CFRA fires another good commentator

If you missed John Robson on CFRA this morning, it's because CFRA has dropped him. John was one of the last decent commentators on CFRA. Now he's gone. 

CFRA is so losing it, thanks of course to Bell Media. Bell obviously has no idea what they're doing with CFRA. They have even taken to regurgitating the previous evenings CTV newscasts in the morning. Lame.

I wonder how long advertisers will continue to advertise on CFRA. Bell is slowly but surely killing the station.

This is what John told me:

"Alas, they have indeed dropped me from the morning lineup. You can find details (including a pitch to help me carry on online) here:

It was a good run and I’m sorry it ended on the radio. But it will continue as a podcast if people support it, as I hope and trust they will."

Good-bye CFRA

I've had it with CRFA. Now they've laid off Mark Sutcliffe, John Counsell, Ron Corbett and Nick Vandergragt. This after they laid off other hosts a while ago, and Steve Winogron a year ago. Steve Madely retired recently (at least that's the official story).

Mark Sutcliffe was the only reason I've continued listening to CFRA as of late. Now that he's gone, well that's it for me. Rob Snow is still there, but for how long? And Brian Lilley is on in the evenings but I don't listen in the evenings.

Bell media owns CTV and CFRA and Lord knows I can't stand Bell (who lied to me) or CTV, who ripped apart CPCs in BC, based on Joyce Arthur's inaccurate, atrocious, nonsensical, fictitional "report":
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/surrey-charity-gives-dubious-abortion-advice-investigation-1.754309
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/national-christian-charity-probes-questionable-advice-on-abortion-1.754285
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/schools-suspend-counselling-centre-s-sex-ed-classes-1.754359

I don't know what Sutcliffe's or Corbett's abortion leanings are, but Counsell, Vandergragt, Madely, and Winogron were all pro-life. Interesting coincidence? 

CTV and Bell deserve each other. It's just too bad they had to decimate whatever was still good at CFRA.

Ottawa Vanier: time for a change?

Yesterday on CFRA, Rick Gibbons had the three main Ottawa-Vanier federal election candidates from the Conservative, NDP and Liberal party, on his show.

Liberal incumbent Mauril Belanger told us that he attends all the community AGM's and has regular coffees with constituents. That's funny. He's never invited me to any of his coffee dates. Come to think of it, he never answers my emails either. Although he has hung the phone up on me. I guess he invites his other constituents to coffee: the ones who agree with him on abortion. Or maybe they just don't know about his stand on abortion.

But the discussion got interesting between Belanger and Conservative candidate David Piccini when discussing the possibility of a tunnel going through the downtown core, to divert truck traffic.

Piccini: "I was at those King Edward task force meetings. I didn't see our Member of Parliament there."

Belanger: "Come on. I'm present all the time. Don't lie."

Unfortunately moderator Rick Gibbons stopped the exchange as there was only one minute left and he asked each of the candidates for their final words. I would have loved to know more about those meetings Belanger said he attended.

Belanger then had this to say:

"If people are not satisfied with the work I do, and I do work very hard, I would not have been re-elected seven times."

I think if a Liberal lamp post ran in Ottawa-Vanier, it would win too.

Kathleen Wynne's government makes numbers up

All day on CFRA today I listened to the news say that Kathleen Wynne's Liberals had consulted with 4000 parents over the new sex-ed curriculum. 

According to a freedom of information request done by Postmedia: not true.

In fact there were only 1,638 consultations done. And look at the questions that were asked, as reported by Sun media:

"...However, it’s not as if they could get any results that didn’t appear supportive of the new sex-ed changes. The questions were too broad for that. 

Here’s one: “It is important that curriculum is reviewed and updated regularly to keep up with the changing skills and knowledge children and youth need to thrive in today’s world.” Who’s going to say no to a statement like that? That’s why 85% of respondents strongly agreed and another 13% somewhat agreed. 

The same goes for this softball: “It is important to me that the school curriculum supports students in having the knowledge and skills that allow them to make healthy, safe and informed choices.” (84% strongly agree.) 

What’s the point of shelling out $19,000 to an external contractor to get responses to these vague statements? There isn’t a single question that’s specifically about the contents of the sex-ed curriculum. 

The closest was: “I believe that the school should teach my child about both the risks of sexual activities and about ways to make safe and healthy choices regarding their sexual health.” Only 59% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement. 

Postmedia reported last year that, according to the ministry, “Information gleaned from the parent survey will be used, along with work already done developing the previous curriculum, to draw up the new version which will be in place for the start of the next school year.”
Clearly that was bogus, considering the survey didn’t address anything specific about the sex-ed components of the curriculum. 

There was, however, one question that wasn’t all mush: “How much would you say you trust each of the following sources of health information, in terms of providing reliable and accurate information on sexual health to your child(ren).”

The options included four authority figures: Parents, doctors/nurses, public health officials and school curriculum/teachers. 

The teachers came last. In terms of which category parents consider “very trustworthy,” they put themselves at 87%, with doctors following close behind at 83%. Teachers scored a lousy 40%. 

In other words, survey respondents believe parents are the most reliable source to provide sex-ed to children."

I suppose this shouldn't surprise us. After all this sex-ed curriculum is brought to you by the same bunch who hides abortion information in Ontario: Kathleen Wynne's Liberals.

Make numbers up, hide numbers, it's all the same for this crowd of incompetents running the zoo over there in Queen's Park.

When the media supports a pro-life worldview

Last week on the year end review on CFRA, Steve Madely spoke about how when the Morgentaler decision came down in 1988, the Supreme Court Justices said that Parliament needed to enact a new law on abortion. He noted that Parliament never did do that. Steve went on to say that more recently, the Supreme Court judges ruled that Parliament needed to enact a prostitution Law, and they did do that recently.

The difference in the latter case of course, is that the SCJs gave Parliament a one year time limit to create a prostitution law. Parliament did this. But the SCJs did not impose a time limit in the 1988 ruling and no new law has ever been enacted in Canada. Every attempt to rectify this lack of a formal abortion law has failed, mostly thanks to political cowardice.

This makes the pro-abortions happy.

Today John Robson slipped into an on-air conversation that wasn't about abortion, how women want the right to do what they want with their body, except that the fetus is not her body. (The worn-out illogical argument about a "woman's right to do what she wants with her body" never ceases to amaze me.)

So what's my point exactly? It's just that it is so lovely to hear a radio personality actually willingly bring up abortion in this way. Because it hardly ever happens.

I remember years ago arguing with someone who knew a whole lot more than I did about media bias about abortion. When they told me that the media was biased, I relied, of course they aren't biased. I thought the person was just being overly dramatic and paranoid. Surely they are balanced, I said. Right? It took me a while but I finally realized I was very naive.

That was then. Now I see the media bias towards the pro-abortion worldview, and expect it at all turns, where "pro-choice" is "progressive". The "pro-choice" worldview believes it's just the way it is if you care about women, which ironically, is so opposite to reality.

That's why it always startles me when a media person actually says something on air that either raises the topic in a neutral but probing way (like Steve did) or actually puts forth a pro-life worldview (like John did).

I know that it's up to us pro-lifers to keep on doing what we are doing to change the conversation, since we can't expect the mainstream media to help. So every tidbit we get from the media is a small step in the right direction and we have to take what we can get. For this, I am thankful.

Educating conservatives

Listen to John Robson's excellent rant on how Conservatives in Ontario, and Federally, aren't really conservative at all. It was aired on June 30, 2014 on CFRA.

Starts around 17 minutes into the segment.

On the Ontario Conservatives and Tim Hudak:

"[The Conservatives] are not hard right--if you go any further left, you'll bump your head on Kathleen Wynne."
"Hard right [for the Conservatives] is to imitate Dalton Mcguinty."

On Tim Hudak:

"what did he say about abortion? Nothing. What did he say about religion? Nothing...what did he say about anything other than money. That's not right wing. That's demented neo-liberalism progressivism. What did he say about law and order? Nothing?..."

On Stephen Harper:

"Here's a guy who won't touch the moral issues with a 39 and a half foot pole...has dramatically increased government spending, talks a good game on the military but has actually gutted it--that's not conservatism. Conservatism would take a stand on things other than 'money buying you happiness'...they're all progressive and no conservative already..."

This audio should be mandatory listening for all of our Conservative MPPs, and MPs. Not that they would. But they should.

Why not adoption?

I was gobsmacked today, when I heard that only 2% of single women who face an unplanned pregnancy, choose adoption. That is unbelievable.

This morning Anastasia Bowles, program director of Adoption in Canada at LifeCanada spoke to Shelley McLean at CFRA about adoption. Listen to the six minute podcast. It is the entry for November 27 at 6:17 AM. You might learn something new about adoption. I did.

Anastasia tells us that there is a lot of confusion out there about how adoption is practiced. She clears up some of the negative connotations on adoption.

She also tells us that a woman these days has much more control about the adoption process than in days gone by. Like how there can be open adoptions where the woman can select the adoptive parents. How she can negotiate for future contact with her child with the adoptive parents. That adoptions don't cost the birth mother anything.

A woman places her child for adoption, or entrusts her child; she doesn't give up her child.

One of the issues that Adoption in Canada is hoping to address, is that there isn't enough post-adoption support out there, and this is something LifeCanada is working on. They have created a website with resources and information on adoption.

Adoption is a good thing. It gives a child the chance to live her life. It gives loving parents a child. What could be more important than this?

Legal euthanasia: will anyone be safe?

Natalie Sonnen from LifeCanada speaks to Mark Sutcliffe on CFRA about Quebec's recent tabling of Bill 52 which would provide "medical aid to die". The podcast is the one for June 14 with Natalie's name on it.

She tells us that people in Belgium and the Netherlands are killed without their consent by both nurses and doctors. A frightening reality.

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition tells us that the Quebec bill is in fact euthanasia, and not assisted suicide, like they would have us believe:

"On June 12, the Quebec national assembly introduced Bill 52: An Act respecting end-of-life care to legalize euthanasia in Quebec. Euthanasia is an action or omission that is directly and intentionally done to cause the death of another person, to eliminate suffering. Euthanasia is a form of homicide.

Yes, Bill 52 legalizes euthanasia, even though media reports and other groups continue to refer to it as assisted suicide."

See what else Schadenberg tells us about Belgium, quoting research from both the Canadian and British Medical Journals:

"A study that was published in the CMAJ(June 2010) examining the responses to questionnaires by nurses regarding their experience with euthanasia in Belgium found that even though the Belgian euthanasia law does not permit nurses to assist death, 14 nurses admitted to doing so and two of those nurses admitted that they did it without consulting a physician. Clearly these acts are outside of the legal parameters of the Belgian euthanasia law. The data found that usually the patient was in the hospital and over the age of 80.

A second study that was published by the BMJ(Nov 2010) examining data by Belgian doctors to questionnaires, found that 47% of all assisted deaths were not reported. The data also indicated that the legal requirement to consult a second physician was only done 73% of the time when the assisted death was reported and only 12% of the time when the assisted death was not reported. Unreported assisted deaths usually involved patients who were in the hospital and over the age of 80.

A third study was published in the CMAJ(June 2010) examining the responses by doctors in the Flanders region of Belgium to questionnaires found that 32% of the assisted deaths were done without explicit request. This study found that 91% of these assisted deaths were done to people who were unable to request an assisted death. Usually the patient was in the hospital and over the age of 80."

It only took 19 years for abortion to become a free for all in Canada when in 1988, the Supreme Court struck down our 1969 abortion law. We went from abortion being illegal, to being fully legal without restriction. If Quebec legalizes euthanasia, which province will be next and how long will it take the whole country to accept the practice?

And will it stop there? What about euthanizing younger people?

Read these ominous words from the Vancouver Sun:

"Claude Leblond, president of the provincial order of social workers and family therapists, said the bill is a major step forward.

"It took women years to get recognition for their fundamental right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy," he said. "When acquired, the right to seek medical aid in dying will be a comparable victory." [Killing people is a "victory"?]

He said while only requests by adults will now be considered, the day may come when the wishes of children will also have to be taken into account." [Euthanizing children?]

If we legalize euthanasia, the gap between who is safe from intentional killing and who is not safe, will only narrow. From abortion and infanticide (Peter Singer already advocates this) at the beginning of life--to euthanasia at the end of life, and maybe even children.

All it takes is 19 years.

Private Member's Business is not Government Business

On Monday this week, Lowell Green said on his talk show on CFRA that:
"the Prime Minister campaigned that he would not reopen the abortion debate and that every single Conservative MP campaigned with that promise" because they signed up for Conservative policy.

(Listen to Lowell Green's April 1 broadcast here.)

I disagreed with Mr. Green on what he was saying. Not only did I disagree with him, but I felt he had his facts wrong and he kept arguing with at least one caller, that because the Conservative MPs had signed on to the Conservative policy, that they had no right to bring up anything related to abortion.

I sent an email to the station manager Steve Winogron (the station manager) and copied Mr. Green.

I told them the following:
"On yesterday's Lowell Green show, Lowell stated that "the Prime Minister campaigned that he would not reopen the abortion debate and that every single Conservative MP campaigned with that promise." That is not the case at all. That is categorically an untrue statement. MPs are not breaking their promises and this is very upsetting to many of us, that Lowell would say this on CFRA which has a wide audience and following. People will believe that he is correct. Lowell kept repeating that the MPs campaigned on that platform. Not true.

Individual MPs are completely within their rights to to bring forward items of Private Members Business, that is, Bills or Motions, and this has nothing to do with the government not reopening the abortion debate.

Lowell said that MPs must support Party policy, and yes, MPs do support the Party policy. And that policy since 2005 as we know, says that the Government won't bring forward abortion legislation, but it says nothing about individual MPs' Private Members Business, which are completely separate from Government bills/motions, and have absolutely nothing to do with the government. And on an item of Private Members Business, the PM is equal to any other MP, and gets one vote like any other MP.

AND the Conservative Policy also says that MPs can vote their conscience on moral issues.

It is already a freedom of expression concern, that Lowell refuses to allow callers to discuss abortion on his show. Lowell will allow any person, to discuss any topic on his show, but he won’t allow them to discuss abortion. He is following the example of the politically correct people he disdains so much, by not giving a voice to pro-life people. It’s his show and I suppose he would argue that’s his right. But at the very least he should get his facts straight about Private Members' Business.

Private Members' Business is distinct from Government Business and to blur this distinction is unfair not only to individual Members of Parliament, but to their constituents, and to democracy."

Mr. Green wasn't happy with my email in his reply to me (something about going behind his back and stabbing him), but he never bothered to address the subject of my email, which was the definition of Private Member's Business, and how that allows MP's to bring forward their own bill or motion, regardless of the party's policies.

Mr. Green has a wide following and by him giving wrong information over the air waves, a large number of people can be, and will be mislead.

Besides having his information wrong, Mr. Green won't ever allow his listeners to discuss abortion on his show (as I mentioned above). Yet he never tires of telling us that freedom of expression is always allowed on his show. Yes it is. But only if you don't say the "A" word.

So I was pleased when this morning, Mark Sutcliffe said that this issue [of Mark Warawa's motion 408 being killed] is:
"one of the most important stories this year."

Mr. Sutcliffe believes it is good to disagree on subjects. He thinks on this issue Stephen Harper is wrong [not allowing Mark Warawa's motion to go forward]. That if 92% of Canadians are against sex-selection abortion, then the discussion should not be shut down. Mr. Sutcliffe thinks Mr. Harper has done a lot of good things, but does not agree with him on this issue. He continued:
"And I don't think there's anything wrong with saying he's wrong [i.e. that Stephen Harper is wrong]. That should be part of our system. It should be possible for an MP to get up and say, I like the Prime Minister, etc...we ran on the same platform, etc. I disagree with him on this particular issue...MPs are not employees of their parties. MPs are the employees of the people who elected them."

(Listen to Mark Sutcliffe's April 3 broadcast here.)

Fact checking works wonders

It's been an interesting week for abortion politics.

The week got off to a shaky start when a Canadian Press article on the 25th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision came out with some factual errors, and was subsequently picked up by pretty much every media outlet:
"It's been 25 years to the day since the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that criminalizing abortion violated a woman's charter rights."
and
"The Canadian Institute for Health Information says at least 64,000 abortions were performed in Canada in 2010, the most recent year for which information is available."

I sent CP an email and told them that no, the Supreme Court never ruled that criminalizing abortion violated a woman's charter rights, and that those 64,000 abortions are grossly under reported because:
"A) Quebec did not report their statistics for 2010 at all. B) It is not mandatory for clinics to report abortions, and many do not. C) all the abortions done in private physicians offices are not captured at all. There were at least 44,000 abortions done in Ontario alone in 2010 (only 28,765 were reported by CIHI for Ont. in 2010. My numbers are based on freedom of information requests I did of the Ont Min. of Health based on Dr's OHIP billings. BTW Ont recently excluded abortion services from FOI's). See here:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/05/revised-2010-ontario-abortions-tell-sad.html

Then later in the week Maurice Vellacott issued a press release, which anyone who actually bothered to read, would see it contained a very significant bit, about abortions resulting in live births--that the Canadian Press once again, didn't immediately report the live births variable.

The media reports came out saying that three MPS wanted the RCMP to investigate any/all abortions after 19 weeks as possible homicides. Even Mr. Harper and other MPS in the House of Commons were all on about, their favourite topic: "not reopening the abortion debate."

That wasn't even what we are talking about people. Once again, most of the major media outlets picked up the wrong information.

Again I contacted the CP. Finally on Friday I heard back from them and was assured that they had updated their reports. Thank goodness.

Watch MP Maurice Vellacott discuss the born alive abortions with CBC.

Take particular note of NDP Niki Ashton who talks about something--abortion--that Mr. Vellacott is not talking about. Ms. Aston says that it is an "egregious statement equating abortion to murder." It's too bad she didn't actually listen to Mr. Vellacott, because that isn't what he's saying at all. He's talking about babies left to die after an abortion.

Now I have no problem with educating the mainstream media and NDP MPs about abortion, and in fact it's kind of fun. But maybe they should check out some of the facts for themselves before speaking to the world about it. I have to do that, so why shouldn't they?

(In today's paper, at least the National Post gets it right here and here: And yesterday CFRA got it right too after some not so right newscasts the night before.)

Nick Vandergragt talks out

On Nick Vandergragt's show yesterday, he talks about March for Life, and Freedom of Information in Ontario aborted

Choose May 10 broadcast at this link.
http://devel.autopod.ca/chum/43/podcasts/

Make late-term abortions illegal and defund abortions

The Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, David Krayden, called on Harper to open up the abortion debate, on CFRA's "Lunch Bunch" yesterday.

Krayden says late-term abortions should be made illegal, and abortions should be defunded.

Krayden also says:
"Harper has the opportunity to create a true conservative majority in Canada, and that means being principled conservatism, it doesn't mean being pragmatic on all issues...it means believing in something, and that's why people are going to follow conservatism in this country."