was open to the promotion of homosexuality in the schools and otherwise – which again was deeply disturbing to social conservative parents.
It is hoped that the Progressive Conservative party will, in its analysis of its recent defeat, consider a leader and a platform more suitable for these political times – which means one who is more attuned to socially conservative values. To do otherwise, will, regretfully, we predict, lead to another electoral defeat for the Party in 2011.
-30-
Contact:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt Diane Watts
National Vice President Researcher, National Office
(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425 (613) 236-4001
(905) 889-1993
In September 2004, REAL Women wrote to members of the then Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus stating that unless there were substantial changes in the party platform, as well in the leader, we predicted that the party would be defeated in the 2007 provincial election.
REAL Women was prescient in this regard. There was little in the Progressive Conservative 2007 election platform to distinguish it from that of the Liberal Party. This led to the Progressive Conservative Party’s electoral defeat.
REAL Women has again written to the present Progressive Conservative caucus in a letter dated November 28, 2007 advising it that the REAL Women can, with some assurance, predict a Liberal victory in the 2011 provincial election unless there are substantial changes to the Progress Conservative platform and its leader John Tory.
That is, Ontario has changed since the era of Premier William Davis in that the province has moved by incremental stages to the right. The result of this is that there can no longer be a Conservative victory in this province without the support of social conservatives.
The voter turnout for the October election hit a record low, breaking the record set in 1923 of 54.7%. In fact, only 52.6% of the eligible voters in Ontario went to the polls in October 2007. One can be certain that many of the no-shows at the polling booths were social conservatives who believed there was no major party for which they could cast their vote.
It is realized that the proposed funding of faith-based schools was a contributing factor to the Progressive Conservative defeat. To our certain knowledge, however, many Jewish and Christian supporters of faith-based schools did not accept the proposal of Mr. Tory on faith-based schools, because of the strings attached to it. Many believed that the funding was a step toward the integration of the denominational schools into the public school system. Conservative strategists ignored the fact that less than half of the faith-based schools would consider its funding proposal (November 2007 issue of Policy Options Magazine).
Another concern arose over Mr. Tory’s failure to promote and support the traditional family of mother, father and children – so necessary for the continuation of society. Instead, Mr. Tory continued to promote homosexuality and same-sex marriage as equivalent to marriage of a man and a woman. The fact that same-sex marriage has been legalized – albeit by undemocratic means – does not make it either right or acceptable to social conservatives.
Mr. Tory’s apparent lack of concern for traditional values was also exemplified by his marching in the Gay Parade in Toronto in 2007. He had little understanding that this action sealed his political doom.
Further, it has not gone unnoticed that Mr. Tory has just appointed as his Chief of Staff Andy Pringle, a former member of the Fundraising Advisory Committee for the homosexual 519 Community Centre in Toronto.
Mr. Tory’s support of homosexual behavior (not just homosexuals as individuals) was apparent by his comments reported in the homosexual newspaper Capital Xtra (September 6, 2007 issue). Mr. Tory indicated in his interview, that he was open to the promotion of homosexuality in the schools and otherwise – which again was deeply disturbing to social conservative parents.
It is hoped that the Progressive Conservative party will, in its analysis of its recent defeat, consider a leader and a platform more suitable for these political times – which means one who is more attuned to socially conservative values. To do otherwise, will, regretfully, we predict, lead to another electoral defeat for the Party in 2011.
-30-
Contact:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt Diane Watts
National Vice President Researcher, National Office
(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425 (613) 236-4001
(905) 889-1993
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Pro-life students are being silenced from one end of the country to the other
Received by email. Spread the word...
One university after another is denying students who are pro-life, the right to form a club. The latest victims of this onslaught are the young students at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay Ontario. They have just been informed that their application has been denied because they are "too controversial." Defending the right to life of the most vulnerable has become too controversial for a university campus. What ever happened to Freedom of expression at institutes of higher learning? What about the "Free exchange of ideas"?
The students should not be shocked or surprised by this latest denial. It falls on the heals of identical decisions at Kelowna BC's UBC campus, North Vancouver's Capilano College, Memorial University of Newfoundland, and the list goes on. In total more than 20 universities across this country have denied, banned or in some way interfered with the freedom of speech and assembly of university students in recent years. These decisions are not so much being made by the institutions themselves as they are by the student governing bodies on campus. The student unions are affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Students who have a radical pro-choice policy when it comes to abortion. They will tolerate no opposition to abortion on their campuses to the extent of infringing on member students personal liberties guaranteed under the Canadian Charter.
Campaign Life Coalition BC has responded to these developments by broadcasting the news to as many sources as possible. Publicity of injustice can sometimes bring about a needed change in policy. Unfortunately the onslaught continues in spite of our efforts. We have also assisted these young people in pursuing as many legal avenues as are open to them to challenge these atrocious rulings. These challenges ultimately require financial assistance but we can only be as generous as our finances allow.
If you think students attending institutions of higher learning should have the freedom to speak for life while at school; if you agree that spreading the message of life is a good thing for university students to do; if you understand that these young people can not be expected to fight these battles without our help, then please consider sending them a message of support and a donation of encouragement. They need to hear from their elders that they are on the right track. They need to know that we won't abandon them in their enthusiasm to proclaim the Life is Precious message.
Please send a note of appreciation and support to us along with a donation to their legal defense fund we are setting up. The enemy has unlimited resources because of mandatory students union fees while these students have only your generosity. With them, I hope and pray that you will come to their aid.
Campaign Life Coalition BC will set up a special account for the university student's legal costs. We won't be able to fill all of the needs they have but we promise to make sure they are not left without any hope
As you send your donation to us please make the checks out to Campaign Life Coalition BC at the address below and in the memo box please note "LEGAL FUND"
Thank you so much in advance as I know you won't let these students down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Life
John Hof, president
Campaign Life Coalition BC
Box 12045 Murrayville PO
Langley, BC V3A 9J5
Phone: 604-534-4828
Email: info@clcbc.org
Website: www.clcbc.org
One university after another is denying students who are pro-life, the right to form a club. The latest victims of this onslaught are the young students at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay Ontario. They have just been informed that their application has been denied because they are "too controversial." Defending the right to life of the most vulnerable has become too controversial for a university campus. What ever happened to Freedom of expression at institutes of higher learning? What about the "Free exchange of ideas"?
The students should not be shocked or surprised by this latest denial. It falls on the heals of identical decisions at Kelowna BC's UBC campus, North Vancouver's Capilano College, Memorial University of Newfoundland, and the list goes on. In total more than 20 universities across this country have denied, banned or in some way interfered with the freedom of speech and assembly of university students in recent years. These decisions are not so much being made by the institutions themselves as they are by the student governing bodies on campus. The student unions are affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Students who have a radical pro-choice policy when it comes to abortion. They will tolerate no opposition to abortion on their campuses to the extent of infringing on member students personal liberties guaranteed under the Canadian Charter.
Campaign Life Coalition BC has responded to these developments by broadcasting the news to as many sources as possible. Publicity of injustice can sometimes bring about a needed change in policy. Unfortunately the onslaught continues in spite of our efforts. We have also assisted these young people in pursuing as many legal avenues as are open to them to challenge these atrocious rulings. These challenges ultimately require financial assistance but we can only be as generous as our finances allow.
If you think students attending institutions of higher learning should have the freedom to speak for life while at school; if you agree that spreading the message of life is a good thing for university students to do; if you understand that these young people can not be expected to fight these battles without our help, then please consider sending them a message of support and a donation of encouragement. They need to hear from their elders that they are on the right track. They need to know that we won't abandon them in their enthusiasm to proclaim the Life is Precious message.
Please send a note of appreciation and support to us along with a donation to their legal defense fund we are setting up. The enemy has unlimited resources because of mandatory students union fees while these students have only your generosity. With them, I hope and pray that you will come to their aid.
Campaign Life Coalition BC will set up a special account for the university student's legal costs. We won't be able to fill all of the needs they have but we promise to make sure they are not left without any hope
As you send your donation to us please make the checks out to Campaign Life Coalition BC at the address below and in the memo box please note "LEGAL FUND"
Thank you so much in advance as I know you won't let these students down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Life
John Hof, president
Campaign Life Coalition BC
Box 12045 Murrayville PO
Langley, BC V3A 9J5
Phone: 604-534-4828
Email: info@clcbc.org
Website: www.clcbc.org
Monday, November 12, 2007
First Ever Canadian National Fathers and Men’s Rights Group launched.
MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release
Ottawa, November 12th, 2007
Dads are back!
First Ever Canadian National Fathers and Men’s Rights Group launched.
On this important and auspicious day it is announced that a new, nationwide, truly representative organization that offers a voice for Canadian fathers and men in Canada has finally been launched. “FathersCan” is an organization which will work on behalf of Canadian Men and Fathers and their various provincial representatives to report and serve the many groups and individuals who have sought and continue to seek to reform government, the justice system, the courts, and the various provincial and federal entities which have been so much part of the destruction of so many families. FathersCan will work to constantly inform and brief the media, and the Canadian public and will help to reflect the reality and the truth about the inequities and biased and discriminatory state of the Canadian Family Law system and its impact on Canadian fathers, their families and their children,
FathersCan, with headquarters in Ottawa, will be a nationwide, coast to coast, coalition of separated and divorced men and fathers, and the many women who support them. We are committed to working together to achieve real reform in Family Law; to re-unite fathers and their children; to reveal the truth about the oxymoronic entity described as “family law” and provide real, tangible and immediate support to abused husbands and children; and to work to restore the emotional, psychological, and physical well-being of Canadian Dads and men which has been so thoroughly and very methodically destroyed in recent years.
FathersCan is first and foremost a source of direct representation and support for the thousands of men, fathers, and children being systematically deprived of their rights by Family Courts in Canada.
FathersCan will advocate for and represent fathers and men who are being systematically discriminated against by the family justice system, lawyers, government and social agencies, and by government itself and its legislated policies in Canada.
FathersCan will provide the basis for a national ‘political’ voice for fathers and family rights groups across the country. We will act on a national and international level to facilitate the establishment, organization, and promotion of fathers’ and family rights causes and organisations across Canada and around the world.
FathersCan will act as a facilitator to guide and direct affected Canadians to local affiliated support groups. It will directly serve the national membership in collection, sharing, and dissemination of data and information across Canada.
FathersCan will help provide infrastructure, resources, data, direct representation and leadership to local support groups in order to help them support their membership and at the same time advance positive reforms to fathers’ and men’s rights with respect to family law and other domestic issues.
FathersCan will help to provide information and news on fathers’ issues to fathers and their representatives, the public, the media, and to governments across Canada and around the world.
FathersCan will work to ensure that Canadian Men, Fathers and their children are properly represented
Dads are Back !
For more information please contact Jeremy Swanson, at 613-237-1320 x2438; email us at FathersCan c/o swanson@storm.ca; or write to us at FathersCan, 1010–180 Argyle Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 1B7; or visit us at fatherscan.blogspot.com.
For immediate release
Ottawa, November 12th, 2007
Dads are back!
First Ever Canadian National Fathers and Men’s Rights Group launched.
On this important and auspicious day it is announced that a new, nationwide, truly representative organization that offers a voice for Canadian fathers and men in Canada has finally been launched. “FathersCan” is an organization which will work on behalf of Canadian Men and Fathers and their various provincial representatives to report and serve the many groups and individuals who have sought and continue to seek to reform government, the justice system, the courts, and the various provincial and federal entities which have been so much part of the destruction of so many families. FathersCan will work to constantly inform and brief the media, and the Canadian public and will help to reflect the reality and the truth about the inequities and biased and discriminatory state of the Canadian Family Law system and its impact on Canadian fathers, their families and their children,
FathersCan, with headquarters in Ottawa, will be a nationwide, coast to coast, coalition of separated and divorced men and fathers, and the many women who support them. We are committed to working together to achieve real reform in Family Law; to re-unite fathers and their children; to reveal the truth about the oxymoronic entity described as “family law” and provide real, tangible and immediate support to abused husbands and children; and to work to restore the emotional, psychological, and physical well-being of Canadian Dads and men which has been so thoroughly and very methodically destroyed in recent years.
FathersCan is first and foremost a source of direct representation and support for the thousands of men, fathers, and children being systematically deprived of their rights by Family Courts in Canada.
FathersCan will advocate for and represent fathers and men who are being systematically discriminated against by the family justice system, lawyers, government and social agencies, and by government itself and its legislated policies in Canada.
FathersCan will provide the basis for a national ‘political’ voice for fathers and family rights groups across the country. We will act on a national and international level to facilitate the establishment, organization, and promotion of fathers’ and family rights causes and organisations across Canada and around the world.
FathersCan will act as a facilitator to guide and direct affected Canadians to local affiliated support groups. It will directly serve the national membership in collection, sharing, and dissemination of data and information across Canada.
FathersCan will help provide infrastructure, resources, data, direct representation and leadership to local support groups in order to help them support their membership and at the same time advance positive reforms to fathers’ and men’s rights with respect to family law and other domestic issues.
FathersCan will help to provide information and news on fathers’ issues to fathers and their representatives, the public, the media, and to governments across Canada and around the world.
FathersCan will work to ensure that Canadian Men, Fathers and their children are properly represented
Dads are Back !
For more information please contact Jeremy Swanson, at 613-237-1320 x2438; email us at FathersCan c/o swanson@storm.ca; or write to us at FathersCan, 1010–180 Argyle Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 1B7; or visit us at fatherscan.blogspot.com.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Church Bars Trans Politicianfrom Relative's Wedding
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: November 8, 2007 - 5:00 pm ET
(Rome) An Italian couple has been told the bride's cousin cannot attend the wedding because she is transsexual, supports gay rights and is a critic of the Catholic Church.
Vladimir Luxuria was to have been a bridesmaid at the wedding, to take place this weekend at an ancient chapel in Foggia, in southern Italy.
Italian media report that the chapel's priest told the couple that it has a choice to make: either they disinvite Luxuria or they do not marry.
The priest, identified as a Fr Francesco, said Luxuria does not represent "family values".
Luxuria is a member of Italy's Communist Party and a member of Prime Minister Prodi's ruling coalition.
She was elected to Parliament last year, becoming the first transgendered politician elected to a national government in Europe.
Luxuria has been a popular fixture in Rome's LGBT community for more than a decade. She is a cabaret performer and in 1994 organized the county's first gay pride march.
In Parliament she has been a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage, earning her frequent criticism from the Church.
Earlier this year she went to Moscow to support gays trying to organize a pride march and was one of several European politicians briefly arrested.
The ban on her attending her cousin's wedding prompted a sharp rebuke for the Church from her party which called the priest's action "illegal and racist".
"Once again, the Church shows its discriminatory and fundamentalist face," the party said in a statement.
©365Gay.com 2007
(Received by email)
Posted: November 8, 2007 - 5:00 pm ET
(Rome) An Italian couple has been told the bride's cousin cannot attend the wedding because she is transsexual, supports gay rights and is a critic of the Catholic Church.
Vladimir Luxuria was to have been a bridesmaid at the wedding, to take place this weekend at an ancient chapel in Foggia, in southern Italy.
Italian media report that the chapel's priest told the couple that it has a choice to make: either they disinvite Luxuria or they do not marry.
The priest, identified as a Fr Francesco, said Luxuria does not represent "family values".
Luxuria is a member of Italy's Communist Party and a member of Prime Minister Prodi's ruling coalition.
She was elected to Parliament last year, becoming the first transgendered politician elected to a national government in Europe.
Luxuria has been a popular fixture in Rome's LGBT community for more than a decade. She is a cabaret performer and in 1994 organized the county's first gay pride march.
In Parliament she has been a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage, earning her frequent criticism from the Church.
Earlier this year she went to Moscow to support gays trying to organize a pride march and was one of several European politicians briefly arrested.
The ban on her attending her cousin's wedding prompted a sharp rebuke for the Church from her party which called the priest's action "illegal and racist".
"Once again, the Church shows its discriminatory and fundamentalist face," the party said in a statement.
©365Gay.com 2007
(Received by email)
Thursday, November 8, 2007
MUN for LIFE President Acclaimed to Serve on MUNSU Board of Directors
Thursday, November 08, 2007
PRESS RELEASE
MUN for LIFE President Acclaimed to Serve on MUNSU Board of Directors
Patrick Hanlon, pro-life leader and Memorial University of Newfoundland Students for LIFE (MUN for LIFE) President, was acclaimed to serve on the officially pro-choice MUN Students' Union Board of Directors (MUNSU) as an Arts Representative. MUNSU had a number of vacancies, so it planned to hold a by-election following the close of nominations on October 19, 2007. Hanlon submitted his nomination papers and no body ran against him. His acclamation, along with others, was ratified by MUNSU at its regular meeting on November 7.
Patrick Hanlon believes that all students should have representation on MUNSU and be treated equitably and respectfully by their union. However, there are concerns that MUNSU is not representing all students. This is due to the fact that MUSNU has adopted the Canadian Federation of Students position on abortion, despite the contrary opinions of many MUN students. MUNSU's mandate should be to attempt to represent all different opinions on campus and not take the position of a political organization. As a result of this political position, pro-life students have been denied their right to organize as a group and have free speech under the banner of MUN for LIFE. These students have also been on the receiving end of unsubstantiated slanderous allegations from MUNSU officials.
Since MUNSU denied MUN for LIFE ratification at its September 26, 2007 meeting, both pro-life and anti-life (pro-choice) students have been expressing their displeasure at MUNSU for signaling the death of free speech on a university campus. MUN for LIFE has extended multiple invitations to MUNSU's directors to meet with its President to discuss its ratification, unfortunately all declined. MUN for LIFE has also attempted to reconcile this situation by attending MUNSU meetings, speaking with permission, and seeking consolation, unfortunately MUNSU's directors declined once again.
Upon being acclaimed, Hanlon said "I like to think of the old adage 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.' But that does not apply in this case. This conflict is not resolved. There is more to come. We, MUN for LIFE will continue our struggle for fair and equal treatment by MUNSU. We can not rest while babies are dying and women are hurting. I am now in an interesting position to lobby on behalf of MUN for LIFE, and all other students not currently represented by MUNSU"
At the November 7 MUNSU meeting Patrick Hanlon gave notice that at the November 14 he intends to table a motion to reconsider the September 26 denial of MUN for LIFE's application for ratification. Hanlon hopes that MUNSU will take this opportunity to reserve the precedent setting decision to discriminate against someone, and deny them their right to free speech, because of their political opinions.
##
For further information for commentary contact:
Patrick Hanlon
(709) 579-1500
MUNforLIFE@gmail.com
(received by email)
PRESS RELEASE
MUN for LIFE President Acclaimed to Serve on MUNSU Board of Directors
Patrick Hanlon, pro-life leader and Memorial University of Newfoundland Students for LIFE (MUN for LIFE) President, was acclaimed to serve on the officially pro-choice MUN Students' Union Board of Directors (MUNSU) as an Arts Representative. MUNSU had a number of vacancies, so it planned to hold a by-election following the close of nominations on October 19, 2007. Hanlon submitted his nomination papers and no body ran against him. His acclamation, along with others, was ratified by MUNSU at its regular meeting on November 7.
Patrick Hanlon believes that all students should have representation on MUNSU and be treated equitably and respectfully by their union. However, there are concerns that MUNSU is not representing all students. This is due to the fact that MUSNU has adopted the Canadian Federation of Students position on abortion, despite the contrary opinions of many MUN students. MUNSU's mandate should be to attempt to represent all different opinions on campus and not take the position of a political organization. As a result of this political position, pro-life students have been denied their right to organize as a group and have free speech under the banner of MUN for LIFE. These students have also been on the receiving end of unsubstantiated slanderous allegations from MUNSU officials.
Since MUNSU denied MUN for LIFE ratification at its September 26, 2007 meeting, both pro-life and anti-life (pro-choice) students have been expressing their displeasure at MUNSU for signaling the death of free speech on a university campus. MUN for LIFE has extended multiple invitations to MUNSU's directors to meet with its President to discuss its ratification, unfortunately all declined. MUN for LIFE has also attempted to reconcile this situation by attending MUNSU meetings, speaking with permission, and seeking consolation, unfortunately MUNSU's directors declined once again.
Upon being acclaimed, Hanlon said "I like to think of the old adage 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.' But that does not apply in this case. This conflict is not resolved. There is more to come. We, MUN for LIFE will continue our struggle for fair and equal treatment by MUNSU. We can not rest while babies are dying and women are hurting. I am now in an interesting position to lobby on behalf of MUN for LIFE, and all other students not currently represented by MUNSU"
At the November 7 MUNSU meeting Patrick Hanlon gave notice that at the November 14 he intends to table a motion to reconsider the September 26 denial of MUN for LIFE's application for ratification. Hanlon hopes that MUNSU will take this opportunity to reserve the precedent setting decision to discriminate against someone, and deny them their right to free speech, because of their political opinions.
##
For further information for commentary contact:
Patrick Hanlon
(709) 579-1500
MUNforLIFE@gmail.com
(received by email)
Friday, November 2, 2007
OUT FROM UNDER: The IMPACT of HOMOSEXUAL PARENTING
OUT FROM UNDER: The IMPACT of HOMOSEXUAL PARENTING
Dear friends,
“In a politically correct climate, how could the child of an overtly homosexual father communicate to society her experience of personal trauma and her message that children are affected by the sexual example of their parents? The provocative speaker and new author has broadcast her passionate saga to audiences and lawmakers in the U.S., Canada, and beyond…”
After three and a half years, my book, Out From Under, is now here. You can order it by phone at 1-877-421-READ (7323) or visit online at: http://www.annotationbooks.com .
E-mail and tell your family and friends about the book. There is no other book quite like this one! You are welcome to print the press release and share the promo sheet with media. Check out the latest news articles and research on my website and add it to your favourites and links’ section of your website…Let me know if you wish to book me for a speaking engagement. Adam Cothes, my publicist, will assist in scheduling all interviews.
Thank you so much for your interest in ordering my book. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Dawn Stefanowicz,
Author
Book Review
Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting is a compelling, fast-paced, and no-holds-barred narrative of one child’s journey from birth to the end of innocence—and beyond—as the daughter of a homosexual father. Dawn Stefanowicz honestly and sympathetically exposes the transfixing saga of unexpected emotional tangles, discarded dreams, and a desperate search for Daddy’s love. Sobering and colorful, revealing while upholding a standard for good taste, the book uncovers Dawn’s shocking experiences, confused responses, and ultimate redemption as she compassionately reaches out to her father, facing a tragic death from AIDS, in 1991. Now an outspoken advocate of laws protecting children, it took Dawn into her early 30s to realize how her “alternative” rearing impacted her. See how she confronts the forbidden darkness of sexual activities, gets out from under the foreboding weight of family secrets, and finds a future filled with surprising hope, happiness, and healing. *Release date October 2007.
Commissioners Court Plaza, 509 Commissioners Road West, Suite #335, London, Ontario, Canada N6J 1Y5
dawnstefano@sympatico.ca www.dawnstefanowicz.com
(To schedule interviews please contact Adam Cothes at 360-802-9758 adam@winepressgroup.com)
Back Cover Endorsers
“Out From Under should be read by every legislator, lawyer, physician and mental health professional in a position to lobby for the best interests of children. May society heed Dawn’s courageous testimony and spare other innocents the suffering she and her siblings sustained.”
––Michelle A. Cretella, M.D., Board of Directors, American College of Pediatricians, and Chair, Committee on Sexuality, ACP, United States
“Out From Under is a personal account told in an emotional narrative. Stefanowicz tells of the enormous burden that was thrust upon her as a young person, a burden that is too great for any child. This story compels one to ponder the vulnerability of children, human suffering, and the meaning of life itself.”
––Senator Anne Cools, Ottawa, Canada
“Dawn Stefanowicz has the courage to write a politically incorrect book. She has the right because she was raised in a homosexual environment and suffered because of it . . . there are few books like this one, which argues that such environments are disturbing to children.”
––Professor John Patrick, M.D., Augustine College, Ottawa, Canada
“Dawn Stefanowicz writes . . . her personal experience, illustrating the unnaturalness of her parenting situation, the hypocrisy of those in her environment who pretended not to see this unnaturalness, and the loneliness of a child who is imprisoned in that situation . . . ”
––Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., psychologist specializing in the treatment of homosexuality, and author of many articles and several books, the Netherlands
Bio
Dawn Stefanowicz is an author, speaker, media spokesperson, licensed accountant, and home educator. She recently addressed the Canadian Senate on hate crime legislation and appeared on EWTN. She has testified in the following areas: Hartford, Connecticut; Boston, Massachusetts; Tallahassee, Florida; Washington; and Ottawa, Canada. Dawn speaks to various audiences by request and wrote the article "Same-Sex Marriage: Have the Best Interests of Children Been Considered?" She advocates for children and families, pertaining to marriage, parenting, sexuality, and education. Dawn is a resource to family policy, legislative, medical, research, and scholastic organizations. She offers a safe place for adult children from similar households. Visit http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com . Dawn has been married for twenty-three years and has two children.
Commissioners Court Plaza, 509 Commissioners Road West, Suite #335, London, Ontario, Canada N6J 1Y5
dawnstefano@sympatico.ca www.dawnstefanowicz.com
(To schedule interviews please contact Adam Cothes at 360-802-9758 adam@winepressgroup.com)
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.19/1105 - Release Date: 02/11/2007 11:04 AM
Dear friends,
“In a politically correct climate, how could the child of an overtly homosexual father communicate to society her experience of personal trauma and her message that children are affected by the sexual example of their parents? The provocative speaker and new author has broadcast her passionate saga to audiences and lawmakers in the U.S., Canada, and beyond…”
After three and a half years, my book, Out From Under, is now here. You can order it by phone at 1-877-421-READ (7323) or visit online at: http://www.annotationbooks.com .
E-mail and tell your family and friends about the book. There is no other book quite like this one! You are welcome to print the press release and share the promo sheet with media. Check out the latest news articles and research on my website and add it to your favourites and links’ section of your website…Let me know if you wish to book me for a speaking engagement. Adam Cothes, my publicist, will assist in scheduling all interviews.
Thank you so much for your interest in ordering my book. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Dawn Stefanowicz,
Author
Book Review
Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting is a compelling, fast-paced, and no-holds-barred narrative of one child’s journey from birth to the end of innocence—and beyond—as the daughter of a homosexual father. Dawn Stefanowicz honestly and sympathetically exposes the transfixing saga of unexpected emotional tangles, discarded dreams, and a desperate search for Daddy’s love. Sobering and colorful, revealing while upholding a standard for good taste, the book uncovers Dawn’s shocking experiences, confused responses, and ultimate redemption as she compassionately reaches out to her father, facing a tragic death from AIDS, in 1991. Now an outspoken advocate of laws protecting children, it took Dawn into her early 30s to realize how her “alternative” rearing impacted her. See how she confronts the forbidden darkness of sexual activities, gets out from under the foreboding weight of family secrets, and finds a future filled with surprising hope, happiness, and healing. *Release date October 2007.
Commissioners Court Plaza, 509 Commissioners Road West, Suite #335, London, Ontario, Canada N6J 1Y5
dawnstefano@sympatico.ca www.dawnstefanowicz.com
(To schedule interviews please contact Adam Cothes at 360-802-9758 adam@winepressgroup.com)
Back Cover Endorsers
“Out From Under should be read by every legislator, lawyer, physician and mental health professional in a position to lobby for the best interests of children. May society heed Dawn’s courageous testimony and spare other innocents the suffering she and her siblings sustained.”
––Michelle A. Cretella, M.D., Board of Directors, American College of Pediatricians, and Chair, Committee on Sexuality, ACP, United States
“Out From Under is a personal account told in an emotional narrative. Stefanowicz tells of the enormous burden that was thrust upon her as a young person, a burden that is too great for any child. This story compels one to ponder the vulnerability of children, human suffering, and the meaning of life itself.”
––Senator Anne Cools, Ottawa, Canada
“Dawn Stefanowicz has the courage to write a politically incorrect book. She has the right because she was raised in a homosexual environment and suffered because of it . . . there are few books like this one, which argues that such environments are disturbing to children.”
––Professor John Patrick, M.D., Augustine College, Ottawa, Canada
“Dawn Stefanowicz writes . . . her personal experience, illustrating the unnaturalness of her parenting situation, the hypocrisy of those in her environment who pretended not to see this unnaturalness, and the loneliness of a child who is imprisoned in that situation . . . ”
––Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., psychologist specializing in the treatment of homosexuality, and author of many articles and several books, the Netherlands
Bio
Dawn Stefanowicz is an author, speaker, media spokesperson, licensed accountant, and home educator. She recently addressed the Canadian Senate on hate crime legislation and appeared on EWTN. She has testified in the following areas: Hartford, Connecticut; Boston, Massachusetts; Tallahassee, Florida; Washington; and Ottawa, Canada. Dawn speaks to various audiences by request and wrote the article "Same-Sex Marriage: Have the Best Interests of Children Been Considered?" She advocates for children and families, pertaining to marriage, parenting, sexuality, and education. Dawn is a resource to family policy, legislative, medical, research, and scholastic organizations. She offers a safe place for adult children from similar households. Visit http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com . Dawn has been married for twenty-three years and has two children.
Commissioners Court Plaza, 509 Commissioners Road West, Suite #335, London, Ontario, Canada N6J 1Y5
dawnstefano@sympatico.ca www.dawnstefanowicz.com
(To schedule interviews please contact Adam Cothes at 360-802-9758 adam@winepressgroup.com)
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.19/1105 - Release Date: 02/11/2007 11:04 AM
Thursday, November 1, 2007
From the BackPorch Bulletin: Life saving: Heart changing
I sit at my desk and stare out the window. I watch as day after day women walk into the dark, uninviting Morgentaler Abortion Clinic in Edmonton, knowing that this happens month after month, year after year. Almost all the abortions in northern Alberta (about 5,000 a year) are performed at this clinic. Many physicians around or north of Edmonton send women here for an abortion. The majority of these women are young, single, and scared. When they found out they were pregnant, there was no hope given to them, no information about alternatives to abortion; abortion was the only solution forced upon them. Society calls this ‘the right to choose’.
What choice does a pregnant woman have when all her friends and family are pushing her to have an abortion? What choice does she have, because her doctor has only offered her abortion? What choice does a father have as he watches his girl friend, wife or partner walk into that clinic? Society contradicts itself and has convinced many of our brothers, sisters, neighbours, and friends of this lie.
How can this change? Truth must be made known. There’s a Bible verse that is constantly coming to my mind and it’s from Hosea 4:6 “My people perish for want of knowledge”. Want of knowledge, lack of knowledge that our society is giving to people. I believe firmly that if people were educated properly about abortion and its alternatives, then we would see a turn about in our culture. But how do we get the truth out?
ALIES (Alberta Life Issues Educational Society) has seen the need to educate and speak the truth. They have started a ministry outreach called The Back Porch which tries to educate and support women who are unsure of, or reconsidering, their decision to have an abortion. The Back Porch is located directly across the street from the Edmonton Morgentaler Clinic and is run by wonderful volunteers and one part-time staff member. Men and women voluntarily come into the house. Most people that come in are looking for the clinic or for information. Our volunteers listen, talk and give them information about the health effects of abortion, fetal development, and post-abortion trauma. I often think of our volunteers as ‘Love Listeners’ because their hearts are filled with genuine love and concern for the women, men and babies. Often times they are the first ones these people encounter who care enough to listen to the feelings of their hearts. Because the volunteers are not trained counselors, they refer people to established pregnancy counseling centers and other support groups in the area.
Because of The Back Porch Ministry, lives have been saved. Lives have been changed. Our volunteers keep a diary of the visits they get and here is one that was written July 17:
“A young lady came in today, she had an appointment with the clinic for an abortion. She said she was having second thoughts and asked one of the nurses there to show her what the ‘fetus’ would look like. When she saw the baby had toes and fingers, she said she could not go through with it. She said the father of the baby…didn’t want the baby. Her mother…didn’t want her to keep the baby…I gave her information and asked her if she would like to speak with a counselor. She said she would wait until tomorrow. But she was so upset I was afraid she would not seek help…One of her girlfriends showed up…she offered to drive her to the counseling center…”
We received a call from the Pregnancy Care Center to say that this girl had decided to keep her baby and to take parenting classes with the center. Because this house is here, because someone was available to take the time to listen and educate this girl, her baby’s life, as well as her own physical and emotional life, were saved. Please consider helping The Back Porch in their 11th Hour Ministry that saves lives and changes hearts.
(Received by email)
What choice does a pregnant woman have when all her friends and family are pushing her to have an abortion? What choice does she have, because her doctor has only offered her abortion? What choice does a father have as he watches his girl friend, wife or partner walk into that clinic? Society contradicts itself and has convinced many of our brothers, sisters, neighbours, and friends of this lie.
How can this change? Truth must be made known. There’s a Bible verse that is constantly coming to my mind and it’s from Hosea 4:6 “My people perish for want of knowledge”. Want of knowledge, lack of knowledge that our society is giving to people. I believe firmly that if people were educated properly about abortion and its alternatives, then we would see a turn about in our culture. But how do we get the truth out?
ALIES (Alberta Life Issues Educational Society) has seen the need to educate and speak the truth. They have started a ministry outreach called The Back Porch which tries to educate and support women who are unsure of, or reconsidering, their decision to have an abortion. The Back Porch is located directly across the street from the Edmonton Morgentaler Clinic and is run by wonderful volunteers and one part-time staff member. Men and women voluntarily come into the house. Most people that come in are looking for the clinic or for information. Our volunteers listen, talk and give them information about the health effects of abortion, fetal development, and post-abortion trauma. I often think of our volunteers as ‘Love Listeners’ because their hearts are filled with genuine love and concern for the women, men and babies. Often times they are the first ones these people encounter who care enough to listen to the feelings of their hearts. Because the volunteers are not trained counselors, they refer people to established pregnancy counseling centers and other support groups in the area.
Because of The Back Porch Ministry, lives have been saved. Lives have been changed. Our volunteers keep a diary of the visits they get and here is one that was written July 17:
“A young lady came in today, she had an appointment with the clinic for an abortion. She said she was having second thoughts and asked one of the nurses there to show her what the ‘fetus’ would look like. When she saw the baby had toes and fingers, she said she could not go through with it. She said the father of the baby…didn’t want the baby. Her mother…didn’t want her to keep the baby…I gave her information and asked her if she would like to speak with a counselor. She said she would wait until tomorrow. But she was so upset I was afraid she would not seek help…One of her girlfriends showed up…she offered to drive her to the counseling center…”
We received a call from the Pregnancy Care Center to say that this girl had decided to keep her baby and to take parenting classes with the center. Because this house is here, because someone was available to take the time to listen and educate this girl, her baby’s life, as well as her own physical and emotional life, were saved. Please consider helping The Back Porch in their 11th Hour Ministry that saves lives and changes hearts.
(Received by email)
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Canadian women don’t support current abortion policy: poll
For Immediate Release
October 31, 2007
Canadian women don’t support current abortion policy: poll
Two-thirds of Canadian women support legal protection for unborn children, according to an Environics poll released last week. A smaller majority of men (57%) support legal protection. Currently in Canada there are no legal restrictions on abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
More than one-third (34%) of women support legal protection from conception onward, 21% after three months of pregnancy and 12% say babies should be protected after six months. Overall, 62% of Canadians supported legal protection at some point before birth.
The Focus Canada poll of 2,047 Canadians was conducted between September 17 and October 14, with a margin of error of ±2.2% nineteen times out of twenty.
The poll also asked about legislation that would make it a separate crime to kill or injure a fetus during a violent attack on a pregnant woman. Seventy-five percent of women and 72% of men said they would support a fetal protection law.
In the past three years at least five pregnant women have been killed along with their babies in violent attacks. The most recent occurred earlier this month in Toronto.
“Most Canadians support the families of these murdered women who grieve not only for the sudden and violent loss of their daughters and sisters but for the baby whose birth they looked forward to,” said LifeCanada President Joanne Byfield. “Canadians see this as a violent attack on two people, members of a family, and it is outrageous that the law denies the humanity of one of those family members.”
The poll, the sixth one commissioned by LifeCanada, also found majority support for
informed consent legislation for women considering abortion, and parental consent for abortion for girls under 18. Environics also asked about tax-funding for abortions. Most of the over 100,000 abortions performed each year in Canada are paid for by taxpayers through the publicly funded system. Almost two-thirds polled said that abortions should be privately funded except in cases of medical emergencies or for rape and incest.
“This week marks the anniversary of the famous ‘Persons’ case which overturned a court decision that found women were not persons,” said LifeCanada President Joanne Byfield.
“Canadian law now says that babies in the womb are not persons until birth. That means that they can be shot, stabbed, kicked and punched with no repercussions. In this poll, Canadians are saying that this is not acceptable. We need a new ‘Persons’ case to end this injustice.”
-30-
For more information contact Joanne Byfield at 780-445-0344 or Gudrun Schultz at 613-722-1552.
October 31, 2007
Canadian women don’t support current abortion policy: poll
Two-thirds of Canadian women support legal protection for unborn children, according to an Environics poll released last week. A smaller majority of men (57%) support legal protection. Currently in Canada there are no legal restrictions on abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
More than one-third (34%) of women support legal protection from conception onward, 21% after three months of pregnancy and 12% say babies should be protected after six months. Overall, 62% of Canadians supported legal protection at some point before birth.
The Focus Canada poll of 2,047 Canadians was conducted between September 17 and October 14, with a margin of error of ±2.2% nineteen times out of twenty.
The poll also asked about legislation that would make it a separate crime to kill or injure a fetus during a violent attack on a pregnant woman. Seventy-five percent of women and 72% of men said they would support a fetal protection law.
In the past three years at least five pregnant women have been killed along with their babies in violent attacks. The most recent occurred earlier this month in Toronto.
“Most Canadians support the families of these murdered women who grieve not only for the sudden and violent loss of their daughters and sisters but for the baby whose birth they looked forward to,” said LifeCanada President Joanne Byfield. “Canadians see this as a violent attack on two people, members of a family, and it is outrageous that the law denies the humanity of one of those family members.”
The poll, the sixth one commissioned by LifeCanada, also found majority support for
informed consent legislation for women considering abortion, and parental consent for abortion for girls under 18. Environics also asked about tax-funding for abortions. Most of the over 100,000 abortions performed each year in Canada are paid for by taxpayers through the publicly funded system. Almost two-thirds polled said that abortions should be privately funded except in cases of medical emergencies or for rape and incest.
“This week marks the anniversary of the famous ‘Persons’ case which overturned a court decision that found women were not persons,” said LifeCanada President Joanne Byfield.
“Canadian law now says that babies in the womb are not persons until birth. That means that they can be shot, stabbed, kicked and punched with no repercussions. In this poll, Canadians are saying that this is not acceptable. We need a new ‘Persons’ case to end this injustice.”
-30-
For more information contact Joanne Byfield at 780-445-0344 or Gudrun Schultz at 613-722-1552.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Aurora, Illinois Pro-Life Advocates Continued Protest at Planned Parenthood
Aurora, IL (LifeNews.com) -- Pro-life advocates in the Illinois city continued their efforts against a new Planned Parenthood abortion center that just opened there. On Saturday, they held a large protest a the 3051 E. New York Street facility. The protest, organized by the Pro-Life Action League, is the third significant demonstration over the past two months seeing as many as 1,200 pro-life advocates gathering at one time. The opening of the facility, scheduled for mid-September, was delayed for two and a half weeks while investigations were conducted into the seemingly deceptive process in which Planned Parenthood received their occupancy and building permits. Amid much controversy, the facility opened on October 2nd. Pro-life community members have vowed to stay the course. “Steve Trombley of Planned Parenthood stated that our numbers and our zeal would die once they opened. He was wrong!” the group's leader Eric Scheidler said. “We will be at this facility until abortions are no longer performed and this deceitful business is out of our city. We will be a peaceful, ever-present reminder of the atrocities that go on inside those walls and a constant thorn in Planned Parenthood’s side
(Receieved by email)
(Receieved by email)
Wisconsin Ban on Forced Abortions Gets Backing of Post-Abortion Group
Madison, WI (LifeNews.com) -- The Coercive Abortion Prevention Act (AB 427) in Wisconsin would protect women who are being coerced into having abortions against their will. The legislation will be voted on by the State Assembly on Tuesday. The Silent No More Awareness Campaign has endorsed the bill. Georgette Forney, co-founder of the group, said "In recent months alone, we've seen numerous high profile news stories about women threatened and intimidated by their parents, boyfriends, and others into having abortions. I know from talking to thousands of women that these are not isolated cases. I also know that the pain and torment caused by an abortion can only be magnified when a woman submits involuntarily to the taking of her child. I don't see how anyone could oppose the measure." At a public hearing held on this bill on September 13 before the Assembly Judiciary and Ethics Committee, courageous Wisconsin women told their personal stories regarding their own experiences with coerced abortions. Also testifying were representatives of organizations who counsel women who have had abortions, including those who have been coerced into having abortions.
(Received by email)
(Received by email)
Monday, October 29, 2007
Portugal Government Wants to Force Doctors to Do Abortions
Lisbon, Portugal (LifeNews.com) -- Portugal's Minister of Health, Antonio Correia de Campos, has notified the Portuguese Association of Doctors that it should eliminate the ability of doctors to opt out of doing abortions now that the nation has legalized abortion. The Portuguese Socialist government, which legalized abortion despite losing a referendum on the issue, announced that the demand for the change in the Associations’ code of ethics would be supervised by the Attorney General and should be carried out in the next thirty days. The Association's code of ethics states, “Doctors should maintain respect for human life from its beginnings,” and, “The practice of abortion constitutes a serious ethical failing.” The College of Lawyers of Portugal has called the demand “arrogant and excessive" and points out that the nation's Constitution still protects human life. In October, a leading health official said the western European nation is seeing less than half of the number of abortions done there as expected when it recently legalized abortion. Currently about 25 abortions are done on a daily basis there, which averages out to about 9,000 abortions over the course of a year. About 20,000 abortions were expected to be done annually after the nation's parliament legalized abortion despite a public vote failing to do so.
(Received by email, couldn't find a link to the story).
(Received by email, couldn't find a link to the story).
Friday, October 19, 2007
Why do Christians have to rescue other religions?
By Tim Bloedow
October 18, 2007
Commentary - Why do Christians have to rescue other religions?
Why do Secular Humanists expect Christians to do the heavy lifting to sustain the existence of non-Christian religions?
I don't know if you've noticed this phenomenon. It may not be that common, but when it happens, it always strikes me as bizarre.
But there is also an insidious aspect of this mentality because these Humanists argue, by extension, that if the adherents of non-Christian religions are too lazy or dead to be engaged in the public square (or perhaps such engagement is simply not an important part of their religion?), then Christians should be banned from pro-active public initiatives. This perspective reflects an anti-Christian bigotry as well as a sub-adolescent inability to handle intellectual diversity.
A recent example of this phenomenon was found on the pages of the Winnipeg Free Press last week. The Press reported on controversy that developed around a Christian Prayer Breakfast that had been organized in Manitoba for politicians, businessmen and religious leaders ("Prayer breakfast distasteful?" October 10, 2007).
The Press reported some of the comments from outspoken New Democrat Member of Parliament Pat Martin regarding the Prayer Breakfast. Referring to the Prayer Breakfast that is held on Parliament Hill and perhaps other religious events he is aware of, Martin, who represents the Manitoba riding of Winnipeg Centre, said approvingly that such gatherings "are very much inter-faith," although they may have the same Christian "origins" as the Manitoba Prayer Breakfast.
The Press also quoted Winnipeg South-Centre's far-left Liberal MP, Anita Neville: "'I didn't realize that this was Christian-driven,' she said, explaining why she chose not to go. 'I thought it was more (multi-faith) and I think, in this day and age, given the diversity, not only among our politicians but among our population, it should be. To me, this is exclusive, not inclusive'..."
Oh yes, Pat Martin was also quoted as saying, "This has all the earmarkings of some neo-conservative, fundamentalist, Christian-right event."
But the obvious question in light of these comments is, if Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Atheists wanted to host their own Prayer Breakfast - or an alternate event - then why can't they do so? Of course they can, and I believe that some do. But if they don't, why should Christians do the heavy lifting to prop them up and promote these other religions and worldviews with their contrary teachings. And perhaps more to the point in today's "anti-discriminatory" environment, would these politicians make the same demands of these other religions if they were organizing an event?
When Prime Minister Stephen Harper and scores of other dignitaries recently commemorated the opening of that enormous Hindu temple, I don't recall hearing calls for equal time on the podium for the leaders of other religions.
Another case of this phony "multicult" disease a few years ago resulted in the banning of a ministry of the Canadian Bible Society to new Canadian citizens. The Bible Society used to provide free Bibles to all new Canadian citizens and they would hand out the Bibles at the swearing-in ceremonies for these new citizens.
Well, in today's Secular Humanist environment, somebody decided that handing out Bibles at a political or governmental event was a violation of the principle of separation of church and state, or at least was too easily perceived as such, so the government established a new policy and the practice was banned.
The important point to note here is that the old policy did not apply only to Christians. Under that policy, Muslims could have attended the citizenship ceremony and handed out copies the Koran, fortunetellers probably could have handed out tealeaves and Atheists could have handed out blank pieces of paper. But the fact is that only Christians were taking advantage of this opportunity, so it looked like the state was endorsing Christianity and, in visionary 21st century Canada, that perception is just far too provocative, so the government banned the practice.
So, we come back to the question: Why should Christians have to do the heavy lifting to sustain the existence of other religions?
Or, more specifically, why do Secular Humanists think that Christians are obligated to advance the beliefs of competing worldviews in order to maintain the right to exercise their own religious liberty? (More often than not it's these Humanists who are making this demand, not the adherents of these other religions.)
Whatever the reason, it's an inexcusable bigotry. It also demonstrates the irrationality and intellectual cowardice of Secular Humanists. One reality that characterizes a Humanist more than anything else is his utter fear of intellectual diversity. Call it "reason-phobia." Whatever you call it, it's a deadly disease and it's one of the root causes of fanaticism and intolerance, which are two other characteristics of modern Humanism.
- 30 -
(Received by email. Visit ChristianGovernment.ca)
October 18, 2007
Commentary - Why do Christians have to rescue other religions?
Why do Secular Humanists expect Christians to do the heavy lifting to sustain the existence of non-Christian religions?
I don't know if you've noticed this phenomenon. It may not be that common, but when it happens, it always strikes me as bizarre.
But there is also an insidious aspect of this mentality because these Humanists argue, by extension, that if the adherents of non-Christian religions are too lazy or dead to be engaged in the public square (or perhaps such engagement is simply not an important part of their religion?), then Christians should be banned from pro-active public initiatives. This perspective reflects an anti-Christian bigotry as well as a sub-adolescent inability to handle intellectual diversity.
A recent example of this phenomenon was found on the pages of the Winnipeg Free Press last week. The Press reported on controversy that developed around a Christian Prayer Breakfast that had been organized in Manitoba for politicians, businessmen and religious leaders ("Prayer breakfast distasteful?" October 10, 2007).
The Press reported some of the comments from outspoken New Democrat Member of Parliament Pat Martin regarding the Prayer Breakfast. Referring to the Prayer Breakfast that is held on Parliament Hill and perhaps other religious events he is aware of, Martin, who represents the Manitoba riding of Winnipeg Centre, said approvingly that such gatherings "are very much inter-faith," although they may have the same Christian "origins" as the Manitoba Prayer Breakfast.
The Press also quoted Winnipeg South-Centre's far-left Liberal MP, Anita Neville: "'I didn't realize that this was Christian-driven,' she said, explaining why she chose not to go. 'I thought it was more (multi-faith) and I think, in this day and age, given the diversity, not only among our politicians but among our population, it should be. To me, this is exclusive, not inclusive'..."
Oh yes, Pat Martin was also quoted as saying, "This has all the earmarkings of some neo-conservative, fundamentalist, Christian-right event."
But the obvious question in light of these comments is, if Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Atheists wanted to host their own Prayer Breakfast - or an alternate event - then why can't they do so? Of course they can, and I believe that some do. But if they don't, why should Christians do the heavy lifting to prop them up and promote these other religions and worldviews with their contrary teachings. And perhaps more to the point in today's "anti-discriminatory" environment, would these politicians make the same demands of these other religions if they were organizing an event?
When Prime Minister Stephen Harper and scores of other dignitaries recently commemorated the opening of that enormous Hindu temple, I don't recall hearing calls for equal time on the podium for the leaders of other religions.
Another case of this phony "multicult" disease a few years ago resulted in the banning of a ministry of the Canadian Bible Society to new Canadian citizens. The Bible Society used to provide free Bibles to all new Canadian citizens and they would hand out the Bibles at the swearing-in ceremonies for these new citizens.
Well, in today's Secular Humanist environment, somebody decided that handing out Bibles at a political or governmental event was a violation of the principle of separation of church and state, or at least was too easily perceived as such, so the government established a new policy and the practice was banned.
The important point to note here is that the old policy did not apply only to Christians. Under that policy, Muslims could have attended the citizenship ceremony and handed out copies the Koran, fortunetellers probably could have handed out tealeaves and Atheists could have handed out blank pieces of paper. But the fact is that only Christians were taking advantage of this opportunity, so it looked like the state was endorsing Christianity and, in visionary 21st century Canada, that perception is just far too provocative, so the government banned the practice.
So, we come back to the question: Why should Christians have to do the heavy lifting to sustain the existence of other religions?
Or, more specifically, why do Secular Humanists think that Christians are obligated to advance the beliefs of competing worldviews in order to maintain the right to exercise their own religious liberty? (More often than not it's these Humanists who are making this demand, not the adherents of these other religions.)
Whatever the reason, it's an inexcusable bigotry. It also demonstrates the irrationality and intellectual cowardice of Secular Humanists. One reality that characterizes a Humanist more than anything else is his utter fear of intellectual diversity. Call it "reason-phobia." Whatever you call it, it's a deadly disease and it's one of the root causes of fanaticism and intolerance, which are two other characteristics of modern Humanism.
- 30 -
(Received by email. Visit ChristianGovernment.ca)
Almost three-quarters of Canadians support fetal protection law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 19, 2007
Almost three-quarters of Canadians support fetal protection law: poll
Seventy-two percent of Canadians polled in an Environics poll commissioned by LifeCanada/VieCanada say they would support legislation making it a separate crime to injure or kill a fetus during an attack on the mother. Among women, 75% supported the legislation.
The Focus Canada poll of 2,047 Canadians was conducted between September 17 and October 14, with a margin of error of ±2.2% nineteen times out of twenty.
There have been five pregnant women murdered in Canada in the past three years, the most recent being Aysun Sesen, 25, of Toronto. She and her seven-month fetus died after she was stabbed in the abdomen. Her husband has been charged with second-degree murder. However, under Canadian law the fetus is not recognized as a human being until it is born so police cannot charge perpetrators with murder of the unborn baby.
Families of the women have repeatedly called for legislation to recognize the crime committed when the fetus is murdered or injured. Yesterday the family of Aysun Sesen reiterated that demand. Aydin Cocelli, Ms. Sesen’s brother-in-law, said he has requested a meeting with Prime Minister Harper to ask for a change in the law.
“Almost three-quarters of Canadians want a law to protect these babies,” said LifeCanada President Joanne Byfield. “They recognize that the fetus is a human being no matter what the law says and they see it as an injustice that someone can kill these babies with impunity while attacking the mother.”
Byfield noted that an earlier law which declared women were not “persons” for the purpose of being appointed to the Senate was overturned in October 1929. “The law can be wrong. It was found to be so in the Persons case and it is in this case too,” she said. “It is incumbent on the government and the people of Canada to correct this injustice.”
-30-
For more information, contact Joanne Byfield, 780-445-0344 or Gudrun Schultz 613-722-1552.
(Received by email)
October 19, 2007
Almost three-quarters of Canadians support fetal protection law: poll
Seventy-two percent of Canadians polled in an Environics poll commissioned by LifeCanada/VieCanada say they would support legislation making it a separate crime to injure or kill a fetus during an attack on the mother. Among women, 75% supported the legislation.
The Focus Canada poll of 2,047 Canadians was conducted between September 17 and October 14, with a margin of error of ±2.2% nineteen times out of twenty.
There have been five pregnant women murdered in Canada in the past three years, the most recent being Aysun Sesen, 25, of Toronto. She and her seven-month fetus died after she was stabbed in the abdomen. Her husband has been charged with second-degree murder. However, under Canadian law the fetus is not recognized as a human being until it is born so police cannot charge perpetrators with murder of the unborn baby.
Families of the women have repeatedly called for legislation to recognize the crime committed when the fetus is murdered or injured. Yesterday the family of Aysun Sesen reiterated that demand. Aydin Cocelli, Ms. Sesen’s brother-in-law, said he has requested a meeting with Prime Minister Harper to ask for a change in the law.
“Almost three-quarters of Canadians want a law to protect these babies,” said LifeCanada President Joanne Byfield. “They recognize that the fetus is a human being no matter what the law says and they see it as an injustice that someone can kill these babies with impunity while attacking the mother.”
Byfield noted that an earlier law which declared women were not “persons” for the purpose of being appointed to the Senate was overturned in October 1929. “The law can be wrong. It was found to be so in the Persons case and it is in this case too,” she said. “It is incumbent on the government and the people of Canada to correct this injustice.”
-30-
For more information, contact Joanne Byfield, 780-445-0344 or Gudrun Schultz 613-722-1552.
(Received by email)
GHANA, AFRICA LIFE MISSIONS TRIP from Denise Moutenay of Silent No More
GHANA, AFRICA LIFE MISSIONS TRIP
BREAKTHROUGH with Governmental Leaders
By Denise Mountenay Oct. 5th to Oct. 12th 2007
Accra, Ghana, was an active port in the slavery business for hundreds of years. Afia Ampene, a woman God connected us with at the United Nations in New York this past March while at the Commission on the Status of women invited us to come to Ghana and talk about the truth of abortion. She is a Television host of a program there that reaches millions of Ghanians. In Ghana, Africa induced abortion is illegal, except in cases of rape, incest or abnormalities. One of our team members from the USA told audiences that she was conceived in rape, and wanted to be a face of children conceived in rape.
On my first day in Ghana we were taken on a little cruise on a lake where by God’s perfect timing a group of about a 20 Ghanian beauty queens were posing and filming a program. I spoke to several of the ladies to discover that although abortion is illegal, it is being used as a form of birth control with teens and women lining up at abortion clinics and hospitals, just like in North America.
I got to share my testimony in several churches. We also spoke to several Women’s Aglow groups with a lot of ministry to post abortive women. One woman confessed to me that this was the first time she ever told anyone about her abortion 20 years ago…and how it affected her life, her relationships and that now she was set free and wanted to speak out to warn other women about the dangers and pain, and be a voice for her child, so others would be saved. We prayed for several women including teachers and leaders to begin to work with churches to start pregnancy crisis and post abortion healing and recovery centres across the nation.
God opened doors for me to speak to the First Lady of Ghana, and the Minister of Women and Children’s Health and Welfare. I presented them with gifts from Canada. They were so glad that we were there to expose the lies of abortion, and bring education and awareness to the forefront that whether abortion is “legal or illegal” it is unsafe for women and that it kills children created in the image of God! We found favor and they hope we will come back to do more training and equipping with nationals to prevent abortions and make it unthinkable.
We spoke to thousands of students in High Schools and were very well received, bringing truth and the humanity of the pre-born. We spoke to and met Tribal Chiefs and their wives who blessed us with thanks and gifts of hand-crafted wood carvings of the mother and child.
Our testimonies on the pain of abortion, God’s amazing forgiveness and grace will be aired on several of Afia’s Television programs reaching millions of people across this nation. The Motto for the Nation of Ghana is Freedom and Justice, I stated that this also meant Freedom for the millions of post abortive women in Ghana, and Justice for the Pre-born sacrificed in their nation.
Thank you so much for your prayers and support in sending me to these nations for such a time as this! We broke through years of lies and deception, bringing to light the truth of God’s word and bringing hope and healing to the broken hearted…I believe that God is using our testimonies to change hearts, minds, laws and history for such a time as this.
God bless you for believing that God has called me as an ambassador to the nations to stop the shedding of innocent blood and proclaim life and healing to the broken hearted.
BREAKTHROUGH with Governmental Leaders
By Denise Mountenay Oct. 5th to Oct. 12th 2007
Accra, Ghana, was an active port in the slavery business for hundreds of years. Afia Ampene, a woman God connected us with at the United Nations in New York this past March while at the Commission on the Status of women invited us to come to Ghana and talk about the truth of abortion. She is a Television host of a program there that reaches millions of Ghanians. In Ghana, Africa induced abortion is illegal, except in cases of rape, incest or abnormalities. One of our team members from the USA told audiences that she was conceived in rape, and wanted to be a face of children conceived in rape.
On my first day in Ghana we were taken on a little cruise on a lake where by God’s perfect timing a group of about a 20 Ghanian beauty queens were posing and filming a program. I spoke to several of the ladies to discover that although abortion is illegal, it is being used as a form of birth control with teens and women lining up at abortion clinics and hospitals, just like in North America.
I got to share my testimony in several churches. We also spoke to several Women’s Aglow groups with a lot of ministry to post abortive women. One woman confessed to me that this was the first time she ever told anyone about her abortion 20 years ago…and how it affected her life, her relationships and that now she was set free and wanted to speak out to warn other women about the dangers and pain, and be a voice for her child, so others would be saved. We prayed for several women including teachers and leaders to begin to work with churches to start pregnancy crisis and post abortion healing and recovery centres across the nation.
God opened doors for me to speak to the First Lady of Ghana, and the Minister of Women and Children’s Health and Welfare. I presented them with gifts from Canada. They were so glad that we were there to expose the lies of abortion, and bring education and awareness to the forefront that whether abortion is “legal or illegal” it is unsafe for women and that it kills children created in the image of God! We found favor and they hope we will come back to do more training and equipping with nationals to prevent abortions and make it unthinkable.
We spoke to thousands of students in High Schools and were very well received, bringing truth and the humanity of the pre-born. We spoke to and met Tribal Chiefs and their wives who blessed us with thanks and gifts of hand-crafted wood carvings of the mother and child.
Our testimonies on the pain of abortion, God’s amazing forgiveness and grace will be aired on several of Afia’s Television programs reaching millions of people across this nation. The Motto for the Nation of Ghana is Freedom and Justice, I stated that this also meant Freedom for the millions of post abortive women in Ghana, and Justice for the Pre-born sacrificed in their nation.
Thank you so much for your prayers and support in sending me to these nations for such a time as this! We broke through years of lies and deception, bringing to light the truth of God’s word and bringing hope and healing to the broken hearted…I believe that God is using our testimonies to change hearts, minds, laws and history for such a time as this.
God bless you for believing that God has called me as an ambassador to the nations to stop the shedding of innocent blood and proclaim life and healing to the broken hearted.
Denise Moutenay of Canada Silent No More in Russia
Sept. 29 to Oct. 5th 2007
Induced abortion has been legal in the former Soviet Union since 1920. Today over 90% of Russian women have had an abortion, and most have had multiple abortions using it as a form of birth control. 2 out of 3 babies are aborted in Russia; it is the largest nation in the world, but only has 141.4 million people, less than half of the USA. The Government now realizes that it is in a population crisis, and has implemented large bonuses for couples to have a second child… While traveling in the subways, and on many street cars there, I observed the pain, oppression and fear the people held inside. Only Christians seemed to have any joy. I was a speaker at two simultaneous Pro Life conferences.
A Russian Orthodox Priest, Father Maxim with a heart for Life invited several western protestant speakers including myself to come and share our expertise on abortion. This is a huge breakthrough as there have been extreme divisions between the Protestants and Orthodox. We brought God’s word on this issue, bringing awareness and education to the forefront on the damage abortion brings to women physically, emotionally and spiritually. Priests and representatives from 49 regions across Russia including Siberia, came to hear our testimonies and how through Jesus Christ there is hope and healing for post abortive women, men and the nations. I was also chosen to be interviewed on Russian Television reaching millions, which will be aired soon. They will make copies of our videoed talks and distribute them also as tools for each regional representative.
At the other Russian Pro Life Conference we ministered to post abortive women, taught and encouraged the leaders of the only few Pregnancy Crisis Centres across Russia and prayed that GOD would raise up more leaders and supply the funds to start up more CPC’s and Post Abortion Recovery Ministries so desperately needed to heal the millions affected by decades of child sacrifice.
We have been invited to return to do a post abortive healing and equipping training conferences, so nationals can minister to the millions of broken hearted, and we prayed to break the covenant of death/abortion in the nation.
(Received by email)
Induced abortion has been legal in the former Soviet Union since 1920. Today over 90% of Russian women have had an abortion, and most have had multiple abortions using it as a form of birth control. 2 out of 3 babies are aborted in Russia; it is the largest nation in the world, but only has 141.4 million people, less than half of the USA. The Government now realizes that it is in a population crisis, and has implemented large bonuses for couples to have a second child… While traveling in the subways, and on many street cars there, I observed the pain, oppression and fear the people held inside. Only Christians seemed to have any joy. I was a speaker at two simultaneous Pro Life conferences.
A Russian Orthodox Priest, Father Maxim with a heart for Life invited several western protestant speakers including myself to come and share our expertise on abortion. This is a huge breakthrough as there have been extreme divisions between the Protestants and Orthodox. We brought God’s word on this issue, bringing awareness and education to the forefront on the damage abortion brings to women physically, emotionally and spiritually. Priests and representatives from 49 regions across Russia including Siberia, came to hear our testimonies and how through Jesus Christ there is hope and healing for post abortive women, men and the nations. I was also chosen to be interviewed on Russian Television reaching millions, which will be aired soon. They will make copies of our videoed talks and distribute them also as tools for each regional representative.
At the other Russian Pro Life Conference we ministered to post abortive women, taught and encouraged the leaders of the only few Pregnancy Crisis Centres across Russia and prayed that GOD would raise up more leaders and supply the funds to start up more CPC’s and Post Abortion Recovery Ministries so desperately needed to heal the millions affected by decades of child sacrifice.
We have been invited to return to do a post abortive healing and equipping training conferences, so nationals can minister to the millions of broken hearted, and we prayed to break the covenant of death/abortion in the nation.
(Received by email)
UNICEF Halloween Alert 2007
Dear friends:
As Halloween time approaches we must again sadly observe that there has
been no apparent change in UNICEF's policy of supporting abortion and
artificial birth control programs in developing countries. It may be
remembered that in 1996 the Vatican discontinued its support for UNICEF
for that reason.
Last year at Halloween, UNICEF switched from small collection boxes to
large bags in an effort to sollicit funds for their cause. At this point
we are still in the dark as to what method they will use this year, but
it seems safe to assume that young trick-or-treaters will again - in one
way or another - be encouraged to sollicit funds for this organization.
We suggest that you prepare a note, addressed to the child's parents,
that you can drop into the child's Trick-or-Treat bag (together with
your Halloween treat, of course!). These notes can be typewritten, 4 or
5 to a page, and photocopied as needed. There is no need to sign the
note. Don't get into discussions or try to "explain" to the child as
the note is addressed to the parents, not the child. Suggested text is
as follows.
DEAR PARENT:
This evening your child was at our door for Halloween, carrying a
Trick-orTreat bag marked UNICEF. Presumably this is a solicitation for
donations to that organization.
While UNICEF does many fine things for children in need, some monies go
to Third World abortion programs. For this reason we regret that we
cannot donate to this cause.
As an alternative charity we suggest donations to:
Canadian Food for Children
3218 224th St
Langley BC V2Z 2G8
www.canadianfoodforchildren.org
Happy Halloween!
As Halloween time approaches we must again sadly observe that there has
been no apparent change in UNICEF's policy of supporting abortion and
artificial birth control programs in developing countries. It may be
remembered that in 1996 the Vatican discontinued its support for UNICEF
for that reason.
Last year at Halloween, UNICEF switched from small collection boxes to
large bags in an effort to sollicit funds for their cause. At this point
we are still in the dark as to what method they will use this year, but
it seems safe to assume that young trick-or-treaters will again - in one
way or another - be encouraged to sollicit funds for this organization.
We suggest that you prepare a note, addressed to the child's parents,
that you can drop into the child's Trick-or-Treat bag (together with
your Halloween treat, of course!). These notes can be typewritten, 4 or
5 to a page, and photocopied as needed. There is no need to sign the
note. Don't get into discussions or try to "explain" to the child as
the note is addressed to the parents, not the child. Suggested text is
as follows.
DEAR PARENT:
This evening your child was at our door for Halloween, carrying a
Trick-orTreat bag marked UNICEF. Presumably this is a solicitation for
donations to that organization.
While UNICEF does many fine things for children in need, some monies go
to Third World abortion programs. For this reason we regret that we
cannot donate to this cause.
As an alternative charity we suggest donations to:
Canadian Food for Children
3218 224th St
Langley BC V2Z 2G8
www.canadianfoodforchildren.org
Happy Halloween!
It’s all about “Equipping”
It’s all about “Equipping”
Friday, October 19, 2007
If you’ve wondered sometimes whether your membership in the ECP Centre is making a difference, and whether your continued support for our cause is really worth it, I want to shout something to you from the rooftops:
“We are having an impact!”
And the key part of our mission – to “equip” Christians to engage the culture around them – is happening.
I’m not sure if you’ve read my latest column at WorldNet Daily, Christians confusing meekness with weakness, but thousands of other people have. And the response has been so overwhelming and encouraging it has brought tears to my eyes. I have received literally hundreds of emails from readers all over the world. Some small samplings:
• “I feel I must fight the fight also but the “how” is where I get stumped… it's good to see guys like you fighting the good and most urgent fight.” Scott, AL
• “Your article identifies precisely what is wrong with America and Europe, too. American Christians are stupid and lazy.” Seth, OR
• “Thanks very much for the encouraging ‘battle charge’.” Carolyn
• “Thank you, sir, for having the guts to stand for the truth.” Jim, MS
• “Thank you for putting my feelings into a great article. I plan on sending it to everyone I know, and I hope it makes the internet rounds for a long time!” Karen, RI.
• “Thanks for breathing some life into the battle.” Mike, NM
• “Thank you for your boldness and honesty. You are absolutely correct. Please help me and others like me to become unified in our efforts.” Andy
• “Thanks for being a strong Godly man. I love to give these articles to my teenage girls so they know what a real man is.” Gary, GA
• “Christians think they have done their duty by daily praying for our country. But it’s like sitting around the dinner table and praying for food, and then simply sitting there and waiting for food to magically appear on the table. All the faith in the world, without personal accountability, is worthless.” Bill
Some people have approached me privately in recent months, wondering if the Centre’s “change in direction” to a more broadly-based Internet focus was the right thing to do. As I’ve said before, the rise of the ‘Net has been compared to Gutenberg’s invention of movable type, and I’m convinced the implications for our culture – and for the spread of sound apologetics and cultural commentary – is no less profound today.
And the responses I’ve been receiving since we started posting my commentaries to WorldNet Daily have reinforced this belief. These commentaries are now being seen by an average of just over a thousand new people every day.
So you bet it’s working!
And we’re now just a few weeks away from the launch of another new project in cultural apologetics. It’s a new website called noapologies.ca. Some of you have been wondering what’s happened to our radio show. It’s been on summer hiatus while we redesigned and improved it. It’ll be posted to the new website, and will be updated every day. If you want a sneak peak, you’re welcome to have click in and have a look; the site is there now, although we won’t start actually “updating” it until early November.
If we want to impact our culture then we need to build a new kind of media – one that punches a hole in political correctness.
Tristan Emmanuel
President, ECP Centre
- 30 -
For more information contact the ECP Centre at:
Email: info@ecpcentre.org
Website: www.ecpcentre.org
Phone: (905) 934-1697
(Received by email)
Friday, October 19, 2007
If you’ve wondered sometimes whether your membership in the ECP Centre is making a difference, and whether your continued support for our cause is really worth it, I want to shout something to you from the rooftops:
“We are having an impact!”
And the key part of our mission – to “equip” Christians to engage the culture around them – is happening.
I’m not sure if you’ve read my latest column at WorldNet Daily, Christians confusing meekness with weakness, but thousands of other people have. And the response has been so overwhelming and encouraging it has brought tears to my eyes. I have received literally hundreds of emails from readers all over the world. Some small samplings:
• “I feel I must fight the fight also but the “how” is where I get stumped… it's good to see guys like you fighting the good and most urgent fight.” Scott, AL
• “Your article identifies precisely what is wrong with America and Europe, too. American Christians are stupid and lazy.” Seth, OR
• “Thanks very much for the encouraging ‘battle charge’.” Carolyn
• “Thank you, sir, for having the guts to stand for the truth.” Jim, MS
• “Thank you for putting my feelings into a great article. I plan on sending it to everyone I know, and I hope it makes the internet rounds for a long time!” Karen, RI.
• “Thanks for breathing some life into the battle.” Mike, NM
• “Thank you for your boldness and honesty. You are absolutely correct. Please help me and others like me to become unified in our efforts.” Andy
• “Thanks for being a strong Godly man. I love to give these articles to my teenage girls so they know what a real man is.” Gary, GA
• “Christians think they have done their duty by daily praying for our country. But it’s like sitting around the dinner table and praying for food, and then simply sitting there and waiting for food to magically appear on the table. All the faith in the world, without personal accountability, is worthless.” Bill
Some people have approached me privately in recent months, wondering if the Centre’s “change in direction” to a more broadly-based Internet focus was the right thing to do. As I’ve said before, the rise of the ‘Net has been compared to Gutenberg’s invention of movable type, and I’m convinced the implications for our culture – and for the spread of sound apologetics and cultural commentary – is no less profound today.
And the responses I’ve been receiving since we started posting my commentaries to WorldNet Daily have reinforced this belief. These commentaries are now being seen by an average of just over a thousand new people every day.
So you bet it’s working!
And we’re now just a few weeks away from the launch of another new project in cultural apologetics. It’s a new website called noapologies.ca. Some of you have been wondering what’s happened to our radio show. It’s been on summer hiatus while we redesigned and improved it. It’ll be posted to the new website, and will be updated every day. If you want a sneak peak, you’re welcome to have click in and have a look; the site is there now, although we won’t start actually “updating” it until early November.
If we want to impact our culture then we need to build a new kind of media – one that punches a hole in political correctness.
Tristan Emmanuel
President, ECP Centre
- 30 -
For more information contact the ECP Centre at:
Email: info@ecpcentre.org
Website: www.ecpcentre.org
Phone: (905) 934-1697
(Received by email)
Thursday, October 18, 2007
International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Please circulate this email to your contacts:
More than 190 registrations have already been received for the "Current Issues - Future Directions" International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. We only have space for 270 people. Please register early, while space is available.
CLICK HERE FOR SYMPOSIUM WEBSITE
International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide:
Current Issues - Future Directions
Friday, Nov 30th, Saturday, Dec 1, 2007 at the: Four Points Sheraton - Toronto Airport Hotel.
Organized by: the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Canada
Co-Sponsored by: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Canada, NOT DEAD YET - USA, Compassionate Healthcare Network - Canada, Archdiocese of Toronto - Canada, Physicians for Compassionate Care - USA, Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare - Vermont, Care NOT Killing Alliance - UK, No Less Human, UK.
* Nearly every leader and significant speaker on the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide will be attending this Symposium. Make sure that it includes you.
The program begins on Friday November 30th at 9:30 am and ends on Saturday at 5:30 pm. The Friday night dinner speaker is Professor Margaret Somerville founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.
The list of speakers include:
• Margaret Somerville, the founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. Somerville is the author of many internationally recognized books including: The Ethical Imagination and Death Talk.
• Dr. Peter Saunders is the director of the Care NOT Killing Alliance in the UK, that co-ordinates organizations in the UK that oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide and support palliative care. They were instrumental in defeating a recent assisted suicide bill in the UK.
• Dr William Toffler is the national director of Physicians for Compassionate Care in Portland Oregon, a national organizations of physicians who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide in the US.
• Dr. Bob Orr is the director of the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care opposes assisted suicide and promotes ethical healthcare practices. They were instrumental in defeating a recent assisted suicide bill in Vermont.
• Diane Coleman is the founder of NOT DEAD YET, a leading disability rights group in the US.
• Stephen Drake is the research director for NOT DEAD YET.
• Allison Davis is the national co-ordinator of No Less Human in the UK, a national disability rights organization
.• Hugh Scher is the legal counsel for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the former chair of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities Human Rights Committee. Hugh is a leading lawyer in Canada on Human Rights, Constitutional and End-of-Life Issues.
• Alex Schadenberg is the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in Canada.
• Rita Marker is the Executive Director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Rita is the leader and the unifying force for groups that oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.
• Wesley J. Smith, attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Smith is the author of many books including: Forced Exit. Smith is a powerful speaker.
• Bobby Schindler is the brother of Terri Schiavo and works for the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation.
• Catherine Frazee is the co-director of Ryerson University (RBC) Institute for Disability Studies, and the former chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (1990 - 95). She is an extraordinarily gifted intellectual leader.
• Bert Dorenbos is the leader of Cry for Life in the Netherlands.
• Cheryl Eckstein is the founder of the Compassionate Health Care Network in Canada.
• Dr. Paul Byrne is a Neonatologist from Ohio and a recognized expert in the area of Brain Death.
• Dr Mark Mostert is an expert on the Nazi T4 - euthanasia program.
There has never been a Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide like this before.
The cost for the Symposium is:
$189 - regular, $100 - students or people with disabilities.
(Includes Friday lunch & dinner and Saturday lunch)
Friday only $125 - regular, $80 - students or people with disabilities (includes lunch and dinner)
Friday only $90 - regular, $50 student or people with disabilities. (includes lunch only)
Saturday only $90 regular, $50 student or people with disabilities. (includes lunch)
Register by contacting the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or call toll free: 1-877-439-3348.
Reserve your room by calling the Four Points Sheraton - Toronto Airport at: 1-800-368-7764 and indicate that you are reserving for the Euthanasia Symposium. The room rate is $109.00 per night.
For further registration information contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or call toll free: 1-877-439-3348.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
www.epcc.ca
info@epcc.ca
1-877-439-3348
More than 190 registrations have already been received for the "Current Issues - Future Directions" International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. We only have space for 270 people. Please register early, while space is available.
CLICK HERE FOR SYMPOSIUM WEBSITE
International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide:
Current Issues - Future Directions
Friday, Nov 30th, Saturday, Dec 1, 2007 at the: Four Points Sheraton - Toronto Airport Hotel.
Organized by: the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Canada
Co-Sponsored by: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - Canada, NOT DEAD YET - USA, Compassionate Healthcare Network - Canada, Archdiocese of Toronto - Canada, Physicians for Compassionate Care - USA, Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare - Vermont, Care NOT Killing Alliance - UK, No Less Human, UK.
* Nearly every leader and significant speaker on the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide will be attending this Symposium. Make sure that it includes you.
The program begins on Friday November 30th at 9:30 am and ends on Saturday at 5:30 pm. The Friday night dinner speaker is Professor Margaret Somerville founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.
The list of speakers include:
• Margaret Somerville, the founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. Somerville is the author of many internationally recognized books including: The Ethical Imagination and Death Talk.
• Dr. Peter Saunders is the director of the Care NOT Killing Alliance in the UK, that co-ordinates organizations in the UK that oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide and support palliative care. They were instrumental in defeating a recent assisted suicide bill in the UK.
• Dr William Toffler is the national director of Physicians for Compassionate Care in Portland Oregon, a national organizations of physicians who oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide in the US.
• Dr. Bob Orr is the director of the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Health Care opposes assisted suicide and promotes ethical healthcare practices. They were instrumental in defeating a recent assisted suicide bill in Vermont.
• Diane Coleman is the founder of NOT DEAD YET, a leading disability rights group in the US.
• Stephen Drake is the research director for NOT DEAD YET.
• Allison Davis is the national co-ordinator of No Less Human in the UK, a national disability rights organization
.• Hugh Scher is the legal counsel for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the former chair of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities Human Rights Committee. Hugh is a leading lawyer in Canada on Human Rights, Constitutional and End-of-Life Issues.
• Alex Schadenberg is the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition in Canada.
• Rita Marker is the Executive Director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Rita is the leader and the unifying force for groups that oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.
• Wesley J. Smith, attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Smith is the author of many books including: Forced Exit. Smith is a powerful speaker.
• Bobby Schindler is the brother of Terri Schiavo and works for the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation.
• Catherine Frazee is the co-director of Ryerson University (RBC) Institute for Disability Studies, and the former chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (1990 - 95). She is an extraordinarily gifted intellectual leader.
• Bert Dorenbos is the leader of Cry for Life in the Netherlands.
• Cheryl Eckstein is the founder of the Compassionate Health Care Network in Canada.
• Dr. Paul Byrne is a Neonatologist from Ohio and a recognized expert in the area of Brain Death.
• Dr Mark Mostert is an expert on the Nazi T4 - euthanasia program.
There has never been a Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide like this before.
The cost for the Symposium is:
$189 - regular, $100 - students or people with disabilities.
(Includes Friday lunch & dinner and Saturday lunch)
Friday only $125 - regular, $80 - students or people with disabilities (includes lunch and dinner)
Friday only $90 - regular, $50 student or people with disabilities. (includes lunch only)
Saturday only $90 regular, $50 student or people with disabilities. (includes lunch)
Register by contacting the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or call toll free: 1-877-439-3348.
Reserve your room by calling the Four Points Sheraton - Toronto Airport at: 1-800-368-7764 and indicate that you are reserving for the Euthanasia Symposium. The room rate is $109.00 per night.
For further registration information contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: info@epcc.ca or call toll free: 1-877-439-3348.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
www.epcc.ca
info@epcc.ca
1-877-439-3348
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
