Archive for March, 2008

BURNABY, BC, March 19, 2008 ( – A revolt is brewing in the Conservative riding of Burnaby-New Westminster where the Party candidate in the last election – a strong social conservative – has been denied the opportunity to seek the nomination again despite massive local support.  Last week directors from the local constituency association held a forum discussing their concern at the Conservative Party’s decision to disqualify Marc Dalton, the Conservative Candidate of Record for 2006. 

Prominent social conservative John Pacheco was similarly denied the opportunity to contest the Conservative Party nomination in 2005 which resulted in a firestorm of criticism for the Party….(

Stevie’s handlers are up to their old tricks.

Comments No Comments »

The reason that this is happening is because of this man’s visit some time before.

Comments No Comments »

The CHRC lost its request.:

 [10] More significantly, however, having now had the benefit of considering the question in circumstances different than those in which I was placed on the morning of May 9, 2008, I am not persuaded that the witnesses are exposed to a real and substantial risk that undue hardship will be caused to the persons involved, as contemplated in s. 52(1)(c) of the Act, nor that there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of a person will be endangered, as contemplated by s. 52(1)(d) of the Act. The excerpts from the Internet cited by the Commission in its submissions do not, in my view, satisfy these criteria. They are indicative of no greater risk than that which has been suggested in the past by comments addressed to other participants in this and other s. 13 cases, including counsel, Tribunal members and staff, and the parties themselves.

[11] I am therefore rescinding the order. The hearing will be conducted in public, as mandated by s. 52(1) of the Act. I would note for the record that the Commission is mistaken in its submissions that the order came about pursuant to my ruling of May 7, 2007, which had merely excluded cameras from the Tribunal premises. That ruling preceded the exclusion order. No request has been made for me to revisit the May 7th ruling and as a result, cameras will remain excluded from the Tribunal’s premises.

Now, we all get to look Dean Stacey in the face in person.

Comments No Comments »

Courtesy of Free Dominion, a leaked CHRC document concerning various parties’ request for an open and transparent hearing is not being totally accepted by the CHRC because of – get this – “security concerns” of the witnesses.

Here is a sample of comments from the CHRC petition to the Tribunal:  

Since January, this information has been widely diffused on the internet and elsewhere. A great deal of anger has been expressed on various websites, particularly against Mr. Steacy. This has included postings which have been threatening in tone and of which samples are attached.

My goodness. Anger. Ooooooooooh. Is that something now subject to prosecution in the CHRA too?  Sad faces and frowns are to be inserted in S. 13 of the CHRA?

Nobody honestly believes that such “threats” are serious. They are merely people who are going overboard in their venting.  If you want to see an actual assault in question, click here and read about the parties who are encouraging an actual assault. The CHRC, its employees, and former employees sure have a lot of nerve trying to limit full access, considering its past, present, and the things it is now accused of.

Of course, any justification will do to excuse the public from having access to this circus. It’s pretty pathetic.  This post hits the nail on the head:

The Commission produces evidence (minus the URL and any identifying markers which should have been on the bottom of each page) of one poster on a message board who is obviously angry. If this is all it takes to exclude the public from a hearing dealing with matters going to the fundamental constitutional rights of Canadians on the internet, then there is every reason for persons to assume false identities to post up threats. (Source)

Here’s a suggestion: hire a couple of security guards and frisk anyone who wants to come in. That should take away any delusional clear and present danger Mr. Stacey might be under.

It is obvious that there is public interest in the hearing, and the Commission does not suggest that this should be ignored. The Commission continues to support the principle that the public should have as much access as is possible to Tribunal proceedings. In this case, the Commission submits that there are measures which could be put in place which might better accommodate the members of the public who wish to attend the hearing, while also acknowledging the serious concerns expressed by the Commission with respect to the witnesses’ security.

Give me a break. Anyone really intent on engaging in violence against Dean Stacey would not do so at the hearing.  They would do it afterwards.

1. The Commission proposes a variation of the Tribunal’s Ruling of May 7, 2007 in order to allow a “live” broadcast of the hearing to members of the public in a separate room. In addition, the Commission would not object to a video link from the hearing room into a separate room, insofar as the witness cannot be observed via that link.

2. The Commission proposes that cameras not be pennitted in this “observation” room.

3. The Commission proposes that there be a prohibition against photographs in the hearing room and, to the extent possible, on all Tribunal premises.

Remember, the Canadian Human Rights Commission is one of the “defendants” in this hearing with its employee, Dean Stacey.  The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is the “judge”.  Just thought I’d throw that in so everyone knows what a fair and balanced process we have going on here.

And here’s another thing that bothers me. There is something fundamentally disordered about public servants trolling around websites collecting comments to use to defend one of their own employees – all on the public’s dime.  Like, get a real job, loser!

The truth of the matter is that Mr. Steacy has really nothing to fear except, of course, what his reputation and his employer will be going through as the light of day starts to shine on the coakroach chamber.

Comments No Comments »

Abortionist Tiller Admits to Performing Abortions the Day Before Delivery

His Speech at National Education Association

By John-Henry Westen 

ARLINGTON, VA, March 19, 2008 ( – Notorious partial-birth abortion specialist Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, KS, was caught on hidden video admitting to aborting babies a day before the mother’s due date.  Students for Life of America (SFLA) today released the video which was made at the Feminist Majority Foundation’s annual Women’s Leadership Conference held at the National Education Association (NEA) on March 9. 

The video reveals Dr. Tiller showcasing massive and graphic pictures of children with fetal abnormalities that he had aborted, so as to make the case for late-term abortions as necessary medical procedure. SFLA’s Executive Director Kristan Hawkins, who videotaped the conference and interviewed Tiller clandestinely, commented on the gruesome pictures of aborted children Tiller showed, saying, “One had an extra arm: could not that child had survived and received corrective surgery? Was violently killing the child the only way to go?”

“Pro-lifers are regularly condemned for displaying pictures of aborted babies, but here the pro-abortion crowd and the NEA are more than happy to showcase these graphic images, and even gave Dr. Tiller’s presentation a standing ovation,” added Hawkins.

Tiller, who currently faces 19 criminal charges for illegal late-term abortions in the state of Kansas, at first feigned ignorance of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a federal bill signed into law in 2002 that protects born children from murder and illegalizes infanticide. However when questioned further about the measure he spoke of his ideological objection to the legislation, saying, “Let’s say you have 15 or 16, you had 1 slip out with a heartbeat; that is not a viable fetus, but that is born alive or has a heartbeat. Then you have to take that non-viable fetus and rush it directly to the hospital against the woman’s wishes.”

Given that the conference featuring Tiller was held at the National Education Association, it is probable that a good number of the more than three million members of the NEA would be voicing opposition if they were made aware of the situation. 

“As a pro-life teacher, I can say this illustrates why I am no longer a member of the NEA,” said Marla Mercer, a West Virginia teacher and former member of the National Education Association. “The NEA should not be involved in this issue; here they are hosting this controversial abortionist and his slideshow of babies he has aborted. There is no way any of my money will ever be used to advance the radical pro-abortion agenda of Planned Parenthood and the NEA.”

 Full video available online at:


As a father of four daughters, I grieve for those babies slaughtered.

I simply don’t know what to say anymore. I totally spent in reading this.

Comments 1 Comment »

The socialist government of Spain has surprised everyone by adopting a pro-natal policy. Each newborn will receive a check for Euro 2,500 (about 3,938 dollars). If the newborn is born into a family with three or more children, the amount is increased to Euro 3,500.

In announcing the policy, President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said to the Parliament that “In order to continue progressing Spain needs more families with more children. And families need more aid to have more babies and more resources for their upbringing”. (

Socialists just don’t get it.

The solution is not bribing people to have more babies. It’s TEACHING them about the purpose of sex and the context of sex.

The Zapatero government is also particularly obtuse on this issue of family disintegration and disappearance, considering their rabid support for abortion.

Comments No Comments »

It is now less than a month to the FCP Convention and Dinner with Ron Gray on Saturday April 12, 2008 at the John Paul II Polish Cultural Center in Mississauga.

You can see a PDF Flier for map and details by clicking on the following link

Registration for the Convention starts at 8:15 a.m. and is free for FCP members.

Dinner is $75 per person and doors open at 7:00 p.m. (Your cost will be about half, after the Ontario Tax Refund)

Please confirm your participation by E-mail – within the next few days – to the Convention (including lunch) or the Dinner, or both.

Please pass this message along…

Giuseppe Gori

Comments No Comments »

It’s about the money, honey.  In a couple of years, we’ll all be pissing ourselves over global cooling and some leftist charlatan will be once again raking in the money from the typical useful idiots. 

Comments No Comments »

OTTAWA, March 18, 2008 ( – As the 40th anniversary of the publication of Pope Paul VI’s July 25, 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae approaches, a group of Catholics is challenging Canada’s Catholic bishops to revisit their official position on the document as it pertains to contraception. The encyclical, which wrote of the Church’s prohibition on contraception, predicting accurately that it would lead to treatment of women as objects of use, was at the time rejected by many within the Catholic Church.

In 1990 the Philippine Bishops issued an apology to the nation’s Catholics for having failed to encourage their flock to adhere to Humanae Vitae. They wrote: “Afflicted with doubts about alternatives to contraceptive technology, we abandoned you to your confused and lonely consciences with a lame excuse: ‘follow what your conscience tells you.’ How little we realized that it was our consciences that needed to be formed first.”

The Rosarium of the Blessed Virgin Mary has collected approximately 1000 signatures on a petition to formally ask the Canadian Catholic Bishops to retract the pastoral document written nearly 40 years ago on September 27, 1968 – the Winnipeg Statement.

The letter accompanying the petition challenges the bishops to reflect on their own role in the complete moral and social collapse that has befallen Canada. It states in part: “Once contraceptive sex was accepted in principle, it led the way to all of the other sexual abominations our country is currently experiencing, not the least of which is same-sex ‘marriage’ – which, at its core, is merely contraception in its final form. Contraception blurred the distinction between men and women by robbing women of their femininity and subverting their fertility. The psychological effects of this over 40 years came to fruition with the normalization of same-sex unions. A sterilized woman is, in one fundamental respect, another man.”

The letter adds: “We can no longer sit idly by as a Church and pretend that our actions – or lack of them – in word or in deed have not contributed to this situation. For forty years we have walked the desert of this culture of death because for forty years, we have refused to submit to the entire truth of Humanae Vitae. As faithful Catholics, therefore, we are humbly asking the bishops of Canada to reflect on how their teaching (or lack thereof) regarding contraception these past 40 years has contributed to Canada’s social and moral collapse. In particular, we are once again drawing your attention to the Winnipeg Statement, one of the most destructive documents ever to be released on the subject of contraception.”

The controversial document in question, commonly referred to as the Winnipeg Statement, has been long considered a dissent against Rome’s absolute prohibition on contraceptive acts.

The most controversial section of the document states: “Counsellors may meet others who, accepting the teaching of the Holy Father, find that because of particular circumstances they are involved in what seems to them a clear conflict of duties, e.g., the reconciling of conjugal love and responsible parenthood with the education of children already born or with the health of the mother. In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.”

John Pacheco, a director of The Rosarium and a Catholic political and social activist, remarked that the time has come for the Bishops to reconsider the Winnipeg Statement.

“We are approaching the 40 year anniversary of the legalization of both contraception and abortion in Canada in 2009,” Pacheco told “We can no longer fool ourselves into thinking that contraception has not played an enormous role in the break down of the family unit these past forty years. It’s not a coincidence that once contraception was legalized with abortion in May 1969, the precipitous fall of the family followed thereafter. It’s time for all Catholics to reflect on how the Church was right and the Culture was wrong. For lay Catholics, that means tossing the condoms and the pills and for the Canadian bishops it means repenting of a treacherous document.”

In addition to calling for the retraction of the Winnipeg Statement, the group is asking the Bishops to strongly re-affirm Humanae Vitae, the papal encyclical prohibiting abortion and contraception, on the 40th anniversary of its publication on July 25. It is also encouraging the bishops to become more involved in active opposition to abortion.

“We will never defeat abortion in Canada until the question of contraception is addressed. And contraception in Canada will never be addressed sufficiently until the bishops acknowledge the great harm that the Winnipeg Statement has caused. It’s time for all of us to repent and move on. Canada needs a new beginning. That starts with the retraction of the Winnipeg Statement”, Pacheco said.

Comments 1 Comment »

I think watching this was more painful than passing my stones…

Comments 2 Comments »

Maclean’s files its own motions with the CHRC re: the Lemire hearing.

Read it here.

This is going to be sweet.  Personally, I don’t see how anyone can work for these S.13 tribunals and have any respect for themselves.

“Previous Employer?”

“I worked as a ‘judge’ for the CHRC.”

“Next applicant please.”

Comments No Comments »

The following is a draft of the letter to be sent out to all Latin Rite bishops of the Catholic Church on March 31. It calls for the retraction of the Winnipeg Statement, among other measures.

If you have not signed the petition, we encourage you to do so.


March 31, 2008
Feast of the Annunciation

Your Grace,

As you are no doubt aware, the moral situation in Canada has degenerated significantly in the past few years. While there are many factors leading to the erosion of our culture, the root cause of such decay lies in the acceptance of contraception. In order to halt the disastrous consequences of contraception to our society and to pursue a culture of life, we are seeking to address the official position of the Canadian Bishops on this issue.

Just as we have our sacraments, so does this culture of death. Where the culture of life has Baptism and the Eucharist, the culture of death has Contraception and Abortion. One side has the sacraments of unity; the other of division. Aside from the insidious nature of contraception in its substance, no real or substantial progress can be made against abortion until contraception is first exposed and defeated. Indeed, we believe the current immoral state of our nation is the direct result of contraception. Once contraceptive sex was accepted in principle, it led the way to all of the other sexual abominations our country is currently experiencing, not the least of which is same-sex “marriage” – which, at its core, is merely contraception in its final form. Contraception blurred the distinction between men and women by robbing women of their femininity and subverting their fertility. The psychological effects of this over 40 years came to fruition with the normalization of same-sex unions. A sterilized woman is, in one fundamental respect, another man.

We can no longer sit idly by as a Church and pretend that our actions – or lack of them – in word or in deed have not contributed to this situation. For forty years we have walked the desert of this culture of death because for forty years, we have refused to submit to the entire truth of Humanae Vitae. As faithful Catholics, therefore, we are humbly asking the bishops of Canada to reflect on how their teaching (or lack thereof) regarding contraception these past 40 years has contributed to Canada’s social and moral collapse. In particular, we are once again drawing your attention to the Winnipeg Statement, one of the most destructive documents ever to be released on the subject of contraception.

The Winnipeg Statement, most notably paragraph 26, has caused incredible destruction not only in Canada but throughout the English speaking world. And the responsibility for making things right rests with our spiritual fathers, the bishops. This means acknowledging the great harm that this statement has caused. Frankly speaking, your Grace, the Winnipeg Statement is the elephant in the room whenever Humanae Vitae and contraception are discussed, and it is the reason that contraception is rarely mentioned from the pulpits today.

We call your attention to the comments made by the bishops of the Philippines who gave a frank confession of their past teaching on contraception. In 1990, the bishops of the Philippines issued a pastoral letter in which they apologized for their failure to explain the Church’s teaching on contraception. They said:

“We abandoned you to your confused and lonely consciences with a lame excuse: ‘follow what your conscience tells you’. How little did we realize that it was our consciences that needed to be formed first.” (Love is Life, October 7, 1990).

We also call your attention to the Church’s own document in seeking forgiveness:

It is necessary to specify the appropriate subject called to speak about the faults of the past, whether it be local Bishops, considered personally or collegially, or the universal Pastor, the Bishop of Rome. In this perspective, it is opportune to take into account – in recognizing past wrongs and the present day subjects who could best assume responsibility for these – the distinction between Magisterium and authority in the Church. Not every act of authority has magisterial value, and so behavior contrary to the Gospel by one or more persons vested with authority does not involve per se the magisterial charism, which is assured by the Lord to the Church’s Bishops, and consequently does not require any Magisterial act of reparation.

It is necessary to underscore that the one addressed by any request for forgiveness is God and that any human recipients – above all, if these are groups of persons either inside or outside the community of the Church – must be identified with appropriate historical and theological discernment, in order to undertake acts of reparation which are indeed suitable, and also in order to give witness to them of the good will and the love for the truth of the Church’s sons and daughters. This will be accomplished to the extent that there is dialogue and reciprocity between the parties, oriented toward a possible reconciliation connected with the recognition of faults and repentance for them. However, one should not forget that reciprocity – at times impossible because of the religious convictions of the dialogue partner – cannot be considered an indispensable condition, and that the gratuity of love often expresses itself in unilateral initiatives. (International Theological Commission, Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past, December 1999, approved by then Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

As we approach the forty year milestones of Humanae Vitae, the Winnipeg Statement, and the legalization of contraception and abortion in Canada, the church in Canada needs to seek forgiveness for its scandalous witness on the question of contraception. The fathers of the Church cannot reasonably expect their sons and daughters (or the culture at large) to open their hearts to the beauty of the sexual mystery when the official position of the Church in Canada dissents from Humanae Vitae. Things will only turn around in Canada when the whole Church begins to repent. But that must start with the fathers. And as the fathers lead, the sons and daughters will follow.

Enclosed herewith, you will find a petition calling for the retraction of the Winnipeg Statement. It has been supported by approximately 1000 Canadians thusfar. We ask you to once again prayerfully and honestly reflect on paragraph 26 of the Winnipeg Statement and ask yourself if this is an honest and clear presentation of the Church’s teaching on contraception. If it is not, then we respectfully ask you to be frank with us and admit it.

Also enclosed is a DVD video recording of the Humanae Vitae 2006 – A New Beginning Conference which was sponsored by The Rosarium in May, 2006. Many of the talks were excellent and we encourage you to make use of them in your marriage and catechumen programs. Should you wish to use them in your diocese, please contact us to make arrangements.

HV-1 Feed My Lambs: The Priest as spiritual guide to individuals (Fr. Joe Hattie)
HV-2 Medical Consequences of Contraception  (Dr. Maria Kraw)
HV-3 Natural Family Planning: One Guy’s Perspective (Guy Levac)
HV-4 Contraception & The Breakdown of Marriage (Pete Vere)
HV-5 Procreation Without Union: Addressing the Problem of Infertility (Dr. Maria Kraw)
HV-6 Contraception: Friend or Foe?  (Dr. Janet Smith)
HV-7 The Spectacular Story of Humanae Vitae & Role of Conscience (Dr. Janet Smith)
HV-8 The Culture of Life vs.The Culture of Death  (Dr. Janet Smith)
HV-9 Theology of Your Body (Cale Clarke)
HV-10 Q&A Round Table (Smith, Kraw, Cataudella)
HV-11 The Whole Man & The Whole Mission: Humanae Vitae Discovered (Steve Kellmeyer)

The files are in WMV format which can be viewed on a computer. We also have these talks in conventional DVD and CD formats.

The next couple of years will see Canada approach 40 years of tragic milestones in our nation’s history concerning contraception and abortion. Therefore, we believe it is fitting that Canada’s bishops remember the great holocaust of abortion and its enabler, contraception, by leading our nation to repentance. We therefore propose to you and the bishops of Canada the following actions:

1. July 25, 2008 – In commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the publication of Humanae Vitae, a full and unqualified endorsement of the encyclical by the Canadian bishops, and a clear and unambiguous condemnation of contraception, similar to the one released by the American Bishops.

2. September 27, 2008 – In repentance of the issuance of the Winnipeg Statement 40 years previously, a full, complete, and genuine retraction of the Winnipeg Statement, and a sincere apology to all Catholics and Canadians for the confusion caused.

3. May 14, 2009 – In response to the 40th year of legalized of abortion in Canada, a visible act of opposition by the Church in Canada by calling all Catholics to participate in March for Life rallies in every province in this country, preceded or followed by a Eucharistic procession and Solemn Mass presided over by all of the provinces’ bishops for the conversion of Canada to the Gospel of Life.

As the Church goes, your Grace, so goes society. We don’t need more dialogue. We don’t need more study or reflection. We don’t need more task forces or bureaucracies. What we need is good old fashion repentance and action, your Grace. And just like any repentance must start with the father of the family, so it is with the Bishops of the Church in Canada who are our fathers in the faith.

If Humanae Vitae were genuinely received by the Church in Canada, we would see the Gospel of Life bloom, but until genuine confession and repentance happens, the culture of death will continue to advance.

Canada needs bishops who are not afraid of humiliation and the cross, your Grace, because the servant is not greater than His master.

Rest assured of our prayers for your ministry. With every prayer we remain,

Yours in Christ our Sovereign King,

John Pacheco and Tony Liuzzo
The Rosarium of the Blessed Virgin Mary
4life @

c.c. All Dioceses of the Latin Rite
      Apostolic Nunciature

The Petition to Retract the Winnipeg Statement (Sign On-Line Version here)

The Winnipeg Statement

Humanae Vitae 

Comments 9 Comments »

The total private and public debt in the US in incalculably large and utterly unrepayable. Americans and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Canadians have been spending like drunken sailors for decades. Wanting to “have it all” and live life to the full, they have been living above their means. They hope that the so-called “new economy” will maintain a symbiotic relationship between Third World countries and themselves; with them producing and us gladly consuming. We have “outsourced” much of our food production and manufacturing while believing we would stay prosperous by exporting our intellectual capital. We were to be the brain operating the new economy and the developing nations were to be the brawn doing the manual labour.

Accumulated private debt has put maybe a third of Americans within two pay checks of bankrupcy. As for the public debt it can only be “repaid” by the government repudiating (walking away from) it or by printing so much money as to seriously devalue the dollar; then paying old dollar debts with the new devalued currency. The unavoidable consequence of which would be to create horrendous inflation. The approach of many economic advisors to governments seems to have been that the principle on the debt never had to be repaid, one only needed to keep up with the interest.

And if another “Great Depression” should hit? Well Canadians, being the way they are, will probably expect the government to get them out of it. The irony being it will be the government that will largely put us into it. Governments have long misapplied Keynsian economic theory that invoked government deficit spending to stimulate a depressed economy as normative government policy. The myth is also commonly believed that it was FDR’s “New Deal” that slowly pulled America out of the Depression. As Milton Freedman so well argued, it did nothing of the sort. In fact it probably extended and intensified the unemployment and economic hardship. FDR’s massive public works projects were funded by taking money from some people (taxpayers) and giving to others, usually in areas where the Democratic Party had marginal majorities (the impoverished South being strongly Democrat received the least assistance). The punitive nature of FDR’s policies toward the business sector and the uncertainty of future government policy either displaced or destroyed private-sector investment and therefore jobs. Economists that recognize this failure often claim World War II did the trick. But do you want a major war to pull us out of another depression? Actually the War may not have turned the economy around either. Unemployed men were simply sent off to war and industry was simply geared toward the production of armaments and other military equipment, not what average people needed. In fact many basic necessities had to be rationed throughout the war and for some time after. Likewise taxes were heavily given over to the wartime effort, thus supplying little that ordinary consumers needed. It was likely the return to normal conditions after the war and the removal of the uncertainty that haunted the business sector during the FDR years that helped turn the economy around.

Comments No Comments »

Over the course of the last several weeks, we have seen the freespeechers make short work of the kooky kangaroos, their kourts and the useful idiots on the Left.  We now have the moral authority and leverage to put the Commission on its heels.   

Looking ahead to the hearing against Maclean’s, I think the magazine should play hardball with the Commission and demand that the preliminary interview be completely transparent and open.    That means being open to public attendance. It also means being permitted to tape the kangaroo kourt in session for all to see.  Furthermore, I think, given the wide latitude granted Ezra Levant, Maclean’s should spread the dirt wide and deep on the CHRC in front of the rolling cameras.  Instead of them interrogating us, we should be turning the tables on them. It is not like there is not enough evidence.  …”Now let’s talk about Dean Stacey…”

The last time a human rights commission event was broadcast on YouTube, it provided a wonderful public service.

Personally, if I were Kenneth Whyte, Maclean’s publisher, I wouldn’t show up unless they conceded these points.   

Time to cause a situation that the politicians will be forced to deal with.  I think that is the only way they are going to shamed into doing anything. 

Since no Canadian paper would cover it and in light of the wide latitude for search and seizure the HRCs have in Canadian law if Whyte didn’t show, you would probably see an American daily running this kind of story on the front page:

Canadian Publisher’s Documents Seized By Human Rights Tribunal Secret Police,
His Whereabouts Unknown

Comments No Comments »

I would nominate Deb Gyapong for a journalist award in her coverage of our current free speech struggle, but I have such little respect for the great majority of journalists that I believe the award wouldn’t mean too much. Her latest dig was her interview with Keith Martin who has once again up-ed the ante on the CHRC debacle.

“We can’t let the commission go on as it is now,” he said. “The issue is much larger than 13.1,” he said, describing his motion as a mere “springboard” to examine the CHRC. He hopes that a thorough examination of the federal commission will prompt provincial legislatures to look at their own legislation and commissions. “It’s one of those things that operate under the radar screen,” he said. “Most Canadians aren’t aware unless of course they are confronted by the wrath of a human rights commission. (Source)

As for our politicians, here’s my message to them: 

Only a few of you have spoken out in support of free speech and against S.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act thusfar. We think that’s rather disturbing and pathetic at the same time. We’re not sure why you have not spoken out.

Maybe it’s because you have a certain difficulty in understanding the place of free speech as a priority in a functioning democracy.

Maybe it’s because you are so insulated from our concerns that you would prefer us to eat cake instead.

Maybe you don’t read the papers or the internet to find out what’s going on in the real world.

Maybe you like to debate the merits of freedom in Afghanistan without being too much concerned about the erosion of the same in your own backyard.

Maybe you don’t realize the universal support from all political spectrums of our society against the attack on free speech.

Maybe you’re afraid of the backlash from Islamic fanatics.

Or worst of all, maybe you don’t see a problem at all.

We really don’t care what your excuse is. But we know this: if you don’t show a little bit of courage at this time in our nation’s history and preserve the freedoms of Canada, you will be judged to be nothing more than Canadian Chamberlains – unwilling to speak out when it was necessary and incurring a liability to pass on to future generations.

Now we are sure that you have important State business to attend to, but we are also equally sure that none of it really matters unless you recognize the importance and priority of this issue.

Really.  What is it going to take for you wake up?

Comments No Comments »

Note: This Fr. Elijah’s first post at SoCon or Bust…..


Since many Liberal and NDP Catholics are non-practicing or cafeteria Catholics who believe God holds nothing against anyone, they have no problem with being denied Communion.  In fact it becomes a feather in their cap with the majority of Canadians and the media – they are seen to be standing up for free thought and choice against the Catholic Church’s attempts to force its rules and beliefs on Canadians via docile Catholic politicians.  

And besides, dissenting politicians, like most Catholics in irregular or immoral situations today (e.g. divorced and remarried outside the church, infrequent churchgoers, cohabiting couples, gay partners, etc.), whenever they do darken the doors of a Catholic Church go to Communion anyway, since their consciences are their guides not any priest and his archain rules.  So the “threat” that the brave politicians are standing up is seen as no threat. 

But if a real threat comes their way, like Islamicist violence over Dutch cartoons or gay activists angered over a “hurtful” remark, watch our brave and conscience-bound politicians run for cover, all the while offering obsequious apologies - brave in a manner similar to most Canadians.

Comments No Comments »

I am pleased to announce that SoCon or Bust has added a new poster to keep things humming along.

While yours truly will be holding down the “scrapper” role, our new poster is much more refined and intellectual than me.  I’ve always admired his abilities and have been bugging him to join me here at SoCon or Bust for the past month.

He’s going to post anonymously under the handle “Fr. Elijah”.  He is a Canadian priest.

I told him there was no committment to post frequently so his contributions will be only occasional. Still, please check just under the title of the post to see who posted what! I wouldn’t want to take credit for his writing.

Comments No Comments »

What follows is probably the most stinging critique of the current homosexual movement ever written.  What makes it particularly stinging is that it is devastatingly honest and its author is a homosexual.  Not just any homosexual, mind you, but a homosexual who doesn’t skip to the current homo-political agenda.

It is easy for social conservatives to slip into the danger of branding all homosexuals as our opponents in the culture war.  Indeed, considering the persecution we have sufferered at their hands over the past decade, it is totally understandable.  But, really – and all of us need to understand this – our dispute is not with persons who suffer from the homosexual inclination.

This article is peppered with many quotable sections, but I found this one particularly worthy of note:

“…we are all born incomplete and vulnerable to compulsive and addictive behaviour. As I said previously with respect to ‘pride’, it’s a constant struggle; you either control it or it controls you.  My friend and colleague in the trenches, Reverend Ken Campbell, has often publically said that when he was a college student, his natural inclination was to chase every skirt. That’s because young males are constitutionally prone to libidinal excess.”

In truth, we are all sinners. We all have a particular strong inclination to at least one particular sin.  If we deny this, then we are liars.  I, myself, before experiencing God’s saving power in my own life, had a real struggle with disordered sexual appetites.  I’ve got other problems too, but with God’s grace I am slowly – very slowly – overcoming them.  But here’s the difference between people like me, the author of this remarkable article, and the unrepentant sinner:  we acknowledge our sin and we struggle against it; we don’t pretend it isn’t a sin, seek to have the government recognize it as a right, or worst of all,  seek to use the organs of the State to punish those who oppose us.  

Back in 2005, I briefly corresponded with John McKeller, the author of this article. I found him to be a rather interesting, genuine and likeable fellow.  Here was a man like you and like me.  We’re not homosexuals, it’s true.  But we have our own achilles heel and this guy and his approach to his own struggles was a guy we could all identify with in our own spheres of battle.  He’s a man with whom any true social conservative could become close friends with.

Anyhow, read this account. I am sure you will be as impressed with Mr. McKeller as I was.

Let me assure you, even as a young, radical college student, I had no time for the clubby, leftist lemmings who comprised the early gay activists. They were dull, they were depressing, they always looked and acted as if they were born to be offended and victimized, they could never discourse for more than 5 minutes without hitting some tiresome barrier of resentment or ideology. So basically, I just avoided and ignored them because they had nothing to say to me or for me. Neither I, nor those I gravitate towards as friends or associates, wear the mantle of victimhood particularly well. If I’m harassed or discriminated against, I get more satisfaction from dealing directly with the problem myself. That’s what builds character and prepares one for the roadblocks of life that everybody faces – not just gays and lesbians – everybody.

Occasionally, someone will try to tweak me by saying, ‘come on John, if it weren’t for the activists, you couldn’t write or speak as you do’. Well, alleluia baby! And if it weren’t for the Suffragettes, I probably wouldn’t be here today either. Any successful movement must have a beginning and an end, and must focus on worthwhile goals. In 1967, Pierre Trudeau supposedly liberated us when he said “the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. Subsequently, matters of privacy and discrimination were laudably and necessarily dealt with in the early 1970′s. But today, the bedrooms of the nation are in everybody’s faces. Today, it’s all about benefits, privileges, social engineering, nihilism and redefining normalcy.

Today, it’s all about blurring every distinction between personal and political issues and vigorously stifling any attempts at discussion or debate. Believe me, my life would be much simpler if I didn’t have to contend with all of this. But how can I sit still when my public image is embarrassingly represented by a small but vociferous clique of radicals bent on making the whole world their closet? How can I sit still when the mainsteam media constantly lives unequivocal support to the lies, myths, distortions and propaganda of modern gay activism? How can I sit still when my freedoms are being threatened and the traditions and institutions of my country are being compromised?

So I formed HOPE (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism) to give a voice to gays and lesbians who choose to live with dignity and discretion, who don’t wake up every day looking for discrimination under the bed, and who don’t go running to the governments, the courts or the human rights commissions for a lifetime of therapeutic preferences.

The 19th century writer, Oscar Wilde, is revered by many in the gay and lesbian community but, believe me, if he were alive now, he’d be totally exasperated with the whining, hysterical malcontents who dominate today’s gay lobby. The unhappy truth is that homosexuality will never be fully accepted by the heterosexual majority who are obeying the dictates not of ‘bigoted’ society or religion, but of procreative nature. Whatever society teaches or doesn’t teach about homosexuality, no gay or lesbian, surrounded overwhelmingly by heterosexuals, will feel at home in his or her sexual and emotional world, even in the most tolerant of cultures.

At a young age we learn the rituals of deceit, impersonation and appearance, and anyone who believes political, social or even cultural revolution will change this fundamentally is denying reality. Yet, this alienation and desperation deepens our artistic insight and allows us to create civilization. Look at such historical icons as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Tchaikovsky, Somerset Maugham, Gore Vidal – who were homosexual and who undoubtedly experienced hardship and repression. But look what they gave to the world. Look how they advanced the cultural heritage. They were too creative, cultivated and cosmopolitan to be concerned with the trivialities of sexual pride, queer studies, diversity and whatever other pop-culture banality dominates our modern landscape.

To my radical brothers and sisters, sexual orientation is not only a lifestyle, but a religion and a career. It’s their whole identity. How absurd and how sad. From the exalted creativity of the Renaissance, to the vulgarity of Gay Pride, we’ve managed to dumb ourselves down to the level of barnyard animals. We’ve also managed to overpoliticize and polarize viewpoints, labelling people pro-gay or anti-gay with little room between.

As an openly gay male, I have no problem conceding that heterosexuality is and always will be the great human norm. But I’m sick and tired of a media culture that faciley equates homosexuality with heterosexuality and asks no deep questions about human psychology beyond the superficial liberal-vs-conservative, freedom-vs-oppression dichotomy. And I’m sick and tired of the sentimental, feel-good, liberal propaganda that conceals and denies the blatant Roman Empire decadence and compulsive, tunnel- vision promiscuity of so many gay men’s lives.

In 1998, I was invited to write an op-ed piece for the Ottawa Citizen in which I criticised the extremism and excesses of Gay Pride. Now I don’t really expect everyone to agree with my outspoken opinions and I certainly welcome challenge, confrontation and opposition. But the very day the article appeared, the self-annointed leaders of the gay community demanded a meeting with the publisher and editor of the newspaper and demanded to know why they printed my essay. What a joke! What a hissy fit! They could easily shut me up by smartening up, but they are so blinded by their fanaticism that they don’t realize that every time they resort to these Stalinist tactics, they make me look good. They give me credibility and justification.

Another egregious example of media bias is the ever partial-reporting of the Matthew Sheppard murder. For sure, this was a brutal and barbaric crime and I’d be happy to see his killers fry. But I’m also disturbed at the canonization of Matthew as the patron saint of hate crimes. His sexual proclivity was cruising for “rough trade”, which means he was attracted to his assailants precisely because they were scuzzy punks whose look and manner vitually screamed trouble. He doesn’t deserve to burn in hell as Fred Phelps constantly rages. But rational public discourse about his destructive behavior could help save lives – especially among gay youth. So shame on the media for placing political correctness ahead of safety and responsibility.

Now if you happen to be the mayor of any municipality, don’t even think about not issuing an official proclamation for gay pride, unless you want to find yourself in front of a human rights tribunal. I realize that Kelowna has managed to dodge this bullet for the time being, but there will be other years, other events and other mayors, and who knows what the future will bring. But this relentless effort toward mass education and forced compliance cannot be achieved without fascist obliteration of all individual freedoms.

One could fairly and legitimately ask, who annointed HOPE or John McKellar to speak on behalf of any segment of the gay and lesbian community. A more pertinent question would be, ‘who authorized lobby groups, such as GALE BC, to bring their self-serving agenda and their cultural angst into the schools?’ And how thoroughly have these activists been qualified and scrutinized? HOPE is non-partisan, non-sectarian, unattached to all intents and purposes, and seeks not to indoctrinate or reform, but to comment, criticize and inform. I have often expressed the unfortunate, but undeniable truth, that the number of times one was called ‘faggot’ in the schoolyard is directly proportionate to the stridency of one’s activism. So, special interest groups, such as GALE BC, are comprised mostly of wounded and resentful individuals who should be receiving counselling and compassion, rather than trying to dispense it.

You don’t need gay activists to teach young people love and respect for one another. And you certainly don’t want young, impressionable minds forever inculcated with a victim and entitlement mentality. When you fancy yourself an oppressed minority – particularly one that is based on a basic human drive and compulsion – you become obsessed with increasing your numbers and mainsteaming your behaviour.

You try to evoke guilt and intimidation by incessantly reiterating banal epithets, such as ‘hate’, ‘homophobia’, ‘intolerance’, ‘teen suicide’ and ‘self-esteem’. You quickly discover that the optimum way to ensure future supporters to your cause and ideology is through the minds of the young. You skillfully master the techniques of invoking sympathy, hiding the truth and presenting a sanitized portrait of gay life.

Introducing kindergarten and grade one students to alternative behaviours and lifestyles is psychological pedophilia. You don’t have to engage solely in physical contact to molest a child. You can diddle with their minds and their emotions. And this is exactly what some of my radical brothers and sisters are up to. And this is exactly what a disheartening majority of educators, school trustees and teachers unions endorse.

Spare me the tolerance and compassion bunkum. Just leave the kids alone and let them enjoy their short period of innocence and sexual latency. Then when they approach puberty, balance the pop-culture bombardment with messages of abstinence, discipline and self-control. Don’t just assume that all teens are out-of-control hormone factories and that all you can do is shrug your shoulders and throw condoms at them.

Listen, I’ll donate $100 to their favorite charity if anyone can show me a scientific study that proves condoms prevent the transmission of HIV. And the fabricated slogan ‘safe-sex’ is dangerous, misleading and designed to preserve lifestyle, not life. HOPE recommends that Dr Jeffrey Satinover’s lucid and scholarly book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, be compulsory reading at the secondary school level. But over and above everything, tell the truth and present the facts. Stop presenting young gay men as pretty ‘St Sebastians’, martyred by benighted homophobes and the big bad authorities, and instead, reflect on Oscar Wilde’s hedonistic Dorian Gray, confronting his spiritual failures in his corroding portrait.

One of the most hauntingly memorable days of my life – which I recall as if it were yesterday – occurred in 1981 during a conversation with a friend, whose cousin was a physician in New York City. My friend told me there was a mysterious ‘gay cancer’ running through the homosexual community in Manhatten, which was spread by anal sex, which produced lesions on the skin, which weakened the immune system by destroying white blood cells and which was 100% fatal.

Let me assure you that as young, naive and perpetually horny as I was, that single conversation was all that was needed to put enough fear into me to forever alter my sexual activities. The phrase ‘safe-sex’ had not yet been coined, but believe me, I was practising it! But it was with great dismay that I watched the ravages of AIDS spread like wildfire and it was with great contempt that I observed how the activists carved careers for themselves, making a political circus out of this disease and trampling on the rights of the majority. Here we were confronted with the most easily preventible, difficult to acquire, behaviourally caused, fatal disease in the history of humankind – and look how the gay leadership responded to it.

To them, it was more important to change the name of this disease, which was originally called GRID (gay related immune deficiency), to the ‘less homophobic’ AIDS. To them it was more important to fight for the rights and the protection of those who suffer from this disease than to fight for the health and safety of the entire population. To them it was more important to canonize the victims of this disease with commemorative walls, memorial quilts, vigils and galas than to condemn the behaviour that resulted in their death. To them, it was more important to distibute condoms than to declare a moratorium on promiscuous anal sex. Shame.

I can recall numerous times sharing with friends my bewilderment and frustration over why traditional public health measures for combating epidemics were not deployed against AIDS. Sixty years ago, those afflicted with tuberculosis had their homes quarantined and fifty years ago, public swimming pools were closed during the polio epidemic. Throught the sexual revolution of the 1960′s and 1970′s, there was stringent and systematic follow-up for all those infected with gonorrhea, syphilis and herpes. But at a National AIDS Conference in Denver Colorado in 1983, gay leaders declared, ‘we oppose any legislative attempts to close private clubs or bathhouses…we should never forget that we live in a homophobic society and that homophobia is the major threat to our health’.

This childishly self-serving attitude sealed the fate of the gay communities still free of the virus. Wth less than 2000 cases nationwide, drastic measures…the declaration of a health emergency in the affected areas, the closing of the bathhouses, testing among those at risk, contact tracing to warn those in the path of the infection… might have stemmed the tide of the epidemic and eventually saved tens of thousands of lives. Yet, gay leaders remained adamantly opposed to these measures because of the perceived stigmatization of the gay lifestyle.

So, as I observed the inexorable spread of AIDS and the effects of the gay left to control, weaken and obstruct the measures to combat it, I could easily extrapolate the numbers who were going to die. By doubling the 2000 existing cases every six months for the next ten years, I was able to calculate (accurately in hindsight) that by 1994 there would be 200,000 people – mostly gay men, mostly in the bloom of youth – who were going to die for an idea of liberation. And there wasn’t a damn thing I or anyone else could do about it! Sure, Ronald Reagan may have been unconcerned and uncommunicative about AIDS, but as my aforementioned sister in solidarity, Camille Paglia, has stated, ‘the delusional arrogance of the gay lobby unleashed the 20th Centuries second holocaust’.

So where are we in 2003? Well, we still have 20-year-olds, who weren’t even born when AIDS first appeared in North America, becoming infected with HIV. We continue to introduce new, potent and costly anti-HIV drugs, none of which destroy the virus, but which give gay males a false confidence, which leads to high-risk behaviour. We have an increasing number of gay websites, phonelines and classifieds promoting the growing desire for ‘bareback sex’ and ‘extreme sex’. And even at the Annual Global Conference on AIDS, the nightlife is more noteworthy than the daytime activities. The discos are packed with gay doctors, nurses, activists and researchers shamelessly cruising one another, and likewise, the bathhouses do land-office business. So, in spite of the solemnity and tragedy in dealing with a wasteful and fatal disease, the hedonistic, promiscuous, sex-carnival atmosphere never lets up.

Of course, it’s no accident or coincidence that the major sponsors of World AIDS Day and the ubiquitous Walk For AIDS are the international pharmaceutical companies and the condom manufacturers. And it’s neither callous nor cynical to point out that there are big bucks to be made from each new AIDS patient. But in North America, this is still a gay male disease, and while present sufferers deserve comfort and care, there needs to be far more emphasis placed on prevention than on cure.

My activist brothers and sisters, along with their ever-willing accomplices in media and academia, relentlessly drum into the public psyche that homosexuality is ‘not a choice’, because no-one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. First of all, there is an element of choice in all behaviour. Secondly, despite media fanfare and trendy hypotheses, there is no conclusive scientific evidence as to the biological, genetic, psychological and social influences on sexual orientation. The modern change in opinion concerning homosexuality, though presented as scientific advance, is contradicted rather than supported by science. Once again, we have a transformation in public morals consistent with widespread abandonment of the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which our civilization is based. Though hailed as ‘progress’, it is really a reversion to ancient pagan practices supported by a counter- culture restatement of gnostic moral relativism.

The average person comprehends neither the complexities of good scientific research nor the extent to which politics has corrupted the scientific process. For instance, it was strictly politics and nary a speck of science that motivated the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. So, that begs the question, do I consider myself mentally ill? Perhaps by the time I finish here today, some of you may think so. Seriously though, we are all born incomplete and vulnerable to compulsive and addictive behaviour. As I said previously with respect to ‘pride’, it’s a constant struggle; you either control it or it controls you.

My friend and colleague in the trenches, Reverend Ken Campbell, has often publically said that when he was a college student, his natural inclination was to chase every skirt. That’s because young males are constitutionally prone to libidinal excess. The overwhelming power of sexual gratification, makes it highly susceptible to becoming compulsive and addictive. But as human beings, we possess the intellect and the free will to exercise restraint. Until AIDS came along, male homosexuality had no inherent biological controls and so the use of the body seemed unlimited. Then came the Apocalypse: a complete systems breakdown of the body which lost its defences against nature. And the the ugliness and premature ageing of this wasteful disease were especially painful and grotesque in view of
gay men’s historic idealization of youth and beauty.

Gay activists become particularly hysterical at the mention of sexual reversion therapy. Now it may be impractical to ‘convert’ totally from homosexuality to heterosexuality, but if counselling can allow a gay man to respond sexually to women, it should be encouraged and applauded, not lambasted or lampooned. If a gay male wants to marry and sire children, he shouldn’t be harassed by gay activists accusing him of ‘self-hatred’. Come on! Is gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not want to be gay? Or that a woman’s power should not be ignored, especially in the context of raising children.

The difficulties in changing sexual orientation do not spring from its genetic innateness. Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However habit is refractory, once the sensory paths have been blazed and deepened by repetition – something that is also evident in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alchoholism or drug addiction.

The obscene contention made by most activists that constructive and rational opposition to sexual conduct is tantamount to anti-semitism or other forms of racism, is not only intellectually dishonest, but insultingly disrespectful to Blacks, Jews and other minorities. Discrimination against skin colour, ethnicity or religion is not wholly comparable to the complicated resistance of virtually all societies in history to open homosexuality, which involves thorny questions of morality and psychology. There has never been a gay leader remotely near the stature of Martin Luther King or Ghandi, both of whom drew upon the profound spiritual traditions of religion, to which gay political rhetoric has always been childishly hostile. Remember, it was the influence of the Quakers in 18th century Britian and the flamboyent, thunderous activism of Evangelicals in 19th century America that powered the abolitionist movement and led to the end of slavery.

No major world religion has ever endorsed homosexuality which can be openly practised only in peaceful, affluent and cosmopolitan times. Even in classical
antiquity, homosexuality was controversial, and despite the exaggerated claims of today’s partisans, there was no place or period where it flourished in complete freedom from moral opprobrium. History shows that male homosexuality flourishes with urbanization, soon becomes predictably ritualized and always tends toward decadence. So my radical brothers and sisters should stop bitching about sincere Christians, Jews and Muslims who are merely exercising their constitutional right to free speech, and whose vast philosophical perspective easily triumphs over the provincialism and amorality of the gay world. Indeed, their position is far more credible and honest than the tortuous casuistry of self-interested clerics who take the path of least resistance by creating their own church, tailor-made to affirm their Rainbow philosophy.

The prominent recurring theme in the materials presented by gay advocates seems to revolve around the acceptance of same-sex families. This approach is clearly less controversial than attempting to discuss specific sexual practices and, of course, one can candy coat the agenda with cute titles and seemingly innocuous storynlines (such as Blue Dads… Green Dads… Pink Dads). But it is still an attempt to undermine the traditional family and to inure young, fresh minds to the current ethos that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite-sex parenting. Once you have effectively broken one of societies’ taboos, others will fall away easily and rapidly. Children must not be used as guinea pigs for social engineering experiments.

Children need a biological mother and father. We know that this is not always possible, even in the context of opposite-sex marriage, but we don’t solve the problem or alleviate the inconsistency by adding to it. Self-interested partisans will manufacture statistics to support their specious claims that children of same-sex marriages fare as well as those of opposite-sex marriages. However, the phenomenon of same-sex parenting doesn’t have the longevity needed for such conclusive evidence, whereas the experience of single parent families has, not always, but often shown detriment to the development of the offspring.

So what about those gays and lesbians who really want to raise a family? Some of us have ‘baby envy’; it’s intrinsic to our species. Some of us feel excluded and stigmatized. Too bad! Since when does everybody get everything they want? Laws are written for the good of all society and not for the individual, the special rights advocates or the legal radicals. The true libertarian recognizes that we are first of all social, interdependent beings – free, but also bound.

And because human community can only arise from some prevailing unity, society always has a natural and logical primacy over the individual. For the true libertarian, there is a connected stream of virtues, standards and institutions that must be distinguished and protected. And if we ignore the lessons of history and natural law, then everything becomes legal and everything becomes moral, and civilization descends into chaos.

Last December, I wrote an article for Ethics and Medics entitled, ‘The Irony of Same-Sex Marriage’. And the irony that seems to be lost among most media and politicians is that for a long time the gay press has been replete with articles, letters and editorials sneering at the whole concept of gay marriage. Clearly, most of us don’t want anything to do with it. Even lesbian icons, such as Jane Rule, stridently dis the entire notion. We neither need nor want the state in our bedrooms. We neither need nor want to be shackled by rules regulations or paperwork.

We’ve already won the same-sex benefits battle, so there’s no longer concern over matters of pensions or estates. And other than the legal radicals, who hone their skills contesting these issues. the right to marry is being fought by a tiny minority, most of whom are already hitched, their youth gone, their kids growing or grown, and their parents shrinking before their very eyes. So for the sake of ‘choice and diversity’ for a few, a lot of time, energy and money that should be going to help the truly disenfranchised, is being wasted.

Ladies and gentlemen, real affliction out there is not ‘homophobia’, but rather, ‘truthphobia’.

John McKellar
National Director, HOPE

Canadian John McKeller is a well-known homosexual and leader of HOPE (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism).


Comments 6 Comments »

TORONTO — Moments after his petite, mentally ill wife was sentenced to life without parole for at least 10 years for murdering their four-year-old autistic daughter, David Chen yesterday vowed to fight until her name is cleared.”This is the wrong verdict — there’s no evidence,” said Chen, 37, after his wife “Linda” Xuan Peng was ushered away in handcuffs after she was sentenced yesterday for the bathtub drowning of their autistic tot, Scarlett Chen….(Source)

I can just hear the “death with dignity” crowd putting their targets on this next great frontier. After Latimer plays his violin and everyone dances to his tune, it will be open season on the disabled.

This is a direct consequence of rejecting the truth that each human being has an intrinsic and inalienable worth that must be protected by the State.

We know how that plays out in the abortion debate and now we all know why Margaret Sanger believed in both contraception and eugenics.

Comments No Comments »

The Queen Twit who cancelled this debate seems not to have unlimited powers after all…. 

If you’ve been following the event at York University in Toronto earlier this month, you’ll know that I was banned from speaking at York Student Federation property. I was to debate a student from the atheist society but the student federation claimed the abortion debate was akin to debating whether or not a man can beat his wife, and cancelled it last minute.

York University promised to allow us to do the debate again and as of yesterday (I don’t understand the delay) they told us we can debate again this Tuesday. My opponent is still willing to debate.

If you are able to come to Toronto, please join us for this. If you aren’t in the area, please let others who are know about this. We appreciate any of who are also willing to pray for this event too:

Event: Abortion – A Woman’s Right or a Moral Wrong?
Day and Time: Tuesday, March 18th at 5:30-7:00pm
Location: Curtis Lecture Hall E, Keele Campus at York University; the
building is by Scott Library

Jojo Ruba
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR)

Comments No Comments »