Trudeau literally says it's okay to override our Charter rights (Update)

This was Published December 20, 2021

"Regardless of the fact that we are attacking your fundamental rights, or limiting your fundamental rights, and the Charter says that is wrong, we're still going to go ahead and do it. It's basically a loophole that allows a majority to override fundamental rights of a minority."

Of course this should come as no surprise to anyone. Think public servants (on unpaid leave due to not being vaccinated). Think truckers (frozen bank accounts, Emergency Act). Think pro-life people (Summer Jobs program, pro-life charities, etc.).

Not a good look for a Prime Minister.

Just found this:

"The video clip leaves out key context. Trudeau was actually talking about a clause in the Canadian Constitution that he does not agree with."

So it seems without the whole context, Trudeau is not saying what it sounds like he is saying.

When the cloud dwellers lose touch with the people

This letter appeared in the National Post today.

Dear Mr. Mendicino and Mr. Lametti,

Did you attend the trucker protests? Did you talk to any of the protesters? Did you do anything to engage with them to understand why they were protesting? Did you even care? If you had, you would have seen that they were peaceful. Why did you say they were not peaceful? 

You say the protests were done to "undermine democracy". You know that's not true, right? They were there to practice democracy. Please see the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for definitions. 

You say that "the leaders have links to ideologically motivated violent extremists." These are very serious allegations you make here Mr. Mendicino and Mr. Lametti. Can you please provide your evidence to all Canadians of these "links to ideologically motivated violent extremists"? If you cannot, you might want to think about withdrawing these very scandalous remarks. 

Canadians would also like to see your "vast terabytes of disinformation" that you speak of. Perhaps you are mixing this up with the vast terabytes of disinformation Canadians receive from Canada's legacy media--who get millions of dollars in taxpayer funded handouts--on the protests?

The tragedy here, is that our government only allows for opinions and values that align with the government's; with the elites; and with the highly paid main stream media types. Any other opinions or values that come from the working man or woman, who were affected by the lockdowns in ways you can't even imagine, are not welcome in your stratosphere up there in the clouds. 

Our Prime Minister said of the truckers:

“The small fringe minority of people who are on their way to Ottawa who are holding unacceptable views that they are expressing do not represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other, who know of that following the science and stepping up to protect each other is the best way to continue to ensure our freedoms, our rights, our values, as a country”.

Do you share the PM's views that the people in the convoy are a "fringe minority" who hold "unacceptable views" and "do not represent the views of Canadians"? Because if you do, you are very very out of touch with a whole whack of Canadians.

Free Speech is a Right and an Obligation

Below is an excerpt of the presentation Wednesday, May 5, 2021, via zoom by Fr. Tony Van Hee. 

People will recall that Fr. Tony uses quotes from Dr. Jordan Peterson on his sandwich board when he stands peacefully near the abortion facility in Ottawa.

Fr. Tony draws upon Dr. Peterson's discussion on the topic of free speech to demonstrate that in a democratic society such as Canada, free speech truly is the cornerstone of Western civilization.

The Importance of Free Speech

My knowledge of free speech, and its importance, comes from Dr. Jordan Peterson, professor and clinical psychologist at Toronto University. I will quote him especially in regard to the importance of free speech grounded in the ineradicable value of the human being.

Jordan Peterson has extraordinary knowledge, a passion to help people, and the vocabulary to do just that. He is at his best in this talk that he gave March 11, 2017, at the Ottawa Public Library,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqFo32lwY_g

Before discussing that talk, I want you to hear what he has to say on the obligation of free speech, which he mentioned in a talk at Linfield College in Oregon, five weeks after the Ottawa Public Library talk.

“We've talked a lot about, the right to free speech. And something you might also want to consider, is the obligation of free speech, because I actually think it's deeper than a right. I think you're obligated to speak freely, because otherwise people don't have the benefit of whatever wisdom you possess, and at least you possess the wisdom of your own experience, at the very least you have that, and that's as valid a form of truth, as any other form of truth, and it's often a truth that can be usefully communicated to other people, and so, it's to the community's benefit that you say what your experience has taught you, because there isn't anyone who has your experience”.

Besides the obligation to share the wisdom of your experience, we have a further obligation to oppose unjust laws.

Martin Luther King Jr said in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963:

“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.' “How does one determine, whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law, is a human law, that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.”

How much more unjust is the case for abortion, which not only distorts and damages, but painfully dismembers and kills. Therefore any law which allows, or promotes the killing of an innocent person is an unjust law, and any law that protects those who kill an innocent person, such as the bubble zone law, is doubly unjust, and we have a moral obligation to disobey and oppose such laws and work to get them repealed.

Now some excerpts from Professor Peterson's Ottawa talk. Because they are excerpts the connections between them will not always be immediately evident, but the importance of free speech, and the importance of the individual are the common thread in all of them, the primacy of free speech is grounded in the sovereignty of the individual, or put in another way, free speech is the distinctive sign of the sovereignty of the individual.

“You support free speech, because it’s the mechanism, that maintains the sanity of the individual and society, and you live in relationship with the spoken truth, to the best of your ability, because the alternative is Hell, and if Hell is what you want, then you can remain arrogant, and resentful, and deceitful. But if you want to work to better the world, to bring it up to what it might be, then you speak forthrightly, you clarify yourself, and you act properly in the world, and then you see what happens” (1:09:37-1:10:21)."

“You never know what will happen if you say something that's true. It's a miracle! Miracles will happen.”

Because Peterson maintains, that “respect for the Logos, and respect for free speech are the same thing”, I want to say something about the word itself. Logos is a Greek word which can mean: word or speech or reason or wisdom. In the prologue of St John's Gospel, (Jn 1:1-18) the Logos is presented as the Son of God who became man and speaks the Logos (the Word of God) into the world.

“So here’s the idea that lurks at the beginning of Genesis. There’s three elements that are involved in the creation of habitable order from chaos, at the beginning of time. One of them is, whatever is represented by God the Father, and one of them is whatever is represented by the chaos that exists at the same time, and the other is whatever is represented by the idea of God’s Word."

"That’s the Logos from a Christian perspective....The story at the beginning of Genesis means that structure, that’s the Father, structure extracts habitable order from chaos, through speech, and that’s what we do.... The idea is, that there's something about the human being, and whatever it is that makes us conscious, that interacts with the chaotic potential, that constitutes reality, and extracts out from that, the order within which we live."

“And there's something divine about that, and that's the value of the human being, that's the ineradicable value of the human being, and the idea that each individual, even the criminal, even murderers, the worst and most reprehensible people, have to be treated with the respect due to a divinity, because we partake in the capacity, to extract habitable order, from chaos with our consciousness, with our speech, and with our capacity to communicate”.

“The story that is being sold to people who are sold a Nationalist story is: [T]he State is the ultimate identity! Well, actually that's technically wrong, because the problem with the State is, that the State is what is uniform across people, and the thing is, that we need what’s actually diverse across people, in order to rejuvenate the State, and to keep it awake, and so if you reduce individuals, to what’s homogeneous about them, across all people, you eradicate the very variability, that allows people to adapt to new things, and because we are constantly being presented with new things, we need to keep that individual variability paramount, because it’s upon that variability, that the very State depends, and that’s actually what the West discovered."

"That’s why we have always subordinated the State, to the divinity of the individual, and that’s expressed, as I already said, in the primacy of free speech in our civilization. It’s the cornerstone, the primacy of free speech, and it’s because the individual has something to offer the State.... The State is a corpse. The State is dead, but it’s a gift that the dead have given to [us], and [we] have to provide it with vision, and with speech, because otherwise it can only blunder around like a zombie”

”We could solve any problem, we can solve any problem, if we used all the resources that are available to us, if we lived properly, we have no idea what we could turn what we're in, into.

"And this is the final thing I'll say. I spent a long time studying the Sermon on the Mount. It's a key document. It's Christ's commentary on the 10 Commandments. In a sense, the question being, if you codify the rules, by which a society might function, is there something within the structure of the rules, that rises above them, that acts as the fundamental principle, from which they're all derived? It's the ultimate question of human ethics, what is the highest principle? And the answer that's put forward in the Sermon on the Mount is quite straightforward. Aim at the highest possible good that you can conceive of. That serves as your God, for all practical purposes...Having aligned yourself with that good, speak the truth, and see what happens."

“That's the act of faith. The act of faith is, whatever the truth reveals, is the best of all possible worlds, regardless of how it appears to you now. It's a guess. It's something you stake a bet on. Well, what do you think? The best of all possible worlds will be brought into being by deceit? It seems unlikely. You know that doesn't work in your own life, (1:11.38) you tangle yourself up in your own lies, one lie breeds 10, and 10 breeds 100, and maybe you put the consequences on down the road, and you don't fall into the pit for 5 or 6 years, maybe you've even forgotten why you fell in, when you finally do fall in, but everyone knows, everyone knows that you don't get away with anything."

"And so the issue is, well, what would happen if you just said what you thought, stupid as it is, inaccurate as it is, and listen to people criticize you in response, to shape you and make you more articulate? What would your life be like? And the answer to that is, and I know this to be true. I've worked with many, many people on precisely this problem. Your life gets better, and better, and better, and richer, and deeper, but that comes with a heavier and heavier burden of responsibility. Well, that's okay. You use the observation of your own capability, to bear responsibility, to buttress yourself against the terrors of being finite. You say, “Weak and miserable as I am, I can still stand up to the terrible tragedy of life, and prevail. And that's good enough."

When a Charter right isn't a Charter right

There are currently four Charter challenges being brought against the federal government regarding the Summer Jobs Program's unconstitutional attestation clause. Most likely there will be more coming.

This is all really good news for the people of Canada, and especially for those of us (all of us?) who value our Charter rights.

The media, even those from the left, see the massive problem with the Trudeau attestation. In fact the only people in Canada who think the attestation is fair--are Justin Trudeau and maybe some of his MPs, but most likely not all of them.

All this because our feminist prime minister decided to invent a new Charter right: "reproductive rights". Also known as the Right to Abortion. Justin Trudeau also likes to use the new buzz words "Charter values". Another meaningless notion.

Except instead of doing anything constitutional to create this new "right", he simply dreamed it into existence.

And now companies who have been denied funds under the SJP have to defend their actual Charter rights--all in the name of a non-existing Charter right.

In other words, under a Justin Trudeau government, actual Charter rights can only become actual Charter rights once you go to court, spend a whole lot of money, and spend a whole lot of time to put forward your case. A case that any grade school child could easily comprehend if you put it to them like this:

"I have a right to my religious beliefs. I have a right to not agree with abortion because I think it's morally wrong. I have a right to listen to my conscience. So why do I need to go to court to ask a judge to grant me these rights? I thought they were already mine? The Charter says I have them, so why can't I have them without going to court? 

Is a Prime Minister really allowed to create a new right, just because he wants to? I don't understand this."

And there is another important fact about all this.

Can you imagine the millions of dollars the tax payer will have to fork out so that Justin Trudeau can defend his make believe Right to Abortion? After all, these are his "charter values" not ours. So why will we have to pay for Justin Trudeau to defend himself?

Will Justin Trudeau EVER get it?

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

Stop Censorship tour opens in Ottawa

Last night Mike Mike Schouten, and John Sikkema from weneedalaw.ca and ARPA Canada kicked off our Ontario tour to educate citizens on what the Ontario government is up to in censoring abortion information in Ontario.

There are eight more stops they will be making starting Monday. This affects all people in Ontario who care about open, accountable, and transparent government.

Our case is also about our Charter rights of freedom of expression, and freedom of the press. When we are stopped from having a meaningful discussion on a subject, any subject, especially one as politically charged as abortion, we need to stand up and challenge the powers that be.

Our case does this. I hope you can attend one of the upcoming sessions.

Let's rip up the Canadian Charter while we're at it

This is perverted:

"Authorities should bar doctors from refusing services like abortion and assisted death on moral grounds, and screen out potential medical students who might impose their values on patients, leading Canadian and British bioethicists argue in a provocative new commentary. 

The paper by professors at Queen’s and Oxford universities, who are also editors of two major bioethics journals, throws rocket fuel onto a debate already inflamed by the new law allowing assisted death. 

They argue that physicians have no right to opt out of lawful medical services — from abortion to prescribing contraceptives — that are requested by a patient and in the person’s interest. 

Those who let conscientious objection affect patient care are clearly unprofessional, say Udo Schuklenk and Julian Savulescu. 

“Doctors must put patients’ interests ahead of their own integrity,” they write in the journal Bioethics. 

“If this leads to feelings of guilty remorse or them dropping out of the profession, so be it,” says the bluntly worded piece. 

“There is an oversupply of people wishing to be doctors. The place to debate issues of contraception, abortion and euthanasia is at the societal level, not the bedside... 

...Schuklenk said it is debatable whether currently practising doctors should be barred from practising because they morally object to facilitating certain legal services. 

But it would be reasonable to screen applicants to medical school and eliminate those unable to put aside their moral values, he said, comparing the idea to a medical faculty in South Africa rejecting racist students. 

Such screening might exclude people of certain religious beliefs from becoming doctors, but there is little evidence that would be detrimental to patients, the commentary says."

Is this what we call progress? Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. This sounds like what Hitler demanded of his doctors in Nazi Germany. It may have been legal then to perform horrid medical experiments, etc. on people, but it certainly wasn't moral.

In fact even now we wonder why presumably decent men and women performed those experiments and didn't refuse based on their (presumablely) moral objections. And now we want doctors to behave like they did in Nazi Germany.

And notice that last sentence. With Schuklenk and Savulescu, it's apparently also okay to exclude people because of their religious beliefs.

Forget morality. Forget freedom of conscience. Forget freedom of religion. Done with that. That's so old school.

Real and imaginary Charter rights

It's been a difficult time for pro lifers.

First there are the pro-life clubs still trying to practice their freedom of expression rights on campuses when they protest abortion. And still they receive no help from the very institutions (universities) that we would (incorrectly) expect would be a bastion of free speech rights.

Next we have hospitals having to defend their freedom of conscience and freedom of religion rights against being forced to participate in assisted suicide. In fact it used to be wrong to kill someone. Not anymore.

Then there's the radical Joyce Arthur who just can't bring herself to support Cassie and Molly's Law because:

"it It gives some human rights to fetuses and could thereby pose a threat to women’s constitutional rights and abortion rights."

Never mind that Bill C225 would not give human rights to pre-born children:

"This bill is about protecting pregnant women and their preborn children from the actions of third parties who want to do them harm. It addresses those tragic and horrific situations, like the case of Cassie Kaake and her preborn daughter, Molly, who were victims of a brutal attack. This bill does not in any way impact a woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy. Abortion is, by definition, excluded from the bill because of the clear wording in the bill that makes causing injury or death to the preborn child an offence only if the person does so “while committing or attempting to commit an offence under this Act against a female person that the person knows is pregnant.”  In other words, these new offences are not stand-alone offences. The new offences in “Cassie and Molly’s Law” address only the situations where a third party harms or kills a woman’s preborn child while committing or attempting to commit a criminal offence against the woman – action to which she clearly has not consented. This legislation honours and protects a woman’s ‘right to choose’ to give birth to her baby."

And never mind that there isn't even a constitutional right to abortion. Never mind any of that. Arthur just opposes the bill because as she said about Bill C-484:

“If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.”

For Arthur, changing people's minds about abortion would be a pro-choice mortal sin. It must never be allowed to happen and she will do everything in her power to make sure it never does. 

Actual constitutional rights of freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, are always trumped by the magical mythical right to abortion. 

ARCC - promotes discrimination, Charter rights violations, and political interference

This is just pathetic. But sadly, not unexpected:

"The ARCC [Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada] wants more surgical time for abortions in rural hospitals, elimination of conscientious objection by pro-life doctors, screening out of pro-life ob-gyns at medical school, full funding for pharmaceutical abortion through so-called “emergency contraceptives,” and withholding of  federal funding to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island if these provinces don’t remove remaining restrictions on abortions."

Sounds like a big fat wad of discrimination, provincial political interference, and downright stick-your-nose-where-it-doesn't-belongedness to me.

"elimination of conscientious objection by pro-life doctors"?
Since Arthur only wants this for only pro-life doctors, I assume she's fine for a "pro-choice" doctor to be allowed to conscientiously object to something he/she believes is immoral, unethical, and deadly? Just not a pro-life doctor. This is both discrimination and goes against a doctor's Charter right of freedom of conscience.

"screening out of pro-life ob-gyns at medical school"?
Again Arthur wants to discriminate against pro-life doctors.

Arthur would also like to see the feds interfere in provincial health care with "full funding" for "emergency contraceptives"? That's none of the feds business though. But you already know that Joyce, don't you?

"withholding of federal funding to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island if these provinces don’t remove remaining restrictions on abortions"? 
Again, none of the feds business and up to the provinces to decide.

Joyce Arthur just can't get our of her own way of her any-time-any-where, pro-abortion ideology.

Thomas Mulcair: please don't quit, we need you

Chris Selley thinks Thomas Mulcair is the man to hold Justin Trudeau to account for all his election promises:

"They have, after all, pledged to “save home mail delivery”; to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees by year’s end; to modify anti-terror laws in a way that satisfies civil libertarians and to implement more robust national security oversight; to ditch the F-35s and find cheaper fighter jets somewhere; to legalize and regulate marijuana; to table electoral reform legislation within 18 months; to restore the retirement age to 65; to comprehensively reform access-to-information procedures; to appoint an advertising commissioner to decide whether government ads are partisan; to “establish an independent commission to organize leaders’ debates”; to reform Senate and Supreme Court appointments; to allow MPs free votes on everything except platform items, “traditional confidence matters” and matters pertaining to “our shared values and the protections guaranteed by the Charter”; to alter the House of Commons’ standing orders to prohibit mammoth omnibus bills; to empower and enrich the Parliamentary Budget Office and to extend its purview to parties’ election platforms; to make government accounting “consistent and clear”; to restore the mandatory long-form census; to establish “a pan-Canadian framework for combating climate change” within 90 days of the Paris conference; to “renew Canada’s commitment to peacekeeping operations”; and to “enact the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” which at the federal level means calling an inquiry into missing and murdered women, adopting and implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “eliminating the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in custody over the next decade,” closing the aboriginal educational achievement gap in a single generation, building a Residential Schools National Monument in Ottawa, “restoring and increasing” funding for CBC, statutorily exempting criminals suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome from all mandatory minimum sentences, having new citizens swear observance to treaties with indigenous peoples and outlawing spanking."

Good idea.

Notice this promise:

"And matters pertaining to “our shared values and the protections guaranteed by the Charter”

Mr. Trudeau thinks of course that abortion is a shared value and is protected by the Charter--untrue and untrue. See here and here.

And this one:

"to comprehensively reform access-to-information procedures"

I look forward to this promise. I remember when Harper said something smilar with his Federal Accountability Act, which of course didn't amount to a hill of beans. Let's hope Trudeau does a better job of it. We'll be watching.

Justin Trudeau - leave your conscience at the door

Big abortion - believing the lie

When politicians are pro-me

Christian Heritage Party (CHP):

"Canada's cultural and legal heritage are rooted in the Christian worldview which has provided freedom of speech and religion for all people. Increasingly, our governments have violated the 'separation of church and state', infringing on these guaranteed Charter rights. The Christian Heritage Party of Canada will protect Canadians' Charter rights and properly respect the separation of church and state." 

You know, I'm pretty disillusioned with politicians. Not too many of them will stand up for the unborn. Many of them, while saying they are pro-life, do nothing to show they are. In my books, that means you aren't pro-life, you're pro-me.

Yesterday I heard a story about a politician who lied. Bold faced lies. It made me realize that a lot of these people really only care about getting into power. How pathetic.

In Ontario politics, I can't even get a single politician to care about access to information on abortion services. Not one. How cowardly is that?

Last week I met with the leader of the Christian Heritage Party (CHP), Rod Taylor. What a breath of fresh air. Not only will he stand up for the unborn, but he also cares about smaller government AND freedom of Religion for all people. What a concept.

See Brian Lilley interviews with Rod here.

Maybe it's time to ditch the pro-me's and vote CHP.

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

Justin Trudeau - Charter doesn't grant a right to abortion

Justin Trudeau tries to use his Father's views on abortion, to rationalize his own illogical views, on not allowing those who are against abortion, to becoming Liberal candidates:

"I had an extraordinary example in a father who had deeply, deeply held personal views that were informed by the fact that he went to church every Sunday, read the Bible regularly to us, and raised us very religiously, as Catholics. But at the same time my father had no problem legalizing divorce, decriminalizing homosexuality and moving in ways that recognized the basic rights of the people. He too held fast to his beliefs. But he also understood that as leaders, as political figures, and as representatives of a larger community, our utmost responsibility is to stand up for people’s rights. 

I share my father’s view of leadership in this regard..."

Yet Pierre Trudeau the senior said:

“You know, at some point you are killing life in the fetus in self-defence, of what, of the mother’s health, or her happiness, or of her social rights or her privilege as a human being? I think she should have to answer for it and explain. Now, whether it should be to three doctors, or one doctor, or to a priest or a bishop or to her mother-in-law is a question you might want to argue, you do have a right over your own body, it is your body. But the fetus is not your body; it’s someone else’s body, and if you kill it, you’ll have to explain,” 

Junior also never tires of saying that abortion is protected under the Charter:

"I would expect incoming MPs to vote in favour of a woman’s right to choose, which has historically found protection under Section 7 of the Charter."

But abortion is not protected under the Charter. Not now. Not yesterday. Not tomorrow.

If you would like to sign my letter to Justin Trudeau let me know at maloneyp64@gmail.com and I will add your name.

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)

Justin Trudeau - the son differs from the father

"A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate." Pierre Trudeau

Huffington Post likes Justin Trudeau's disrespectful tweet to former Liberal MPs. Which, as I said yesterday, means Justin doesn't get it, and worse, he doesn't get it that he doesn't get it. Ditto for HP.

So I asked myself what could the end result be of these pro-abortions, who can't see past their precious choice to kill pre-born babies? Do they not realize the harm this kind of thinking would do for all of our freedom of conscience rights? Because that is what this is about. It really has nothing to do with their "choice". It has to do with their supporting a politician who can dictate how his party members think, and what they believe.

In short, Justin wants all his MPs to think and believe, exactly the same way he does. The next logical step, would be to get all the citizens to think and believe, exactly the same way he does.

"The Just Society will be one in which the rights of minorities will be safe from the whims of intolerant majorities." Pierre Trudeau

A letter to Justin - Can we talk?

Dear Justin,

I just read this. I think we need to talk.

You say that:

“I have had a lot of Liberals come up to me and say, 'I don’t quite understand, isn’t the Liberal party about freedom and about defending people’s rights?'"

“Absolutely it is. And the rights that women have fought for over decades to be in control of their own bodies and to control their own reproductive health is not a right I’m going to brush aside to defend the freedom of speech or the freedom to vote a particular way for an MP."

“If they vote in favour of restricting women's access to abortion, that’s taking away their rights. And that is something that we will not accept in the Liberal party. We are the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that’s a serious, serious position that Liberals have to defend.

"It’s time the Liberal party actually defended rights,”

Now Justin, I'm pretty sure you're a fair to midland, smart kind of guy. And if you are, then I think you also know that there is no Charter right to abortion. Why do you keep saying there is a Charter right to abortion when you surely must know that there isn't?

Now there actually are freedom of speech rights and freedom of conscience rights, which of course morph nicely into "freedom to vote a particular way" rights. Got it? Conscience rights-yes. Abortion rights-no.

And you do know that a child in a mother's womb is not part of her body right? I'm sure you know this from school, it's called the science of Biology, you have heard of it, yes? Please tell me you have. I just couldn't sleep at nights if I thought you'd never heard of Biology before.

So please Justin, tell me please that you'll start getting your Biology and Charter rights--right. Okay? And if you need a bit of remedial help, please have a look here. You'll learn some amazing things.

Glad we had this little talk.

Respectfully yours,
etc. etc.

The importance of an examined conscience

Freedom of conscience is a fundamental right for everyone--including doctors. It must remain that way. We never want to see our doctors denied this right. Freedom of conscience must be maintained, nurtured, and honoured.

Listen to Margaret Somerville and Arthur Schafer discuss freedom of conscience rights for doctors. 

Vote in the poll as well.

What a frightening world it would be to live in a world dictated by the likes of Arthur Schafer.