The bogus health and safety argument and our Charter right to protest abortion

More on my previous post about what the IPC said about our charter challenge against the Ontario government's decision to exclude abortion information from freedom of information requests when the IPC said this:

"Broad exclusions from the Acts, such as the ones proposed in Bill 84, can prevent the public from accessing information that poses no health or safety risk. For example, in 2012, the Ministry denied a freedom of information request for province-wide statistics on the number of claims and amounts billed for abortion services. It did so on the basis of the abortion records exclusion in section 65(5.7) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,3 even though disclosure of this information posed no health or safety risk. In fact, the 2 Similar provisions exist in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. 

3 That decision was upheld by my office in Order PO-3222.
4 Ministry ultimately disclosed this information outside the scope of the statute after the requester commenced a court application. 

Finally, the IPC notes that access to information should not be limited in order to stifle legitimate and peaceful protest. The right to protest and express criticism of government decisions is an integral component of any democracy and is protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees everyone freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association."

Re: this statement:

"Ministry ultimately disclosed this information outside the scope of the statute after the requester commenced a court application."

So if health and safety was really a concern for the Government regarding my requested abortion information, why would they release the information only after I initiated court proceedings? Clearly they wouldn't have released it if they were truly concerned about the health and safety of...someone...we don't know who because there was no private information requested.

The fact that they did release it proves that there were no health and safety concerns at all, they were just hoping I would go away which I did not.

Re: This statement:

"Finally, the IPC notes that access to information should not be limited in order to stifle legitimate and peaceful protest. The right to protest and express criticism of government decisions is an integral component of any democracy and is protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees everyone freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association."

This statement was expressed as it pertains to people protesting medical aid in dying (MAID). But it also holds true for abortion as well. In a democracy where people protest abortion (which is paid for out of those pro-lifers taxes), those people also have a 

"right to protest and express criticism of government decisions is an integral component of any democracy and is protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees everyone freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association".

It is truly mind boggling how this Liberal government in Ontario tramples on so many fundamental rights of citizens and makes stuff up to satisfy their own abortion agenda.

Information and Privacy Commissioner says no health and safety concerns in releasing abortion information

Now this is super interesting. 

This document Comments of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario on Bill 84 [Bill 84, Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act, 2017] details the IPC's opinion on excluding the names of medical facilities that provide medical assistance in dying, from freedom of information requests.

In this submission the IPC is saying this MAID exclusion from FIPPA goes too far and that the public should have a right to know in which facilities MAID is being carried out.

So by logical extension, one would conclude that the IPC would hold the view that we also have a right to know in which facilities abortions are being carried out: I think the same arguments apply.

In our Charter Challenge against the Ontario Government for hiding abortion information, the Information and Privacy Commissioner didn't take a position on whether abortion records should or should not be disclosed, but did mention how MAID records were being handled in Bill 84 as a possible way the government could deal with abortion.

In this paragraph the IPC actually states that there was no Health and Safety risk in our case (our case is not specifically identified but the description is obviously our case since it is the only case like it). Yet the health and safety angle was the Ontario Government's main argument:

"Broad exclusions from the Acts, such as the ones proposed in Bill 84, can prevent the public from accessing information that poses no health or safety risk. For example, in 2012, the Ministry denied a freedom of information request for province-wide statistics on the number of claims and amounts billed for abortion services. It did so on the basis of the abortion records exclusion in section 65(5.7) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 3 even though disclosure of this information posed no health or safety risk. In fact, the 2 Similar provisions exist in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. (emphasis added)

3 That decision was upheld by my office in Order PO-3222.
4 Ministry ultimately disclosed this information outside the scope of the statute after the requester commenced a court application."

I've already shot down that health and safety argument:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2017/02/hiding-abortion-information-was-done.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/12/why-ontario-government-had-to-hide.html

Now the IPC has just shot down the health and safety argument too. Let's hope Judge Labrosse agrees with us.

Finally as far as MAID goes:

"The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) wishes to focus on a single aspect of Bill 84. The bill proposes to amend the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and its municipal counterpart, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Acts), to provide that these statutes do not apply to identifying information relating to medical assistance in dying. “Identifying information” is defined in Bill 84 to include information that identifies persons or facilities that provide services relating to medical assistance in dying and persons receiving such services. The IPC objects to the exclusion of information that identifies facilities providing services related to medical assistance in dying (facilities) from the application of the Acts. The rationale for this objection and the amendments proposed by the IPC are summarized in this submission  (emphasis added)

RATIONALE FOR AMENDMENTS

Excluding information that identifies facilities from the application of the Acts: 

• hinders transparency, accountability and meaningful public debate,
• is inconsistent with the transparency purpose of the Acts, and
• is not based on any evidence of harm.

Inconsistent with the Transparency Purpose of the Act

One of the key purposes of the Acts is to provide the public with a right of access to information under the custody or control of institutions, which include both public and private hospitals and municipally run long-term care homes, in accordance with the principles that information should be available to the public and any exemptions from the right of access must be limited and specific and clearly justified. As a general rule, the IPC closely scrutinizes any legislative changes that reduce the public’s right to know. (emphasis added)

No evidence has been provided, including evidence of harm, that would justify a broad exclusion from the right of access to information that identifies facilities." (emphasis added)

I'm happy to see the Information and Privacy Commissioner making his views public about what's happening with MAID. It's good to see him raising transparency issues, right to know issues, right of access to public and hospital institution information issues, etc.

I hazard to guess that when the Ontario government conducted their first assault on access to information rights regarding abortion, that the Information and Privacy Commissioner didn't even know what the government was doing. Nobody else knew, so how would the Information and Privacy Commissioner know? Was he consulted on the abortion exclusion clause? There is no indication that the commissioner knew anything about the clause's existence. Just like the rest of us.

This time with MAID, the Information and Privacy Commissioner was forewarned because of how the government went about with their secret assault on our rights last time. And this time, the Commissioner is on the offensive. Good for him.

Tell your MPP you want doctor's conscience rights protected

Yesterday I called my MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers' office regarding Bill 84 Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act. She was in Queen's Park so this is what I said to her assistant:

"Regarding Bill 84, Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act: when Nathalie spoke in the legislature on this bill, I noted that there is no mention about a provision in the bill to ensure that conscience rights are protected. That's because there is no such provision in the bill. In fact The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is forcing doctors to make "effective referrals" which is against many physicians' freedom of conscience. This is of great concern to me."

I then told her assistant to make sure she relayed my concerns to Nathalie. She told me many people had already called her. Her assistant also told me that on Thursday March 20th there will be committee hearings in Toronto on this, and that people can request to call in to it to express their concerns about the lack of protection for doctor's conscience rights.

People can also send in a written submission to Peter Milczyn, MPP, Chair, Eric Rennie, Clerk erennie@ola.org 

Interested people who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation on Bill 84 on Thursday, March 30, 2017 should provide their contact name, mailing address, phone number, and email address to the Clerk of the Committee by 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 28, 2017.

Requests to present via teleconference will be accommodated.

Those who do not wish to make an oral presentation but wish to comment on the Bill may send a written submission to the Clerk of the Committee at the address below by 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 30, 2017.

Telephone: (416) 325-3506 (Collect calls will be accepted) Facsimile: (416) 325-3505 TTY: (416) 325-3538 

Please call your own MPP (Nathalie's email is NDesRosiers.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org) and tell them you want doctor's conscience rights protected. And send an email to the committee at erennie@ola.org.

It is very important we make our views known to the politicians. If we don't, we are in real danger of losing our doctors who will be forced into referring people for assisted suicide, or leave their practice. 

We must make sure doctor's conscience rights are protected.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

Dear Dr. Eric Hoskins, Minister of Health and Long Term Care of Ontario

On Feb 1 2017 in a court of law (Ontario Superior Court of Justice), on behalf of your government (Ontario), in front of a judge (Judge Marc Labrosse), your lawyer (Dan Guttman) said: 

"  ...if there is an exclusion [as there currently is with abortion information] you are entitled to ask government and when you ask government for that information, the government has to weigh the decision just like in any other decision...you make the request and if the request is denied you have the decision by the court. And we are saying we are going to give out this information."

On Feb 2, 2017, I asked you for abortion information as described by your lawyer above. Not only have I still not heard back from you, but I haven't even received an acknowledgement letter.

Surely you intend to honour your lawyer's commitment to send me this information, right? Surely we can trust that what he said was the truth? 

You know when I was cross examined by this same lawyer, a representative of your government, I had to swear to tell the truth. On a Bible. I took that oath very seriously.

I don't know, but surely I can expect the same kind of truth from your very own representative Dr. Hoskins? In a court of law? In front of a judge? Don't you think?

I look forward  hearing back from you soon, along with the abortion information I requested from you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Minister Joly interview on CBC's Power & Politics regarding "Islamophobia" motion

I received a copy of this letter from a Canadian citizen to Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage, regarding the "Islamophobia" Motion. Well worth the read. 

The Minister doesn't seem to grasp the problem with the motion as it currently stands.

Interview here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Minister Joly,

I just finished watching Terry Milewski interview you on Power & Politics regarding the "Islamophobia" motion. 

He asked you why you would not consider changing the word "Islamophobia" in the motion to "hatred of Muslims" for example. Irwin Cotler apparently also made the same suggestion to you, as did some Conservative MPs.

And yet, you did not explain why you refused to make that change, which members of all parties would probably agree with. Terry Milewski repeated a few times that "Islamophobia" means (at least for some people) fear of the religion, Islam, and not fear/hatred of the Muslim people. In other words, fear of the ideas that Islam espouses (for example, death to infidels.) And in the debate in Parliament today, I heard Conservative MPs make this distinction as well.

With respect, Minister Joly, you did not seem to grasp what Mr. Milewski was saying. You do not seem to grasp this important distinction. You kept going back to examples of hatred against Muslims. And yes, we can all agree that is WRONG. So why do you not then change the word "Islamophobia" in the motion to "hatred against the Muslim people"?? That is exactly what Mr. Milewski was asking, as have people like Irwin Cotler. And, with respect, you have not given a coherent response to that question.

I urge you, Minister Joly, to watch for yourself the interview you gave to Terry Milewski. You will see that you are not addressing his questions regarding the distinction between "Islamophobia" and "hatred of Muslims." 

You go on to say you don't want to curtail free speech. Well, if a person criticizes an Islamic idea such as "death to infidels," then they could be considered "Islamophobic" (since there's no definition of that term in M-103) and because M-103 condemns "Islamophobia" then you are effectively saying you want to condemn people who make legitimate criticisms of ideas like "death to infidels."

I sincerely hope, Minister Joly, that you/the PMO/Ms Khalid will amend M-103 accordingly. Otherwise, we can only conclude that the Liberal government really does intend with M103 to condemn people who validly criticize the religion of Islam, thus putting a chill on freedom of expression which will also undermine freedom of religion in this country. 

I have to assume you want to do the right thing, Minister Joly, for Muslims and indeed for all Canadians. Then please, try to understand what Terry Milewski was getting at and what Irwin Cotler and some Conservative MPs were explaining was the problem with M103. Please don't discount what someone is saying, just because they are not part of your Liberal government. I would hope, in the spirit of inclusiveness, you would listen to what is reasonable, regardless of who it is coming from, and not continue down this divisive path, purely for the sake of partisan politics. 

Thank you for considering my remarks, Minister Joly, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Don Martin and Pierre Lemieux - let's talk about abortion

Dear Don Martin,

Thanks for your great interview with Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Lemieux.

Mr. Lemieux speaks for many many social conservatives in this country with his strong stand against abortion (he's not afraid to say he's against abortion) and for free speech rights. I myself am very concerned with both these issues.

Like Mr. Lemieux I am opposed to abortion, and am currently awaiting a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ontario on our Charter Challenge against the Ontario government for hiding abortion information. Our case is based on freedom of speech rights: how can I practice my freedom of expression rights in commenting meaningfully on how many abortions are performed in Ontario, and their cost, when the Ontario government prevents me from seeing that information?

I can't really think of two more important Canadian values, than the right of life for ALL Canadians including the pre-born, and the very old. And Freedom of Speech itself is the cornerstone of Canadian democracy. 

Mr. Lemieux stands for both of these values. I will be voting for him, and I thank him sincerely for his standing for what I believe in.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Conservatives and Pierre Lemieux

Great Facebook post by Pierre Lemieux at a function in Ottawa Vanier. Too bad I couldn't attend but I'm not currently in Ottawa.

Lemieux reads a note from former Liberal supporter Colleen Fogarty who supported Pierre Trudeau. No more. She is now supporting Pierre Lemieux.

Lemieux discusses how he supports life. And Justin Trudeau pays for taking life with his abortion stand (and his recent $650 million funding for sexual and reproductive health and rights).

"If there is any party who is absolutely fixated on taking the lives of unborn babies and with abortion, it is the Liberals."

Lemeux encourages us to write to the Prime Minister (pm@pm.gc.ca or justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca) and tell him we don't want out tax money to go to paying for abortion overseas. This is part of the anti-life culture we are shipping overseas. That many of those countries don't support abortion at all. It is a western solution to problems in those countries.

"Social Conservatives are absolutely making an important contribution to the Conservative race."

Lemieux is for freedom of speech, the need of a healthy democracy, on being against polictical correctness, and says that social conservatives have a rightful place in our Canadian society.

Lemieux says he has always had the same values that he has today, even when he was elected 10 years ago. Pretty solid Conservative candidate. He doesn't change his values as he goes along. Same values 10 years ago, and same values now. What you see is what you get. Can't say that of most politicians.

Buy a Conservative membership for $15 to be able to vote for the next leader.

Justin Trudeau and abortion and Fatima

Cardinal Collins is now speaking out to Justin Trudeau about his "sexual and reproductive health" $650 million funding going to poor countries:

"I am writing to express my deep concern and disappointment at your government's decision to provide $650 million to support "sexual and reproductive health programs" globally. While it is commendable and necessary to foster initiatives that further the rights of women and young girls worldwide, your public comments suggest that unless a woman has access to abortion or contraception, she is not empowered or able to realize her full potential. 

I simply remind you and your colleagues that we have no rights at all unless we are afforded the right to life. That decision was made for you and for each one of us by a woman, determined and committed to bring a new life into this world."

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops have already spoken to the Prime Minister.

Trudeau calls himself a Catholic, and even likes to tell us he was raised as a strict Catholic:

"I had an extraordinary example in a father who had deeply, deeply held personal views that were informed by the fact that he went to church every Sunday, read the Bible regularly to us, and raised us very religiously, as Catholics," Trudeau wrote. 

Since Trudeau is a Catholic, he knows the story of Our Lady of Fatima.

I already knew the story of Fatima of course (all Catholic children do) but am now reading a book on Fatima. It is quite the eye opener to read the whole story from beginning to end.

(Here is an online version of a similar book to the one I'm reading, by the same author Father by John de Marchi, I.M.C. THE TRUE STORY OF FATIMA )

In a nutshell, our Lady appeared to three peasant children in Fatima Portugal, Jacinta, Lucia and Francisco in 1917. She appeared to them on the 13th of each month for six months, beginning in May 1917 and ending in October 1917, when a miracle she promised took place, the Miracle of the Sun. Our Lady spoke about the need for repentance and for prayer. She also spoke of Hell. Our Lady also showed the children what Hell looked like.

This year is the 100th anniversary of these apparitions.

There are a lot of evils in this world including abortion and euthanasia.

I can't think of anything worse than having legal abortion and legal euthanasia in one's own country, except perhaps exporting and paying for thousands and thousands of abortions in other countries.

Heads up to Justin Trudeau: you may want to brush up on the Fatima story. Or you may prefer not to believe the story. Your choice really.

Politicians and Catholic people

To be Catholic is to be pro-life. There is no ambiguity on the topic. In reality there are Catholics who are not pro-life. This is a contradiction in terms. But it happens. Hopefully these people have a conversion experience before the end of their life. We should pray for them.

Bernard Cardinal Law said:

"That is what Catholics are called to: to be unconditionally pro-life. There is no ambiguity in the words of Peter's successor. To be Catholic is to be unconditionally pro-life. To support abortion, to advocate the right to choose an abortion can in no way be considered a catholic option. ..."

We also know that the current Liberal government under Justin Trudeau is a pro-abortion party, First Trudeau forbid pro-life people from becoming members of his party. Now it gets worse when he has pledged $650 million to fund "sexual and reproductive health and rights".

So are Catholics allowed to vote for the Liberals in the next election? No. I'm pretty sure though that there are Catholics who do vote Liberal. But as Catholics we cannot vote for a politician that is for abortion and funds abortion. This would be a very serious matter for a Catholic.

Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi said:

"It is never permissible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because the candidate is pro-abortion. Such a vote would be formal cooperation in the serious sin of the candidate who, upon being elected, would vote for legislation making possible the taking of innocent human life through procured abortion."

Catholics must be pro-life.

Justin Trudeau and his reprehensible policy of Western cultural imperialism

The Bishops of Canada speak out

Prime Minister,

On 8 March 2017 the Government of Canada announced $650 million over three years for “sexual and reproductive health and rights". According to a backgrounder provided to the media, a major part of the funding will be toward removing "judicial and legal barriers to the fulfillment of sexual and reproductive health and rights". As cited by the Globe and Mail on 9 March 2017, a federal official has confirmed "these barriers include the anti-abortion laws in many countries."

Such a policy is a reprehensible example of Western cultural imperialism and an attempt to impose misplaced but so-called Canadian "values" on other nations and people. It exploits women when they are most in need of care and support, and tragically subverts true prenatal health care. It negates our country's laudable efforts to welcome refugees and offer protection to the world's homeless, when the youngest of human lives will instead be exterminated and the most vulnerable of human beings discarded as unwanted human tissue.

Your policy and vision, contrary to the fundamental ethic of protecting the most vulnerable and assisting the weakest, are in conflict with the principles instinctively shared by the majority of the world's population and consistently upheld by the Catholic Church: to defend and protect human life from conception to natural death.

On behalf of all the bishops of Canada I thank you for your consideration and I remain

(Most Rev.) Douglas Crosby, OMI
Bishop of Hamilton
President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Funding abortion overseas - #notmyprimeminister

Theresa Winchester sent this letter to Justin Trudeau. I suggest we all send him our own letter @JustinTrudeau justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

Why must I as a Canadian taxpayer fund abortion in Canada?  Oh, let's extend that.  Why must I as a Canadian taxpayer fund abortion in the whole world?

Like the early feminists, I can not condone killing children in any stage of their lives which has now become the acceptable "choice" of killing girl babies in the womb simply because they are female.  Your claim to be a feminist is as fallacious as so many other of your claims.  I was a feminist before you were conceived and hearing you say that you are a feminist makes my skin crawl. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444050/snl-susan-b-anthony-early-feminists-opposed-abortion

Mr. Prime Minister, please educate yourself.  If you knew how unborn children were killed in the womb, you might have some understanding of the horror that is abortion.  If you understood that the unborn child who is a surprise or inconvenient or might be challenged develops in the womb day by day exactly the same as those who are wanted, you might have some understanding from the child's point of view.  If you knew about the number of women who sincerely regret their abortion every single day of their remaining lives, you might have a glimmer about the disservice that ready, free and unrestricted access to abortion is to women.  But then again, to understand anything about abortion, you would have to research and contemplate something other than the noisy people who scream "it's a woman's choice" while ignoring the fact that a human life ends with every abortion.  You only hear one voice, Mr Prime Minister, the one that agrees with your uneducated and firmly closed opinion.  Like so many other pro-choice people, you have never looked beyond the 10 second sound byte.  

I challenge you, Mr Prime Minister, while knowing full well that you will NEVER do it.  I challenge you, on the day of the National March for Life, May 11 2017, to have a look at the numbers of Canadians who totally disagree with your one voice.  I challenge you, on that day, to actually talk to some of them -- the idea of you doing that actually brings on a giggle!  The marchers are not religious whack jobs.  They are not attempting to control Canadian women and put them back barefoot into the kitchen.  They are not old white guys.  They are attempting to save the lives of Canadian human beings who have not yet been born but had no choice in being conceived and will have no choice in being terminated.  Even as I type this, I laugh; you don't have what it takes to do anything except what you have always done.  

Mr Prime Minister, some day when the world rights itself, and it will, you will be remembered in the same way that we now view the former pro-slavery leaders of countries.  

Please do not respond to my email with a platitude about valuing the input of all Canadians.  It is perfectly obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse that you value only those opinions that match with your own view of the world.  

#notmyprimeminister#notmytaxdollars

Theresa Winchester

When the Conservatives act like Liberals

You know Pierre Lemieux makes a really good point in his latest email to his supporters. When the pro-abortion Liberals decided to spend more of our tax dollars on abortion in poor countries, why haven't we heard anything against this from the Conservative party?

"You may have missed a significant announcement last week. 

The Liberals announced that they are giving $20 million this year to help International Planned Parenthood provide more abortions overseas. 

If you missed it, it wasn’t because the Liberals tried to hide it. They’ve been pre-positioning it for weeks. 

Rather, it is because Conservatives, as Opposition, are saying nothing."

Why the silence? Do the Conservatives condone this spending? Surely not. Aren't the Conservatives all about fiscal prudence? We have a 635 billion dollar debt in this country, and no Conservatives are talking about this shameful waste of money. Oh it's about abortion, is that it? Can't be seen as opposing anything to do with abortion?

Seems like the Conservative party is becoming an awful lot like the pro-abortion Liberals when they refuse to hold the Liberals to account to us for this shameful spending on killing unborn children in poor countries:

"When life issues are “out of bounds” for us as Conservatives, the Liberals are able to implement their agenda without any accountability or challenge."

Here's the question then. Why do we need a Conservative party at all? When the Conservative party we thought we had is really just a Liberal party?

Monte Mcnaughton - Dr.'s conscience rights survey

MPP Monte McNaughton (the only MPP who I've heard speak out on this issue) has a one question survey on his website regarding doctor's conscience rights.

Please fill it out.

Thank God for one principled MPP.

The rot starts at the top - Canadians fund abortion overseas

This is sickening. We are going to give $20 million for "Reproductive Rights" which of course includes abortion.

My tax dollars and yours. It's not enough that we fund abortion right here in Canada. Now we want to fund it elsewhere.

So how much debt are we currently in in Canada anyway? $635 billion:

"Federal debt is also assumed to cross the $1 trillion mark around 2031. It is currently $635 billion."

And now we will add to that pathetic number so we can kill more unborn babies in other countries.

I think what International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau has done highlights the rot in this Liberal government and I plan to tell her this. This is not responsible government. On any level.

Write to the Minister and tell her what you think of her spending our tax dollars on overseas abortions. And copy her pro-abortion boss Justin Trudeau.

Marie-Claude.Bibeau@parl.gc.ca
justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca