Tolerance isn't for pro-life people

Regarding the bubble zone at the Morgentaler facility in Ottawa.

Yesterday I spoke with constable Chuck Benoit at the Ottawa Police Service. There were two "level 1" assaults at the facility in three and a half years. One on October 25, 2016 and one on May 28, 2017. All the other incidents were run of the mill police work.

I was told that neither of these assaults resulted in injuries, and no one was charged with anything. So why do we need this bubble zone? Why did Jim Watson initiate this law? Because he doesn't like pro-life people. He prefers to treat us like second class citizens. If we try and discuss pro-life concerns with him, either by email or in person, his disgust for us is clear.

Pierre Trudeau: abortion not enshrined in Charter

Reprinted with permission from CLC

September 29, 2017

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

I expect you will appreciate my bringing to your attention, some very serious allegations you are frequently making, in regard to abortion.

Abortion is not a ‘Charter right’, and it is not a ‘human right’.

In the early 1980’s, Campaign Life Coalition worked very hard to have the right to life enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Prime Minister at the time, your father, assured us that the Charter would have no impact on the abortion question.

In a letter regarding a suggested amendment, dated July 6, 1981, to Archbishop MacNeil of Edmonton, the President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Prime Minister wrote: “The arguments advanced to show that the Charter will create an entitlement to abortion on demand have been clearly refuted in the opinion given by the Department of Justice. In my view, the need of an amendment has not been clearly demonstrated.”

Earlier, in June 1981, the Prime Minister stated: “Because the public is evenly divided on the subject of abortion it was the government’s ‘considered view’ that a position favouring one side should not be enshrined in the charter. The Government feels the issue is not one which should be defended by the Constitution.”

Over the years, your father's words have proven to be true, as abortion has never been declared to be a ‘Charter right’ by the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, the Court has specifically held that there is a legitimate right for Parliament to legislate on the issue, should it so choose.

Additionally, for as long as the United Nations has existed, consensus has never been reached on the issue of abortion as a human right. Where abortion is alluded to in agreed conclusions (non-binding normative documents which are adopted at various UN commissions), it is cast in a negative light. For example, states should discourage abortion, it should not be promoted as a method of birth control and it should be exclusively addressed in national legislation. Although several UN agencies may agree with you, the majority of the 193 member states that make up the United Nations do not share your personal view that abortion is a human right.

It was quite clear by the authors of the Charter and continues to be clear by the United Nations that abortion isn’t a ‘right’, and it is unbecoming for the Prime Minister of Canada today, to deliberately utter a falsehood and to keep repeating it.

In future, we respectfully request that you refrain from either stating or implying that abortion is a ‘Charter right’, a ‘human right’ and is synonymous with ‘women’s rights’ as it is clearly not.

Regards,



Jim Hughes
National President
Campaign Life Coalition

If we were pride parade people we would get respect from mayor Watson

By Patricia Maloney

Now we have police chief Charles Bordeleau and Jim Watson talking about the upcoming gay pride parade in August. The radio stations were all over this "story" this morning. Meanwhile Jim Watson still hasn't the time of day for pro-life people, and he is still refusing to answer my questions about why our March for Life was diverted.

If I were writing to Watson and Bordeleau about their participation at the gay pride parade I bet you dollar to donuts I would get an answer. And it would be written in glowing terms about the parade blah blah blah.

But if you're pro-life, well then we don't want to hear from you. In fact this person had a telling conversation with Jim Watson on his disdain fro pro-life people.

The writer said:

"I first asked Mayor Watson why the police were allowed to divert our March so that we were not allowed to proceed along our pre-approved route past the Human Rights monument, and why the police gave into the demands of the few pro-abortion protesters (maybe about 100) who wanted to block us. There were about 100 police officers there, so it was a mystery to me why they forced us to take another route. Why did the counter protesters have a right to disrupt our peaceful March, and for the second year in a row no less?  

Mr. Watson's reply was that that was not City Hall's responsibility. The City is not responsible for how the police do their job; the City just funds the police force, that's all. He told me that any complaints should be made to the Police Services Board."

Well I did ask chief Bordeleau about this, and his response was: "I can't speak to your question about a response from the Mayor or your Councillor. What I can tell you with respect to the demonstration is that the Ottawa Police Service is present during demonstrations to ensure the safety and security of all participants and observers. Although routes are pre-approved, officers on the ground may be required to make decisions to deviate from a planned route for a number of reasons including for reasons associated with public safety. Demonstrations are dynamic in nature and officers must make decisions on site which were required that day." 

I wonder if we protested the gay pride parade would Chief Bordeleau divert that for us? I know I know, that was an outrageous thought.

The person who tried to engage Watson then said this:

"I also asked him why the legislation was needed at all, since if someone was assaulted/spat on, etc (as media reports have claimed), then shouldn't the police be laying charges based on existing laws? Why is a bubble zone needed? To which he responded, we can't have police there 24/7."

Of course "we can't have police 24/7". What a stupid answer. That's why we have something called "call 911". That will get the police to respond to harassment, assault, etc. The rest of us use it. Why should an abortion clinic get special treatment not afforded to any other member of society? What about pro-life people who are harassed by pro-choice people? Why can't we get a bubble zone around us to protect us from pro-choice violence?

Then the person said this:

"And finally, I brought up the issue of the pro-life flag at City Hall being taken down after complaints by some city councilors, and I expressed my concern about an interview he had given to Global News where he said pro-life campaigns are "divisive" and have no place at City Hall...I reminded him that he allowed an LGBTQ flag to fly, and I asked, shouldn't pro-lifers be treated equally and be allowed to have their flag flown as well? Isn't that only fair? Why the double standard? His response hit the nail on the head for me as to why he feels it is fine to discriminate against us. He said (paraphrasing): "The LGBTQ community promotes human rights. You want to take away women's rights." So that was it. Plain and simple."

We want to take away women's rights? Obviously Watson hasn't a clue as to what being pro-life means. We support human rights for all people. Young people. Old people. Women people. Men people. Sick people. Pre-born people. Old and dying people. ALL PEOPLE. It's not a difficult concept.

Of course when Watson says "women's rights" what he really means, is the fabricated "right" for a woman to have an abortion. That is not a right. It's a made up construct that means nothing. Women have equality rights, charter rights, freedom of conscience rights, freedom of expression rights, freedom of religion rights. Just like every other human being. And yes we support those rights. We just don't support a woman's right to kill her pre-born child.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" 

Human rights belong to one person. They don't extend from one person to have dominion over another person.  Women's rights are the same as everyone else's rights. They don't get special rights. Even if people like Watson say they do, they don't.

Finally the person conversing with Watson said this:

"I couldn't just stand there and ignore such an accusation, so I started to say that that is not what we want to do at all, but I couldn't go any further because then he cut me off and said, "I'm not here to debate this issue; I'm here for a Strawberry Social," and he started turning to walk away. I remained calm and respectful the entire time, and in a last ditch effort, I politely asked him (even though I figured it was probably hopeless): "Would you be willing to meet with me sometime to discuss further." To which he curtly replied, "No, I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore; I've already given you ten minutes of my time" and he walked away. "Thank you for your time, Sir," I replied. (And I think it was actually only about 5 minutes of his time, not 10.)"

Because Jim Watson has no respect for us and what we stand for, and even though he is also our mayor and has control over how our taxes are spent, he doesn't have the common courtesy to respond to, and discuss with us, valid questions regarding our rights.

Justin Trudeau - Human rights are for all humans

Justin Trudeau:

“As people know … I never shy away from bringing up human rights wherever I go, I highlight our values and the challenges we face  and underline the importance of respecting human rights wherever I am, including in Cuba last week."

Without getting into the Prime Minister's stupid comments regarding the death of Fidel Castro, Justin Trudeau clearly does not respect Canadian human rights: Justin Trudeau does not respect the human rights of pre-born children; Justin Trudeau does not respect the human rights of pro-life Canadian citizens who also want to be in the Liberal party but are forbidden to become MPs because of those beliefs.

That's a large segment of Canadian society whose human rights Justin Trudeau does not respect, myself included.

Not respecting the human rights of human beings, but believing that you do, is the worst kind of discrimination. It's also arrogant and hypocritical.

How science will blow the abortion debate wide open

Good article in Saturday's National Post.

Michelle Hauser: Pro-life debates, with a sci-fi twist

"When it comes to debating the rights of the unborn, history may show our current quiet phase to have been the calm before the storm: the transition period when science, not ideology, became the driving force for a bill of rights for the fetus. 

One factor driving the change: advancements in neonatal medicine are pushing the envelope of fetal viability well beyond what anyone ever imagined. 

In May 2015, Time magazine responded to a study by the New England Journal of Medicine on premature infants by asking the question that’s on many people’s minds: “How low can preemies go?” The landmark study pointed to fetal viability at 22 weeks, versus the currently accepted 24 weeks. According to Time, this raised new ethical dilemmas about “how much care is too much — and how much is suddenly not enough” and, by extension, “how an even slightly lower age of viability affects the fraught debate over abortion.” 

In particular, the study calls into question the controversial practice of late-term abortions, performed after the 20th week of gestation. According to partial data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, in 2014 there were 605 abortions performed at 21-plus weeks. In the decade to come, as saving the lives of premature infants in that grey zone of viability becomes commonplace, it will make the dividing line between the wanted and the unwanted so much more intolerable, especially for the many Canadians who self-identify as “reluctantly pro-choice.” 

Neonatology isn’t the only stream of medicine that will eventually force the government’s hand in establishing the rights of the unborn — fetal medicine is making equally course-altering strides. After a $54.5-million gift to its Women and Children’s Health Research Institute, the University of Alberta recently joined other hospitals and universities worldwide who will, in the decades to come, establish a new normal in fetal care, including life-saving surgeries and diagnostics that can be performed in utero as early as 13 weeks. 

These scientific leaps won’t just expand our notion of duty of care for the fetus, they will blow it wide open. 

Will a woman’s autonomy still be the deciding factor on issues of life and death?..."

After being in Toronto this past weekend where everything was Pride Pride Pride Pride...I thought this comment below about the article from a Del James Cornell University, was particularly timely:

"It would great to see strong, rational voices in the general population advocating for rights of the unborn with the same vigor we have seen people advocating for LGBT rights. Human rights are rights for all humans and science continually demonstrates that a fetus is a human being unto itself."

Justin Trudeau needs to read the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA ON NATIONAL CHILD DAY

Ottawa, Ontario 

20 November 2015 

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, issued the following statement today on National Child Day:
“I think that one of the most rewarding things about being Prime Minister of Canada is having the ability to make a real difference in the lives of children in our own country and around the world.  

“Each child deserves to be raised in a world free of discrimination, violence, and exploitation, and each one deserves to grow up with proper nutrition and health care, a good education, and safe communities. (emphasis added)

“As we look back exactly 26 years to when the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted and opened for signature, we can see that real progress has been made in moving the markers forward for young people around the globe. But there is still an enormous amount of work to be done, from reducing preventable diseases to feeding the undernourished, from freeing those being forced to do child labour to ending child, early, and forced marriage, and from rehabilitating former child soldiers to sheltering the millions displaced as a result of conflicts and hunger..."

Has Justin Trudeau read the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? If he had he would have also read this statement:

"...Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

And Canada signed this treaty.

It's all about human rights, Mr. Prime Minister. For the child before as well as after birth. Don't you get that?

Justin Trudeau - the truth is what you believe it to be

Justin Trudeau said:

'War on science ends with the Liberal government'

Okay. Well science says that a pre-born child has the same DNA as a human being. Science says that a pre-born being of human parents is a human being. Science says that a pre-born human is a separate human being from its mother. Science says that a pre-born human has it's own blood type, it's own blood circulation and its own brain that controls all of its bodily and psychological functions.

Science does not say that a pre-born human is an artichoke or a cat. Science does not say that a pre-born human is a part of its mother's body.

So if the war on science ends with the Liberal government, does this mean Justin Trudeau will reverse his stand on abortion? That he will recognize a pre-born child for what it really is, a biological, physical, emotional, and spiritual human being separate from its mother, and worthy of protection?

Or will Justin Trudeau continue to cherry pick which category of human beings should be protected under the Canadian Charter with his own relentless war on science (in this case, the science of of human embryology)?

"Everyone Some human beings has[ve] the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"

Because when we change the truth to make it what we want it to be, and not what it objectively is, the truth becomes meaningless.

CPSO: Changing the definition of discrimination

College of Physicians, please stand up for religious minorities

JANUARY 2, 2015 BY FAYE SONIER LEAVE A COMMENT

*Dr. Gabel is Member of Council and Past President of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. He is the chair of the College’s policy working group which issued the draft “Professional Obligations and Human Rights” policy.

Faye Sonier

Dear Dr. Marc Gabel,

I just read this article which was published in the Catholic  Register. You were quoted in the piece. Here is an excerpt:

Catholic doctors who won’t perform abortions or provide abortion referrals should leave family medicine, says an official of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

“It may well be that you would have to think about whether you can practice family medicine as it is defined in Canada and in most of the Western countries,” said Dr. Marc Gabel, chair of the college’s policy working group reviewing “Professional Obligations and Human Rights.”

The Ontario doctor’s organization released a draft policy Dec. 11 that would require all doctors to provide referrals for abortions, morning-after pills and contraception. The revised policy is in response to evolving obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code, Gabel said.

There have been no Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decisions against doctors for failing to refer for abortion or contraception.

Gabel said there’s plenty of room for conscientious Catholics in various medical specialties, but a moral objection to abortion and contraception will put family doctors on the wrong side of human rights legislation and current professional practice.

“Medicine is an amazingly wide profession with many, many areas to practice medicine,” he said.

Yes, medicine is “an amazingly wide profession.” Thankfully, it is also a profession which attracts an “amazingly wide” array of Canadians. Of those Canadian physicians are some who share my pro-life perspective. They may refuse to refer for abortion due to their conscience, but they may also refuse to refer due to their religious beliefs (or both – we’re working out what this means under the Charter). They may be Christian, Muslim, Jewish or atheist physicians but they have an issue with abortion or contraceptives. For them, to refer for this procedure or these drugs is to be complicit in the actions and their consequences.

I am an Ontario resident. I’m a cancer survivor. I’m a mother.  I have spent far more than my fair share of time in Ontario hospitals and clinics being treated by wonderful Ontario doctors.

Over the last few years, I’ve gone out of my way to work with pro-life physicians who share my perspective. I reject the notion that killing and dismembering unborn children is medicine, and I wanted to work with physicians who share my values regarding human life and human dignity.  Due to the “amazingly wide” practice of medicine in Ontario, I was able to find a few, and become their patient. I am so thankful for their care.

But due to your working group’s proposed new policy, I might lose my family physicians. They will choose to practice medicine in a province that respects both their skills and their rights, rather than sacrifice their conscience or their sincerely held religious beliefs.

I’m also a human rights lawyer. The College’s reasoning for stripping physicians of their conscience and religious rights is not based on law. Your working group received a number of submissions on that point, so I’ll leave you to review them with your legal counsel. The doctors seeking to exercise their freedoms have a leg to stand on. Heck, they have Canadian and Ontario human rights law on their side.

Of great concern to me is the definition of “discrimination” which you provided when interviewed:

“We’re saying that the discrimination occurs when you are not acting in the best interest of the patient,” said Gabel. “When you are not communicating effectively or respectfully about this with the patient, when you’re not managing conflicts, when you differ from the patient and when you are not respecting the patient’s dignity and ensuring their access to care and protecting their safety. That’s the issue.”

Dr. Gabel, this is not the definition of “discrimination” at law. If someone chooses to make up definitions for words, they are free to do so. (My son, for example, seems to think that “babagaba” is a verb which means “to chew on mommy’s ankle.”)

However, for a body like the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to create a new definition of “discrimination” which will result in the stripping of legal and human rights of some of their members is shocking, and this new definition will not stand up in a court of law. I urge the College to abide by Canadian and Ontario law.

Dr. Gabel, I suspect you are well intentioned and a kind and caring psychotherapist, like so many of the wonderful doctors who have treated me over the years. But please don’t force my physicians from the province with your policy. My family depends on their expertise and professionalism. I like to see my own values reflected in the “amazingly wide” practice of medicine in Ontario. For someone like myself, a religious minority, this is very important.

The membership of your College is broad and wide enough to include some family physicians who happen to hold pro-life positions. If it is not, it should be.

Sincerely,

Faye Sonier

Open letter to Justin Trudeau - still waiting for a response

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

We still haven't heard back from you regarding the letter I sent you in back in October. As of today, that's 368 Canadians who are patiently waiting to hear from you, about this very important freedom of conscience issue.

I know that Christmas is coming up, and you must be very busy. But please Mr. Trudeau, we would like to have your response to our concerns as soon as possible.

I'm afraid if we don't hear from you soon, the number of people who are signing this letter and asking for a response, will just keep increasing. It's hard to know how many more people might sign it.

Looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Cause and effect video

Cause and effect video

 "How we ‘see’ people affects how we treat people. It’s cause and effect. If you don’t see the beauty and value in another person, it’s easy to treat them like an object. But imagine the effect if we saw every other person as equally amazing, equally important, equally valuable. Imagine how things might change.

In 24 years of ministry we [CAS] have assisted over 16,000 women in distress."

What a shame that an anonymous blogger was able to ensure that funding for a crisis pregnancy centre (Pregnancy Options and Support Centre in Sarnia) was revoked.

All because that anonymous person doesn't like crisis pregnancy centres, and has a personal vendetta against them. I feel sorry for her.

I hope she watches this video. She could use a dose of love in her life.

Open letter to Justin Trudeau - honouring conscience rights

Update December 10, 2015: There are now 417 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update September 1, 2015: There are now 416 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update August 9, 2015: There are now 397 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update February 16, 2015: There are now 394 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update January 27, 2015: There are now 392 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 13: There are now 367 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 14: There were a few duplicates from yesterday's post. There are now 364 names.

Update December 13: There are now 368 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 8: There are now 334 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 6: There are now 332 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Another comment:

"My concern is that the leader of the Liberal Party has made decisions without (seemingly) benefit of consultation. In my view, he is acting like an autocrat, and I find that very frightening. I cannot, in good faith, support the Liberal Party of Canada under these conditions."

Update December 3: There are now 330 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 30: Another comment:

"The way some elected officials are thinking is beyond belief & if it continues like this, pretty soon we will have no rights."

There are now 322 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 29: Another comment:

"In an effort to appear “progressive” in his ideas, he has actually displayed some ignorance, as well as a narrow minded perspective about rights and freedoms."

There are now 318 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 28: Another comment:

"He [Trudeau] certainly does not have ears that hear, eyes that see, nor wisdom to ever be a Prime Minister of our great country Canada."

There are now 262 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 27: There are now 252 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 23: More comments from signers:

"She [Pat] makes an excellent case based on the very Charter of which Mr. Trudeau seems to have minimal and selective knowledge."

...

"on the day after Mr. Trudeau’s announcement , as well as sending off a note to him, I also wrote to the Liberal Party of Canada and  to my local riding president. Within a day of receiving my letter, I received a phone call from the riding president. We we able to have a lengthy and civilized discussion on the topic. I found his ears open … and although his direct impact on Mr. Trudeau is limited, I felt that my opinions had been heard and that they would be carried back to party discussions, at least at the local level.I am convinced that this is an important route for people who are in disagreement with Mr. Trudeau’s new policy - be in touch at the grassroots! If change is to occur, I think this is where it may begin - when members hear the hearts of their own constituents."

...

"Please add my name to the list defending the Charter of Rights as stated, and not Me. Trudeau's convenient interpretation. Thank you (paying member of the Liberal Party of Canada, rescinded until freedom to vote according to conscience is reinstated)"

There are now 237 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 21: Another comment I received:

"Please add my name to Letter to Trudeau. He has definitely gone off the tracks."

There are now 232 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 17: There are now 225 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 17: Many people thanked me for writing this letter. Here is one such note I received:

"Thank you for initiating this. I am a "cradle Liberal" who was also a "card carrying Liberal" who is now re-evaluating her political views. While I find that I do not like what I hear from all parties, I will definitely not be in Justin's corner. He is not turning out to be our 'white knight' but quite the opposite. Please add my name to your letter."

Update Nov 16: There are now 219 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 15: There are now 209 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Oct 16: Since I sent this letter to Justin Trudeau, I've received additional names which I've added to the bottom. I now have over 100 signatures. If you would still like to sign the letter please send me an email at maloneyp64@gmail.com and I will add your name to the letter. In a couple of weeks I will send Mr. Trudeau another letter with the updated names. The more Canadians who voice their displeasure with Mr. Trudeau's attack on democracy, the better.

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

We the undersigned, are very concerned about your recent edict to exclude pro-life people from being candidates for the Liberal Party. We are also concerned that you say you are doing this, because you are a strong believer in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We must confess, we find it impossible to reconcile the two.

First, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of conscience (See section 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion). This is a fundamental right and the Charter is very clear in that it promises that all Canadians have this right. This would include all persons who wish to run for political parties. How can you in good conscience, exclude people because their consciences guide them differently, than yours does?

Second, when some honourable ex-Liberal MPs wrote you, you dismissed their concerns because you felt the writers were "old men". This dismissal is also against the Charter, since your comments are both ageist and sexist, and so discriminatory based on same.
("See section 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability).

Would you likewise discriminate against a young female's opinion? Or conversely, perhaps you are implying that you would only listen to a young female's opinion? In either case, this would still be discrimination based on age and gender.

If you do not agree with these men's arguments, I would love to hear what your counter arguments would be. Instead you chose to ignore their arguments, preferring to attack the speakers instead of the subject at hand. This is not helpful in furthering honest and intelligent discussions on any issue including abortion.

Finally, on many occasions you have stated that a woman's right to choose is guaranteed by the Charter. But this is not the case at all. The Supreme Court Justices in the 1988 Morgentaler decision never stated that a woman had a constitutional right to abortion. How can you believe then, that her right to abortion is guaranteed by the Charter? It isn't. Please see here for a detailed discussion what is in that decision, as well as what isn't.

We must admit we are very confused by your understanding of the Charter. On the one hand, you ignore what is clearly guaranteed in the Charter, and on the other hand, you invent something that is clearly not in the Charter and say that it is. With all due respect Mr. Trudeau, your sentiments are logically incoherent.

We respectfully request that you welcome all persons into the Liberal Party regardless of their beliefs about abortion and that you respect their right to vote in accordance with their conscience.

We believe all persons deserve the same respect regardless of conscience beliefs, of gender, or of age.

Let the people decide if they wish to vote for these differing viewpoints. That is why we hold elections. It really isn't for the leader to decide this. We believe this is what democracy is all about.

We respectfully request that you respond to this letter, and we look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Adele Constantineau

Aileen Simpson

Alana Pelc

Aldo Dolcetti

Alice Fougère

Alida van der Vegt

Amber Friesen

Amelia Andal

Ana Stopa

Anastasia Bowles

Andre Pare

Andrea Mrozek

Angus Kelly

Angus MacDonald

Ankeje Snell

Ann Sullivan

Anna-Marie Kean

Anne Bonnah

Anne Egan

Anne Essiambre

Anne Marie Powell

Anne Stewart

Anne Waggoner

Annette Besner

Annette Downey

Arnold Bossa

Audrey Beard

Barbara Norris

Barry Dunn

Bea Suelirin

Beatrice Kyolaba

Bena Toscano

Bernadette McCormick

Bernie Langill

Betty Barrett

Bev deMontigny

Bibiane O'Gorman

Bill Vanderlinde

Bob Du Broy

Bob Riley

Bob Rudy

Bonnie Pember

Brett Bottyan

Brian Smith

Bridget Van Osch

Camille Bozozuk

Carl Hickey

Carls Aury

Carm Scine

Carmen D'Souza

Carol Cheslock

Carol Gaboury

Carol Gervais

Carol Gray

Carol Roch

Carol Talgoy

Carole Atkinson

Carrie Peters

Cathie Mary Butler

Cecilia Bowles

Céline d'Etcheverry

Chantel Drew Ward

Charlene Charron

Charles Fortin

Charles Saso

Charles Vince

Chris Belford

Chris Ward

Christian Lange

Clarissa Canaria

Claude A. Brule

Claude Leduc

Cliff Pyle

Cliff Snell

Colette Stang

Conny Barel

Corinne Ware

Craig Read

Curtis Ogilvie

Cynthia Bredfeldt

Cynthia Connolly

Cyril Winter

Daniel Hunter

Daniel Surprenant

Darlene Irvine

Daryl Sheppard

David Darwin

Deacon Rick Gervais

Deacon Wayne S. Lee

Debbie Duval

Debbie Ward

Deborah Egan

Delores Doherty

Denis Bergeron

Denise Davis

Diane Irvine

Diane Naipaul

Diane Stump

Dolly Moyse

Don Powell

Donald Andre Bruneau

Donna Barry

Donna J., Anderson

Donna Verner

Dr. E. Letourneau MD

Dr. Joseph Clarke MD

Dr. Robert Walley

Dt Bruneau

Edward Olszewski

Eileen Meunier

Eileen Steil

Elaine Black

Elaine Cavalier

Eliette Campau

Elizabeth (Betty) Donnelly

Elizabeth Doucette

Ellen Chesal

Elva Roley

Erie Eizenga

Ernestine Fronc

Ester da Silva

Eugene Leenders

Eva McGuire

Fabien Bergeron

Fr Joseph Kane, OMI

Fr. Autur Ockwood, MSF

Fr. Daniel Berniquez

Fr. Dennis Hayes CC

Fr. Hezuk Shroff

Fr. Kenneth Lao C.C.

Fr. Michael Weitl

Fr. Yves Marchildon CC

Francilia Poirier

Francis J. Barrett

François Savard

Frank Egan

Frank LeVay

Frederick Tremblay

Gail Goshko

Gar Knutson

Gary D. Knight PhD

Gary O'Meara

Gemma O’Sullivan

Gene Makish

Genevieve Moncrieff

George Olliver

Gerard Beltran

Germaine Gaudet

Gillian Keenan

Gisele C. Pitre

Gloria Pearson-Vasey

Glovana Clarke

Gordon Duncan

Gordon Verner

Grace G. Brule

Greg Doyle

Guy Dacquay Hani Zakhia

Harriet McEachen

Harry Norris

Helena Szakowski

Hildegard Krieg

Immaculte Nalukago

Ineesha Ym

Jackie Vince

Jacqueline Sullivan

Jacques Campeau

Jakki Jeffs

James Pierce

James Snell

Jane Langabeer

Janet Davidson

Janet Seward

Jauise Seteurnear

Jean Morgan

Jean-Pierre Dostaler

Jeannine Lebel

Jeannine Legault

Jen MacDonald

Jennifer Snell

Jessica Sheppard

Jessie MacIsaac

Jim Beard

Jim Cairney

Jim Leliveld

Jim Vandervoort

Joan Coyne

Joan Langtry

Joan Lemieux

Joan Lepage

Joan O’Brien

Joan Wills

Joanne Sabourin

Jocelyn Unsworth

Joe Sinicrope

Joe Stalmach

Joe Thottungal

Joe Winchester

John Bolech

John Hof

John Lammers

John Lange

John Sammut

John Sebok

John Stefan Obeda

John Ward

John Ware

Jonathon Van Maren

Jordan Beard

Joseph Patrie

Joseph van der Vegt

Josie O’Rourke

Joy Wolfenden

Joyce C. Allison

Judy Smith

Julia Irvine

Julie Culshaw

Julie Smulski

K. Neatyrexuslei

Karen Thomson

Karine Surprenant

Kas Pelc

Kathie Hogan

Kathy Vanderlinde

Kathy Waechter

Kay Newbold

Ken Martin

Ken O'Day

Kim MacMullen

Kim Tran

L. Jill Vince

Larry Chretien

Laura Gueguen

Laura Patrie

Lauralee Sopczak

Lauralee Sopezak

Laurelia Charlemagne

Lawrence Moore

Len Mihalicz

Leo Andal

Liana Gallant

Linda Allard

Linda Cobb

Linda Laperle

Linda Tensen

Lise Anglin

Lois Duncan

Lorelle Baptiste

Lorraine Lemay

Lorraine Lynch

Lorraine MacPherson

Lorraine Martin

Louis Seward

Louise Chretien

Louise Dubois

Louise Letourneau

Lourdez Mangaring

Lucette Pilon-Bergeron

Luciano Ingriselli

Lucie Bastien

Lucille Bourbonnais

Lyse Charron

Lyse Charron

M L Currie

M. Bozozuk

Madeleine Lafleur

Madeleine Thomas

Maeve Ryan

Magda Baillot

Malcolm Roddis

Marc Dennis

Marcel Sinasac

Marcelle Belanger

Margaret Thomson

Maria Cairns

Maria Torrone

Maria Ym

Marian Obeda

Mariana Marchand

Mariane Louis-Seize

Marianne Proulx

Marie Stalmach

Marie Vanbergen

Marie-Claire Fortin

Marion Labonté

Marlene Holt

Marnie Sebok

Marta Pan

Mary Ann A. Peralta

Mary Catharine Carroll

Mary Doyle

Mary F. MacDonald

Mary Jean Belford

Mary Knechtel

Mary MacDonald

Mary Michael

Mary Mitro

Mary Olszewski

Mary Pantone

Maryke Vos

Mat Uszewsko

Maureen Ward

Michael Liang

Michael Szakowski

Michael Ward

Michelle Sinasac

Miranda D. Reis

Moncia Roddis

Murielle Plante

Nancy Kerslake

Nancy Macri

Nancy Tremblay

Nancy Winslow

Natalie Grenier

Natalie Hudson Sonnen

Natasha Fernandes

Neva Lorenzon

Nicole Arranz

Nirmala Ym

Noreen Minifie

Norman Jay

Pat Laviolette

Pat Macdonald

Patricia Balis

Patricia Chura

Patricia Moore

Patricia Trites

Patrick Pena

Paul Charron

Paula Maloney

PAULETTE A. ST-JACQUES

Pauline Guzik

Peggy Doucette

Peggy Hunter

Peggy Kelly

Per Talgoy

Peter McGann

Peter Ryan

Philip Tan

Phyllis Dennis

Pierre Collette

Pierre Poirier

Ray Thomson

Rebecca Ocoma

Rebecca Richmond

Rejean Besner

Renald Veilleux

Rev. Mr. Rudy M. Ovcjak

Rhiel Perrin

Rick Stankiewicz

Rihad Lzrkncb

Rita Hude

Rita Hudec

Rita Magny

Robert Campbell

Robert Farley

Robert Halpin

Robert S. Anderson

Romana Dolcetti

Romana Pecek

Ron Trent

Rosanne De Luca

Rose Marie MacMullen

Rose-Marie Gagné

Rosemary Connell

Rosetta Caza

RS Ayart

Ruth Spearns

Savio Leon DeSouza

Scott Eagan

Se Ardaf

Sean Mulligan

Sean O'Carroll

Shane Allard

Sheila Knight

Sheridan Brace

Sherwin B. Peralta

Sheryle Snell

Shirley Leduc

Simone Gingnas

Stan Siok

Suma Joe

Susan Ditmar

Susan Duguay

Suzanne Lalonde

Sylivie Bozozuk

Sylvie Bissonnette

Ted Sabourin

Teresa Aitken

Teresa Kane

Teresa Psutka

Terry Cantin

Tess Sturgeon

Thea Streng

Theodore Morgan

Theresa Everett

Theresa McDonald

Theresa Winchester

Therese Lavergne

Tom Mockler

Tony Gosgnach

Tracey McAskill

Twilight Beltran

Ulrika Drevniok

Valerie Bottyan

Valerie Delaney

Veronica von Neubronn

Vicki Forsyth

Vince Berndt

Vince van den Bosch

Viviane Pelletier

Wanda Hartlin

Wayne Waechter

Wayne Weston

Wendy Wellington

Yvon Pelletier (416)

Human beings have human rights

By Jonathon Van Maren

“As soon as he grows his own uterus, he can have an opinion.”

That was a comment left on The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s Facebook page by a woman who presumably opposes men speaking out against misogyny, domestic abuse, rape culture, and female genital mutilation as well. Apparently, you see, male genitals disqualify people from speaking out on various human rights issues deemed by women who define themselves by their uteruses while protesting angrily against being defined by their uteruses as “women’s issues.”

Which abortion isn’t, by the way. It’s a human rights issue.

To break it down really simply for our confused “feminist” friends: Human beings have human rights. Human rights begin when the human being begins, or we are simply choosing some random and arbitrary point at which human beings get their human rights. If we do not grant human rights to all human beings, inevitably some sub-set of human beings gets denied protection by another group with conflicting interests. In this case, of course, it is the abortion crowd, who want to be able to kill pre-born children in the womb whenever they want, for any reason they want.

Science tells us when human life begins. Pro-abortion dogma is at worst a cynical manoeuvre to sacrifice the lives of pre-born human beings for self-interest, and at best an outdated view that collapsed feebly under the weight of new discoveries in science and embryology. But the abortion cabal wants to preserve their bloody status quo at all costs, and so they make ludicrous claims about needing a uterus to qualify for a discussion on science and human rights.

In fact, feminists love it when men speak up on abortion, as long as we’re reading from their script, which is why the carnivorous feminists have such a support system among the Deadbeat Dads for Dead Babies set and the No Strings Attached Club.

Male abortion activists have even begun to complain about “forced fatherhood,” a new cultural injustice in which they are expected to bear some responsibility for fathering children with women they didn’t love enough to want to father children with, but did appreciate enough to use for sex. Casual fluid swaps, they whine, should not result in custody hearings.

This is not to mention a genuine social tragedy that has men forcing or pressuring women to have abortions or abandoning them when they discover that the woman is, indeed, pregnant.

Or the fact that abortion has assisted pimps, rapists, and misogynists in continuing the crimes of sex trafficking, sexual abuse, and sex-selection abortion.

And coming against these disgusting trends are thousands of men in the pro-life movement who believe that shared humanity means shared responsibility, and that when the weak and vulnerable are robbed of their rights, we have to stand up and speak out.

We are not at all convinced by the feminist argument that people should think with their reproductive organs or genitals. We think that the number of people currently doing that has perhaps contributed to the problems we face. And we refuse to be told that protecting the human rights of all human beings is “none of our business” and “outside of our interests.”

Arguments don’t have genitals, feminists. It’s a stupid argument trying to protect a bloody ideology.

Reprinted with permission

Canada gets it but Justin Trudeau doesn't

Ah, Justin Trudeau. He's so predictable. At yesterday's pride parade in Toronto he said:

“I’ve seen so many people from every corner of the world, literally,” Mr. Trudeau said, adding that he’d spoken with people from Australia, South Africa and Jamaica earlier in the day. “[Canada] is a place that actually gets it, that stands up for human rights around the world and welcomes people in.” (emphasis added)

Trudeau believes in human rights. For lesbian people. For gay people. For bisexual people. For transgender people.

But Trudeau doesn't believe in those same Canadian human rights for pre-born human beings. They are excluded from Trudeau's human rights list.

I wonder how many LGBT people are aborted every year in Canada? They'll never get to be a candidate for the Liberal party. Because they don't have human rights when in the womb.

For more Justin Trudeau  and his unique belief system on excluding pro-life people from "his" party:

http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/06/justin-trudeau-ghost-of-daddy-past.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/06/justin-trudeau-further-explains-liberal.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/05/memo-to-justin-trudeau-personal-and.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/05/can-justin-trudeau-really-be-catholic.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/05/justin-trudeau-what-is-he-talking-about.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/05/justin-trudeaus-liberal-charter-of.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/05/educating-justin.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-canonical-phrase-womans-right-to.html

Memo to Justin Trudeau: personal and public beliefs are inseparable

John Pacheco supports Bishop Christian Riesbeck's comments regarding Justin Trudeau. So do I.

"Bishop Christian Riesbeck said that if the Liberal leader refused a meeting and continued to practise his Catholic faith in the form of receiving communion, it would be unseemly. 

“It’s the fact that he considers himself to be a devout Catholic but then adheres to, or advocates for, abortion,” said Riesbeck. “That is scandalous,” he said, as opposition to abortion has been a clear and unchanging teaching of the church. Riesbeck is also not convinced by the argument that the Liberal Party is the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will support women’s rights. “You know, if you look at Article 7 in the charter, it says that everyone has a right to life. It’s enshrined right there,” said Riesbeck. “Article 2 also speaks of freedom of conscience and religion. He seems to have undermined those values that all Canadians hold dear.” Riesbeck said that if Trudeau wanted to make things right, he would have to reverse course. “Ultimately, he would have to make a public retraction of his views,” he said."

Trudeau said this:

"My role is to stand up and defend all Canadians and my role in terms of that is separate from any personal religious views." 

I always get real fidgety when I hear a politician say this. A man or woman who tells me they are able to separate their personal beliefs from their public beliefs, means I instantly don't trust them. Conscience, values, morals, beliefs, whatever you want to call them, can't be separated from your personal and public life. They're a package deal. They go together and are intertwined in everything a person does, says, thinks and believes.

Trudeau should rethink this whole Liberal party pro-choice manifesto thing. It's not helpful to Liberals, or to pro-life Canadians. And it's not helpful to him as a leader, or as a Catholic.

MP Maurice Vellacott puts two motions on the Notice Paper

As Mike Schouten, director of WeNeedaLAW.ca points out, Mr. Vellacott has given Canadians two early Christmas presents.

See here for Mr. Velacott's Private Members' Notices of Motions.

M-482 — December 6, 2013 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That a special committee of the House be appointed to: (a) study the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada since 1988 related to children before birth in order to understand what the Supreme Court has said about Parliament’s responsibility with respect to resolving public policy questions in this area; (b) propose options that the House and/or the government could take to address any negative impact these decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada may have had, directly or indirectly, on women, men, children and Canadian society; and that the committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair be from the government party; that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and that the Committee report its recommendations to the House no later than 6 months after the adoption of this order.

M-483 — December 6, 2013 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That a special committee of the House be appointed to determine what legal protections Canada ought to provide to children before birth, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada ratified in 1991, which states that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth“; and that the committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair be from the government party; that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-Chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and that the Committee present its final report to the House no later than 6 months after the adoption of this order.

Happy Birthday Canada

Today is Canada's 146 birthday of nationhood.

We Canadians live in one of the safest, most prosperous, well educated, peaceful and financially well off countries in the world. Canada has some of the most amazing natural resources in the world as well--fresh water, bountiful forests, natural gas and oil. We have low unemployment and financial stability in these troublesome times when so many countries are suffering from severe recessions and strife.

And we have a strong and honourable history of democracy. Canadians have freedoms other countries can only dream of.

I love this country.

For all that, Canada's track record on legally protecting our pre-born citizens isn't something I am proud of. In this regard we don't rank with other democracies, we rank with totalitarian regimes like China and North Korea where human rights don't even begin to compare to Canada's.Yet Canada's human rights record for pre-born citizens is equal to China and North Korea.

Sometimes I think, will it ever change? Will Canada's political leaders ever finally realize the error they have made with abortion? It is frustrating to see them in their seemingly total blindness for the fate of our unborn children. Do we give up? Do we give in? Do we let the pro-abortions have their way?

No we don't. Not now. Not ever.

There are many dedicated men and women in this great country who care deeply about the plight of these children. Men and women who have devoted their life to the cause of life. To the cause of protecting and advocating for women and their children. I am very proud of these Canadians.

What we do have, is hope. We have hope that one day abortion will end. Maybe in my lifetime. Maybe not. But it will end. Hope is what keeps us going. Hope in our future. Hope in the future of our children. Hope in equal rights for all Canadians. Those born and those yet to be born.

It will come. I promise you.

Mr. Harper gets a vacation

I won't be blogging during the Month of May.

I wish all my readers a beautiful spring (finally) from up here in the land of snow (now finished), maple syrup (yum), where the moose roam freely (yes I did see one blocks from my house), the beaver chews trees (she can leave some nasty teeth marks especially if you threaten mama's babies), and the Mounties always get their man (well I'm not sure if they do). I hope to be back online in June.

I'd like to leave you with the thoughts below from Dr. Donald De Marco's book Abortion in Perspective, where he argues for the rights of the fetus because of its inherent goodness and value.

The responsibility falls on us "to judge wisely the fate of those who must plead their case in silence".

And Mr. Harper? Don't worry. I'll be back.

"With the right-to-privacy ruling[from Roe Vs. Wade], the human foetus's right to life is judged to be conferred upon him by his mother. By being unwanted by his mother, the human foetus loses all claim to his existence. What could be a clearer case of arbitrary authoritarianism? The human foetus is nothing until the mother sanctions his existence by wanting or needing him. The human foetus is good only because he is wanted; he is not wanted because he is good. The wish of the mother outweighs the substance of the foetus. The foetus has no intrinsic value, goodness, or dignity. The mother, in conferring value upon him through mere approval, becomes a symbol of power rather than love.

Opponents of abortion develop their discussion from a concern for the objective reality of the foetus which disposes them to accept the proper ordering of things and the rightfulness of creation. Anti-abortionists are realists, because they consider the substantial reality of the human foetus to be good and lovable and consequently more valuable than idea, wish, or convenience. They are democrats because they believe ordinary people to be capable of discovering and affirming the foetus's objective reality and therefore of avoiding authoritarian legislation directed against him.

Sacrificing the human foetus for the sake of an ego preference demonstrates a blatant disvaluation of reality, "an exercise in raw power". The human foetus is good because he is a human life struggling by virtue of his own inner dynamism to possess life in a larger measure. By constantly transcending himself in time, in a properly human way, he manifests the common destiny he shares with all men. No man has ever lived who did not once live as a foetus. It is deeply disturbing to think that law now regards the early foetus's right to exist as based no longer on his intrinsic goodness but on someone else's arbitrary decision. Is this not a form of human slavery?

A democratic solution to the abortion issue is possible only if people are enlightened, that is, if they exercise the intellectual vision and moral perspicacity necessary to discover and embrace a world of real values. The authoritarian refusal to revere goodness, and the insistence upon satisfying self prepares for the decay of effective democracy. "It is sad not to see any good in goodness." These words of the Russian author Nikolai Gogol capture the spiritual malaise of modern man. Man has retreated into himself and has demanded the freedom to sever all ties with truths that lie beyond his ego.

When the authoritarian transplants the natural basis for goodness for reality to the ego, he also, by the same stroke, denies the natural basis for his own goodness. If good is only externally and arbitrarily conferred, then the basis for any good, even that of the authoritarian, is undermined. Authoritarianism toward the unborn ultimately invalidates all natural bases upon which human life can be valued as objectively good. At this point no one can enjoy security against arbitrary condemnation. People will live in mutual distrust, ever fearing that the justification of their own existence will suddenly be removed by another as easily as it has been conferred. When democracy yields to authoritarianism, power replaces love. Society can not endure such moral regression.

The human foetus, frail and peaceful, can offer little protest to man's destructive ego. The full burden of wisdom falls upon those who live outside the womb. Theirs is the awesome responsibility to judge wisely the fate of those who must plead their case in silence. The silent plea for life will thunder across man's heart if he only stills his ego to listen to another's truth."