Bill 67 - Equity is the opposite of Equality

Dear Ontario MPPs,

Regarding Bill 67, Racial Equity in the Education System Act, 2021

This is a very racist bill:

The law will entrench “anti-racist” instruction and training programs in schools. The bill defines its policy of “anti-racism” as “opposing racism including anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Black racism, anti-Asian racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia.” The law omits any “opposing” of “anti-Caucasian” racism, so we know that expressed hatred of white people will be permitted. This is the essence of CRT. In fact, CRT is a deeply racist ideology that stipulates whiteness as the source of all social injustice.

The average Canadian whose life doesn’t revolve around politics can be forgiven for reading this bill and taking no special notice of the 54 times, including the title, the word “equity” is mentioned. To the average Canadian, “equity” looks a lot like “equality.” In fact, the two words hold opposite meanings. So legislators, especially conservative ones, whose job it is to know the difference between their own philosophy and the philosophy of radical leftists cannot be easily forgiven for doing likewise. The word should have leapt from the title, causing escalating alarm at every iteration.

Equality refers to the same start line for individual advancement, while equity refers to proportional group representation at the finish line. Equity theory insists that any failure to meet proportional representation in outcomes is due to racism alone. Which isn’t the case, but the theory prevails. Thus, equity is only possible through social engineering and heavy state interference. Practically speaking, it means individual merit and skillsets get short shrift. It encourages perpetual grievance in designated student victims and compels perpetual guilt in white “settler” students. Barb Kay

Please do not vote for it.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Assisted death involves a doctor along with the patient

Shanaaz Gokool, CEO of Dying With Dignity Canada, and Richard W. Ivey, chair of Dying With Dignity Canada’s Patrons Council agree with medical assisted death, or more correctly called, euthanasia.

They wrote a letter to the National Post saying this, in reply to Barbara Kay's article where Kay discusses the need for palliative care.

I responded to Gokool and Ivey's letter with my own letter published today in the National Post.

National Post 4 Apr 2018 Patricia Maloney, Ottawa

Re: Choosing how we die. Letter to the editor, March 31 

I am strongly opposed to medical assistance in dying, but that’s not the point I want to make. 

When discussing medical assistance in dying, Shanaaz Gokool and Richard W. Ivey are being disingenuous. They state: “We don’t get to decide for others; they don’t get to decide for us.” 

Technically I agree with that statement as it stands. Clearly, if someone wishes to commit suicide, they decide this for themselves and I can’t decide for them. 

What I have a problem with is that by definition, assisted suicide is much more. It involves a doctor. A doctor who is against medical assistance in dying must still refer that patient. 

So the “decide” above is actually deciding for someone else: the doctor. And this I cannot agree with.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney 

That the unborn are not “legal persons” is irrelevant

Barbara Kay turns the pro-choice legal personhood argument on its head in the National Post when she discusses Bill C-225 Molly's law:

 "— aims, in the words of abortion-law activist Mike Schouten, to “provide justice for women and families who have chosen to carry their babies to term...” 

"...Pro-choice argumentation was weak in 2008 and remains weak today. One fallacious gambit is that mother and fetus, even though each has her own unique DNA, should continue to be considered one person because their biological systems operate symbiotically. This implies that conjoined twins, whose systems also operate symbiotically, are one person, when they manifestly are not. However, the mainstay of the opposition is the “legal personhood” canard. That the unborn are not “legal persons” in law is true, but morally and historically irrelevant: women, after all, weren’t “legal persons” until 1929, but were always considered murder victims in their own right before that date. 

Hardline ideological feminists, who have a huge influence on politicians and the judiciary (which is why this bill is probably another exercise in political futility), regard the law as their ideology’s handmaiden..."

Ms. Kay has that right. Our hard line feminists scare our politicians to death when it comes to abortion. Joyce Arthur and anonymous blogger "Fern Hill" have of course already spoken out against Bill C-225. No surprise there.

But we know why the pro-abortions are really against Bill C-225. Joyce Arthur said it herself about Bill C-484:

"If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people's consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion," 

For the pro-abortions, it is very very important that this never be allowed to happen. The legal killing of preborn children must be preserved at all costs.

Even when a woman is attacked and the child she chooses to carry to term is brutally killed.

If ABC link is real why suppress the risks?

Barbara Kay: Tough questions on the health risks of abortion remain

October 23, 2015
(reprinted with permission from the author)

October is International Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Upcoming, November is International Preterm Birth Awareness Month. “Uh oh,” I can almost hear certain pro-choice stakeholders muttering: “Is she actually going there?” Yep. Fasten your seat belts, readers. Like they say in those corny action movies, “I’m going in!”

“In” is the political war zone of Induced Abortion (IA) research in which the contested territory are the links between IA with i) future preterm birth and ii) elevated rates of breast cancer (known as ABC). The links are there. Nations that proscribe abortion have low premature-birth rates and low breast cancer rates. Nations with high abortion rates have high rates of premature birth and breast cancer. But are the links causal or coincidental? An army of pro-choice obstetricians and gynecologists and their supporting institutions deny causality. A battalion of (both pro-life and pro-choice) researchers and epidemiologists producing reams of large-scale, peer-reviewed studies insist on causality.

Full disclosure: I have no personal dog in this hunt (never had an abortion or miscarriage or preterm birth myself, or breast cancer). My views on abortion are not dictated by religious belief. Politically I’m neither pro-life nor pro-choice. Like the majority of Canadians I believe in regulation. Sex selection abortion, for example, really disgusts me, but even pragmatically speaking, we need regulation so we can collect the data we need for research. One thing I don’t believe is that the science on any reproductive intervention on a woman’s body — IA, IVF, surrogacy or whatever — is “settled.”

My “ideology” is therefore pro-scientific research that is untainted by political correctness, and pro-informed consent. But our culture can’t seem to get beyond the “rights” aspect of abortion into the “data” aspect. Ambiguity around what is promoted as a risk-free surgery can dampen women’s confidence, obviously. But if the risks actually exist, what benefit to women is there in suppressing knowledge of it?

That is the main point I make as an interviewee in a new documentary film that just premiered in Los Angeles. “Hush” is dedicated to exploring the effects of internal politics on scientific inquiry into women’s reproductive health. To be more precise, the politics that kick in on one issue only: abortion. It’s actually kind of weird: There is no controversy surrounding the elevated breast cancer risks causally linked with childlessness, late-start pregnancy, early menstruation, the Pill and hormone replacement therapy. All these causes, known because of continuing research, have one thing in common — estrogen proliferation. But suggest a causal link between estrogen-proliferative IA and breast cancer — and watch the fur fly!

The film’s director, Punam Kumar Gill, a respected member of the arts community and a Chatelaine nominee for “woman of the year” has served as writer, director and producer on seven documentary films to date. She brings a deft combination of personal motivation and investigative acumen to her task.

Gill, who considers herself a “product of feminism,” had always assumed IA was safe and without harmful effects. That changed some years ago, when the sudden onset of pre-eclampsia in her second trimester of pregnancy resulted in the spontaneous abortion of her baby. When she attempted to gather information on possible health consequences, Gill encountered resistance amongst health professionals to discussion of any risks. She was further troubled by the bromides set out by health organizations on their websites, as well as by the disparity in public policies around informed consent in different jurisdictions. In Canada and many states, as the film notes, abortion seekers are given no routine pre-surgery counselling, while 35 states mandate pre-abortion counselling, 25 cite IA-linked fertility risks, and five cite the potential ABC link.

What you will mainly see in Hush, apart from graphically illuminated revelations of research suppression amongst health organizations, notably the National Cancer Institute, is Gill talking to people, including amongst others: women whose abortions resulted in physical and psychological complications they were not advised might happen; an internationally prominent gynecologist who denies that IA involves any significant consequences whatsoever, and who considers continued research unnecessary; a breast surgical oncologist disturbed by her growing roster of patients with aggressive breast cancer in the 25-39 cohort, many with a history of IA; and a statistician studying eight European-Scandinavian countries who finds IA “to be the best predictor of breast cancer.”

Women’s reproductive health issues are the third rail of the medical profession. I rarely see an objective news article on abortion, fertility or female cancers that is not immediately either attacked or defended from a politicized perspective, rather than simply assessed on its own terms. I think Hush, which seems to me an objective overview of the situation, should be seen by pro-choice women, pro-life women and women who are simply concerned about themselves or their daughters achieving their reproductive goals with optimal chances for long-term health. That is to say, by pretty well all women.

Pinko Pepsi

Today my sister and I saw a pink Pepsi truck. It was doing the breast cancer industry a great big favour with their "support" breast cancer schtick.

That's the very same industry that refuses to acknowledge any possible link between abortion and breast cancer.

This week while shopping, I saw Cashmere toilet paper at a great price. But when I looked to see if the breast cancer industry logo was still on the package, and it was, I said nope, not buying that.

And now I won't buy Pepsi. Not that I buy Pepsi in the first place. But if I did, well I wouldn't anymore.

For more on the ABC link see here.

As Barbara Kay wrote in the National Post on the recent ABC research done in China.

In what has been described as a “real game changer” in breast cancer research, a new peer-reviewed study from China not only endorses the long-mooted link between IA and breast cancer, but concludes the risk rises with every abortion a woman has. The study, “A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females” was published last week in Cancer Causes and Control, an international cancer journal.

Even after this recent study, what do we still find on the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation's web site?

MYTH: Abortion and miscarriage cause breast cancer
THE FACTS: Abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer. Scientific evidence  demonstrates that there is no link between breast cancer and spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or induced abortion. 

Pretty sure I won't be buying anything pink anytime soon.

Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good

Jonathon Van Maren interviews Barbara Kay on abortion.

Barbara Kay is pro-choice. Joyce Arthur is pro-choice. So why are these two women's views so radically different? Listen to the interview.

Are we cowed by the totalitarian abortion lobby?

Check out Barbara Kay's take on the born alive issue.

Ms. Kay says:
"I got into a Twitter dispute with one of my colleagues yesterday. I asked him if it wasn’t worth one regulatory constraint on late-term abortions if it prevented 54 deaths of living babies a year. He adamantly rejected it: “apples and oranges” he called the comparison.

There is more than one kind of slippery slope. And right now we are on a slippery slope to complicity with criminality.

I reject his comparison. Life outside the womb is life. Unless of course you are one of those creepy new progressive types that call for the right to kill babies with defects up to 30 days outside the womb. I asked my friend: Suppose there were a regulation we could impose that would effectively end spousal homicide of women: Wouldn’t you be eager to see it implemented? He didn’t answer.

But I know what he means by apples and oranges. Apples are women – and their protection from harm is the driver of much anguished public debate. Oranges are live babies that are not really “alive” in the moral sense in his mind if the mother delivering it doesn’t want it.

All that tells me is that this otherwise bright friend is so programmed to believe in the slippery slope of abortion regulation that he can’t bring himself to countenance a single exception to our no-fetters situation. Which is odd, because every other nation in the world insists on certain regulations, and no democratic nation has outlawed abortion in general.

This refusal to stare down the hands-off fetishists is getting downright silly. Worse, it is permitting criminal activity in the name of social harmony. Well, I don’t feel particularly harmonious about those 491 live births and I am betting there are plenty of other Canadians who believe in abortion as a general right, but are also sickened by late-term abortions and would be perfectly happy to see that aspect of the practice regulated.

There is more than one kind of slippery slope. And right now we are on a slippery slope to complicity with criminality. Is this really what most Canadians want, or are they just too cowed by the totalitarian abortion lobby to speak up?"

I think that just about sums it up pretty nicely.

Top secret abortion figures

Barbara Kay: McGuinty Liberals put ‘top secret’ label on abortion figures

Barbara Kay says it like it is. And she gives us a pretty good final analysis on what happened recently in Ontario regarding Freedom of Information, or lack thereof:

"It seems very clear that the Ontario government has become concerned that pro-life forces have found renewed political strength. What used to be a “settled” question is no longer settled. Many Canadians, for example, are disturbed over the issue of sex selection via abortion of female fetuses. The phenomenon is causing discomfort amongst rigid multiculturalists, some of whom occupy positions of power.

The abortion numbers we already know – over 100,000 a year in Canada, and 44,000 billed-for abortion in Ontario alone in 2010 (we won’t be able to know how many in 2011) – are making it clear that remaining the only country in the free world with no abortion regulations is not possible indefinitely.

What is needed is more public discussion on the issue, not a cowardly clampdown on information that will help guide us in that discussion. Behind Ontario’s Bill 122 is a totalitarian impulse. This undemocratic Act should not stand."

Undemocratic indeed.

Socially conservative feminism: our time has come

Barbara Kay says it like it is in the Post on Wednesday: The day Sarah Palin kneecapped feminism.

Kay says:
If there is one issue that illustrates the bright line between revolutionary feminism and Palinite feminism, it is abortion. The unfettered right to abortion is an irreducible feminist dogma. It wasn’t always the case. The Suffragettes were political pioneers, but social conservatives. Thanks to Sarah Palin, the long political hibernation of socially conservative feminism is over.

In response, I wrote this letter to the Post:

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

National Post · Friday, Mar. 11, 2011

Re: Love Her Or Hate Her, Palin Changed Feminism, Barbara Kay, March 9.

I think we should start a new movement and regain our rightful place in the world, retaking it from the feminists who have co-opted the philosophy of feminism to make it something that it was never meant to be: Women's rights first, and always to the exclusion of men's rights and the rights of the unborn. I never liked the "feminist" moniker, but "socially conservative feminism"?

I like it.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.