OTTAWA – Conservative MPs are under intense pressure from  the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to vote against a Tory MP’s non-binding   motion that calls on Parliament to study when human life begins. 

Tory sources say Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants southern Ontario MP   Stephen Woodworth’s motion eliminated before Parliament rises for the summer   in late June. Read the rest of this entry »

Everyone knows that Harper, to his credit, is big on preventing maternal deaths in the developing world.  But we also know where he stands on abortion too.

Well, here’s a little gem that should cause him to rethink his position.

What is more important to Stephen Harper?  Lowering Maternal Deaths or Supporting Abortion?

Which is it, Mr. Harper?

From a Socon or Bust reader who submitted this letter to Maclean’s:

RE: The conservative stance on abortion you didn’t know about,
Maclean’s, May 14, 2012, p. 4-5

It would seem that all of the arguments being put forward against MP Stephen Woodworth’s motion proposing a re-examination of the definition of what constitutes a human being, are political in nature.  I have yet to hear a reasoned argument against the motion itself, i.e. providing solid evidence that an unborn child is not indeed a human being.

What if it turns out that we are right now denying the most basic of human rights to certain members of our society?  We’ve been wrong in the past regarding similar assumptions that in the mainstream were taken as a given; women, for instance, were not considered persons under Canadian law until 1929.

Only by putting aside the rhetoric and the slogans, and holding a full and honest debate, can we get to the bottom of important societal issues.  Shame on our Parliament, and on Canada, should we lack the courage to do so.

Thank you,
Glen G.

All 50 of them took off just before the March started down Ottawa’s streets.

So, uh, Mr. Harper, I assume you can count.  What are you afraid of?

Media hype and people who don’t even show?  What makes you think they’ll show up on Election night, either?

The “Conservative” Party really does need to learn how to count.

By coincidence, the same day O’Connor spoke those stirring words in the House of Commons, the government announced it would appeal an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that had struck down key anti-prostitution laws. This was expected. The Conservatives have vociferously opposed any suggestion that the prostitution laws — which do not forbid prostitution per se but effectively make it impossible to do it without committing a crime — should be curtailed in any way.

So how does that square with the government’s declarations on abortion? Try replacing the word “abortion” in any part of Gordon O’Connor’s statement with “prostitution.”

“Whether one accepts it or not, prostitution is and always will be part of society. There will always be dire situations in which some women may have to choose the option of prostitution. No matter how many laws some people may want government to institute against prostitution, prostitution cannot be eliminated. It is part of the human condition.”

Fits rather nicely, doesn’t it?
…

Then there’s marijuana and the other illicit drugs the government is making war on. Try plugging them into O’Connor’s statement.

“I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to drug use want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code. There is no law that says a person must use drugs. No one is forcing those who oppose drugs to use them.”

Again, the fit is close to perfect.

…

So what’s left? Why does the government think its ringing words apply to abortion but not to other moral choices? Simple. In O’Connor’s statement, he objects to “new laws” that curtail personal freedom but says that the exercise of that freedom must respect “current law.”

Today, there is no law banning abortion. But there are laws banning prostitution and drugs.

Thus, what looks like a highly principled statement about the relationship between morality and liberty in a pluralistic society is actually something less grand: It is a lazy and weak defence of the status quo.

Source

Boy, Dan Gardner really does slam the Conservative Government’s rationale for opposing any laws on abortion while concurrently proposing laws to keep prostitution and needle exchanges at bay.

It really does show how ridiculously shallow Harper and his cronies are on this question. They are hardly consistent in the arguments they employ in refusing to consider any law regulating abortion while blissfully dismissing those same arguments when it’s an easier “sell”.  It shows them to be the lowest of the low of the political class, pandering to what they think will keep them in power.  In fact, the brutal enforcement of the will without any consideration for justice, reason, science or the most basic decency is exactly what abortion is, and that’s the script that today’s Conservative government reads from too.

Pathetic.

So, Prime Minister Stephen Harper “there’s-not-going-to-be-a-debate-no-way-no-how” plan hasn’t really worked out that way.  The debate is here, Steve, so you need to deal with it…now and in the future.  I’m sure there’ll be at least 2 other Bills coming round your way before your 4 year term is up.

Anyhow, Gordon O’Connor, one of his Ministers, has stepped up for the pro-abort side to offer the same lame arguments that have not changed since the ’60s – except this time he did it in Parliament.

You have to wonder just how long these arguments can withstand some basic logic and basic science, but I’m not complaining because he’s been useful in creating “the debate”, if only to make Harper look completely unreasonable and flakey on the most pressing moral issue of the day.  It’s bizarre.

Anyhow, I digress.  Back to Gord.  Let’s take a look at some of Gord’s recycled arguments and see if they hold any water….

Read the rest of this entry »

We believe that the suppression of any debate in a democratic society is unacceptable,” said Jakki Jeffs, the campaign’s director.  “We demand that the current censorship of the debate around abortion be ended, and that an open and informed discussion be held in public.”

“The stifling of the debate over the past decades has prevented all Canadians from having access to the facts, and has left the issue completely ignored,” she continued.  “In the coming months we will be addressing this lack of balance, and on the 7th of February 2012 we hope those who wish to defend abortion will join us in finally debating this before the people of Ontario.”…(Source).

Stephen Harper wants to preserve religious freedom in other countries.  But for some reason, he won’t allow religious people a voice in this debate.  Talk about hypocrisy.

Hey’s it’s catching on!

Poor girl.

All she had to do is holiday in Canada, and it would have been no problem at all.

It’s all part of Harper’s “no-way-no-how-abortion-debate-in-Canada” policy.

He came to power on the (dismembered) backs of the unborn. Now he’s become paranoid about not debating the issue or even allowing others in his own Party to do so, even to the point that he will permit infanticide to protect abortion and his political career.

This is not the behaviour of a rationale or balanced man.  He’s not normal.  Why are “conservatives” voting for such a politician?  What does it say about their kind of “conservatism”?  If they are not conserving or respecting human life – both inside and outside of the womb – just what exactly are they conserving except their own egos and pensions?

I wonder if Harper and his lapdog lackies would even be marginally disturbed if they were to ever see a dead baby in a Parliamentary trash bin some day as they walked by.  Would they pass over her in cold silence, reminding themselves that political power and “the economy” is the source and summit of their own dignity as human beings? 

Just exactly how will they stand before their Maker on judgement day and excuse this conduct?  It makes you wonder whether they have given up completely on not only themselves, the Good, their country, but their own Eternity as well.

God is not mocked. He will demand an accounting for the trampling of human dignity.  And the price paid will be an eternal one.  There is grace and mercy that God offers everyone, but it doesn’t last forever. 

The politicians need to understand that their decisions (and ours) have eternal consequences.  Life is not a political game or an ego trip.  It consists of more than a cheap political/sexual thrill.

…is like supporting government-run drug injection sites.

Because, you know, it’s all about harm reduction.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):  

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government says it does not wish to reopen the abortion debate. Cardinal Ouellet candidly admitted yesterday that he was raising the abortion issue now because the Conservative government had revived the debate by excluding abortion from its maternal health policy for developing countries.

Does the Prime Minister realize that because of him and his refusal to include abortion in his maternal health policy for foreign nations the abortion debate is again raging in Canada and Quebec?

Read the rest of this entry »

As this past March for Life resoundingly demonstrated, abortion is not a settled issue.  Just ask Joe Who?  He still gets nervous and skidaddles when he’s cornered about it.  Abortion has never been a settled issue and never will be a settled issue until it is defeated.  No culture can live a lie forever.  The lie will end or the culture will end.  It’s one or the other but not both. 

For four years now, Stephen Harper has repeatedly stated that he will not “reopen” the abortion debate.  But does he really believe that he has the ability to keep the abortion debate dead permanently?  He’s already shown all of us that,  in light of the recent controversy surrounding his government’s decision not to fund abortion in its international maternal health care program, sooner or later, he has to deal with the issue. He can’t avoid it forever because he does not always get to choose which political questions to answer. Read the rest of this entry »

Music to my ears.

On Wednesday, July 8, 2009, the Telegraph-Journal published a story about the funeral mass celebrating the life of former Governor-General Romeo LeBlanc that was inaccurate and should not have been published. We pride ourselves in maintaining high standards of journalism and ethical reporting, and regret this was not followed in this case.

The story stated that a senior Roman Catholic priest in New Brunswick had demanded that the Prime Minister’s Office explain what happened to the communion wafer which was handed to Prime Minister Harper during the celebration of communion at the funeral mass. The story also said that during the communion celebration, the Prime Minister “slipped the thin wafer that Catholics call ‘the host’ into his jacket pocket”.

There was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time this article was published, nor is the Telegraph-Journal aware of any credible support for these statements now. Our reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras, who wrote the story reporting on the funeral, did not include these statements in the version of the story that they wrote. In the editing process, these statements were added without the knowledge of the reporters and without any credible support for them.

The Telegraph-Journal sincerely apologizes to the Prime Minister for the harm that this inaccurate story has caused. We also apologize to reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras and to our readers for our failure to meet our own standards of responsible journalism and accuracy in reporting.  (Source)

____________

“Lisa, most of us will remember the story that went all around the world about the prime minister apparently not eating the host when he was at the funeral of former governor general Romeo LeBlanc. That story was first published in the St John Telegraph Journal which is owned by the billionaire Irving family. The prime minister hit the roof. Well, today, a grovelling apology from the paper. They said the story was not true. So what happened? Well, I’m told that the Liberals passed the story to young Jamie Irving who was the publisher of the paper. He passed it to the editor who put it in the paper without checking it out, and today the editor has been fired, and Jamie’s father has suspended his son for thirty days, and I’m told the prime minister is pretty thrilled with that.” (Source)

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post shortly after this so-called “scandal” broke, this was an insider job from the beginning. 

There are three things worth noting here. 

Dirty politics is never an honourable profession, but it seems today that you can’t get elected without resorting to it.   It should be no surprise, therefore, when the political media hackery, cut loose from any sort of ethical restraint, begins to use sacred objects as some kind of political play thing to advance its socially liberal agenda.  The Liberal Party lost its majority because it lost the Catholic vote when it sold out to the Gay lobby.  Now it is desperate to regain that constituency in order to regain power.  It is trying to wrench away Catholic votes from the Conservative Party by ramping up the “outrage barometer” among Catholics.  It can’t appeal to religious conservatives through its policies so it has to resort to fabricating a story of religious scandal.   The problem with the strategy is that liberals have been so successful these past 40 years in watering down morality and religious understanding that only a minority of Catholics understand what the Eucharist is in the first place, and fewer still would get too uptight over its profanation.  Liberals have so bled the Faith out of Catholics over the past 40 years that there is very little outrage to spend as political currency.  Of the conservative Catholics who do know what the Eucharist really is and would indeed be outraged by its profanation, there are a number of factors that make this concocted scandal hardly worth the effort: (1) our numbers are so few it could hardly justify the attention; (2) we can make the elementary moral distinction between someone accepting the Eucharist with full knowledge of what they are doing and someone who is genuinely ignorant; and (3) most religious conservatives knew the political game that was being played from the start. 

Secondly, I find it extremely distasteful but typical that the media is now so concerned with religious sacrilege.  Folks, does that make any sense?  After spending the past 40 years prostituting themselves in promoting anti-religious, anti-Christian bigotry and sacrilege and inculcating it into the very fabric of our society, the media and the political hacks all of a sudden “find God” and “get religion”? 

Please.  

I understand if they don’t respect our Faith, but do they not have some respect for our intelligence? Apparently not.  Far from fraudulently showing how the Prime Minister is a supposed disrespectful and belligerent fool, they’ve only showed themselves to be completely ignorant of the religious landscape of the country, as well as demonstrating to us that they think  religious conservatives are mindless fools who will jump when our strings are pulled.  How do the Liberal political hacks think that this exercise is going to play out at the ballot box during the next election?

And finally, what else can we say about liberal media distortions?  It’s been so obvious for years, but now it’s right there in the open for everyone to see.  The Telegraph-Journal, like most of the papers and other media in this country, is one big, fat, pravda-style propaganda machine for the Liberal Party and social liberalism.  It was bad enough when they restrained their political savagery to the secular sphere, but now they act like wild dogs, stopping at nothing to secure a cheap political advantage, even if it goes so far as to profane and politicize the most sacred element in Catholicism.

It’s sick.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has blamed the uproar over his handling of the Holy Communion host at former governor general Romeo LeBlanc’s funeral mass on people trying to cause embarrassment and create division between Catholics and Protestants.”People who want to cause embarrassment in religion and drive a wedge between Protestants and Catholics” are driving the controversy, Harper told a Catholic news agency in an exclusive interview after his meeting Saturday with Pope Benedict….

Some media reports suggested on the weekend that the visit had a political undertone, since analysts have argued that the Conservative breakthrough in 2006 was owed partly to church-going Catholics who switched from the Liberals over gay marriage.

But Harper didn’t address the possible political benefit of being photographed with the Pope, and instead stressed Benedict’s status as both a Christian leader and a statesman.

“While I’m not theologically a Catholic, in my judgment the Catholic Church is a critical bulwark of worldwide Christianity. The Pope is an important moral and spiritual leader generally and for Christians generally, even though I’m not a Catholic.”

Harper called Vatican City a small but important state.

“It is an influential, well-connected state that is very influential in world affairs.” (Original Source)

The more I think about this whole thing and talk to other conservatives and journalists, I am more and more convinced that this was a deliberate attempt at embarrassing Harper.  Ask yourself about the angle of the camera in the Church, and why it was there in the first place.  It is very unusual for a camera to be at the side of the altar like that, and then to focus on Harper receiving communion? What is the point of that, if not to catch him slipping up some how.

If this is deliberate, Harper is right. It is a new low for liberals and the media.  It’s politicizing our most sacred belief in the Eucharist. They’re doing it, of course, to try and wrench away religious support from the Conservatives.  Like Obama south of the Border, the liberal parties in this country are wising up to the fact that they need to soak up some religious votes to get into majority territory.  That’s why Iggy and Jack were at the very well attended National Prayer Breakfast a couple of months ago. 

The Liberal Party, for instance, lost a lot of votes during the last couple of elections because it volunteered to carry the rainbow flag in the gay parade.  Now, like Obama, they’ve realized that the religious vote (especially Catholics) even in Canada is a constituency that they cannot afford to ignore, much less lose permanently. 

One way of attracting the votes is to “Obamanize” them with religious platitudes about social justice and inject liberation theology into the campaign.  It worked for Obama in spades.  So, like the American Messiah, they’re looking to preach some of that Obama gospel up here too.  The other way – a much more riskier tactic – is to try and scandalize people of faith by showing Harper as some kind of inconsiderate and beligerant fool who is not respectful of people’s religion.

Well, I think that’s what happened here, but it didn’t work. It backfired on them.  Conservative Catholics – the only constituency that would really care about the profanation of the Eucharist in the first place – shrugged their shoulders and could see there was no intent to offend.  Instead, most of us focused on the scandalous omission of the bishop for not instructing those present as to the correct protocol for Communion.

Liberals really shouldn’t do religion. They screwed up their target market in this case.  And next time they try it, it could have very grave consequences for their parties and their leaders.

In his own words….not a conservative but a progressive and an “inclusivist” on the human rights commissions.

The following is an excerpt from Christina Blizzard’s column on Randy Hillier in the Toronto Sun. I challenge anyone to find anything said or written by Frank Klees in the current Ontario PC leadership race that even remotely approaches this:

———————————-
(Hillier) also champions the right of doctors to refuse to perform abortions.  “If somebody finds it morally offensive to perform an abortion, I find it terrible that the state may compel that person to do it — at the loss of his credentials and his ability to earn a living,” he says. 

I ask him if OHIP should continue to fund abortions. 

“I think there’s a whole range of things in OHIP that we have to re-evaluate,” he says, pointing out eye exams are no longer covered, while sex change operations are.  “I don’t think OHIP is reflective of society at this time in what they fund and what they don’t fund and I think we have to have an honest discussion about what set of procedures are going to be funded that reflect the values of Ontario’s society,” he says. 
————————————–

I implore all my fellow pro-lifers in Ontario who are planning to vote in this race – if you want action instead of good intentions, don’t waste your first choice supporting the candidate of those who have accomplished nothing in 40 years to protect the unborn. There is only one candidate in this race with a plan to move our agenda forward and the courage to talk about it publicly. That candidate is Randy Hillier. The plan may not be everything we want, but its a start.

Please feel free to forward this email to your contact list.

Joseph C. Ben-Ami

Why we should transfer cases of unlawful discrimination to impartial courts

Last year Ontario’s College of Physicians and Surgeons debated making it “unethical” for doctors to decline, as a matter of conscience, to perform controversial medical procedures on otherwise healthy patients. If adopted, the policy could have forced pro-life doctors to perform abortions or risk losing their license to practice medicine in Ontario.

In defending its action, the College explained that it was merely preempting the province’s Human Rights Commission. Fortunately, an outcry from the public prompted some sober second thought and the College decided to back-track. The decision amounts to little more than a temporary reprieve, however, since both doctors and the College could still be prosecuted by the Commission.

The controversy may not have garnered the same publicity as the cases involving Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant, but it still showed how, rather than protecting rights, Human Rights Commissions and their associated Tribunals are being used by political hacks and patronage appointees to suppress opposition and impose uniformity of thought and expression across our country.

There is great danger in this. Principled dissent isn’t just something that’s tolerated in a free and democratic society; it’s the very wellspring from which our democratic traditions and institutions flow. Without it, our society might never have rid itself of the scourge of slavery; women might still be denied the right to vote.

That’s why I have proposed the dismantling of Ontario’s Human Rights Commission and the transfer of cases of unlawful discrimination to impartial courts, where rules of evidence apply and the constitutional rights of everyone - including the accused - are protected.

It has been suggested that what I’m proposing is impractical - that the high cost of litigation will discourage victims of discrimination from lodging complaints in the first place.

But why should it? Citizens lodge complaints with the authorities all the time for alleged wrongdoing, and not just criminal wrongdoing either. If, after an investigation, a complaint is found to have merit, charges are laid and the matter is dispensed with through the normal legal process. At no time in this process is the complainant required to pay money or hire a lawyer. Why would it be any different if the alleged infraction involves unlawful discrimination?

The answer is - it wouldn’t. The high cost of litigation is nothing more than a red herring.

Dismantling the province’s broken and corrupt HRC and transferring its cases to real courts is just one of a series of principled policy objectives I have brought forward during this campaign. To learn more about these policies, please visit my website at www.hillierforleader.com.

Randy

The following membership numbers come from various sources. The numbers before the bracketed numbers represent new memberships sold while the bracketed numbers represent estimates on how the pre-campaign membership might vote.

Tim Hudak =  14,000 (2,500) = 16,500 [HRC Position: significant reform, Abortion Position:  Unknown] 

Frank Klees = 10,000 (2,500) = 12,500 [HRC Position: mild reform, Abortion Position: "Soft" Pro-Life]

Elliott = 6,500 (2,500) = 8,500 [HRC Position: no reform, Abortion Position: Pro-Abort]

Hillier = 3,200 (1,000) = 4,200 [HRC Position: abolish, Abortion Position: Not Pro-Life, But Funding Restrictions]

Based on these numbers, Randy Hillier might very well determine who will be the next leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.  If Hillier’s supporters vote overwhelmingly for Hudak as a second choice, Hudak might win. However, if Hillier’s supporters vote for Frank Klees as their second choice, it is likely that Klees will win, as Elliot supporters will likely support Klees over Hudak.

Most of Hillier’s supporters will likely vote for Tim Hudak as their second choice, but there will be strong minority of Hillier’s support coming from strong social conservatives who will choose Frank Klees as their second choice. It is entirely conceivable, therefore, that the social conservative, pro-life vote will determine who the next leader is.

Mr. Hudak and Mr. Klees should therefore start talking about how they are going to address the concerns of social conservatives.

Social Conservatives United continues to endorse Randy Hillier for leader of the Party as the first choice.

However, we have removed our endorsement of Frank Klees as the second choice.

Mr. Klees or Mr. Hudak will have to earn their second choice endorsement from us by indicating specifically what social conservative initiatives they will push for should they become leader of the Party.

According to a memo to its members, REAL Women of Canada had some disturbing revelations about Frank Klees:

May 5, 2009 

Memo to: REAL Women Ontario Members

From: REAL Women of Canada – National Office

Re: Ontario Progressive Conservative Leadership Race

As you know, the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (PC), John Tory, has resigned. This is a great relief to REAL Women which strongly believed that he was unacceptable as Progressive Conservative leader for many reasons, such as his open support for same-sex marriage and his participation in the annual Gay Pride parade in Toronto.

There are now two candidates for the PC leadership who are of interest to REAL Women. They are:

1. Frank Klees (Newmarket Aurora)

Mr. Klees openly admits that he is pro-life and a Christian. However, he states that he will only support pro-life initiatives if he has the support of the PC caucus. Unfortunately, this is not likely to occur.

2. Randy Hillier (Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox, Addington)

Mr. Hillier is not pro-life, however, he would, if PC party leader:

 Defund abortion;
 Abolish Ontario’s Human Rights Commission; and
 Enact freedom of association and conscience legislation which would protect medical workers and marriage commissioners from participating in procedures that violate their conscience or conflict with their moral views.

If this is true, and I don’t see any reason why it isn’t considering Mr. Klees’ tepid pro-life record, it’s a very disappointing position to take from the perspective of pro-lifers.   He won’t stand up for life or advance pro-life initiatives on his own or with other parties’ members.   This would be bad enough if he were just an MP, but if he is leader then he is obviously not going to use his position to move the laws funding abortion one little bit. So, in other words, Mr. Klees is a theoretical social conservative who blows with the wind.  And just how, exactly, is that going to move the pro-family agenda forward?  Another disturbing report about Mr. Klees by the Globe & Mail says he will urge his followers to support Christine Elliot, who is the most left wing of all the candidates:

Another party insider also said the move is strategic on Mr. Hudak’s part. If Mr. Klees finishes in third place on the first ballot, he is likely to urge his supporters to back Ms. Elliott, he said. (Source)

If this is true, then it provides yet another piece of evidence which should concern pro-lifers greatly.  One must speculate as to how strong Mr. Klees’ pro-family views are, and how strongly they influence his politics.  Mr. Klees was also a little too comfortable in supporting John Tory’s leadership in the past.

 The right not to be pushed around by government

Last year, Ontario’s College of Physicians and Surgeons came close to implementing a policy that would have made it “unethical” for doctors to decline, as a matter of conscience, to perform controversial medical procedures on otherwise healthy patients. If adopted, the policy would have compelled doctors who consider abortion the taking of innocent life to provide such a “service” themselves or risk losing their license to practice medicine in Ontario.

Fortunately, after an outcry from the public prompted some sober second thought, the College stepped back from the policy, allowing doctors to continue exercising their conscience in the performance of their duties. In doing so, however, it also warned doctors that they could still be subject to prosecution by other quasi-judicial bodies such as Ontario’s human rights tribunals. Read the rest of this entry »