Why do tax payers have to fund LGBTQ organizations?

From the Ottawa Citizen: LGBTQ+ charities and non-profits face increasing financial struggle. Fae Johnstone the executive director of Queer Momentum:

We need to support the organizations making equality real. 

Ah, no we don't. I don't want to give any more of my tax dollars to LGBTQ ideology. Canadians already give LGBTQ millions.

LGBTQ+ charities and non-profits deliver critical services and programs to the most vulnerable queer people. In Ottawa and across Canada, they're facing the perfect storm: economic precarity, government belt-tightening and corporations rescinding financial support, all made worse by a social and political climate increasingly hostile to LGBTQ+ acceptance. 

Cry me a river. 

If they want more money to fund their ideology let them fundraise for it. They've already received enough from the taxpayer. Kind Space received $1,077,389 in the past five years from government. Ten Oaks received $334,019. And Queer Momentum has received $395,325 for a total of almost $2 million dollars.

One of the commenters on this article made some excellent points as to why we do not need to fund these charities:

Sexual-identity-based charities rest on the flawed premise that people require different forms of support because of who they are, rather than because of what they are experiencing. Homelessness, depression, addiction, trauma, and poverty are sadly universal human conditions in our society. They do not become categorically different when experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals. Creating parallel, identity-filtered charities ultimately fragments service delivery, duplicates infrastructure, and diverts what is already scarce funding from more deserving outcome-driven programs that serve far more people.

In a time where Canadians have few and few dollars to give to charities, part thanks to our Liberal government running out of other peoples money, prioritizing identity over demonstrated need and measurable effectiveness is just plain inefficient and worse yet, exclusionary. It also risks turning charitable work into ideological signaling rather than practical problem-solving. Universal challenges are best addressed through inclusive needs-based institutions that treat people equally and allocate resources based on severity and impact. Compassion scales when it is universal and outcome-focused; it weakens when it is segmented by identity. Charity should reduce suffering, not organize it along political or social classifications.

My letter in today's Ottawa Citizen

 

Ottawa Citizen - Freedom of expression wins

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/judge-strikes-down-law-that-blocks-access-to-information-about-abortion-in-ontario

Judge strikes down law that blocks access to information about abortion in Ontario

 Elizabeth Payne, Ottawa Citizen

Published on: June 12, 2017 | Last Updated: June 12, 2017 7:05 PM EDT

An Ontario judge has thrown out a law that prevents the public from knowing how many abortions are being performed in the province, saying it impedes meaningful discussion and criticism about abortion services “which is a matter of public interest.”

The Association for Reformed Political Action, which challenged the law, called the ruling by Justice Marc Labrosse of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice a “huge victory” for freedom of expression.

“This decision strengthens democracy,” said André Schutten, ARPA Canada’s director of law and policy. “The question at the heart of this case was whether governments can avoid accountability on a particular matter simply by excluding information related to that matter from the access to information law. We are very pleased that the court has struck this censorship provision down.”

In his ruling, Labrosse said the law, which excludes information about abortion services from Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy, is too broad and was passed with virtually no debate. He ruled that the section in question is unconstitutional.

The province has 12 months to put remedial legislation in place before the current law becomes invalid.

Labrosse said Ontario relied on concerns of the Ontario Hospital Association that disclosing information about abortions could put the safety and security of patients, hospitals and staff at risk. But the law also excludes general statistical information on abortion, which was once available.

“The evidence in these proceedings leads me to conclude that in order to have a meaningful public debate, the available information to allow for a meaningful public debate certainly needs to go beyond some of the basic statistical information offered by Ontario … the information provided to date is clearly insufficient.”

Schutten said the motivation of his organization — which opposes abortion — was to “make sure we can comment and lobby with accurate numbers. We have never been interested in patient or doctor identifiers or individual names. All we are looking for is statistical general information.”
The ruling could have implications beyond abortion.

Ontario passed similar, although less broad, legislation preventing information from being made public about which health institutions are providing medically assisted death.

Dying with Dignity says such information is crucial to an informed public debate about access to and availability of medically assisted death.

Dying With Dignity Canada CEO Shanaaz Gokool said she sees similarities between the ruling on abortion statistics and her organization’s objection to restrictions on access to information about medical assistance in death.

Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner Brian Beamish argued that banning access to information about where assisted death was being performed “hinders transparency, accountability and meaningful public debate,” and is not based on any evidence of public harm.
Beamish also intervened in the court ruling about records related to abortion services.

Gokool said her organization has asked the ministry whether the ruling on access to abortion information changes anything when it comes to limits on access to information about assisted death.
“The decision seems to say that withholding information from Ontarians about health care services limits the ability to have full public and social policy discussions.

“The province has to take another look at what they have passed. To do otherwise would be problematic.”

ARPA, which opposes assisted death, is also interested in information about the provision of services in the province, said Schutten.

“This is the interesting thing. Our organization has grave concerns about vulnerable people. But in this case we would agree with Dying With Dignity. We want to be able to know how many people are being killed and by what means.

“We can handle the information … and a good, robust debate.”
epayne@postmedia.com

Ottawa Citizen agrees to change policy regarding pro-life letters

I think it's time we insist that newspapers use the word "pro-life" to describe us. Newspapers usually call us "anti-abortion". I took issue with this policy last week when I wrote a letter to the Ottawa Citizen after they changed a letter I wrote where I used "pro-life" to "anti-abortion". 

I then contacted the Citizen and explained that I had a big problem with this change.

Then ensued a correspondence between myself and Christina Spencer, the editorial pages editor. She said they would review their policy of using the word "anti-abortion" instead of pro-life" after I explained how unfair this policy was to us, since we call ourselves "pro-life". And that, just like how editors call themselves editors and not "word-changers", we like to be called "pro-life" and not "anti-abortion".

In putting forth our position on calling ourselves "pro-life" I then explained:

"Cardinal Collins never used the word abortion in his homily. He used the words "Sanctity of Life", Gift of Life", "Cause of Life", "March for Life", etc. He also spoke about euthanasia and assisted suicide: our view is much broader than anti-abortion, it is about the sanctity of ALL life: 

"anti-abortion" is not what I wrote and definitely not what I meant. If it is the Citizens policy to use that word instead of the word we use ourselves--and the word I always use--the Citizen is manipulating my/our message. 

For someone to read my letter as it stands, who knows little or nothing about life issues, will believe that I/we call ourselves "anti-abortion" when this is simply untrue, misleading to readers, and unfair to us. 

Surely it is not the Citizen's goal to mislead/misrepresent their readers/letter writers? 

...another argument is this: It is one thing for the OC to use the word "anti-abortion" in articles written by staff members (and I don't agree with this either), but it is another thing entirely to change a letter that I have written to use the word "anti-abortion", when clearly the letter should be in my voice, not in the voice of the OC. And the same goes for Cardinal Collins: I was writing about what he said, it wasn't OC staff writing about what he said."

The Citizen has now agreed that:

"letter-writers should be given their own voices as much as possible, regardless of our other style protocols around the issue. As a result, I’ve gone in to our web file and updated your letter to use the term “pro life” where you used it."

I think this is very good news for us at the Ottawa Citizen. Now we need to educate other newspapers in Canada where this policy is practiced.

My letter with the word "pro-life" put back in.

Ottawa Citizen: we call ourselves "pro-life"

Dear Editors and publisher of the Ottawa Citizen,

Today you published my letter in your paper. Thank you.

However a very serious error was made in the publishing of my letter. I used the word "pro-life" twice in my letter. And twice that word was changed to "anti-abortion".

Pro-life people call themselves pro-life for a reason. We do this because we are pro-unborn-babies-life, pro-toddlers-life, pro-teenage-life, pro-elderly life, and pro-sick-and-dying-life.

We do not call ourselves anti-abortion. We call ourselves pro-life.

Not only did the letter (with my name on it) put words in my mouth that I did not and would not say (anti-abortion flag), but it also appears that I am misrepresenting what Cardinal Collins said. He did not say that we should use our talents for the anti-abortion cause, he said said we should use our talents for the pro-life cause. So it sounds like I am misrepresenting what Cardinal Collins said.

I believe it is a sign of respect to call people what they call themselves. For instance, you call yourselves editor. It would be rude of me to call you "word changer" or other such label, because you do not call yourselves "word changer". It would also be disrespectful of me to call you that. 

So as a sign of social etiquette and respect, people should call other people by their preferred labels that identify the work that they do.

I am a pro-life writer/advocate.

Will you please replace the two "anti-abortion" words in the online version of my letter, and instead use the "pro-life" word?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Mainstream media helps two Canadian pro-life heroes' stories to become known to Canadians

I think thanks are in order to Glen McGregor and the Ottawa Citizen.

Today McGregor reported that Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons have won Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee medals for the work they do in their advocating for the saving and protection of preborn children.

There is of course, an interesting parallel here to when Henry Morgentaler won the Order of Canada. Like Ms. Wagner and Ms. Gibbons, he also went to jail, and engaged in civil disobedience. Many times. Morgentaler worked long and hard at making abortion just like any another operation, say like, having a wart removed. He did it by civil disobedience and going to jail. Just like Ms. Wagner and Ms. Gibbons.

According to Wikipedia on Morgentaler in prison:
"The province appealed the acquittal. In a move literally without precedent, the jury's acquittal was overturned by five judges on the Quebec Court of Appeal in 1974, who substituted a conviction. The doctor appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada but the court upheld his conviction in a 6 - 3 decision, stating that the danger to women was not immediate.[19][21][22] He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and began serving his sentence in March, 1975.[20]

In 1975, under Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the Canadian Parliament changed the law so that an appeals court could not overturn a jury acquittal, although they could order a new trial. This is known as the Morgentaler Amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada.[22][24] The Quebec government set aside their first, wrongful conviction and ordered a new trial on the first charge. Morgentaler was released to await trial.[20]

In 1975, while he was in prison, the Ministry of Justice for Quebec laid a second set of charges against him and he was acquitted by another jury. However, he was already in jail. A political cartoon at the time showed a prison guard pushing Dr. Morgentaler's food tray into his cell and saying, "Congratulations, doctor, you've been acquitted again!"[21] The Ministry of Justice appealed this second acquittal but this time, the Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the acquittal (January 19, 1976).[25]

… For his trouble, the unflappable Dr. Morgentaler stood trial, languished in prison, and received numerous death threats. What drove him to take such risks? "The realization that a terrible injustice was being done to women and the conviction that it was necessary to change the situation to provide help for those who needed it," replies the retired physician via email."

So what do these women do that is unlike what Morgentaler did? Well they walk on the sidewalk; they speak to women going into the abortion clinics; they quietly tell these women that someone does care about them; they tell these women that they can get a referral to an organization that will help them with their unborn child. And Ms. Wagner and Ms. Gibbons don't kill unborn children.

It's these peaceful activities that gets Ms. Wagner and Ms. Gibbons jail sentences.

So it is fantastic that the mainstream media is finally getting wind of the extreme injustices perpetrated by our so-called "justice system" against these two women for their compassionate and courageous attempts to help women in need. These two victims of Canada's criminal justice system are heroes indeed, and it is good that Canadians are finally hearing their story.

Like Henry Morgentaler, these two brave women also believe "that a terrible injustice was being done to women and the conviction that it was necessary to change the situation to provide help for those who needed it."

God bless Glen McGregor for helping to get the word out.

March for Life 2012: The news story you didn't read

Dear Ottawa Citizen,

What happened? Did you forget to cover the March for Life last Thursday? That's too bad.

Now I know it was a freezing, finger numbing, winter like, bone chilling, blustery windy day in Ottawa. It wasn't fun for me either. But it was news you know. And that's the business you're in, right?

I'm curious though. Tell me: If there were 20,000 “pro-choice” people marching through Ottawa, would you have covered that? And maybe you might even have written a front page news story. You know, instead of the one lonely photograph and wee tiny caption, and no story that we got.

Oh well. Not to worry, because I wrote it for you.

On Thursday May 10, 2012, almost 20,000 pro-life people marched through Ottawa to declare their support for Canadian unborn children and their mothers.
 
The day was freezing cold, windy and cloudy, appropriate for the somber message these people were trying to get across in the Nation's Capital, where Canada's complete lack of legal protection for its unborn children, is a scourge on our great country.
 
The cold however, did not deter the peaceful marchers. In fact, there was much singing and smiling for all to see and hear, by anyone willing to look and listen.
 
There were the requisite handful of loud people of the pro-abortion persuasion along the march route. But their tiny numbers were pretty easy to ignore. (Have a look at the footage below Ottawa Citizen. You might learn something).
 
On the Hill before and after the March we heard from many pro-life MPs and clergy.
 
More important than those speakers though, were the Silent No More women and men who testify how abortion ruins lives. Their lives and their families’ lives. They tell us of their anguish from abortion, and subsequent healing. Pretty powerful stuff for anyone willing to pay attention.
 
So what do you think Ottawa Citizen? Can you make it next year?

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

(Many thanks to Maureen for her fine editing of the attached video)

Margaret Somerville responds

I recently wrote about Margaret Somerville's article in the Ottawa Citizen, called The profound complexities of informed consent to abortion.

This prompted a response by letter writer Michelle Dewar in Unbiased debate needed.

Dr. Somerville then sent in this (unpublished) letter to the Ottawa Citizen:

The Ottawa Citizen
Dear Editor,

In response to Michelle Dewar’s criticisms ("Unbiased debate needed", Ottawa Citizen March 26, 2012) of my article, (“The profound complexities of informed consent to abortion”, Ottawa Citizen March 23, 2012), I agree the article is “one woman’s story” (its original title). But, contrary to Dewar’s view, we need to listen to such stories. They are a valid basis, although certainly not the only one, for doing ethics – an approach called “narrative ethics”.

And, of course, facts are important, but the facts in my article are how Anna perceived and experienced what happened to her. If that was a rare event, as Dewar implies, so much the better, but Kathleen Gray’s comments, which are quoted in the article, indicate otherwise. And it’s clear that pro-choice supporters don’t like such facts.

Dewar argues that “one anonymous, anecdotal story … cannot be taken as scientific evidence for what is the typical experience of women in Quebec” and that we need  “evidence based, reasoned argument”. While very important, “scientific evidence” is not the only evidence relevant to ethics. It’s often said in ethics that “we  ignore our feelings at our ethical peril“. What that tells us, and scientific research is now confirming, is that examined emotions and moral intuition can guide us ethically, but, of course, our conclusions on those bases need to be checked out with reason.

As to the criticism of the story being “anonymous”, surely Dewar wouldn’t expect it to be otherwise from an ethical perspective. Anna was very brave in allowing it to be told at all. As she said, she felt that doing so might help other women and, if so, that was the only good that could come out of this situation.

And regarding Dewar’s criticism of not mentioning the “social assistance” available, why didn’t the abortion clinic tell Anna about this? One could argue that it, too, should be disclosed as part of obtaining informed consent to abortion as “information that would be material to a reasonable person in the same circumstances”.

Sincerely,
Margaret Somerville

Wanted: pro-life party leader

I thought we finally had a political leader, ready willing and able, to take on the pro-abortions in this country. Someone who was actually going to stand up and take a principled stand on abortion and call for it to be defunded.

But no, Tim Hudak, who I thought was pro-life, has changed his tune.

Yet there are good reasons why we should defund abortion.

In a recent "pro-choice" editorial on this story, the Ottawa Citizen made some misleading comments on the defunding of abortion:
"Abortion will continue to be funded in Ontario for the foreseeable future; to de-list it would likely violate the Charter - as would other legislation that blocked a woman's access to abortion. Furthermore, abortion is deemed a fundamental health-care service under the Canada Health Act."

First of all, the Charter never gave a woman a constitutional right to abortion, so defunding abortion couldn't violate the Charter. The ruling only struck down the existing law as unconstitutional, and the Court left it to Parliament to bring about a new law, which of course, it has never done. Since Parliament has never come up with a new law, abortion is allowed in Canada with no restrictions right up until birth. Abortion is legal but it isn't a charter right by anybody's definition except maybe the pro-abortions'.

Second, the Canada Health Act covers services that "are medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disability". Abortion isn't medically necessary in most cases, so why do we publicly fund it? Pregnancy is a perfectly natural and healthy condition, without which, humankind would become extinct. Heart bypass operations, cutting out cancerous tumours and appendectomy's are all medically necessary because they save lives. These procedures should be, and are, covered by the Canada Health Act. Abortion only takes lives.

Third, the Canada Health Act makes no such claim that abortion is a "fundamental health-care service".

Finally, what do Canadians think about funding something that isn't medically necessary and isn't a fundamental health-care service? According to a recent poll commissioned by Sun Media taken by Abacus Poll Inc., only 45% of Canadians believed that legal abortions should be covered entirely by the public health care system. Another 22% felt that the public health care system should fund them only in extreme cases while 20% believed that they should be paid for by the patient.

It's too bad that Mr. Hudak wasn't advocating to defund abortion because a lot of people would support him. Instead, he chose to rip out a page from Stephen Harper's "I won't reopen the abortion debate because I want to win the election" hand-book.

I am looking forward to the day when we have a Canadian political leader who will stand up publicly, look Canadians in the eye, and say "Hey, I'm running for leadership -- and by the way -- did I tell you I'm pro-life and I will stand up for our unborn citizens?"

The day will come when this will happen. It's just too bad that it's taking so long.

Breast cancer industry won't tell you about ABC

The Ottawa Citizen's Randall Denley tells us that:
"colorectal cancer killed an estimated 9,100 Canadians last year. It’s the second-deadliest cancer, after lung cancer. Breast cancer took 5,400 lives and has an 89-per-cent survival rate, and yet breast cancer received 36 times more money from donors than colorectal cancer."

Not only does the breast cancer industry get all that money from individual donors, but all manner of household products now endorse the breast cancer industry with their pink ribbon logo.

The breast cancer industry also refuses to inform women about the possible link between breast cancer and abortion (ABC). So I've decided to start boycotting these companies when I see the pink ribbon on their products.

Recently I sent an email to Kruger and to Country Harvest Bread because of the pink ribbon.

This is what I wrote to Country Harvest Bread:

I used to purchase your bread products frequently.

However recently I note that all of your bread products support the Breast Cancer Industry with the pink ribbon logo on your packaging. So I have decided to boycott your products because of this, and will encourage others to do the same.

You see, the Breast Cancer Industry refuses to acknowledge the possible link between abortion and breast cancer (ABC). Many studies have shown evidence for a link between abortion and Breast Cancer, evidence the Breast Cancer Industry continues to dismiss. For further information please see:

http://www.bcpinstitute.org/nci_minority_rpt.htm
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.ca/
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.ca/Abortion%20and%20Breast%20Cancer%20-%20The%20Link%20That%20Won't%20Go%20Away.pdf
http://www.difficultchoices.org/2011/01/a-link-between-abortion-and-breast-cancer/
http://www.pinkmoney.org/criteria_causal_a_bc.htm

Should you decide to
a) stop supporting the Breast Cancer Industry,
or
b) acknowledge the possible ABC link,
I will again start purchasing your products.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney