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?

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?

Justin Trudeau - his priorities are all messed up

Justin Trudeau says we aren't at war with ISIS.

"The Liberal government says Canada is not at war with Islamic militants -- a view not shared by ally France. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion are rejecting the "at war" label just one day after the bombings in Brussels that killed more than 30 people and injured 270. 

After the attacks, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said Europe was "at war."

The bombings in Brussels came four months after the attacks in Paris that left 130 dead. The militant group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has claimed responsibility for both incidents. Trudeau, who made his comments during a CBC Radio interview, and Dion -- speaking in the House of Commons foyer today -- both say the conflict with ISIS does not fit the true definition of war."

So Instead of fighting ISIS (like we should be doing) we instead want to abort babies around the world.

What does this tell us? It tells us that Canada is at war with babies. You see ISIS can defend itself. Pre-born babies can't. They are defenseless. So they are much easier to kill. Oh, and Trudeau thinks being a feminist is such a great old thing. Feminists also have no problem killing pre-born babies. 

ISIS might fight back but babies can't. I think Justin Trudeau is afraid of ISIS but Justin Trudeau is not afraid of pre-born babies. Pre-born babies can easily be killed without retaliating in any way. Not so with ISIS.

Canada is back? No Justin Trudeau, Canada is just all messed up now that you are Prime Minister.

I am embarrassed for Justin Trudeau. I am embarrassed for Canada.

Lying is okay for feminist warriors

The character Claire Underwood in the TV show House of Cards is not a very nice person. If you've watched the show you know this. She's a lying, manipulating sociopath who will use anyone in her path for her own gain. Ditto for her husband. You really don't like these people.

But when it comes to abortion well, things get weird, because now, the lying part is okay.

You see Claire has also had three abortions. And the feminists love her.

During a TV interview Claire admits to one abortion. Tracie Egan Morrissey writing for Jezebel, calls Claire a "feminist warrior". Here's Morrissey's take on this interview:

"What she knew is that she wasn't ashamed of her choices, and wouldn't be made to feel that way. So she needed to think quickly, in order to maintain the integrity of her convictions, but not rub people the wrong way with her truth. So she came up with a version of the truth that also touched on a deeper injustice in Claire's life."

And from Amanda Marcotte writing in Slate:

"Granted, Claire's story isn't exactly true. Yes, she's had an abortion (three, it turns out), and yes, she was raped by this man. It's just that none of her pregnancies were caused by this rape, and one of Claire's abortions happened because she and her husband chose together not to have a baby [Claire is 16 weeks pregnant at the time and they were campaigning so must get rid of baby]. Claire is a character who is frequently portrayed as a scheming, immoral liar, but for once, her truth-fudging comes across as entirely sympathetic. The implication is that the American public will forgive aborting a rape-caused pregnancy but would never forgive someone who rebels against the expectation that she must have children with her husband. To protect herself from the intrusive condemnation of people she's never met, she pretty much has to lie." 

How do you like that? A "version of the truth" and "she pretty much has to lie"? Because for the pro-abortions, the truth is whatever you say it is.

And then of course, the show portrays pro-life people as screaming, angry, name-calling bosons. Which is interesting because if anything, the pro-life people I have ever seen at marches, are always respectful, loving and peaceful. In fact at the last March for Life I attended in Ottawa in 2012 there were thousands of pro-life people and only a handful of the "pro-choice" variety. As I recall, these were the only screaming, angry, name-calling, bosons that I witnessed that day.

Here are a few screen shots of the House of Cards episode where those nasty pro-lfers make an appearance:

Are you speaking for me?

Quite a lot of arrogance in this editorial in the Calgary Herald:
"Most Canadians do not agree with Langley MP Mark Warawa's views on abortion, nor his wish, and the hope of a small group of other backbench Conservative MPs, to reduce the access of Canadian women to abortion services."

This anonymous writer apparently knows that most Canadians do not agree with Mr. Warawa's views on abortion. Must be a mind reader. And a genius. Especially since 92% of Canadians are against sex-selection abortion. You'd think an editorial writer of a major Canadian newspaper would get his facts right.

Then this:
"Most Canadians believe that is a choice that should be left to individual women and their doctors. We have long agreed."

And no, we have not "long agreed" Mr. editorial writer, that the "choice" of killing unborn children should be left up to women and their doctors. Polls have told you this over and over again that we do not agree with this world view.

The writer must attend the school of the pinko lefto feminists that regurgitate this propaganda every minute of every day. The politically correct dogma of their "woman's right to choose" ideology that is neither a right nor agreed upon by the masses.

And I really wish they would finish the sentence on that little phrase but they never seem to have the courage to do so, so please allow me to do it for you:
"A woman's right to choose to deliberately end the life of another human being."

Sorry Mr. anonymous editorial writer, we don't agree now; we never have agreed; we never will agree. Sorry to burst your choice bubble.

I like that. Choice Bubble. Full of hot air.

When some women think they speak for all women

There is a funny thing that goes on in this country, where the so-called feminists think they speak for all women, when clearly they don't, but that doesn't stop them from saying they do, and really, you know, it gets kind of boring.

So, Like Naomi Lakritz, who does a fine piece on  MP Rona Ambrose, I also:
"didn't ask [NDP deputy leader Libby] Davies to speak on my behalf, and I don't feel betrayed in any way, so I don't appreciate being lumped into the grey bloc conveniently labelled "Canadian women."

I am a Canadian woman and those women do not speak for me now, they didn't speak for me before, and they definitely won't speak for me later. They simply do not have a corner on speaking for Canadian women.

So please. Can you do us all a favour? Get over yourselves.