Run With Life: July 2015

Friday, July 31, 2015

CHP Leader Calls on Harper to Protect Children From Radical Bureaucrats

Thu, July 30, 2015 | Author: Rod Taylor |

Responding to yesterday’s announcement that Health Canada has approved the controversial abortifacient drug RU-486 (mifepristone), Christian Heritage Party leader, Rod Taylor, says it’s time for Prime Minister Harper and Health Minister Rona Ambrose to rein in bureaucrats who are implementing a radical social agenda with the apparent consent or approval of the government.

“This is just the latest breach of public trust that puts children at risk”, said Taylor, “in this case, pre-born infants, who are already under siege in Canada where there is no law to protect them right up to the moment of birth. The PM and the Health Minister surely knew this announcement was coming and if not they should have known. The debate over RU-486, which not only kills tiny babies but carries significant health risks for the unsuspecting women who use it, has been raging long and loud. For Health Canada to make this announcement on the eve of a federal election must be seen as a calculated move by this government to cater to the poor-choice lobby in hopes of retaining their collapsing grip on power. It won’t work of course; it never does. Those who compromise principles for power and sacrifice lives for personal advantage will find no respect, even from those they seek to please.”

The CHP leader said the Health Minister and the PM “certainly have a duty to protect children—born and pre-born—from anything which puts their lives and health at risk”. He expressed agreement with Mike Schouten, Director of WeNeedALaw, that the Health Minister should immediately issue an Interim Order suspending the decision of Health Canada. Taylor said that pro-lifers must hold the government to account if it will not act:

“The Minister cannot hide behind an arms-length approach. She has a solemn responsibility to protect children. The fact that 14 women have died in the US as a result of using RU-486 gives even more reason for Canadians to be alarmed and incensed that a government department designed to promote health should instead be used to implement death. Pregnancy is not a disease and RU-486 is not a cure. It is another money-grab by Big Pharma at the expense of innocent and trusting Canadians. We ask the PM and the Health Minister to act responsibly and prevent the tragic loss of life that will surely result from the public distribution of RU-486 in Canada”.

Taylor also called on incumbent Conservative MPs and aspiring Conservative candidates to use their influence—publicly and privately—to have Health Canada’s RU-486 approval put on hold. “Now is no time to remain silent”, he said. “Across the country, government ministers and MPs are busy making very showy displays of handing out taxpayer money to a variety of causes and projects in hopes of generating voter support at the polls. For government MPs and Conservative candidates to turn a blind eye to this blatant abuse of power would be shameful. Speak up! Now is the time to take a stand in defence of life and justice!”

The Christian Heritage Party of Canada is the only federal party committed to the “protection of innocent human life from conception until natural death”.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

RU-486 - you won't get the truth from the pro-abortions

Health Canada has approved the drug RU-486. What a shame. Contrary to what the pro-abortions will tell you, it's neither safe nor private.

And it is especially dangerous for women in remote areas.

There are also eight pages of side effects.

Renate Klein, a pro-choice woman, wrote a book called RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals. The book is extremely well researched and completely dismantles the nonsense we are told about the safety of this drug and all of its supposed benefits.

Here's just two excerpts from the book:

"...There is much about RU 486/PG that is fraught with risk and problems. As we have queried, what is the meaning of a `private' and 'de-medicalized' abortion that requires three or four doctor visits to a specialized center, includes the taking of two and perhaps five hazardous drug combinations, is accompanied by vaginal ultrasound, and too often has complications ranging from moderate bleeding to severe pain and, for some women, blood transfusions? If this is a private and de-medicalized abortion experience, then the word `private' has lost its definitional moorings..."

"...Readers might not draw the same conclusion [that the drug is safe and effective], like hemorrhage-like bleeding, including the need for a blood transfusion, and/or re-evacuation, cardiovascular problems, a potentially lethal infection, or an ongoing pregnancy."

More of what Klein says about this dangerous drug. Read it and weep.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Letter to Justin Trudeau re: Planned Parenthood funding

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

Last week we learned that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is selling aborted baby parts for profit. PPFA is part of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

As you know, IPPF received $6 million from Canada for the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health initiative.

In light of the fact that we have a federal election coming up, I have two questions I would like you to answer for me.

Question 1) Back in 2010, then Liberal leader Bob Rae put forward a motion to fund abortion through the Maternal Health initiative:

"That, in the opinion of the House, the government’s G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world’s poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with the policy of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, and all other G8 governments last year in L’Aquila, Italy; that the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths; and that the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States, which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a “global gag rule” that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning."

As you know, 'the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options' in the Liberal's motion includes abortion, and IPPF is one of the major abortion organizations in the world.

Can you please tell me if you still support the $6M Canadians have given to International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) as part of the Muskoka initiative?

Question 2) As current leader of the Liberal party, I haven't heard you speak out against Planned Parenthood's recent activities in selling aborted baby parts. Your silence on the subject to date, suggests you support these illegal activities of Planned Parenthood? Can you please confirm or deny this at your earliest convenience?

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Letter to Thomas Mulcair re: Planned Parenthood funding

Dear Mr. Mulcair,

In light of the fact that we have a federal election coming up, I have a question I would like you to answer for me.

Last week we learned that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is selling aborted baby parts for profit. PPFA is part of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

As you know, IPPF received $6 million from Canada for the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health initiative.

I understand that if elected you would restore funding for abortion under the Muskoka initiative (or under another similar initiative):

"The NDP would restore funding for abortion and family planning to Canada's keynote development initiative which promotes maternal, newborn and child health."

I haven't heard you speak out against Planned Parenthood's recent activities in selling aborted baby parts. Your silence on the subject to date, suggests you support these illegal activities of Planned Parenthood.

Since Canadians have funded IPPF in the past, and in light of these recent allegations of IPPF's activities, would you continue to support funding to IPPF?

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Letter to Stephen Harper re: Planned Parenthood funding

Dear Mr. Harper,

In light of the fact that we have a federal election coming up, I have a question I would like you to answer for me.

Last week we learned that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is selling aborted baby parts for profit. PPFA is part of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

As you know, IPPF received $6 million from Canada for the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health initiative.

I haven't heard you speak out against Planned Parenthood's recent activities in selling aborted baby parts. Your silence on the subject to date, suggests you support these illegal activities of Planned Parenthood.

Since the Harper government has funded IPPF in the past, and in light of these recent allegations of IPPF's activities, would you continue to support funding to IPPF?

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Do our leaders still support Planned Parenthood?

By now we've all seen the horrors that await preborn children in Planned Parenthood clinics:
The Center for Medical Progress videos

And now we see the latest cavalier way PP employees view the aborted bodies of these children. To these employees, these body parts are a profit making venture.

In fact what does Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau say about this practice? Especially since we in Canada paid $6 million dollars to International Planned Parenthood Federation, one would hope they all would speak out in horror? But not a peep out of any of them. Does this mean they condone the practice? Will the next Prime Minister continue to fund IPPF knowing what we know now?

In fact I have written to the three of them. None have responded except the PM's office to tell me my letter had been forwarded to the Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of International Development. So now I've asked Mr. Paradis for a response as well.

Mr. Harper's letter
Mr. Mulcair's letter
Mr. Trudeau's letter

I suggest people email the three leaders and ask them if they condone this practice. And ask them if they still support Planned Parenthood. Emails here:

stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca
justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Thomas Mulcair as Prime Minister - maybe it's not all bad

So what would happen if Thomas Mulcair becomes Canada's next Prime Minister?

Now there are some definite problems with this. Saving Canada Post's door to door delivery, $15 a day daycare, and a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage, to name just a few big NDP government spending nightmares.

But maybe it's not all bad.

For starters, I, and many other Canadians, are very tired of Mr. Harper and how the party itself has fared under him. Mr. Harper is a control freak. He won't allow discussion on abortion in Parliament. He's completely standoffish, refusing to engage with ordinary people or the media. Maybe he cares about the average Canadian, but if he does, he doesn't show it. It seems to be only about power for power's sake.

As far as Justin Trudeau goes, he scares me to death. Really, would I trust the country to someone who has said and done so many dumb things? Who won't respond to a letter from Canadians signed by 395 people? Who actually thinks a woman has a charter right to abortion; etc, etc.?

On the plus side of the Conservative party, we know that it is the only party of the three main parties, that will allow MPs to have a choice on whether or not they are "pro-choice", never mind the irony of that fact. But that never seemed to actually help them do anything pro-life as long as Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper is leader of the Conservatives.

So what's the not so bad part of Mr. Mulcair as Prime Minister? Because it frees up pro-life Conservative MPs to do something while in opposition. We know that both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair won't even allow pro-life persons to be a candidate in the election. And as long as Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper is leader of the Conservatives and they are in power, no pro-life MP will ever be successful with any pro-life motion or bill brought forward in Parliament anyway.

But if the Conservatives don't get into power then Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper won't be leader anymore. Conservative MPs in opposition, will at least be be free to speak out on abortion. And bring forward pro-life private member's bills or motions.

Who knows how this could turn out? At the very least it will be a very interesting election.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

The best man for the job isn't a man

To hang with Justin Trudeau. To hang with Thomas Mulcair. To hang with Stephen Harper.

CARLY FIORINA: "Let's talk about the legislation that is sitting on the Senate floor right now. Let's also talk about Hillary Clinton's position. Let's talk about what extreme is. It is not a life until it leaves the hospital. That is Hillary Clinton's position. It is Hillary Clinton's position that a 13 year old girl needs her mother's permission to go to a tanning salon or a tattoo, but not to get an abortion.

It is Hillary Clinton's position that women should not be permitted to look at an ultrasound before an abortion and yet people who harvest body parts can use an ultrasound to make sure those body parts are preserved so they can be sold...

My position is very clear, it has been clear and consistent... yes I support exceptions, but the majority of the Americans now believe that abortion for any reason at all to be paid for by tax payers after 5 months in an abomination... this video tape is depraved. "

I want Carly Fiorina for Prime Minister. This woman is amazing.

Monday, July 20, 2015

IPPF - Menstrual Regulation or Erratic Regulation?

We know that the $6 million DFATD gave IPPF for the Maternal, newborn and child health initiative wasn't to be used for abortion or menstrual regulation services.

(Note that MR is an abortion only if the woman is pregnant; so not all MR's amount to abortions. Because they don't check whether the woman is pregnant first, laws that ban abortions can be circumvented, since they don't actually know that she is pregnant. But if she is pregnant, then MR is an abortion.)

We also know Canadians are forced to simply take IPPF's word that this money is not being used for abortion or menstrual regulation services. See here and here. That's because IPPF says they aren't using the funding for abortion services, but there is no third party corroboration of this fact.

My latest ATIP to DFATD has again raised the MR question. This time the evidence is even more questionable.

On June 9, 2014, IPPF sent a report to DFATD detailing the services it provided in the five countries. Under the heading GYNECOLOGY - MANAGEMENT - MEDICAL, was the following line item:

"Gynecology - Management - Medical -Menstrual Regulation 9,800 [services]"

It seems that DFATD asked to IPPF to clarify this. There were a few emails from IPPF on this, and finally we get IPPF's conclusion of their investigation.

"Dear Anne,

Per [name blacked out] previous email, attached I am sending you a revised table (originally submitted on 9 June 2014) showing the breakdown of 2013 gynaecological service data. With this email, I re-confirm that all the services that have been previously reported have been undertaken with funding from the DFATD project. The only revision has been that the services previously reported as `Menstrual Regulation' are now reported under `Erratic Regulation'. (emphasis added)

After consulting back with each of the MAs that had initially reported services under `Menstrual Regulation' we found that these have been miscategorised and no menstrual regulation services had in fact been offered. The MAs in Afghanistan and Sudan, who had originally reported' menstrual regulation services in 2013, had actually provided `Erratic regulation' (i.e. of menstruation) services. The IPPF service statistics module definition for the `Erratic regulation' service is: `A trained service provider provides management for menstrual irregularities such as heavy or painful periods with medication (such as oestrogens) when this is not contraindicated, for clients experiencing abnormally heavy or irregular periods, in a space which allows confidentiality.' (emphasis added)

These services have now been correctly re-categorised. There are therefore no menstrual regulation services recorded for any of the 5 MAs in the DFATD project and the revised table with the breakdown of 2013's gynaecological services now displays the correct category.

I am happy to go over this information with you over the phone if it would be helpful.

With Warm Regards,

[name blacked out]"

So I looked up "erratic regulation", first on IPPF's site. No such definition exists there. Then I Googled "erratic regulation". I did find some definitions, but none of them relate to a anything gynecological and I could find nothing to indicate that this is a bona fide gynecological treatment.

As expected, Menstrual regulation was on IPPF's website:

"Evacuation of the uterus of a woman who has missed her menstrual period by 14 days or fewer, who previously had regular periods and who has been at risk of conception. In some countries menstrual regulation is legal, even though therapeutic abortion is not."

The corrected document IPPF sent to DFATD reads:

"Gynecology - Management - Medical - Erratic Regulation 9,800 [services]"

So what exactly is going on here?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter from IPPF to DFATD:

Original submission from IPPF to DFATD

Corrected submission from IPPF to DFATD:

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

If A=B and B=C, does A=C?

So PPFA sells fetal body parts.

PPFA is part of IPPF.

And IPPF gets tax dollars from Canada.

I don't think I like this relationship.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Fetal body parts for sale

Planned Parenthood digs their own grave. Watch this video.

The need for disgusting postcards

An Ottawa woman is disgusted with CLCY's graphic abortion flyer targeting federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. And so she should be. That's because what the postcards depict--is disgusting.

This is what Alissa Golob said about the postcards:

"Slavery and the holocaust — abuses like these have changed using graphic images. So we're just using a strategy that works."

Maybe if Trudeau reversed his edict that pro-life people cannot run for the Liberal party, there wouldn't be such a dire need to distribute the postcards.

(See http://no2trudeau.ca/)

Protect the pre-born

My letter in today's National Post, in response to Jeff Durham's desire to bring back Bill C-484, Unborn Victims of Crime.

Re: Make Violent Death Of Unborn Crime, July 10.

Jeff Durham believes his pre-born child, Molly, the victim of a violent death, deserves to be treated the same way any other human being in the same circumstances: charge the killer.

I agree. The last time the Unborn Victim of crime bill was introduced in Parliament, the radical pro-choice lobby did everything it could to scare MPs into believing such a bill would open the door to abortion restrictions. Their abortion blinders prevented them from grasping a pre-born child in these specific circumstances, is in as much need of protection as its mother. In this case, their “choice” argument falls especially flat since these children are wanted — their mothers and fathers have chosen to keep them. So why can’t we provide them protection?

As Joyce Arthur, Canada’s most extreme “pro-choicer” let slip about her real motivation behind her opposition to Bill C-484 in the National Post in 2004: “If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.”

Durham is calling his campaign “Molly Matters,” after his daughter. Molly does matter, and if we won’t protect her and future Mollys, who will?

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

(See http://www.mollymatters.org/
And here: http://www.molly-matters.ca)

Friday, July 10, 2015

Molly Matters - Let's resurrect Bill C-484

Casandra Kaake met a violent death when she was seven months pregnant. The child's father, Jeff Durham, believes that his child Molly, also a victim of the same violent act, deserves to be treated the same way any other human being: charge the killer.

This is so logical you have to ask yourself how anyone could oppose it? Unbelievably, there are such people. Joyce Arthur comes to mind.

Durham would like to resurrect the Unborn Victim of Crime bill first introduced by MP in 2007, and which was killed when the Conservatives called an election. (How convenient of Stephen Harper).

The last time the Unborn Victim of crime bill was brought forward, the radical pro-choice lobby did everything they could to scare members of Parliament that such a bill would open the door to abortion restrictions. Their ideology blinded them from the simple truth that a pre-born child in these circumstances, is in as much need of protection as her mother. In fact their "choice" argument fails miserably since these children are wanted--their mothers and fathers have chosen to keep them.

So why won't the pro-abortions support such a bill? Well Arthur let slip what her real motivation behind her opposition to Bill C-484 was.

“If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.”

Durham is calling his campaign "Molly Matters", after his daughter. Yes Molly matters. And so do all the future children killed in utero by means of violence.

Sign the petition here to bring back Bill C-484.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

ARPA Canada proposes government use "notwithstanding clause" on assisted suicide and euthanasia

For immediate release from the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada

July 7, 2015

ARPA CANADA UNVEILS DRAFT LEGISLATION PROHIBITING ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA AND INVOKING THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE

Ottawa - On the heels of the Canadian Medical Association unveiling draft protocols for an assisted suicide regime, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada has published a draft euthanasia law (http://arpacanada.ca/drafteuthanasialaw.pdf) which would uphold Canada’s absolute prohibitions of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

ARPA Canada was an intervenor in the Supreme Court case which struck down Canada’s assisted suicide law on February 6, 2015 and gave Parliament just one year to fill the void. The organization also published a policy report for Parliamentarians following the Supreme Court decision.

“On numerous occasions, including just five years ago, all of the major parties in Canada’s Parliament have voted to uphold our law against assisted suicide,” said ARPA Canada’s Executive Director Mark Penninga. “Parliament has the constitutional means to pass a new law which continues to prohibit all assisted suicide, and it can do that while taking meaningful steps to promote palliative and end of life care.”

The draft bill invokes Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly referred to as the notwithstanding clause. This section gives Parliament the ability to pass legislation notwithstanding a court’s interpretation of section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Charter. In this case, the draft legislation is cited notwithstanding how the Supreme Court interpreted the “right to life” of section 7 of the Charter to allow state-endorsed killing.

“If Parliament refuses to even consider invoking Section 33, Canada’s nine unelected Supreme Court judges have effectively become the supreme lawmakers of Canada,” explained ARPA Canada’s Legal Counsel André Schutten. “The notwithstanding clause was added to the Charter to balance the power of the judicial and legislative branches of civil government. But for the clause to have effect, it must be exercised. It is hard to conceive of a more worthy time to invoke Section 33 than now, when the basic right to life of Canada’s most vulnerable citizens are at risk.”

ARPA’s draft law includes a lengthy preamble which provides sixteen reasons why such a strident step is principled, constitutional, and necessary.

- 30 -

Interview Requests:
Mark Penninga is available throughout the day for phone or email interviews. Contact him directly at 778-210-0376 or Mark@ARPACanada.ca

ARPA Canada’s legal counsel André Schutten is available for comment and in studio interviews in Ottawa or via phone/email. To arrange an interview contact Niki Pennings, Administrative Assistant, at 1-866-691-2772, ext. 3 or Niki@ARPACanada.ca

DRAFT

First Session, Forty-second Parliament,
63-64 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016
STATUTES OF CANADA 2016CHAPTER ___

Bill C-_____ An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision inCarter v. Canada (Attorney General)

Preamble

Whereas it is Parliament’s duty to protect human life and uphold the inviolable right to life of all human beings;

Whereas the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns about the inherent risks that a legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide regime pose to the lives of vulnerable people;

Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the devastating social harm caused by the normalization of suicide and the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia;

Whereas legalizing physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia would corrupt the practice of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship;

Whereas it is of utmost importance, by discouraging suicide, to protect the inherent human dignity and value possessed by each Canadian person by reason of everyone being a member of the human family, regardless of disease, disability or discomfort;

Whereas certain judges have failed to appreciate overwhelming social scientific evidence on the inherent harms and unacceptable risks to the lives of vulnerable, disabled, elderly and sick Canadians when euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized;

Whereas comprehensive reviews of all other jurisdictions that have legalized assisted suicide and/or euthanasia prove that assisted deaths continue, and even increase, in the face of evidence that legislated safeguards are ignored;

Whereas there is no reason to believe that Canada would be any different should euthanasia or assisted suicide be legalized;

Whereas legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide will result in a two-tiered justice system, providing robust Criminal Code protections for the lives of able-bodied persons, but weak Criminal Code protections for the lives of people with disabilities and illnesses;

Whereas striking down the Criminal Code provision denying the right toconsent to have another end your life, but only limiting that nullification to those who are suffering or disabled, is a shocking and discriminatory value statement about the life and worth of people with severe disabilities, pain or illness;

Whereas the Parliament of Canada rejects the proposition that the deaths of some innocent, vulnerable people in a legalized euthanasia regime is an acceptable balance to allow others the freedom to have unhindered assistance in committing suicide at a convenient time and place;

Whereas the Parliament of Canada has conducted holistic, in-depth, cross-partisan studies, hearing from all segments of society on the ethical, moral, legal, philosophical and policy implications on the issue of legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia and, having studied the issue more thoroughly than a court can or ever has, concluding that only an absolute prohibition on allowing some people to kill other people, absent self-defence, can adequately and equally protect the lives of all Canadians;

Whereas the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Supreme Court of Canada failed to give any meaningful recognition of the votes of Parliament at different times in the last two decades, comprising clear, direct, cross-party votes against the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide;

Whereas section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives exclusive authority to Parliament to make laws in relation to the Criminal Law;

Whereas that same section of the Constitution precludes judges at any level of court to legislate their social preferences from the bench;

And whereas section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides Parliament the constitutional authority to remedy a policy change by the courts, notwithstanding their interpretation of various sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

SHORT TITLE

Short title

1. This Act may be cited as the Restoring Full and Equal Protection of Vulnerable Canadian Lives Act.

R.S., c. C-46

CRIMINAL CODE

R.S.C. 1970,
c. C-34, s.14

Charter override

R.S.C. 1970,
c. C-34, s. 224;
R.S.C. 1985, c. 27
(1 ^st Supp.), s.7(3)

Charter override

2. Section 14 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following:

14.1 Section 14 operates notwithstanding the interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada of provisions of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1, Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, (U.K.) 1982 c11.

3. Section 241 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

241.1 Section 241 operates notwithstanding the interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada of provisions of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1, Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, (U.K.) 1982 c11.

REVIEW AND REPORT

Review

Report

4. (1) Within four years after this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.

(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within six months after a review is undertaken pursuant to that subsection or within such further time as the House may authorize, submit a report on the review to the Speaker of the House, including a statement of any changes the committee recommends.

COMING INTO FORCE

One day after royal assent

5. The provisions of this Act come into force one day after the day onwhich this Act receives royal assent.

DRAFT

ARPA Canada, P.O. Box 1377 STN B , Ottawa, K1P 5R4

Please click here if you wish to unsubscribe from ARPA Canada media releases.

Monday, July 6, 2015

GK Chesterton on surplus population

Friday, July 3, 2015

Pro-choice violence - not in Wikipedia

A while ago anonymous blogger said in a comment on my blog, that she was anonymous because she feared pro-lifers. Because we are "scary". Her source was wiki-pedia:

"I'm psedonymous because your lot are fairly scary, BTW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence"

Since Wikipedia was happy to publish violence attributed to pro-life people, I thought I'd check out their entry for "pro-choice" violence. Quelle surprise. There is no such entry. What was I thinking?

Of course there are a ton of examples of "pro-choice" violence out there. This morning I saw the first one below. A "pro-choice" person punches a pro-life protester, who then falls backwards into a fence hitting his head. The assailant then drives off but not before using the F word a couple of times. In fact this seems to be standard language for these very angry "pro-choice" people.

And anonymous blogger is afraid of us? She should check out her own kind. They are the scary ones.

Below is my own version of Wikipedia "pro-choice" violence. The entry you'll never see in Wikipedia.

In this video "pro-choice" people repeatedly taunt pro-lifers who are peacefully praying. It is quite the spectacle these "pro-choice" people make.

Pages

Friday, July 31, 2015

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Monday, July 20, 2015

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Friday, July 10, 2015

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Monday, July 6, 2015

Friday, July 3, 2015