Ottawa FOI Part 3 - Joyce Arthur compares pro-life people to neo-Nazis and white supremacists

The FOI I did regarding the pro-life flag being flown over city hall generated hundreds of letters. Most were from pro-life people, with a handful from pro-choice people.

One of the letters was from pro-abortion Joyce Arthur. No surprise there. It's quite the letter.

From: Joyce Arthur (mailto:joyce@arcc-cdac.ca) 

Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 1:34 PM

To: Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire) 

Cc: Deans Diane; McKenney, Catherine; Wilkinson, Marianne; Fleury, Mathieu; Nussbaum, Tobi; Leiper, Jeff 

Subject: Please remove anti-choice flag from City Hall TODAY 

Importance: High 

Dear Mayor Jim Watson, 

Please immediately remove the anti-choice flag from Ottawa City Hall. 

This flag is an affront to women's human rights, and I've heard visceral reactions from supporters in Ottawa who feet "sick to my stomach", "disgusted", "ashamed" and "embarrassed" that their City would disrespect women's rights in this way. 

Please be more sensitive to basic human rights. As a local government, you are bound to the Charter. It is wrong and discriminatory for the City of Ottawa to fly any flag espousing a cause that would remove the constitutional rights of women and transgender people who can get pregnant. The groups behind the March for Life seek to criminalize abortion, but our Supreme Court and lower courts have found that restrictions on abortion compromise women's Charter rights to bodily security, as well as life, liberty, privacy, and conscience. 

Please ask yourself whether you would fly a flag with a message from local residents who are white supremacists or neo-Nazis. We simply ask you to draw the line where it also respects women's rights, as well as the rights of group.  

They are protected as a vulnerable group under human rights codes and the Charter, just like ethnic and other minorities. 

Thank you very much for your consideration.  

Sincerely,
Joyce Arthur
Executive Director
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC)
P0B 2663, Station Main
Vancouver, BC, V6B 3W3
joyce@arcc-cdac.cawww.arcc-cdac.ca

First, It's hard to imagine a flag that says "March for Life" could actually cause someone to feet "sick to my stomach", "disgusted", "ashamed" and "embarrassed".

Second, "Be more sensitive to human rights". Is there anything more sensitive than supporting the right to life of all human beings, not just female human beings?

Third, " It is wrong and discriminatory for the City of Ottawa to fly any flag espousing a cause that would remove the constitutional rights of women and transgender people who can get pregnant". Since there's no charter right to abortion, nobody's discriminating against women's rights. If anybody's rights are being stomped on it's our right to freedom of expression and conscience.

Finally, "white supremacists and neo-Nazis"? Has it come to this? Comparing people who support the rights of all human beings, are now being compared to one of the most despicable movements on the planet. 

One final thing Joyce. The flag is not an anti-choice flag. It's a pro-life flag. I know you won't stop calling everything we do anti-choice, but you know, it is kind of pathetic.

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

Justin Trudeau - the ghost of Daddy past

What Feminism and Liberalism have done for women

Lucinda Creighton was Fine Gael TD in Ireland. Up until today that is.

(TD stands for Teachta Dála, and is a member of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas, the Irish Parliament).

She said:

"When a politician in good conscience promises matter and on such a fundamental issue, she could not in conscience support what was proposed."

Ms. Creighton voted against a section of her party's Bill, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy. The section was on the risk of loss of life from suicide. She was automatically expelled from her party. She had been a member of Fine Gael since she was 18. She is now 33.

She had an amazing speech before the vote that is well worth the read. Here is only a small part of that speech:

"...I have never regarded myself as a pro-life campaigner. I was not motivated to become active in politics because of the abortion issue. In fact I have spoken previously about the fact that I held a very different view on this matter when I was a student.

However, after much reflection, my views have evolved over the years; as I learned more about the topic, as I came in contact with friends and family affected by abortion, and as I matured and developed my own independent analysis of this most sensitive topic.

Crucially for me I stepped outside the “groupthink” which I genuinely believe dominates this debate in Ireland. It seems that if you do not succumb to the accepted view that abortion is a “liberal issue”, a “women’s rights issue”, a cornerstone of the “progressive agenda”, then you are deemed to be a backward, illiberal, Neanderthal fundamentalist who belongs to a different era. The distinct irony of this prevailing view, is that it is so illiberal in its intolerance of any alternative outlook.

Yet, when one steps back from the stifling groupthink, and reflects, I think one arrives at a different view. I am a woman and I am happy to say that I am also very much in favour of women’s rights. But by that I mean all women. Not just adults or adolescents or children – I mean babies too.

The sad reality, as we look around the globe at how women’s rights are advocated, promoted and defended, it is clear to me that abortion is in fact, often a tool for the oppression of women.

Look at China, India, Korea and indeed some parts of Europe and the United States. The societal preference for boys over girls has led to the obliteration of tens of millions of baby girls who were simply never born. A famous feature carried by the Economist magazine in 2010 showed just how females are discriminated against in this age of abortion.

One paragraph from that edition of the Economist jumped out at me and frightened me:

Until the 1980s people in poor countries could do little about this preference: before birth, nature took its course. But in that decade, ultrasound scanning and other methods of detecting the sex of a child before birth began to make their appearance. These technologies changed everything. Doctors in India started advertising ultrasound scans with the slogan “Pay 5,000 rupees ($110) today and save 50,000 rupees tomorrow” (the saving was on the cost of a daughter’s dowry). Parents who wanted a son, but balked at killing baby daughters, chose abortion in their millions.

It would be bizarre if we, as legislators and hopefully, as thinkers, did not ask the obvious question “What is the net difference” between such screening followed by intentional gender-based abortion, and the intentional killing of that baby after delivery? The answer is of course none.

The net effect is exactly the same, which is to say that an innocent baby, is simply wiped out. The scale of this exercise is such that in China, by the year 2020, there will be 30-40 million less women than men walking the earth, growing up, having families, going to work and generally contributing to society . 30-40 million less women is hardly a triumph for feminism or liberalism..."

The woman lost her high-profile political job, because she had to be true to her beliefs.

Here is her statement after losing her job:

“I am deeply disappointed to have to vote against the Government’s abortion Bill today. I never wished or expected to be expelled from the Fine Gael parliamentary party. This is the party I have worked for unstintingly since I was 18 years old. I will, of course, continue to be a Fine Gael member.

I feel deeply and strongly that aspects of this Bill are based on flawed logic and absolutely zero medical evidence. I could not vote for it, particularly in light of Fine Gael’s clear commitment not to introduce abortion prior to the last election. Promises matter in politics, but particularly in relation to matters of life and death. This is a promise I could not renege on in any circumstances.

I believe that I have made the correct decision."

Quite the courageous person. Quite the courageous, young female political person, who also just happened to be a Minister. What a great example for Canadian female MPs.

When some women think they speak for all women

There is a funny thing that goes on in this country, where the so-called feminists think they speak for all women, when clearly they don't, but that doesn't stop them from saying they do, and really, you know, it gets kind of boring.

So, Like Naomi Lakritz, who does a fine piece on  MP Rona Ambrose, I also:
"didn't ask [NDP deputy leader Libby] Davies to speak on my behalf, and I don't feel betrayed in any way, so I don't appreciate being lumped into the grey bloc conveniently labelled "Canadian women."

I am a Canadian woman and those women do not speak for me now, they didn't speak for me before, and they definitely won't speak for me later. They simply do not have a corner on speaking for Canadian women.

So please. Can you do us all a favour? Get over yourselves.

Pro-choice

I think our MPs need to look at what the folks over at CCBR are doing.

They might want to rethink whether or not they still want to vote against Stephen Woodworth's motion 312.

There's nothing like the unvarnished truth of watching an abortion procedure--juxtaposed with Joyce Arthur speaking about her dogma of "women's rights"--to make you sit up and take notice.

If this is what "women's rights" is all about, could any MP actually vote against the motion?

What about the rest of us. Do we really believe in "women's rights"?

From CCBR's press release:

"Anti-Abortion Group Releases Most Shocking Abortion Footage Yet Leading Abortion Rights Advocate's Words Exposed

September 24, 2012. The Toronto and Calgary-based pro-life organization the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca) released a video showing Joyce Arthur, the head of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, defending abortion intercut with footage of an abortion procedure in-progress and abortion's results.

The video can be viewed here:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0XzVjYXuCWs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"The recent debate on Motion 312 has been dominated by the worst kind of  sophistry from Canada's abortion advocates," explained executive director Stephanie Gray, "So we decided to make a video unmasking the rhetoric so Canadians understand what abortion advocates mean when they say things like 'choice' and 'reproductive freedom.'"

The video, which the pro-life organization promises is the first in a series of many, shows interviews of Ms. Arthur talking about the "social peace" Canada has reached on the abortion issue while playing gruesome footage.

Gray explained, "Canada's abortion advocates have been permitted to talk about abortion for too long without people knowing what 'abortion' actually refers to. From now on, we plan to use video footage of what this horrific procedure actually looks like to show abortion as the act of dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment that it is."

New reality TV show

In a new reality TV show to be aired this fall called Woman to decide what she does with her body, we see a rare and unusual pairing of the NDP and Conservatives.

I take you now to the the entertainment capital of the world (Parliament Hill) where the show's pilot was taped. 

The first show opens up with Ms. Francoise Boivin standing in the House of Commons, looking admiringly at Mr. Stephen Harper.

We are transfixed as we listen to what this NDP MP is telling Mr. Harper about Stephen Woodworth's motion 312.

This is what she said:
“I appreciate that the prime minister…has clearly stated that there will be no support for M-312...before the birth there is absolutely no point for me to tell you what I think because the law in Canada is it’s up to the woman to decide what she does with her body,”

Yes TV watchers you heard it right. Ms. Boivin likes what the Prime Minister is doing. I am not kidding. And you heard it here first.

What a show this will be. The NDP and the Conservatives. Together. For the very first time. If I hadn't heard and seen the taping of this groundbreaking show for myself, I wouldn't have believed it.

With a season opener like that, this reporter is unclear as to what we can expect next. Because Parliament has only just begun. But I think we can expect a lot of high drama during this session.

Maybe in upcoming shows, Ms. Boivin will learn that there are actually two distinct bodies when a woman becomes pregnant. How will she react? Will she get it? What will she do? Will she change her tune? Will she become a Social Conservative? We just don't know.

Which is why it is really really really important that you stay tuned. To this station. This fall. I am not kidding.

(Disclaimer. This story is pure fantasy. Or not. You be the judge. It was inspired when I read Daniel Proussalidis PM Sides with NDP on ‘human life’ motion)

Big abortion and the CMA

The CMA has officially come out in support of maintaining a section of the Criminal Code that declares a child becomes a human being at the moment of birth.

One doctor, Dr. Genevieve Desbiens said this:
“I’m asking for you to recognize that women must retain their full and complete rights.”

Really? Can't the CMA do better than that? This "woman's rights" horse manure, really is getting too boring for words. Can't the feminists invent a new slogan? This one is just so 70's.

But here's what I cannot comprehend on any level. Shouldn't doctors know better than to say that the child is not a human being before the child is born? What exactly do they think is inside the mother's womb? A cat? A dog? A ten headed serpent? Why would a doctor do fetal surgery on a baby if not a human being, a real live person, a baby by any other name?

Oh yes I know, the CMA represents those other human beings (abortionists) who actually do the dirty deed to the defenseless human beings (the babies), so yeah, I guess it makes sense the CMA wouldn't want to admit that the children are human beings because that would be admitting some of their own colleagues are, you know, killers.

And sure, saying they support "women's rights" sounds so nice, so inclusive, so adorable. That will ease their guilty consciences, after all, how can anyone who supports "women's rights" be the bad guy?

If you'd like to read something that, God I pray, these doctors would actually spend five minutes out of their busy abortion schedule to read, it's this excerpt from Dave Andrusko (about fetal pain and testimony by a former abortion doctor) who does away with that rubbish lie and greatest urban legend of all time of "women's rights":

“Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp [an instrument for grasping and crushing tissue] grasping anything you can. At twenty-four weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard – really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.”

“you know you did it right if you crush down, a white material runs out of the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. Then you can pull out skull pieces. Many times a little face will come back and stare back at you…And if you think that doesn’t hurt, if you believe that isn’t an agony for the baby, please think again.”

It is becoming crystal clear to me what's going on here. An organization that has members who do the above described activity for a living wouldn't want to admit that what they are ripping tiny arms and legs from, and crushing the skulls of and spilling the brains out of are, you know, tiny defenseless human beings. Because if they admitted that, their consciences might compel them to stop--and then what would that do to that big old abortion industry ($70M in Ontario alone)?"

So no, we certainly cannot have that discussion. It's so much better for the CMA to worship at the abortion altar of "woman's rights," than to face a truth they simply cannot handle. A truth that slaps them in their conscience, and hits them in their pocket book. The truth about what an unborn child is.

What would the Martians think? (Part 1...Women's "Rights")

I just completed reading 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today. This was a feminist symposium in 2008 to celebrate (their word) the twenty year anniversary of the Morgentaler court case; the case that opened the flood gates for fully funded nationally available abortion that gave women their "right" to abortion on demand.

(As I've stated elsewhere, the ruling never actually granted a Charter right to abortion but abortion advocates like to pretend it did. They believe that if they say something long enough and often enough, people will think it’s true.)

After I read the document I was left with a feeling of immense sadness.

This phenomenal increase in women’s rights was accomplished by a corresponding elimination of all rights to the unborn child.

The word "Rights" is used 75 times in the document: it talks about Charter rights, Sexual rights, Reproductive rights, Equality rights, Human rights, Abortion rights, Women's rights, Fundamental rights and Our rights--all as they relate to women.

The only nod to father’s rights was preceded by a "so-called" as in "so-called fathers rights", the common derogatory term we use when we want to belittle or make fun of something.

Any mention of the unborn or fetal rights was again always in the negative sense as in:
"if we acknowledge the current ascendant discourse is one of the unborn child, then we as feminists and supporters of choice for women must re-insert the women in the social vernacular, and start again from the premise that the pregnant woman and the unborn child speak with one voice, and that voice is hers."

It's always about the woman.

I imagined a Martian sitting at the back of the room watching the proceedings and listening to the speeches as one half of this foreign human species--the half that is the carrier of the offspring of the species--celebrated their rights to be allowed to kill the newest members of their own species.

(to be continued...)

Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential