To feminist Justin Trudeau from a real feminist

I received a copy of another letter to Justin Trudeau on the SOW nonsense.

Hello Mr. Trudeau, MP and Prime Minister,  

I can not address you in the normal way that one addresses the Prime Minister of Canada.  You are neither right, nor are you honourable. 

You have more than once referred to abortion as a "woman's right" or a "charter right".  Perhaps you need to check your source on that. The Canadian Charter of Rights does not include a woman's right to abortion. Saying so many times, even by the Prime Minister, does not make it so. Just cause something is not illegal does not make it a right -- you get that, don't you? Then, stop. 

But then again, why would I be surprised at your lack of knowledge on that aspect of abortion? Your knowledge on so many topics that are crucial to Canadians is dust-deep.  I said it during your election campaign and you have been good enough to confirm it repeatedly. 

Particularly not honourable, Mr. Trudeau, was the recent shunning of the Conservative MP because of her pro-life values. From the party who purports to be "inclusive" and "feminist"​?​http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-ndp-walk-out-after-tories-nominate-pro-life-mp-to-head-status-of-women-committee

A life long feminist myself, during my 30 year military career both in the ranks and as a commissioned officer holding an Honours History degree from the Royal Military College of Canada, I was known as the one to see issues from a perspective of "how does this affect the serving women?" and to raise the points many preferred not to. On retirement, I worked for three+ years as the Shelter Manager in a women's shelter where my understanding of feminism was greatly increased because everything we did was based on feminism. You will be surprised to learn, Mr. Trudeau, that feminism places equal value on input from everyone, not just those who agree with you.  What your MPs did to Rachael Harder who has the courage to stand by her principles was non-inclusive to say the least and certainly not how a feminist organization would deal with those in the group who held differing viewpoint. 

Sometimes, you are good enough to make me laugh, Mr. Trudeau.  Like when you appoint a cabinet of 50% females even though 50% of the MPs are not female "because it's 2015". One unfortunate fall-out of selection based on gender is that no female cabinet member knows if she was selected for her education, knowledge and experience or just because she was female.  From this female, thanks but no thanks; I got where I got based on my own merits, not on a misguided effort to promote because of gender.  I've said it before and I'll say it again ~~ you just don't get it.  

Mr. Trudeau, I know that my opinion means very little to you.  And I'm quite certain that any email expressing a difference of opinion will swiftly hit the ol' trash can.  And I'm good with that. Cause the reverse is also true. 2019 can't come fast enough.

Have a happy Thanksgiving, Mr. Trudeau.  We Canadians have much to be thankful for; we live in a land of bounty. On this Thanksgiving weekend, I remain truly thankful that I live in a country where this kind of communication is possible, albeit maybe not welcome.  

Sincerely,

Status of Women committee and the law of unintended consequences

John Ivison and Andrew Coyne in today's National post.

Even the Globe and Mail is standing up for Rachael Harder, and point out the ludicrous behaviour of Justin Trudeau and his feminists friends:

"Think of it this way: Were Rachael Harder, the Alberta MP in question, fired from a job in a private company, or from the public service, for the same reason, she would be the victim of a violation of her Charter rights."

They really don't have a clue do they. As someone pointed out to me, making an issue of this just shines a bright light on how dumb a move this was:

"It is highly ironic that by storming out of the committee meeting and making a federal case of it, that these women may have transformed Rachel Harder into a martyr of sorts for the prolife cause, talk about the law of unintended consequences. If the committee had debated the motion for her leadership, and quietly voted against it would anyone have even known about it? Look at all the media coverage during the last several days."

I agree. Trudeau's actions have back fired. How nice.

And then there's Joyce Arthur and her merry band of radical pro-abortion groups who also spoke out against Rachael Harder. Just shows their own intolerance and extreme position on everything related to abortion even when it isn't about abortion. They even have the nerve to mention the Charter. Do these people ever listen to themselves?

Boss man, feminist, pant wearer of Canada

Liberals and NDPs acting out - Part 3

Another letter to the SOW committee.

"Dear Members of the Status of Women Committee, 

Rachael Harder, like all Canadians--and all Parliamentarians--has a right to be treated with respect. Walking out on her for holding views about abortion that are contrary to the views of a majority who sit on your Committee, is not only disrespectful to her as a person, but it is disrespectful to all women.  

It is disrespectful to all women because it sends the message that women are not allowed to think for themselves, that they must conform to the views of the majority and those who hold power, and if they do not, then they shouldn't bother getting involved in political life. "Group think" is not healthy for society. I would have hoped that by the 21st Century, we would have adopted the view that disagreements--especially in Parliament-- can be settled with respectful discussion and dialogue.  

As a woman, I would have especially hoped that women would be treating other women with the kind of respect they themselves have fought hard for. Is not the "Status of Women" Committee meant to represent all Canadian women? Is not Parliament meant to represent all Canadian women? 

Like Rachael Harder--and importantly, like the Supreme Court in the 1988 Morgentaler decision--I too believe that preborn human life should receive some protection. While I do not agree with everything the Supreme Court said in 1988, I do agree with the unanimous opinion expressed by the seven SCC justices that Parliament has an interest in the protection of fetal life. And I am very concerned that some Parliamentarians (including our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau) continue to misrepresent what the Supreme Court actually said in 1988. The Supreme Court did NOT recognize a constitutional right to abortion, as even pro-choice academics have acknowledged (see  http://www.morgentalerdecision.ca/notable-quotes/ ). And so it makes it all the more unfathomable why Members of your committee would display such disrespect and contempt for those who don't support an unrestricted "right to abortion." 

While some of you, or maybe even most of you, may believe that the "right to abortion" is fundamental to women's rights, it is nonetheless an opinion. It is not a fact. Some women, including myself, don't hold that opinion. And Parliament is a place where our elected representatives should be able to work collegially together and debate the diversity of views Canadians hold. And they should be able to do so as respectful adults, not as schoolyard children who pick up their toys and walk away because they don't get their own way. 

Can we not treat our elected MPs, and by extension, the Canadians they serve, with the dignity and respect we all would want for ourselves? 

Walking out of the Status of Women committee meeting to protest Rachael Harder's nomination as Chair was not becoming of a Parliamentarian in the year 2017. And it was not becoming of a woman. 

I sincerely hope that the Members of the Status of Women Committee who walked out will apologize not only to Rachael Harder but to all the Canadian women who were made to feel like second-class citizens by your actions." 

BM

Well it seems the bullies got their way. Today the SOW committee elected Conservative Karen Vecchio as chair. Vecchio didn't want to be chair. What a pathetic bunch of Liberals and one NDP.

I wonder if these women teach their children to be bullies also?

Liberals and NDPs acting out - Part 2

I received this comment further to this post on Rachael Harder and the pathetic behaviour of the Status of Women committee.

"We hear a lot of talk from the government about how diverse and inclusive Canada is, and that diversity is our strength. If that is true then why are prolifers barred from the Liberal party and kicked off university campuses? Since Canada is a large and diverse nation with people from many backgrounds and cultures it is reasonable to expect differences of opinions on many issues including abortion, shouldn't those views be reflected on the SWC committee? This incident makes a total mockery of the inclusiveness and diversity rhetoric being espoused. Aren't there feminists who disagree with abortion? If Harder is kicked off the committee then how can the feminist movement claim that they represent all women. 

Does the SWC represent the views of all Canadian women or it is a left wing clique as its critics have claimed? This is a valid argument, ever since the REAL Women controversy in the 1980's. Why is this POV being given a total monopoly and $110M in annual funding? If the SWC does not represent the views of all Canadian women, shouldn't other groups from across the spectrum be allowed to cash in on funding and representation as well.....this goes back to diversity of opinion. According to the ipolitics article, 27% of Canadians support the status quo and 5% are pro-lifers, if that is true then neither group should have a monopoly on opinion and a variety of views on abortion must be included, it also means that 73% of Canadians are critical of the current (undemocratic) status quo. Can we assume that there is debate and discussion on the SWC committee on issues besides abortion, due to the nature of our multiparty system. If that is the case then why is one view on abortion permitted? It is very arrogant to presume that women share the same views on abortion or any other subject for that matter."

Liberals and NDPs acting out

Date: Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:33 PM

Subject: Anti-democratic behaviour by some MPs

To: Pam.Damoff@parl.gc.ca, Sheila.Malcolmson@parl.gc.ca, Terry.Duguid@parl.gc.ca, Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca, Rachael.Harder@parl.gc.ca, Bernadette.Jordan@parl.gc.ca, Emmanuella.Lambropoulos@parl.gc.ca, Eva.Nassif@parl.gc.ca, Marc.Serre@parl.gc.ca, Martin.Shields@parl.gc.ca, Karen.Vecchio@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Mona.Fortier@parl.gc.ca, justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca, andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca

Dear members of the committee for the Status of Women,

Your decision to walk out of the meeting to elect the Chair and vow to not return until an alternate Chair was named tells me some interesting things.

First of all, this was rude and childish, not exactly an example of maturity. It was also the behaviour of a schoolyard bully.

Second, it is the behaviour of someone who doesn't adhere to our core principles of democracy. Every time we don't like the personal views of someone, do we react by walking out on them? What about having a conversation and exchanging ideas like adults?

Third, there are millions of pro-life women in this country. I am one of them and know many, many others. Who speaks for us when you are so willing to shut down a woman who shares our views? In the Liberal and NDP parties there are plenty of MPs who speak for the pro-choice people. We are also Canadian citizens yet we are not allowed to have any representation in Parliament who speak for us. Why is that?

Fourth, what kind of example does it set for young women who might aspire to politics? Why would they ever aspire to that calling, knowing they can be prevented from having views that are deemed unacceptable? Is this the example we want to share with our young women? I hope not.

Fifth, as a Canadian citizen who pays your salaries, I expect better from you. I expect you to represent all Canadian women, not only those who you agree with.

Sixth, remember the days when women were bullied by men? And now we are free to bully our own because we don't all share the same views? Is this what we've come to? We didn't learn much did we?

Finally, this behaviour is just down right embarrassing to me. It is embarrassing to me as a woman, as a Canadian citizen, as a tax payer, and as a lover of democracy.

I wonder. How would you feel if the same thing happened to you?

Thank you.

Sincerely

Patricia Maloney

Joyce Arthur's study subtracts from the body of knowledge

I must confess I laughed at this post over at anonymous blogger's blog, about a "major study" by Joyce Arthur. "Fern Hill" even got her "name" on this so called "serious study".

Major and serious are not words I would ever attribute to anything Joyce Arthur writes.

The problem is, this is not at all funny. It looks like just one more witch hunt by Arthur and her pro-abortion friends. These people absolutely hate crisis pregnancy centres. They will stop at nothing to discredit them and bring them down. Why? Are they jealous of the care, love and support these centres provide women when face with an unexpected pregnancy? I think they are. Because all the pro-abortions care about is that women experiencing an unexpected pregnancy should choose to kill their unborn child. They don't care for the woman. And they definitely don't care about the child she is carrying.

A quick look at the "study" tells me that it is just a reheated version of Arthur's previous "study", where she went after CPCs in BC. In fact Brian Norton did a brilliant job of setting the record straight on Arthur's last "study". Which by the way, was funded by a $27,400 Status of Women Canada grant, a grant which Arthur never publicly acknowledged as per the agreement she signed with SWC. See here and here for more on that grant.

In this "study" Arthur and her anonymous friends only reviewed CPC websites. By her own admission this "study" doesn't even address how CPC's actually speak or support their clients.

"An important caveat of this study is that we examined only the websites of CPCs, which may not necessarily reflect their practices or counselling when they speak to clients in person or on the phone."

And then there's this gem. Arthur wants to add to the "body of knowledge" of CPC's.

"The aim of this study was to determine the presence of any deception or misinformation on the websites of Canadian CPCs. Due to the relative dearth of research on CPCs in Canada, we felt it important to add to the body of knowledge on the topic as we seek out opportunities to regulate these organizations. We expected to find that CPC websites would reflect the same type of misinformation and/or deception that other studies and investigations have found that people encounter when patronizing CPCs. While we did find significant misinformation, our study also found that many websites present an unbiased appearance and tend to conceal their agenda or give only subtle indications of it, presumably to attract (and not repel) or even trick women considering abortion into using their services."

Does Arthur really believe her shenanigans, deceptions and misinformation add anything to anything? And trick women? Who is trying to trick whom here? First clue. It's not CPC's.

Why Joyce Arthur's "report" is harmful to BC CPCs

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Because there are a lot of falsehoods out there.

For instance, Joyce Arthur's signature "report", Exposing Crisis Pregnancy centres in BC, is a good example of inaccuracies, deceptions and misinformation.

Yet surprisingly, there are actually people writing, who refer to this "research" as if it is a credible source of information.

Now Brian Norton from Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS) has written a rebuttal to Arthur's "report".

Norton begins his rebuttal:

The report makes numerous claims that are not based in fact or reality. The following are some blatant examples (before we discuss the most serious allegations).  

The report alleges the Birthright drop-in centre in Vernon, British Columbia, shows graphic videos to clients. “When women have gone to the local Birthright office, some have had to wait an hour and a half before being given a pregnancy test, during which time they were put into a room to watch anti-abortion videos like the ‘Silent Scream’” (p. 11).13 On doing a fact check with Birthright headquarters, I learned there is no Birthright in Vernon and there never has been.14  

The report continues: “[In Powell River the Prolife Society] … houses one of the fundamentalist Christian CPCs that uses high pressure techniques and is connected to the larger network of North American CPCs” (p. 11). There is in fact no CPC in Powell River and there never has been.15  

The report makes statements about other non-existent centres in BC (pp. 45-46).
16 One so-called CPC is a secular parenting support group. Another CPC is actually a Christian adoption agency.  

Another purported CPC is somebody’s home. For two other listed CPCs the premises do not exist.17

The report not only refers to non-existent pregnancy centres in our province, but everywhere. 

There are 117 CPCs in Canada.18 The report nearly doubles this to “about 200 CPCs” (p. 3). 

In the United States there are some 2,500 CPCs. 

19 According to an American CPC association, “Usually our opponents will use 3,000 locations which seems a purposeful overstatement.”20 The report rounds this up to “4,000” (p. 3).  

Regarding abortion clinics, The New York Times estimates there are some 1,800 US clinics.21

The report rounds this down to 800 (p. 3) sourcing the National Abortion Federation (p. 19).  

The NAF reference – footnoted in the report as “800 clinics” – actually says “2,000 clinics”.22  

Furthermore, the report is riddled with inaccurate ‘throwaway’ remarks.
23 (See footnote.)

Read Brian Norton's entire rebuttal to Arthur's damaging "report".

Norton identifies eight serious allegations in Arthur's report, along with 12 silly allegations. Norton did actual research in writing his rebuttal. And unlike Arthur, he didn't get $27,400 from the Status of Women to do it.

If Arthur wants to make things up, that's one thing. But when other people start referencing her "research" well that's another thing entirely. And that's the real problem with her harmful "report". Other people refer to it.

Here are a list of professional people and organizations who reference Arthur's work.

1) Dr. Sam Rowlands MB BS, MD, LLM, FRCGP, FFSRH, DRCOG (UK abortion rights advocate).

This is what a reviewer from a conference organized by Dr. Rowlands had to say:

"Dr Sam Rowlands, Honorary Associate Professor at the Institute of Clinical Medicine, Warwick Medical School and organiser of this conference at the RSM, discussed the key sources of ‘misinformation’ that are popularised in relation to abortion. He outlined five claims: that abortion poses a risk to a woman’s life, to her mental health, or to her future fertility, that it carries an increased risk of breast cancer, and the preoccupation with ‘fetal pain’, and briefly debunked these claims by using solid research. 

The sources of such misinformation vary from websites to non-peer-reviewed journals, and are particularly troubling in relation to the biased or false information given directly to women by so-called ‘Crisis Pregnancy Centres’. Rowlands referred to a 2009 study by Joyce Arthur of such centres in a province of Canada as an example of how this misinformation process works through."

2) The Canadian Women’s Health Network (CWHN):

"A new study by the Pro-Choice Action Network finds that most agencies that counsel pregnant women are actually anti-abortion Christian ministries whose main goal is to stop women from having abortions. These centres are generally not medical facilities, and most of their "counsellors" are volunteers who are not medical professionals and have no recognized training in counselling. Some of these centres are called Crisis Pregnancy Centres or "CPCs", although many of them have different names. This research project on anti-abortion counseling centres in British Columbia, or "fake clinics," has been published, and is available."

3) Feminist Women's Health Center (from Wastington state). 

FWHC has a section called "fake clinics", and refers to Arthur's report, saying this:

"Exposing CPCs in British Columbia, Canada - CPCs far outnumber abortion clinics. There are 4,000 CPCs in the United States, compared to about 800 abortion clinics. In Canada, there are about 200 CPCs and roughly 25 abortion clinics. In BC, there are about 30 CPCs and 6 abortion clinics."

4) On the University of Windsor website is a paper written by Jessica Shaw from the University of Calgary, called "Abortion as a Social Justice Issue in Contemporary Canada".

Shaw relies heavily on Arthur's other "research" for references, as well as Arthur's inaccurate "report" discussed here.
(And this is scary. The policy for submissions to this Critical Social Work Journal is supposedly peer reviewed: "The peer review process is double blind, in that the identity of authors and reviewers is not known to either party").

4) The UK (Education Financial Council). They refer to Arthur's misleading "report", saying:

"Widespread anecdotal evidence in the UK, and full-scale research reports from the United States, ireland and Canada, indicate that some CPCs do not provide impartial poignancy decision-making support and that many are formed with a specific anti-abortion agenda".

5) West Coast LEAF is an organization in BC "that uses the law to further women’s equality". They refer to Arthur's inaccurate "report":

"According to research conducted by the Pro-Choice Action Network, “crisis pregnancy
centres” (CPCs) “are actually anti-choice Christian ministries, often pretending to be
non-biased medical clinics or counselling centres. Their main goal is to stop women
from having abortions and to convert women to Christianity."

6) The CTV devoted a whole three part investigation, based on Arthur's faulty "report": Jan 7, Jan18, Jan 20. You'd think at least CTV would check their facts before going undercover.

7) Finally, is the Status of Woman Canada, who funded Arthur's to write this defective report in the first place. With your tax dollars. Does anybody at the Status of Women actually check to see what they're funding  to see if it's accurate, before they dole out our money? It doesn't look like it.

For all those people who reference Arthur's report, it really doesn't do their pro-abortion cause any good. It just makes them look like they don't know what they're talking about. Or maybe they just can't get out of the way of their own ideology.

So what does Norton want? He would like Arthur to remove her sorry excuse for a "report" from the Internet. Let's hope she has the decency to do so.

Exposing "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC"

The two Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC recently lost their defamation case against Joyce Arthur for her report "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC."

Their press release states:

"As stated in his legal argument to the court at paragraph 18 "The defendants' position in this application is that as a matter of law the impugned passages in the report are not capable of being found to refer to the plaintiffs, and in any event, as a matter of fact the report would not lead a reasonable person who knows the plaintiffs to conclude that the passages refer to them"; and at paragraph 20 "... no reasonable reader of the report would feel able to draw any conclusions about the practices at the CPCs operated by the plaintiffs" (i.e. the Vancouver and Burnaby centres).

The Judge who heard legal argument on this matter in early April ultimately accepted those submissions, stating at paragraph 92 of her reasons for judgement, released on August 26th, that "As it is never made clear in the Report what 'many or most' entails with regard to CPCs across North America, it is difficult to say the 'deceptive' tactics reflect personally on the plaintiffs. The impugned statements do not have any specificity; the Report describes the tactics in broad generalizations." And then her conclusion at paragraph 98, that "I conclude the alleged defamatory statements are not of and concerning the plaintiffs."

The Crisis Pregnancy Centres are obviously confused by this ruling, since as they so aptly point out, the report:

• Is titled Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia, and which title appears typed at the top on all 65-pages of the report, including the pages where the Allegations appear.
• Describes its purpose as: "We wanted to find out what these centres were doing and saying to women in BC, and whether they were engaging in deceptive or harmful practices."
• Lists the Vancouver and Burnaby Centres in an appendix to the report along with, and only, CPCs in BC.
• Focuses most of the content (main text and appendixes) specifically on CPCs in BC (including our own CPCs).

But there is another reason that this ruling is troublesome. It is because of the very nature of the research itself, that was conducted for the report.

By her own admission, Arthur's research included using a volunteer to infiltrate CPCs in BC, by sending out surveys, by phone calls and by visits. All these activities were done of CPCs in BC, not to CPCs in anywhere else in North America. How could Arthur know that those activities and strategies are common to "many or most" CPCs throughout North America like she states? Other than a couple of footnotes, all of Arthur's hands on research was done in BC. Not anywhere else.

In fact, for Arthur's statement that "many or most” of 4000 US centres behave badly, she only has a few isolated footnotes about what a few of them do. How on earth can she generalize from a few bad apples to the majority? Almost certainly pure speculation.

The question that arises about this research is this. What are vague allegations about US centres, doing in a report about BC centres, other than to imply that what Arthur alleges is true of the US centres, is also true of the BC centres?

That is the implication readers will take from her report – that BC Centres do these bad things too. Is this what Arthur intended all along?

(See below for a list of my previous writings on this subject. They discuss some other interesting fun facts about the report. Like how Arthur's Pro Choice Action Network received $27,400 in a government grant from Status of Women Canada to write the report. And how PRO-CAN never publicly acknowledged that grant like they were supposed to.)

(This was first published on LifeNews in January 2010)
Supporting Women in Canada Means Educating That Abortion Hurts Women

Apr 05, 2010
Status of Women Canada pays extreme group to discredit CPCs

April 16, 2010
"pregnancy support groups" vs "crisis pregnancy centres"

April 27, 2010
Mr. Harper must support the abortion debate

June 25, 2012
Don't let the numbers fool you

(First published in LifeCanada's Journal)
Jan 06, 2013
Joyce Arthur's Pro-Can grant: an investigation, Part I
Mar 09, 2013
Joyce Arthur's Pro-Can grant: an investigation, Part II

Joyce Arthur's Pro-Can grant: an investigation, II

(This is the second part of an analysis done on Joyce Arthur's "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy centres" published in the January/February 2013 LifeCanada Journal. Part one was published in the November/December 2012 LifeCanada Journal.)

Fourth. In the paperwork I received from the access request, I noticed that the word "Exposing" was used interchangeably with the word "Examining".

On three of the documents in the package, the title of the report say "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres" (the 10 page funding proposal, the letter from the Minister Liza Frulla congratulating Ms. Arthur on her grant, and in an email from Ms. Arthur to SWC).

On four documents, the title reads "Examining Crisis Pregnancy Centres" (the signed agreement, a follow up letter from the program office right after Ms. Frulla's letter, SWC's final report, SWC's "closeout assessment").

The word "Examining" is a far more innocuous word than "Exposing". (The final published report was also called "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres".)

When I asked SWC about this discrepancy, they had no explanation. So what was going on here? As the request for funding weaved its way through the process, is it possible that SWC thought they were agreeing to a much less scandalous document that what in fact was finally produced?

Fifth. Pro-Can never publicly acknowledged the funding they received, which was a condition of receiving funding. Joyce Arthur clearly signs the following declaration in the "Application":
"I am authorized by the organization to sign this application. I am taking responsibility to ensure that the organization agrees to the following declaration and undertaking...The organization agrees to publicly acknowledge any financial or other assistance provided by SWC".

When I questioned SWC on this, their response was:
“It is true that there is no mention of SWC as the funder for this initiative in the Research Report on the website. However, a note on the website states that as of January 31, 2009, “the Pro-Choice Action Network has ceased operations except for our website”, so we will not be following up with them.” (5)

Pro-Can apparently ceased operations the same month the report was released. Even though Pro-Can had supposedly ceased operations, their web-site, which includes the report, is still very much active, and is still very much active even today. And SWC, by their own admission, did nothing to insist that Pro-Can adhere to the promise they made to publicly acknowledge funding from SWC.

Sixth. In SWC's "Recommendation for Approval" under "If Applicable, how does this initiative link to government wide priorities and international commitments" is the following very disturbing rationale for the report:
"As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. V. Morgentaler (1988), under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, women have the right to therapeutic abortions but when crisis pregnancy centres disseminate misinformation to pregnant women, they in effect circumscribe women's full Charter rights. Through this initiative, the government of Canada is fulfilling its court ascribed duty to ensure women have full reproductive choice by informing the public of the diversity of perspectives on abortion."
(It is unclear who wrote this paragraph. The document itself was signed by SWC.)

The Morgentaler ruling only struck down the existing abortion law for procedural reasons; it never recognized a "Charter right" to abortion. There was no “court ascribed duty” for the government of Canada to “ensure women have full reproductive choice.” In fact, the court made it clear that the government had an interest in the protection of the fetus and that it was up to Parliament to bring forward a new law that would balance the interests of both mother and child.

And finally, here is the congratulatory letter from Minister of Canadian; Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Liza Frulla.

"Dear Ms. Arthur;

I am pleased to inform you that I have approved a grant in the amount of $27,400 from the Women's Program for your initiative "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres." A cheque in the amount of $25,400, which represents the first payment of this funding, is enclosed.

As Minister responsible for Status of Women, I know that the Women's Program plays a vital role in supporting the work of women's and other equality-seeking organizations to remove barriers to women's full participation in Canadian, society. I recognize the critical part that organizations such as yours play in achieving this goal.

Indeed, it 's only by working together, by forming partnerships between this government and equality-seeking groups working at the local, provincial and national levels, that we will realize our shared goal of gender equality. I welcome the opportunity to support your group's role in this collaborative process.

I am confident that the results achieved through your initiative will help us demonstrate the progress we are making in advancing women's equality in our society.

In closing, I would like to congratulate you, the members of your organization and all the volunteers who will assist you in undertaking this initiative. Best wishes for continued success n your endeavours.

Sincerely,
Liza Frulla, P.C., M.P."

This report should never have been written. The fact that it was also funded by tax payers, should never have been allowed to happen.

Footnotes:
(1) Access to Information request received from status of Women Canada (SWC) in 2009
(2) http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/29/51748.htm
(3) http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf
(4) http://www.viwomensclinic.ca/YourDecision.aspx
(5) Email correspondence with SWC in 2010

Here is a list of the different documents I received, all of which formed the packaged released under the ATIP:
a) "Application" signed by Joyce Arthur. Nine pages, plus a ten page Project Funding Proposal (used "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres") and four other pages of information
b) An email from SWC to Joyce Arthur
c) "Recommendation for Approval" (nine pages signed by SWC)
d) Letter from Minister Frulla to Joyce Arthur (used "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres")
e) Letter from SWC to Joyce Arthur, as a follow up to the Minister's letter (used "Examining Crisis Pregnancy Centres")
f) "Approved Budget Expenditures"
g) Two page contract detailing project, signed by Joyce Arthur (used "Examining Crisis Pregnancy Centres")
h) email from Joyce Arthur to SWC (used "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres"
i) "Final report" six pages signed by Joyce Arthur (used "Examining Crisis Pregnancy Centres")
j) "Closeout assessment" six pages Signed by SWC (used "Examining Crisis Pregnancy Centres")

Joyce Arthur's Pro-Can grant: an investigation

(Part one below appeared in the November/December 2012 issue of LifeCanada Journal)

This is part one of a two-part analysis of the $27,400 grant Joyce Arthur received in 2009 for writing her report "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British ColumbiaIn 2009 Joyce Arthur wrote a report criticizing crisis pregnancy centres in British Columbia. The next issue will contain part two. The purpose of the report was to:
"publicly expose the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPCs, and by doing so, work to mitigate discriminatory attitudes towards women...work to promote institutional change by ensuring that health organizations such as hospitals, clinics, and doctors' offices do not inappropriately refer women to CPC's, and instead have feminist-based alternatives to which they can refer women." (1)

In 2010, through an Access to Information request it was revealed that Ms. Arthur and her group, Pro-Choice Action Network (Pro-Can) received $27,400 from Status of Women Canada (SWC) to write this "Expose".

Then On October 29, 2012 we learned that The Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver and the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver Society sued Joyce Arthur and the Pro-Can in Supreme Court.

The complaint states in part:
"The report has been widely read and disseminated online and republished by other organizations and used in media coverage, including a three-part investigative series by CTV News in Vancouver...The results of the harm done to the plaintiffs' reputation have included, inter alia, adverse impacts on the plaintiffs' relationships with, and ability to engage in its non-profit and funding activities in respect of, prospective clients, donors, and community partners," (2)

For anyone who has read the report (3), it is difficult to imagine how it ever received government funding at all. But it did. What happened? How did tax dollars end up going to an extremist organizations such as Pro-Can?

First. The funds were granted under the Women's Program at SWC. One of the goals to this program is to achieve "social justice". This was part of the pitch that Pro-Can used in order to get funding, and told us the Implications of not receiving this funding:
“Without funding from SWC, the organization will probably not be able to carry out this initiative. As a result, CPC's would be able to continue to operate by employing deceptive and misleading service delivery tactics and many more pregnant women, especially those most marginalized, would continue to have their reproductive rights eroded because their would be no critical awareness of what is happening. Ergo, SWC may not be able to fulfil its commitment of ensuring social justice for all women in Canada.” (1)

A definition of social justice from Wikipedia:
"A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being."

How does demeaning and criticizing those organizations who support women who choose to keep their baby and not abort it--recognize the dignity of every human being? It doesn't.

Second. It is clear from the documentation that Pro-Can had already concluded--without actually having done their so-called research and report--that PCs were already deceiving and misleading women.

One example is that the original proposal had a goal that CPCs become marginalized:
”...CPC's switch their focus to helping women who want to have babies instead of stopping women from having abortions—or if they continue doing the latter, they become more marginalized in their communities...”

So why did they need grant money then, for research that was already a foregone conclusion?

Third, funding. Of the $27,400 grant, $8,125 went to office expenses, etc. The remainder $19,275 went to salaries, as well as to hiring a family doctor and a medical researcher to discredit material published by CPC's. Specifically, "to go through the Volunteer Training Manual for the Crisis Pregnancy Centre Ministry, and identify and refute any medical errors or scientific distortions. They produced a detailed report critiquing and refuting many aspects of the manual, and providing support from the scientific literature. There were serious inaccuracies and distortions in many areas. These errors are taught to the counsellors, who pass them on to unsuspecting women." (3)

The doctor was Dr. Konia Trouton a Family Physician from Vancouver Island Women’s Clinic. The website from this doctor's clinic posts these warnings to women about CPCs:
"A word of caution: if you surf the net you will come across many anti-abortion websites that have frightening and inaccurate information about abortion. The resources and links page on this website has a list of pro-choice organizations that are good sources of information. Also beware of "CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTRES". Antichoice groups sometimes set up offices, distress centres, phone lines or 'clinics' that pretend to help pregnant women with information and pregnancy tests. Many of these groups try to influence vulnerable women to continue their pregnancy by frightening them. Some will say anything to have you keep your pregnancy. Not all of their information about gestational development, health risks and after-effects of abortion is correct." (4)

This clinic performs abortions--up to 20 weeks gestation I might add--for which the clinic is obviously well paid. Isn't this a conflict of interest, when a doctor who receives money for the abortions she performs, to then scare women away from CPCs?

And did Ms. Arthur receive any actual funds from abortion clinics to help with this project? It is unclear. However her proposal stated this:
"For this project we would work closely with abortion clinics. We would also liaise with women's centres across BC, family planning clinics (e.g. Options for Sexual health clinics)...we have no financial partners for this project, but we do plan to ask the abortion clinics to contribute funds for expenses...”

(Part two continued in next issue of the Journal)

Footnotes
(1) Access to Information request received from Status of Women Canada (SWC) in 2009
(2) http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/29/51748.htm
(3) http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf
(4) http://www.viwomensclinic.ca/YourDecision.aspx

"pregnancy support groups" vs "crisis pregnancy centres"

In this Winnipeg Free Press article, Abortion pressure target of bill, Adam Wazny writes about Rod Bruinooge's 'Roxanne's Law,' that would make it a criminal offence for anyone to coerce a woman to terminate her pregnancy.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/abortion-pressure-target-of-bill-90919469.html

Wazny got comments from Joyce Arthur and he states:
"Arthur maintains the bill steps on the toes of a successful system that's already in place and undermines the good work pregnancy support groups do. Counsellors at clinics are on the front-lines educating people on the rights of the woman, outlining the choices they have and how the decision to see the pregnancy to term is theirs and theirs alone."

I am confused where Arthur says she supports "pregnancy support groups". Is this the same as "crisis pregnancy centres"? I doubt it, because as I have written previously, Arthur isn't very fond of crisis pregnancy centres. She calls CPCs, "fake clinics", "anti-choice Christian ministries", and warns women to "beware" CPCs because they "deceive" women.
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf

On Arthur's application form for SWC funding, she wrote that one of the goals of the report was to:
"Promote and/or establish, feminist-based options for women, i.e., pro-choice options counseling and post-abortion counseling services and by doing so: enable women to access appropriate health and social services, enhance the effectiveness of feminist based organizations and agencies in regards to women's reproductive health and rights...”

Yes, I'm quite sure that Arthur hasn't had a change of heart about CPCs.

So I'm left wondering. What does Arthur mean by "pregnancy support groups". Could she be referring to those counsellors, who work at those clinics, which make abortion their business--you know abortion clinics?

If so, I'm really not sure a woman looking for "pregnancy support" would be wise to get counseling at an abortion clinic. I think she might come out not pregnant anymore.

Status of Women Canada pays extreme group to discredit CPCs

In January 2009, the uber-feminist Pro-Choice Action Network, (Pro-Can) wrote a very nasty and very biased report called "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC": http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Exposing-CPCs-in-BC.pdf

In January 2010, I argued that we should applaud and support these CPCs, not ridicule and deride them: http://www.lifenews.com/int1440.html

Even though there are tons of reasons why Canadians should support Crisis Pregnancy Centres, I have learned an even more scandalous piece of information about Pro-Can and their sorry report.

By way of Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests to Status of Women Canada (SWC), I found out that this extreme radical group received funding from SWC to the tune of $27,400 to write this abortion manifesto. I also learned that SWC has never given any funding to CPCs.

And there's more.

First, on Pro-Can's Application for funding, under "Goals and Objectives" appears this gem:

``[the goal of this project is to] ..publicly expose the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPCs...and by doing so, work to mitigate discriminatory attitudes towards women...work to promote institutional change by ensuring that health organizations such as hospitals, clinics, and doctors' offices do not inappropriately refer women to CPC's, and instead have feminist-based alternatives to which they can refer women."

CPCs are clearly not anti-women or anti-feminist. And please don't tell me that Canadians expect our doctors to refer pregnant women to abortion clinics ``instead`` of CPCs. How outrageous is that?

Second, funding was supposedly provided because there was a "public education" component to the grant. A report that demeans and attacks crisis pregnancy centres, based on biased research can hardly be considered "public education".

Third, Pro-Can never publicly acknowledged the funding they received. Yet, on their Application form, under the heading "Declaration and Undertaking" the applicant clearly makes the following declaration:

"I am authorized by the organization to sign this application. I am taking responsibility to ensure that the organization agrees to the following declaration and undertaking...The organization agrees to publicly acknowledge any financial or other assistance provided by SWC".

Fourth, in SWC's Recommendation for Approval under "If Applicable, how does this initiative link to government wide priorities and international commitments" is the following very disturbing statements:

"As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. V. Morgentaler (1988), under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, women have the right to therapeutic abortions but when crisis pregnancy centres disseminate misinformation to pregnant women, they in effect circumscribe women's full Charter rights. Through this initiative, the government of Canada is fulfilling its court ascribed duty to ensure women have full reproductive choice by informing the public of the diversity of perspectives on abortion."

As everyone knows, the Morgenatler ruling only struck down the existing abortion law; it never granted a "full Charter right" to abortion. So funding to Pro-Can was recommended based on a false premise.

If CPCs save lives, and abortion destroys lives; why did our government fund these radical feminists, but not crisis pregnancy centres?

That, my friend, is the $27,400 question.