Patrick Brown shows his true colours

 From his book where he advises Doug Ford on social conservatives:

Thanks To Leslyn Lewis for this quote.

It isn't crisis pregnancy centres who spread misinformation, it's the pro-aborts

Dear Justin Trudeau,

I do not understand why you have a problem with pregnancy care centres. From this letter you wrote to the Minister of finance, you instruct the minister to do this:

"Introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status".

"Dishonest counseling"? Have you ever been to a pregnancy care centre, and spoken to the people who work there? Or to the people they serve? I don't think you have. If you had, you would know that these allegations are totally untrue. So why are you saying this, and targeting their charitable status?

If you do actually want to know the truth about these centres, may I suggest you watch this 20 minute interview with the Executive director of CAPSS. CAPSS has 82 affiliates who provide this amazing care and support to women. 

https://www.facebook.com/CanadianPhysiciansforLife/videos/296730802653591/

What I do know for sure is this. There are people out there who really really hate pregnancy care centres. And they have been going after pregnancy care centres for many years now, spreading many falsehoods about them. I really hope you haven't been listening to them, because if you have been, you are being led astray.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

ATIP reveals no records to support revoking charitable status of CPCs

Remember this letter from Justin Trudeau to the Finance Department?

"Introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status"

We know of course that crisis pregnancy centres do not provide "dishonest counselling" to women. We also know who else spreads fallacies about CPC's. Pro-abortions Joyce Arthur and Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights loathe crisis pregnancy centres. 

Three peas in a pod.

Arthur wrote two "reports" on her disdain for these centres, "reports" that news outlets like Global news "report" on. Global even posted Arthur's 2016 report on their website. The only problem is that Arthur's 2016 report is full of inaccurate, misleading and mythical information. So is her 2009 report, and both reports were refuted here and here.

I couldn't find any mention on Global's site about these rebuttals to Arthur's fake news "reports". So much for balanced news reporting.

Action Canada receives millions of dollars from Justin Trudeau's pro-abortion government. And Crisis Pregnancy Centres receive zero, zilch, nada from our pro-abortion government. Arthur even received $27,400 to write her hateful 2009 report.

Arthur and Action Canada are doing everything they can to get these groups to lose their charitable status. And Justin Trudeau tags along for the ride.

So what evidence does the department of Finance have to support this proposed revocation of the charitable status of CPC's? I did an ATIP, and guess what? They have no evidence whatsoever.

 Zero, zilch, nada.

This is what I received back from the department of Finance:

"In accordance with section 10(1)(a) of the Act, I must inform you that, after a thorough search, no records exist in the Department of Finance Canada concerning this request."

Not a surprise of course, because everything Joyce Arthur has ever written about CPC's is not true. 

The UK Spectator: MAID is all about the money

Dear Canadian Media, I have just one question for you. Do you care?

From a UK Spectator op-ed entitled Why is Canada euthanising the poor?

When the UK sits up and takes notice of Canada's legal killing regime, maybe it's time for our own government subsidized media to do likewise.

"A man with a neurodegenerative disease testified to Parliament that nurses and a medical ethicist at a hospital tried to coerce him into killing himself by threatening to bankrupt him with extra costs or by kicking him out of the hospital, and by withholding water from him for 20 days. Virtually every disability rights group in the country opposed the new law. To no effect: for once, the government found it convenient to ignore these otherwise impeccably progressive groups.

Since then, things have only gotten worse. A woman in Ontario was forced into euthanasia because her housing benefits did not allow her to get better housing which didn’t aggravate her crippling allergies. Another disabled woman applied to die because she ‘simply cannot afford to keep on living’. Another sought euthanasia because Covid-related debt left her unable to pay for the treatment which kept her chronic pain bearable – under the present government, disabled Canadians got $600 in additional financial assistance during Covid; university students got $5,000.

When the family of a 35-year-old disabled man who resorted to euthanasia arrived at the care home where he lived, they encountered ‘urine on the floor… spots where there was feces on the floor… spots where your feet were just sticking. Like, if you stood at his bedside and when you went to walk away, your foot was literally stuck.’ According to the Canadian government, the assisted suicide law is about ‘prioritis[ing] the individual autonomy of Canadians’; one may wonder how much autonomy a disabled man lying in his own filth had in weighing death over life.

Despite the Canadian government’s insistence that assisted suicide is all about individual autonomy, it has also kept an eye on its fiscal advantages. Even before Bill C-7 entered into force, the country’s Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report about the cost savings it would create: whereas the old MAID regime saved $86.9 million per year – a ‘net cost reduction’, in the sterile words of the report – Bill C-7 would create additional net savings of $62 million per year. Healthcare, particular for those suffering from chronic conditions, is expensive; but assisted suicide only costs the taxpayer $2,327 per ‘case’. And, of course, those who have to rely wholly on government-provided Medicare pose a far greater burden on the exchequer than those who have savings or private insurance.

And yet Canada’s lavishly subsidised media, with some honourable exceptions, has expressed remarkably little curiosity about the open social murder of citizens in one of the world’s wealthiest countries. Perhaps, like many doctors, journalists are afraid of being accused of being ‘unprogressive’ for questioning the new culture of death, a fatal accusation in polite circles. Canada’s public broadcaster [that would be our infamous CBC], which in 2020 reassured Canadians that there was ‘no link between poverty, choosing medically assisted death’, has had little to say about any of the subsequent developments.

Next year, the floodgates will open even further when those suffering from mental illness – another disproportionately poor group – become eligible for assisted suicide, although enthusiastic doctors and nurses have already pre-empted the law. There is already talk of allowing ‘mature minors’ access to euthanasia too – just think of the lifetime savings. But remember, slippery slopes are always a fallacy." (emphasis added)

Does anyone believe Patrick Brown?

Dear Patrick Brown,

Do you remember when you told people you were pro-life, then threw us under the bus, because you weren't really pro-life? We remember that very well.

And do you remember when you told people you were against the sex-ed curriculum, but you weren't? We remember that too.

And now you want us to believe that you support free speech rights? 

Sorry Patrick, but you've cooked your goose just once too often. I'd say that goose is pretty darned burnt right now. I'm also pretty certain not a single social conservative will vote for you this time. Maybe we were stupid then, but we aren't that stupid anymore.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 2:08 PM Mayor Patrick Brown <info@fighterleaderwinner.ca> wrote:

Patricia,

I will always fight to protect the free speech of Canadians.

Even when I disagree with them.

Take what happened to my colleague, Pierre Poilievre, for example.

When Pierre brought his campaign to a brewery in Toronto, the company was forced to take the extraordinary step of issuing a public statement saying they don’t support his political views.

Then, another brewery also distanced themselves from Pierre after he referenced their product in a video.

Many in the media – and even Conservatives – said these incidents prove Pierre is unelectable and cannot win a general election.

To me, that’s not the point.

I disagree with Pierre about lots of things, like his support for banning religious symbols, imposing a snitch line for cultural communities, and Quebec’s Bill 21.

But let me be 100% clear. I will always defend Pierre’s right to free speech – even when I disagree with him.

I’ll fight for his rights, just like I’ll fight for yours, and the rights of every Canadian with the courage to speak out about the things they believe in.

Will you stand up for free speech with me?

If your answer is yes, tap the button here to let me know right now.

Fighting for you,
Mayor Brown