Michael Coren earns his liberal creds

By Patricia Maloney

Brian Lilley interviews the new Conservative leader Andrew Scheer. Scheer isn't scary. Really.

Unlike Justin Trudeau who bans pro-life people from his party, Andrew Scheer, and in fact all Conservatives, don't ban any group from their party. Social conservatives are welcome. Fiscal conservatives are welcome. Even Libertarian Maxime Bernier is welcome. Heck Bernier almost won. A real big tent party. Not the Liberals. They pretend they are inclusive when they're exclusive. The Liberals are inclusive only as long as you are not pro-life.

Of course I also expected our Liberal media to be all over Andrew Scheer since he is pro-life. And I wasn't disappointed. The first piece I read by our liberal media was Michael Coren, who has now made his transition complete to being a full fledged member of the liberal media.

You see, a lot more work comes your way when you belong to the pro-choice media.

Coren attempts to analyze Scheer 's becoming leader in light of the fact that he is a social conservative. This  of course gives Coren a nice sounding board to trash social conservatives who he says are neither "sensible" nor "informed". And of course Coren buys into the mandatory fable no good liberal can be without: "woman's right to control her own body". No Michael the unborn child is another person's body though I'm pretty sure you know that.

"Most sensible and informed people in Canada believe in a woman’s right to control her own body and reproduction, and even those who may have some moral reservations about abortion accept the legal and political status quo.

And this:

"In other words, the argument is over."

Another pro-choice fallacy.

And what else are we according to Coren?

Fringe, irrelevant, eccentric, mostly ignored, zealots and hysterical.

He calls us "pro-lifers" in quotes. Is it because Coren thinks he's picking up a soiled piece of trash and has to hold his nose? And for the cherry on top Coren takes a pot shot at Roman Catholics (who he used to be) and Dutch Calvinist Churches.

"Members of this movement are usually Roman Catholic or from one of the various Dutch Calvinist churches; they are generally young, often with a home-schooled or private Christian education background; they are politically right wing on a number of causes; and they have jettisoned the moderation of some of their elders, and also learned lessons from “pro-lifers” south of the border."

Yep. Coren's transition is complete.

Abortion, the election, and the newspaper editor

“Hey boss, I just received another letter about abortion. Do you want to see it?”

“For heaven’s sakes, do those pro-lifers ever take a break? Do they ever come up for air? No I don’t want to see it.”

“But this one makes a good point. She says that MPs who say all women voters agree with abortion--are wrong. That there are some women out there, who are pro-life and can speak for themselves, thank you very much.”

“Who cares? We know the abortion debate is dead. Why do these religious fanatics insist on talking about abortion all the time?”

“Well, she isn’t saying anything religious. She just doesn’t think people should appoint themselves as spokeswoman for her views. She wants to give her own point of view. And that’s what we are in the business of, discussing all points of view, right?”

“Of course we are, but everybody knows the abortion debate isn’t going anywhere. The feminists won’t give up their abortion rights.”

“But there’s no such thing as abortion rights. That is, no constitutional right to abortion anyway.”

“Whatever. This election is about real issues. The economy, jobs, Quebec. None of the politicians are talking about abortion.”

“Brad Trost did...I don’t know, but people who are against abortion believe that the unborn person is a human being. That it’s not just a bunch of cells. What do you think a fetus is?”

“It doesn’t matter what I think. I need to get a paper out, not debate abortion.”

“But if people can’t debate abortion in the newspapers, where can they debate it? Stephen Harper won’t allow it debated in Parliament. The Universities won’t allow it debated on campus. That pretty much leaves the media. That’s just about the only place left for them to have their say. You know like, in letters to the editor? That’s what we do, isn’t it boss? Discuss and debate all subjects, right? No other subject is off limits in an election. Why is abortion?”

“I don’t have time for this. Delete the darn letter.”

I couldn't help but notice that yesterday's Globe had yet another editorial on Ann Coulter and her freedom of speech rights. And there were also, eight, yes count them, eight letters to the editor on the subject and a cartoon. Lots of prime real estate they're giving Coulter.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/a-university-fails-in-its-mission/article1511279/
It states:
"Universities have an obligation to protect the free exchange of ideas on campus, however offensive to someone those ideas might be. Today it is Ms. Coulter being silenced. Who will it be tomorrow? Anything that challenges people may offend someone. Therein lies the possibility of social change."

Who will be silenced tomorrow? Well, I can tell you who has been silenced for the past number of years, on numerous occasions, at a university campus near all of us: pro-life clubs.

So watch for it folks. The next time a university pro-life meeting or club is shut down or prevented from speaking by screaming objectors or university unions, keep your eyes opened to see if the Globe and Mail weighs in on the matter.

You know, in favour of freedom of speech.

The Globe and Mail is speaking out for freedom of speech in defence of Ann Coulter's right to say what she thinks at the University of Ottawa.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/would-be-prior-restraint/article1510057/

I agree wholeheartedly.

The Globe's editorial stated that "Mr. Houle's e-mail warning, in advance of her scheduled talk last night, is offensive on any number of levels, not least for the national platform it has given Ms. Coulter. Mr. Houle's outline of possible legal ramifications, the worrying implication that free speech in Canada is carefully circumscribed, in effect government-regulated, and his finger-wagging admonition to maintain 'respect and civility,' militate against the sanctity of free expression in places of higher learning and serve to embarrass his institution."

But wait a minute. I just googled to see if I could find similar Globe editorial support in defence of freedom of speech for pro-life groups on university campuses, many of whom have been shut down and/or have lost their funding or their club status as of late. I couldn't find anything.

The University of Victoria, McGill in Montreal, the University of Calgary and York University immediately come to mind.

In fact, a lot more pro-life university clubs have had their freedom of speech rights threatened, than the lone Ann Coulter.

Interesting that. Could it be that the "sanctity of free expression in places of higher learning", is only defend-able some of the time, and for some people?

I'm just saying.