Friday, July 28, 2017

Politicians listen to Joyce Arthur rather than reason

"...Most places in the world have some sort of “fetal homicide law” to fill in this gap.  They recognize the danger it poses to women and the importance of legislation to account for such crimes. 
Laws can be carefully written to consider abortion rights, and designed to only be implemented when such “non-consensual abortions” occur. 
But the advocacy group Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada have fought against any such proposal, arguing they are all attempts to weaken women’s right to an abortion. 
When asked by a reporter from the CBC, Joyce Arthur, president of the organization, said she has no problem with how the Criminal Code is applied to those who are charged in the killing of a baby if an attack on a pregnant woman leads to the baby’s death after it has emerged from the womb. 
“I think the law is fair in that sense,” she said. 
There was no comment in regard to the “sense” that isn’t fair. 
Isn’t it up to the Feds, not the ARCC? 
Political liability is something every elected official has to consider. When a pregnant woman is murdered the national news outlets look to Joyce Arthur and the ARCC for the final word. It is not hard to see her influence.  Canadian politicians are acutely aware of it. 
Any effort to address this legal gap is easily spun in the media into, as she puts it, “a backdoor attempt to smuggle in fetal personhood and make it a building block towards recriminalization of abortion.” 
Because of this, certain political groups have become inclined to avoid the subject all together, and in turn, this bizarre circumstance of law that rewards greater brutality in assaulting pregnant women is allowed to continue to be a uniquely Canadian reality..."
What a sorry bunch of cowardly politicians we have here in Canada. They can't think for themselves when it comes to the human fetus. And if they can think for themselves, they hide it pretty well. As soon as Joyce Arthur speaks out against anything to do with the rights of pre-born children--even wanted pre-born children--politicians cower like a dog in a thunderstorm. Sorry. I didn't mean to insult dogs.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Trudeau really means sameness when he speaks of diversity

July 22, 2017

By former MP Ken Epp

I woke up very early this morning, and started thinking about a bunch of different things. Of course, I was thinking of the “Unity” vote today, ...and the history that led us to this place. The media has been abuzz regarding the “bad” influence that the “so-cons” have. That led me to this thought: The “diversity” cool-aid that Justin Trudeau and his colleagues, the leftist politicians and media want us to drink is the largest concoction of hypocrisy that could be invented. Trudeau’s favorite phrase is, “We are not strong in spite of our diversity; we are strong because of our diversity.” This is hogwash. Trudeau doesn’t believe this, nor do all the others espousing this idea. It is clear to me that it is not diversity they are seeking – it is SAMENESS! They want us all to be like them. They want us all to accept, unquestioningly, their wrong-headed, anything-goes life philosophy and belief that they espouse. Any dissenting thought is roundly castigated and punished. That is NOT diversity!

Here are two obvious examples:

In the last election campaign, Trudeau declared that no-one that disagreed with his view on abortion would be permitted to run as a candidate for the Liberal Party. Hey! Some people think it is okay to “terminate a pregnancy” (such polite, impersonal terminology.) Others believe, as I do, that it is the termination of the life of a living human being. There is overwhelming scientific and other evidence for this point of view. But is this diversity in belief tolerated and encouraged? No. Everybody in Canada is forced to believe exactly as they do, even being compelled on threat of jail time, to fund this deliberate killing with our tax dollars. No diversity here! They are calling for universal conformity.

The next example is in the belief regarding marriage. There are some who believe that you can “love” and hence be married to a person of the same gender, more than one person at a time, or some other combination. Others, including me, have a deeply held belief that marriage can only be the “Union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” It is a holy union, founded in antiquity, and upheld through the ages until recently. Am I permitted to have this now diverse opinion? No! I am being forced to comply with their beliefs. If I fail to do so, I am the object of much derision, name-calling, and even punishment. If I express my beliefs, a firmly held conviction based on history and my belief in the Scriptures, I am ridiculed out of the debate, drawn into a human rights tribunal, fined, and/or imprisoned. I am labeled a “bigot” and a “homophobe.” Where does that come from? By the way, “homophobia” is a misnomer. “Homo” means “same.” A “phobia” is an irrational fear. Neither apply. Who is the same as me? A heterosexual human male. I do not fear such a person. And if you use the new definition which really is “homosexual” I don’t fear them either. I don’t have either a rational or irrational fear of them. (If I did, why did I actively try to befriend two of my parliamentary colleagues who were self-declared homosexuals?) Where is the diversity? I thought that this diversity was to give us strength. (LOL)

So, friends, I think we should wake up and recognize the “diversity maxim” for what it is. It’s a huge diversion from freedom of speech and thought, freedom of religious belief, and freedom from harassment. It does not have as its goal to unite us, but rather to divide us.

Rick Warren sums it up perfectly in his statement: “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

Oh how I wish that we could have political leaders who would forget about trying to appease the “other side.” Instead, what we need are leaders who will champion our right to respectful dissenting thought and expression. We are confusing “tolerance” with “celebration.” I tolerate and love my friend who is a hopeless alcoholic, but I feel no compulsion to celebrate his lifestyle. I have many friends who do not attend the church I attend, but they totally tolerate me. It is not necessary to celebrate with me to live in harmony with me. Similarly, I should have the right, respectfully to not march in a homosexual parade. Why should I be forced to celebrate that in which I do not believe? Similarly, there should be total freedom of choice in the matter of our political leaders as to whether they march in a “Gay parade.” Some will; some won’t. Why should we shower them with hateful epithets if they choose not to?

Diversity. As currently presented, it’s a harmful myth.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Thursday, July 6, 2017

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.