Liberal MPs refuse to answer Conservative constituents

In response to this letter I sent to the Liberal Party of Canada regarding my MP Mona Fortier never responding to my letters, I received this response from Arthur Mackossot back in July. (Who is this guy anyway?)

Hello,

Thank you for writing to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Unfortunately, we are unable to provide assistance; we are the administrative office of the Liberal Party of Canada. Instead, we urge you to contact your local Member of Parliament (MP) or Cabinet Minister directly.
Current Members of Parliament - Members of Parliament - House of Commons of Canada 

Thank you again for writing.

Kind regards,

Arthur
Liberal Party of Canada

This is a pretty hilarious response. I was writing to the Liberal party to ask why my MP refuses to answer my letters, and the Liberal party tells me to contact my MP. Really?

I have now written to "my" MP Mona Fortier 12 times now. I have received two responses from her. This is what a Liberal government looks like--when Liberal MPs do not share the values of their constituents, they don't respond to their letters. What a joke these clowns are.

A letter to Patrick Brown - I don't support you

From: Jennifer Snell
To: Garfield Dunlop <Thomas.DeGroot@ontariopc.com>
Cc: Patrick Brown <patrick.brown@pc.ola.org>; MPP Monte McNaughton <monte.mcnaughton@pc.ola.org>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Jennifer, Here is your invitation to a fundraiser at the Wilcoxs'

To whom is reading this reply: 

I worked very hard to have Patrick Brown elected as leader of the PC party in Ontario. This is something I very much regret doing. 

Patrick is not the leader that he promised to be. He has betrayed people like me. His support of the many liberal policies makes me very very upset. I don't need to list the issues as I'm sure you get the picture. I am a Catholic and live by the teachings of the Catholic Church. I will not support the evil of the current liberal party nor that of the current PC party. 

Please understand this is not personal attack against the good people who remain in the PC party but an indication that thousands of social conservatives like myself will not support the PC party of Ontario under its current leader. In my opinion there is no difference between the liberal party under Kathleen W. and the PC party under Patrick B. 

May God protect Ontario and Canada.

Jennifer Snell

Boss man, feminist, pant wearer of Canada

A doctor speaks out about conscience rights

By An Ontario Doctor

I received a copy of this letter from a doctor. The doctor is writing about health care workers' conscience rights.

To my Member of Provincial Parliament of the Liberal Party,

I am deeply disappointed by the Liberal Party's willful disregard of the conscience rights of health care professionals when they voted in unison to defeat Bill 129 (An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991).

I realize now the utter powerlessness that minority citizens, like myself, have in the face of governments who have differing ideals.  I depended upon my elected member of parliament to speak for me, to be my voice and my vote on the one issue over which I have agonized for the past two years, an issue that has affected not only my freedom in how I practice my craft, but also the well being of countless patients (among whom you and I will be counted one day) who will be affected by the ramifications of this shift in health care policy.  I cannot help but to feel let down by both federal and provincial governments that have decided to play a political game based on faulty arguments which you and I both know are untrue.  For example, the argument of the patient who is so isolated and helpless that they cannot telephone to self-refer for MAID, is a fictitious patient that does not exist - but if on the rare occasion that such a patient actually did exist, then helping them to get on a pathway to be euthanized is perhaps the wrong immediate focus before other supports have been put into place first!

Which is why I don't understand the argument so often used by the Liberal party to discount conscience rights -  that upholding conscience rights would somehow limit access to service.  This argument is false, as has been shown in other jurisdictions that have allowed euthanasia and assisted suicide while still respecting conscience rights.  However, if the belief is that upholding conscience rights does in fact limit access to service, then this stated belief is incoherent with other statements made that conscience rights is already protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Preamble of C-14.  If conscience rights are, as stated, already protected, then what would be the harm of upholding these rights in legislation?  It is precisely because these rights are NOT sufficiently protected in light of the Carter decision that there is a need for explicit legislative protection, and which the Federal Government expected provinces to enact provincially.  Instead, the Ontario government has shirked its responsibility of protecting fundamental freedoms that are being eroded with seemingly no consequence to regulating colleges keen to impose policies that violate human rights due to their own faulty understanding of what it means to respect conscience rights.

Not enacting laws that protect freedom of conscience is analogous to saying, at the Federal level, that because everyone has a Charter Right to Life, there is no need for a law prohibiting murder because a person's right to life is already protected under the Charter.  Charter rights are guiding foundational principles upon which laws are created and by which they must abide.  Nowhere has there been any evidence produced that demonstrates upholding the Charter rights of Freedom of Conscience in Legislation infringes upon another person's right to life (which was the reason why physician-assisted suicide was permitted).  Furthermore, the Care Coordination System which the government has agreed to create (thank you very much) resolves the public fear of potential restrictions to access.  

A Charter of Rights and Freedoms is effective in granting rights only in so far as those words are respected in action, which, on this issue, has not been the case.

It is clear from the Liberal party's stance that it sides with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which the Canadian Medical Association has stated holds an "impoverished" understanding of conscience, and which does not respect differences of conscience.  Just because one might believe it is okay to do something a certain way does not mean that another person believes the same.  And it is wrong to coerce another person in doing what they deeply believe to be wrong even if one may think it is for a perceived good (in this case, the death of a suffering person), no matter how hard one tries to justify this coercion by looking to other people who may have reconciled their own consciences with the objectionable act.  This is where differences in conscience plays out, and so far, the Liberal government has firmly decided it would only protect the conscience rights of some, but not all, health professionals in trying to achieve that "balance" so oft spoken.

What your party has demonstrated by word and action is that it is okay to not respect those who cannot participate in an effective referral for the death of their patient.  If this is not what you believe, and only what your party has asked you to support, then I am truly sorry that you are placed in a position in which you must contort your own words and actions so as to align yourself with what has been asked of you, without the freedom to voice what you truly believe.  And if your words and actions are indeed a true representation of what you believe and stand for, then I am saddened that you are unable to see the truth behind the harms that your beliefs and position will cause for the greater society.  One of the best, most comprehensive speeches I have heard on the subject was given by Cardinal Müller.  You may wish to read the full text here.

When the voice of reason became overshadowed by political antics on an issue that should never have become a victim of partisan politics, I came to the clear realization that if the majority government espouses values that are fundamentally different from my own, elected members of provincial parliament will only do what their Party dictates, and not, as I had previously supposed and hoped, what we elected them to be, as a voice for their constituents.  In casting my vote at the next election, I will bear this in mind, and favour a party (and not any one individual), that has demonstrated a commitment to upholding the fundamental freedoms upon which our democracy rests.

Despite my deep disappointment and sadness over a situation that remains incomprehensible to me, I just want you to know that I think of you and pray for you often, for your well-being, and for your good.  I ask that perhaps you might also do the same for me, and keep me in your prayers.

Sincerely,
your local physician

Justin Trudeau and Catholics

This story from Catholic Culture is making the rounds. It says that Archbishop Prendergast will be meeting with Prime Minister Trudeau regarding his abortion stand.

But if you go to the source for the story, it appears that it is based on a LifeSiteNews article from June, 2014, and so it seems not to be current.

Many Catholics are concerned about Mr. Trudeau's election to become Canada's Prime Minister. Not only because of his pro-abortion ideology, but because many other Catholics voted for him.

If Catholics voted for Trudeau, we must ask ourselves--are they okay with his pro-abortion ideology? Or are Catholics ignorant of Trudeau's pro-abortion ideology? Or do they believe as Trudeau, does that one can separate their private beliefs from their public beliefs?

All very troubling questions.

I hope that Archbishop Prendergast will indeed speak once again with Mr. Trudeau. (The Archbishop did speak to him in 2014.)

Nobody can be both Catholic and pro-choice because these are mutually exclusive.

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.

Ottawa Vanier - time to kick Mauril out

John Robson is voting Libertarian. I think I am leaning this way myself.

Yesterday on CFRA when Lowell Green had his Sephen Harper love-fest going on. He kept saying there were only three parties to vote for, Conservative, Liberal, and NDP. Good grief. What about Christian Heritage (which is who I would vote for if there was a candidate in my riding) or Libertarian? 

I contacted my Conservative candidate David Piccini to ask him his stand on abortion. Three times. No response. 

A friend said she had talked to him and that he is pro-life. If someone can't tell me what they believe in when I ask them, then I can't assume they really are pro-life, and if they are they better say something.

Here is what Coreen Corcoran, my Libertarian candidate, said when I asked her about her stand on abortion and euthanasia:

"The abortion debate, if reopened, will be long and difficult. I personally feel that where we need to start is with the fact that Canada does not have a law on the books making live birth abortions illegal. By the way, I was pleasantly surprised to see your name on an article from the National Post that I have referred to many times. I've heard arguments that this is rare and only done under very specific circumstances, but it is available nonetheless. As a Libertarian, the rights of the individual come first, and it would be pretty difficult to disagree that a full-term baby is not an individual. I also think science is going to be on the side of stricter laws at some point because we have technology available today that allows us to save premature babies born earlier and earlier. We seem to trumpet those success stories when the baby is wanted, but don't hear about it when the baby's life is terminated. 

In terms of when I think life begins, I don't have as solid an answer for you. Abortion should not be a form of birth control. With the availability of birth control and the openness about sex and sex education now, there really should be very few unplanned pregnancies anymore. I am not entirely against first trimester abortions. Women will still find a way to get them even if they are illegal, at the very least they need to be done in a safe environment. They should also only be done in rare cases.

On the topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide, I don't have a firm opinion at this time. I know all lives are important, but quality of life is important too. I have not done the research to understand how other countries have adopted it so I don't feel that I have enough evidence to give an educated opinion. But you have given me something to work on."

Of course Mauril Belanger is "pro-choice" following his pro-abortion leader Justin Trudeau.
(I wonder if the good people of Ottawa-Vanier realize just how "pro-choice" he is? If I have time I hope to drop off a flyer into all the mailboxes of people with Mauril lawn signs to educate them. And for crying out loud, the man's been in power for 20 years. Maybe a change is due folks?)

And well I didn't even ask the NDP, since their party is pro-abortion as well. 

Ms. Corcoran seems to be the most pro-life of all the candidates, so at this point she has my vote.

Justin Trudeau is a true politician

It didn't take Justin Trudeau long.

He's never responded to anything I've ever sent him. Not even a form letter response. Nothing. But this apparently isn't how he started out in politics.

In his 2014 memoir Common Ground, he's all ga-ga over himself and how awesome he was when he responded to a blogger with a "lengthy personal" reply:

"As the meeting date approached, I grew increasingly optimistic. At the end of April, I started to win over some critics, largely because they recognized the sheer doggedness with which I worked the riding. I also believe I had better insight than my competitors into the changing nature of politics and media. When a local blogger asked each candidate a series of questions about poverty, identity politics, immigration, and other issues, I responded with lengthy, personal replies that drew on my experiences in the riding. The other candidates chose not to respond to him at all, presumably assuming that few voters bother to read political  blogs. But even in 2007, I knew that the Internet was becoming a critical tool for expanding a political party's outreach, especially to younger supporters. 

To my delight the blogger, who had been telling his readers I was destined for failure, gave me a respectful nod on his website for taking the time to answer his questions. This was a small thing—I doubt that it swayed more than a handful of votes—but it reinforced my belief that today's activists and supporters expect and deserve direct engagement through the digital media."

As a Canadian taxpayer, I have this funny habit of writing letters to elected politicians about issues that concern me. Rarely do I get a personal response from them--if I get a response at all. (It did happen once with Stockwell Day and I was shocked.)

Even my letter with 397 signatures on it to Mr. Trudeau wasn't worthy of a response from him.

Justin Trudeau has simply morphed into a true politician. He thinks he's beyond the civil niceties of respecting people who write him. Respect is for wimps I guess.

Am I expecting too much in asking for a real answer to a real question of the men and women who run our country, on our behalf? I don't think so.

That pesky thing called conscience

From MP Ed Komarnicki:

M-590 — March 26, 2015 — Mr. Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain) — That, in the opinion of the House, all Members of Parliament should be allowed to vote freely on all matters of conscience.

So how will the Liberals and NDP vote on this motion? I guess we'll find out.

"...the safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience. With this secret, we can enjoy life and have no fear from death." Voltaire

Christine Elliott: hiding abortion information not on agenda

I've received repeated emails from Christine Elliott in her bid for the Conservative leadership. 

I've repeatedly responded to her, asking her what she would do to repeal the Liberals decision to hide abortion statistics.

Finally, I responded to one of her emails with this:

Dear Christine, 

I don't think you are listening. You aren't doing or saying anything about the Liberals hiding abortion information. And you don't reply to my emails about it. Nope. You're not listening. You're ignoring. You're sticking your head in the sand. Wait until the Liberals decide to hide something that you do care about. Because it will happen. Will you listen then? 

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Here is Christine's response to me:

Dear Pat, 

Thanks for taking the time to write. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you and appreciate your patience. 

I am running to be our next Leader so we can rebuild the Ontario PC Party, and so we can rebuild our province. 

I want to thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.  At this time however, this is not an issue that is on my agenda for this particular leadership campaign, but I appreciate your input. I encourage you to contact the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, at the conclusion of this campaign, to further discuss this issue. 

With the right Leader and the right team, I know we can build a better future for our province and our children. 

I am ready to lead. I am ready to win. 

Sincerely,
Christine Elliott

There you have it. This affront to our democratic rights, just isn't on Christine Elliott's agenda.

Pro-abortion arguments: dandelions in the wind

The twitter feed to #yes2trudeau is quite entertaining. Its purpose of course, is to counter the #no2trudeau campaign.

Here are a few of the comments on Twitter's #yes2trudeau:

"Why should MEN (or women) control the bodies of another person?"

"“No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body.” ― Margaret Sanger" 

"I believe in a woman's right to choose" 

"As a Liberal, and as a mother, I stand strongly in support of a women’s right to choose"

"...directly from the ruling. It violated the charters right under section 7, regardless of interpretations of human"

"It is every woman's fundamental right to choose. No one can take that away from us!"

"Seriously? We want to move forward, not back. My body, my informed decision. Support women's rights"

"Good conscious is not imposing your beliefs to remove rights from the people. I support womens rights and her right to choose."

"How can we be in this day and age and still want to control a woman's body"

Here's the thing. Can't the pro-abortions come up with an actual argument to explain why they support Trudeau's edict of discrimination against pro-life candidates? Something that makes sense? Because none of the "reasons" above make any sense at all.

Just like it doesn't make any sense when the pro-abortions are trying to convince us that abortion is necessary. Everyone knows that the pre-born child is not part of a woman's body; that abortion is not a constitutional right; that the statement "a woman's right to choose..." isn't even a sentence. So how can a reasonable person support any of that?

I'm tired of their boring rhetoric. Its just so much fluff. It makes me yawn. It makes me want to take a nap.

Justin Trudeau: five problems with his pro-choice edict

A reader of my blog sent me a copy of a letter they wrote to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, regarding his decree that pro-life persons would be disqualified from becoming Liberal candidates. I received permission from the writer to post the letter here.

The letter is quite long, but well worth the read.

November 8, 2014

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

First let me say, how thankful I am that you and all our MPs are safe after last month’s attack on Parliament Hill. The experience no doubt must have been terrifying. Such a threat is a sombre reminder of how precious are our lives as well as our democratic institutions in Canada. The brave men and women who put their lives at risk in defence of what we so often take for granted surely are beacons of light in dark times and an inspiration to all peace-loving Canadians.

The main purpose of my letter to you today is to express my grave concerns over your edict that “all Liberal MPs, regardless of their personal views, would be expected to vote pro-choice”ⁱ and over the narrative you have chosen to attempt to justify taking this stance.

In a nutshell, you say that “since 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that a woman’s right to a choice in this matter is a Charter right.” You make a special point of highlighting your Catholic upbringing and then go on to say that we must put the Charter and the defense of “people’s rights” and “fundamental rights” before our “personal views.”ⁱⁱ

With respect, Mr. Trudeau, there are five serious problems with your attempted justification:

Firstly, the Supreme Court did not recognize a Charter right to abortion in the 1988 Morgentaler decision.ⁱⁱⁱ The Supreme Court has never recognized a Charter right to abortion. The Supreme Court has, on the other hand, recognized that the state does have an interest in the protection of the fetus, and on numerous occasions, including in Morgentaler, has said that it is Parliament’s responsibility to legislate fetal protection.^iv

Secondly, your argument that in order to defend human rights (i.e. “people’s rights”) we must defend abortion rights, is a circular argument: it is premised on the assumption that the fetal child has no human rights to protect and that the only human being in the equation is the woman—this is the very thing under dispute in the abortion controversy. Those who oppose abortion do not do so because they oppose women’s human rights, but because they support human rights for both the preborn child and the woman.

Thirdly, your starting assumption that the preborn child has no human rights to protect is itself a “personal view.” I appreciate that you may genuinely believe that the child ought not to receive any legal protection before birth. But it is a personal view, a belief, an opinion. Everyone’s views about what is good for society come from somewhere. Our beliefs are informed by some underlying philosophy or worldview, even if we are unable to articulate exactly what that worldview is. Beliefs (i.e. views) about the preborn child that are informed by the Catholic/Christian faith are no more “personal” than beliefs informed by Atheism, for example.

Ultimately, the only beliefs we have are “personal” ones because they are our own. Each Member of Parliament will have their own personal beliefs, whether informed by the Judaeo-Christian tradition or some other religious faith or Secular Humanism, or Atheism, etc. Each of these belief systems will help to inform the MP’s understanding of the nature of the human person, and thus, the nature of abortion.

Fourthly, by highlighting your Catholic upbringing and then going on to say that we cannot let our “personal views” get in the way of defending “people’s rights” and Charter rights, you imply that the Catholic Church does not support human rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And fifthly, and perhaps most concerning, when you use your Catholic faith in this manner, you potentially lead other Catholics astray. As a political leader, your words carry a lot of weight. Those Catholics less informed about their faith may believe from your words that even faithful Catholics can, even must, support abortion rights. In this way, you overstep the bounds of your authority which is in the political realm, not the religious realm. Intentional or not, what you are doing amounts to using your position of political power to corrupt a Catholic person’s morals.

With respect, Mr. Trudeau, if you want to argue in favour of abortion rights, please be honest with Canadians. Please let Canadians know why you believe abortion is good for women and good for Canadian society (if this is what you honestly believe), without distorting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morgentaler; without misrepresenting what the Charter requires; and without suggesting that the beliefs informed by the teachings of the Catholic Church ought not to inform public policy because they are just “personal” beliefs, when in fact all our beliefs are “personal.” And please make your case without misrepresenting and marginalizing the Catholic faith.

Mr. Trudeau, for some reason having nothing to do with what the Charter requires, you are willing to sacrifice one of our most fundamental Charter freedoms (freedom of conscience and religion) for the sake of an absolute abortion rights ideology. This is very disturbing. I believe this will have a detrimental effect not only on the individual MPs who violate their consciences, but on Canada as a whole.

We all watched in horror last month as two Canadian soldiers were attacked and killed and as Parliament was terrorized by a gunman. We may never know exactly what motivated the two killers, but we do know that there are Canadians and citizens of other Western countries as well who are being radicalized into the hateful and violent ideology espoused by ISIS. I’m sure all peace-loving and freedom-loving people cannot help but wonder what could lead civilized people into abandoning Western values and buying into such hateful propaganda. I’m sure there are several factors involved, but if we looked at root causes, I can’t help but think we’d find that a poorly formed conscience must play a role.

Our consciences guide us in moral decision-making. We have to make moral decisions every day. Some decisions will have far more serious consequences than others. Some will be decisions literally about life and death. It is thus imperative that as a society we respect conscientious reflection and decision-making and not institute policies that would punish people—including Members of Parliament—who act according to their deeply held conscientious beliefs that are rooted in respect for the dignity of the human person. 

Mr. Trudeau, while I don’t believe it was intentional, your policy to force all MPs to vote “pro-choice” effectively discriminates against faithful Catholics since it would force them to vote against what they believe about the dignity of the human person. You would be imposing upon them a certain belief system that is at odds with their own. This disenfranchisement of Catholics and other Christians from public life would not bode well for society. We are warned of the consequences of ignoring conscience in this excerpt from the “Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life”:

Living and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or some kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person. 

In democratic societies, all proposals are freely discussed and examined. Those who, on the basis of respect for individual conscience, would view the moral duty of Christians to act according to their conscience as something that disqualifies them from political life, denying the legitimacy of their political involvement following from their convictions about the common good, would be guilty of a form of intolerant secularism. Such a position would seek to deny not only any engagement of Christianity in public or political life, but even the possibility of natural ethics itself. Were this the case, the road would be open to moral anarchy, which would be anything but legitimate pluralism. The oppression of the weak by the strong would be the obvious consequence. The marginalization of Christianity, moreover, would not bode well for the future of society or for consensus among peoples; indeed, it would threaten the very spiritual and cultural foundations of civilization.^[26]v

Mr. Trudeau, if you can make your case for “pro-choice” honestly and leave your Catholic upbringing out of it and then respect each MP enough to give him or her the freedom to vote their conscience, you yourself will have garnered the respect that is impossible to attain by holding fast to your current edict and the narrative that surrounds it.

At a time when our world is increasingly being influenced and threatened by those bent on demolishing freedom and democracy and justice, I urge you, Mr. Trudeau, as one of Canada’s key political leaders, to make every effort to protect what is surely a crucial bulwark against injustice, violence and hate: freedom to act in accordance with one’s deeply held conscientious beliefs that are grounded in peace, love, and respect for the dignity of human persons.

If I may conclude by borrowing from the words spoken by the Right Reverend Michael Bird during the final blessing at Cpl. Nathan Cirillo’s funeral on October 28, may you and I and all Canadians remember always to “...live with courage, act with justice, and choose with love.”

Respectfully,

i http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-clarifies-abortion-stance-for-liberal-mps-1.2679783

ii http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Trudeau+defends+abortion+stance+cites+father+protection+rights/9843139/story.html

iii “The Supreme Court’s decision, profound as it was, did not create a right to abortion for Canadian women, nor did it offer any resolution of the abortion issue.”-- Gavigan, Shelley A.M., “Morgentaler and Beyond: Abortion, Reproduction, and the Courts,” in The Politics of Abortion, Oxford University Press, 1992, page 118.

“The majority of the judges (5 of 7) had decided that Section 251 violated Canadian women’s constitutional rights to the security of the person. Only one, however, Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, declared that women had a right to an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. Moreover, all of the majority decisions conceded the state’s interest in protecting the foetus.”-- Brodie, Janine, “Choice and No Choice in the House” in The Politics of Abortion, Oxford University Press, 1992, page 59-60.

For an analysis of what the Supreme Court decided in the 1988 Morgentaler decision see this resource from the Library of Parliament: Abortion: Constitutional and Legal Developments, prepared by Mollie Dunsmuir, Law and Government Division, Reviewed 18 August, 1998.

iv  R v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R.; Tremblay v. Daigle, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; Dobson (Litigation Guardian of)  v. Dobson, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 753; Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. DFG [1997] SCR 925

v http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Open letter to Justin Trudeau - still waiting for a response

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

We still haven't heard back from you regarding the letter I sent you in back in October. As of today, that's 368 Canadians who are patiently waiting to hear from you, about this very important freedom of conscience issue.

I know that Christmas is coming up, and you must be very busy. But please Mr. Trudeau, we would like to have your response to our concerns as soon as possible.

I'm afraid if we don't hear from you soon, the number of people who are signing this letter and asking for a response, will just keep increasing. It's hard to know how many more people might sign it.

Looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Filomena Tassi is pro-life?

"Filomena Tassi has clinched the federal Liberal nomination for the new Ontario riding of Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas".

I can tell you one thing. If I lived in Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas, I wouldn't be voting for Ms. Tassi.

Ms. Tassi is supposedly pro-life but is apparently willing to vote pro-choice on any bills that come up in Parliament.

Someone who says they have particular values on something, but in the next breath say that they are willing to flush those values down the toilet--for political expediency no less--is scary.

In fact if I was in that riding, and my only choice was to choose between a candidate who is pro-life and will vote pro-choice, and a candidate who is pro-choice and will vote pro-choice, I'd vote for the latter.

I get real queasy when people don't listen to their consciences. Especially politicians.

Of course I'm pretty queasy with Justin Trudeau too. If Ms. Tassi actually would vote pro-choice on a bill, then I guess they deserve each other.

Open letter to Justin Trudeau - honouring conscience rights

Update December 10, 2015: There are now 417 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update September 1, 2015: There are now 416 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update August 9, 2015: There are now 397 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update February 16, 2015: There are now 394 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update January 27, 2015: There are now 392 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 13: There are now 367 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 14: There were a few duplicates from yesterday's post. There are now 364 names.

Update December 13: There are now 368 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 8: There are now 334 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 6: There are now 332 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Another comment:

"My concern is that the leader of the Liberal Party has made decisions without (seemingly) benefit of consultation. In my view, he is acting like an autocrat, and I find that very frightening. I cannot, in good faith, support the Liberal Party of Canada under these conditions."

Update December 3: There are now 330 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 30: Another comment:

"The way some elected officials are thinking is beyond belief & if it continues like this, pretty soon we will have no rights."

There are now 322 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 29: Another comment:

"In an effort to appear “progressive” in his ideas, he has actually displayed some ignorance, as well as a narrow minded perspective about rights and freedoms."

There are now 318 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 28: Another comment:

"He [Trudeau] certainly does not have ears that hear, eyes that see, nor wisdom to ever be a Prime Minister of our great country Canada."

There are now 262 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 27: There are now 252 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 23: More comments from signers:

"She [Pat] makes an excellent case based on the very Charter of which Mr. Trudeau seems to have minimal and selective knowledge."

...

"on the day after Mr. Trudeau’s announcement , as well as sending off a note to him, I also wrote to the Liberal Party of Canada and  to my local riding president. Within a day of receiving my letter, I received a phone call from the riding president. We we able to have a lengthy and civilized discussion on the topic. I found his ears open … and although his direct impact on Mr. Trudeau is limited, I felt that my opinions had been heard and that they would be carried back to party discussions, at least at the local level.I am convinced that this is an important route for people who are in disagreement with Mr. Trudeau’s new policy - be in touch at the grassroots! If change is to occur, I think this is where it may begin - when members hear the hearts of their own constituents."

...

"Please add my name to the list defending the Charter of Rights as stated, and not Me. Trudeau's convenient interpretation. Thank you (paying member of the Liberal Party of Canada, rescinded until freedom to vote according to conscience is reinstated)"

There are now 237 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 21: Another comment I received:

"Please add my name to Letter to Trudeau. He has definitely gone off the tracks."

There are now 232 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 17: There are now 225 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 17: Many people thanked me for writing this letter. Here is one such note I received:

"Thank you for initiating this. I am a "cradle Liberal" who was also a "card carrying Liberal" who is now re-evaluating her political views. While I find that I do not like what I hear from all parties, I will definitely not be in Justin's corner. He is not turning out to be our 'white knight' but quite the opposite. Please add my name to your letter."

Update Nov 16: There are now 219 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 15: There are now 209 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Oct 16: Since I sent this letter to Justin Trudeau, I've received additional names which I've added to the bottom. I now have over 100 signatures. If you would still like to sign the letter please send me an email at maloneyp64@gmail.com and I will add your name to the letter. In a couple of weeks I will send Mr. Trudeau another letter with the updated names. The more Canadians who voice their displeasure with Mr. Trudeau's attack on democracy, the better.

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

We the undersigned, are very concerned about your recent edict to exclude pro-life people from being candidates for the Liberal Party. We are also concerned that you say you are doing this, because you are a strong believer in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We must confess, we find it impossible to reconcile the two.

First, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of conscience (See section 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion). This is a fundamental right and the Charter is very clear in that it promises that all Canadians have this right. This would include all persons who wish to run for political parties. How can you in good conscience, exclude people because their consciences guide them differently, than yours does?

Second, when some honourable ex-Liberal MPs wrote you, you dismissed their concerns because you felt the writers were "old men". This dismissal is also against the Charter, since your comments are both ageist and sexist, and so discriminatory based on same.
("See section 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability).

Would you likewise discriminate against a young female's opinion? Or conversely, perhaps you are implying that you would only listen to a young female's opinion? In either case, this would still be discrimination based on age and gender.

If you do not agree with these men's arguments, I would love to hear what your counter arguments would be. Instead you chose to ignore their arguments, preferring to attack the speakers instead of the subject at hand. This is not helpful in furthering honest and intelligent discussions on any issue including abortion.

Finally, on many occasions you have stated that a woman's right to choose is guaranteed by the Charter. But this is not the case at all. The Supreme Court Justices in the 1988 Morgentaler decision never stated that a woman had a constitutional right to abortion. How can you believe then, that her right to abortion is guaranteed by the Charter? It isn't. Please see here for a detailed discussion what is in that decision, as well as what isn't.

We must admit we are very confused by your understanding of the Charter. On the one hand, you ignore what is clearly guaranteed in the Charter, and on the other hand, you invent something that is clearly not in the Charter and say that it is. With all due respect Mr. Trudeau, your sentiments are logically incoherent.

We respectfully request that you welcome all persons into the Liberal Party regardless of their beliefs about abortion and that you respect their right to vote in accordance with their conscience.

We believe all persons deserve the same respect regardless of conscience beliefs, of gender, or of age.

Let the people decide if they wish to vote for these differing viewpoints. That is why we hold elections. It really isn't for the leader to decide this. We believe this is what democracy is all about.

We respectfully request that you respond to this letter, and we look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Adele Constantineau

Aileen Simpson

Alana Pelc

Aldo Dolcetti

Alice Fougère

Alida van der Vegt

Amber Friesen

Amelia Andal

Ana Stopa

Anastasia Bowles

Andre Pare

Andrea Mrozek

Angus Kelly

Angus MacDonald

Ankeje Snell

Ann Sullivan

Anna-Marie Kean

Anne Bonnah

Anne Egan

Anne Essiambre

Anne Marie Powell

Anne Stewart

Anne Waggoner

Annette Besner

Annette Downey

Arnold Bossa

Audrey Beard

Barbara Norris

Barry Dunn

Bea Suelirin

Beatrice Kyolaba

Bena Toscano

Bernadette McCormick

Bernie Langill

Betty Barrett

Bev deMontigny

Bibiane O'Gorman

Bill Vanderlinde

Bob Du Broy

Bob Riley

Bob Rudy

Bonnie Pember

Brett Bottyan

Brian Smith

Bridget Van Osch

Camille Bozozuk

Carl Hickey

Carls Aury

Carm Scine

Carmen D'Souza

Carol Cheslock

Carol Gaboury

Carol Gervais

Carol Gray

Carol Roch

Carol Talgoy

Carole Atkinson

Carrie Peters

Cathie Mary Butler

Cecilia Bowles

Céline d'Etcheverry

Chantel Drew Ward

Charlene Charron

Charles Fortin

Charles Saso

Charles Vince

Chris Belford

Chris Ward

Christian Lange

Clarissa Canaria

Claude A. Brule

Claude Leduc

Cliff Pyle

Cliff Snell

Colette Stang

Conny Barel

Corinne Ware

Craig Read

Curtis Ogilvie

Cynthia Bredfeldt

Cynthia Connolly

Cyril Winter

Daniel Hunter

Daniel Surprenant

Darlene Irvine

Daryl Sheppard

David Darwin

Deacon Rick Gervais

Deacon Wayne S. Lee

Debbie Duval

Debbie Ward

Deborah Egan

Delores Doherty

Denis Bergeron

Denise Davis

Diane Irvine

Diane Naipaul

Diane Stump

Dolly Moyse

Don Powell

Donald Andre Bruneau

Donna Barry

Donna J., Anderson

Donna Verner

Dr. E. Letourneau MD

Dr. Joseph Clarke MD

Dr. Robert Walley

Dt Bruneau

Edward Olszewski

Eileen Meunier

Eileen Steil

Elaine Black

Elaine Cavalier

Eliette Campau

Elizabeth (Betty) Donnelly

Elizabeth Doucette

Ellen Chesal

Elva Roley

Erie Eizenga

Ernestine Fronc

Ester da Silva

Eugene Leenders

Eva McGuire

Fabien Bergeron

Fr Joseph Kane, OMI

Fr. Autur Ockwood, MSF

Fr. Daniel Berniquez

Fr. Dennis Hayes CC

Fr. Hezuk Shroff

Fr. Kenneth Lao C.C.

Fr. Michael Weitl

Fr. Yves Marchildon CC

Francilia Poirier

Francis J. Barrett

François Savard

Frank Egan

Frank LeVay

Frederick Tremblay

Gail Goshko

Gar Knutson

Gary D. Knight PhD

Gary O'Meara

Gemma O’Sullivan

Gene Makish

Genevieve Moncrieff

George Olliver

Gerard Beltran

Germaine Gaudet

Gillian Keenan

Gisele C. Pitre

Gloria Pearson-Vasey

Glovana Clarke

Gordon Duncan

Gordon Verner

Grace G. Brule

Greg Doyle

Guy Dacquay Hani Zakhia

Harriet McEachen

Harry Norris

Helena Szakowski

Hildegard Krieg

Immaculte Nalukago

Ineesha Ym

Jackie Vince

Jacqueline Sullivan

Jacques Campeau

Jakki Jeffs

James Pierce

James Snell

Jane Langabeer

Janet Davidson

Janet Seward

Jauise Seteurnear

Jean Morgan

Jean-Pierre Dostaler

Jeannine Lebel

Jeannine Legault

Jen MacDonald

Jennifer Snell

Jessica Sheppard

Jessie MacIsaac

Jim Beard

Jim Cairney

Jim Leliveld

Jim Vandervoort

Joan Coyne

Joan Langtry

Joan Lemieux

Joan Lepage

Joan O’Brien

Joan Wills

Joanne Sabourin

Jocelyn Unsworth

Joe Sinicrope

Joe Stalmach

Joe Thottungal

Joe Winchester

John Bolech

John Hof

John Lammers

John Lange

John Sammut

John Sebok

John Stefan Obeda

John Ward

John Ware

Jonathon Van Maren

Jordan Beard

Joseph Patrie

Joseph van der Vegt

Josie O’Rourke

Joy Wolfenden

Joyce C. Allison

Judy Smith

Julia Irvine

Julie Culshaw

Julie Smulski

K. Neatyrexuslei

Karen Thomson

Karine Surprenant

Kas Pelc

Kathie Hogan

Kathy Vanderlinde

Kathy Waechter

Kay Newbold

Ken Martin

Ken O'Day

Kim MacMullen

Kim Tran

L. Jill Vince

Larry Chretien

Laura Gueguen

Laura Patrie

Lauralee Sopczak

Lauralee Sopezak

Laurelia Charlemagne

Lawrence Moore

Len Mihalicz

Leo Andal

Liana Gallant

Linda Allard

Linda Cobb

Linda Laperle

Linda Tensen

Lise Anglin

Lois Duncan

Lorelle Baptiste

Lorraine Lemay

Lorraine Lynch

Lorraine MacPherson

Lorraine Martin

Louis Seward

Louise Chretien

Louise Dubois

Louise Letourneau

Lourdez Mangaring

Lucette Pilon-Bergeron

Luciano Ingriselli

Lucie Bastien

Lucille Bourbonnais

Lyse Charron

Lyse Charron

M L Currie

M. Bozozuk

Madeleine Lafleur

Madeleine Thomas

Maeve Ryan

Magda Baillot

Malcolm Roddis

Marc Dennis

Marcel Sinasac

Marcelle Belanger

Margaret Thomson

Maria Cairns

Maria Torrone

Maria Ym

Marian Obeda

Mariana Marchand

Mariane Louis-Seize

Marianne Proulx

Marie Stalmach

Marie Vanbergen

Marie-Claire Fortin

Marion Labonté

Marlene Holt

Marnie Sebok

Marta Pan

Mary Ann A. Peralta

Mary Catharine Carroll

Mary Doyle

Mary F. MacDonald

Mary Jean Belford

Mary Knechtel

Mary MacDonald

Mary Michael

Mary Mitro

Mary Olszewski

Mary Pantone

Maryke Vos

Mat Uszewsko

Maureen Ward

Michael Liang

Michael Szakowski

Michael Ward

Michelle Sinasac

Miranda D. Reis

Moncia Roddis

Murielle Plante

Nancy Kerslake

Nancy Macri

Nancy Tremblay

Nancy Winslow

Natalie Grenier

Natalie Hudson Sonnen

Natasha Fernandes

Neva Lorenzon

Nicole Arranz

Nirmala Ym

Noreen Minifie

Norman Jay

Pat Laviolette

Pat Macdonald

Patricia Balis

Patricia Chura

Patricia Moore

Patricia Trites

Patrick Pena

Paul Charron

Paula Maloney

PAULETTE A. ST-JACQUES

Pauline Guzik

Peggy Doucette

Peggy Hunter

Peggy Kelly

Per Talgoy

Peter McGann

Peter Ryan

Philip Tan

Phyllis Dennis

Pierre Collette

Pierre Poirier

Ray Thomson

Rebecca Ocoma

Rebecca Richmond

Rejean Besner

Renald Veilleux

Rev. Mr. Rudy M. Ovcjak

Rhiel Perrin

Rick Stankiewicz

Rihad Lzrkncb

Rita Hude

Rita Hudec

Rita Magny

Robert Campbell

Robert Farley

Robert Halpin

Robert S. Anderson

Romana Dolcetti

Romana Pecek

Ron Trent

Rosanne De Luca

Rose Marie MacMullen

Rose-Marie Gagné

Rosemary Connell

Rosetta Caza

RS Ayart

Ruth Spearns

Savio Leon DeSouza

Scott Eagan

Se Ardaf

Sean Mulligan

Sean O'Carroll

Shane Allard

Sheila Knight

Sheridan Brace

Sherwin B. Peralta

Sheryle Snell

Shirley Leduc

Simone Gingnas

Stan Siok

Suma Joe

Susan Ditmar

Susan Duguay

Suzanne Lalonde

Sylivie Bozozuk

Sylvie Bissonnette

Ted Sabourin

Teresa Aitken

Teresa Kane

Teresa Psutka

Terry Cantin

Tess Sturgeon

Thea Streng

Theodore Morgan

Theresa Everett

Theresa McDonald

Theresa Winchester

Therese Lavergne

Tom Mockler

Tony Gosgnach

Tracey McAskill

Twilight Beltran

Ulrika Drevniok

Valerie Bottyan

Valerie Delaney

Veronica von Neubronn

Vicki Forsyth

Vince Berndt

Vince van den Bosch

Viviane Pelletier

Wanda Hartlin

Wayne Waechter

Wayne Weston

Wendy Wellington

Yvon Pelletier (416)

No consciences allowed

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario are looking for input on and their Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code policy.

I could ever only respect a doctor who practices medicine in a way that is in complete harmony with his conscience. This is crucially important and I would not want to see a doctor who did anything against what his conscience was saying to him.

Here is a real life example of conscience rights gone awry. When Justin Trudeau announced his can't-be-a-pro-life-candidate-for-the-Liberal-party policy, MP Lawrence MacAulay thought he would be permitted to vote with his own personal beliefs, which are anti-abortion:

"MacAuley, who has been an MP since 1988, said last week he expected to be permitted to vote on side with his own personal beliefs which are anti-abortion. 

A spokesperson for the Liberal Party quickly contradicted this statement, stating any Liberal MP will be expected to vote in favour of abortion. 

MacAulay later backtracked on Twitter, stating: “I accept and understand the party position regarding a woman’s right to choose. Despite my personal beliefs, I understand that I will have to vote the party position should this issue ever come up in the House of Commons.”"

This is very troubling. MacAuley says he is pro-life. But then at a flick of a can't-be-a-pro-life-candidate-for-the-Liberal-party switch, MacAulay says he would now support the party position on abortion--against his own conscience.

And freedom of conscience is a right guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And for very good reason. It is how we want all good people to respond to issues of ethics and morality. They pay attention to their conscience.

In purely practical terms, doing away with freedom of conscience rights for doctors will have the following negative outcome.

Good doctors, after years and years of training will leave the profession. This would be a lose-lose situation. The doctor and his family suffer from the loss of his/her livelihood. The public would suffer since we already have a doctor shortage, and this would only make it worse.

We do not want good doctors to leave the profession. For what? So that a woman can be guaranteed to be able to obtain the birth control pill or an abortion from every single doctor in the country, when there are already (some might say too many) doctors filling the need? Is this really what we want of our doctors? I hope not.

And make no mistake. The only reason the issue has come up at all, is because of contraception and abortion.

It will also mean we will now have institutionalized discrimination against pro-life doctors. Just like we have institutionalized discrimination against pro-life politicians in two of our three political parties in Canada. Let's not go there.