One group responds to the false allegations about the Summer Jobs Program

March 17, 2018

Attention: Ms. Pat Maloney, Ottawa

Thank you for drawing to our attention questions posted online by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) concerning our charity and Canada Summer Jobs grants (CSJ).

Let me answer each and every question from ARCC pertaining to our charity.

1. What does our organization do?

We are a faith-based charity providing help and resources for women experiencing unintended pregnancies, post abortion grief, domestic violence, and sexual assault. Over 27 years, we have helped 17,000 women. Our services are offered free of charge – a gift from the Lower Mainland wider church community.

Our primary outreaches:

1. Burnaby Safe House – residence for abused women
2. Crisis Pregnancy Centre – Vancouver and Burnaby
3. Post Abortion Community Services – 1:1, groups, retreats
4. Rape Victims Support Network – multi-agency consortium

2. Did our charity not report Canada Summer Jobs grants as income to CRA?

Please know we comply with all regulatory and filing requirements. We have a robust protocol regarding finances. Our on-site staff administrator is so designated. In addition, we contract ‘outside’ with a professional bookkeeper. And furthermore, at fiscal year-end we contract our financial statements and filings via a professional accounting firm.

I know that our administrator and bookkeeper do inform the accounting firm of any CSJ grants, as I am cc’d in this regard. Perhaps the accounting firm has made a line error? Please know I will investigate this matter asap with the accounting firm. And if they have in fact made a filing error, we will have this detail rectified.

3. Is the CSJ program being abused?

No. And there’s some irony here. First, we do not need an annual CSJ grant. Second, we do not need a summer student. Like many charities, we love to support this program which helps out university students. As you would know, charities do not ‘get’ the funds per se, but are a conduit for the student – they receive the funds. In fact, CSJ grants are only minimum wage, so our particular charity tops up the student’s wage.

4. What activities are these funds actually supporting?

I will give three example activities. (With non-identifying details for confidentiality.)

During the CSJ grant time-frame in question by ARCC, our activities included:

(1) Rescuing a woman, here from Southeast Asia, to escape from human trafficking.

(2) Housed for a one year period, a teenage refugee from the Central Africa, gang raped by a militia. Also heartbreaking, her family was slaughtered.

(3) Rescued a pregnant woman planning suicide, as her husband was coercing her to go to an abortion clinic. During her previous pregnancy, he ruthlessly beat her to purposely cause a successful miscarriage.

In this same time-frame raised by ARCC, we helped hundreds of other women: shelter from domestic abuse, pregnancy support services, after abortion care, and sexual assault counselling. Further, we provided aid for low income pregnant women, families, and refugees.   

5. What is the work experience benefit of these activities?

Work experience pertains to the provision of love/care/services/resources for women in crisis. Our summer students (as well as past practicum students) are usually pursuing degrees in social work, human services, counselling, and nursing.

Patricia, in addition to these five major ARCC questions, you also bring to our attention that this political group asks two additional questions about our CAS charity. We will answer those as well.

6. Was the $29.7 K [total of grants from 2011 to 2016] used to undermine sex ed?

No. Our Sexual Integrity material is evidence-based, and complies with sex education learning outcomes of the BC Health and Career Education curriculum. In our presentations, special emphasis is placed on helping teenagers see the value of developing meaningful, healthy relationships. 

We do not differentiate between heterosexual and same-sex relationships.

Topics: media influences, STIs, consensual sex, pornography, date rape, peer pressure, and more.

By invitation, we also provide trainings/presentations outside of Canada – affirming the worth and value of women, for children with imperfections, on healthy relationships, and consensual sex. Our most recent trainings were in Bhutan, India, Nepal, Mongolia, Korea, and Zambia.

7. ARCC implies online that we may oppose “trans rights” and the LGBTQ community.

Our charity is not political, we are pastoral. Unlike ARCC, we are non-discriminatory. ARCC as you know is quite vocal, mean-spirted, and judgemental towards people of faith, and towards people not necessarily espousing their ideology.

In contrast to what ARCC is surmising, the clients we are entrusted to serve come from all lifestyles, gender identities, and sexual orientation. Coincidentally, two of our most recent sexually abused clients are transgender people.

The following value statement is from our Commitment of Care and Competence:

“Clients are served without regard to race, colour, religion, creed, national origin, age, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, lifestyle or other arbitrary circumstances.”

Patricia, once again, thank you for bringing to our attention the questions/allegations made against our charity by ARCC. This group has the right to oppose (but sadly so) faith-based charities being permitted to hire/help summer students via the CSJ program. But certainly not the right to mischaracterize.

Let me conclude by informing you, that we have repeatedly asked ARCC to contact us if they ever have questions about the work of our charity. But alas, ARCC never does. And we don’t know why.

Sincerely,

Brian Norton | Executive Director

Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver

7879 Edmonds Street Burnaby BC V3N 1B9

T 604 525-0999 | F 604 525-2634

www.christianadvocacy.ca

Justin Trudeau's feminist approach is not Canada's

Remember that 650 million Canada will be spending for abortion in Africa? Well here's something that we've grown to expect of Justin Trudeau's government: it's the arrogance in the way he thinks he speaks for all Canadians. Which he doesn't.

I did an ATIP to Global Affairs Canada looking for information on this funding which, by the way, comes from Canadian taxpayers and not the government. In the backgrounder on this abortion funding, under "Key messages" that was sent out to stakeholders it says:

"Canada is a firm supporter of a feminist approach, which includes a commitment to gender equality, the empowerment of women and girls, and the protection of their human rights."

And this:

"Minister Bibeau's mandate letter has been clear from the beginning. As part of Canada's feminist approach, we are committed to supporting access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health service and information. that includes access to contraception, family planning, comprehensive education as well as women's right [to] choose safe abortion, where legal, and access to post-abortion care." Emphasis added.

This "feminist approach" really just means Justin Trudeau and Minister Bibeau's abortion approach. Canada is made up of people. 36,591,241 people to be exact. And according to a recent Ipsos poll:

"One in Four (24%) [Canadians] Want Some Limits on Abortion, While 12% Say It Should Not Be Permitted [and]...A further one in ten Canadians (11%) aren’t sure [where they stand on abortion]"

That's almost half the country who are most likely not a firm supporter of a feminist approach. When I think of "Canada" I don't think of Justin Trudeau and his partisan politicians. I think of Canada's people. Trudeau et al are not "Canada". They do not speak for me. And they don't speak for millions like me. To presume that they do, is the height of arrogance.

The ATIP also included a "tracking chart (donor commitments and media attention)." There were 28 outside sources listed. Of those sources there was only one pro-life  source identified: Life Site News. Talk about stacking the deck.

Did Trudeau and Bibeau bother to consult with pro-life organizations? I know--a foolish question.

I have some additional information to wade through and will report later if I find anything.

CPCs pose threat to abortion cartel’s bloodthirsty cause

This is a very telling article on the pro-abortions' relentless attack on crisis pregnancy centres in the US. 

"... the abortion lobby has zero to show for its 40-year effort to expose pregnancy help centers as the hives of scum and villainy “they” would have us—or in many cases, legislators—believe. 

It’s not for lack of trying either. Every one of the 2,600 pregnancy help locations in the U.S. poses an immanent threat to the abortion cartel’s bloodthirsty cause. The abortion lobby is well aware of that fact, and has been fighting tooth and nail against pro-life alternatives to abortion ever since the late 1960s, as abortion was legalized at state levels prior to Roe v. Wade. 

In 2000, the nation’s leading abortion lobby group, NARAL Pro-Choice America, released a pamphlet entitled, “Unmasking Fake Clinics,” which has set the trajectory for every attack on pregnancy centers since. Periodically released national and state-level attacks (see examples here, here and here) have appeared ever since, rehearsing the same tired and baseless claims that uniformly fail to point out any wrongdoing on the part of a pregnancy center.

Just pro-lifers serving women with free, community-supported, life-affirming care. Nothing to see here. Thanks for stopping in, officer..."

Here in Canada we have our very own pro-abortions do their darnedest to do the same here in Canada. Read the whole article. Worth the read.

Does Justin Trudeau realize who he's flirting with?

"...Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies
(Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)
Oh, no, no you can't disguise
(You can't disguise, no you can't disguise)
Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies..." (Fleetwood Mac 1987)

Justin Trudeau is not stupid. Justin Trudeau is not ignorant.

So why did he tell the CBC this morning, that women have a charter right to abortion? 

Trudeau said:

"A Woman's right to choose is a charter right."

This isn't true.

Is it because he is doing the populace thing and telling (some) people what he thinks they want to hear? Is he doing it to get votes? Why is he courting the radical feminists?

He's not saying this for the "pro-choice" crowd--those who don't support unlimited abortion for any reason at any time.

It's the pro-abortions this would appeal to, a very small minority of (mostly) women who are extreme abortion advocates who believe late term abortion is okay; who believe sex-selection abortion is okay; who believe any abortion is always okay. The ones who worship at the altar of abortion.

I can't think of any other reasons he'd say this.

Dear Justin, 

The Charter doesn't give women the right to abortion. You know this. 

It does your credibility no good when you make up stuff about the Charter. It puts you in the same category as the pro-abortions who do this all the time. Is this really who you want to be identified with? 

I strongly suggest you rethink your strategy. I don't think this is the company you want to keep. 

Sincerely,
etc. etc.

Pro-life truths use real photos

It's strange that the pro-abortions think that an abortion can't possibly look like a child. Why is that?

They seem to prefer to think of it as bloody tissue sitting in a flask. I think it must make them feel better, when the child that's been vacuumed to death bears no resemblance to its humanity.

But why then, do they have to call pro-life people liars when we show them an aborted child that looks too human for them?

Do they just need to ease their own consciences?

Bernard Nathanson - a thorn in NARAL's side

When I was researching Dr. Bernard Nathanson for this post, I learned about his colleague Dr. Lawrence Lader. The two of them together made up stuff about abortion (this is a well known fact now). Along with feminist Betty Friedman, the three of them created what would become NARAL:

"Nathanson began performing abortions in the 1960s and later headed a major New York clinic where he oversaw 60,000 abortions. In 1969 he joined with feminist Betty Friedan and activist Lawrence Lader in founding the National Assn. for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America, and served as its medical director."

Here's the interesting thing about Mr. Lader. I found at least five obituaries (1) for him. But not one of them mention his association with Bernard Nathanson. Yet all of them mention his relationship Betty Friedman. I also noticed that none of the obituaries mention the lies the two men made up about abortion.

Nathanson and Lader had three ways of doing this (2):

"The First Key Tactic was to capture the media: We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority..." 

"The Second Key Tactic was to Play the Catholic Card: We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its “socially backward ideas” and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform.” And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favor of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists’ opinions." 

"The Third Key Tactic was the Denigration and Suppression of all Scientific Evidence that Life Begins at Conception
...A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. 

Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of fetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic: at $300.00 a time 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion...[note that these numbers were written in 1997. I wonder what the current income from abortion is now in the US?]"

I can only imagine that Dr. Bernard Nathanson became a huge thorn in NARAL's side: after he spilled the beans about their lies and after becoming pro-life.

Of course their relationship wouldn't be mentioned in Lader's obituary. What was I thinking?

(1) Lawrence Lader's obituaries:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/nyregion/10lader.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051002319.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/14/local/me-lader14
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1630078/posts
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2006/05/15/lawrence_lader_leading_abortion_rights_activist/?page=full

(2) Source: Bernard Nathanson: “Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist” In The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind. Copyright © 1997 Regenery Publishing (www.regnery.com)